glennasher
Senior Airman
I seem to recall that Marine F4F pilots on Wake Island sunk at least one Japanese destroyer with nothing but .50 caliber machineguns, is that right? I don't think the F4F had any bomb racks on them.
Big Guns aloft in WW2
- Thread starter SplitRz
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Before someone comes up with the right answer, I think one of the F4F's hit the destroyer with a bomb. There were a few early models with bomb racks. Either way it was .50's or a bomb hit that struck the ship's torpedoes.
yosimitesam
Airman 1st Class
No. The F4F could carry 2x100lb bombs, one under each wing. The pilot had these and dropped them and hit the stern of the destroyer, which set off its depth charges in their racks. The explosion(s) blew off the stern of the destroyer and it sank. (I can't help myself: He blew his ass off. Sorry, just could NOT let that one go by. )
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I was close.
This is basically the standard attack -- just that 'hit the target' means the water about 50-ft short of the enemy vessel. 'Dry' hits were very much something to avoid ... according to the tactical memos and ORS, anyway.
The sight and cannons don't necessarily have to be harmonised in an odd way -- just the rocket rails.
Yeah when it comes down to it rockets just aren't accurate enough for anti-tank work. Large guns can do the trick, but as the British and Germans found out; unless you can catch isolated groups of tanks away from the main battle area -- scooting around on the deck shooting at tanks becomes uneconomical very quickly.
Better off getting at their trucks and horses instead.
Shortround6
Major General
The British 40mm guns weren't bad for some purposes, and in some cases the idea wasn't thought through.
Perhaps development of guns and ammo didn't match the development of aircraft in general.
This was an idea for an interceptor, the Wellington was a test rig, they never intended for the Wellington to attempt to intercept enemy bomber formations but the idea of flying anti-aircraft batteries (bring the AA guns to the enemy bombers, instead of the enemy bombers having to come to the AA guns) rather depends on the enemy bombers being slower than the "interceptors" equipped with such equipement (weight of the power turret needed for the size of the gun.
The British 40mm gun did have low enough recoil that it could be mounted on planes like the Hurricane without damaging the structure or needing too much reinforcement. But it also meant that the gun was low powered in comparison to other 37mm (not the US airborne 37mm) and 40mm guns. It was useful for certain targets but against other aircraft its velocity required getting in close, negating the so called standoff argument, and it's rate of fire was low making hits against fleeting targets a matter of chance ( rockets were worse).
Perhaps development of guns and ammo didn't match the development of aircraft in general.
This was an idea for an interceptor, the Wellington was a test rig, they never intended for the Wellington to attempt to intercept enemy bomber formations but the idea of flying anti-aircraft batteries (bring the AA guns to the enemy bombers, instead of the enemy bombers having to come to the AA guns) rather depends on the enemy bombers being slower than the "interceptors" equipped with such equipement (weight of the power turret needed for the size of the gun.
The British 40mm gun did have low enough recoil that it could be mounted on planes like the Hurricane without damaging the structure or needing too much reinforcement. But it also meant that the gun was low powered in comparison to other 37mm (not the US airborne 37mm) and 40mm guns. It was useful for certain targets but against other aircraft its velocity required getting in close, negating the so called standoff argument, and it's rate of fire was low making hits against fleeting targets a matter of chance ( rockets were worse).
Was there any other airborne 37-40mm cannon that fired a 3 lb shell?
Shortround6
Major General
No but the Vickers S gun didn't fire a 3 lb "shell", it fired a 3lb shot (solid steel, no explosive). Bit of a quibble but, British 40mm X 158 ammo included.
0.9 kg (two pounds) shell at a muzzle velocity of about 610 m/s.
0.77 kg shell at a muzzle velocity of about 730 m/s
the standard AP shot weighing 1.13 kg at 615 m/s
the new AP shot weighing 1.36kg at 570 m/s
I don't know what modifications, if any, were required by the S gun to fire the different rounds but the 2pdr pom pom guns could only fire one or the other of HE rounds with changes (like new recoil springs)
BTW the 2pdr AT gun wound up with a 1.22kg projectile at 792 m/s
Vickers S gun was not yet another 2pdr pom pom. It was strong enough to fire the more powerful round, that would've wrecked the 2pdr pom-pom if it tried.
We can go with techy things back and forth, the Vickers S was still capable of killing any Axis tank that was not a Tiger - just like the other 37-40mm airborne guns of the era.
Good/bad as it was, 2pdr AT gun still was not an airborne gun.
Ascent
Senior Airman
Something to recommend rockets over big guns is the utility of the airframe. Using the example of the Mosquitoe, if you stick the 57mm on it you have a Coastal Command version that's goos for anti shipping work but is rather specialised and requires, if not its own production line, at least a modified jig and plans. If you put rockets on the FBVI then any aircraft off the production line can be used as well as making the aircraft potentially useful in more than one role.
The compressed oxygen used as one of the propellants in Japanese torpedoes made any ship carrying them vulnerable. I wonder if it negated them.
