Luftwaffe Cannons & Machineguns.

World War II German Military
#201

Regarding the MK112:

The trials with captured aircraft wings and parts show that about 450gramms of explosive is nessessary to seriously destroy a bomber. That resulted in a caliber of 5,5cm. They made 17 light guns, but the test firing showed that the belt links are too fragile. There are a light 300 kg and a heavy version (max. 700kg and V° 1000 m/sek) and different ammunition.
Here is the MK108 type rebated case ammo for the light version. ( 600 m/sek a rate of fire of 350 rds/sek was reached)

Any of the heavy version built?

What was the “secret” behind the high rate of fire (350rpm).
For comparison modern naval weapons of 40mm and 57mm caliber fire “only” 330 and 220rpm respectively (Bofors).

#202

The small, low-energy cartridge. The Bofors guns fire big, high-velocity rounds, and it takes the action some time to move back the required distance then move forward again.

#203

And the short 175 mm ( short in relation with the bore that is) case lenght also helps, but that is also related with low-energy cartridge thing mentioned by Tony.

As comparison the bofors 40 mm have 311 and 364 mm cases ( 40/60 and late 40/70 guns)

#204

Seem due to my noob-status I got no rights to start topics here, so I hijack that one with a hope-so on topic Q.

What was the tracer color of the ammo of either the 8.8 cm KwK 36; 7.5cm KwK 42 and the russian F-34 and ZiS-S-53 85mm gun???

#205

so I hijack that one with a hope-so on topic Q.

No, no no, hijack topics is no good, this is for luftwaffe armament only.

#206

FW Tank Ta-152 B projected armament:

Squematics showing the heavy armament layout proposed for the high altitude fighter TA-152 ausf B.

5 x 20 mm Mausers plus one MK-103 and two MK-108 30 mm, posibility of two more cannons with field conversion, in some sources the wingroots guns are Mauser MG 213 but I am not sure if those revolver-guns could be synchronizated.

#207

That looks like an old WWI fighter, except with more guns and it being a monoplane and not a biplane.

#208

Wow. These are great pictures you’ve posted. I’ve always loved ‘German-Engineering’ of weapon systems from WWII.

#209

Thank you, thank you, it has been a long work to more or less complete the list of Luftwaffe guns.

#210

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZZGaEEi8Ek&NR=1

The above is from youtube, allegedly a 30mm Mk108 testfired against the wing of a grounded Spitfire MKII.

Thought it might be of interest to you.

Regards, Uyraell.

#211

I think “Stueck” means attacks upon, not necessarily kills of, B17s.

Regards, Uyraell.

#212

If memory serves, the MG404 (being the German assigned designation) is in fact a French weapon impressed into Luftwaffe use, in Sea Reconnaiscance Wings.

From memory, it was taken from manufactured stocks that had been intended for fitting in the various turret and tunnel gun/ventral turret installations of the S.E 100 Heavy Fighter.

Source: William Green , “Warplanes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume One”.

Regards, Uyraell.

#213

Yes, I tought that it was a german design but in the end was the trusty Hispano gun. Well, not so trusty, it jammed a lot in the early cannon armed Spitfires.

Aditional images of Rheinmetall Borsig MK 103 30mm gun.

#214

Yes PK, you are correct. Though to be fair, the RAF armourers were at that point unfamiliar with the weapon.
Once they gained experience, the amount of jams reduced, as I understand it.
Certainly in the Mediterranean theater the Hispano-derived cannons performed quite well, which has always surprised me, in as much as that theater was where it could be expected that performance issues would be of the greatest number.

Regards, Uyraell.

#215

In 1944 the RAF Hispanos had an average stoppage rate of once in every 1,500 rounds, compared with once in about 4,500 rounds for the .50 Browning.

#216

In 1944 the RAF Hispanos had an average stoppage rate of once in every 1,500 rounds, compared with once in about 4,500 rounds for the .50 Browning

Wich is not good, and that was in 1944, after almost 4 years working in clear the “bugs” in the Birgkit gun. Unfortunately I havent see a record of the French Air force to compare.

#217

Tony, Thank you for the figures. :slight_smile:
My reference collection was broken up some years ago. :frowning:
So, I’m glad to see something to confirm my memories.

Kind Regards, Uyraell.

#218

The mounting had a lot to do with it. The Hispano was designed to be bolted to a rigid engine block, and it did not take at all kindly to being installed within more flexible wings. The wing installation on each new type of fighter had to be carefully fine-tuned. Fuselage-mounted guns were less bother, I believe.

This also affected the Browning to some extent: fixed guns were more reliable than flexibly-mounted ones.

#219

Agreed, aparently in the thin wing of the Spitfire layed some of the troubles, the Typhoons gun installation seems to had a lesser rate of jamming.

#220

Gentlemen

Thank you for a very interesting thread.
I enjoy the informed postings and pictures.
One thing I find hard to locate are terminal results of various
weapons on armor and other targets.
This thread has some outstanding pictures of these effects.
Those germans are pretty clever.

:cool: