MacArther
Staff Sergeant
:
acking bags:: Looks like I'm off to Germany to serve in their Airforce
acking bags:: Looks like I'm off to Germany to serve in their Airforce
Your armament?
- Thread starter schwarzpanzer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
It seems to me that as far as WWII fighters with a limited armament load could use a combination to get both hitting power and length od fire that is worthwile
The P-38 had 4 .50s with 400rnds and 1 20mm with 150 rnds, though less were often carried to ensure feed of the shells.
With a conventional layout it seems to me that 2 20mm and 4 .50s would be a great layout for just about anything while still giving a length of fire thats adequate for most missions.
Of course later planes that can cary more, larger armament packages don't have this problem.
wmaxt
The P-38 had 4 .50s with 400rnds and 1 20mm with 150 rnds, though less were often carried to ensure feed of the shells.
With a conventional layout it seems to me that 2 20mm and 4 .50s would be a great layout for just about anything while still giving a length of fire thats adequate for most missions.
Of course later planes that can cary more, larger armament packages don't have this problem.
wmaxt
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
plan_D said:
I agree 4 20mm are hard hitting but for what 6-10 seconds. I like your first choice best, esp if the firing poriod is extended. With 2 20mm with 10 seconds (or more) of fire and 4 .50s and 20 sec (or more) of fire your still a very hard hitter but can defend oneself on the way out?
Just my thought.
wmaxt
Glider
Captain
I don't believe that the 303 added much to the firepower of a fighter at the end of the war.
Also the ammo on a Spitfire would I believe last around 14 seconds which is enough for most people.
Also the ammo on a Spitfire would I believe last around 14 seconds which is enough for most people.
- Thread starter
- #66
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
I think it was Hugh Dowding that wanted 4 x .303's? This was done after major research IIRC?
I was wondering on the ballistics of the 20mm round mentioned before, was APHE used? If so how effective? Would it detonate or simply pass out the other side?
Also the SpGr (HE) round was good ballistically and I['m sure the 20mm could outrange the .50?
Back onto fiction:
A hub-mounted Bofors firing Flak shells would have devestating accuracy and hitting power with a large blast radius, allowing for innacuracies?
That and maybe four D20's in the wings?
I was wondering on the ballistics of the 20mm round mentioned before, was APHE used? If so how effective? Would it detonate or simply pass out the other side?
Also the SpGr (HE) round was good ballistically and I['m sure the 20mm could outrange the .50?
Back onto fiction:
A hub-mounted Bofors firing Flak shells would have devestating accuracy and hitting power with a large blast radius, allowing for innacuracies?
That and maybe four D20's in the wings?
Glider
Captain
My understanding was that the British had trouble with the fuses on the 20mm. They tended to either go off on contact or not at all. The ideal was for it to explode a fraction of a second after contact with the skin of the enemy plane so it would do the most damage inside the aircraft.
It was sorted out but until that time a number of squadrons only used AP.
Once sorted, it was of course a very effective shell.
It was sorted out but until that time a number of squadrons only used AP.
Once sorted, it was of course a very effective shell.
- Thread starter
- #68
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
I know they didn't use APHE on tanks shells like the Germans and Russians did, but that was due to penetration issues.
I thought exploding on contact would be very damaging to an aircraft frame/skin?
I thought exploding on contact would be very damaging to an aircraft frame/skin?
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
well it would do more damage if it exploded inside the fusilage if you think about it, it'd actually cause more damage than just blowing off a side pannel..........
schwarzpanzer said:
That's interesting considering that NOT ONE 20MM (AIRCRAFT GUN) DURING WW2 OUTRANGED THE .50 BMG!
What makes you think the SpGr HE round had good ballistics? Virtually all German (and British and Soviet and US) HE rounds in WWII had flat fronts for the fuse. Only the Japanese were crazy enough to use explosives volitile enough not to require a fuse allowing pointed projectiles. In the case of the MG151/20, the relatively poor sectional density combine with the flat nose leads to poor ballistics.