A disadvantage of the Type 93 was that it was far more likely to detonate due to shock than a compressed-air torpedo. The explosion from one Type 93, with its heavy warhead, was usually enough to sink the destroyer, or heavily damage the cruiser, carrying it. As American air strikes against IJN ships became more common, captains of destroyers and cruisers under air attack had to decide whether or not to jettison torpedoes to prevent them from being detonated during the attack. In one instance, the heavy cruiser Chikuma jettisoned her Type 93s just before being hit by bombs from several USN dive bombers at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. During the Battle off Samar (in the eastern Philippines) a 5 in (130 mm) shell from escort carrier USS White Plains[6] struck the heavy cruiser Chōkai which detonated the cruiser's Type 93 torpedoes, disabling her rudder and engines; she was scuttled the next day (while in most circumstances a five-inch shell would not penetrate a cruiser's armored deck nor cause serious damage). The same Samar engagement saw the heavy cruiser Suzuya sunk by the detonation of her own Type 93 torpedoes: a bomb near miss starboard amidships set off the torpedoes in the starboard tube mounts; the resultant fires propagated to other torpedoes nearby and beyond; the subsequent explosions damaged one of the boilers and the starboard engine rooms and eventually reached the main magazines.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
From a firefighting perspective, any sort of compressed oxygen or oxidizer is a major hazard. Perhaps the offensive doctrine of the Japanese made the decision to accept the risk palatable.
Update
On the morning of 25 October, Chōkai engaged an American force of escort carriers, destroyers, and destroyer escorts in the Battle off Samar. During her approach to the US escort carriers, Chōkai was hit several times on the port side amidships by 5"/38 caliber guns of this force's escort carriers and destroyers.[1][2] It is believed that one of these hits may have set off the eight deck-mounted Japanese Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedoes; however, RV Petrel's expedition in 2019 found Chōkai's torpedoes still intact.[3] An explosion was observed aboard Chōkai before a TBM Avenger from Kitkun Bay dropped a 500 lb (230 kg) bomb on her forward machinery room. Fires began to rage and she went dead in the water. She was scuttled later that day by torpedoes from the destroyer Fujinami (11°22′N 126°22′ECoordinates:
11°22′N 126°22′E), which also rescued some of her crew. Two days later Fujinami was itself sunk with the loss of all hands, including the Chōkai survivors.
On the morning of 25 October, Chōkai engaged an American force of escort carriers, destroyers, and destroyer escorts in the Battle off Samar. During her approach to the US escort carriers, Chōkai was hit several times on the port side amidships by 5"/38 caliber guns of this force's escort carriers and destroyers.[1][2] It is believed that one of these hits may have set off the eight deck-mounted Japanese Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedoes; however, RV Petrel's expedition in 2019 found Chōkai's torpedoes still intact.[3] An explosion was observed aboard Chōkai before a TBM Avenger from Kitkun Bay dropped a 500 lb (230 kg) bomb on her forward machinery room. Fires began to rage and she went dead in the water. She was scuttled later that day by torpedoes from the destroyer Fujinami (11°22′N 126°22′ECoordinates:
- Thread starter
- #36
Its interesting though, that what ever the utility and 'broad spectrum' of targets suited to rocket fire, even 30 years later, dedicated tank hunters like the SU 25 and A10 were still being designed with large calibre autocannon - not to mention the plethora of helicopter gunships which still pack 25 or 30mm high velocity weapons. OK, these may not have the punch to take out MBTs, but designers and strategists still presumably feel that they're an efficient way of dealing with ACVs and other vehicles.
Its also interesting to note that (as yet) I can't find any records of 'tankbusting aces' who used rockets - but can find a number who used airborne guns to rack up considerable numbers of tank kills. Again, I'm not pouring though sources for absolute accuracy with cross referencing on the claims, but the following are interesting:
Rudolf Heinnz Ruffer with circa 80 kills
Hans-Ulrich Rudel with 100+ tanks kills (majority using guns)
Aleksandr Yefimov, calimed to have destroyed 126 German tanks (mainly using 23mm cannon)
Theres an informative article here on historynet.com [one of their better offerings!]. It contains the following quotes:
I'd be interested to see what people make of the article The Myth of The Tank Buster
Its also interesting to note that (as yet) I can't find any records of 'tankbusting aces' who used rockets - but can find a number who used airborne guns to rack up considerable numbers of tank kills. Again, I'm not pouring though sources for absolute accuracy with cross referencing on the claims, but the following are interesting:
Rudolf Heinnz Ruffer with circa 80 kills
Hans-Ulrich Rudel with 100+ tanks kills (majority using guns)
Aleksandr Yefimov, calimed to have destroyed 126 German tanks (mainly using 23mm cannon)
Theres an informative article here on historynet.com [one of their better offerings!]. It contains the following quotes:
I'd be interested to see what people make of the article The Myth of The Tank Buster
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #37
I think even one is highly unlikely.
A lucky shot might affect something else in turn - detonate a depth charge or torpedo etc. but i'm pretty sure Japanese Destroyers were constructed sufficiently robustly from steel not to fear a machine gun bullet (though the same might not be said for the crew!) A round as small as a 50 cal surely wouldn't create sufficient damage on their own to sink a reasonable sized warship? Even 100 forefinger sized holes along the waterline isn't going to do anything quickly - even presuming that someone didn't quickly plug them. 50 cals were certainly effective against smaller transport ships when employed in 12 gun batteries by B25s - but even then, it seems that they were there to suppress the flak; the main method of sinking them was by skip bombing.
As powerful as 'Ma deuce' might be, I think theres a certain mythology which has sprung up about it. For example, the idea that P47s could 'bounce' a round up through a Tiger's belly armour seems to be highly questionable. To quote the previous article:
A 50 cal is probably going to shred anything less than a tank, that said!
GreenKnight121
Staff Sergeant
- 751
- Mar 16, 2014
I wonder what the Piaggio P.108A felt like when its 102mm cannon fired!
How effective would it have been if it had ever been used in combat?
How effective would it have been if it had ever been used in combat?
- Thread starter
- #40
This is a completely new one on me! And certainly the largest calibre gun mounted on any aircraft in WW2 that I'm aware of. The recoil forces would have been *significant* to put it mildly, eh?!
