What was the air to air weapon, or combination of weapons, used in WWII?

[zjtins]

See this thread for info on MG FF problems. #305
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/20mm-cannon-best-worst-specs-comparison-lmg-hmg-etc-29624-21.html#post999846

And as someone else pointed out on the FW-190 you cant stick a 151/20 round in the MG FF it blew up.

Sorry MG FF/M

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the effort to provide proofs.
The 1st link does not work, it opens the generic, 'ad powered' web site. About the quoted text from the post #305 there:

MG FF/M:

The MG FF/M was a motor cannon with 20 mm caliber. This gun was manufactured in Germany under licence, but it was developed by Oerlikon in Switzerland. The MG FF/M was 1338 mm long at a weight of 26,3 kg. The cadence of this weapon was 540 rounds per minute at max, the speed, the projectiles got, leaving the muzzle was 700 meters per second.
The cartridge had a weight of 202 g, 134 g apportioned to the projectile. The ammunition was stored in magazines.
Deployed by the Luftwaffe in 1935 it soon became obsolete, because the penetration was not enough to destroy the heavy allied bombers anymore. The MG FF/M often got jammed or the shells broke, what didn´t make this weapon very reliable.
The MG FF was mounted in nearly the whole "Bf 109 E" family, the "Bf 109 D" and the "Bf 109 F-0" and "F-1". It was als well used as wing armament, as also as motor gun.

The quoted text does nod discern the MG FF and MG FF/M. Their ammo was not interchangeable.
MG FF/M was developed and produced by Ikaria, Berlin. It was not a motor cannon, it was being installed in many different parts of the airframe; it took time for Germans to have it as a working motor cannon. The 'FF' meaning 'Flugel fest', ie. 'suitable for wing'.
The weight of the shell fired by MG FF/M at 700 m/s was 92g. The MV of the shell that weighted 134 g, fired by MG FF, was 600 m/s. The sentence

Deployed by the Luftwaffe in 1935 it soon became obsolete, because the penetration was not enough to destroy the heavy allied bombers anymore.

is a gem on it's own, incorrect on all accounts: MG FF/M was deployed by Luftwaffe in 1940, not in 1935; the ww2 cannons were not machine guns (to depend on penetration to destroy bombers), they were using shells (depending on explosive shrapnel effect instead); the MG FF/M was used as 'Schraege musik' in Bf-110 night fighters to kill heavy bombers.
The MG FF was never installed in Bf-109D and F; the F-0 got the MG FF/M.

With all that said, should we believe author's words that MG FF/M often jammed, it's shells broke etc? Where is the assessment of the MG FF reliability?

And as someone else pointed out on the FW-190 you cant stick a 151/20 round in the MG FF it blew up.

The Fw-190 got the MG FF/M, not MG FF, sorry for nitpick. It was not the fault of the MG FF/M design that a later design had the similar round, and surely it was not it's fault that a member of the ground crew was filling the drum with wrong round.
Until you can back up the claim that such things were happening, that statement goes into the same shelf with statement that XP-39 was making 400 MPH, Bf-109G1 making 700 km/h, XP-40Q being base for P-51, ie. in the shelf with other myths.

You might want to start with this post, Anthony (Tony) Williams is world expert on this:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/we...nons-machineguns-topic-6368-3.html#post235948

 

[tyrodtom]

If you look at the different 20mm rounds the MG-FF/MG-FFM 20x80 with a rim diameter of 19mm, and a case diameter of 22mm, compare that with the round fired by the MG-151/20, 20x82, rim diameter of 25.2 mm, and a case diameter of 25.2mm.
When you think of those dimensions, and look at pictures of the two different rounds, there's no chance of even the a idiot of a ground crewman putting a MG-151/20 round in a MG-FFM magazine, you couldn't beat it in with a hammer. Plus the cartridge case of the MG-151/20 is so much bigger there's no way it would even partly go into a MG-FFM's breech.

 

[Denniss]

The only problem I heard of with the MG FF series as an ammo feed problem in the drum under high G load but nothing more, not even close to the "problems" claimed by this site.
More MG FF related errors from this site: it was not directly produced under license, Ikaria got a license for the Oerlikon FF F (itself developed from the german Becker gun). The MG FF was developed further to use a larger/longer cartridge for improved performance. The projectile weight is wrong, 134g is for the FF, not FF/M, 540 rpm and ~700m/s was only possible with HE/M rounds in the FF/M

 

[tomo pauk]

The quoted article also forgets another main user of the MG FF/M, namely the Fw-190, that was using it from late 1941 until late 1943.

 

[Shortround6]

it was also used in a bunch of Bf 110s, and in He 111s and a few Ju 88s and other aircraft for ground strafing and shipping attacks.

 

[tomo pauk]

Indeed.

Further, the MG FF/M, with 700 m/s MV for the M-geshoss was indeed not a 'fast' cartridge, but one could not say it was that slow, either. The MV was about 85% of MG-151/20, and almost 95% of ShVAK. Not bad for 28 kg cannon.

 

[zjtins]

Yah a I had to use the cached page the website had connection problems, I thought it was me.

The MG FF/M is the same basic gun as the FF modded for the minegeshoss cartridge my bad wrong reference.

Its a translated page... the FF was deployed in 35 in Spain, does not talk about the FF/M introduction.

 

[zjtins]

They use the shrage musik upward with a MG FF/M or M108 as they fit the MG 11/20 was too difficult to fit.
Later that added short tube with 30mm minegeschoss since they would only get 1-2 passes.

The 20mm was left in some of the night fighters as the would have more time on target.
Late the Germans were trying 37mm, 50mm, and even a 75 mm for one shot kills as the likelihood of a fast mover staying on target to get rounds on targets for the older weapon was not happening.

A problem with this discussion is what target? what time during the wa? what assumed pilot experience? which round? which setup (inline vs wing) which gun (Brit, German, Russian...) they all impact the results.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yah a I had to use the cached page the website had connection problems, I thought it was me.

The MG FF/M is the same basic gun as the FF modded for the minegeshoss cartridge my bad wrong reference.

Okay.

Its a translated page... the FF was deployed in 35 in Spain, does not talk about the FF/M introduction.

Prior the S. civil war, how plausible is that Germany would deploy an airborne cannon, that was being in prototype stage? The S.C.W. started in 1936. A weapon 'expert' , from the page you've posted, that does not discern between MG FF and MG FF/M is not someone I'd trust on the matter, anyway.

They use the shrage musik upward with a MG FF/M or M108 as they fit the MG 11/20 was too difficult to fit.
Later that added short tube with 30mm minegeschoss since they would only get 1-2 passes.

The weapon worked, it had a decent RoF, MV, was compact light, and, most importantly, fired a destructive shell. Seem like a logical choice for 'Shraege musik' to me.

The 20mm was left in some of the night fighters as the would have more time on target.

Care to elaborate?

Late the Germans were trying 37mm, 50mm, and even a 75 mm for one shot kills as the likelihood of a fast mover staying on target to get rounds on targets for the older weapon was not happening.

I'd really like to see some reference the LW airborne, bomber-busting 75mm cannon. It was used only against ground targets IIRC. The experiments with weapons bigger than 20mm should imply that LW found the MG 151/20 was not ideal for bomber busting.

A problem with this discussion is what target? what time during the wa? what assumed pilot experience? which round? which setup (inline vs wing) which gun (Brit, German, Russian...) they all impact the results.

I'm sure most of the forum members would agree that such variables should dictate the wepon set-up. The problem of this discussion was a number of unsubstantiated claims?

 

[zjtins]

From wiki.... Just saw this

In the dual-purpose vehicle mount, the M2HB (heavy barrel) proved extremely effective in U.S. service: the Browning's .50 caliber AP and API rounds could easily penetrate the engine block or fuel tanks of a German Bf 109 fighter attacking at low altitude,[30] or perforate the hull plates and fuel tanks of a German half-track or light armored car.[24][31][32]

 

[zjtins]

I'm sure most of the forum members would agree that such variables should dictate the weapon set-up. The problem of this discussion was a number of unsubstantiated claims?

Only claim I am making is the 6 or 8 x .50 cal setup was effective enough and roughly equal to the 4. x 20mm of WWII. I keep getting drawn into side conversations.

As for unsubstantiated where is substantiation that the 4x.20mm setup was significantly better than the 6 or 8x .50 cal in WWII?

I have never seen anything from anyone, on this forum or in all my literature readings.

