LOL
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
Sal Monella
Airman 1st Class
Adler - Sorry. It didn't occur to me that you were joking when you said that that there would only be 2 seconds of firing time when there would be 21. I still don't get the humorous angle but we can chalk that up to my poor sense of humor.
Eight M3's would have been a fearsome armament against any fighter though, don't you think?
Eight M3's would have been a fearsome armament against any fighter though, don't you think?
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Eight 0.50 M3 are very impressive. However, they don´t belong to ww2, I think. If you want to count them I would like to take the MG 213/20, also. It has an even higher rof (1300 rpm), an excellent punch (20mm) and excellent ballistics, too (initial velocity around 1065 m/sec /3400-3500 ft/s). Put them as an engine mounted gun in a longnose Fw 190 / Ta-152.
Sal Monella
Airman 1st Class
M3's were pressed into service in the Pacific theatre late in the war at Le Shima which was home to a heavy P-47N contingent. There is some speculation as to whether they were mounted on P-47N's though.
Sal Monella said:
No worries.
delcyros said:
Eight 0.50 M3 are very impressive. However, they don´t belong to ww2, I think. If you want to count them I would like to take the MG 213/20, also. It has an even higher rof (1300 rpm), an excellent punch (20mm) and excellent ballistics, too (initial velocity around 1065 m/sec /3400-3500 ft/s). Put them as an engine mounted gun in a longnose Fw 190 / Ta-152.
M3's were definitely used in the B-29 turrets in WWII. They may also have been used in the P-47N.
=S=
Lunatic
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
schwarzpanzer said:
This gun actually was developed from the army antiaircraft 3,7 cm Flak 18 with heavy mount including hidraulic dampers. The case was 263 mm long.
JU-87G:
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
How about a hub firing 30mm with two 20mm in the wing roots and two 15mm in the engine cowling. Maybe have an optional field pack for a pair of .50 cals under the wings in gondolas.
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
That was more or less the armament of the FW-Tank Ta-152C, 1x30 mm plus 4 x Mg-151.
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
DOH!!!
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Armament was an MK-108 or MK-103 cannon firing through the prop spinner, along with two MG-151/20 cannon in the cowling and one in each wing root...
Only about five Ta-152Cs were completed, the first flying in November 1944, as the decision was made to focus on the Ta-152H....
Only about five Ta-152Cs were completed, the first flying in November 1944, as the decision was made to focus on the Ta-152H....
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Yes, partly because of the engine problems (turbo-supercharger)and the avaiability of it´s engine.
I find the weapon layout of the Ta-152 C highly unbalanced. Too much recoil forces for the airframe. Especcially if you replace the MK-108 with the MK-103, but even without, the combined recoilforce is in excess of 10% of the airplanes max take off weight, which is usually very bad (depends on the place of the gun).
I would rather install a MG-213/20 as engine mounted and four additional MG 151/15 as nose/wing mounted guns in this airplane....
Good to see you´re back, Lun.
I find the weapon layout of the Ta-152 C highly unbalanced. Too much recoil forces for the airframe. Especcially if you replace the MK-108 with the MK-103, but even without, the combined recoilforce is in excess of 10% of the airplanes max take off weight, which is usually very bad (depends on the place of the gun).
I would rather install a MG-213/20 as engine mounted and four additional MG 151/15 as nose/wing mounted guns in this airplane....
Good to see you´re back, Lun.
Erich
the old Sage
C's were literally taken apart at the factory to replace damaged parts on the existing H-1's and H-0's of JG 301. the Mk 103 ws never used in the Ta 152H model. there are at least cases of 3 C's being used in the III./JG 301 and transfer over to Stab./JG 301, ther rest of the C establishment was found at the factory in a varying amount of stages
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
I read the "monogram Close up" about the Ta-152 that was in consideration the emplacement of two Mg-213 in the wingroots.
