PDA

View Full Version : Cannon, Machine Guns and Ammunition, by Anthony G. Williams


Richard T Eger
04-22-2001, 08:40 PM
The address for this website is:

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

Discussion of the contents can be found on the "References and Reference Materials" forum under the topic '"Rapid Fire", by Anthony G. Williams'.

Regards,
Richard

[This message has been edited by Richard T Eger (edited 22 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Richard T Eger (edited 10 December 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Richard T Eger (edited 10 March 2002).]

Richard T Eger
01-17-2003, 03:10 PM
From 12 O'Clock High!:

Tony Williams
Ideal WW2 fighter armament
Tue Nov 19 22:05:16 2002
195.149.37.239

A while ago there was a thread running on my discussion forum on the selection of "ideal" cartridges, guns and mountings for WW2 fighter aircraft. It's now disappeared but I have modified and extended the article, and posted it on my website at: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ideal.htm

I have also been playing with image software and "created" the ammo…

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Richard T Eger
01-17-2003, 03:10 PM
From 12 O'Clock High!:

Tony Williams
WW2 fighter gun effectiveness
Wed Nov 27 19:42:28 2002
195.149.37.103

I have assembled a comparative analysis of the relative effectiveness of WW2 fighter guns and ammunition. See:

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

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Richard T Eger
01-20-2003, 12:25 AM
From 12 O'Clock High!:

Tony Williams
WW2 Fighter Gn analysis amended
Mon Dec 2 21:02:05 2002
195.149.37.113

I've modified the article, to take account of:

Corrections to the ShVAK/B-20 ballistic data,

Amendments to the power rating of some cartridges (mainly German) to take account of more accurate ammunition load data,

More precise calculations for HMG power ratings,

Arguments concerning the importance of velocity and range, and why ammunition weights aren't included.

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

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Richard T Eger
02-27-2003, 01:14 PM
From 12 O'Clock High!:

Tony Williams
WW2 Fighter Armament
Tue Jan 7 21:41:00 2003
195.149.37.217

The WW2 Fighter Gun Effectiveness article on my website has now been revamped and extended with input from Emmanuel Gustin, to include comparisons between the effectiveness of the armament of typical WW2 fighters. See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Richard T Eger
02-27-2003, 01:15 PM
From TOCH!:

Vinnie O
I use different formulae
Fri Jan 10 15:56:40 2003
204.108.8.5

Tony,

I guess that I should just start debating this on the other website, but I think I've given more thought to my formulae and that they produce more accurate ratings for guns.

In particular, my calculations are "worked backwards" from recorded examples of heavily damaged aircraft, and I believe that my ratings track well with observed lethality.

I'm cleaning up a version of my spreadsheet, which I will then send on to you. I'll also try to write out a discussion of the calculations and the logic behind the various factors.

Vince O'Mahony

Richard T Eger
04-20-2003, 03:54 PM
From 12 O'Clock High!:

Tony Williams
New book - aircraft armament
Sun Mar 9 06:11:43 2003
195.149.37.34

If the moderators will forgive a relevant advert, a new book by Emmanuel Gustin and myself has now been published by Airlife Books. See: http://www.airlifebooks.com/airlife/book.php3?1045658204

It includes descriptions, illustrations and data tables concerning guns, ammunition and gun installations in aircraft.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

(As many of you may now know, Airlife has gone into receivership. I searched around for further information, and, fortunately, it looks like both the book will still be available and that Airlife has been bought up by Crowood. This information comes through Tony Williams:

'"Flying Guns World War II, Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45", by Anthony G. Williams and Emmanuel Gustin, c. 2003. Published by Airlife. Hardcover, 336 pages. ISBN 1 84037 227 3.

Flying Guns World War II became available in bookshops in March 2003. You may have heard that our publisher, Airlife Publishing, went in administrative receivership in the same month, but we have been assured that volume 1 of Flying Guns was still distributed and is being sold normally. It has now been announced that Crowood Press ( http://www.crowoodpress.co.uk/ ) has acquired Airlife.

Flying Guns World War II will also be available from Amazon, Amazon UK and Barnes & Noble, but these booksellers do not yet list the book as available on their website. Curiously enough, we have heard that Amazon UK is delivering the book anyway, so presumably they have not yet updated their database.

It is our intent to follow this book with two more volumes. The second book will discuss aircraft armament during World War I and its aftermath, up to 1933, and the third book in the series will of course cover the post-war period. Tentative publications dates were September 2003 and March 2004, but obviously these hang in the balance now. We await news on the fate of Airlife Publishing.