It is an assumption until someone bring proof or data or something other that the 20mm round is bigger that the .50 cal.

 

[zjtins]

More info I am not going to copy it, its the whole thread.

AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS.... HOW AND WHY WE COMPARE THEM

 

[tomo pauk]

Only claim I am making is the 6 or 8 x .50 cal setup was effective enough and roughly equal to the 4. x 20mm of WWII. I keep getting drawn into side conversations.
As for unsubstantiated where is substantiation that the 4x.20mm setup was significantly better than the 6 or 8x .50 cal in WWII?
I have never seen anything from anyone, on this forum or in all my literature readings.
It is an assumption until someone bring proof or data or something other that the 20mm round is bigger that the .50 cal.

I'll 1st apologize to the forum members for boring them wit repetition.
Let me remind you about the claims, post #61 in this thread:

Best choice is limited to all limitations, cost , production capability, power, accuracy, reliability, ammo availability, weight....
Many of the spit had 2 20mm and 4 .30 cal. The ME109 had 1 20mm and 2x 8 or 13 mm MG. The P-47 had 8 .50 Cal all others had 6 (basically).

All others have had 2 cannons + 2 MGs, or just 2 MGs, or a cannon and 1-3 pairs of MG, or 3 cannons, or 4 MGs....

The MGF or Oerilkon was slow, low rate of fire, and not reliable.

Proof?

Yet this was used or copied for most of the war until others were developed because they had it.

Copied because they had it?

The Brits could not move to a .50 cal cause they had no production base.

They were producing .50 cal Vickers, and they have had no production base for Hispano, yet went for it.

They actually had a .60 cal in development just before the war but dropped it to maximize production on existing weapons for what soon came to be the BoB.

Any proof about British .60 in gun?

The best example of 20mm use was the FW190 4xmg151/20 (not the 2 MGFF version). That seemed to really work well.

Okay.

Also later the US went to 20mm x4 or vulcan later due to range over the .50 cal. Today the US is moving the 25mm for even more range.

Proof that range was/is the reason?
By 'proof' I mean that you post information(s) made by credible people, like Tony Williams, Emanuel Gustin, Christian Koll and like, ie. the book authors owners of creditable web pages. A member of this forum (nick 'Charles Bronson') has several threads about the aircraft guns in the Weapons sub-forum, that might be a good start also. The person mixing the different German guns would be the bad start.
I won't go to the claim about timeline of MG FF and Spanish C.W.

 

[zjtins]

Go read the referenced thread, then go argue with them.

 

[tomo pauk]

In other words, opinions of the forum's members (and they disagree in almost all topics touched there) are now a reference?

then go argue with them.

???

 

[Shortround6]

I skipped around few pages but when I hit the one where they were arguing about trucks I gave up.

 

[zjtins]

I skipped around few pages but when I hit the one where they were arguing about trucks I gave up.

So you read only what you want to reinforce your own opinion but refuse to read what might trigger you to change your own mind. That's called myopic thinking.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Only claim I am making is the 6 or 8 x .50 cal setup was effective enough and roughly equal to the 4. x 20mm of WWII. I keep getting drawn into side conversations.

Which runs contrary to the conclusions of both armament experts of the period - of all nations - and present day experts.

A single 20 mm cannon is estimated at having an effectiveness of anywhere from 2.5 .50 cals to around 3.5 .50 cals, depending on the cannon itself and ammunition fired.

So, a 4 x 20 mm set up would be roughly equavilent in firepower to ten to 14 .50 cals, for roughly the weight of six .50 cals.

As for unsubstantiated where is substantiation that the 4x.20mm setup was significantly better than the 6 or 8x .50 cal in WWII?

I have never seen anything from anyone, on this forum or in all my literature readings.
It is an assumption until someone bring proof or data or something other that the 20mm round is bigger that the .50 cal.

Read Tony William's website and articles for a start: WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS
IDEAL WW2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT

You could also look at the proceedings of the Joint Fighter Conference in the US.

 

[Jabberwocky]

More info I am not going to copy it, its the whole thread.

What the sweet fanny adams is that?

Having read through the whole, mildly mis-informed thread, there were perhaps a half dozen posts on comparing the .50 cal and the 20 mm. In the first page and a half. And then, nothing at all.

You're lambasing posters for "myopic thinking", but obviously haven't read your own links.

Shameful.