What Variant of the BF 109 was at the Battle of Britain?

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 08 Jun 2003 09:25

Panzermeyer wrote:The Me109-E3 had two 20 mm MGFF cannons, but these were not as good as for example the 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS404 which had higher firing rate and muzzle velocity.
This is a bit off topic but British didn't consider HS 404 a very good gun because it jammed easily (due to high or low g:s). British rated their MG Spitfires much better.

---

How did HS 404 differed from the HS 204 which was used in Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 fighters? It was too prone to jams and Finns for example replaced it with captured Soviet Berezina UB 12.7mm HMG since autumn/fall 1942.

Cannon moranes which were a minory in Finland were especially effective against train busting (before 1943 we didn't have other aircraft with a cannon) but not so effective in dogfight because of jams. More than half of our Moranes had three 7.5mm Chatellerault MAC 1934 MGs before upgunning.

In 1944 the improved Finnish conversion, "Ghost-Morane", had 20mm Mauser MG 151 cannon which was an excellent weapon.

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 09 Jun 2003 15:17

What do you mean for "jamming"? "S" shaped non-linear kinetiks or a low fire-rating? Or both? Sorry Harry but I don't understand.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 09 Jun 2003 20:27

Jamming = weapon stops working, usually due to:
- ammo misfeed in high (positive) or low (negative) g turns, like during dogfights
- coldness in the air and fast warming up of the weapon after first shots, when metallic parts enlarge or vice versa
- dirt etc. in weapons

In some cases jams sprung back after reloading but usually this didn't work.

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 09 Jun 2003 22:57

a jam= a momentary mechanical blocking. Roger. The worst fault for any firearm. Thanks. Why do you think it was related to aerobatic accelerations? There was no electrical or pneumatic feeding?

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003 21:54
Location: Stockport, England

Post by redcoat » 09 Jun 2003 23:15

Harri wrote: This is a bit off topic but British didn't consider HS 404 a very good gun because it jammed easily (due to high or low g:s). British rated their MG Spitfires much better.
The problem was not with the gun, but the feed (ammo) system which tended to jam when under high G forces.
When the British solved the problem just after the BOB, the HS 404 became the standard cannon on all RAF fighters

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 10 Jun 2003 00:35

I thought the jamming problem was never fully solved and it happened in the later phases of the Battle of Britain?

Feed jamming happens when the cartridge is not in a right position when it is loaded, the weapon doesn't load cartridge properly from the belt or the whole belt jams. G-force affects like a pressure pushing and pulling aircraft and the more tighter manoeuvres you do the bigger these forces are. Actually I think negative g:s are more effective than positive ones because usually they are not considered so meaningfull.

- Barbarossa Isegrim -
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 27 Dec 2002 19:43
Location: Hungary

Post by - Barbarossa Isegrim - » 10 Jun 2003 14:52

redcoat wrote: When the British solved the problem just after the BOB, the HS 404 became the standard cannon on all RAF fighters
I dobut they ever solved it completely. All the post-BoB RAF fighters equipped with Hispanos had problems with jams, which are always claimed to be "solved". Spits had jams, but they were solved. Then Typhoons had jam problems with the same cannons, but they say those were solved. Then the Tempest came, again, despite these problems already said solved, they appeared again. Meteors with Hispanos proved to be a jam-nightmare and again they say it was solved. US produced Hispanos were even worser for low precision manufacturing..

I have some doubts about it was ever solved, probably the cannon itself was prone to jams, and they could only lessen the problem, but never solve it completely.

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 11 Jun 2003 14:17

...but carburetor fed Allied engines simply avoided the necessity of a not-jamming gun allowing only sudden g-positive manouvres: there was a lack in fuel feeding much more dangerous than the lack in feeding ammos. F.e. the standard procedure for a sudden dive with a Spitfire was half-tonneau spinning by pedals then pulling cloche to the belly when the pilot was upsided downed. In the while a Bf 109 or a MC 202 required simply pushing-off the cloche. The Spit dives without engine misfunctions by withstandind g-positive force (added to gravity) Bf and MC dive withstanding g-negative force (to be subtracted to gravity). Direct injection of fuel without lacks extended the usage of guns and for this reason I asked about the presence of pneumatic or electric feeding servo-machines. Only few g-negative aerobatics allowable with carburetor feeding!

User avatar
lisset
Member
Posts: 339
Joined: 10 Oct 2002 23:13
Location: U.K

ME-109

Post by lisset » 12 Jun 2003 22:44

I go with the E...I have a print by Michael turner showing Galland taking off leading a trio of E's from JG26 in 1940.
Print dates from 1987 110/500 singed by Adolf galland and the artist.

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”