WWII aircraft armament machine guns and cannon

[davidsog]

Did either side experiment with say a 12mm or smaller cannon round.

There was some experimentation with incendiary rounds with some degree of success. The British formula seemed to be better than ours.
12mm just does not have enough space to fit any meaningful amount of explosive.

One of the things that made Mk108 so successful was type of explosive the Germans used. It wasn't TNT, it was PETN. PETN was invented by the Germans and much improved in WWII. It has a TNT equivalency of 1.66. So the Mk108 carried far less amount of actual explosive to achieve the effect of a 1/4 lb block of TNT.

[davidsog]

Bombs and rockets were not precision nor was the bombing methods.

Actually, in post war assessments....

Bombs turned out to the most effective anti-tank weapons employed by aircraft in WWII. You did not have to have a direct hit either. The shockwave would kill or incapacitate the crew just landing near the tank.

Even then, bombs might have been more effective than anything else but they weren't super effective either. The sources I have read that tally numbers of tanks killed to numbers claimed tends to be about 2%-6% or actual kills to claims.

In the Battle of Caen, the RAF claimed hundreds of German tanks killed by Typhoons and other Tank Busting A/C. Of 300 destroyed German tanks examined after the battle....

Only 10 were even damaged due to aerial strikes and none of them knocked out because of it.

The 2nd TAF and 9th USAAF involvement in the Normandy campaign...

The Germans lost ~100 tanks to enemy action. Only 13 could be attributed to Aircraft. 7 of those tanks were destroyed by B-17's carpet bombing their assembly areas.

So 6 tanks in the entire Battle of Normandy were taken out by the entire Allied Tactical Air effort.

[Pumpkin]

As they would have said “Buggered that one”.

[davidsog]

As they would have said “Buggered that one”.

Yep. It's one of the reasons why Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) is so important and gets so much emphasis in today's warfighter.

All sides thought Airplanes were just awesome at killing tanks. Come to find out they were not once BDA started happening.

The lack of BDA caused numerous mistakes during the war. The Luftwaffe stopped attacking Radar sites in the BoB, stopped attacking Allied escorts over the channel to force them to discard their drop tanks, and gave almost no actual support to the JaboGeschwader's in the "Tip and Run Campaign.

All sides put huge efforts into developing dedicated Anti-Tank aerial weapons and specialized airplanes only to find out they all were very ineffective.

Its not that Ground Attack did not work, it did. But the payoff was other targets than tanks. Bombs and rockets were not precision nor was the bombing methods.

That's exactly it. Infact, I would say the psychological effect was more devastating than any actual attack. I am will to bet more tanks got stuck in ditches trying to get off the road with a panicked driver than were ever even damaged from the aerial attack. Perfectly good tanks that ended up being abandoned because they had no recovery vehicles or time to recover it.

[RC20]

Actually, in post war assessments....

Done by the Air Corp. So yea, awfull claims.

If you can't hit it then it does no good and an HE bomb has to land perfecly to take out a tank. Same with rockets, they were area affect weapons.

Note what the Chieftain posted data wise and the USAF killed more tanks than the North Koreans had. Then they did it again and came up with even more tanks that did not exist.

AAC had an axe to grind and so did the USAF. Shameless. Fortunate they did good work overall and was more than worth it. Tanks go no where if they don't have a fuel truck handy.

Then the Army came by on the ground and found all of the tanks were killed by other means than air.

[44 AMP]

If you can't hit it then it does no good and an HE bomb has to land perfecly to take out a tank. Same with rockets, they were area affect weapons.

Not sure what you mean by "perfectly". A bomb does not have to directly impact a tank to knock it out. Area effect weapons are just that, they affect everything within their blast radius area.

I wonder what the Soviet assessment of air attacks against tanks were. Considering the Soviet system and how it influenced everything they did, I would not expect an unbiased assessment. What I would expect of anything allowed to be published under the Soviet regime, I would expect something like "our stuff was great, theirs was crap". SO, not helpful in that regard.

And the Nazis had their influence also, but I think to a lesser degree than the Soviets. No one's post battle assessment is perfect, though since WWII we have worked hard to do better than they did then.

There is another factor at work here, not yet mentioned, and it concerns the post battle assessments conclusions. And that is the fact that both ground and air units would fire on enemy tanks that might be "live". It was a standard practice for US tankers to put a round, or three into any German armor they spotted, "just in case". And aircraft did attack tanks because unless they were seen to be on fire, or obviously destroyed, they might be live. So, its entirely possible that the assessment teams found tanks that had been shot up by both air and ground forces, with no way to know which one actually killed the tank and which one simply shot up the vehicle at a later time.

