WWII aircraft armament machine guns and cannon

[Mike Irwin]

"I am somwhat not buying that Japan was lame on damage control."

The Japanese approach to damage control was significantly flawed on a number of fronts, as I mentioned.

First, as I noted, was the cultural bias.

Japanese military culture was based in the samurai tradition and was heavily offensively biased. Damage control was seen to be inherently defensive in nature, and thus was viewed as being of lesser importance. Bushido fighting spirit would prevail!

That's the same mentality that saw the Japanese focus attacks on fighting ships and virtually ignoring oilers and transports. They couldn't comprehend the value that Americans placed on sinking their transports to the deference of the armed escorts. Result is no ammo or food for the ground troops? That's OK, Bushido spirit will prevail!


Second, Japanese damage control was also badly flawed because it focused on small, well-trained damage control teams, often trained exclusively on a specific part of the ship. Ordinary rank and file seamen? Little to often no damage control training at all. In post-war interviews with Japanese who survived ship sinkings that was a theme that surfaced again and again.

But what of those damage control strike teams? Weren't they effective? Yes, they could be. But what happens if a bomb wipes out your entire hangar fire suppression team, the people who are trained to use the specialized equipment needed to fight raging gasoline fires?

That's what happened at Midway. Virtually all of the trained fire personnel who formed the backbone of what chance the Japanese had at possibly saving their carriers... died in the initial strikes.

And there was literally no one to step in.

Yes, the Americans (and British) also employed specialist damage control teams. But the primary difference between the two navies is that in the American navy, pretty much every sailor was trained in damage control and was expected to aid in all aspects of damage control and emergency repair as the situation warranted.

Finally, there's the training aspect as the war progressed. The Japanese never really learned from their obvious mistakes and, as the war progressed, training for everyone at all levels decayed. In large part that was due to the way the Japanese staffed positions. It was relatively rare for highly experience personnel to be pulled from one ship and posted to a new ship to pass their experience along. When those individuals died, their knowledge and experience died with them.

That was also a hidden hammer blow to the Japanese that's rarely talked about... Sure, the Japanese lost a lot of trained aviators at Midway. But just as devastatingly, they lost highly trained, highly experienced, and highly skilled aircraft mechanics, men whose knowledge in some cases took decades to accumulate and who, because of the way the Japanese viewed staffing, never could pass any of that along in any meaningful way before they died.

Contract that to the Americans, where hardened, knowledgeable crewmen, from officers all the way down to mess cooks, were routinely pulled from combat billets and cycled back through as instructors to pass on their knowledge.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

And yes, hard hit Japanese ships did survive. Its silly to try to make the claim that if a Japanese ship were hit it was immediately lost because their damage control was useless.

I did say Japanese damage control was pitiful, but without information necessary to expound on that. Japanese damage control was pitiful for the failures of its basis in doctrine, and especially because the Japanese never learned from those failures.

[Mike Irwin]

"I had always assumed that they entered the turret from it ground before takeoff. "

I can't even imagine being jammed into the ball turret for upwards 8 hours. The fatigue would have been extreme.

[Pumpkin]

"I can't even imagine being jammed into the ball turret for upwards 8 hours. The fatigue would have been extreme."

I could not agree more!

The trouble is, for myself, that any picture I have seen relating to this showed a very limber, smaller stature gunner entering the turret while on the runway.
Could this have been done for some preparation or other necessary pre-mission reason?

I have also read several times how the Japanese were really bad about leaving their ground crews/mechanics behind when retreating from the islands we took.

Makes me wonder if some of the reliability issues the later Japaneses fighter planes had could have partially been blamed on lack of trained and left behind personnel capable of repairing and maintaining these new planes.

Very bad form old chap!

https://www.hhhistory.com/2021/09/ww...ners-that.html

[Mike Irwin]

"The trouble is, for myself, that any picture I have seen relating to this showed a very limber, smaller stature gunner entering the turret while on the runway."

