[ww2] Ever smaller rockets for air fighting?

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

In "The Machine Gun" by Chinn there are several pages that list the attempts of the US to get to the 1200rpm .50 cal gun or push it to 1500rpm.
The Performance standard was to be 1 breakage and 5 malfunctions per 5000 rounds fired at 1200rpm.

Colt and Springfield arsenal
T21

High Standard
T22
T22E1
T22E2
T22E3
T22E4
T22E5
T22E6

Frigidaire
T25
T25E1
T25E2
T25E3 Standardized as the M3

High Standard
T27
T27E1
T27E2
T27E3
T27E4
T27E5
T27E6
T27E7

Springfield Arsenal
T28

in 1945 they started working on a 1500rpm version and went through abut 6 models starting with the T34.

Of the models listed above, some came close, some had as many as 10 guns made to the same design. a least two guns blew up under test. Some tests were stopped in under 1000 rounds with high breakage rates. Some of the programs were running at the same times.

The T25E3 was very similar to the M2 with essentially the same exterior dimensions except for the backplate buffer and length of the recoil booster however nearly all parts differ in detail with improved design and metallurgy.

Other, histories may vary a bit. There are a lot more details on pages 4-9 of "The Machine Gun" by Chinn volume III.

Chinn in these pages makes no reference to chrome plating of the barrels or to stellite lining/inserts which was done to increase barrel life.

Pages 10-16 cover the US .60 (15mm) guns.
 
Speaking of crazy German contraptions to shoot down bombers, saw on Twitter today, the SG-116 'Zellendusche' 30-mm bomber destroying recoiless cannons. The most surprising element being the photoelectric automatic trigger.

 
I remember handling 2.75 FFAR when I was in the Air Force, and Army.
If you dropped a rocket it might crack the propellant, which would expose more propellant to burning when it was ignited, that would cause erratic flight, or maybe immediate explosion on ignition. The propellant had a certain internal shape that controlled how much thrust was produced during flight, a crack, or chip in the propellant exposed more propellant to burn, at minimum that caused erratic flight, or it produced more thrust than the exhaust nozzle could handle and the rocket exploded.
We were supposed to report it if we dropped a rocket, but the military, being the military, had ways of punishing people who did report that they had "mishandled" a rocket. We never knew just how hard a hit it took to crack the propellant.
If we saw a dent in the rocket side, or a big scratch in the paint, we'd reject it and send it to EOD, but I don't think that was good enough.
I've seen them used. and seen a lot of gun camera films of them being used. Some, and that's just some, flew accurate flights, maybe 25% Most, about 50-60% just wandered downrange , saturating the target area, but not the target. Then you've have a few take off at a 45 degree angle to what was wanted.
IMO a lot of the inaccurate flight of the 2.75 FFAR was from bad storage and unreported mishandling .
 
z42 said:
Speaking of crazy German contraptions to shoot down bombers, saw on Twitter today, the SG-116 'Zellendusche' 30-mm bomber destroying recoiless cannons. The most surprising element being the photoelectric automatic trigger.

View attachment 755466
Click to expand...
Sometimes German inventions seemed crazy only at first look. Thus, "Schräge Musik" was quite efficient, AFAIK. And many of these inventions were used by the Soviets in post-war times in a more conventional way.
 
bf109xxl said:
Sometimes German inventions seemed crazy only at first look. Thus, "Schräge Musik" was quite efficient, AFAIK. And many of these inventions were used by the Soviets in post-war times in a more conventional way.
Click to expand...
A lot of times the 'theory' was sound but the implementation/development was not.
Photo-electric was a lot like early infrared. It would work in demonstrations in controlled environments. It often failed in real life. Fog, cloud, condensation on the lens/sensor, different lighting. etc. People even tried Photo-electric sensors in AA fuses for artillery shells.
US had infrared missiles in the 1950s try to home in on the sun and also on the suns reflection on lake's surface.

Germans get a lot of credit for vertically-mounted upward-firing machine guns.
But See.

Foster mounting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

or


or see
 
Way cool!
 
Shortround6 said:
A lot of times the 'theory' was sound but the implementation/development was not.
Click to expand...
I wasn't going to claim that the Germans invented everything at all, or that their inventions were always useful.
Studying the postwar development of Soviet unguided rockets I found that almost all of them have German "ancestors" including "Grad" MRL.
 
Germans were not shy of using Soviet gear, too, from SMGs and MGs, artillery pieces and tanks, and sometimes trying to copy these or modify them to fit the German needs. Eg. the RS-82 rocket, or the 12cm mortar, or the F22 cannon, as well as the 76.2 and 85mm AA cannons.
 
It was mostly captured weapon.
The RS-82s had questionable effectiveness and were only used in the SS, AFAIK.
And I'm talking about the use of German ideas in the design of Soviet military equipment. For instance, after the war, the Soviets started using German turbo-stabilization principle. And later they introduced folding fins and compensation of thrust asymmetry by slow rotation.
 
Germans often get a lot of credit for lot things, However a lot of allied "inventions" that never made it to service (at least in WW II) are often overlooked.

Sometimes the Allied "inventor" was rejected when the idea was still on paper, other times it was rejected in initial testing. A lot of times the "idea" had merit but there was no supporting industry. A bit like the proximity fuse of which there were all kinds of ideas before w WW II. Getting one to actually function was step one. Getting it to function after shooting it of a cannon was step two. Being able to mass produce it was step three. Being able to treat it like a round of ammunition (leave it in a storage crate for 6 months, take it out and shoot it without servicing or attention from a technician) was step four.
The US spent more money on the Proximity fuse than on the atomic bomb.

A lot of times there were parallel programs in different countries that had no knowledge of each other. Sometimes you had parallel programs in the same country that had no knowledge of each other. US had a classic class, GE was working on two different jet engines, each type was in a different plant. The guys working on the centrifugal compressor engine could not talk to the guys working on the axial compressor engine and vice versa. For anything, like burner cans or turbine blades or lubrication. Let alone different companies talk/communicate with each other.

It just seems in the internet world, that the Germans get credit for everything that was developed in the late 40s and/or 50s because some German had a sketch or drawing during WW II.
 
Shortround6 said:
It just seems in the internet world, that the Germans get credit for everything that was developed in the late 40s and/or 50s because some German had a sketch or drawing during WW II.
Click to expand...
Classic example is Germany's V-1, which is often cited as the grandfather of cruise missiles when the credit actually goes to Kettering and Sperry, who built working models in 1916 but didn't get them into production until just after war's end.
 
bf109xxl said:
It's a descendant of the British 81mm mortar. The Soviets captured British mortars during the Sino-Soviet conflict in 1929/1930.
Click to expand...

The British were using the 3in mortar at the time. You could drop an 81mm bomb down the barrel but the British called it a 3in for disinformation:
They were fairly successful at this as the British did not officially adopt an 81mm mortar until 1965-66

Captured 81mm ammo would fit into the British 3in tube but you had to be careful with what powder charge or bomb was used. Max charges might bulge the British barrel.
 
Shortround6 said:
The British were using the 3in mortar at the time.
Click to expand...
The Soviets didn't know it was a 3in mortar, so they rounded it up to 82mm. And then they decided they could scale it to 120mm. I don't know how accurate the 82mm copy was - the Soviets may have improved something on their own, but the basis was definitely British.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

SMGs in ww2 with much smaller cartridges?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
AA guns + rockets alternatives for 1935-45
2
Replies
20
Views
395
Shortround6
S
A
Were any British non-RR ww2-era aeroengines considered for land use?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
3K
MiTasol
A
Was a four engine torpedo bomber ever considered?
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
6K
DDonSS3
D
Doubling down: H16 engines for everyone
Replies
8
Views
1K
marathag
Menu
Log in
Register