Read the forum code of contact
By: - 3rd March 2003 at 19:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Off the top of me 'ed I'm thinking of the 75mm PAK 40 conversion fitted to the Henschel Hs129, though there weren't many operational it was a hell of a big gun fitted to quite a small a/c, they reckon the recoil was fantastic. I seem to recall the Mitchell's big gun being 75mm but I'm not completely sure.
Tom ;)
By: - 3rd March 2003 at 20:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are correct Tom_W! The Hs 129 had the PaK 40 75mm weapon. The North American B25G Mitchel had a 75mm M4 US. Army cannon. It was mainly used for anti-shipping operation. A total of 400 thus equipped aircraft were built by the factory, plus an unspecified number of mainly B25C's converted in the field.
The Germans had one more interesting combination. The Junkers Ju 88 P-1 was a ground attack version of the famous bomber and packed a terrible punch in the form of a PaK 40, 75mm cannon.
Somewhere at the back of my head I seem to remember that the Junkers Ju 88 was also operational with an 88mm anti-aircraft gun, but try as I might, I can not find this in black and white at the moment. Any ideas????
Regards,
galdri
By: - 3rd March 2003 at 20:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just re-read the chapter about this subject in 'Hs 129 PANZERJAGER' and it mentions that the pilots of the Ju 88Ps did not like them as they were too slow and not manouverable enough and much preferred the '129 which was a smaller target for the Russian gunners who all too often were extremely accurate. As so often happened with Luftwaffe decisions the 'powers that be' decided that too much armour would have to be used with a twin engined ground attack a/c so decided that the Fw 190 was the solution but the cannon armament wasn't accurate so they developed their anti-tank rockets more. I love the Hs 129, nice shape and often overlooked especially as there has been a reputation made for it over the years as an unpopular and difficult aircraft to fly, the pilots loved them and they were perfect for the job apart from the Gnome-Rhone engines in the early part of the aircraft's history. I WANT ONE!
Tom ;)
By: - 3rd March 2003 at 20:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BTW, forgot to say that I couldn't find any reference to a Ju 88 being fitted with a dreaded 88mm but didn't use all my references so it could be true.
Tom ;)
By: - 3rd March 2003 at 21:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I´m sure you can order one from a certain outfit in Germany, specalizing in old Luftwaffe aircraft :D :D
By: - 3rd March 2003 at 22:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hs 129's
Mmm, that's a very mouthwatering thought... New build Hs 129's. :) I've always had a bit of a soft spot for them, felt like they were almost the German equivalent of the Beaufighter in many respects - twin engined, slightly pugnatious look to it, packed a punch, tends to be overlooked by historians generally though. Wonder why that is...? :confused:
By: - 3rd March 2003 at 23:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Japanese came up with the Mistubishi Ki109, which also packed a 75mm.
By: - 3rd March 2003 at 23:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One Flying Fortress was modified for RAF Coastal Command with a whacking great Vickers S gun in a solid nose,with a cupola under the chin for a crewman to sight it.It was intended to be used against surfaced U-Boats or other surface vessels,but it wasn't a great success.It was issued to 220Sqn for trials,but it was found that the firing recoil of the gun seriously affected the handling of the aircraft and caused structural damage to the nose.
I've read somewhere that the damage caused was so great that the aircraft never flew again.
Sadly,I can't find any referance to the calibre of the gun,but looking at a pic of it in the aircraft,it's a serious piece of kit!If anyone fancies chasing it up,the aircraft was Fortress IIa (B17E) FK185.I can't seem to find any more than one or two referances to it in my 'library',and they're both a bit sketchy.Anyone know the fate of the aircraft or the calibre of the Vickers S?
By: - 3rd March 2003 at 23:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Vickers "S" was the same "small" 40mm weapon as installed in the Hawker Mk.2 D Hurricane tank buster, used to great effect in the Western Desert against Axis armour. A Mk.2 Wellington also had the same weapon installed en a midd-upper turret location as an experimental installation. Nothing came of it.
You say the B17 received structural damage to the nose after the operational deput with 220 sq. Somehow I find this hard to understand. Most surely they would have fired the gun during testing before that stage was reached??? Maybe they packed the nose of that ole B17 full of 40mm guns, and the fatique of the structure only showed up after the first operational sortie???
Since the Wellington could stand the recoil of this weapon, why should the B17 not, since it was a lot more sturdy than the Wimpy??
