Does 30mm motorkanone work against tanks?

[WildBillKelsoe]

Well, does it? Like the hog?

[Flagrum]

Well, does it? Like the hog?

No.

 

The Mk 108 uses high explosive rounds which are good for unarmored or soft targets but would do little damage to armor.

 

The GAU-8 uses high belocity, high weight full metal (depl. uranium) rounds which destroy their targets by their high kinetic energy which allows to penetrate armor.

 

edit:

But due to some limitations in DCS atm, it could be probably viable to try it ... but it would be not really realistic.

[Solty]

Well, does it? Like the hog?

The only similarity is in the caliber.

 

Mk108 is more of grenade lucher than a canon realy. Mk103 would be better at ground attack role, although still far very, very, very far from A-10 Thunderbolt II

 

[Comstedt86]

The only similarity is in the caliber.

 

Mk108 is more of grenade lucher than a canon realy. Mk103 would be better at ground attack role, although still far very, very, very far from A-10 Thunderbolt II

 

 

MK103 with Uranium armor piercing rounds would be awesome :) or the standard would do aswell...

[Celestiale]

Mk103 could (and did) definitely kill tanks. German light tanks had this weapon equipped as well

[MAD-MM]

German flying Tank Hunter like the HS-129 have the MK-103 with Tungsten core to penetrate russian ammor...

The short barel (to fit in small german fighter aircrafts) MK-108 have not enough velocity and accuracy for this Job and was not used in this role.

[otto]

The high high velocity rapid firing mk 213/30 revolvercannon seems to me the most similar ww2 german cannon compared to the a10's cannon.

 

[gavagai]

The Mk 108 works very well against APCs in DCS, or anything lighter.

[BitMaster]

Drop a bomb on it !

 

As close as you need to get to successfully place enough hits on the target to eventually kill the tank with 30mm rounds you might as well drop a 500er on the same glide path ( should be similar if not the same dive ) and finish it with confidence :)

 

I think that way the german Wehrmacht lost many tanks in Kursk when the Sturmovik flew low and deadly.

 

Bit

[Solty]

Drop a bomb on it !

 

As close as you need to get to successfully place enough hits on the target to eventually kill the tank with 30mm rounds you might as well drop a 500er on the same glide path ( should be similar if not the same dive ) and finish it with confidence :)

 

I think that way the german Wehrmacht lost many tanks in Kursk when the Sturmovik flew low and deadly.

 

Bit

One acronym PTAB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTAB

[BitMaster]

One acronym PTAB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTAB

 

PTAB yes, how could I forget... IL-2 times, long ago

 

 

Bit

[Kurfürst]

Well, does it? Like the hog?

 

The MK 108 shell is just a big, slow HE grenade - unlike the Hog's giant AP round - and should not do anything but superficial scratches to armored targets, altough the visuals and explosions would be still impressive.

 

Here's a link to cold war live trials of the famed Swedish S-tank, at one point they are shooting it with a 30mm ADEN gun from a DRAKEN. The HE rounds, tellingly referred to as Mine shells, should be more or less the same as the MK 108, since the ADEN cannon was based on a WW2 German cannon, the MAuser MG 213, firing the the same M-Shells as the MK 108.

 

http://youtu.be/MiWCpIJ5dBw?t=8m49s

Edited February 5, 2015 by Kurfürst

[WildBillKelsoe]

Wealth of information. Thanks fellas!

[LeCuvier]

The Bf-109 is not a Kanonenvogel!

 

The Bf-109 was designed for the "Light Fighter" role. If one wants to use it against real tanks, like the T-34, you need to fire high-velocity armour-piercing shells and that takes a much heavier cannon. I doubt that the structure of the Bf-109 could handle that, plus the armour necessary for the attack aircraft role.

The JU-87 G (nicknamed Kanonenvogel = cannon bird) was based on the original Stuka dive bomber which had the right structure. It was modified to carry two under-wing 37mm Flak cannons and that beast was highly effective against tanks. With the JU-87, Hans-Ulrich Rudel alone killed over 500 Soviet tanks and lots of other vehicles, as well as 4 major ships of the red navy.

Needless to say, the Stukas needed good air cover as they did not have the agility required to defend against fighters.

What I'm trying to say: if you have a thoroughbred racing horse, don't try to use it to plow your field!

[MAD-MM]

I think the 109 can also handle the ammor piercing shells.

there was much more cannons like the 151/20 mm who firing armour piercing shells with mixed ammunition belts. The shell is the same one with high explosive and one with full metal jacket.

The Problem is the gun barrel length, short barrel less muzzle velocity less Penetration and high rate of fire makes him useful fighter gun.

