What if the Me 262 had 20mm cannons?

[stona]

I just think the word 'bait' may be an unfortunate choice.
The RAF used a few bombers escorted by dozens of fighters as bait for the Luftwaffe in 1941, but those bombers were never going to do any real damage and the Luftwaffe could choose whether to engage them or not, always fighting on its terms.
The American bombers in 1943/44 were themselves a serious threat and the Luftwaffe was therefore obliged to engage them whenever possible. Consequently the Luftwaffe fighters found themselves without the initiative and certainly not fighting on their terms.
Bait doesn't usually have the ability to hurt the intended prey. Those US bomber formations were not tethered goats
Cheers
Steve

 

[parsifal]

I am using the word bait in a most deliberate way, and its use is entirely consistent with classical military theory.

I think that the US Bombers were acting in s similar way to the Atlantic Convoys. By 1943, these were defended and quite capable of inflicting damage on their attackers by themselves, even though they were primarily defensive formations. Even the merchant ships themselves were capable of self defence by then. It was no longer possible for the Uboats to use their favourite tactic of closing to close range and sink the shipping from the surface.

The main defence of the convoy were the immediate convoy escort, analogous to the defensive guns of the bombers. Effective, but by no stretch could they be considered the main killers of their tormentors. In the case of the Uboats, the main killers were the roaming hunter killer groups that were at sea and vectored onto a convoy once the target of the wolfpacks became known. Western Approaches Command became expert at that, not least because of the progress in ULTRA, but there were other reasons of course. There is a striking similarity to the way the Fighter Groups went about their task over Germany. The Germans would form an interception group and move to begin their attacks. The bombers were in every sense, bait in those situations as the free ranging fighter groups moved to break up those fighter attacks as quickly as they could. Some fighters were assigned a role more closely attached to the bombers, and of course the bombers themselves had plenty of fire and fight. Then ther were free ranging escorts that would move to immediately smother these developing arttacks. That is an almost exact copy of the way the Uboat hunter Killers Groups were designed to operate.

This is classic "bait" tactics and it has been evident at least as far back as Cannae. A feint, a hook a display to make it look like something was vulnerable, or easy. It has been a favourite and winning tactic in various forms for centuries. What is perhaps surprising is that elements of the german leadership seemed to have fallen for the ruse so easily.

 

[stona]

Most people will understand bait as something that can be ignored...try trapping smart rodents once they become bait averse.

The US bombers could not be ignored and thus were the primary target of the Luftwaffe. The fact that the Luftwaffe's fighters were the primary target of the US Fighter Groups (as, at least officially, was their infrastructure and production for the bombers after 10th June 1943) doesn't qualify the bombers as bait.

The small groups of British bombers sent in daylight into France accompanied by Fighter Command were bait in a literal sense. They posed no threat to the Germans and they had the option to decline combat, an option not available facing the 8th Air Force in 1943.

The 8th Air Force compelled the Luftwaffe to come up and fight, it did not entice it.

Cheers

Steve

 

[airminded88]

Words have many interpretations and certainly we all have different perspectives on an event.
Without doubt the LW rose to the air en masse when the bombers showed up over Germany and the 8th FC swooped down on them because of the bombers.
That legitimately could be categorized as an strategic ambush from the attackers side while the defenders historically did not have the choice whether to engage or not.
My reasoning is the bombers kept their agenda to destroy strategic targets throughout the campaign until the last weeks of WWII in Europe.
Once the issue of the effective long range fighter was resolved for the most part, this created a circumstantial advantage the 8th AF exploited with great effectiveness in the form of the official directive to seek, engage and destroy the LW in the air while the heavies kept laying waste over German proper with increasing intensity.

 

[stona]

Once the issue of the effective long range fighter was resolved for the most part, this created a circumstantial advantage the 8th AF exploited with great effectiveness in the form of the official directive to seek, engage and destroy the LW in the air while the heavies kept laying waste over German proper with increasing intensity.

The number one priority of the heavies following that June amendment to the Casablanca Directive (Pointblank) was also "GAF Fighter Forces....Aircraft Industry."
This is not bait, it is compelling the Luftwaffe to meet the challenge and either win or be destroyed. We all know what happened.
The American heavies were not laying waste over Germany, their other priority targets became shortly thereafter "Inland Water Transport and eastern Railway Communications of the Ruhr" which did not override the Pointblank priorities, reaffirmed along with the ball bearing industry in January 1944.
Even the British were supposed to be bombing in support of this, though the detail wording of both Directives allowed Harris to carry on bombing more or less what he wanted.
Cheers
Steve

 

[bobbysocks]

I don't think it would have made a difference in the grand scheme of things. they would have maybe caught the AF off guard at first and inflicted some heavier casualties but the us would have then just changed the way they did business and possibly fielded more ac to catch the jets on the ground prior to and during the mission. i think you would have seen a lot more mustangs at lower levels hitting known 262 bases. the LW would have had to constantly shift bases and develop an increasing amount of camouflaged airdromes. it doesn't matter how many planes you have that can fly faster and are massively armed...if you cant get them off the ground in sufficient numbers they aren't going to make much of an impact...

