PDA

View Full Version : are mk108 explosive shells?



raaaid
03-26-2006, 07:27 AM
i suppose so because they are devastating

raaaid
03-26-2006, 07:28 AM
if so how they manage to explode in impact and not when theyre released

VW-IceFire
03-26-2006, 07:32 AM
The big bright explosive flash when they impact on the ground or a target isn't big enough for you?

Yes its a high explosive shell. Filled with explosives. I believe most or all of the MK108 shells are actually thin walled so they are very potent.

I believe they have a proximity fuse (magnetic) but I could be making that up. I do know that they aimed for the shell to explode on contact with or inside of the target. That doesn't mean it always worked that way...a MK108 that passed all the way through and then exploded wouldn't be that devastating....not nearly as much as if it exploded on contact or better yet...inside.

Dean3238
03-26-2006, 07:42 AM
Yes its a high explosive shell. Filled with explosives.

Isn't that what defines a "cannon" vs an "MG" when it comes to aircraft weapons?

(Not being snotty, I honestly don't know, but it seems like it might be the case.)

Dean

VW-IceFire
03-26-2006, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Dean3238:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yes its a high explosive shell. Filled with explosives.

Isn't that what defines a "cannon" vs an "MG" when it comes to aircraft weapons?

(Not being snotty, I honestly don't know, but it seems like it might be the case.)

Dean </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No...thats mostly a size thing. Its really a stupid little thing as there is no set barrier where machine gun ends and cannon begins. Some cannons were originally machine guns...they just increased the size of the shell...so its really just a descriptor thats been made up.

Generally this means that anything at or below 15mm is considered a machine gun (i.e. the MG151/15 machine gun) and everything above is considered a cannon (i.e. the Hispano 20mm or the MG151/20 cannon). More to the point...explosive shells aren't required for these cannons...the Hispanos use a combination of HE and API rounds. The modern day M61A2 Vulcan cannon found on most American fighters (F-16, F-14, F-18, etc.) is, to my knowledge, a purely armor piercing round.

LEBillfish
03-26-2006, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dean3238:
Isn't that what defines a "cannon" vs an "MG" when it comes to aircraft weapons?
(Not being snotty, I honestly don't know, but it seems like it might be the case.)
Dean
No...thats mostly a size thing. Its really a stupid little thing as there is no set barrier where machine gun ends and cannon begins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sooooooo.........would that make most here single shot .22cal rifles?

VW-IceFire
03-26-2006, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dean3238:
Isn't that what defines a "cannon" vs an "MG" when it comes to aircraft weapons?
(Not being snotty, I honestly don't know, but it seems like it might be the case.)
Dean
No...thats mostly a size thing. Its really a stupid little thing as there is no set barrier where machine gun ends and cannon begins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sooooooo.........would that make most here single shot .22cal rifles? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Right...I think the difference with rifles is the barrel length in relation to the size of the shell. But this is off the top of my head...its still basically the same bloody thing.

LEBillfish
03-26-2006, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Right...I think the difference with rifles is the barrel length in relation to the size of the shell. But this is off the top of my head...its still basically the same bloody thing.

Ahh....so .22 single shot pistols, got it thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

VW-IceFire
03-26-2006, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Right...I think the difference with rifles is the barrel length in relation to the size of the shell. But this is off the top of my head...its still basically the same bloody thing.

Ahh....so .22 single shot pistols, got it thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lets just call them....mmmm potatoe guns. All of them.

20mm potatoe gun...same as .22 calibre potatoe gun. Savvy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

roybaty
03-26-2006, 08:56 AM
Hehehehe not meaning to hijack the thread, but did someone say tater canon? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://www.spudtech.com/content.asp?id=5

CD_kp84yb
03-26-2006, 09:18 AM
http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/weapons15.htm (http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Erobdebie/me163/weapons15.htm)

here you have the shells for the gun

http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html

and here the gun itself

regards

Dean3238
03-26-2006, 09:44 AM
No...thats mostly a size thing. Its really a stupid little thing as there is no set barrier where machine gun ends and cannon begins. Some cannons were originally machine guns...they just increased the size of the shell...so its really just a descriptor thats been made up.