Some experimentation with more pointy designs was conducted, and the best practical example of this was probably the Ausf. C 30mm MK108 mine rounds, but even these had comparatively quite poor ballistcs vs. the .50 BMG.
Do the math yourself for the sectional density.
The area of a circle is Pi x radius squared. So for a 20mm round it is 3.14 x 10 x 10 = 314 square millimeters. Now divide the weight of the round by this area. For the MG151/20 HE round you are looking at about 100 grams (actually less but I don't want to look it up right now) so the sectional density is about 100/314 = ~3.18 grams / mm squared.
For the .50 BMG API round it works out about like this...
3.14 x 6.35 x 6.35 = ~126.5 square mm's.
44/126.5 = 3.5 grams/square mm.
For the AP round it works out to about 3.83 grams/ square mm.
And then there is the shape to consider... (images from www.quarry.nildram.co.uk)
The .50 is second from the left.
The MG151/20 HE round is 4th from the left.
As you can see, the MG151/20 shape is very much inferior to that of the .50 round. Inferior sectional density plus inferior ballistic shape = inferior ballistic performance.
Even the 20mm Hispano (all the way on the right of the 20mm rounds image), with its much superior 4.14 grams/square-mm sectional density had inferior ballistc performance to the .50 BMG. The MG151/20 was not even close.
=S=
Lunatic[/b]
Erich
the old Sage
=S=
I agree with the difficulty in the range problems the German possessed for the duration of the war, but ask any surviving Luftwaffe fighter pilot and they all say the same thing, that their ammo could not be beat. Granted shorter range is sometimes easier to provilde the killing blow, but also it is remembered that your enemy may also have a bead on you as well............in comes the .50 cal
I agree with the difficulty in the range problems the German possessed for the duration of the war, but ask any surviving Luftwaffe fighter pilot and they all say the same thing, that their ammo could not be beat. Granted shorter range is sometimes easier to provilde the killing blow, but also it is remembered that your enemy may also have a bead on you as well............in comes the .50 cal
MacArther said:
As was stated by others about 5 squadrons still use the F4 Phantom however they are all just reconnaisance squandrons. It is no longer the front line fighter of Germany. For front line fighters they use the Tornado which will be replaced by the Typhoon (thank god!)
As was also pointed out I in the US Army. I was born German and still hold a German Passport and lived most of life in Germany but I am in the US Army but am based in Germany.
book1182
Airman
I haven't seen very much said about the German 30mm cannon. It was a very powerful weapon. I have heard that 3 rounds could take down a bomber and 1 round for a fighter. I know it had a slow rate of fire and it's range probably wasn't the best but didn't they say don't shot till you see the whites of his eyes. You would also believe that it would also make for a good ground attack gun since the 37mm cannon was used by JU-87's to destroy tanks.
Erich
the old Sage
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
And man what a history...
And it has been said that more than once, a B-24 was taken out with one (1) well placed 30mm minen round...
And another thing, it was quite common for a Luftwaffe pilot to come in on target, get some hits from the machine guns, and then press the cannon button... Bomber is now on fire and HSS...
Thats the way several of Willi Reschkes kills went down.... Hardly any rounds expended... Once, on an attack on a B-24, his guns quit, he recharged, they quit... Then he just decided to ram it, and possibly sheer off the tail....
He just decided.... Thats just heroic to me... He clips it, the bomber falls and explodes in mid-air... His wing is damaged and he bails...
And he got credit for the kill.... The Mk108 was a hell of a weap for its eventual use...
And it has been said that more than once, a B-24 was taken out with one (1) well placed 30mm minen round...
And another thing, it was quite common for a Luftwaffe pilot to come in on target, get some hits from the machine guns, and then press the cannon button... Bomber is now on fire and HSS...