I have no idea how much situations like this skew the statistics, but I feel sure they must, to some degree.

[RC20]

Unless it was the Marines aircraft would not be that close to ground troops, they were the mid to longer distance attack mechanism.

We have actual data you discount.

A Dive Bomber was lucky to hit a carrier anywhere. Few dive bombers in Europe on the US side and the Germans went with 40 mm cannon (again huge numbers cited, actual camera pictures no - and they were fighting solo)

Dive Bombers could miss by hundreds of yards (and did). Pilots had not sight or mechanism other than a guess for glide bombing.

Like the Brew Up Sherman myth, you are wrong per data.

AAC, RAF, USAF, they always insisted they could win the war all by themselves.

With precision weapons they can now hit tanks from the air, They still cannot win wars without boots on the ground.

[44 AMP]

Unless it was the Marines aircraft would not be that close to ground troops, they were the mid to longer distance attack mechanism.

Seems like an over simple generalization to me.

We have actual data you discount.

yep, I discount what I consider flawed data, and I particularly discount flawed conclusions from valid data. Just as you discount actual first hand accounts from the people who were there.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. WWII was better documented (on our side, particularly) than any previous war, but the documentation is far from complete or completely accurate. Post battle and post war assessments discounted a number of things that the people who were there said happened, and likely credited some things that didn't happen.

I just saw a story of a fellow who put 6 bazookas on his Grasshopper (military version of a Piper Cub) and attacked German armor during the battle of the Bulge. He was officially credited with destroying 6 German tanks (includer 2 Tigers) and damaging a dozen others. Got medals for doing so.

"Mad" Jack Cram ferried a pair of torpedoes to Guadalcanal on his PBY. After getting there, and learning there were no operable torpedo bombers at the time, he devised a way to drop the torpedoes and attacked Japanese shipping with them. Got a hit, too, if I recall correctly.

A Dive Bomber was lucky to hit a carrier anywhere.

Guess were really lucky at Midway. 4 Japanese carriers sunk, by dive bombers. Dick Best is in the history books as being the only man to make hits on two carriers in the same battle.

Dive Bombers could miss by hundreds of yards (and did).

Yes, they can, and many did. But some pilots were better than that. More than a few.

Pilots had not sight or mechanism other than a guess for glide bombing.

Glide bombing and dive bombing are very different modes of attack. Dive bombers had sights for dive bombing, and some pilots were quite good at it, in every air force.

Like the Brew Up Sherman myth, you are wrong per data.

Possibly, but what you call a myth is what numerous veterans who had Shermans shot out from under them have reported. 3 out of 5 times catching fire seems to be the average.

AAC, RAF, USAF, they always insisted they could win the war all by themselves.

So did the Luftwaffe (or at least Goering). None did all by themselves.

Small point of order, the USAF (United States Air Force) did not exist until 1947. Before that, the air force was part of the Army. AAC (Army Air Corps).

Aircraft can destroy the enemy, but they cannot hold ground. Boots on the ground are needed for that.

[105kw]

The USAAC became the USAAF on June 20, 1941.
The AAF became the USAF on September 18, 1947

[RC20]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPhcuqWsen8

This is another outstanding presenter. Note the precision number (CEP) for a Stuka. What do you think it was for a P-47 that had no aiming system for bombs and did not strike at Stuka like angles?

So, if a Stuka can only hit a tank by sheer luck where does that leave the P-47 and Typhoon?

[davidsog]

So, if a Stuka can only hit a tank by sheer luck where does that leave the P-47 and Typhoon?

In one of the rare, bright shining moments for tank busting aircraft can be found in Operation Citadel and The Kursk Offensive.

There Schlachtgeschwader 1 (SG1) faced off against several opponents including the 2nd Guard Tank Division.

The 2nd Guards reported some 50 tanks knocked out of action due to tactical air during the course of the battle out of their total losses of 456 tanks. One of the largest successes for tank busters in the entire war despite SG1 claiming some 300 plus enemy tanks destroyed.

The primary method used by SG1 was skip bombing 500kg bombs at an individual tank. They would fly tree top level or lower at their target and release the bomb just as the target disappeared under their cowl. The bomb would skip across the ground into the target or at least that was the idea.