Cool... learned something new. Sounds like a call some suit made in marketing.

Some things never change... "Yeah, its 'new and improved'" (Translation: We redid the box graphics.)

Dean

leitmotiv
03-26-2006, 10:06 AM
Even the humble .303 Browning carried a mix of armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive. The primary advantage of cannons was that larger sized explosive content was possible, hence, much greater damage. The big high velocity MK103 30mm used by the Germans (Go 229, Do 335) and the high velocity 37mm (Yak-9T) used by the Soviets were one shot kill weapons with good rates of fire which gave their aircraft stand-off capability. The MK108 had to be used within the range of the U.S. .50 cal which made it a less-than-optimum bomber killing weapon. Explosive shells are the big enemy of aircraft. The original rifle-caliber explosive shell was designed to blow holes in a zeppelin's skin and gas bags or tear up fabric on airplanes. WWII cannon shells were designed to smash aluminum skins or penetrate bomber armor. A quick fighter pass demanded weapons which could destroy heavily armored American bombers with a few hits. The Soviets used big cannon for one-shot fighter kills---the Yak-9T was a very effective fighter killer.

Max.Power
03-26-2006, 11:15 AM
yeah, the germans used some very specialized ammunition in their cannon belt loads called minengeschoss patrone- meaning mine shot shell. They were basically the maximum amount of explosive that could be fit into a shell and still have sufficient mass to be useful as a cannon round. I find that even the german 20mm loudouts with MG shells are extremely hard hitting. Much more-so than the allied cannons, but that just might be my experience.

VW-IceFire
03-26-2006, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Max.Power:
yeah, the germans used some very specialized ammunition in their cannon belt loads called minengeschoss patrone- meaning mine shot shell. They were basically the maximum amount of explosive that could be fit into a shell and still have sufficient mass to be useful as a cannon round. I find that even the german 20mm loudouts with MG shells are extremely hard hitting. Much more-so than the allied cannons, but that just might be my experience.
Until they fixed the MG151/20 loadout which was missing Mine shells up until very recently the MG151/20 was a popgun compared to the Hispano and ShVAK. Now the balance is far more even...the Hispano and MG151/20 are tied for first place in hitting power (there are differences but the end effect is similar) and the ShVAK and B-20 cannons following up just behind. The Type 99-II and Ho-5 after that. The bottom of the barel is the MG-FF/M and the Type 99-I.

Even the MG-FF/M hits pretty hard...it does have Mine shells so its pretty devastating in explosive effect but the muzzle velocity is very low.. its nowhere near as good for the kinetic ability that the Hispano and to lesser extent the other cannons have.

leitmotiv
03-26-2006, 11:28 AM
Completely agree on lethality of German guns, Max.Power. My ideal anti-B-17 weapon is a 110 with the belly pack 151s which allows it to buzz saw Fortresses from long range. FLYING GUNS: WWII by Williams and Gustin is the finest source on WWII aircraft guns I know about (they now have a WWI volume, too). Regarding guns, would add that the Polikarpovs' light machine gun was the finest light MG of the war (confirmed by Williams and Gustin), and the Soviet cannons were in the same class as the German cannon. Go Wulf hunting in a Yak-9T or UT, it's truly an enriching experience.

WB_Outlaw
03-26-2006, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Sooooooo.........would that make most here single shot .22cal rifles?

I'm a little confused by this question, what exactly are you asking BF?

Just for the record, the Germans did not develop proximity fuses during WW II. They only used impact or time delay fuses.

The proximity fuse developed by the U.S. during WW II was detonated by reflected radio waves (basically a very primitive radar) and was small enough to be used in a 5 inch AAA round.

--Outlaw.

