109E3 cannons or spud guns
 

I am not sure if it's my bad aim but I find kill much easier in the 109E1 than with the E3.

I just can't help but feel that Hans, my mechanic has replaced the 20mm with these...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg

So is this me or do you think the same...

Hey I recognize this deadly weapon : i had two of those fitted in the wings of my trusty Il2's Fw A8 firing watter melons. They named it a 30mm Mk108 at the time ;).

well, if this is true
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...0&postcount=27
no wonder about the MG-FF.................

Buggar that's not good and repka 1 hasn't changed/offered the E1.

How did pupo test the mine shell? I want see the damage model :)

Yes, yes, because the hint is easier (no shake), the rate of fire and muzzle velocity is faster, and there are more ammo in the belt. The little calibre is strong enough for the weak parts of enemy planes (pilot, engine).
But i like the E-3 :twisted:
Yesterday i mess up something i wep. custom menu, i have no MG-17 (I did not look at those two flashy red lamps on the weapon panel :rolleyes: ), but i shot down two Spit in that sortie :cool: What would be, if our ammo would be with a mine effect? :rolleyes:

Lack of explosive shells would explain it. The 20mm indeed leaves big holes when on the mark, though I have yet to see a part of any kind being detached, aaaaand the teadrinkin bastids still fly majority of the time. Maybe not as strange, as I estimate the hit would land maybe a maximum of 3 MG-FF rounds.

As opposed to the 20mm, the MG in the wings (12mm is it, yah?) even with the standard belt (can`t change it currently) it is devastating. Not in the same way ofcourse, but far more efficient. 4-5 single engined kills is absolutely no problem (Blenheims are tougher, though I managed to get 4), because most of it is fire or pilot kill. Lastly, it composes with the MG17 on the nose perfectly.

I wonder if the 20mm shaking effect isn`t overdone. I`m absolutely sure that the MK103 mounted on the 109G6 causes very similar shudder.

PS. Oh and you just wait till the fifty cal gets here. 1 sec burst and it is all over.

12mm? I don't think the Germans used that calibre. I think it's a 7,92mm. Later in the war they used 13mm guns.

the 12mm was ment ironic....

If the MG-FF performance is modeled correctly then it begs the question why the Luftwaffe replaced the 2 wing MG 17's with it?

I can understand that the MG-FF/M might be mounted as it has the Minengeschoss but the current MG-FF is pretty useless, it just makes a lot of noise and makes my stick shake too much. You can be clinically precise with the nose MG 17's rather than waste your effort with the blind hammering of the 20mm.

The E-1 at present is a superior dogfighter because of the 4 MG's I knew that would be the case when I noticed just how good the 2 MG's were in the 109; I've been hoping for the E-1 for some time and happy we've got it now.

I hope they fix the FFB bug with the 109 cannon before we get the Bf109-E4 with the MG-FF/M otherwise I'll be stuck with the E-1 for some time.

Those large 20 mm incendinaries were probably quite effective against bomber fuel tanks I guess... I agree they are a bit difficult to use against fighters. I find them very effective against bombers, it easily sets them on fire.

The problem with the current FF is the low muzzle velocity and the lack of effective HE shell. The E-4 ie. MG-FF/M will solve both of these problems, as the lighter M-Geschoss was fired at much higher speeds.

i saw a huge difference when i set them to 200:grin:

never heard about a higher V0 of the Mineshell.....?!

Its a lighter shell fired with a similiar charge - its faster. IIRC on 151/20 it was 805 m/sec vs 710 or so of the regular HEI/API, and 700ish on the MGFF vs. the regular 520 or so. It did loose speed a bit faster, but I don't think that matters at these marginal ranges of 100-200 meter.

The big diff came from the feeding mechanism for the canons that went from a large and rather impressive belt arrangement (!) to 60 rds drums.

Mg FF pretty useless as it is now :) MG17 is killer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMnSqcmANro

Both the MG/FF and the MG/FFM never had a belt feeding mechanism, they always had the 60 round drum when mounted in the BF 109. Only the E-1 with the wing installed MG-17 had ammo belts.

