WWII German Mk-108 30mm Auto-Cannon Combat Effectiveness Against US Bombers and Fighters
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2024
- The intent of this video is to review the impact the of the Germans adopting the mk-108 30mm autocannons as the preferred WWII bomber interceptor armament. As WWII progressed the Germans continually up sized their bomber interceptor armament to combat the US (B-17 and B-24) and British heavy bombers. Combat data showed it only took 3 to 5 Mk-108 30mm autocannon rounds to destroy a US bomber, if they could get close enough for the cannons to be effective.
The companion 20mm Video is here:
• The devastating effect... - Наука та технологія
You're providing WW2 history technical nerds with a product no one else seems to be doing. Great work!
The only other person i can think of who goes as in-depth would be Greg's airplanes and automobiles tbh
The channel 'UK Aircraft Explored' does videos similar to this channel, but on U.K. wartime airplanes.
Lol was gonna say exactly like the other response: then you must not know Greg airplanes's channel. Best nerdy WW2 plane channel. Awesome content!
as a young man I Had the HONOR to Know the Men that did this! I was, and am Interested! some of these men Only told me, most did? Why? "I Knew!" what, were, when, and why, with how much! I suspect EVERY word was 100% TRUTH! and censored/diluted a bit for my young ears and mind.
I'd also suggest "Greg's airplanes and automobiles" and "UK Aircraft Explored".
There are some others, like search for a series including "A4 / V2 Rocket in detail: Turbopump"
Excellent video 👌🏻👍🏻
The chart with the incredibly low numbers of planes damaged by 30mm projectiles is a textbook example of survivors bias - what these low numbers actually mean is that it was next to impossible to return home if you'd been hit by one of these bullets...
Indeed, his last sentence while showing the chart, stating that one should consider the fact that the report was based on returning planes, not only is underlined by your comment, but also must add, made my engineering-mode brain briefly move away from the technical presentation, by feeling some quite relevant shivers in the spinal area. Cheers.
@@Leeeeegion At that altitude a hit would have obviously been fatal. I must admit that I don't know what the most common altitude for a bomber interception in WWII was - I guess that would depend on where the bombers were intercepted: En route or on their final approach...
But the tests shown in the video where conducted at ground level and even there it's hard to believe that *anyone* could survive a hit unless their guardian angel did *serious* overtime 😉
@@Leeeeegion I believe m'friend that in WWII there was no pressurization for B-17's, due to the open sides for the belt gunners, the accessible bomb bay, etc.
I do know about certain fighters being pressurized, but nothing regarding Brit bombers, or the B-24. Cheers!
@@Leeeeegion most WWII bombers were not pressurized (B-17, B-24, Lancaster, etc.), B-29 was the first one fully pressurized
@@hansvonmannschaft9062 Much appreciated - THX 🤗👍🏻
Edit: Already knew that one: The Operations Room is hands down one of the best channels in this genre- if not *the* best!
If you haven't already seen it make sure to watch their recent series about Iwo Jima and look out for the one about the Battle of the Bulge starting this weekend 👌🏻
My grandfather used the Mk.108 in his 109 K4,shooting, the whole little 109 was skaking, but the excellent ammo did the job. He said, what you hit went down,no matter how supposed to be sturdy. His best was 4 P47 in March 45 near Leipzig, chasing civilians...
The mother of a friend of mine was a little girl in Germany at the end of the war, and she said one day she was going home with a glass jar of milk and an airplane flew over and strafed them, and it was just a bunch of civilians on the road. She said all that she knew about it was that it had two tails, meaning that it had to be a P38 lightning. General Curtis LeMay was quoted as saying, "It's a good thing that we won the war, or we would all be hanged for war crimes."
All sides commited crimes. The Allies are No exception. Human Nature.
@@stubi1103 Immernoch nichts im Vergleich zu dem, was die Deutschen und die Japaner im Krieg so getrieben haben.
Die Opferrolle darf man sich hier unter keinen Umständen anmaßen.
@@stubi1103 Doch.
Nazi sympathizers I will report you to the German government to be re educated
Superb well-organized video that illustrates how lethal the Mk-108 really was. I was really impressed with the British testing against different types of aircraft. Its amazing what one single round could do.
Ami loves 50cal Mg from Ww 1.
That would be handy in car to clear caravan pullers slowing in front.
Yes, I wonder how well a Wellington would have stood up to a fuselage hit with it's complex but rigid geodesic framing.