 

[RobboV]

After all is said and done, the 262 was an engineering marvel. However, it was underdeveloped, because of the need for a 'war winner' by a desperate regime and would not normally been cleared for service. This was made worse by engines compromised the lack of suitable materials and of course a worsening fuel situation, production and even storage conditions.. It couldn't dogfight at all really, for it was incapable of rapid acceleration, as all early jets were. In a somewhat similar way you can compare a Mustang with a 262 to Hurricane and a 109, slower, more lightly armed, but agile and faster firing which allowed it to give a good account of itself in battle. Moreover the slow firing 30mm guns had a small time frame for aiming, I believe it as either Molders or Galland who said the single or twin 20mm on that plane was too slow for fighter targets, (presumably preferring to be able to pour in more, albiet lighter rounds into a fighter sized target, heavy shells are great for effect, but they have to hit). I muse that the best solution was possibly a mix of heavy machine guns and light cannon, such as 12.7/20mm. The Meteor meanwhile was an aircraft undergoing a more steady and progressive program with post war aviation in mind, so the two aircraft we partly the product of varying needs and ethos and should not be compared. If the war had dragged on 1946 then we would of seen 600 mph plus Meteors in numbers, perhaps American jets too, who knows what condition Germany would of been in by then.......Cheers, respect, and thanks for reading.

 

[taly01]

I muse that the best solution was possibly a mix of heavy machine guns and light cannon, such as 12.7/20mm.

Different gun types are a problem with differing trajectories. Its a shame the LW didn't develop a revolutionary gun to go with a revolutionary plane like Me262. The post-war MiG gun's had no more velocity, but very high rates of fire which is probably the main problem with jets getting hits. I saw someone here propose 6 x MG151/15mm which would solve that and be fine for fighter V Fighter. Then for bomber intercepts have a 2 x MK103/30mm, these are big heavy HV guns so the Me262 can attack bombers from a safer range, and I *think* they can fire the Mine-HE shells.

But then the bigger solution would be a lead computing sight, I don't know how far the LW got in "gyro" gunsights.

The Me 262 nearly made a great fighter bomber and it did make a superb bomber destroyer.

This explains the 4x30mm MK108, and ironically Hitler was right about the Me262 carrying bombs, Unfortunately the Me262A-2 (?) bombers had no dedicated bomb sight and the little i've read on them was the pilots themselves dodn't think they could hit much either.

 

[tyrodtom]

When they called the MK108 slow they may have been referring to the muzzle velocity, not the rate of fire.
The Mk108 fired at 650 rpm, slower than some 200mm out there, but not that slow, it's muzzle velocity however was slow, 1700 fps, as much as 1000 fps slower than several 20 mm available .

 

[Koopernic]

What if the Me 262 had 20mm cannons? How would it have fared against fighters? Also, how would it have fared against the Gloster Meteor? If the engines had moderate reliability, would it have proved superior in a dogfight? How would giving the Me 262 some 20mm cannons instead of 30mm cannons have done to it?

It required an average of 25 hits from an MG151/20 20mm canon to bring down a heavy bomber. Each MG151/20 fired 750rpm or 12.25 rounds/sec so a quad of the guns (49r/sec) would need 0.5 seconds of firing. Assuming 10% hit rate thats 5 seconds needed. Muzzle velocity was 805m/s for minengeschuss so you could reasonably begin firing at half that ie about 400m.

It required an average of 4-5 hits from an MK103 30mm canon to bring down a heavy bomber. Each MK103 fired 650rpm or 11 rounds/sec so a quad of the guns(44r/sec) would need only 0.1 seconds of firing. Assuming 10% hit rate thats 1 second needed. Muzzle velocity was 540m/sec for minengeschuss so you could reasonably begin firing at half that ie about 260m though most sources give 300m because closer target is "bigger" target.

So you can begin firing 100m earlier which might be 1-2 seconds longer firing but it would probably not make up for it. One problem faced by the Luftwaffe fighters is that a formation of heavies created a huge amount of wake turbulence that threw of the aim of the fighters so sniping at long distances tended not to work. The MK108A variant was going to increase rate of fire from 650 to 850 rpm.

