PDA

View Full Version : Fw 20mm cannon question



stugumby
08-28-2009, 04:38 PM
In the a3-a5 series the outer wing guns had what type of ammo supply, drum or belt and where did the empties go, i noticed in game inner guns ejection and no mg ejection?

stugumby
08-28-2009, 04:38 PM
In the a3-a5 series the outer wing guns had what type of ammo supply, drum or belt and where did the empties go, i noticed in game inner guns ejection and no mg ejection?

Choctaw111
08-28-2009, 07:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stugumby:
In the a3-a5 series the outer wing guns had what type of ammo supply, drum or belt and where did the empties go, i noticed in game inner guns ejection and no mg ejection? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that the outer 20mm guns had a capacity each of 125 rounds in a belt.
The inner two in the wing roots had a capacity each of 250 rounds.
This info may be for the later versions equipped with the 151/20.
I am not sure if this info is accurate for the earlier models carrying the two outer MGFF guns.

TinyTim
08-28-2009, 08:17 PM
The outter 20mm cannons on Fw190A up to A-5 were MG-FF, drum fed. This cannon used 60 round drum, in later versions they were replaced with enlarged capacity 90 round drum, with which many if not all A-5s were equipped (this is not modelled in the sim, all MG-FF cannons in the sim have 60 round drums).

I'm not at home atm so I can't check the belting, but if memory serves me well the sequence was usually 4 rounds, one of them was a tracer, possibly an APIT, and one was a MinenGeschoss round, with the other two being a regular HE rounds.

The cannon that Choctaw is talking about is a regular Mg-151/20 (125 rounds, belt fed), but can only be found on later versions from A-6 to A-9.

megalopsuche
08-28-2009, 10:25 PM
Well, actually they were MG-FF/M. "M" is for the Minengeschoss shell.

stugumby
08-29-2009, 02:24 AM
hmm, so the bulge is from the drum under the wing, but where did the empties eject to? firing in game has shells only falling from 2 center slots, and no mg empties. Seems almost a waste to have heavy cannon and only 60rpg, then to have a field kit with dual cannon and no ammo in wing?

Erkki_M
08-29-2009, 04:23 AM
The in-game MG-FF\M has a belting of APIT-HE-HE-MG.

megalopsuche
08-29-2009, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stugumby:
hmm, so the bulge is from the drum under the wing, but where did the empties eject to? firing in game has shells only falling from 2 center slots, and no mg empties. Seems almost a waste to have heavy cannon and only 60rpg, then to have a field kit with dual cannon and no ammo in wing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's very likely the casings were retained in the wing.

Yes, it is kind of a waste. Those cannon not only have an extremely short clip, but they also have a low muzzle velocity. Combined the two outer cannon weigh a bit more than 50kg, which isn't a lot, but if you're not attacking bombers you're better off deleting them.

Xiolablu3
08-29-2009, 01:42 PM
Well 60rpg for a cannon in 1940-42 was a kinda average/normal loadout, so its not really a 'waste'.

Early Spitfire Vb's of 1941-42 had 60rpg, Me109E's of 1940-42 had 60rpg.

Only in 1942-43 did 100-150rpg and more become the 'norm'.

The FW190 just had very heavy armament load for 1941/42. Only the Typhoon really matched it as far as single engined fighters go. I forget how many RPG the early Typhoons carried.

Kettenhunde
08-29-2009, 09:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yes, it is kind of a waste. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compared to what? To put it in perspective, the MG-FF is lighter than the M2 LAW and packs 3 times the firepower.

The Minegeschoss rounds were considerably higher MV too than the other available rounds. At 700 M/sec and a shell weight of 92 grams the MG-FF(M) could easily cover the 300 Meters distance that was roughly the extent targeting technology of the day allowed with decent ballistics.

It might not have been such a dumb choice of aircraft weaponry after all.

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


The belting changed based on the target.

In the air superiority role, the load out was 3 Minegeschoss +1 Incendiary + 1 Armor Piercing Incendiary.

All the best,

Crumpp

megalopsuche
08-30-2009, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yes, it is kind of a waste. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compared to what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compared to the 2xMG151/20s, obviously.

