109E3 cannons or spud guns

[drewpee]

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.

[robtek]

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

[Strike]

Originally Posted by robtek

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

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by drewpee

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 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.

[drewpee]

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.

[TomcatViP]

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

[Kongo-Otto]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

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.

[TomcatViP]

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!

[TomcatViP]

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!