WWII aircraft armament machine guns and cannon

[44 AMP]

Everything "brews up", catches fire, and even explodes when hit in the right place, with the right "bullet".

British armor ran on gas (petrol)
German armor ran on gas (Benzin)
Russian armor ran on diesel
US armor mostly ran on gas, but some ran on diesel
Italian armor mostly ran....away... (ok, sorry, not true but I couldn't resist...)

Not only is the fuel flammable (diesel WILL burn) but there are large amounts of gunpowder in every tank. The shell that rips (or burns) through the armor also goes through your ammo and most of the things people shot at enemy tanks were intended to set them on fire as well.

We did make a Sherman that ran on diesel. Guess where those went?
Some went to Russia, most went to the Marines in the Pacific. The Navy used diesel a lot (landing craft, etc.) so diesel Shermans simplified things, there.

Shermans got their reputation of "lights first time, every time" because they were more prone to catching fire when hit than other allied or axis tanks. They didn't really do it every time, but they did do more often than most. It wasn't just because they were gas powered, it was the design layout and the later war design changes (wet storage, applied armor in vulnerable spots, etc.) did help but never totally eliminated the issue.

The Germans had a diesel powered aircraft, the Junkers Ju 86. Sometimes used as a transport or light bomber, it was mostly used as a high altitude recon plane, as it could operate at 40,000 feet and some models even higher.

The bomber variant was armed with 3 mgs, and carried a crew of 4. The recon version was unarmed and had a crew of 2.

[Mike Irwin]

I can't think of a single WW II tank (possibly some of the Japanese tanks) in which the fuel supply was carried such that it was IN the crew compartment. Those lessons were learned during the First World War when the crew, the engine, the gasoline, and the ammunition was often all in the same compartment. If the carbon monoxide didn't get them, or the temperatures that could top 120 deg. F didn't, either a fire or a ammunition cook off could.

While the fuel supply could, and would, burn, it was virtually never the cause of the kind of "brew up" we're talking about, in which there is a CATASTROPHIC release of energy that is caused by the ammunition for the main gun detonating due to a strike.

Things like this don't happen from the gasoline going poof.

[44 AMP]

Things like this don't happen from the gasoline going poof.

Actually, they can, but remember there's always more involved, most of the time including an explosive charge as well. An AT round can go through more than just the crew compartment, and often that's catastrophic, but once in a while, its not.

There was one incident where a Sherman (canadian, I think) ran head on into a Tiger in a hedgerow. point blank. The Tiger fired and the round went through the Sherman front to back, but missed the crew or anything vital. The Sherman bounced rounds off the front of the Tiger as fast as they could load and shoot while getting the hell out of there.

Another example is in the Pacific, in one of the few US vs Japanese tank engagements. Shermans fired AP into them, and it went all the way through both sides, only killing crewmen if they happened to be in the way of the shell as it passed through. After several pass through shots having little or no effect, the gunners switched to HE. One HE round usually exploded the Japanese tank.

Kind of like in aircraft when you can put several rounds, even cannon rounds through parts of the airplane and not do vital damage, while rounds in another place destroy the plane or crew.

Historical tidbit, up through 1941 the main British tank gun was the 2 pounder (40mm) while it did work killing tanks, it wasn't as effective as the 37mm used by Germany at the time, because the British gun only had solid shot. The 37mm had solid shot and an HE round, and by 41 the Germans were up gunning to a 50mm even before they invaded Russia.

The gun/armor race in tanks is comparable to the one in aircraft, the main physical difference is that in aircraft improved protection mostly comes from improved performance in the air, and not just thicker armor plate which tanks can manage (to a point) and aircraft cannot.

[RC20]

Shermans got their reputation of "lights first time, every time" because they were more prone to catching fire when hit than other allied or axis tanks. They didn't really do it every time, but they did do more often than most. It wasn't just because they were gas powered, it was the design layout and the later war design changes (wet storage, applied armor in vulnerable spots, etc.) did help but never totally eliminated the issue.

That would be totally wrong. All tanks brewed up for the same reason. The ammo was stored all around the fighting compartment and in the Sponsons.

I am pulling this from memory but I don't think the penetrating AP had explosives. The burrowed through armor, ricochets around doing their damage, if explosives did anything at least the commander, gunner and loader would die. Explosive did not good without penetration. Even 16 inch AP battleship guns had amazingly little HE.