Lot easier to take a meaningful, but completely staged, photograph of the gunner getting "into" the turret when the plane is on the ground than when it's in flight.

Here, which video short actually shows the gunner getting into the ball turret during a mission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxG-3SiMObs


Getting into the turret when the plane was on the ground was a LOT more difficult because gravity and leverage were working against someone trying to climb in that way.

When entered through the plane, the gunner would step down INTO the turret by putting his feet on the rests. He then basically sat down into the turret.

If you look at this picture, you'll see just how awkward it would be to enter the turret from outside the plane when its on the ground.

In the picture the guy's feet aren't anywhere near where they need to be when the gunner is properly positioned in the turret.

He's also got to drag himself into the turret against gravity with no real hand holds to do so. He's just grasping the lip of the turret opening hoping for the best.

Now imagine trying to do that while outfitted in a bulky heated flying suit and with your oxygen mask and radio harness.

Yeah... Not really happening. For someone in full flying gear it would be nearly impossible to get into the ball turret on the ground.

[44 AMP]

Amp 44 was not getting it and repeating the Cooper myth.

What, to you, is the "Cooper myth"?

The trouble is, for myself, that any picture I have seen relating to this showed a very limber, smaller stature gunner entering the turret while on the runway.
Could this have been done for some preparation or other necessary pre-mission reason?

Without seeing the picture(s) you are referring to, I wonder, are you sure it was the ball turret gunner? and are you sure it was on the ground??

There are plenty of reasons someone would need to enter or get partway into the ball turret to do maintenance, which of course would be done on the ground. And, in most of those cases, it would be ground crew doing that. And, absolutely smaller guys were assigned to the ball turret.

Also, photos "on the ground" could be real operations photos, or they could be staged photos for propaganda use.

I know of an account from an actual B-17 gunner in the 8th AF. He said it was SOP that none of the rear gunners took their stations until well after takeoff. The waited in the radio operator's compartment until the plane was up, and headed for the Channel.

This makes sense to me, considering the possibility of problems taking off, climbing to altitude and getting in formation, the crew (who could) didn't get into their stations, until things were stable and underway, so that if something went badly wrong, it was easier for them to bail out. He said the ball turret gunner didn't get into the ball until they were over the Channel, locked in by the waist and tail gunners on their way back to man their stations and test fire their guns over the Channel.

And essentially the reverse on returning over England, the tail gunner came back into the fuselage, the ball turret gunner was "let loose" so that the odds of being able to escape the plane went up, if something went wrong. (and this was done in planes that weren't heavily damaged)

Re Japanese damage control, yes they did it, and yes, the bushido philosophy put a lower priority on it, and neither their organization, nor their equipment systems was as effective and efficient as ours, particularly on aircraft carriers. I don't know about the ships launched mid war or later, but I have information that several of the pre war ships firefighting water systems were built using cast iron piping, making them vulnerable to shock damage even well outside the direct damage area of bomb, torpedo, or shell hits.

Have also read survivor accounts of at least one time when the guy was killed before reaching the activation panel for the fire suppression system, and the fire kept anyone else from being able to do so...

Also, in some places, Japanese ships relied on "fire curtains" instead of actual bulkheads. Design philosophy and construction, including damage control organization was not as good as ours. We put an emphasis on our damage control systems being able to take damage, and still function. They didn't do as good a job at that as we did, overall.

Interesting footnote, despite the Japanese not seeming to care much about the welfare of their crews, there were several times (often in the Solomons) where Japanese ships (generally destroyers) would stop in the middle of a battle to rescue their sailors in the water. We rarely did, until the battle was over.

[105kw]

FWIW, 55 years ago, my uncle told me it was SOP for the crew to be in the radio room at take off. Minus the pilots and flight engineer.
Most accidents were at take off, or landing. So the gunners were not in their positions until they got close to the Channel.
And I cannot imagine being in a turret for 8hrs. And they did get a shot of medicinal whiskey after debrief.

