Aircraft with oversized guns:
-
- Member
- Posts: 321
- Joined: 05 Jun 2015, 03:08
Aircraft with oversized guns:
Admittedly a bit fascinated by AC with larger-than-typical cannon armament for anti-tank, anti-shipping or anti-anything-on-the-ground role:
JU-87 with 37mm cannon:
Hawker Hurricane with 40mm cannon:
Henschel HS 129:
P-39 Airacobra:
B-25 Mitchell with 75mm:
Mosquito with the 6 pounder:
A-10 with Avenger:
Probably the ultimate of the concept? AC-130J:
Edited to add – great footage from ground perspective as well:
Simply, happy brrrt day:
JU-87 with 37mm cannon:
Hawker Hurricane with 40mm cannon:
Henschel HS 129:
P-39 Airacobra:
B-25 Mitchell with 75mm:
Mosquito with the 6 pounder:
A-10 with Avenger:
Probably the ultimate of the concept? AC-130J:
Edited to add – great footage from ground perspective as well:
Simply, happy brrrt day:
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Germany had 200-300 specially built Henschells with an anti-tank gun. They were only committed to major ops so not much has been written about them (w/o local airsuperiority they would have been sitting ducks).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Here's the one for Spectre that I was referring to on the Mosquito thread:
- halve recoil
- have 5 times better accuracy
... what is there not to like!
http://www.powershow.com/view/1bffa-M2R ... esentation
- halve recoil
- have 5 times better accuracy
... what is there not to like!
http://www.powershow.com/view/1bffa-M2R ... esentation
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 321
- Joined: 05 Jun 2015, 03:08
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Interesting...It seems they weren't much in the realm of performance but doing what it took to stem the tide of Soviet armor. It seems Germany attempted to get the JU-88 setup for the role as well, but too little, too late to make a difference: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_ju88P.htmlArmChairCivvy wrote:Germany had 200-300 specially built Henschells with an anti-tank gun. They were only committed to major ops so not much has been written about them (w/o local airsuperiority they would have been sitting ducks).
-
- Member
- Posts: 321
- Joined: 05 Jun 2015, 03:08
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Wow, very nice. More flexibility in deployment...let gravity assist...guided...good stuff. Note the altitude of 15-25K.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Here's the one for Spectre that I was referring to on the Mosquito thread:
- halve recoil
- have 5 times better accuracy
... what is there not to like!
http://www.powershow.com/view/1bffa-M2R ... esentation
Here's a history throwback I forgot about:
http://www.ac-119gunships.com/the119s/a ... nshipk.htm
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
More history...
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 00016.html
about Stuka and Henschell 129 (an attempt at evaluating their effectiveness)
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 00016.html
about Stuka and Henschell 129 (an attempt at evaluating their effectiveness)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Germans always seem to (used to?) do it better: wiki tells us about the same cannon/ armour race that was on on the ground, from the perspective of gun upgrades:
"(The Piaggio P.108A Artigliere was equipped with a 102 mm gun for the anti-shipping role, but only a single prototype of this aircraft was tested in 1943.) The BK 7,5 [fitted to the late model Henschell 129s] was unsurpassed as a production aircraft-fitted gun until 1971, when the four-engine Lockheed AC-130E Spectre – equipped with a sideways-aimed, hand-loaded 105 mm M102 howitzer of about 3,298 lb (1,496 kg) apiece – entered service with the U.S. Air Force. The 1,200 kg (2,645 lb) Bordkanone BK 7,5 cannon installation in the Hs 129B-3 was the heaviest forward-firing autocannon ever made for a series production military aircraft, until the introduction of the Fairchild Republic A-10 "Warthog", with its General Electric GAU-8 Avenger seven barrel 30mm caliber anti-tank Gatling cannon main armament coming in at a total weight of up to 1,830 kg (4,030 lb) with ammunition included in a drum magazine integral to the weapon system, much like the much smaller 12-round magazine of the BK 7,5."