-The MK 108 round was certainly deadly but the low muzzle velocity made it necessary to get quite close to the Bomber, which of course was dangerous. The wake turbulence of a US bomber formation was very high and could make it very difficult to snipe from longer ranges using longer range weapons so this was not as disadvantageous as first thought given the reality.
-I used to talk to the curator of a US aviation museum of rec.aviation.military called Gordon. He interviewed a number of German pilots on tape and said that one of the Me 262 aces claimed he knocked out tanks by aiming the MK108 on the rear deck of tanks. The detonation of the rounds in the exterior of the cooling intakes always destroyed the engine.
Ive always wanted Ian from forgotten weapons to do a video on those German 30mm cannons
Explain.
Would be difficult to do, but cool to see yeah.
I wouldn't be surprised if he said he's not qualified for these larger/aircraft weapon. But maybe it's not really a stretch other than it's either expensive or heavy and can't be disassembled for us.
@@tarektechmarine8209 he's had videos where owners of items would show it off and explain it rather than himself, acting more like an interviewer
that could be one way for it to be done
Ian must visit germany here by Rheinmetall are many nice weapons. This short 30mm cannon is good for home defense. When i work by Rheinmetall i have seen the holes in steel frame from crane. It was from .50 caliber.
At least someone who does not uses the word "Nazi" five times in every sentence and gives a neutral comment about materiel and events. Bravo !
I can’t get enough of listening to a truly smart person speak on personally researched, evidence based, facts. While considering variables and controls.
@11:00 the chart clearly shows that if you were hit by a 30mm mine round, you were not coming home. A very well presented, thought out and well researched video. Keep them coming.
It's quite a thing to behold without a doubt.
Moving now into the funny territory, I found of particular interest the frequent cases of: "Self-inflicted damage" (Apparently the Allies had to deal with depressed airplanes), and another curious cause of damage: "Empty shell casings or links", twice as many cases as the former! - And one that makes one wonder... how.... how did you manage to hurt a B-17 with a .50 bmg... loose cartridge link???
@@hansvonmannschaft9062 i suppose that if a casing from a friendly fighter or gunner falls in an engine or a windshield at 300mph, it can damage the airplane. But those are non fatal damages. As for the self inflicted damage, the guns in the aircraft are able to hit the wings or the tail if the gunner is not cautious enough.
@@pierrevilley6675 Pierre, you're absolutely right, and what you're saying is undisputable. I was making fun of one of the names they chose to catalogue what's known as "Friendly Fire" today, and regarding the "links & cartridges" entry, I found it just hilarious that after knowing (and us, seeing) how sturdy these machines were, to find out there were so many incidents of damaged materiel with loose links that the authorities needed a specific line to sort those out. Cheers.
Except plenty of people did. Maybe if you are talking about a fighter.
The chart shows nothing of the like. Those are just raw numbers, not adjusted by sortie or gun/cannon type encountered. There were far far fewer 30mm cannons in the air than 20mm or smaller thus the percentages skew low. We need substantially more information to draw that type of conclusion. You need to look at X number of returning aircraft with 50 cal, 20mm and 30mm damage per 100 encounters to make that claim.
This got to be the most informative technical review of the air war in Europe on You tube. Excellent content and very well presented. WW2 nerd heaven!
As usual, excellent content. Thank you for tracking down and sharing these contemporary reports and providing context as well.
Excellent summary. Had no idea the 30mm was such a devastating weapon.
The early Hayabusa had a bad habit of sometimes shooting themselves down when the 20mm rounds exploded in the gun when fired.
and in Hollywood films, pilots simply flew on injured after being hit by Me 262 30 mm projectiles
The lack of hyperbole and matter-of-fact approach are very much appreciated.
This is one of the coolest videos I've seen in a good long while. I want an Mk-108 now. Thank you, sir.
its ideal for home defence
Nibba might mount it on a truck yo
11:03 is a good example of survivor bias. Given how remarkably low the amount of damage caused by 20mm, 30mm and rocket fire was on returning bombers, it is quite likely that these rounds were significant contributors to the damage sustained by bombers that did not return.
Paradox: 20mm > 30mm
There is a famous photo of a B-17 that made it back to base with one 30mm hit. My recollection is it was different from the 11:36 photo - in this one the front of the wing was damaged.
It would be better to write it as MK 108, as the Germans did, because it represents the word Maschinekanone. I would do this to avoid confusion with the British Mk- designation, which was an abbreviation of "Mark" and is the source of a very common mistake made by English speakers when referring to the MK 108.