But this is a mistake, ¿ how the hell they going to sincronizate this revolver canon...? impossible
But this is a mistake, ¿ how the hell they going to sincronizate this revolver canon...? impossible
carpenoctem1689
Airman 1st Class
- 285
- Sep 10, 2005
For me, my armament would be, if using the Ta-152H, one Mg 151/20 through the propeller hub, with about 125-175 rounds, in the nose, i would have two Mg 131 machine guns with about 250-350 rounds per gun, and two Mg 151/15 in the wing roots with 250-400 rounds each. All armament kept close to the nose, all weapons have a high muzzle velocity, arent as heavy as Mk-103, and have a better range than the Mk-108. Racks uner the wings for 20 or 30mm cannon would be a nice touch, or maybe some R4M, but with thoe additions, you start to get some serious weight penalties, along with drag. I just dont think, with the speed the Ta-152H had, that it needed anything above 20mm as its main armament, and could do fine with smaller weapons, with good muzzle velocity, and a higher rate of fire, because hitting a bomber at over 400pmh, getting shot back at by the whole damn formation, and avoiding escort fighters, i wouldnt want a slow cannon.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
The armement You want isn´t suited well to strike heavys. It´s a fine layout for high speed dogfights but barely is suited against heavy bombers. With a single 20 mm nose gun? You may use R4M for them but that´s a single shot phylosophie. 3 different roundtypes (13mm, 15mm and 20mm are also bad, each round has it´s own ballistic performance and differs a bit.) are also somehow problematic. I would stay with a MG-213/20 mm as engine mounted, 2 MG-151/15mm for the engine cowling (optional) as well as 2 MG 151 /15 in the wing roots. That´s enough firepower to deal with any kind of target.
Another of my favorites:
Me-262 with removed nose armor and 3 MK-103/30mm instead of four MK108/30mm. This is discussed in deatail in the P-80 vs Me-262 poll and I sadly admit that the heavy recoil forces would be responsible for further reeinforcements and thus increasing the weight. It probably would be a better weaponry than Me-262 with BK-5/MK-214 against any kind of air and ground target.
Another of my favorites:
Me-262 with removed nose armor and 3 MK-103/30mm instead of four MK108/30mm. This is discussed in deatail in the P-80 vs Me-262 poll and I sadly admit that the heavy recoil forces would be responsible for further reeinforcements and thus increasing the weight. It probably would be a better weaponry than Me-262 with BK-5/MK-214 against any kind of air and ground target.
Glider
Captain
Sorry everyone but for general purpose punch well able to take on the fighters and bombers you have to go a long way to beat the 4 x Hispano V in the Tempest.
Arguably the most powerful 20mm of the war, with a significant punch, good rate of fire, decent ballistics, light weight and it worked.
It wasn't a pipe dream or fantasy it was real
Arguably the most powerful 20mm of the war, with a significant punch, good rate of fire, decent ballistics, light weight and it worked.
It wasn't a pipe dream or fantasy it was real
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Except for the soviet B-20 maybe.
The Hispano MK V mounted in the mid wing position is also not a very favourable solution, it couldn´t evidently harm heavy tanks and for dogfights the pilots had to deal with convergance problems.
Not to speak of the good portion of recoilforces these guns produce in the mid of a wing...
The Hispano MK V mounted in the mid wing position is also not a very favourable solution, it couldn´t evidently harm heavy tanks and for dogfights the pilots had to deal with convergance problems.
Not to speak of the good portion of recoilforces these guns produce in the mid of a wing...
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
well 4x 20mm is gonna do more damage to a tank than most guns, you say it couldn't harm heavy tanks but short of anything over 30mm what could?? and convergence isn't a problem for a well trained pilot.........
Glider
Captain
Remember that these are matched to the best gun sights in the war. Convergence is almost a boon when you consider the accuracy of the average pilot.
Its also worth remembering that any gun that fires through the propeller blades losses anywhere between 15-25% of its ROF depending on the gun and the plane. That should to some degree make up for any convergence issues.
The B20 is a good gun, I don't think it matched up with the shell of the Hispano but it was very light and a fine weapon.
Be fair, I did say arguably the most powerful 20mm.
If someone would like alternatives, I put forward two
a) The MB3 I know it didn't reach production but it was armed with 6 x 20
b) The Italians were looking at replacing the 2 x HMG on the G55 with 20mm. That would have made 5 x 20mm.
Its also worth remembering that any gun that fires through the propeller blades losses anywhere between 15-25% of its ROF depending on the gun and the plane. That should to some degree make up for any convergence issues.
The B20 is a good gun, I don't think it matched up with the shell of the Hispano but it was very light and a fine weapon.
Be fair, I did say arguably the most powerful 20mm.
If someone would like alternatives, I put forward two
a) The MB3 I know it didn't reach production but it was armed with 6 x 20
b) The Italians were looking at replacing the 2 x HMG on the G55 with 20mm. That would have made 5 x 20mm.