Max.Power
03-26-2006, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Until they fixed the MG151/20 loadout which was missing Mine shells up until very recently the MG151/20 was a popgun compared to the Hispano and ShVAK. Now the balance is far more even...the Hispano and MG151/20 are tied for first place in hitting power (there are differences but the end effect is similar) and the ShVAK and B-20 cannons following up just behind. The Type 99-II and Ho-5 after that. The bottom of the barel is the MG-FF/M and the Type 99-I.

Even the MG-FF/M hits pretty hard...it does have Mine shells so its pretty devastating in explosive effect but the muzzle velocity is very low.. its nowhere near as good for the kinetic ability that the Hispano and to lesser extent the other cannons have.

Oh, I was playing back in those days, too. That was back when the mk108 had a use on the FW-190. I realise that the kinetic punch is not as much on the german guns, but it fits my style of playing... I am a boom and zoom coward, and in a pinch an energy fights- all on wonder-woman servers of course. Very high deflection angle shots with the 20mm MG shells allow glancing hits on the wing root to disable controls, destroy engine parts, start fires and wound the player http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

edit- not to mention remove control and flying surfaces http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I attribute some of this effect to the very high speeds I engage at. THis allows the shells to strike the enemy aircraft with a much greater frequency.

Tomas_W
03-26-2006, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The big high velocity MK103 30mm used by the Germans (Go 229, Do 335) and the high velocity 37mm (Yak-9T) used by the Soviets were one shot kill weapons with good rates of fire which gave their aircraft stand-off capability.

If you with "rates of fire" mean "number of rounds fired in a given amount of time" i would disagree, the Mk103 is listed as between 360-420rpm(rounds per minute)in most sources and the NS-37 is listed as 250rpm. Which are low rates of fire at least compared to the Hispano(600-700rpm),the MG 151/20(740rpm)and also the Mk108(600-660rpm).

Tomas_W
03-26-2006, 05:09 PM
Just for the sake of education;

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Fighterduck
03-27-2006, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/weapons15.htm (http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Erobdebie/me163/weapons15.htm)

here you have the shells for the gun

http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html

and here the gun itself


regards


my god those thing are huge! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
aren't there movies that show them in action?just curious

JG52Karaya-X
03-27-2006, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by Fighterduck:
my god those thing are huge! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
aren't there movies that show them in action?just curious

Go here:
http://www.pzg.biz/rzm/1944%20vol.%201/1944vol.1clip3.mov

Shows Bf109s, FW190s and I think Bf110s... the Zerst├┬Ârers with Mk108s and the FW190s with Mk103 (pay attention to the sound!)

Fighterduck
03-27-2006, 05:57 AM
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOH! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif....incredible!never saw and heard 103 and 108!Sounds terribly powerfull!

JG52Karaya-X
03-27-2006, 09:46 AM
I think (I'm not completely sure) that the weapons you can hear from the cockpit views are Mk108s and on the last 5-10 secs you can hear the Mk103s of a FW190A

Max.Power
03-27-2006, 04:08 PM
All of those sounds were added after the fact to add excitement. Those sounds could have been anything. By accounts of american bomber crews, I hear that the mk108 sounded like a pneumatic hammer.

WB_Outlaw
03-28-2006, 12:44 PM
Synchro-recording of audio back then was very difficult. I think Copala (sp?) did a B-17 documentary during the war in which he insisted on using synched audio but I'm not sure.

--Outlaw.

Max.Power
03-29-2006, 02:07 AM
Yeah, this video is proof positive of that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's just some gunfire sounds with some footage... and random, very odd, high speed pass effects for no reason. The audio sync in that film is terrible. I severly doubt that those films had any audio track at all when they were filmed.

Tully__
03-29-2006, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Tomas_W:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The big high velocity MK103 30mm used by the Germans (Go 229, Do 335) and the high velocity 37mm (Yak-9T) used by the Soviets were one shot kill weapons with good rates of fire which gave their aircraft stand-off capability.