[Mike Irwin]

And here. This is animated, but it seems to be fairly comprehensive in its assessment.

The bit on entering the ball turret starts around 3 minutes in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoQqOPGpzZk

[Pumpkin]

“Without seeing the picture(s) you are referring to, I wonder, are you sure it was the ball turret gunner? and are you sure it was on the ground??”

Yes I know what a ball turret is.
I also know what a gondola (FW-200, Ju-88, etc.) and a dustbin (Ju-86, G3 Nell, etc.).
belly gun positions were.

The ridiculous picture above is what I was talking about, shorts and no shirt! There are others with men in flight gear.
It has been impossible, at least for me, to find a picture of a gunner entering the ball turret correctly.
Explanation in print is available, it perplexes me that there are so many pictures showing entry from outside the plane. Maybe it shouldn’t ;-)
I’m not saying that they are accurate depictions, just wondering about the intent of the pictures.

[RC20]

What, to you, is the "Cooper myth"?

Specifically the Sherman was a death trap and inferior to other tanks.

The overall perception that feeds into this such as the so called Tommy Cookers.

It did not matter whose tank it was, they all brewed up and they all had ammo storage locations that allowed that to happen. The US at least had a solution though you get into the reality of ready ammo and fast reloads.

The Sherman lacked the thickness of armor of some, the Pzkw IV had flat surfaces. The Sherman's front was slanted and you gained protection due to that (increased the armor thickness).

They did create an Uparmored Sherman called the Jumbo. German kept adding armor to the Pzkw IV.

There were something around 250 of the 76mm gunned Shermans available for D Day. The top commanders did not want them. You had an issue with the 75 mm had been effective enough till then and for unfathomable reasons, the 76mm HE round was reduced (supposedly so the trajectory matched the AP, like anyone could not adjust that and usually had to anyway).

The problem is people have this one on one gun slinger mentality and that is not how armor works.

Yes the Panther had an awesome gun and good front armor (side armor was thin but the MO on the Eastern Front was park at an angle, the front would shrug off any hits and the side would glance off - worked at longer ranges which were not the reality of Western front).

The Panther broke a lot. Push come to shove, would you rather be sitting duck in a broken tank or a mobile one?

Most of the time tanks were infantry support and they liked the more boom of the 75mm HE.

The Sherman had good ergonomics, a good sighting system, reliable and decently armored (Patton did the best job latter of salvaging German and US Armor and using the cut off armor plates to beef up his tanks, others used logs or sand bags/cement that had marginal if any improvement.

Either the 75mm or the 76 mm had a good chance at usual ranges if they had HVAP. They were short of HVAP. Rationed out.

So you want to compare capability? The 76mm Sherman in Korea (preferred) sliced through T34-85 like butter. Armor quality counts.

Sherman more or less 35 tons. Cranes to hoist on and bridges to cross. 45 tons the Germans did not have to worry, deliver by rail.

Half the Panthers were broken half the time. Shermans were almost never broken.

US had better artillery and air supremacy. German supply chains were shot up.

The Sherman was part of a system just like the Panther was. It fit the US system and it worked well going on for a very long time in various iterations.

One of the interesting reports was an action of Shermans vs Panther. The guy in charge had the tanks with side angles shoot into the sides of the Panthers and knocked them all out. The Panthers came in at an angle and they just held their fire until they had good side angle shots.

Most tanks were knocked out by anti tank guns.

I have seen pictures of Shermans with all sorts of slices out of their armor, but none had penetrated. So far from perfect and not close to impervious to a German anti tank gun be it ground or tank mounted. But they were there in huge numbers.

Each infantry division in Europe had a tank brigade and a TD brigade assigned. German infantry divisions did not and mostly they were horse drawn support and guns.

So yea, a myth that Cooper made worse. The grass is always greener syndrome because the successful outcomes not talked about (or perpetrated) and bad outcomes were.

