Crazy idea for tank-buster?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

schwarzpanzer

Senior Airman
662
2
Aug 8, 2005
I thought that there was an Italian prototype fighter with it's engine in the back, but it's propellor in front fed by a propshaft (like a Panzer).

I thought if say a Ju88 could have a 50 or 75mm cannon autoloader with it's mechanism in the back of the bomb bay, then the barrel can stretch all the way to the nose?

This would have had impressive anti-tank performance(?) whilst not needing tungsten-cored ammunition.

Your comments please?
 
schwarzpanzer said:
I thought that there was an Italian prototype fighter with it's engine in the back, but it's propellor in front fed by a propshaft (like a Panzer).

Piaggio P.119.....
 

Attachments

  • p119_169.jpg
    p119_169.jpg
    24.7 KB · Views: 819
It seems something like the Fiat AS-14 attack airplane,

fiat_as_14_1_.jpg


but it used an automated version of the 47mm Breda AT gun, that was so short to not require an esotic installation.

Pezzo47-32Esercitazioni1939.jpg

www.comandosupremo.com

This gun is an improvement of the Austrian Böhler, that was used even by Germans, known as 47mm PaK, and was capable of 112 mm of penetration whith H.E.A.T. ("Effetto Pronto") cartridges.

DogW
 
This wasn't a tank buster but it was a unique layout.
MB902.jpg

UMBRA
Italian strange concludes with the sleek Umbra MB.902 that was in its final assembly stage before the 1943 Armistice. Two 1,475 Fiat R.A.1050 R.C.58 V-12 tandems were buried in the 47 feet fuselage. These drove twin contra-rotating airscrews just protruding from very streamlined wing of 47-foot span via extension shafts. The pilot sat well to the front and had two 20 mms and four 12.7 mms all in the nose. At 15,840 lbs. loaded it sat on a tricycle landing gear. Performance was estimated with a range of 1,056 miles and a top speed of 429 MPH at 19,680 with ceiling being 34,440 feet.

As with many promising Italian designs, the Armistice ended continuation of work. This was very forward thinking but given the Italian penchant for streamlined, high performers learned since the Schnieder Cup float plane racing days of the 1930s, it may have proven viable
 
The muzzle blast and airframe stress's are quite huge when using large bore cannons.

The B25H with the 75mm cannon had continual problems with the sheetmetal in front working its way loose from this effect.

I could just imagine what a high velocity AP shot would do.
 
Thanks for all your comments guys. :D


lesofprimus said:
I think we'd be talking about a huge center of gravity problem here...

Trying to balance it so it is like a full bomb load?


cheddar cheese said:
Piaggio P.119...

No, that's not it - but a similar layout thanks. :)

Hi Dogwalker,

I don't think short-barreled guns firing HEAT would be effective for tank-busting. Much better would be a long-barreled weapon firing APCBC - the downsides of a 50mm round fired from a tank or Anti-Tank gun could would not be a problem this way.


lesofprimus said:
BUt it has NOTHING to do with tank busting...

I don't mind too much. :)

- That is an interesting plane Twitch. 8) Where the engines are - that is where I would have my cannon. It illustrates my point, thank you. :D

syscom3 said:
The B25H with the 75mm cannon had continual problems with the sheetmetal in front working its way loose from this effect.

I could just imagine what a high velocity AP shot would do.

It's the cartridge that causes problems, a longer barrel should reduce recoil. If the barrel's long enough, bottle-necked cartridges wouldn't be needed - further reducing recoil, but I doubt it could go that far?

I know the B25's cannon used to de-torque the bolts!

BTW: Thinking about it, I would probably use a muzzle brake.
 
schwarzpanzer said:
I don't think short-barreled guns firing HEAT would be effective for tank-busting. Much better would be a long-barreled weapon firing APCBC - the downsides of a 50mm round fired from a tank or Anti-Tank gun could would not be a problem this way.
Yes, but which gun?
Apart of the problems of firing heavy calibers from an aircraft, in the german inventory, the only weapons that seems could be used, were the BK-5 (pratically the same idea of the italian 47mm gun), with a descouraging rate of fire of 40/50rpm and over 500 Kg of weight, and the 5 cm Flak, that was built in 50 copies only.

DogW
 
Didn't the Italians try a large cannon in the nose of a bomber? If I remember it was the same concept as the B-25 with the 75mm cannon- hand fed and very potent, I think it was a bigger gun. In any case on the trial run it nearly ripped the nose off of the plane.
 
Schwartzpanzer- the Umbra was illustrated simply because it used a drivshaft system to turn the props. Actually it went one better and had 90 degree u-joints. The tandem V-12s were in the mid-fuselage leaving the nose for weaponry.
 
Aggie08 said:
Didn't the Italians try a large cannon in the nose of a bomber?
Yeah, but it's intended to be an anti-ship weapon.
To make a tankbuster the rate of fire is important, like the weight of the gun. It don't have much sense to have a gun that could destroy a tank with only one shot, if the pilot has really only one possibility to hit him.

For this the Breda 37/54 mounted on the Fiat Camsa FC-20bis (or the 37mm Flak if the Germans would have done something similar) seems to me a more effective AT weapon (if the Fiat Camsa FC-20bis would not have been a sitting duck itself I mean). It had "only" 78mm of penetration at 100 m with AP but, with 200 rpm, there was the effective possibility to hit the tank with enough shells to disable it in a single passage.
Fc20.jpg


DogW
 
Dogwalker:

the only weapons that seems could be used, were the BK-5 (pratically the same idea of the italian 47mm gun),

That's what a had in mind, a modified version anyway.

with a descouraging rate of fire of 40/50rpm

Is that it?? - Oh dear!

and over 500 Kg of weight

This isn't looking good... But redesign would help, also it's still a lot less than a full bomb load - even with ammo?

and the 5 cm Flak, that was built in 50 copies only.

What's that like?

To make a tankbuster the rate of fire is important, like the weight of the gun.

Along with recoil.

It had "only" 78mm of penetration at 100 m with AP but, with 200 rpm, there was the effective possibility to hit the tank with enough shells to disable it in a single passage.

That should be enough (if it could get that close??) but if you are talking about the Ju87G's 37mm BK cannons, then they only ever used APCR.

With the modifications I mentioned, it could be competitive. So could upgrading the BK 37mm to L89 FlaK 43 spec. Combined with APCBC rounds (PzGr 42) this should penetrate 158mm @ 100m.

This Breda 37/54 seems a good bet though, any more info?

- I would modify it to become a 37/71 though, firing APCBC rounds - could be good!


Aggie08 said:
75mm cannon- hand fed and very potent

The RoF on that would probably be no more than 40 rpm unfortunately.


It seems, on further research, going upto 50mm would be unnecessary - if the side/rear armour of the T34 would not need penetrating reliably.

Going crayzee, the 122mm auto-loader of the IS3 tank was available in '45...


Twitch said:
Schwartzpanzer- the Umbra was illustrated simply because it used a drivshaft system to turn the props. Actually it went one better and had 90 degree u-joints. The tandem V-12s were in the mid-fuselage leaving the nose for weaponry.

I know, I thanked you for it in my post. :confused:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back