That pilot of that spitfire got as close as you could ever get to being the recipient of that cannon round behind the cockpit. Bet that woke him up a little when it went bang. Legend!
If he wasn't on the photo I'd ask:
"Has he stopped screaming yet?"
I continue to be impressed by your videos and have been spreading the word. Honestly you have surpassed most of the UA-cam makers in quality of info.
I vaguely remember Eric Brown the British test pilot in his evaluation of the Me262 saying that because of the low muzzle velocity of the MK 108 and therefore a need to approach relatively close to a bomber before opening fire, coupled with an extraordinarily high closing speed meant that the aircraft was in desperate need of an airbrake (as per F86 Sabre) in order to bring firing and aiming time up from a few seconds.
One British bomber pilot , Squadron Leader Arthur Carter, commenting on the Me 262 thought it was overrated - its speed made it a lousy gun platform in his view. 262s he saw would attack a bomber formation, fire a wide spray of tracer, hit nothing and then disappear.
Well the only advantage that the 262 got is speed so common sense said if you get rid of that you're basically a sitting duck... All who know about the 262 i.e. flew it or studied it said do not engage in turning dogfights because you lose a lot of speed in a short duration of time. Airbrake shouldn't be considered an option
and it all changed when the R4M rocket wa introduced.
I’ve never realized how much those old German 30mms resemble Mk19s
Wow very lethal 😮 I did not expect that the 30mm had almost 5 times exlosive fill.
As opposed to just lethal
99% of aircraft getting hit by a 30mm didn't make it back
Thanks for this. I always guessed that a WW2 autocannon fired explosive rounds, but never knew before what the exact effect was. Now I know it :). Also a great example , like you said of Survivor Bias. Almost no bombers that got hit by 30mm, ever returned!
great video! impressive to see the scale of the 30mm versus the 20mm and the explosive yield! I had seen pictures of the results of the Spitfire test firing but the Blenheim clip was the icing on the cake haha.
Goring was a huge advocate of the "mine shell" concept. But he was only familiar with WWI combat where the best results were obtained by getting very close to the enemy before firing. And indeed many German ace pilots of WWII agreed with this too. What they didn't reckon on was the huge defensive firepower of multiple 50 cals which outranged them.
Yep. The shells had low range due to the heavy weight and needed to be effective at closer ranger
Using the 50 cal at longer ranges was waste of ammunition. At least it was what US aces said. Of course bomber defense is different.
So effective that they needed P51 Mustangs with field modified extra fuel tanks in order for the B17s and B24s to survive.
@@samuelgordino using tight combat box formations and short bursts was effective for a bit
Mine shells are still used in contemporary fighter ammunition loadouts, perhaps in a combo mine-incendiary grenade. Although the cannons are mostly used for ground strafing, today.
As the B-29 was operated against the Mig-15 in Korea with relatively poor results, leading to the bomber being used at night. It would be good to extend the analysis to the 23mm and 37mm canons used on Mig-15, do you have any data on the performance of the B-29 in that conflict? BTW I am not discounting the performance of the Mig-15 against the B-29 as a modern myth, hence why to ask such a well researched and learned source
Even while I can't deny I'd love just as much to see such a presentation, I humbly believe that the N. Korea situation was by that point, a case of overkill.
Russian pilots had the 37mm cannon removed or would not carry the ammo. The N-37 jammed it cycled slow and dropped fast after 100 yards. For a fighter v fighter ,50 cal is faster firing and big enough to knock down after a 3 second burst. Against a bomber like the B17 or the Lancaster 20 and 30 mm is a better weapon 4 mk108s would devastate a B 17. The British stuck to .303 for along time.German bombers were not as big as allied heavy bombers,even with 8 guns it took a lot of .303 to down a JU88 OR He III.They would be inadequate against a lanc or fort
@@markgranger9150 source?
(for the Mig 15 37mm/ammo removal)
Great detail on explosive/destructive power of 20mm and 30mm rounds.
Truly superb overview. Well done. That 30mm Minengeschoss is fricken terrifying. And an Me-262 with 4 Mk108? 😶🌫️🤯
My next video will be Me-262 vs US bombers
@@WWIIUSBombersdieses deutsche Flugzeug was durch die Propellerwelle geschossen hat ist auch eine außergewöhnliche Konstruktion. Scheinbar war den Ingenieuren öfters langweilig um sowas zu bauen.
High quality content.