Apparently, it was somewhat effective tactically. In terms of warfare, it is a very expensive and difficult way to take out a tank.

[44 AMP]

According the infallible Wikipedia, SG1 was flying HS 129s against tanks with Fw 190s dropping "anti personnel bombs on Soviet infantry at Kursk.

Never heard of the skip bombing technique use in Russia against tanks, but all that means is I never heard of it. I know we used the tactic against Japanese shipping in the south pacific, with some success.

[davidsog]

Wikipedia

yep, I discount what I consider flawed data,

That would be very difficult for Schlachtgeschwader 1 to be flying HS129's in the battle of Kursk since not one single HS129 was assigned or present at the unit.

https://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/schlacht/bischg1.html

They did have a few HS123 Biplanes. Those were used as close air support. They did not get them until September 1943. That is a month AFTER the Battle of Kursk.

[Pumpkin]

The HS 129 has to get the award for having the biggest anti tank gun.
Whether it was effective is up for debate, it had to be a very vulnerable aircraft with the gun still attached.
I don’t think it would have faired that well without the 75 hanging below. It was severely underpowered.

[44 AMP]

That would be very difficult for Schlachtgeschwader 1 to be flying HS129's in the battle of Kursk since not one single HS129 was assigned or present at the unit.

The linked document covers I, 1,2, and 3 Staffels of SG1, only has a 7.43 entry for I/SG1, and does not have entries for that month for the other three staffeln.

The Wiki page I looked at specifically states the HS 129s were flown by 7 and 8 Staffeln SG , which the linked document does not cover.

Wiki could very well be in error, but the linked document of aircraft stock and movement does not prove that. It does not cover those staffeln at all.

If you have documents that do, please share.

[105kw]

The Ju88P model had either a 75mm, 50mm, or 2 37mm guns.
But we're mostly used as train busters due to size, speed, and range.
The Italians mounted a 102mm howitzer in their 4 engine bomber, the Piaggio P108. It was intended to support torpedo bombers during their attack. 5 were planned, only one was built. It was tested, but never used operationally. It had what was described as a mechanical loader.

[RC20]

Skip bombing is an interesting subset. It was really more a release at ship height and it did not hit the water. Fuses had to be set right for it to work properly.

They did put a 75mm in the hose of some B-25s. Maybe two rounds off on a run, not very successful

Seems hard to believe any Stuka survived the Eastern front, serious ducks.

There were some seriously entangled tank messes at Kurst, so its possible a dropped bomb would hit tank because of density of the tanks.

[Pumpkin]

So the Stuka “Tank Buster” with the twin 40’s wasn’t all that?

[44 AMP]

Skip bombing is an interesting subset. It was really more a release at ship height and it did not hit the water. Fuses had to be set right for it to work properly.

First off, fuses have to be set "right" for every explosive to work.

Next point, Skip bombing is just that, the bombs DO hit the water, and skip, like skipping a stone, and hitting a ship that way is not just a matter of blind luck. The concept was tested and refined by Maj William Benn in October 42, using B-17s.

During the Battle of the Bismarck Sea on March 3 1943 12 strafer (gun nose) B25s attacked the Japanese convoy, followed by 12 strafer A-20s and 6 standard B-25s. Using the skip bombing attack, they sunk the destroyers Arashio, Shirayuki, and Tokitsukaze. Arashiro collided with Nojima, which also sank. The aviation gas transport Kembu Maru exploded and sank. The Aiyo Maru and the Oigawa Maru were hit, and sank. The Shinai Maru, Taimei Maru, and Teiyo Maru each took 4 bomb hits and were left dead in the water. And that was the morning attack!

The bombers came back in the afternoon, and by dark there was only one Japanese transport still afloat, and it sank during the night.

If you think skip bombing is a fluke, a matter of blind luck, think again. It was a tactic developed and practiced during the winter and spring of 42-43 and it absolutely worked.

and, it was skip bombing that sunk those ships, none of the B-25s at the battle carried the 75mm cannon, those came along later, and were very good at "barge busting".

So the Stuka “Tank Buster” with the twin 40’s wasn’t all that?

The famous Stuka tank buster was the G model and carried a pair of 37mm cannon one under each wing in a pod. It did kill quite a few tanks even the Soviets admitted that.

The British had their own tank buster, a Hurricane armed with a pair of 40mm cannon, and use to good effect in North Africa.