Tony Williams created a website for his earlier book on heavy automatic weapons, Rapid Fire ( http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ ). Here will be the site for Flying Guns, where you can find a detailed table of contents ( http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/volume1/content.html ) and description of the book (with a few sample pages), as well as a list of amendments and additions ( http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/volume1/amendments.html ) to the book, whenever we find new data or interesting information, or discover errors.

Writing this book has made us well aware that there are still many unanswered questions, and if you have comments, suggestions, criticisms, or an interesting story to tell, you are invited to join the Military Guns and Ammunition forum ( http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/" ). You can also reach the authors by e-mail at Emmanuel.Gustin@skynet.be and Tony.Williams@quarry.nildram.co.uk.'

Regards,
Richard)

Richard T Eger
04-20-2003, 03:54 PM
From TOCH!:

Alex Martin
Congratulations to both of you (nm)
Mon Mar 10 01:48:46 2003
64.7.166.81

Richard T Eger
04-20-2003, 03:55 PM
From TOCH!:

Tony Williams
Thanks, I hope it was worth it! (nm) (nm)
Mon Mar 10 05:06:23 2003
195.149.37.147

Richard T Eger
04-20-2003, 03:56 PM
From TOCH!:

David Hazel
Pre-Ordered on Amazon
Mon Mar 10 16:44:09 2003
129.42.208.140

Tony,

Congratulations and can't wait to get my copy.

For those who need a link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1840373962/qid%3D1047314329/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-8718092-2339023

Cheers,
David

Richard T Eger
04-20-2003, 06:51 PM
From 12 O'Clock High!:

andy barnett
Fw 190 Mk108 fit
Mon Mar 10 05:09:09 2003
210.48.24.139

Hi
what was preventing Mk 108's being fitted into Fw190 wing root bays ? IIRC the Mk108 was electricly triggered like the Mg151/20 so sync could have been solved. The weapons were fitted outboard easily enough. any ideas ??

andyb

Richard T Eger
04-20-2003, 06:52 PM
From TOCH!:

Michael
FW 190 MK 108
Mon Mar 10 06:22:12 2003
208.8.222.114

The MK 108 could not be synchronized, even with
electric ignition, because it was a blowback design;
to be precise, an advanced primer ignition blowback.

Simply put, it was impossible to predict with sufficient
precision when a shell would be fired: the cartridges were
actually moving forward with the heavy bolt when triggered.

To make matters more complicated, the bigger the caliber of
a gun, the more variety there seems to be in the time between
the primer going off, and the shell leaving the muzzle.

This has to do with the larger amount of powder being burned,
and the heavier weights of the gun parts and ammo moving
about.

You'll find much more information (with illustrations) on
Tony William's "Autogun" pages. You can also ask him
questions directly in his "Autogun" Forum at Delphi.

His newest book on airplane armaments in WW2 ("Flying Guns")
will be available in May -- highly recommended. It was
written in collaboration with Emmanuel Gustin, who is also
an expert on the subject. His webpages are called "Fighter
Guns" and deal extensively with WW2 weapons.
Very interesting reading, and also lots of historical images.

Richard T Eger
04-28-2003, 12:56 PM
From 12 O'Clock High!:

Tony Williams
Oerlikon FFL aircraft cannon
Fri Mar 21 07:17:49 2003
149.170.39.36

I have posted a new article on my website, about the Oerlikon FFL 20mm aircraft cannon. See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/OeFFL.htm

My main index page has also been updated and includes a link to Emmanuel Gustin's summary of 'Flying Guns: WW2'

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Richard T Eger
04-28-2003, 12:57 PM
From TOCH!:

Vinnie O
And the FFM?
Sun Mar 23 15:12:35 2003
68.50.200.226

From reading your first book I assume that most of what is written about the FF is actually about the FFM.

The FF was not actually used by anyone, yes? At least after a couple Bf-109 prototype installations.

Richard T Eger
04-28-2003, 12:58 PM
From TOCH!:

Tony Williams
FF and FFM
Sun Mar 23 21:39:57 2003
195.112.47.191

The MG-FF was installed in wing mountings on the Bf 109E-3, and in the Bf 110 until the C-3 version. The FFM took over after that, and it is probable that FFs were converted to FFM standard fairly soon afterwards, as the ammo wasn't interchangeable.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Richard T Eger
05-07-2003, 11:21 AM
From 12 O'Clock High!:

Tony Williams
Tankbusters: Airborne Anti-tank
Thu Mar 27 20:45:56 2003
195.149.0.18

I have posted an article describing the various airborne anti-tank guns and their performance on my website at: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Richard T Eger
05-07-2003, 11:30 AM
From TOCH!:

Dénes Bernád
"Hs 129 was (...) the most effective of all anti-tank a/c"
Fri Mar 28 21:11:37 2003
204.101.53.233

Tony Williams wrote in his mentioned study: "the Hs 129 was (...) probably the most effective of all the anti-tank aircraft (...)".