Facts with context.
Not just endless lists of numbers, dates and locations.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍🤓
Lower muzzle velocity meant lower muzzle energy. Even forgetting the added size and weight, the recoil forces of the higher velocity MK-103 would have adversely affected a smaller aircraft's controlability, limiting their use to larger twin-engined aircraft. And since these larger aircraft faired badly against single-engine fighters, these higher velocity cannon would have been limited mostly to night fighters, which proved to be the case.
BS!With an explosive cannon shell,muzzle velocity is of no importance!
It has importance, with higher speed you have flat bullet trajectory and shorter flight time, meaning more acurate shots
@@pe.bo.5038 It effects range and accuracy---that's very important! Why have the awesome killer weapon if you can't hit anything with it?
Excellent vid dude.... greetings from Lima-Perú!!!
those demonstration vid clips are rare...and terrifying...never seen anything like that
One hit with a Mk108 would destroy a fighter or bomber.
Could*
Mate I am a 52 y.o Aussie, and my Dad was born 1 Jan 1930, so apparently missed out by 1 day for conscription in Wehrmacht in 1945. He was in the Hitler Youth. My Mum's dad was a Hauptmann in the Wehrmacht as he could speak Russian. He served on the Eastern Front. My Mom's family had to flee their home in East Prussia, as the Russkis were advancing. My uncle on Dad's side was a bomber crewman on Eastern Front. Mum is 92 now, and Dad was 86 when he died. He told me many stories about the war.
There was, however, one big problem with the MK 108: it had a very low rate of fire. Something Mauser was trying to solve with the MK 213 revolver cannon when the war ended. Interestingly, the revolver cannon design became the basis for several postwar cannon designs, and Mauser developed it into the BK-27 cannon used on several modern fighter designs.
Hence the U.S. Fairchild A-10. Basically a flying 37mm cannon
Relatively short range as well, and a rather curved trajectory in flight. All these traits made it less than ideal against enemy single-engine fighters.
@@stevekaczynski3793 That's a consequence of the low muzzle velocity. All projectiles from guns/cannons on this planet follow a curve, but where that curve becomes recognizeable to the naked eye will vary with its initial velocity and the size of the projectile.
@@foxtrot312 30mm, and no, totally different gun design. Revolver cannons have a feed mechanism like a revolver handgun and a single non rotating barrel. ROTARY cannons have a rotating barrel and breech/feed assembly. Revolver cannons can basically be instantly be at their maximum cyclic rate while Rotary cannons take time to spin the barrels up to the maximum rate. In terms of weight of shell fired, a Mauser BK-27 at 1,700 rpm puts out more in half a second than does either M61A1 20mm vulcan cannon (at 6,000 rpm,), the GAU-8 (at 4,200 rpm) or the GAU-12 (at 4,200 rpm), and its doing so at a muzzle velocity greater than any of the rotary guns. Its also a better gun installation in terms of accuracy being about 10 times better (and thus 1/10th the dispersion) of those Rotary guns.
Did it maybe influence the mini gun?
The Mk-103 was the "long barrelled" version basically. It had high muzzle velocity but it was less destructive and weighed a lot more. I recall choosing the 103 a lot in the old air combat sim SWOTL from the 90's. I guess I wanted to hit more accurately, I don't remember exactly. : )
They were fast! They were deadly! They were outnumbered: secret weapons of the Luftwaffe!
Extra Nerd points for both of us, I guess ;-)
Wouldn't be accurate to call the MK 103 a version of the MK 108, or vice-versa. The MK 103 (and preceding MK 101) used a 184mm bottlenecked case with the same range of projectiles as the 108. The 103 used a combined gas and recoil system for cycling the action, while the 108 was a simpler and lighter blowback design.
I used to play that. On floppy discs.
MK103 had nothing in common with 108 except being 30 mm.When gamers start to makecomments (:-)
@@copperlemon1 The MK103 was indeed a development of the MK101 it used the same mine shell as the MK103 but the other rounds were its own eg the AP rounds for tank busting. The MK103 couldn't fit into the wing roots of the Fw 190 and caused to much vibration in the outer wings stations. However I have seen photographs in Smith & Creeks Fw 190 triple volume books of the Ta 152C with MK 103 in the wing roots. It could also fit in the motor canon installation of the Do 335 and I imagine therefore the Fe 190D and Ta 152 as well though I'm not so sure how far this went..