The Israelis were still modifying and using Sherman's into the 70s.

The T-34 looked great on paper, it was an ergonomic and reliable mess. You can accept the reliable problems due to start of WWII and moving factories. Ergonomics being bad were baked in. Horrid 2 man turret. Crowded.

People are impressed with the diesel engine. its only reason to exist was poor gas quality in the Soviet Union. Had nothing to do with burn up. Try to get a diesel engine started sub 20 deg F temps.

No the Russians were not stupid, they had air start setup and compressor rigs to fire em up (and an emergency spare cylinder in the tank, hmmm). But it added a huge burden to operations.

Most if not al the Av Gas Soviets used in WWII was US/UK supplied. If not for US trucks all the tanks they made would have made zilch difference.

And they made 40,000 T-34s because the Germans shot up 30,000 of them.

US supplied tanks to UK, France and other European forces (UK and France were the biggest numbers). And supplied the US Forces all over the world.

To do that meant you did not introduce new tanks because that had a huge downside issue all by itself and the Pershing test more than proved it. Broken down tanks because they had not become reliable.

[Mike Irwin]

"The ridiculous picture above is what I was talking about, shorts and no shirt! "

That picture was obviously a staged ground photo. No one went up on combat missions in shorts and with no shirt.

And, did you look at the VIDEO I posted? That showed the ball turret gunner entering the ball turret on a mission?

Where the turret was wasn't exactly a wide open spot that made for great photographs. It was tight, there was a lot of equipment around impeding views, etc.

[Pumpkin]

I did and the link I attached a few posts back on explained the process in writing.
While also showing a bogus photo of an airman being helped in while on the ground.
Very grim poem at the end.

[44 AMP]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you didn't know what the ball turret was, What I meant was how did you know it was the ball turret gunner?

Looking at that pic, I wonder if it wasn't something as simple as "hey, Jimmy, see if you can fit in there??" and someone snapping a pic while he tried to find out??

I agree with Mike, no one would try to get in that way wearing the full flight suit. I've heard that often ball turret gunners needed help getting OUT of the turret (into the fuselage of the B-17) after spending a couple hours, or more folded up inside it.

Jumping a bit,

Yes the Panther had an awesome gun and good front armor (side armor was thin but the MO on the Eastern Front was park at an angle, the front would shrug off any hits and the side would glance off - worked at longer ranges which were not the reality of Western front).

The side armor of the Panther and the Sherman hulls were about the same thickness 40mm for the Panther and 1.5 inches for the Sherman. Is that "thin"?

The Sherman's hull sides are "flat" vertical (no slope) The Panther lower hull is also, but the upper hull is sloped at 60 degrees, providing more protection than a vertical surface.

The Sherman "Jumbo" did carry almost twice the armor of the standard M4, but as a result its speed was less and also its range. The weight was up to 42 tons, nearly the weight of a Panther, but half a dozen mph slower, and still armed with the 75mm gun.

[Pumpkin]

No worries AMP,
So, I assume the Tiger was a different animal (no pun intended) than the Panther or Sherman? I always thought it was the dominant tank from WWII but I’m no expert.

[RC20]

The side armor of the Panther and the Sherman hulls were about the same thickness 40mm for the Panther and 1.5 inches for the Sherman. Is that "thin"?

I gather you accept the points on the Sherman, yea.

The Panther was thin relative to the front armor.

All those are design decisions and may or may not work out well (the Russian auto feeders are a design decision, its provided a great many videos of the consequences)

The Panther was more designed for the Eastern front. The thinner side armor was mitigated with tactics and range.

But it did leave an avenue for even a 75 mm Sherman to knock one out.

Yes the Jumbo Sherman was slower and more breakdown prone. That too was a design decision and it was intended for infantry support not armor divisions. But when your armor division has to go up a road? Yea they snag the Jumbos.

The Russian tank diesel was a serious logistics drag. Lots or compressor trucks to get a tank division going. But it also was the only way they could get the power for the T-34.