And the cases of the 20mm ruonds were collected in the wing and not thrown out like in CoD AFAIK

Wrong ! ;)

I'm reading Most Dangerous Enemy. What a great book. In it it states the Germans wanted to out gun the Spitfire and Hurricanes eight MGs. Problem was they only had enough room for one gun in each wing. That's why they went for the cannons. With its slow rate of fire it was hard to hit it's target but if an AC was hit with a 20mm round it was said to be devastating.

I've practiced and practiced with just the cannons without much success. I have hit ACs with several cannon rounds and they just keep flying. Sure parts come off the planes but I'd never call it devastating. I'd say they haven't yet been modeled correctly. At least I hope that's what it is.

The devastating power came with the mine-shell, afaik.
So, when we have the Bf109E4.

+1

If you put a firecracker on top of a lunchbox, will the lunchbox explode? No. Put the firecracker inside the lunchbox and it might indeed explode if the hinges don't give way first. That's the mineshell in a nutshell. It's delayed fuse would blow up parts of the aircraft instead of scorching the surface :)

Realy? And your sources are?

I would say that is the authors interpretation influenced by a heavy dose of national pride.

Simply count the number of fighter aircraft that had all rifle caliber machinguns for primary armament by the wars end.


Here is a good article on the debate:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm

You can compare the effectiveness of the Bf-109 to the Spitfire armament here too:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

If you understand the physics and run the math, you will quickly see that cannon's far outstrip rifle caliber machineguns in terms of ability to destroy enemy aircraft and they tend to be lighter in weight!

The German decision to go with cannon probably had nothing to do with trying to copy British fighter armament of the day.

The wings on the BF109 were to thin to house more than one gun, it's also the reason the landing gear opened towards the fuselage,hinged at the wing root, no room. As the power output of AC increased so did the weight and fire power. After sorting out the bugs later model 109's had the cannons firing through the nose thus loosing inboard wing guns.
In the Pacific Theater there was little need for the Americans to use larger slower firing rounds as Japanese planes had little to no armor and no self sealing fuel tanks. Fast firing rifle and incendiary rounds in sort bursts was enough to light up Jap AC's.

IMHO the absence of wing guns was to better the rolling inertia (decreased). The motor-canon was not ready at early stage of the war. Hence the assisted starter trough spinner was mounted instead.

@Kongo-Otto who said " Realy? And your sources are?" speaking about 109 with wing's canons belt fed mechanism : you can buy a copy of "Le fana de l'aviation" issued 3 or 4 month ago.

Have a good read ;)

Sorry "Really? And your sources are?" was not meant as an insult or personal attack. :);)
I have heard about experiments about an electrical belt feed MG/FF but, afaik that was for Nightfighters and wasn't issued to the Geschwaders.
But in an regular issue BF 109 i've never heard about it.

Pleas get me a link for an order of that book, you woke my interest. :)

I am packing away but will unfold the box with that particular issue inside. Although I will appreciate any french reader giving the info.

~S!

Hi Kongo Otto,

I was wrong myself. I might hve miss read you with the MGFF standing for Machine Gun despite you specifically mentioned the E1.

I am sorry for the induced useless bit of chatting. That's what happen when cats try to bark. ;-)

The Fana de l'avation issue I was referring to was the december 2009 on pg 31.

~S!

the germans in WWII called everything till 20mm caliber MaschinenGewehr , above it became a MaschinenKanone

No Problem at all. :)

But you woke my interest in the Fana de l'avation and subscribed it.
So thanks a lot for giving me a new interesting read. :grin:

S!

You will enjoy it. The editorial quality might vary from one issue to another but overall after such years of publication it is still one of the best of any monthly aviation magazine available in French language in France.

I am Reading it since 1986 :rolleyes:!

~S!

Thickness ratio was 14.2 but due to the narrow chord it makes the wing thinner.

As a comparison , the Fw190 had a a 15% such as many WWII planes (the NACA 23015 airfoil was very popular at the time)

The spit had a 12% but with a wider chord that makes more room available in the wing.

By the way, 6x12.7 mm with a high rate of fire such as those mounted outside the propeller disc is not something I 'd hve call a "riffle" ;-)

If you look at the amount of un-friendly material in term of mass that is thrown in your way you'd reconsider the idea of poor US artillery.

Yes the canon is the outstanding killer (I just went to see a vid of what seems a 37mm or a 40mm direct hit on what look like a Fw190 by a VVS aircraft... Baaaouum !) but it's not the ultimate hitter by far.

~S!