-Fw 190D were testing the MK213 revolving breech guns at the end of the war in the synchronized wing root position. This 20mm round had much greater power than the MG151. It's velocity was nearly 1000m/sec as much as the similar C38 ground based 20mm gun.
11:00 this table has some other interesting data, like how ''self inflicted damage' goes down over time, and 'empty shell cases and links' can be dangerous.
I noticed that, too.
Nice video, thanks. Speaking of Japanese 20mm cannons, I remember an interview of a Japanese pilot where they asked him how he felt about their 20mm cannon - He said it had "a trajectory like a stream of piss".
I saw that same interview, translated by TakaLeon.
9:08 _"...the detonation reduced the wing structural integrity and aerodynamic performance..."_ *shows obliterated wing...*
...Welp, here we got the understatement of the year, presented in rarely heard engineering terms and with amazing documentation!
Annnd leaving this silly joke aside, sir, you won the internet today. The research, the perfect edition and scripting, you gave a University-level lecture on the subject. I tip my hat to thee, fine gent.
+1, Subbed obviously, absolutely fantastic job, thank you, very much!
You really are presenting valuable information that few, if any, other platforms are providing.
Nicely done!
Coincidently just started watching Masters of the Air series. This video really gives me some information to think about while viewing the series.
The size comparison between the 20mm and 30mm rounds is quite remarkable, while I do not have an actual 3cm Mk 108 round, I do have a couple of the 3cm Mk 101/103 mine rounds (plus one casing) on belt links, the sheer scale of these things would be terrifying to be shot at.
Great work. Thank you for the time you put in here.
The ME262 had 4 of the M108 in its nose. That solved the problem of the low fire rate. 4 of them fired around 40 projectiles per second!
But it was too fast for this weapon. It was so fast, it was impossible to aim according to postwar Allied flight testing, one had to just fire and hope you were on target!
I always like firing these in the flight simulators With all the good thumpers and headphones running a good bass
The number of bombers damaged by empty casings and links is actually kind of shocking 10:30
How does that even work I wonder?
Hitting a rather large mass with a propeller blade can't be good for it.
@@hunterbidensaidslesion1356 i suppose first it damages the prop and then the prop hit might fling the empty casing into your fuselage, or another prop! I am imagining aerial pinball if a piece of aerial debris gets flipped between multiple aircraft.
Good video, I enjoyed the depth of research, digest, analysis and explanation (as opposed to copy pasta from the interwebs). But did you say at 7:19 that one of the disadvantages of the MK 108 was a low rate of fire? That cannon started out at 660rpm during pre-production, and later went up to 850rpm - which was higher than the rate of fire of the AN/M2 50 cal then in service. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, it had the highest rate of fire among aircraft _cannons_ in WW2. So at the receiving end of an Me 262's battery it'd literally be raining HE...
Edit: Also, the MG151 was a 15mm cannon. It was later upgraded by necking out the 15mm round to 20mm, which was easy to do and required little other modification - largely, just the barrel. The cannon then became the MG151/20 - _that_ is the 20mm cannon you're referring to.
I think they meant low velocity of the round.
That being said, the only pilot I can refer to is Helmut Lipfert, a high scoring pilot flying with II/JG52. In the aftermath of their mission in the Crimea, and their evacuation to Romania, the surviving pilots got to encounter some '109s from III/JG77, some of which had the Mk108 in their nose. They turned a 'grounded' 109 around and fired it into a vineyard. Lipfert reported he could see the round 'arc' thru the air and watched it detonate like a small mortar round. All the pilots commented how this would 'really show' the "Sturmoviks!"
Long story short, Lipfert got to use the Mk108 against the IL2s soon enough. The first time he fired, he had approached to very close range before shooting. The result amazed him: the round basically blew the sturmovik into four large parts: the engine block, the wings and the tail assembly==all of which came flying back at him. He managed to dodge the big bits but small bits of debris still damaged his 109. He second time he used it, he remembered to hang back a bit a was prepared for the resulting flying parts. As he put it, it was the first time he had ever seen an IL2 just come apart like that.
It should be noted that no K-6's really were used.
The K-4 had access to a single 108, or with addon-gunpods could fit 3 of them.
Why is the barrel on the MK108 so short? I would think having a longer barrel would increase muzzle velocity resulting in better accuracy and longer effective range.
Good question. I'm not a ballistics expert, so I have to guess that the relatively small propellant load of the cartridge was insufficient to make much use of a longer barrel. For example, why isn't the barrel of a mortar longer in order to increase its velocity and range. Carrying around a heavier barrel for diminishing ballistic returns may not have been a good tradeoff.
