Why did they put cannons in the wings?

>>33886119
To knock out wings at the same time with good shot.

you raise an interesting point and I've never really thought about this before, but there's one line that I'm not with you on:
>Also, if the cannons are in the nose than gun harmonization isn't as much of a problem and it decreases the problems you run into because of the need for it.
perhaps, the reason it was preferable to not use cannons with interrupter gear because cannons already had lower ROF, and forcing them to fire only when not blocked by the prop would lower that ROF even further to the point of it being unacceptably slow.

only conjecture, I'm interested in this too, thanks OP

File: Bf-109 and LaGG.png (231KB, 1623x732px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1623x732px

I'd say it's indeed because there, most of the time, just isn't enough space, it would make your aircraft more nose-heavy as well, and messing with an aircraft's center of gravity is a no-no.

>>33886158
>adding
higher rof increases danger of cookoff

>>33886119
Customary group wankoff to Paths of Hate anyone?
https://youtu.be/Jv1ZN8c4_Gs

>>33886158
but cannons had a lower ROF than the machineguns so where is this faulty line of logic coming from?

>>33886163

The La-5 made it work.

File: let's bomb britain.jpg (139KB, 1000x792px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1000x792px

>>33886174
Didn't stop the Soviets from using ShKAS and ShVAK))

>>33886209
Yes, but why only the La-5?

i'd guess a lot of planes were simply not designed with the space for larger weapons in the fuselage

you get into the war with a design, then a few years in realize you really want more bang bang, but don't want to build a whole new fucking plane because you're already jamming better engines in them, so you just stuff the guns under/in the wings

ammunition capacity, visibility, aerodynamic, and space concerns, and rate of fire

ammunition capacity: 20mm cannon ammunition is held in drums or boxes. putting these drums/boxes in the nose means those boxes have to be behind the engine, making the nose longer. this, in turn, makes flight handling and visibility worse.

aerodynamics: cannons in the nose must be placed on top or under it, meaning the nose is taller and shaped worse. it also means that the pilot can't see over the nose so easily.

space: same as above

rate of fire: nose cannons must be synchronised. the synchronisation mechanism makes maintenance more difficult as well as taking up more space. furthermore, the cannon rate of fire is usually slower than the rate of prop rotation, which would make it hard to synchronise effectively while still maintaining decent RoF.

>>33886221

La-7 too. Clearly they used some kind of black slavic magic.

I mean these were the people who put a 45mm cannon in a prop plane.

I might be wrong but weren't most cannons custom fitted? It simplifies the fitting a lot by not having to bother with gun synchronization, I guess.

the russian planes could make it work since the ShVAK cannons had low velocity compared to most other nations, which meant that the cannon itself could be smaller, easier to manufacture, and have a higher rate of fire. this allowed the cannons to better synchronise with the propellers.

their engines are also generally longer and wings further forward than other nations' planes (compare yak-3 to spitfire), which allows better accomodation

>>33886259
Almost all russian planes, with smaller planes like the i-16 being the exception, had nose-mounted cannons.

reasons here:
>>33886278

the yak-9k's 45mm NS-45 cannon fired through the propeller driveshaft, meaning there was no need for synchronization.
the germans had driveshaft-mounted cannons as well, however most russian planes did not mount guns there.

>>33886258
>>33886278

Thanks anon, that makes a lot of sense.

>>33886259
>I mean these were the people who put a 45mm cannon in a prop plane.

*single-engined prop plane

>>33886261
You're probably talking about cannons that fire through the propeller hub, so no synchronization to worry about. However the Fw-190 had wing cannons that were synchronized because they were so close to the fuselage. I believe it was to be able to bring more ammo, as it was stored in the fuselage itself.

>>33886287
>however most russian planes did not mount guns there.
What are literally all of the YaK and LaGG variants?

>>33886119
it's a rather simple issue. Cannons are bigger and require more space for their ammo, you'll burn through them quick enough WITHOUT limiting your space and putting it in the nose. Also, if you want to maintain the strength of the crankshaft you're gonna need interrupter gears so the props aren't shot off. Furthermore, guns will not be columated, but convergent.

>>33886119 (OP)
>Ju-87G
>late variants of Bf-109, Fw-190

For anti armor/tank purposes and intercepting high altitude heavy bomber desu

As you say, those cannons had drawbacks too
(worsened flight characteristics, recoil problem, ammunition capacity)

>>33886345
He's talking about weaponry mounted INSIDE the wings.

>>33886119
The problem is you're an idiot. Plenty of aircraft had all nose armaments, mosquitos for example.

>Machine guns tend to be better in a ground support role
Based on what? Warthunder? Christ....

>>33886371
>Mosquito
>fighter plane
The problem is you're an idiot.

>>33886371
It's pretty obvious he's referring to planes with the prop on the nose.

Other anons have pretty much covered the subject, though; space and RoF considerations were big downsides.

Now, if you invent the revolver cannon a few years earlier, it becomes a lot more reasonable to put a pair of them not in the nose, but in the wing roots (where they''d still have to be synchronized, but revolver cannons have enough RoF that it isn't a big deal). That puts them in one of the sturdiest places on the plane, and where they can draw ammunition from either the fuselage or the wing, depending on your design. It also puts them close enough that convergence is no longer an issue, but far enough apart that they cover a decent area.

