Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Me109E Armament

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,316
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Me109E Armament

    Having had a look about on the internet, I found some conflicting information, so was hoping there may be someone on the forum who could give me a definitive outline of the weaponry carried by an Me109E in November 1940. More specifically, if of any assistance, this would concern Me109Es of JG54. Would it have simply been 2x 20mm Oerlikon cannon and 2x 7.92mm machine guns?

    Further, can anyone give me an indication of the velocity with which such rounds would have hit one of our Spits at 20,000 feet. Not sure if I need to be that specific, but they're the parameters. I appreciate it's impossible to be exact and that this could have been dependent upon several factors, but a bit of an idea would be appreciated, please.

    Please note that I am not interested in later model Me109s, thanks; just this specific type.

    Regards
    Steve
    41 (F) Squadron RAF at War and Peace, April 1916-March 1946
    http://brew.clients.ch/41sqnraf.htm

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    3,662
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 17 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Steve, Hi,

    The trajectory of any Tube Artillery round is dependent, basically, upon the air density and the wind (and gravity!) after it leaves the muzzle. Don't know how the muzzle velocity decays with distance (but somebody will do!!). But, as you say, there are a lot of variables! Not the least of which are the facts that the Target and the Firing Point are both maneuvering independently. If they are closing directly towards each other then the impact energy will be much greater than if it's a tail-chase with the Target drawing away from the Firing Point.

    The maths, I suspect, could be more easily played on a Peruvian nose-flute than actually understood (except by mathematicians!!).
    Some background (and German data) are at:-
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning
    http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gust...n/fgun-pe.html
    http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/guns.html

    HTH

    Peter Davies
    Last edited by Resmoroh; 9th July 2015 at 11:12. Reason: QSD
    Meteorology is a science; good meteorology is an art!
    We might not know - but we might know who does!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Grantham, Lincs
    Posts
    565
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Hello Steve,

    Standard Bf109E armament was a pair of MG17 machine guns with 1000 rpg over the engine and a pair of wing mounted 20mm MG FF cannon with 60 rpg.

    Some initial production Bf109E-1 had the wing mounted cannons replaced by MG17s.

    It was intended that the improved Bf109E-3 would supplement the cannon / machine gun armament with an additional engine mounted 20mm MG FF cannon but problems of overheating, seizing and vibration meant this weapon was rarely used and generally removed in service.

    The further developed Bf109E-4 rapidly replaced the E-3 model in the summer and autumn of 1940, this models wing mounted cannon offered an improved fire rate, but continued to be drum fed.

    Info from Bill Green’s “Warplanes of the Third Reich”

    Ian

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,316
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    Hi Peter and Ian

    This is really helpful information, thank you. Just what I was after.

    Thank you for taking the time to post.

    Kind regards
    Steve
    41 (F) Squadron RAF at War and Peace, April 1916-March 1946
    http://brew.clients.ch/41sqnraf.htm

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Hello
    a little late answer but 109E-1s had the armament of four 7.92mm MG 17s, and E-1 was still fairly common in the 1-line fighter units, according to the loss reports it was the 2nd most common 109 during the BoB, right after E-4. The problem is that some of those reported as E-1s were in fact E-1s modified to E-4 standard but it still seems that 25% - 33% of the 109s lost or significantly damaged during the BoB were E-1s. The difference between the E-3 and the E-4 was that while E-3 had 2xMG17+2x20mm MG FF in the E-4s the wing cannons were replaced by the more deadly 20mm MG FF/M, which could fire the very effective thin walled Minen shells, which carried significantly more HE than the normal HE shells.

    Juha
    Last edited by Juha; 17th July 2015 at 19:41.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,316
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    Thanks Juha

    I appreciate the additional information. As always, these things are generally more complicated than on face value!

    Regards
    Steve
    41 (F) Squadron RAF at War and Peace, April 1916-March 1946
    http://brew.clients.ch/41sqnraf.htm

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •