Gold-Clash

Soren · 05-14-2005, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS

According to Soren though, this was not a problem as evidenced by this configuration being the preferred set up for fighter to fighter engagements. I frankly find that hard to believe, but assuming it is true, my assumptions underlying my thesis are flawed.

DAVIDICUS the Germans would almost always try to get close to their foe in a dogfight before firing, that was their strategy. And under these circumstances the MG131's and the MK108 worked just fine in conjunction with each other. At longer ranges the usual thing to do for the Germans was to fire either the two MG131's or the MK108 as to cripple the enemy before getting close (The MG131 was used more than the other in these situations though)

Also I would like you to remember it takes just 'one' hit from that MK108 to totally wreck any U.S. fighter, and only 3-4 hits to bring down a B-17. (Now thats what I call effective fireworks !

)

KraziKanuK · 05-14-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

Also I would like you to remember it takes just 'one' hit from that MK108 to totally wreck any U.S. fighter, and only 3-4 hits to bring down a B-17. (Now thats what I call effective fireworks !

)

Only if the 108's grenades hit a reletive vital area of the bomber.

One advantage the German a/c had was their guns were mounted near the centreline of the a/c. Wing mounted guns in American and British a/c had a 'null' zone cone where their 'bullets' would miss the E/A if fired from to close in.

Soren · 05-14-2005, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

Only if the 108's grenades hit a reletive vital area of the bomber.

4 30mm "Minen" hits and the B-17 would either go down or be in such a crippled state that it wouldnt stand much chance of making it home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

One advantage the German a/c had was their guns were mounted near the centreline of the a/c. Wing mounted guns in American and British a/c had a 'null' zone cone where their 'bullets' would miss the E/A if fired from to close in.

True.

Glider · 05-14-2005, 10:53 AM

I think that most people are agreeing on the effectiveness. All countries encouraged their pilots to get close before firing because hitting a moving twisting plane was so difficult. If pilots did that then it wouldn't really matter what guns you had, the target was likely to be history. Most pilots didn't get that close, most of the gun camera film that I have seen proves that.
Then you have to rely on the ability of the pilot to hit a target and that is when the differences in the guns start to count. A slower firing weapon with a poorer trajectory will not be as effective. I recognise that one hit from a 30mm 108 is all it needs to destroy a fighter, but most pilots wouldn't get that hit. The Aces would and did, which is why they were aces, an Average pilot is likely to miss. The 6 x 0.5 give the average pilot a much better chance of a hit. It may only damage the target but having a damaged plane in front makes it a lot less dangerous and your chances of getting it are considerably improved.

I always think that the USA were lucky that they never had to stop heavy bomber raids as the 0,5 would have been woefully inadaquate. They would have had to go to pods very quickly with all the problems that entailed.
At least the Germans with the 30mm in the 109 and the 4x 20 in the 190 had effective planes.

Soren · 05-14-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

I recognise that one hit from a 30mm 108 is all it needs to destroy a fighter, but most pilots wouldn't get that hit. The Aces would and did, which is why they were aces, an Average pilot is likely to miss. The 6 x 0.5 give the average pilot a much better chance of a hit. It may only damage the target but having a damaged plane in front makes it a lot less dangerous and your chances of getting it are considerably improved.

Wich is why the Mk108 was an 'Auto-cannon'

Despite what many people think, the Mk108 was an accurate cannon, and at 0-300m it was perfectly capable of hitting an evading foe. It might take 20-35 rounds to get a hit, but it only toulk 'one' hit and the enemy fighter was history. By comparison it would take an awful lot of 0.50 hits to bring down a fighter.

FLYBOYJ · 05-14-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

I always think that the USA were lucky that they never had to stop heavy bomber raids as the 0,5 would have been woefully inadaquate. They would have had to go to pods very quickly with all the problems that entailed.
At least the Germans with the 30mm in the 109 and the 4x 20 in the 190 had effective planes.

You bring up food for thought there Glider. The US was developing "bomber destroyers" (the XP-58 for example) with huge cannons that would of sunk a destroyer, but against a bomber?!?!. Had Germany developed long range bombers capable of reaching North America, have we ever given thought to the fact that they would be unescorted? Germany could barely keep a fighter over England for 30 minutes, you think they would of done much better over the US? And forget the jets, I'm talking ME 264 or JU 390.

Glider · 05-14-2005, 11:31 AM

Escorted or even unescorted the B17 and B24 took a lot of knocking down and that was with 20mm and 30mm guns. Using 0.5's would be a very risky business.
Also don't think just of attacks on the USA mainland. Anyway, the oceans around the USA are of a size that was only likely to happen from carriers at least initially. Heavy bomber raids on the islands that the USA used to attack Japan would have needed to have been stopped and I don't see a 0.5 as being the tool for the job. Heavy bombers escorted by even Zero's would have been a difficult combination. Zero's may lack speed and diving ability, but if you have to stay with the bombers then agility and endurance become more important and that they had in spades.