"(The Piaggio P.108A Artigliere was equipped with a 102 mm gun for the anti-shipping role, but only a single prototype of this aircraft was tested in 1943.) The BK 7,5 [fitted to the late model Henschell 129s] was unsurpassed as a production aircraft-fitted gun until 1971, when the four-engine Lockheed AC-130E Spectre – equipped with a sideways-aimed, hand-loaded 105 mm M102 howitzer of about 3,298 lb (1,496 kg) apiece – entered service with the U.S. Air Force. The 1,200 kg (2,645 lb) Bordkanone BK 7,5 cannon installation in the Hs 129B-3 was the heaviest forward-firing autocannon ever made for a series production military aircraft, until the introduction of the Fairchild Republic A-10 "Warthog", with its General Electric GAU-8 Avenger seven barrel 30mm caliber anti-tank Gatling cannon main armament coming in at a total weight of up to 1,830 kg (4,030 lb) with ammunition included in a drum magazine integral to the weapon system, much like the much smaller 12-round magazine of the BK 7,5."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Can 'aircraft with oversized bombs' be included too ?!
^ Lancaster, with 'Bouncing Bomb' ala 'Dam Busters'
^ Lancaster, with 'Bouncing Bomb' ala 'Dam Busters'
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
A mere 9250 lbs?
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/mi ... llboy.html
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/mi ... llboy.html
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 321
- Joined: 05 Jun 2015, 03:08
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Please do!SKB wrote:Can 'aircraft with oversized bombs' be included too ?!
^ Lancaster, with 'Bouncing Bomb' ala 'Dam Busters'
Great history on the Grand Slam, Tallboy and dam busters. I suppose today the needs are not as great given cruise missiles, JDAMs on 2000lbers.
Image the potential of modern guidance on the TallBoy?
Here's a modern rendition:
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Heh-he, here is the answer to that one... and it is labelled as an anti-terrorist weapon?
https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=m ... +bomb+test
https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=m ... +bomb+test
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
^ FOAB, so big, its bigger than the plane which drops it.
Meet FOAB (Father Of All Bombs), properly abbreviated as ATBIP (Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power)
The thermobaric bomb is four times as powerful as the US military's "MOAB" GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (whose official military acronym "MOAB" is often colloquially called the "Mother of All Bombs"). This Russian device is the most powerful conventional (non-nuclear) weapon in the world.
"FOAB" was successfully field-tested in the late evening of September 11, 2007. The new weapon is to replace several smaller types of nuclear bombs in its arsenal. FOAB weights 7.1 tons, has a destructive equivilent of 44 tons (88,000 lbs) of TNT. Its blast radius is 300m (1000 ft).
-
- Member
- Posts: 321
- Joined: 05 Jun 2015, 03:08
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
[quote="SKB"]
^ FOAB, so big, its bigger than the plane which drops it.
Meet FOAB (Father Of All Bombs), properly abbreviated as ATBIP (Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power)
The thermobaric bomb is four times as powerful as the US military's "MOAB" GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (whose official military acronym "MOAB" is often colloquially called the "Mother of All Bombs"). This Russian device is the most powerful conventional (non-nuclear) weapon in the world.
"FOAB" was successfully field-tested in the late evening of September 11, 2007. The new weapon is to replace several smaller types of nuclear bombs in its arsenal. FOAB weights 7.1 tons, has a destructive equivilent of 44 tons (88,000 lbs) of TNT. Its blast radius is 300m (1000 ft).
]
^ FOAB, so big, its bigger than the plane which drops it.
Meet FOAB (Father Of All Bombs), properly abbreviated as ATBIP (Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power)
The thermobaric bomb is four times as powerful as the US military's "MOAB" GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (whose official military acronym "MOAB" is often colloquially called the "Mother of All Bombs"). This Russian device is the most powerful conventional (non-nuclear) weapon in the world.
"FOAB" was successfully field-tested in the late evening of September 11, 2007. The new weapon is to replace several smaller types of nuclear bombs in its arsenal. FOAB weights 7.1 tons, has a destructive equivilent of 44 tons (88,000 lbs) of TNT. Its blast radius is 300m (1000 ft).
]
-
- Member
- Posts: 288
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
- Contact:
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Thanks, I'd not seen that one.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Here's the one for Spectre that I was referring to on the Mosquito thread:
- halve recoil
- have 5 times better accuracy
... what is there not to like!
http://www.powershow.com/view/1bffa-M2R ... esentation
It seems to have vanished since then, as do many good ideas. Implementing it would cost money, so someone would have to decide that it was more important than something else in the budget...
