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.