The Mk103 was used also as under wing pod for FW-190 storm fighter against B-17 and as anti Tank roll for the HS-129.

long barrel low ROF and high muzzle velocity with tungsten core for tank hunting. cheers

[Sryan]

Most of the shells loaded on the 108 are of the Minengeshoß design as well. Instead of drilling out a cavity to fit explosives on a shell like other nations did, germany drew her shells and then hardened them. this allowed them to cram as many explosives as they could in each shell. for the the Mk108 I believe each shell can hold about 85 grams of explosives, wich is more than a PGU13B shot by the A10 holds. 85g is more than what the standard US greneade of the time, the Mk2 "pineapple" holds, and it is almost half of what a modern M67 grenade holds. So when you see people around here calling it pretty much a grenade launcher, they are kinda right.

 

Having thin walls and large explosive contents is great for air to air fighting, a handful of hits will take down a B17 or B24. but using the thin walls on an armored vehicle will likely only result in shell shatter. The shells of the 103 and 108 are incompatible with each other. the 108 shoots a short 30 × 90mm. The 103 shoots a long 30×184mm round. The last one, the 103, has acces to an armor piercing APCR shell.

[sobek]

for the the Mk108 I believe each shell can hold about 85 grams of explosives, wich is more than a PGU13B shot by the A10 holds.

 

This is somewhat a moot comparison. The GAU-8 is mostly intended for using KE penetrator munition, they just use combat mix (or exclusive HE as of late) to be able to supress infantry/soft targets with it. The Mk108 shells would never survive being fired with as much kinetic energy from a weapon of that barrel length.Different tools for different jobs.

 

Having thin walls and large explosive contents is great for air to air fighting

 

I don't know, that may have been true back then, but nowadays manufacturers have gone from installing smaller caliber high rate of fire weapons instead of "sniper rifles" in their planes.

Edited November 1, 2015 by sobek

[Kodoss]

From the L.Dv.4000.10 "Munitionsvorschrift für Fliegerbordwaffen"

 

The "3 cm M.-Geschosspatrone 108 El. o. Zerl." has 100g HA 41, a high explosive dynamite. bullet weight 330g.

The "3 cm M.-Geschosspatrone L'spur 108 El. o. Zerl." is identical to the MK101 and 103 bullet (series L) and has 72g of HAT 41 + Nitropenta.

The tracer (L'spur) is up to 1200m active.

 

Later models had selfdestructive fuses (m. Zerl.).

 

There also exist the "3 cm M-BrGr. m. Zerl.", a mineshell with ~40g HAT 41 and 20~25g incendiary. Complete weight of the bullet 370g.

 

And incendiary bullets "3 cm BrGr. o.Zerl.", in the construction equal to "3 cm M.-Geschosspatrone 108 El. o. Zerl" but filled with incendiary instead of explosive. bullet weight 330g

 

Ammunition for the MK 103 are equal to the MK 101, but using an electrical fuse for the cartridge instead of a mechanical.

[JST]

I don't know, that may have been true back then, but nowadays manufacturers have gone from installing smaller caliber high rate of fire weapons instead of "sniper rifles" in their planes.

 

?

 

Mk 108 was designed to sacrifice muzzle velocity for RoF, a conscious compromise made with the technology available.

 

Higher RoF was always more desireable, and not necessarily related to the projectile in any meaningful way.

 

The exact same Mineshell was shared between the Mk 103 and Mk 108, difference being that the former had a longer shell casing to permit the higher muzzle velocity.

 

Keep in mind that Mauser (atleast) was developing 20mm and 30mm revolver cannons before the war ended. Correct me if I am wrong, these designs also heavily inspired US development of the revolver cannon.

 

At 600RPM, the Mk 108 isn't exactly very slow either.

 

Anyway, enough OT rant from me.

[Sryan]

Yes sobek, different rounds for different roles. I'm sure the minengeschoss wouldn't survive the same shot as the PGB13. The PGB13 is launched at twice the muzzle velocity. I wasn't stating that the Mk103 is superior to the GAU/A-8 in any way, merely comparing the amount of explosives inside each of them. The reasoning was to provide an idea of how much exactly is in a Mk103 shot.

 

The point I was trying to make is that the Mk103 is unsuitable for destroying tanks, because of the low velocity as others mentioned and because of the thin walls that would most likely shatter as my own argument.

[Kodoss]

If you want to go against tanks, take the MK 101 or MK 103 and load the "3 cm H-PzGr.Patr. L'spur o. Zerl.". Weight 356g

It has a 231g Wolfram-Karbid core.

 

This bullet can go through 100mm steel (100kg/mm² solidity) by a distance of 100m and 95mm steel by 300m.

By a solidity of 150kg/mm² it still penetrates 78mm (at 100m) and 74mm (at 300m).

 

Vo = 960m/s with an energy of 16727 mkg at a distance of 0m, 15563 mkg at 100m, 13486 mkg at 300m and still 8270 mkg at 1000m.

 

Mix some "3 cm Pz.Spr.Gr.Patr. L'spur o. Zerl." (can go through 32mm steel (150kg/mm²) at 300m and 27mm steel at 600m) in it and have fun.