Glider · 05-14-2005, 11:41 AM

Soren
I am not questioning the accuracy of the 108, I agree that it was a very accurate weapon. Its the ability of an average pilot to aim it accurately using basic sights against a small(ish) target that is manoevering. We may need to agree to disagree but I think that the average pilot would have a better chance with 6 x 0.5 which were better at a longer range ballistically anyway, than with a 30mm 108 which most people agree was essentially a shorter ranged weapon.

Soren · 05-14-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

but I think that the average pilot would have a better chance with 6 x 0.5 .

Sure he would have an easier time making a hit with the 6x0.50's, but it also toulk alot more of those hits to do any real damage. A single hit from the Mk108 would spell disaster for any Allied fighter, and at 300m the Mk108 was perfectly capable of hitting with every 10-20th round.

Glider · 05-14-2005, 11:53 AM

Soren
As I said I think its agree to disagree, both are good arguements.

Would anyone else like to comment on the merits of the two positions?

Soren · 05-14-2005, 12:28 PM

Ok Glider, we'll agree to disagree.

In any case the Germans found the Mk108 more than suitable for Fighter vs Fighter engagements, and therefore continued its use.

Udet · 05-14-2005, 01:34 PM

Krazikanuk:

You are krazy.

Luftlover? I do not think so. I will present you the opposite side of the comment you posted there: I hate bullshit, wherever it may come from.

I will elaborate a bit further and try to see if you can get the idea behind my posting:

The "Luftlover" you are referring to is DJ_Dalton. Whether you like it or not the guy made several real strong points; i can say non of those having a contrary view in here came close to shatter his comments.

Yes, he referred to the funny British testing of a G-6 (gondola equipped) fighter being compared to the Spitifre. What you forgot to mention is he DID SAY the test showed the contemporary Spitfire could not achieve a significant superiority over the gondola equipped G-6.

I am not dispute the gondolas implied drag and extra-weight. Sure, a Bf109 pilot who had flown a "standard" Gustav would feel the effect of the gondolas when being put in the cockpit of the G-6/R6.

The point is the G-10 made an improvement over the G-6. If the G-6/R6 (gondolas) could hold its own against the contemporary Spitfire, the G-10/R6 could be even more capable of doing so with the Spitfire or whatever enemy fighter in turn.

A "standard" or "clean" G-10 (no gondolas) could surpass the P-51 with ease.

Get the point now?

The guncamera I have showing gondola fitted Bf109s getting chased showed me beyond any reasonable doubt the Gustav fitted in this fashion was not at all an "easy prey".

Some got pounded and went down. There are others the USAAF pilots simply could not caught.

It would be like suggesting German pilots flying gondola equipped Bf109s were told before scrambling "guys, we have good news: your fighters are capable of chewing a heavy bomber, hunt the bombers. The bad news: if you get caught by enemy fighters in your gondola Gustav you will die."

It was not the Luftwaffe style of doing business.

DAVIDICUS · 05-14-2005, 02:39 PM

Soren said, "... and at 300m the Mk108 was perfectly capable of hitting with every 10-20th round."

Maybe if you were to sneak up on an unsuspecting P-51 but in a twisting turning dogfight, as here where both pilots are aware of their foe, involving longer range and deflection shooting, I am still having problems digesting your argument even though as you said, pilots prefereed their single Mk. 108 (which at longer ranges clearly could not be used in conjunction with the two machine guns).

The fact that the Germans continued the use of the Mk. 108 would also be consistent with its effectiveness against heavy bombers against which its effectiveness can not be denied. When your country is being pounded into the stone age by heavies, the fighters are merely an obstacle to the real threat you must engage.

Where have you learned of this German pilot preference and what exactly was said? I'm not challenging you but instead just unable in my mind to reconcile your position with the Mk. 108 performance specifications and what I have seen on gun camera film regarding the character of dogfights against an aware and evasive foe.

KraziKanuK · 05-14-2005, 05:08 PM

No Udet, it is not Dalton, though I do think he is a 'buddy' of the other.

As for the G-6/R6 & K-4 holding its own against a contemporary Spit:

Spit LF IX vs 109G
Conclusion
22.........The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in ALL respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet.

The nick 'gun boat' used by LW pilots for the gondola 109s was not a nick of endearment.

Soren · 05-14-2005, 05:30 PM

Udet Krazi is right, the Gondola equipped 109 lost both considderable maneuverability and performance over the cleanly equipped configuration 109. (Especially the maneuverability suffered !)

The extra weight of the Gondola's and its ammunition wich was situated in wing, wich wasnt a good thing, as a heavy loaded wing (Not talking wingloading), will not be as effective as a lightly loaded one. Also the extra drag and aerodynamic disturbance the gondola's add to the wing, isnt a good thing either.

Btw each Gondola weighed atleast 50kg, without ammunition ! Just the gun itself weighs 42.5kg, then add the aerodynamic-coating and the extra attachment-parts & joints.