Read the forum code of contact
By: - 4th November 2005 at 03:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gary B
Exactly as evidenced by the Mosquito Molins and the B25 cannon nose 75mm
In later days the various howitzers fitted to Spectre Ac130s and earlier the Ac47s although it has to be said that the WW11 deployments were more spectacular than effective
Regards
John P
By: - 6th November 2005 at 00:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The one advantage that velocity would have given them in aerial combat is stand-off range. Had things worked out the way the Luftwaffe hoped, the Me 410 armed with the BK 5 could have shelled the (unescorted) US bomber fleets from well beyond the range of defensive .50 fire. However, it turned out that aiming accurately enough to hit anything at long range was beyond WW2 capabilities, and the heavy fighters were highly vulnerable to escort fighters. So they were an all-round failure in the role and, on the few occasions they were tried, achieved nothing.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
By: - 6th November 2005 at 10:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Soviet NS-37 was very powerful and the recoil from firing it caused the planes to move off aim, so they could only get off two or three shots before having to stop to reaim. That wouldn't ally to the VYa-23, though - in the Il-2 those had quite a large ammo capacity and I expect would have been used full-auto.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
By: - 6th November 2005 at 10:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
An anti tank gun is largely designed for velocity.
This is not particularly useful against anything except heavy armour. Against bomber type targets a lower velocity heavier shell with a large HE Frag payload makes more sense.
Not knowing much about this, how does that square with the war's most successful anti-aircraft gun, the German 88mm, also being a very successful anti-armour weapon?
Moggy
By: - 6th November 2005 at 13:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it may be because of the large calibre - anti tank guns in the Spanish Civil War when the 88' was first used as an anti tank gun tended to be around the 37mm-40mm range, with shells weighing about 2lb. So the shell from such a large gun as an 88 would have tore the tanks apart, which tended to be very lightly armoured at the time.
All large anti-aircraft guns would be good against tanks, when my Grandad was at Tobruk on 3.7inch AA Guns, they dropped the guns from high level firing to level to take out German Panzers getting too close, it was very successful but they got in a lot of trouble for it, both from his superiors and the Germans who sent a raiding party to destroy them as they were so good - his regiment was destroyed there
By: - 6th November 2005 at 18:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not knowing much about this, how does that square with the war's most successful anti-aircraft gun, the German 88mm, also being a very successful anti-armour weapon?Moggy
In response to your question Moggy, the same high velocity capability is useful in both cases. To fire on as flat a tragectory as possible as an anti-tank gun (and also to have great hitting power to send an armour-piercing round through the armour), and simply to heave the shell up very high as an anti-aircraft gun. The original question raised the point of high-velocity weapons being used in aircraft where the need isn't there as the gun is already up where the bomber is!
By: - 13th November 2005 at 01:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For AA use they were capable of reaching close to 20,000 feet and were fused for our altitude - German fighters would call in the altitude - and they would spread scrap iron for several meters in all directions. Any piece in the right location could bring down a ship. Besides it was noisy as hell on the skin of the plane.
Posts: 264
By: Prowlus - 3rd November 2005 at 20:06
How really efective were the anti-tank guns stuck onto fighters like the me-410 . I've seen lots of pictures of Bf-110s, Me-410s and even Me-262s (Herget's Telephone pole) fitted with them but were they really effective in blowing bombers out of the sky?