I was on a haul operation (diesel dump trucks) when the temp dropped through the floor from a balmy 40 deg to -40. None of our trucks would start that morning. It took all the callout mechanics up and down the line to get heat into the engines and started. Those were modern diesels, but battery crank was not doing it, simply not setup for Alaska conditions.

The work around was to leave them running. Diesel trucks had a throttle you could set, so the orders were 1000 rpm when done for the day and the mechanics patrolled the line at night checking on them. Simply no choice.

I suspect the Russians did similar with the T-34 and KV tanks. The only real plus was better range but your gas rigs still had to keep up. Probably was a wash with a Heavy tank vs a lighter truck. Russkies did not have half tracks.

The 90mm gun was the equal to the 88 and the Panther/Pxkw IV 75s. It was put on a Sherman hull TD. The Top brass did not ask for it so it was not developed.

The Brits made do with the awful Firefly, good gun, ergonomics were a crime. But it could punch through a German tank hull. But so could an HVAP, in short supply because the brass did not ask for them.

US Doctrine was not directed at tank vs tank. Tanks were a breakthrough tool, best punched through infantry. Its not tank vs tank was not understood, but it was not the norm. TDs were intended to deal with tank attacks though it did not work out that way.

One of the laughs is tank profiles. Russkies have flat tanks and put Cope Cage armor on. So much for low and sleek and auto loaders so called upside. !

What the Sherman did not have was a cool hull form. Ergo the detractors.

Like all stuff, it was a design trade off. Nothing wins a war all on its own. US had to get them overseas and Germany and Russia did not.

[bamaranger]

I'll add this: the B24, at least in some models (maybe all?) had a retractable ball turret. I have no idea when the gunner entered or exited, but B24's in combat photos seem to show the ball extended lower from the fuselage than on the B17, which was fixed. Also.....

The ball turret was an effective defensive position and records indicate a kill rate a bit higher than some other defensive positions. Dual guns, a ranging sight, and 360 degree field of fire. It is conceivable that they also had more departing shots at fighters as the broke away from attack and were not trading fire. Pretty good overview of the ball turret on the "US Bombers" YouTube channel.

[Mike Irwin]

"The Russian tank diesel was a serious logistics drag. Lots or compressor trucks to get a tank division going. But it also was the only way they could get the power for the T-34. "

Uhm... No.

The compressed air starter was a booster starter for ultra cold weather starts.

All T-34s had batteries and TWO electrical starter motors, which were the primary method of starting the tank.

[Mike Irwin]

"The 90mm gun was the equal to the 88 and the Panther/Pxkw IV 75s."

It wasn't.

Because of the shells.

US 90mm shell penetration lagged behind German 88 and 75mm shell performance.

It wasn't until post war shell designs, both for the Sherman 76mm and the 90mm, that both guns began to perform as was originally hoped.

[bamaranger]

I've mentioned it once, but in checking further, there are actually 3 comprehensive videos on YouTube at the channel "WWII US Bombers" concerning the ball turret. . This guy does the best job I have seen on many aspects of WWII air combat and looks with great detail at heavy bombers, their armament, weapons stations (individual videos) bomb loads....very comprehensive.

Training manuals, 8th AF documents, and contemporary examination of turrets, etc.....absolutely the best.

One item very interesting, the aiming reticle of the Sperry computing gunsight looks nothing like what I imagined. And it is a true computing sight, bracket the EA and shoot.......of course easier said than done, but advanced for its day.

[Pumpkin]

So who had the best aircraft sighting systems amongst the combatants?
I have read good things about our (USA) equipment.

[44 AMP]

So who had the best aircraft sighting systems amongst the combatants?

At what point in the war??

Technology kept advancing on all sides throughout the war, and, generally the best stuff was made by the Allies in 1945. Some Axis designs were as good, a few were better, but with the pounding they were getting most were never built, or built in very small numbers before the end of the war.