The Sherman brewing up was a WWII myth that has been perpetrated via Armored Coffins book.

The ex cape hatches were large and ergonomic in a Sherman were the best of any WWII tank and the crews survived.

Ammo storage is why you see Russian tanks blow the Turrets in Ukraine. They have an auto loader with ammo storage up high.

Sherman solved the blow up problem by putting the ammo low in the floor (for which they had space due to the design). Wet storage was not the biggest aspect, keeping it low and out of line of a perpetrator was.

At issue was tankers wanted rounds handy and stowed ammo up top, neither was wrong but that meant the brew up issue not solved.

M1 solved that with a bustle mounted ammo storage and flapper door to grab a round and if the storage got hit, blow off panels let it vent outboard.

[RC20]

this is worth watching on the 50 cal vs 20 mm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKuNXLenci4&t=533s

He is super detailed oriented, to the point of being anal at times but its all good info.

[RC20]

I suggest you read "Deathtraps" by Belton Cooper. Its about his time as a vehicle (primarily) Sherman recovery officer.

Yea that is the one. So let me ask you a question. What does a recovery officer see day in day out?

Ok, I will answer that, damaged tanks.

Cooper is totally discredited as any value in tanks. Its a good book on recovery ops, but he makes conclusions not based on facts.

In fact, you don't recover a brewed up tank. You do damaged tanks. So, he has lots and lots of damaged tanks because? Because they were attacking for the most part and ran into lots and lots of anti tank (be it German tanks or TD or wheeled).

You are repeating myths that have been disproven. US tank related deaths were very low because the crews could and did get out and survived.

And guess who recovers their tanks? Yea, its the side that advances. So Cooper got to recover damaged tanks. Mobility kills, mission kills but not write offs (brewed up and of no use).

You read about the guy who hated Shermans, he was on his 5th tank. Hmmm, so he survived each and every time. Kind of busts that bubble.

Urban legends are not the same as facts.

[RC20]

Historical tidbit, up through 1941 the main British tank gun was the 2 pounder (40mm) while it did work killing tanks, it wasn't as effective as the 37mm used by Germany at the time, because the British gun only had solid shot. The 37mm had solid shot and an HE round, and by 41 the Germans were up gunning to a 50mm even before they invaded Russia.

Solid shot is what penetrates armor.

HE is used to kill wheeled anti tank crews, machine guns and trucks, half tracks.

Shown above is the M61 with the tracer/fuze element removed. The fuze was designed to have a short delay, allowing the round to penetrate before exploding. The charge is relatively small and was intended to burst the round into shrapnel rather than have a direct blast effect. AP rounds derive their destructive power from kinetic energy.
(This round is dated 1943)

Some reports are the explosive was not put in.

[Mike Irwin]

"Actually, they can, but remember there's always more involved, most of the time including an explosive charge as well. An AT round can go through more than just the crew compartment, and often that's catastrophic, but once in a while, its not."

Remember, a FAE event requires fuel and air. Sufficient quantities of those have to mix in an area of sufficient size to create an explosion capable of lifting something like a turret.

There are a number of problems with that.

First, again, the gasoline is outside of the crew compartment.

Second, the crew compartment is of significantly limited dimension, which would require a correspondingly small amount of fuel to create "the sweet spot" for an explosive event. That's very unlikely if, say, a 75 or 88 mm shell transits the tank in such a way that it drags fuel into the crew compartment, the chances of the fuel not igniting on the way in (remember, shell penetrations through armor generate a tremendous amount of heat) are virtually nil. That means that the likelihood of the sweet spot of air to fuel vapor being achieved is also virtually nil.

I'm looking for the source, but I read it many years ago but it was, IIRC, in a book or magazine article about Shermans and it basically demolished the "Our tanks sucked the banana because they were gasoline powered and that made the explode all the time!"

The data it showed were that a hit in the fuel tanks in pretty much any European tank was a pretty survivable even for both the vehicle and the crew.

It also had data showing that the chance of the crew surviving an ammunition cook off (in any tank operated by any power) was basically not happening.



"Another example is in the Pacific, in one of the few US vs Japanese tank engagements. Shermans fired AP into them, and it went all the way through both sides, only killing crewmen if they happened to be in the way of the shell as it passed through. After several pass through shots having little or no effect, the gunners switched to HE. One HE round usually exploded the Japanese tank."