US Fighter pilots were (eventually) TRAINED how to hit targets with bombs without a bombsight. Using a combination of the standard gunsight, and timing the aircraft's height and speed, they could hit buildings, and even tanks, and could also cut railroad tracks when no better targets were found.

No, every pilot wasn't always spot on target accurate, but many were, and the idea that a fighter bomber, dive bomber or ground attack aircraft couldn't hit a tank , or an aircraft carrier ever is revisionist crap, put forward after the people who actually did it were dead and unable to directly refute such claims.

[RC20]

So the Stuka “Tank Buster” with the twin 40’s wasn’t all that?

Massive over claims. If you think about it, moving aircraft 200 mph or so, moving tank (likely) and actually aiming the guns and hitting something even really big?

The A-10 is best setup for in history and it gets few hits per run on any kind of ground rig. For a tank you need to hit the top deck. With a Gatling gun you spray enough with a modern aiming system, it works. I think I saw 20% hits in one report.

Brits tried it with Hurricanes in North Africa as well I believe. Maybe had some affect on stuff but for the cost put into vs any gain? 20mm or the 50 cals were far better as you attacked stuff they could affect.

People get vested in something and won't let it go. Ego, reputations are more important than lives. Britain and the Big Wing. You just could not coordinate or manage something like that to be effective. But it had advocates and the guy who won the Battle of Britain got shucked (Park I think).

[RC20]

none of the B-25s at the battle carried the 75mm cannon, those came along later, and were very good at "barge busting".

No 75 mm there, agreed.

How effective getting one badly aimed 75mm shot off at a barge? (they did not have the systems to aim it right) Same thing, the precision was not there.

A bunch of 50 cals in the nose, yep, worked well.

The British had their own tank buster, a Hurricane armed with a pair of 40mm cannon, and use to good effect in North Africa.

Better off with 4 x 20mm and again, non confirmed claims. Gun camera footage anyone?

[105kw]

Sorry, but the G, and H model B-25s both had a reflector gun sight.
How else were they going to aim the 50cals. When you hit with the Brownings, fire the 75mm.
According to written accounts, and Unit histories, they worked fine on Japanese landing barges.
Against land targets, fuel tanks, buildings, etc, it was possible to get 2 or 3 rds off during a gunnery run.

[44 AMP]

Gun camera footage anyone?

Surviving gun camera footage is invaluable, and shows reality. However, considering that WWII ended 80 years ago in Europe, and in a few months will be 80 years ago in the Pacific, and that only a tiny fraction of the footage has survived, and only examples were preserved by military historians I find it illogical to deny things that happened because today, the evidence no longer exists in a searchable form, if it still exists at all.

Gun camera film from every sortie by every aircraft simply does not exist today, and didn't during the war, and much of what did wasn't kept and preserved. Same with other film and still photographic records. And this applies even more to film and photos from the defeated powers.

As to the idea that one could not hit anything without sights are you familiar with "point shooting"?? Shooting from the hip?? People who have practiced can turn in some astonishing results. Why would you think a pilot couldn't learn to do that with their aircraft? Sights don't make a hit possible, they make it easier.

[davidsog]

Wiki could very well be in error, but the linked document of aircraft stock and movement does not prove that. It does not cover those staffeln at all.

If you have documents that do, please share.

I found them. Yes, they are two test squadrons for a grand total of 33 airplanes at their most numerous on the battlefield.

https://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/schlacht/b4schg1.html

In July 1943 17 aircraft on hand with 12 operational. By September, that number fell to 6 Operational Aircraft.

https://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/schlacht/b8schg1.html

In July 1943 16 aircraft on hand with 12 operational. By September, that number fell to 8 Operational Aircraft.



Compare that with I Gruppe, Schlachtgeschwader 1 with 104 FW190's on hand. The other two Gruppes in Schlachtgeschwader 1 records are incomplete but both units were not know to be short of aircraft and were also equipped with FW 190 ground attack variants.

The fact the FW190 had been performing the tank busting role for well over a year and the fact the SD-4 loadout is greatly restricted for use in FW190. It's the only loadout that carries numerous warnings of degraded performance and handling.

I find it highly unlikely that in the largest tank battle in human history, the Germans took their most numerous anti-tank aircraft...an FW190 with a bomb..and left the defense up to less than 30 airplanes who were under operational trials.

[davidsog]

So the Stuka “Tank Buster” with the twin 40’s wasn’t all that?

Probably not.