There's a really detailed explanation on wikipedia if you want the specifics. But basically because of how the gun is designed you can either have a high muzzle velocity, or a high rate of fire, but not both at the same time because either configuration requires you to change the weight of the bolt assembly to make it heavier or lighter. The engineers designing the gun decided to emphasize rate of fire in the final production model.
@@TamrenStarshadow Thanks. I had no idea that it was an open bolt blowback action. Very interesting.
@@TamrenStarshadow it is important to understand that the 30 mm MK 108 cannon was an open bolt or blowback and was well suited to this role, requiring on average just 4 hits with its 330g shell with high-explosive ammunition, to bring down a heavy bomber such as a B-17 Flying Fortress or B-24 Liberator, and just a single "shattering" hit to down a fighter. In comparison, the otherwise excellent 20 mm MG 151/20 (18g of HE in a 92g shell) required about 15-20 hits to down a B-17. This was the great advantage but as it was a relatively simple blow back in order to to keep the gun light (58 kg) but the drawback was that the cartridge had to be "contained" (not too powerful!) with a rather short barrel resulting in a relatively short muzzle velocity. That said the the trajectory was not straight but arched forcing the pilots to get close to bomber and often had to compensate like aiming higher. With the Me 262A because of the speed he had very few seconds to shoot at least 3 rounds but when it hits it is devastating, in fact there are very few that shows a bomber actually shot down with the 30 mm. In this many pilots "driving" the Me 109G and the Fw 190-8 preferred the excellent 20 mm MG 151/20 because of it's high velocity. I too had to go back to Wikipedia because it is a quite a long while I was not reading about the 30 mm MK 1O8 but now I refreshed my head! Hope I didn't bore you guys!
MK108 was essentially a blowback operated weapon...the round has to clear the muzzle before the breech can open. This was done for a higher rate of fire and to produce a lighter weapon.
Really enjoyed learning about these, thanks for making the video.
Outstanding technical details with clarity of context. I appreciate the reality so much better. Question, how did USAF fighters manage to shoot down anything with only 6 to 8 50 caliber machine guns, firing non explosive rounds? It is sobering to realize 3 to 5 rounds of 39 mm downed big american bombers. Was a P 47 with 8 guns and 3,400 rounds requiring 1,600 rounds to kill an enemy fighter? I realize the 30 mm round was much heavier and bulkier. But IF a plane carried 3,400 of 30 mm cannon shells there was enough lethality to down 1,133 four engine allied bombers. There were only 12,000 B 17s manufactured. I know, the limiting factors but OMG. I read an account in the offucial war diaries of the 34th division of the Iowa National Guard in combat in Europe. It details seeing a flight of 12 B-17's unescorted flying over tjeir unit. It took 2 minutes for 8 german fighters to shoot them all down, filling the sky with parachutes. Ground troops werevshocked at how quickly and effectively it happened. Late stage of the war, gauging how that went, likely experienced German pilots. Adolph Galland commented how easy and pleasureable it was later with the heavier armament he eas supplied with to rip apart, take wings off, gouge open fusealages, American 4 engine bombwrs in a single pass. He said it with real relish, saying how powerful it made him feel.
The brits lost 57,000 killed. The americans, 71%. That's correct, 71%. Mostly killed. 100,000. Relatively overlooked 15,000 amwrican aircrew were killed in training before seeing combat.
The strategic bombing campaign destroyed 2 large Tiger tank production facilities, beyond repair, BEFORE thet made a sungle tank. Damaged oil production and fuel refinement, diverted 80% of german fughters to the West, and 80 of the dreaded 88mm flak guns, dual purpose anti tank weapons to thw West, away from the Eastern Front.
So when the Russians whine about they got to do most of the dying, with 29,000,000 casualties, they are not without cause, but they aren't telling the whole truth.
10:50 : About survivor bias, I'd suggest reading the Wikipedia article on Abraham Wald, a member of the Statistical Research Group at Columbia University during WW2.
In particular, check the 2nd reference by Marc Mangel and Francisco J. Samaniego, Wald's Work on Aircraft Survivability of June 1984. It explains how Wald estimated the various conditional probabilities (for a hypothetical dataset in the article) about the survival of aircraft, using only the data observed on returning aircraft.