Yeah... that's because the Japanese never fielded a tank with armor that even remotely approached that of what was found on tanks by virtually any other combatant.

The Type 95 Ha-Go light tank had 12 mm... a HALF INCH... of "armor" at the thickest locations.

The Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank had a bit thicker armor on the turret and front glacis, but the sides had less than a half inch.

There were cases in which Japanese tanks were penetrated by .30-06 Black Tip bullets at close range.

So yeah, no wonder the Sherman's AP shells didn't do much of anything. Shooting straight through both sides means that there's an awful lot of energy that never gets deposited into the target. It just flies away with the projectile.

[Mike Irwin]

"In fact, you don't recover a brewed up tank."

Yes and no.

Burned out tanks were recovered because even though the interior was generally slagged and not rebuildable outside of the Detroit Tank Arsenal, there were often a lot of still usable parts on a burned out tank.

Tracks, suspension parts, mechanical items that weren't in the crew compartment.

[RC20]

Yes and no.

Burned out tanks were recovered because even though the interior was generally slagged and not rebuildable outside of the Detroit Tank Arsenal, there were often a lot of still usable parts on a burned out tank.

Tracks, suspension parts, mechanical items that weren't in the crew compartment.

I should have clarified. Recovered vs Salvaged. So yea, if you had stuff on the outside not damaged, you would salvage it, but in the field or first level. They did not go onto a repair depot. No sense in hauling a hull around when it was easy enough to strip.

The point is Cooper saw wrecked/damaged tanks. That was his whole world.

He clearly missed the larger context.

Abrams had like 6 or 7 different tanks. Yea he might have upgraded one, but the rest were knocked out. Ok, he lived through those losses, its either a miracle or most of the crew survived.

Yea it sucked in you survived a tank shot up and then got put right back into another tank. Its the nature of armor. Tank crews are trained and hard to replace commodities (well as far as high command is concerned).

And that in a nutshell is the crux of it.

A Panther was made in Germany and shipped by rail. Weight while a design aspect was not a sole driver (and they in fact had thin side armor which on the Russian front was mitigated by range and angle). So so much on the Western front.

That said, a Sherman had to be light enough for the cranes and space available and delivered by ship not train.

The logistics train was huge and oceans away. So it had to be reliable and maintainable and repairable. What worked for strategic reasons did not always work on a tactical level (mostly but not always).

What US crews did not realize was the Panther had a serious breakdown problem. It was not reliable, often 50% not available due to being broken down.

But yea, it had a big 75 (vs a small 75 or 76 on a Sherman) and if you had to face one, heck yes you would want that gun.

Introduce a new model tank, get it overseas and up to the Sherman standards ? Good luck with that.

[44 AMP]

You read about the guy who hated Shermans, he was on his 5th tank. Hmmm, so he survived each and every time. Kind of busts that bubble.

Not really, or at least not the way you're telling it. I knew a guy who had a very similar set of experiences. Between Normandy and the Rhine, he had 5 Shermans shot out from under him. Every time one or more of the crew was either seriously injured or killed. He was wounded once, recovered and went back into another tank. The 5th time he was badly burned, but did revcover and went back and when his CO told him to get in another Sherman, he refused. Flatly. "sir, send me to Leavenworth if you want but I am NOT getting back in a tank!" SO, the CO sent him to the tank recovery group, instead.

Overall totals may be low, but look at the casualty rates. More than one unit suffered over 100% casualty rates. Some more than that.

The famous 8th AF bomber command 20 missions and go home, was a tantalizing goal. How many actually made it? Some did, most did not.

[Mike Irwin]

Salvage. That was the word that I was looking for but couldn't think of.

Obviously salvage had a lower priority than recovery (unless you really needed a particular spare).

One of the many documentaries I've watched on WW II had a quote from a person assigned to a recovery unit who had to clean out all of the blood and remains from a recovered Sherman. Said the smell never quite left the interior.


On a different note, the gunsmith in my local town when I was growing up had been in a battlefield recovery unit. He shipped back several hundred K98k actions and set himself up in business as a custom gunsmith when he got home.

[Pumpkin]

Those K98K actions were well deserved.

