military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (10/18/89)
From: brspyr1.brs.com!miket (Mike Trout) In sci.military Digest Thursday, 12 October, 1989 Volume 3 : Issue 18 Adrian Hurt <adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK> writes: > Minor correction; the early Me-109's had two MG's in the wings, two in the > nose above the engine, and sometimes a fifth inside the engine, firing through > the propellor hub. The Me-109E replaced the wing guns and propellor guns with > 20mm cannons. Minor minor correction: Armament history of early Bf 109s: Bf 109A (1935-36) two 7.9mm MG 17 machine guns in upper cowling Bf 109B (1936-37) same as Bf 109A, plus another MG 17 in propeller hub Bf 109C (1937) same as Bf 109A, plus two MG 17s in wings Bf 190D (1938) hub-mounted 20mm MG FF/M cannon, possibly other MG 17s? Bf 109E-1 (1938) same as Bf 109C; some replaced wing MG 17s with MG FF/Ms Bf 109E-3 (1939) same as Bf 109A, plus two MG FF/Ms in wings and one in hub Bf 109E-4 (1940) same as Bf 109E-3, but delete hub cannon Some Bf 109E-3s had their hub cannon deleted just as on the E-4, as that gun was constantly jamming and was very unreliable. The hub gun position on the Bf 109 was a problem point throughout its life. > But the bulge in the wings to accomodate the cannon there > impaired the handling of the aircraft, and no subsequent Me-109 had guns > mounted in the wings again. (This doesn't include various bolt-on kits, such > as gun pods and rocket launchers.) There was no substantial wing bulge on the Bf 109E; bulges did not become a problem until the Bf 109G. It's true that many Luftwaffe pilots considered the Bf 109E-3 to be rather sluggish due to its heavy armament, but much of that attitude may have been due to the near-useless hub cannon, which was indeed little more than dead weight. Other pilots considered the Bf 109E-4 to be the very best Bf 109 variant ever; arguments over Bf 109 armament raged for years. The controversy led to the Bf 109F, which was intentionally very lightly armed so as to get maximum flight performance. As could be expected, some pilots loved the Bf 109F, while others considered its light firepower useless. With the Bf 109G, the emphasis returned to heavy firepower again, where it was to stay; the Bf 109G was so sluggish as to be a death trap when late-war Allied fighters were about, but its tremendous firepower was useful against bombers. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "Who watches the watchmen?" --Epigraph of the Tower Commission Report, 1987
adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK (Adrian Hurt) (10/24/89)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK> In article <10310@cbnews.ATT.COM> you write: > >There was no substantial wing bulge on the Bf 109E; bulges did not become a >problem until the Bf 109G. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "substantial". The 20mm cannons did definitely need bulges in the wings to accomodate them. The bulges were on the underside, and are clearly visible on any photo which shows the undersides of the wings clearly; they can also be seen on any decent model of the Bf 109E, or in a museum if you're lucky enough to have access to one with a Bf 109E in it. I stand by my statement that after the Emil, no Bf 109 ever again had guns permanently mounted in the wings. >... Other pilots considered the Bf 109E-4 to be the >very best Bf 109 variant ever; arguments over Bf 109 armament raged for years. >The controversy led to the Bf 109F, which was intentionally very lightly armed >so as to get maximum flight performance. The Bf 109F had only one 20mm gun in the nose, plus the two MG17's. But that 20mm gun was the MG 151, whose fire rate made it comparable to two MG FF's. From what I've read, that plus the improved handling over the Bf 109E made the Bf 109F some pilots' favourite version. Of course, compared to the Fw 190's with two MG 151's, or four in later versions, the Bf 109 was always lightly armed. >With the Bf 109G, the emphasis returned to heavy firepower again, where it was >to stay The heavy firepower being mostly provided by the bolt-on packs I mentioned in my posting. These included wing pods with a MG 151 in each, or 21cm rocket pods. The Fw 190 could also take such bolt-on packs, but its gun pods had two MG 151's each. That's a total of eight MG 151's, each with a fire rate double that of other Brand X 20mm guns - how's that for firepower! -- "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk