Shortround6
Lieutenant General
I want to see the video of the crewman changing all those ammo drums
Best strafing aircraft in WWII???
- Thread starter filnorm
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Looking at the prototypes, the Su-8 was intended to be the most powerful and versatile strafing aircraft of World War II. Its armament was clearly more powerful than that of any other aircraft in the same class—4xNS-45 in the fuselage, 4xShKAS in the wing consoles, 1xUBT in the upper turret, 1xShKAS in the lower turret, up to 10 RS-82/-132, and a bomb load of up to 1,400 kg (total payload of 3,045 kg). Its flight characteristics were also very impressive (if not outstanding); it was quite suitable for attacking naval targets, but it never saw combat, so its actual combat value remains purely hypothetical. Realizing that the aircraft had virtually no chance of entering mass production with the M-71 engine, Sukhoi attempted to fit it with AM-42 engines, but this also failed to spark interest among Air Force leadership—the war was ending, and there were a huge number of Il-2s and Il-10s in service, even if they were not sufficiently effective. Of course, installing the AM-42 engines would have clearly reduced its combat effectiveness due to the engines' increased vulnerability, but even in this configuration, the Su-8 could have been very effective. In the end, it remained an unappreciated masterpiece.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Looked pretty cool too.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Something in the caption seems to be off.
To my eyes (could be wrong) there seem to be 11 rows of guns with eight guns in each row.
88 guns total with 71 rounds in each gun.
Even scarier but at what point do you reach over-kill?
Guns are empty in about 3 1/2 seconds.
unless there is some way to fire 1/2 (?) the guns at a time?
And exactly what was going to be strafed with this thing? You will have to fly directly over the target, you're a large aircraft, and attacking (I'm assuming) land targets. No other country had this set up and probably for a good reason.
The gun nosed B-25s and A-26s (particularly in the SWP arena), or the P-38 all do to concentration of firepower.
The gun nosed B-25s and A-26s (particularly in the SWP arena), or the P-38 all do to concentration of firepower.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Other countries may have been able to build enough real machine-guns but your point is valid.
This contraption is going fire 6284 small/light bullets into an area just under 400 meters with an unknown spread(width) if the plane is flying at 250mph (402kph).
Assuming it fires all 88 guns at the same time in one long burst (3 1/2 seconds)
Wither this is better or worse than around 2000lbs (2200lbs) of fragmentation bombs or stick of 4-8 500lb/250lb bombs is subject to question/opinion.
Germans had the Waffenbahalter 81 which had three MG 81Z guns (6 barrels)
Waffenbehälter 81 "Gießkanne" - Emmas Planes
The Waffenbehälter 81, lit. weapon container 81, was a German suspended gun pod. It was developed in 1942 to further increase the effectiveness of attackers in low level flights. Each pod contained three double-barrelled 9.72 mm MG 81 Z machine guns, giving the pod a theoretical fire rate of...
emmasplanes.com
That could fire about 10,000rpm from each pod. Some Ju 87s carried two pods.
Some A-26s were equipped to carry four under wing gun pods with ammo in the wings.
which combined with a solid nose that looks very scary to me
The much steeper impact angle of the Russian set up is going to be harder to hide from but mass .50 cal machine gun fire turns trees, telephone poles and many building walls into secondary projectiles.
I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of what are you destroying? Troops in the open then frag bombs or daisy cutters might work better. But if I'm going after trains, light armored vehicles (half tracks, transport trucks, kubelwagons / jeeps), gun emplacements etc I think a gun nosed aircraft would be more impactful.Other countries may have been able to build enough real machine-guns but your point is valid.
This contraption is going fire 6284 small/light bullets into an area just under 400 meters with an unknown spread(width) if the plane is flying at 250mph (402kph).
Assuming it fires all 88 guns at the same time in one long burst (3 1/2 seconds)
Wither this is better or worse than around 2000lbs (2200lbs) of fragmentation bombs or stick of 4-8 500lb/250lb bombs is subject to question/opinion.
Germans had the Waffenbahalter 81 which had three MG 81Z guns (6 barrels)
Waffenbehälter 81 "Gießkanne" - Emmas Planes
The Waffenbehälter 81, lit. weapon container 81, was a German suspended gun pod. It was developed in 1942 to further increase the effectiveness of attackers in low level flights. Each pod contained three double-barrelled 9.72 mm MG 81 Z machine guns, giving the pod a theoretical fire rate of...
That could fire about 10,000rpm from each pod. Some Ju 87s carried two pods.
Some A-26s were equipped to carry four under wing gun pods with ammo in the wings.
which combined with a solid nose that looks very scary to me
The much steeper impact angle of the Russian set up is going to be harder to hide from but mass .50 cal machine gun fire turns trees, telephone poles and many building walls into secondary projectiles.
An attack on troops on the move. Based on the results of the field tests, the only criticism was regarding the duration of fire; surprisingly, the Soviets were quite satisfied with the accuracy, which was ensured by a special sight. And yes, the final conclusion was precisely this: small frag bombs are a simpler solution.
But the idea took on a new form:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Such a gun arrangement might have been useful for dug-in-troops. The bullets coming down at a steep angle and getting into the bottoms of fox holes, slit trenches and weapons pits.
The wall will offer some protection depending on direction but much less than the protection for a normal strafing attack with their shallow trajectory bullet path.
For attacking larger stuff (trains) the American and Soviet 12.7mm guns excelled. AP bullets would readily penetrate steam boilers, tank cars and even thin armor plate on cabs and cars.
Soviet setup offered the promise of one bullet in every square meter of ground in a 400 meter X 15.5 meter path if flown at the correct speed and height. Narrower side-angle on the guns and a bit slower speed can make for a much denser pattern.
But it is much less flexible in regard to possible targets and position of attack.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
British may have been the first.
They tried mounting a pair of Lewis guns pointed down at 45 degrees in a Sopwith Camel (T.R. 1---Trench Fighter 1) with light armor around the cockpit.
Aiming proved to be a major problem.
earlier two seat fighters like the Vickers Gun Bus
Could point the gun downwards but that was more for air-to-air fighting than air to ground.
Other downward firing guns in WW I were for anti-sub work.
Davis recoilless gun needed a lot of care in aiming. It fired and equal weight of lead shot out the back as the weight of the shell fired out the front.
Effect on wings and struts can be imagined.
They tried mounting a pair of Lewis guns pointed down at 45 degrees in a Sopwith Camel (T.R. 1---Trench Fighter 1) with light armor around the cockpit.
Aiming proved to be a major problem.
earlier two seat fighters like the Vickers Gun Bus
Could point the gun downwards but that was more for air-to-air fighting than air to ground.
Other downward firing guns in WW I were for anti-sub work.
Davis recoilless gun needed a lot of care in aiming. It fired and equal weight of lead shot out the back as the weight of the shell fired out the front.
Effect on wings and struts can be imagined.
MIflyer
Captain
Gee, lemme think....
.
The Soviet AF tested the B-25G in combat and concluded that it was unsuitable for use either as a ground-attack aircraft or as a long-range bomber; as a result, the B-25G/H was used almost exclusively in naval aviation. I don't know why the Soviets made this decision - perhaps they were unable to realize the aircraft's potential, or perhaps the density of AAA fire on the Eastern Front was so high that the large and relatively low-maneuvering B-25s didn't stand a chance. The second explanation seems more plausible to me.
MIflyer
Captain
In Western Europe the USAAF hoped the A-26 would replace the P-47 as a ground attack aircraft. With a greater bomb/rocket load and up to 14 forward firing .50 cal, it looked to be a significant improvement over the P-47 when it came to ground attack. They found that the A-26 was just as fast as a P-47 at low altitude but that it was a significantly larger target and would have difficulty surviving the AAA combat environment in the ETO.
If by oohh with typhoon, you mean that it was the first Hawker fighter that had rounds that could damage armour, I think you might be forgetting the Hawker Hurricane IIC armed with 4x 20mm Cannon or indeed the IID with 2x 40mm Vickers S Guns.
Regards
MIflyer
Captain
P-47 pilots swore they knocked out "Tiger Tanks" with just their eight .50 cal guns, based on seeing the rounds bouncing off the the ground and coming out from under the tanks at right angles. Of course, Allied fighter pilots as well as many infantry called ANY German tank a Tiger, so they could have been shooting at Panzer Mark III, IV, or V. Or for that matter, the old French tanks the Germans used in areas that did not have much in the way of Allied armor.