The MG151/20 would probably have been better for engaging fighters, which Me 262 can and did to successfully using their higher speed and turning rate.

The Me 262 lacked air brakes so once it had penetrated the escort fighter screen could not use these slow down to get enough firing time. The tactical solution was to come in a shallow dive and wash of speed by pulling up. Had RLM/Messerschmitt paid more heed to their Fuhrers expectation of ground attack capability perhaps the Me 262 might have had split trail type Me 410 air brakes. Meteor I didn't have air brakes but Meteror III did.

The Luftwaffe had foreseen problems and had begun developing the MG213C 20mm revolving breech gun. The revolver breech got rid of the jamming under G problem of reciprocating weapons but allowed an MG213C to fire 112 gram round at 1050m/s at 1200-1400 rpm. The comparable figures for the MG151/20 was 95 gram round at 805m/s at 750rpm. The MG213C thus had 80% more kinetic energy per round 15% more explosive filler and 40%-80% higher rate of fire so about 2.2 times as destructive. It was being tested in Fw 190, it could be synchronised. This gun was to be used both to arm fighters but mainly bomber self defense turrets.

There was also an MK213 that fired the 30mm round of the MK108 but at 1200-1400 rounds/minute intended for use in attacking bombers.

in 1945 the Luftwaffe was heading towards using unguided missiles such as the large R100 and the R4M aimed with the assistance of radar and computer, I suspect the R100 would have gotten out of range of bombers defences and the R4M despite being shorter ranged eliminated the need for low velocity canon.

 

[Milosh]

There was also an MK213 that fired the 30mm round of the MK108 but at 1200-1400 rounds/minute intended for use in attacking bombers.

That is RoF for the 20mm MK213. The 30mm was 200rpm slower, 1000-1200.

 

[Acheron]

Different gun types are a problem with differing trajectories. Its a shame the LW didn't develop a revolutionary gun to go with a revolutionary plane like Me262.

Ahem:

The MG 213. In WW 2 aircraft guns had three characteristics, shell weight (this destructive power), rate of fire (and thus chance of getting a hit) and muzzle velocity (ease of aiming). Pick two. The Americans with the .50 went for rate of fire and muzzle velocity but sacrificed shell weight, the Germans either went for shell weight and muzzle velocity and sacrificed rate of fire or went for shell weight and rate of fire and sacrificed muzzle velocity. The British with their 20mm went for an average that settled for the best they could get in all three thus producing probably the best aircraft gun in WW 2. By 1944, the Germans were sick of their pilots complaining about their guns so they wanted a design that gave the best possible result in all three categories. The result was the MG 213 revolver cannon. In a normal cannon, there is one chamber into which the shell is inserted, fired, and withdrawn. That takes time. The Germans built a gun with three chamber that rotated past the barrel. At any one time, one chamber is being loaded, one fired and the third cleared. Result, rate of fire tripled with no scarfice of shell weight or velocity. This was a genuine breakthrough and the design is still used in aircraft guns today (like the British ADEN, the French DEFA and the US Mark 12). The downside is that it was a heavy, complex gun and it burned a lot of ammunition very fast. That made it unsuitable for smaller aircraft and it was the 1950s before it was a really practical weapon. But, all in all, the MG 213 was probably the closest the Germans actually came to a real wunderwaffe.

 

[bbear]

Ahem:

so you are saying that the triple chamber rotating MG213 gun gave a pilot the advantage over alternately equipped aircraft of shell weight, velocity and rate of fire. Thus qualifying MG213, in case we didn't get you the first time, was the the revolutionary gun requested by taly01. Is that so??

With due respect the MG213 as you describe it did not have an anti aircraft (air to air ) 37mm shell (as in Aircobra 50mm shell in BK5

What I think you mean is that all higher calibre weapons wee slower to fire and slower of bullet. and that no 20 mm round was as hot in rate or power.

The ony articles I can see onnllind=e say te MG213 was never deployed. That the were jamming problems. That post war the allies only took up the lower rate slower through the air 30mm versions.


The breech of the MG213 desgn features a large weight of metaal andd comprsccciblr pasrts tto manage chambder prssre. If so this may be a "burst of fire weapon lof maybe 0.5 sec. after which a long cooldown period would be necessary. Perhaps th gun was specified by r foor exprten?guys who could put every round of a 0/.5 sec burs from one cannomn into say the polrt outbnoard motor, then swap to your second 20m canon to take ouut the port ihnboard motor tooo? Even at distance and lsarge deflection.