I think the lead computing gunsight used on the B-29 was probably the most technically advanced mechanical gunsight.

Does radar count?? It was an aircraft sighting system, but not a gunsight, back then.

[Pumpkin]

I get your point about the timeframe.
What got me to thinking about this was reading about a P-51 sight that compensated for how much to lead.
So I guess that puts me towards the last part of the war.

[RC20]

All T-34s had batteries and TWO electrical starter motors, which were the primary method of starting the tank.

I have read accounts that disagree with that. Will see if I can find some source material.

This looks to clear it up and yes it makes full sense for a battery and generator as you need that for hotel power. It may be the two starters is misconstrues with the generator.

The engine can be started by an electric starter or by compressed air. The electric starter is fitted to the gearbox. An air distributor is attached to the front part of the engine for compressed air starting. From the air distributor compressed air is conveyed trough a steel tube to the starting valves fit too. inside the cylinder head.

The electric generator is carried on a cradle cast into the side of the crankcase top half and is driven by a slipping clutch.

That said, I can assure you, a WWII era diesel engine, let alone a Russian built, is not going to start on battery below 30 deg and even that could be marginal. I believe the Air Start was the main starter. The air tanks were filled from external compressor rig. Trust me, for that era, air start clearly was the better way to go. Summer at 60 deg, yea the electric started probably was sufficient. Keep in mind, diesel Fuel Injection systems require a great deal of precision, I don't believe the Russians had that nailed. If Cat could not, the Russian definitively could not. Batteries drop off hugely at sub zero temps and the WWII era were far less capable.

Cat went with Pony engines for a long time in that era as they were low cost, reliable and served heat functions. The D-7 that built the Alcan was pony engine start. Keep in mind the pony was a gasoline engine and easy to start in all conditions. You got it going (and some did have electric start but tended to rope pull) then you could get the main going, though at sub zero temps it would take a while.

From what I have gathered, the Russian diesel was a copy of an Italian aircraft diesel (or intended for Aircraft, I don't think it was used for that role)

I still suspect they ran high idle and no shutdown in sub zero temps.

[105kw]

The lead computing gun sight was built by the British, really late 1943. It was called GM1.
We built the K-14 , a copy of the GM1, and by the second half of 1944 were putting it into Europeon theater USAAF fighters. P-51, P-47, and P-38s.
The Pacific lagged a bit, but the AAF, and Navy had gyro lead computing sights.
So who had the best gun sights, our Air Forces, and the British. The K-14 was called the Ace maker.

[Pumpkin]

Well, both sides of me are proud to know that

[Mike Irwin]

"That said, I can assure you, a WWII era diesel engine, let alone a Russian built, is not going to start on battery below 30 deg and even that could be marginal."

You'd be surprised. The Soviets developed some very interesting starting techniques that allowed the engines to start on battery power even in the coldest weather... things like building a fire UNDER the engine compartment, injecting a mixture of gasoline and diesel fuel, or even straight gasoline, into the cylinders, and boosting the electric starters with bumps from the air starter mechanism to get the engine turning over so that the electric starter didn't have to do all of the work.

Not sure if you've come across this site but it has some interesting information about the T-34 in general.

https://www.allworldwars.com/T-34%20...%20Manual.html

I've also found some indications that the T-34, at least very early ones, had hand cranked inertia starters like German tanks. But, I can't find any indication that that was carried over, probably because of the harder to start nature of diesel, so the electric starter/air starter combo.


Regarding one vs two starters, I've found a couple of sources that say two starter motors totaling 12 horsepower, and other sources say a single starter motor. Maybe it changed over time, I don't know.

The maintenance manual link I provided says that the starter motor is a 24-volt 15-HP motor, so that seems to be authoritative. So yeah, maybe someone confused the generator for an additional stater motor.

The link that I posted above has some interesting information on the air starter system, but I've not seen anywhere yet how the air bottles were charged.