Wildnoob
08-30-2009, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by megalopsuche:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yes, it is kind of a waste. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compared to what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compared to the 2xMG151/20s, obviously. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

someone correct me if I'm wrong please, but the MG-FF's wouldn't been used because the lack of MG-151's or to save the production of such gun per single aicraft who have started to be produced on the previos year due to the fact that the MG-FF was much more numerous in the LW arsenal back then?

Kettenhunde
08-30-2009, 10:08 AM
MG151/20 was the replacement for the MG-FF series.

Obviously they could not use something that did not exist yet.

All the best,

Crumpp

stugumby
08-30-2009, 12:33 PM
thats why im stumped/confused, delete the outer gun but then make a gun pod with 2 cannon, if they both have 60rpg or were those 2 belt fed? The pod dosnt look that big so if each has 60rpg etc?? doubling up increases weight and rate of fire for the drag effect of the pod and weight for each additional gun, so 2 more guns with ammo for a limited but effective killing burst against bombers etc. if one gun has belt feed from the wing and the other drum etc.

megalopsuche
08-31-2009, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
MG151/20 was the replacement for the MG-FF series.

Obviously they could not use something that did not exist yet.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, but I'm pretty sure the original issue was over 190s that had both the MG151/20 inboard and the MG-FF/M outboard.

Kettenhunde
09-01-2009, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> MG151/20 was the replacement for the MG-FF series.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My comment was a general statement on the history of the weapons not the airplane. You have now taken it out of that context and placed it into your one of your own making.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Right, but I'm pretty sure the original issue was over 190s that had both the MG151/20 inboard and the MG-FF/M outboard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the specifics of the airplane, you are looking at production models from the FW-190A2 on without considering the design limitations or the original design weapon systems.

The armament bays were originally designed for 2 cowl mounted MG17's, 2 wing root MG17's, and 2 outboard MGFF's.

It was easy to enlarge the fuselage weapon bay without modifying the wing for the installation of the MG151.

Installing an outboard MG151 bay required a redesign of the wing which did not take place until the FW-190A6.

All the best,

Crumpp

megalopsuche
09-01-2009, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
My comment was a general statement on the history of the weapons not the airplane. You have now taken it out of that context and placed it into your one of your own making. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pffft. What's with the high and mighty attitude? Look at what this thread has been about, and then ask yourself who's been making up their own context.

Kettenhunde
09-01-2009, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Pffft. What's with the high and mighty attitude? Look at what this thread has been about, and then ask yourself who's been making up their own context. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Congrats, you just made my ignored list.

WTE_Galway
09-01-2009, 07:45 PM
unlike in a game where optimal aircraft and armament are chosen much like suspension and tires are varied for every Grand Prix race ... in the real world where 1000's of production aircraft are in service and tens of thousands of tons of older munitions need to be used up ... changeovers are not instantaneous.

As an example check this video (USS Forrestal July 29th 1967),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chuiyXQKw3I

One of the contributing factors to the extent of the disaster was the old Korean war vintage 1000 lb bombs stockpiled for 15 years but still in use, which instantly exploded once the fire started.

megalopsuche
09-01-2009, 08:33 PM
Wow, he's a touchy fellow. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif Maybe it's all worth it because after getting in a huff he gave a great answer to wildnoob's question:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

The armament bays were originally designed for 2 cowl mounted MG17's, 2 wing root MG17's, and 2 outboard MGFF's....

Installing an outboard MG151 bay required a redesign of the wing which did not take place until the FW-190A6. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kettenhunde
09-02-2009, 04:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> changeovers are not instantaneous </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right that changeovers are not instantaneous.

From a weapon production standpoint changing armament is relatively quick.

T3 for example, the section responsible for the BMW801 production, took ~6 months to produce the 75% maintenance stock required to change over to the BMW801Q/S series. Weapons could be reach maintenance stocks in only a month or so. Weapons are easier to produce compare to engines and airframes.
The issue with the FW-190 armament was one of the physical design of the aircraft. WNr 0018 was the test bed for what became the standard armament layout of the production FW-190's. The fuselage was easy to modify but changing wing design is a much more difficult task.

The loads and aeroelasticity problems in wing design are simply much more complicated than the fuselage at the wing attachment point.

Thus the MGFF armament was retained. Now the engineer working on the Focke Wulf Bremen design team, had the foresight to create the conditions outboard wing armament upgrades were possible so that the design could grow to avoid premature obsolescent.

All the best,

Crumpp