I am glad the Author reached the same conclusion I did, while I was researching this aircraft type's career for my book commissioned by Squadron/Signal.

He further writes: "[the Hs 129] had a low performance and was helpless against enemy fighters, not even having the benefit of a rear gunner."

Here I respectfully disagree with the Author.
While talking to a couple of surviving Hs 129 veteran pilots, my impression was that the type was very manoeuvrable and could be more than a match to most Soviet fighters. In fact, several air victories were achieved by Hs 129 pilots, their victims included fighter planes. Although the G&R 14N radial engines were somewhat weak, they powered adequately the not very heavy airframe. Therefore, although there was indeed room for improvements, mostly regarding the powerplants, I would certainly not categorise the Hs 129 as "helpless against enemy fighters". The best proof is the low loss rate per the number of combat sorties, much lower then, for example, for the Il-2 Shturmovik’s.

As for the benefit of a rear gunner, the pros and cons are debatable. Certainly, rear defense and, mainly, an added pair of eyes scouting the rear area, would have been beneficial. However, the trade-off would have been added weight (not mentioning another lost life in case the aircraft was destroyed). A fully loaded gunner, including additional armour, seat, weapons, etc., would have added at least 200-250 kg to the overall weight, dramatically reducing the engine power/weight ratio, as well as range. Moreover, taking into consideration that the main threat to the Hs 129 was not enemy fighters, but rather small and medium Flak, it can be ascertained that the added rear gunner would not have increased significantly the aircraft type's survivability, therefore the benefit of a rear gunner would be very limited, indeed.
The Henschel Flugzeugwerke's design team probably reached the same conclusion when they decided to drop a second crewmember in the initial stages of design.

Dénes

Richard T Eger
05-07-2003, 11:31 AM
From TOCH!:

Tony Williams
Hs 129
Fri Mar 28 21:24:55 2003
195.112.47.125

I agree with you that the Hs 129 was too small for the carrying of a rear gunner to be cost-effective; my point was simply that if you are in a plane which is much slower than enemy fighters, it is very useful to have a rear gunner to keep a look-out and provide some deterrent fire.

I don't doubt that the Hs 129 was manoeuvrable, in fact many slow but agile planes proved difficult for fast interceptors to deal with, provided that they were skilfully flown. Other things being equal, though, the fast plane has most of the advantages and will usually prevail. That's why fighters were steadily developed in performance throughout the war, to the detriment of their handling.

My comment may have been a bit harsh, but I was really comparing the self-defensive abilities of the Hs 129 with that of fighter-bombers like the Fw 190 or P-47.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Richard T Eger
05-11-2003, 02:39 PM
From 12 O'Clock High!:

Tony Williams
Tankbusters revisited
Fri Apr 11 03:00:49 2003
195.149.0.85

I have amended the article to include more analysis of the aircraft.

See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Richard T Eger
12-20-2003, 11:28 AM
From 12 O'Clock High!:

Bob
No Subject
Sun Nov 23 20:22:55 2003
207.94.48.136

What type of cannons were mounted under the Stuka for anti-tank operations on the Eastern Front? Can someone help?

Thanks.

Richard T Eger
12-20-2003, 11:29 AM
From TOCH!:

Dave
Cannons
Mon Nov 24 05:19:46 2003
210.55.33.82

A pair of detachable 37mm Flak 18s with 12 rounds per gun.
Dave

Richard T Eger
12-20-2003, 11:31 AM
From TOCH!:

Tony Williams
See...
Mon Nov 24 21:33:10 2003
62.3.225.35

...this article for details of the types and performance of airborne anti-tank guns of WW2: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

(Tony's article is entitled:

"TANKBUSTERS: AIRBORNE ANTI-TANK GUNS IN WW2"

Regards,
Richard)

Richard T Eger
12-20-2003, 11:32 AM
From TOCH!:

Anonymous
Re: Cannons
Wed Dec 3 18:44:20 2003
66.202.87.42

Thank you.