If you with "rates of fire" mean "number of rounds fired in a given amount of time" i would disagree, the Mk103 is listed as between 360-420rpm(rounds per minute)in most sources and the NS-37 is listed as 250rpm. Which are low rates of fire at least compared to the Hispano(600-700rpm),the MG 151/20(740rpm)and also the Mk108(600-660rpm). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are nevertheless fairly high rates of fire for the calibre of the weapon and the size of the cartridge.

leitmotiv
03-29-2006, 06:19 PM
Thank you, Tully, I was just about to post the same. Compared to the ferocious MG151 everything except the Soviet 20/23mm cannons looked mediocre. The MK108 might have had a greater rate of fire but it had a low muzzle velocity which reduced its penetration (no matter with its monster HE content) and range; thus, forcing the aircraft which used it to close to the effective range of U.S. bomber guns. As a gun to blast an opposing fighter at point-blank range, it was supreme. Use a 109K with the MK108 against a U.S. bomber and then try out the Do 335 or Go 229 with their MK103 fit up---night and day. The MK103 allows you to kill out of .50 cal range. The Soviets learned the advantage of large cannon and fitted them to all their post-war fighters. The only catch to monster guns over 30mm is the need for a very good aim because you can't hose with them, and they kick like a herd of mules.

Blottogg
03-30-2006, 11:07 PM
Is it just me, or does the Mk108 look a lot like the MK19 automatic grenade launcher?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mk19.htm

With it's low muzzle velocity, short barrel, non-tapered shell casing, and thin-walled shell, I tend to think of the Mk108 as a grenade launcher more than a cannon in any case.

Dtools4fools
03-31-2006, 03:01 AM
Mk 108 was not designed for penetration at all. It was designed all around the Mienengeschoss; there was incedary ammo as well but no AP ammo.
Minenegeschos (MI) is designed not to explode on impact on skin of aircraft but rather inside to do max damage.
64kg weight
(0.50-38kg; 151-42kg; Hispano 42-50kg-different barrel lenght); Mk 108-64kg; Mk 103-146kg)

Mk 103 with higher velocity had AP ammo as well. Much heavier gun than Mk 108.

leitmotiv
03-31-2006, 03:29 AM
Ker-blam!!!!!!

squid1988
04-01-2006, 01:51 PM
i heard on the telly once that a shell from a mk108 could kill a heavy bomber such as a lancaster or a B17 with a single round


I don't know if that is true but that would scare me if I was in a bomber http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Tully__
04-01-2006, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by squid1988:
i heard on the telly once that a shell from a mk108 could kill a heavy bomber such as a lancaster or a B17 with a single round


I don't know if that is true but that would scare me if I was in a bomber http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Could, if it hit in the right place and at the right angle. Certainly not a guaranteed kill one shot every time though.

CD_kp84yb
04-02-2006, 01:50 AM
The 3cm shell for the Mk108 (the same shells + the AP were used in the 103) came in the following flavours Minengeschoss and Brenngranate with tracer or without.

If you go to the link i gave u see granates with the word Ubung in it, that is exercise ammo. not the one used in combat.
Now a 3cm minengeschoss couldnt penetrate armoured windshields nor other armour plating in a plane, so you have to aim at the wings( IN rl), the Minenshell is thinwalled and rely's on blast only, the blast will blow away the plating of a wing stabilo ,so when you hit a big fu****e (relativ) of a B17 its a big boom inside and thats it (not much shrapnell),

The brenngranate was made to start a fire. it was more armour penetrating (forget armoured vehicles).

Now i think we have AP rounds in our 108 belting wich is not correct. but we dont have selfdestructing fuses also (gameplay is effected when those shell explode so i dont miss it)

Now the 108 could not take out a bomber with 1 round it is no 88mm shell you need alot more. ah some ppl state it takes 5 shells in average.
That is atleast 5 or more shells in the correct spot not some random hits.

regards