PWND lol

Buzz you are so predictable

Salute

Its typical of people who don't have much logic in their comments, for them to try to fall back on semantics to bail themselves out. You can call the Mk 108 'Versatile' if you want, that won't make the weapon any better.

Here's what you said in reply to my first post in this thread:



In fact, you are the person who is wrong. My assertion that this weapon was quite severely affected by gravitational accleration due to the low velocity of the round is simple physics. No amount of blathering about 'experten' (who were a tiny proportion of the Luftwaffe) or short range firing positions will change the realities of that. In fact, in 1944 and 1945, when the Mk 108 saw most of its service, the vast majority of the Luftwaffe were "Nachwuchs" ('newgrowth') or poorly trained rookies. Your fantasy world where every Luftwaffe pilot was an expert and all Allied pilots flew straight and level to give the Germans easy closerange shots with their wunder Mk 108 did not exist. The only person who would seem to agree with your fantasies would be Goering, who would throw fits and call his Fighter pilots 'cowards' when they failed to shoot down all their opponents, insisting their weapons were perfect.

Bottom line: A pilot flying an aircraft equipped with a Mk 108 would have definite handicaps in attempting to hit a maneuvering target when compared to a pilot flying an aircraft equipped with a high velocity weapon. The reason, low velocity of the round.

That point is confirmed by both the page you linked and the Anthony Williams website which I linked, and in the quotes I linked in my previous posts.

As far as your assertion that only two of the Mineshells required the time delay fuse, that is wrong as well. In fact there are only 4 combat MG shells listed, (the rest are practice shells) and all four have the VC-70 fuse or an equivalent 'self delay' mechanism in the fuse which equips them. But its clear you didn't bother to read the material.

By the way, such shells would be even more in-effective if they did not penetrate, since they would explode after they had bounced off, not on impact.

I am sure you will respond with more excuses, but they won't change the facts. This is my last post on this subject.

Yes,it's absolutely clear.
As clear as your statement about the losing wing on Me109s you said recently.Remember?
Just Here
And then,some answers...here and there with this video.
Enormous.
Enough said about "who is wrong" and who "plays with words"...



Such kind words...Oh and Goering is now my friend,interesting
For sure,with such an impressive self-control,you surely tell the absolute truth.




...And .50 cal won the war.

BTW,from the "Type 4" MG shell paragraph,the author wrote "self-delay" instead of "self-destruct" => I.E. "Zerleger" is the german name given to the self destrucion mechanism.
If you had read my link carefuly,you'd notice that for the "Type 3 MG shell",we have the VC70 detonator that permitted a delayed explosion, but WITHOUT self destruct mechanism (ohne Zerleger).
But naturally you didn't notice this detail and immediatly accuse me to not read carefuly.



Yes sure,MK108 was known to be a very forgiving gun for its targets!

30 mm guntest on a Spitfire wing on ground.

I wonder why bombers aircrews called it the Pneumatic Hammer...Surely for the poetry of a forgiving gun



Hey but the debate was only beginning! Come back!
Talking about Me109 and German guns is rather interesting,especially with you.
So see you next time in another "Me109 lost its wings and its guns didn't exist" thread!

@+

That's valuable information.

The drop is approximately but reliably calculated thus: y=1/2*g*t*t ; t=x/v . x=100m; v=890m/s; g=9.8m/ss

The bullet drop of a .50 shell is about 6cm, and that of an MK108 about 18cm. However, there are two other factors that have to be taken into account: the size of the fighter aircraft as the target, and the gun barrel's elevation (to let the gun shoot slightly upwards) to compensate for the drop. The second factor makes your argument weak already, as is easily seen; and even the first factor, alone, speaks louder than the "triple distance" arguement - 18cm is a very small length compared with the hight of the target fighter's fusalage, which is nearly 2 metres. What does that mean? A disc 2 metres in diametre in front of a gun with an error of 20cm - nobody will ever miss the target disc if he knows to aim at the centre of the disc.

Some official documents sure won't hurt here:



taken from the weapons manual for a G6/U4

Well, four .50 caliber rounds hitting the same spot as a 40mm shell would cause roughly the same damage - and there in lies the rub. One has to hit at convergence.

However, two .50 caliber rounds that hit, even when greatly dispersed, do infinately more damage than a cannon round that misses!

The USAAC and USN/USMC used .50 caliber machineguns for a much more practical reason than "this damage versus that damage," however. The USA was making a crapload of .50 caliber rounds and machineguns, and it was common training for armorers to maintain and repair them.

One could send huge pallets of .50 cal rounds on ships and not a one would go to waste. What the air corps didn't need, the Infantry and Armor could use, and vice versa. No hold space on ships wasted on odd-caliber rounds - something very important when one was sending them to the other side of the Pacific Ocean.

I remember reading that the 3 gun 109 was very unpopular when it first entered service because the pilots saw it as 1 gun less but when they saw what the central cannon could do together with the increased rate of roll due to less weight in the wings they grew to like it very quickly. The advantages were diluted with the heavier G model though especially with its underwing cannon.

I could easily be wrong but I always understood that with increased action against bombers it was thought that it was better to get in a few heavy rounds as quickly as possible in passing fire rather than sit behind in a vulnerable position spraying smaller rounds.

By the way I thought this was a nice pic of the MK mounting.

PS I realise that the central gun changed through the F and G series....

... wouldn't hurt to do some more teing ingame, Buzz. Still I am absolutely convinced that bullet-drop is modelled in IL2 esp. in case of firing an Mk.108. I can't hit sh*t AFTER lining up in perfect six against level flying bombers. I score three hits throughout 6,5 sec. firing time. They drop, disperse heavily while the few rounds in the sweet spot give neat puffs in Mustang fuselages or cause non-catastrophic cooler-hits soothing you with foresights of three doomed enemy fighters outspeeding you in 5 min. runs easily.
I usually prefer slashing attacks which in case of the Mk108 has your oponent fly through the gap between the shells way too often - due to its low rof. You're never carrying enough ammo to repeat those slashes until you succeed in downing your opponent.

The MK108 is my least favorite large cal. weapon in game bar the 47mm built into the cobras.

Greets,
muffinstomp