Thats the way several of Willi Reschkes kills went down.... Hardly any rounds expended... Once, on an attack on a B-24, his guns quit, he recharged, they quit... Then he just decided to ram it, and possibly sheer off the tail....
He just decided.... Thats just heroic to me... He clips it, the bomber falls and explodes in mid-air... His wing is damaged and he bails...
And he got credit for the kill.... The Mk108 was a hell of a weap for its eventual use...
It would be intersting a Fw 190 D or TA152 with the revolver gun Mauser MG 213 C in his two variants, 20 and 30 mm (to consider more realistic than an Aden gun I think IMHO ), the 30 mm in the engine spinner, and the two 20 mm in the wingroots 8) . A lot of hellfire which It could shot, hehehehe.
), the 30 mm in the engine spinner, and the two 20 mm in the wingroots 8) . A lot of hellfire which It could shot, hehehehe.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
I think those weapons were too large for the available space given in those 2 airframes...
Well, It is partially true for the wingroots (1,93 m long for the 20 mm model, which was in fact the largest of these two) , but the TA 152 is mentioned to be rearmed in late models with the MK 103 in the spinner, as the Do 335, and this gun is 2,318 m, so in this place it is right.
See in these sites, they are great about the matter (the problem is the language, hehehe).
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/bordwaffen-R.htm
http://me109.sofiacity.com/Waffen/MK103/MK103.htm
A lot of thanks for your opinion lesofprimus.
, but the TA 152 is mentioned to be rearmed in late models with the MK 103 in the spinner, as the Do 335, and this gun is 2,318 m, so in this place it is right.See in these sites, they are great about the matter (the problem is the language, hehehe).
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/bordwaffen-R.htm
http://me109.sofiacity.com/Waffen/MK103/MK103.htm
A lot of thanks for your opinion lesofprimus.
- Thread starter
- #79
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Lunatic:
It was a Me109 vs a B17, it was the story were the Me pilot let him go, you may have heard of it?
Sectional density and shape is all well and good, but a big cartridge and a long barrell...
Thanks for the pics anyway.
You're kidding right??
I've heard it's the 'SA80 of the skies'! 
The 37mm was developed from the 'doorknocker' Pak gun, designed from the outset for anti-tank work. It had a long barrel and (stupidly IMHO) fired APCR rounds made with precious Tungsten. These rounds had better armour penetration than standard Manganese steel projectiles. I doubt the 30mm would be anywhere close, though 30mm HE rounds would be very effective for ground attack, they would be useless for anti-tank work.
Hammer down! 8)
Sorry, 'Pearl Harbour moment' there.
I think it would be prone to overheating?
I agree with the bigger is better hub gun philosophy on here. 8)
It was a Me109 vs a B17, it was the story were the Me pilot let him go, you may have heard of it?
Sectional density and shape is all well and good, but a big cartridge and a long barrell...
Thanks for the pics anyway.
DerAdler said:
You're kidding right??
I've heard it's the 'SA80 of the skies'! book1182 said:
The 37mm was developed from the 'doorknocker' Pak gun, designed from the outset for anti-tank work. It had a long barrel and (stupidly IMHO) fired APCR rounds made with precious Tungsten. These rounds had better armour penetration than standard Manganese steel projectiles. I doubt the 30mm would be anywhere close, though 30mm HE rounds would be very effective for ground attack, they would be useless for anti-tank work.
lesofprimus said:
Hammer down! 8)
Sorry, 'Pearl Harbour moment' there.
hartmann said:
I think it would be prone to overheating?
I agree with the bigger is better hub gun philosophy on here. 8)
Erich
the old Sage
do a study on the Hs 129 and it's 3cm Mk 103 weapon and quite effective rounds against Soviet tanks. the 3cm Mk 108 was almost worthless in ground attack work via anti-armor. Shredding parked Allied or Soviet a/c is another matter altogether as shown in the ill vised Bodenplatte and attacks on forward Soviet airfields in 1945 within Germany. parked A/C was almost smeared off the earth by the cannon rounds