If someone is skilled enough, he may apply Wald's method to the Eighth Air Force data. Note we'd probably need finer data such as the number of hits sustained for each aircraft, which type of ammunition hit, and the hit location as well.
Absolutely amazing series of reports.
Although crammed with technical info, the videos flow & make for truly enjoyable & informative viewing. 👍
Reminds me of the MK19. I wonder if they ever configured it for a ground role.
I think George Chinn's Mk19 is heavily based on this weapon, both in construction and principle of operation. He wrote a 5-volume series of technical references called The Machine Gun, which you can find online for free, in PDF form. I don't recall what he had to say about this particular weapon, but I do know that it in in there.
VS Ilushin % Surmoviv worked properly endeed.
Excellent video, thank you! I really enjoy watching your content.
Great video, very informative.
Fantastic video, keep up the good work.
The MK-103 was much deadlier as it could spit out the same shells with high velocity. It was a lot heavier and more expensive to produce however
So heavy in fact that you could mount two (and a half) Mk 108 for one Mk 103, resulting in three times the RoF from just the two 108s.
@@kimjanek646 If the war continued the 262 would have had the revolutionary Mauser 213 revolver cannon, it would have been better for shooting down other fighters
Very well made, informative and unbiased video! Thank you very much.
Regarding the Me262 people always forget to add the speed difference to the aircrafts it attacked to the muzzle velocity og the MK108 cannon. If a Me262 attacks a B17 from the rear you need to add more than 100ms to the nominal muzzle velocity of the 30mm Mk108 cannon. Attacking from 90 degrees the actual velocity of the 30mm shells are 200ms+ higher than the nominal muzzle velocity. The grenade trajectories are completely different from what people imagine they are. The Mk108 shoot flatter from a Me262 in attack mode than from prop driven fighters due to the difference in actual velocity of the 30mm shells.
The added speed is real, but that wouldn't change the trajectory.
@@wanyelewis9667 The trajectory of a projectile is determined by its velocity.
In this case projectile velocity is the sum of aircraft velocity + muzzle velocity of the cannon.
@@agskytter8977 To the 262 pilot, the trajectory would be the same, though. To him, the difference is just that the target is getting closer faster.
@@wanyelewis9667 A Me262 going 850kph has a velocity of 236mps.
If you fire the guns of a Me262 standing still on the ground on a testrange with 300m zero, sight 300mm over barrel centerline, assuming a ballistic coefficient of 0.4 for the 30mm shells and a muzzle velocity of 540ms, the ballistics looks like this:
With sight zero range 300m the bullet drop below line of sight at 600m is 56cm. Time of flight for the 30mm shell to 600m is 1.54 seconds. Shell velocity at 600m is 307ms.
Going airborne we have to add the aircraft speed of 236ms to the Mk108 540ms muzzle velocity for a total "gound speed"/physical shell speed of 776ms.
With the same zero sight range at 300m the bullet/shell drop below line of sight at 600m is 25cm. Time of flight for the shell to 600m is 1.07 seconds. Shell velocity at 600m is 413ms
Just for fun I mounted the MK108 on a F104 Starfighter going 2000kph/556ms added to the MK108 540ms muzzle velocity for a physical shell velocity of 1096ms.
With 300m zero, bullet drop at 600m is 10cm. Time of flight to 600m is 0.73 seconds. Shell velocity at 600m is 629ms. At 600m the shell is velocity is still higher than than the MK108 nominal muzzle velocity.
@@wanyelewis9667 It won't change the trajectory in the referential of the attacking plane, but relative to ground or to the receiving aircraft it changes everything.
Great video! Lots of good info. I like the graphics you added 👍. Those cannons were crazy! Insane they put them on planes.
AGV: Another great video.
It would be interesting to lean how the cost of these various rounds compared.
These 30mm cannon rounds sure could do a lot of damage but how much did they cost to produce?
Thanks for another really interesting video.
Dude...that a hellof a video!!! Thanks for sharing and all the time it took to make.
In one word: "excellent", on a theme long overlooked. Makes me wonder about how modern 30 mm peformance like that of DEFA/Aden guns in more recent conflicts would compare.
Thanks for video. I knew that these 30mm rounds were very destructive but I did not know they could pack more punch than a hand grenade!
Very informative!
That 30 mm had 1.5 x the explosive charge of a WW II "pineapple" grenade. Now THAT'S deadly.
RDX ≈ 1.4* TNT (>40%)
The content of your video is always excellent and the subjects you highlight are always interesting.
The nerdy voice of the narrator ADDS to the authenticity of the information presented!
