Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message ,
Ctenos writes
Is there a consistent basis for this designation in aircraft armament?

Not really. "Machine guns" traditionally went up to 12.7mm or 13.2mm,
"cannon" were 20mm and up, and there was sort of a grey area in between:
notably the Soviet 14.5mm and German 15mm weapons.

The Soviets started with an anti-tank rifle and used its ammunition for
a Really Heavy Machine Gun; the Germans made a 15mm weapon, then decided
that it would be better necked out to 20mm and firing bigger rounds with
more payload.

I believe the MG151/15 and MG151/20 were designed at the same time with the
same cartridge. The 15mm MG151/15 has a proportionatly longer barrel than
the MG151/20 to exploit the hot gases appropriatly and achieved a much
higher muzzle velocity. It had ballistics better than the US 50 caliber
with an explosive shell to boot. Pilots who used it in the early Me 109F
liked it because of its great accuracy and range. It lacked enough of an
explosive filling to damage the heavy bombers the Germans were encountering
so they had to resort to larger caliber weapons with lower muzzle
velocities. It was simply to hard to get enough hits to get a heavy down.
They needed about 20 hits of 20mm as it is.

The designation MG means "MachineGewher" or machine gun. It seems that
this ended at about 20mm
The designation MK means "MachineKanone" or machine canon. It seems this
started at about 30mm eg Mk 103 and Mk 108 which were the high and low
velocity 30 mm guns used by the Luwftwaffe. They regarded the Mk 108 as
firing 'mines'. They even had a hydrostatic fuse to detonate within the
fuel tank.
Only 3 hits were required to brring down a 4 engined heavy bomber and even a
P47 couldn't survive more than a hit or two. (which made the Me 109 so
deady if it got to within 200m) http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html

At some point, around 50mm the designation changed the BK (Bord Kanon)
sometimes appeared. Believe it or not the Germans were planing to arm
their fighters with the 55mm Mk 112. It was a scaled up Mk 108. It was
actualy quite a feasigle weapon calculated to require only 1 hit. It was
low velocity but the shear size of the shell gave it reasonable ballistics.

There was also PAK (Panzer Abwher Kanone) literaly (tank anti canon) and
FLAK (Flugzeug Abwher Kanone) literaly (Flyingthing anti gun). FLAK has
ofcourse entered the english language.


(Though they called both MG151/15 and MG151/20 'machine
guns', as well as the 20mm MG/FF, further muddying the waters)


The MG/FF was a liscence or import of the Swiss Oerlikon 20mm used by both
allies and germans. It was recoil opperated and had a nice heavy shell but
its cadence and velocity was relative low. British AAA used a modified
version with higher velocity and even lower cadence (450rpm). It was
however simple, compact and reliable and it fitted into the Me 109s wing.
The Much Bigger compressed air opperated Mauser (known as the jack hammer
becuase of its sound to the allies) had to be slung under the 109s wings
becuase of the slats.


In terms of aircraft armament, it's gone away because 20mm is low-end
for fast-jet armament. Meanwhile, the old rule of thumb that you
couldn't get a useful explosive round in less than 20mm has been
overturned by Raufoss and their 12.7mm multipurpose round.

What makes this round supposedly effective? New more powerfull explosives?
Minaturised fuses?

During the Korean war Sabre pilots often observed their 50 caliber rounds
bouncing of Migs. The combination of extended ranges and thicker metal
skins meant that the standard 50 caliber round lacked the punch needed.



Basically, pick a position you like and stick to it




--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"The" == The Enlightenment writes:
The fuse to detonate within the fuel tank. Only 3 hits were
The required to brring down a 4 engined heavy bomber and even a
The P47 couldn't survive more than a hit or two. (which made the
The Me 109 so deady if it got to within 200m)

As loing as it was _behind_ the P-47 at the time g

The At some point, around 50mm the designation changed the BK
The (Bord Kanon) sometimes appeared. Believe it or not the
The Germans were planing to arm their fighters with the 55mm Mk
The 112. It was a scaled up Mk 108. It was actualy quite a
The feasigle weapon calculated to require only 1 hit. It was low
The velocity but the shear size of the shell gave it reasonable
The ballistics.

I suppose much like the vaunted 18" guns on Furious. Only one gun,
only need one hit. But one shot also takes out the carrier
aircraft, rattle rattle splat. Sorry, I couldn't resist, hard day
at work...

(PS The Japanese pilots carried swords for really close-range work
- *kathwap* there goes the enemy's aerial wire, *thwakaaa* there
goes the venturi, *bong bong bong* sound of hilt on the canopy).

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

In article , The
Enlightenment writes

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

Big SNIP

The designation MG means "MachineGewher" or machine gun. It seems that
this ended at about 20mm
The designation MK means "MachineKanone" or machine canon. It seems this
started at about 30mm eg Mk 103 and Mk 108 which were the high and low
velocity 30 mm guns used by the Luwftwaffe. They regarded the Mk 108 as
firing 'mines'. They even had a hydrostatic fuse to detonate within the
fuel tank.

How on earth did that work, given the inevitable cavitation in the body
of the fuel as the projectile passed through?

Only 3 hits were required to brring down a 4 engined heavy bomber and even a
P47 couldn't survive more than a hit or two. (which made the Me 109 so
deady if it got to within 200m) http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html


N'other SNIP

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:14:56 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
wrote:



How on earth did that work, given the inevitable cavitation in the body
of the fuel as the projectile passed through?