I don't suppose you have any design deteaeils of tthe round to be fired from the MG 213 do you?" 7 All that muzzle velocitys would neeed more oropellant, notg just ded chamber presyure,. A 30 mm carttridge with a 20 mm 'ba;;'l that would be about rught I think/
Aologies for all the typos and sps peculation.

my parrkindsin's is bad tonight,



Puting both motors out on one wing would force any bomber laden or unladen toi drop out of fortmation , go low rev up and scoot for home,. e enginrs out oveer the Rhr say. aybe one in 10 miight make it? Probablkly the most economicl wat to dreal with a four rnginr bomber,
the exprtten could tajr his time lining up his next target, well outside .550 cal range. Mab 1 attacjk per 30 seconds? A staffel ith experten migh mashort work of any box formatuion.

 

[Shortround6]

well outside .50 cal range.

There is no such thing. The US .50 cal, while not quite the wonder weapon some people think had a high velocity and a very streamline bullet.
It had as much practical range as any 20mm gun used in WW II and more than most 30mm guns, It had more range than the US 37mm.
The sighting systems of the time were more of a limit to practical range (as opposed to theory) than the ballistics of the guns.

Possible guns that could outrange the US .50 cal are the German 15mm, the German MK 101 &103 and the big 50mm gun.

The Me 262 was quite well armed with it's quartet of 30mm MK 108 guns that could fire over 2400rpm combined.
A major limit was ammo and a faster firing gun is going to go through ammo even quicker.

 

[GrauGeist]

There's also the issue of weight.
The MK108 weighed 125 pounds and the MK213 weighed 165 pounds.

That means that there would be an additional 160 pounds in the nose if the four MK108s were replaced by four MK213s.

 

[Shortround6]

ANd on the 262 the upper guns had 100 rounds per gun and the lower guns had 80 rounds per gun.

With the MK 213 you would have been good for about one firing pass or 2 rather short ones.

I would note that the British Aden guns and the French Defa guns gained considerable weight over the German MK 213 and yet fired no faster for quite a number of years.

 

[taly01]

The US .50 cal, while not quite the wonder weapon some people think had a high velocity and a very streamline bullet.

I found this ...........from Oblt. (Dr.Ing.) Rudolf E.Thun,who ended the war as staffel captain of 9./NJG 6, with 7 confirmed victories.
......... My 20mm cannons had only an effective range of about 800m against a 1500m range of the very accurate American .50 caliber (12.7 mm) machine guns. It took an eternity to fly through their fire, but I finally got into shooting position and brought this Liberator down in flames, .........

This brings up the issue of bullet velocity at range of MG151/20 vs MK108. I expect the MK108 to enter unstable transonic flight much earlier than the MG151/20 and have a far less "accurate" range than the 800m quoted above but have not found any data yet,

MK108 impressive HE capacity, but pop-gun cartridge powder capacity.

 

[bbear]

There is no such thing. The US .50 cal, while not quite the wonder weapon some people think had a high velocity and a very streamline bullet.
It had as much practical range as any 20mm gun used in WW II and more than most 30mm guns, It had more range than the US 37mm.
The sighting systems of the time were more of a limit to practical range (as opposed to theory) than the ballistics of the guns.

Possible guns that could outrange the US .50 cal are the German 15mm, the German MK 101 &103 and the big 50mm gun.

The Me 262 was quite well armed with it's quartet of 30mm MK 108 guns that could fire over 2400rpm combined.
A major limit was ammo and a faster firing gun is going to go through ammo even quicker.

The specification I have read but cannot source says the MG213 had a muzzle velocity of 3,440 ft/s
Compared with the .50cal air version it was 2,900 ft/sec.
I would expect a 20mm ball to be heavier than a 0.5" ball and thus carry further.
Do you happen to know if the .5 call round design was wind tunnel developed I know that was one component of US aircraft aerodynamic study, I acknowledge the US was ahead of everyone in that field. I'd expect the same in bullet design.
Would the difference in design outwreighh weight and muzzle velocity?

As the MG213 was not deployed is the evidence that the 50 cal was not outranged by the MG213 as strong as for soimeoif those others you ,mentioned?

I am aware of the difference between maximum range and maximum effective range.

Could it be fairly said that the MG213 was specified to give a pilot the option to engage a box formation at range with advantage?

I'm not disagreeing with you. Thanks for the correction. I should not have used the word range let alone well ootside the range. I've been on this site long enough to know better.

I am asking if you are sure that those who advocate for the MG213 on an Me262 are not arguing for any significant advantage in range?