Great information and well represented. One criticism if I may.... mk108 is correctly termed Mark 108. This was the common usage of this abbreviation but hasn't seemed to have trickled down to the younger generation. It is often mispronounced especially when presentations are auto generated. Great job! and keep it up.
That's wrong. The MK108 being a German weapon designation would never mean Mark as this isn't used in German. In this case MK means Maschinenkanone (machine canon). Similar to MG and Maschinengewehr (machine gun).
The English "Mk" for "Mark" would in German rather be "Ausf." for "Ausführung", like you commonly see for WW2 German tanks.
Very well researched, I always get annoyed at UA-camrs wiki videos but you actually read up and even had some stuff I didn’t know and I’m a real wwii geek.
I
In an interview on the history channel, a ww2 fighter pilot said one hit from that nose mounted 30mm would rip your mustang in half.
Excellent technical video of the effectiveness of the MK108 auto- cannon!
Thank you for your excellent presentation!
This engineer really enjoyed this. Well done!
I always thought the mk108 was the first automatic grenade launcher, after watching this video, I wasn't wrong
I think Colonel George Chinn's Mk-19 40mm grenade launcher is heavily based on this weapon, both in construction and operating principle - advanced primer ignition, a.k.a. the Becker Principle. The 40mm grenades also have hemispherical bases to withstand the bore pressure.
Supersonic projectiles do not like hemispherical bases.
One of your best videos yet 👍
In 1939 the standard PAK had 37mm armour piercing grenades. Just for comparison. These mines are different but nearly the same size.
A degree level lecture on aircraft weaponry. Excellent.
Fascinating history as always!
Very well researched and presented! Thank you!
I think most people don't realize how much more dectructive the 30mm grenade was because the numbers, without thinking about it, don't intuitively sound that bigger > 20mm vs 30mm. But as shown the 30mm packs about 4.7 times as much explosives as a 20mm shell. The ground test footage shows really well just how effective even a single shell was.
It is no wonder the English and French switched to a 30mm (ADEN/DEFA) cannon in some planes after WW2 (Hawker Hunter, Mirages). I guess the Russians also drew the same conclusion when going to their 23mm, 37mm and larger guns.
1:34 fascinating chart. That chart tells the whole story of the air war.
A very good presentation. Precise and informative. Thank you for this film.
This was a great analysis with unique visuals. Cheers.
One thing that made a great deal of difference was the mounting of 'schrāge musik'. Night fighters approached from underneath the bomber, in the blind spot and used upward firing guns directly into the fuel tanks.
Your dedication to complete information and facts means that your website is of great importance to historians. There is so much unresearched 'romanticised' rubbish on UA-cam - and no 'music' - thanks. The chart showing flak to be the greatest threat is consistent with my own findings but there is no 'romance' in flak.
really enjoyed all the technical information ans pictures of damage caused. Thank you.
Thanks for the education.
30 mm Aden gun pods (made in UK) were used after the war on many aircraft. It was derived from the German design. I helped attach and remove 30 km gun pods from A model US Marine Corps Harriers. As a part if a maintenance team.
... as part of* a maintenance team.
Im suprise how short is the canon, I was expecting something longer like Hispano.
“Muzzle speed” that’s the first time I’ve heard that one. Usually it’s always “muzzle velocity”.
Basically an Automatic 30mm Grenade Launcher.
Good stuff mang. Well laid out and very informative.
you, sir, are a prince. thanks for your content!
Soviet fighters also used heavy caliber auto cannons, and so did ground attack aircraft such as the feared IL-2 Sturmavec which had four 30mm cannons. The Soviet fighters after WW-2 had 23mm, 37mm or both caliber cannons.
Early A-10 , by 1944 🇫🇮infantry hated those farming machines. Word
Farming is quite close to Finn word land battle. So GI’s called those bastars like lawn mower’s.. from sky…⚰️
Lots of good technical information, well done.
Great video, to the point and good data examples. Well done.
Good research thank you.
I was waiting for a comparison to the mark 103 auto-cannon.
The Mark 108 did have the low muzzle velocity of 1,770 ft/s.
But the mark 103 auto-cannon had 3,100 ft/s !!! really a different beast.
Mk actually stands for Maschinen Kannone (machine cannon).
Good video but I think you missed something: the Germans had developed a base-fused 30mm round which enabled a thinner shell casing and hence greater explosive fill. I recall that it was used operationally so this would skew the damage statistics.