Our nazi loving chum is emitting yet more uninformed bull****.


greg

--
Es ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein

Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?
From: "The Enlightenment"
Date: 8/22/2004 10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



Only 3 hits were required to brring down a 4 engined heavy bomber and even a
P47 couldn't survive more than a hit or two. (which made the Me 109 so
deady if it got to within 200m) http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html


During our training in WW II the number of hits to bring down any plane was a
point of important study for us. Bringing down a heavy bomber with three hits
regardless of where it was hit is in itself an unreasonable concept. Studies
showed that an ME 109 would have to put almost 75 hits into a B-17 to bring it
down. The most vulnerable enemy fighter was the Jap zero (after the JU 87) and
it needed 12 hite to bring it down.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?
From: "The Enlightenment"
Date: 8/22/2004 10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



Only 3 hits were required to brring down a 4 engined heavy bomber and
even a
P47 couldn't survive more than a hit or two. (which made the Me 109 so
deady if it got to within 200m)
http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html


During our training in WW II the number of hits to bring down any plane
was a
point of important study for us. Bringing down a heavy bomber with three
hits
regardless of where it was hit is in itself an unreasonable concept.
Studies
showed that an ME 109 would have to put almost 75 hits into a B-17 to
bring it
down. The most vulnerable enemy fighter was the Jap zero (after the JU
87) and
it needed 12 hite to bring it down.


That kinda dependson what its hit with and where its hit doesnt it !

The German jet fighters carried a 30mm cannon with rather more
stopping power than the .50 calibre machine guns carried
by US aircraft.

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 8/23/2004 7:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?
From: "The Enlightenment"
Date: 8/22/2004 10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



Only 3 hits were required to brring down a 4 engined heavy bomber and
even a
P47 couldn't survive more than a hit or two. (which made the Me 109 so
deady if it got to within 200m)
http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html


During our training in WW II the number of hits to bring down any plane
was a
point of important study for us. Bringing down a heavy bomber with three
hits
regardless of where it was hit is in itself an unreasonable concept.
Studies
showed that an ME 109 would have to put almost 75 hits into a B-17 to
bring it
down. The most vulnerable enemy fighter was the Jap zero (after the JU
87) and
it needed 12 hite to bring it down.


That kinda dependson what its hit with and where its hit doesnt it !

The German jet fighters carried a 30mm cannon with rather more
stopping power than the .50 calibre machine guns carried
by US aircraft.

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---


Y'think maybe the guys doing the surveys of battle damage were aware of that?
I'll bet they might have been. If you know it, I guess they may have known it
as well. Y'think so?





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?


Y'think maybe the guys doing the surveys of battle damage were aware of
that?

I'm sure they were. It was after all the reason the germans
uprated the cannon fit.

I'll bet they might have been. If you know it, I guess they may have known
it
as well. Y'think so?

Sure. Doesnt alter the fact that a 30mm cannon can blow a hole
the size of your fist in a B-17 and its not going to take
too many of those before its in deep ****.

Based on the damage done to downed B-17's the Luftwaffe estimated
that it took an average of 20 hits from the 20mm cannon to destroy a
B-17 but as few as 3 hits from the 30mm.

see

http://www.afa.org/magazine/1993/0993Against.asp

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 8/23/2004 8:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?


Y'think maybe the guys doing the surveys of battle damage were aware of
that?

I'm sure they were. It was after all the reason the germans
uprated the cannon fit.

I'll bet they might have been. If you know it, I guess they may have known
it
as well. Y'think so?

Sure. Doesnt alter the fact that a 30mm cannon can blow a hole
the size of your fist in a B-17 and its not going to take
too many of those before its in deep ****.

Based on the damage done to downed B-17's the Luftwaffe estimated
that it took an average of 20 hits from the 20mm cannon to destroy a
B-17 but as few as 3 hits from the 30mm.

see

http://www.afa.org/magazine/1993/0993Against.asp

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---


We took more hits than that on Willie the Wolf and I am still here to tell
about it.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 8/23/2004 8:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?


Y'think maybe the guys doing the surveys of battle damage were aware of
that?

I'm sure they were. It was after all the reason the germans
uprated the cannon fit.

I'll bet they might have been. If you know it, I guess they may have
known
it
as well. Y'think so?

Sure. Doesnt alter the fact that a 30mm cannon can blow a hole
the size of your fist in a B-17 and its not going to take
too many of those before its in deep ****.

Based on the damage done to downed B-17's the Luftwaffe estimated
that it took an average of 20 hits from the 20mm cannon to destroy a
B-17 but as few as 3 hits from the 30mm.

see

http://www.afa.org/magazine/1993/0993Against.asp

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via
Encryption
=---


We took more hits than that on Willie the Wolf and I am still here to tell
about it.

Well, you have told us a lot of other crap that we have not bought into,
either, so what's new? How many 30mm hits did you take? Heck, you have also
told us your unit *never* missed its assigned target, which is of course
patently false, as *no* unit could honestly make that claim during WWII
(proven by the fact that your unit was NOT recognized as having the best
bombing accuracy amongst B-26 units in the ETO, and the one that *was*
acknowledged having around five or so of their assigned targets that they
did not hit).

Brooks



Arthur Kramer