Aircraft with oversized guns:

[GastonGlocker]

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:

[ArmChairCivvy]

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).

[ArmChairCivvy]

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

[GastonGlocker]

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).

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.html

[GastonGlocker]

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

Wow, very nice. More flexibility in deployment...let gravity assist...guided...good stuff. Note the altitude of 15-25K.

Here's a history throwback I forgot about:

http://www.ac-119gunships.com/the119s/a ... nshipk.htm

[ArmChairCivvy]

More history...
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 00016.html
about Stuka and Henschell 129 (an attempt at evaluating their effectiveness)

[ArmChairCivvy]

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."

[SKB]

Can 'aircraft with oversized bombs' be included too ?!

^ Lancaster, with 'Bouncing Bomb' ala 'Dam Busters'

[ArmChairCivvy]

A mere 9250 lbs?
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/mi ... llboy.html

[GastonGlocker]

Can 'aircraft with oversized bombs' be included too ?!

^ Lancaster, with 'Bouncing Bomb' ala 'Dam Busters'

Please do!

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]

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

[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).

[GastonGlocker]

[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).

]

[Tony Williams]

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

Thanks, I'd not seen that one.

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...

[Tony Williams]

Here's a short article about big-gun "Tankbuster" aircraft of WW2 and their armament: http://quarryhs.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

[GastonGlocker]

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]

article about big-gun "Tankbuster" aircraft of WW2

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

[ArmChairCivvy]

The air-cooled version XP-59 only made it to mock-up stage, and was cancelled in 1941

Anyone interested can see what it looked like here (project 31, p. 156)
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/crgis/images/ ... estLog.pdf

[Tony Williams]

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

Yes, that looks good.

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.

[GastonGlocker]

The air-cooled version XP-59 only made it to mock-up stage, and was cancelled in 1941

Anyone interested can see what it looked like here (project 31, p. 156)
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:

[Old RN]

In terms of oversize guns didn't the Mig 15 have a 37mm cannon as standard?

[Tony Williams]

In terms of oversize guns didn't the Mig 15 have a 37mm cannon as standard?

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.

[ArmChairCivvy]

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?

[Tony Williams]

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?

Did you mean 37mm?

[ArmChairCivvy]

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