-
- Member
- Posts: 288
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
- Contact:
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Here's a short article about big-gun "Tankbuster" aircraft of WW2 and their armament: http://quarryhs.co.uk/tankbusters.htm
-
- Member
- Posts: 321
- Joined: 05 Jun 2015, 03:08
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Tony Williams wrote:Here's a short article about big-gun "Tankbuster" aircraft of WW2 and their armament: http://quarryhs.co.uk/tankbusters.htm
outstanding read sir, thank you
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Tony, your ideal airframe for the job existed already in 1939 (XP-52), but it had a liquid cooled engine (minus points for vulnerability). The air-cooled version XP-59 only made it to mock-up stage, and was cancelled in 1941. But the centre had two 20 mm cannons so one, bigger cannon surely could have been fitted.Tony Williams wrote:article about big-gun "Tankbuster" aircraft of WW2
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_XP-59.html
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Anyone interested can see what it looked like here (project 31, p. 156)ArmChairCivvy wrote:The air-cooled version XP-59 only made it to mock-up stage, and was cancelled in 1941
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/ ... estLog.pdf
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 288
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
- Contact:
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Yes, that looks good.ArmChairCivvy wrote: Tony, your ideal airframe for the job existed already in 1939 (XP-52), but it had a liquid cooled engine (minus points for vulnerability). The air-cooled version XP-59 only made it to mock-up stage, and was cancelled in 1941. But the centre had two 20 mm cannons so one, bigger cannon surely could have been fitted.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_XP-59.html
There are two problems with pusher-prop singles which have to be overcome:
1. An ejector seat is needed, or (as in one case) the propeller needs to be blown off before the pilot can survive bailing-out (given the low-level operations, an ejector seat is a good idea anyway).
2. The fired cartridge cases and belt links from the fuselage-mounted guns need to be retained on board, since if ejected they could damage the propeller.
-
- Member
- Posts: 321
- Joined: 05 Jun 2015, 03:08
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Anyone interested can see what it looked like here (project 31, p. 156)ArmChairCivvy wrote:The air-cooled version XP-59 only made it to mock-up stage, and was cancelled in 1941
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/ ... estLog.pdf
Interesting concept. It seems the O2 Skymaster and later the OV-10 took the twin book concept up a notch. You may appreciate this:
Night ops:
Service variant:
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
In terms of oversize guns didn't the Mig 15 have a 37mm cannon as standard?
-
- Member
- Posts: 288
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
- Contact:
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Yes, as did a few other Soviet fighters of the 1950s. The muzzle velocity of the N-37 was low, though, which didn't help hit probability, so it was mainly intended for use against heavy bombers.Old RN wrote:In terms of oversize guns didn't the Mig 15 have a 37mm cannon as standard?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
They (the Soviets) were the last to give up on rear gunners.
Though the 27 mm (twin?) can't be called oversized, it probably was quite peppery, as for the muzzle velocity?
Though the 27 mm (twin?) can't be called oversized, it probably was quite peppery, as for the muzzle velocity?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 288
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
- Contact:
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Did you mean 37mm?ArmChairCivvy wrote:They (the Soviets) were the last to give up on rear gunners.
Though the 27 mm (twin?) can't be called oversized, it probably was quite peppery, as for the muzzle velocity?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Aircraft with oversized guns:
Memory fade, I actually meant this one (23 mm):
- fits the title "oversized" even less now
The NR-23 [...] was also used on the Ilyushin Il-28 and Beriev Be-6. The AM-23 was used in the defensive turrets of the Antonov An-12B, Myasishchev M-4, Tupolev Tu-14, Tupolev Tu-16, Tupolev Tu-95/Tu-142, and the Tupolev Tu-98 prototype.
Considering the various users and the large number of aircraft employing this weapon, it was perhaps the most widely used aircraft cannon of its day
- fits the title "oversized" even less now
The NR-23 [...] was also used on the Ilyushin Il-28 and Beriev Be-6. The AM-23 was used in the defensive turrets of the Antonov An-12B, Myasishchev M-4, Tupolev Tu-14, Tupolev Tu-16, Tupolev Tu-95/Tu-142, and the Tupolev Tu-98 prototype.
Considering the various users and the large number of aircraft employing this weapon, it was perhaps the most widely used aircraft cannon of its day
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)