File: Image7.jpg (101KB, 785x690px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 785x690px

>>33886119
Mostly for space, plus you could set up a convergence point on the guns out to a couple of hundred metres which concentrated the fire, or adjusted it for a spread of fire, depending on how you wanted it

>>33886119
One major issue which no-one has mentioned is synch. Most aircraft cannons were APIB (Oerlikons and derivatives), which due to very long and varying lock time are unsynchable. So you have no option but to mount them out of the way. The Hispano too fored from an open bolt, which made it near impossible to synch.
Other cannon, like the MG151/20, were synchable, which is why the FW190 carried 2 in the wing roots- no need for scarce cowl space, giving the pilot a good view forward and not sacrificing ammo capacity, whie at the same time maintaining a nice narrow cone of fire.

One of the main advantages of 2-engine aircraft was that all the armament cound be centerline. The BF110C for example, had 2 forward firing Oerlikons (fed from 60 round drums, reloaded in flight by the rear gunner) and 4 7.92 MG, giving very good density of fire in a narrow cone.

glad to see there are still /k/omandos who know things

in addition to what has already been suggested and highly technical reasons aside, I imagine aircraft with heavier armaments would have them removed more frequently for one reason or other, so it just made more sense to wing mount them

another reason >>33886418 suggested is that with cannons concentrating the fire might actually be detrimental because the damage a 20mm round would do multiple hits might be redundant and when strafing ground targets having two distinct points of fire might be helpful

the flash might also blind the pilot

kudos to >>33886439, totally right about the synching issues

>>33886258
The Messerschmidt solution of putting a cannon right in the space between the cylinder heads worked well enough.

>>33886278
>which meant that the cannon itself could be smaller, easier to manufacture, and have a higher rate of fire.
Nah. ShVAK was utter disaster from manufacturing and weight point of view. It was enlarged ShKAS machine-gun. Unnecessary complex and heavy revolver feeder thing. Such design made some sense in 7.62 mm cause it achieved 1800 RPM ROF but in canon size it was limited to "standard "800 RPM due to relative weakens of cannon rounds that can't be feed faster.

Berezin B-20 which was upgunned "conventional" 12.7mm machine-gun had half of ShVAK's weight and number of parts.

Most fighter designs were pre-war when the nature of modern air combat was largely unknown, and the need for heavy cannon armament was not recognised, early model Bf109s have all their guns in the nose and later models with wing guns were effectively compromises on the design, albeit successful.

>>33886418
Pilots always preferred nose guns, having to fire at convergence distance is a bad thing, not a good one, IIRC bongs had quite a number of arguments about what range should their guns converge on, going from 50 to 500 meters

>>33886577
>IIRC bongs had quite a number of arguments about what range should their guns converge on, going from 50 to 500 meters
You are correct, but not just the brits.
Prewar expectations were out to around 600m convergence, but experience showed thst was WAAAY to optimistic. They wanted closer ranges, but he installation on Hurricanes (and Spiffys too IIRC) limited it to 150m.

>>33886577
>early model Bf109s have all their guns in the nose and later models with wing guns were effectively compromises on the design, albeit successful.

Literally what is almost every 109 up to and including the Emil?

>>33886587
I am mistaken there, but wing guns were experimented with in some models and I believe later ones had them available as field mods, so someone higher up saw them as desirable I guess

>>33886597
Indeed. Wing pods housing the MG-151 and the MK-108 cannons were used later in the war for bomber interception on the 109. What's interesting is that Galland had a custom made version of a Friedrich that had a pair of cannons in the wings, a cigar holder, among other modifications.

File: 64578885545.jpg (28KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 640x480px

>>33886119
I always thought it was because cannons were an option, depending on the model or mission required at the time.

I know some planes even had gunpods like the later-year Me series

>>33886577
>bongs had quite a number of arguments about what range should their guns converge on, going from 50 to 500 meters

Because they are bunch of idiots.

>>33886209
>going for landing in one of the nose cannon slav planes
>fw-190 tries to bounce me
>fails
>i snipe it from a click out

>>33886850
war thunder?

>>33886859
Yeah. I specifically chose something with a nose cannon instead of converging wing cannons.

>>33886759
Gun pods would be optional, but few if any aircraft would swap out internal guns depending on mission.

>>33886119
ammo storage?

>>33886401
>Heavy fighters and night fighters don't count as fighters.
Be careful before you start calling others idiots, idiot.

>>33886209
So did the yak and lagg series

>>33886883
irl la7 and yak nose cannons were only accurate to 350m

You can cram much more ammo in the wings than you can in the nose.

Further, its easier for ground crews to access inside the wings than it is the inside of the engine/engine cowling.

>>33886119
But they did put cannons in the nose of aircraft. The ME 109 and the P-39 are two off the top of my head that had cannons in the nose.

>>33886119
They angled the wing guns to create a concentrated cone of fire, it was set to intersect at a distance determined by the pilots preference

>>33887157
Did you really think OP meant huge twin-engine multirole aircraft when he asked about a characteristic that does not effect such aircraft when he wrote "fighter planes"?
You are trying too hard to misinterpret OP for an opportunity to be a smartass .