By: - 4th March 2003 at 00:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Almost forgot to mention, if they were having control (handling) difficaulties when the gun was fired, it must have been something a whole lot bigger than a 40mm. They could fire a 75mm from a Mossie that is a lot smaller and lighter than a B17. The gun must have been someting in the order of 105mm battlefield gun to cause problems like that. Come to think of it, a gun of that size would almost surely cause structural problems?
But then again, it aint a Vickers "S" which was most certainly only 40mm.
By: - 4th March 2003 at 00:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for that Galdri,
I had an idea the S was 'only' 40mm,but with the claims about structural and handling problems,I thought it way too small.The gun itself looks pretty big,so perhaps it isn't an S afterall,but this is what it says in the caption to the photo I have.Hmmmm...
With regard to the Fort being stronger than the Wimpy,I'm not so sure.The geodetic contruction of the Wimpy was immensely strong and also very flexible,so I'd imagine it would soak up the recoil of a large calibre gun quite nicely.Just a thought...
By: - 4th March 2003 at 00:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When you say the Vickers "S" looked huge, it´s because it is HUGE. Have you seen a picture of it under the wing of a Hurricane? It certainly is no toy :)
And about the Vimpy being as sturdy as the B17 and able to take the punch of big weapons, I don´t know. All I know is that the Vimpy was unuseable as a glider tug because the fuselage had a habit "streching" when under strain like glider towing
By: - 4th March 2003 at 07:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Modern stuff isn't my thing...
But don't the C130s currently trundling over my house day and night have a 105 mm fitted?
That's the Spectres of course.
Moggy
By: - 4th March 2003 at 08:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Galdri,
I think you'll find it was a 57 mm gun under the nose of a Mosquito. The weight of the shell was 6 lbs. The Mossie carried 25 shells & had a fire rate of 20/min.
The main problem of fitting a big calibre gun to a metal aeroplane, is metal fatigue around the gun mounts. This, because the wood absorbed the recoil better, was something the Mosquito didn't have a problem with.
Cheers,
Neilly
By: - 4th March 2003 at 09:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanx for that Neilly
My head was not working correctly last night, I got so worked up with the 75mm in all those other planes. I just wrote 75mm even though of course it should have been 57mm. You will probably never believe it´s a typo?? ;)
MoggyC,
Yes the Spectra does have a 105mm. BUT it is mounted to fire out of the side of the aircraft, not out of the nose. I´m sure they have some fancy eqippment to take up some of the recoil, and being mounted on the side, the rest of the recoil is taken up by pendulium (spelling??) movement of the aircraft.
If you mount something like that to fire through the nose of an aircraft you will get the recoil directly against the momentum of the aircraft, with some strange resaults I´m sure. Besides, the B17 that started all this discusstion was, as I understood it, more or less a field mod. and there for I´m sure they just bolted the biggest gun they could find directly to the airframe (more or less) without any divices to absorb the recoil.
Well, this is just my thinking, I´m certainly no expert on these things.
Regards,
galdri
By: - 4th March 2003 at 10:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
75mm! Thats amazing for some of the aircraft which really aren't that big.
Not getting too off topic whats the largest gun on an aircraft ever?
I know that a Herc variant has got a 105 Howy poking out of its side, but is that the biggest?
If this is too AFM for you guys here I'm sorry, don't mean to change the subject, Im just interested :)
By: - 4th March 2003 at 12:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The AC130U is the present mark i think. The armament runs on rails, fitted to the cargo bay floor. Because there is no rigid mounting for the 105mm next to no force is actually transmitted to the airframe.
the Tsetse and the Mllins gun are the same thing then?
coanda
By: - 4th March 2003 at 13:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think they are, the Tse Tse refers to the noise the Mollins gun makes when it fires.
By: - 4th March 2003 at 13:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure you are right there.
I believe the Tsetse name refers to a particularly nasty insect of the mosquito family with a singularly viscious bite
Moggy
By: - 4th March 2003 at 13:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm... that sounds more logical! Sorry!
Posts: 1,078
By: geedee - 3rd March 2003 at 19:20
Question for you, was the Mollins six pounder fitted to the Mosquito, the largest calibre gun fitted to any aircraft during the second World war ?
I know some variants of the Mitchell had a large calibre gun installed in the nose for anti-shipping strikes, but cant recall any others