I do know that we/I did some testing on various USN engines about 25 years ago that the goal was to eliminate gasoline storage/use from their ships.
Some were similar output diesels to replace gasoline engines and others were gasoline engines converted to run on jet fuel.
We were told it was to eliminate the dangers from a possible gasoline fire.

Over the years some of the worst fires where I worked were related to gasoline.
The vapors are the dangerous part.
Methanol probably was one the scariest liquid fuels used during testing because of the flames being invisible. We had infrared cameras and strips of paper hanging in the test cell to help detect the flames, luckily we never had a problem related to a fire.

One of the biggest fires was from a antifreeze leak on a big diesel that was spraying on a red hot turbocharger. Emptied the lab, causing quite a ruckus.

M-60 tanks and retrieval vehicles used an air cooled Continental V-12 diesel.

[Mike Irwin]

"The vapors are the dangerous part."

Exactly. That was my entire point about FAE mixtures and interior dimensions of the tank.

At least two aircraft carriers were lost during WW II in large part due to gasoline vapor explosions.

The USS Lexinton was struck by at least two bombs and two torpedos during the Coral Sea action.

Damage control had stabilized the ship to a degree that it could begin recovering aircraft, but what no one knew is that several aviation gasoline storage tanks had been damaged and were leaking, which allowed vapors to spread through a large part of the ship, which resulted in a series of massive explosions that sealed Lexington's fate.

Gasoline vapor explosions also contributed directly to the loss of the IJN Taiho.

Taiho was hit by a single torpodeo, which didn't seem to cause all that much damage, but pitiful Japanese damage control allowed gasoline vapors to spread freely through the ship.

Allegedly, according to a survivor, the damage control officer, upon discovering that gasoline vapors were spreading in the fully enclosed hangars, decided to turn on the ship's ventilation system. All that did was to more effectively spread the explosive mixture without venting it.

It wasn't long after that that the inevitable explosion camel backed the armored flight deck and blew the sides out of the ship, apparently both above and below the waterline.

[RC20]

The key point is for tanks it was not the fuel that was the issue, it was almost 100% the ammo.

but pitiful Japanese damage control allowed gasoline vapors to spread freely through the ship.

I recently saw an account that described things in detail and it was more assumptions based on what damage control knew. Add in a late war carrier with a non experienced crew as well as how Japan trained people.

Simply flushing gasoline out of US Carrier fuel systems (replaced with CO?) was a lesson we had to learn though it would seem an obvious move.

Pulling the Sherman out of context with the system the US had for fighting is a mistake. It was part of a system and it worked well.

I also did not say US tank casualties were zero, there often was one person wounded or killed in a crew that survived being mission killed.

That is the level of how it affects you and rightfully so.

Do not take this wrong, commanders know there are going to be casualties. Frankly I could not be in that position, it would eat and knaw my soul.

But wihtout Captains, Majors, Colonels and Generals you loose the war. The best ones keep casualties down. But you are still going to have them.

The Sherman kept them down. Even the Jumbo Sherman that was well armored got knocked out. It also was an impact on the drive system and that in turn was an impact of availability but also logistics that stretched back to the US.

Impede the logistics chain and assumptions and you have real world consequences of not enough parts where and when you need them.

The Chronic Artillery shell shortage after Normandy was a case in point. Then Montgomery in his stupidity decides not to clear the far side of the Zelder Zee and Amsterdam intact was wasted for 3 months because of it. He should have been hung.

Keeping needed shells and a battle reserve was a dicey dance and when the Battle of the Bulge occurred they at least had what they needed (not that it should have occurred but that was what reserves were for, unexpected and screw ups)

The 76mm Sherman with the right shell was capable, but then you lost the explosive charge size of the 75mm Sherman. So it you were facing German tanks, you wanted that 76mm and the good shell.

If you were facing wheeled anti tank, you wanted the 75mm. The solution was to accept the 76mm HE filled to 75 specs would be off a bit and adjust, no one has answered why they never got there.

Still the Sherman did not operate in a vacuum. It was part of a system of Artillery, Aircraft, infantry and Armor. No it did not always worked as intended but it did work and it fit in with what was needed (not wanted)

Late war saw some Pershing get sent and exactly what they forecast occurred. Very mixed record with as many losses and problems as any gain.

That the US was better off with the 76mm E8 in Korea says something (for the Sherman and not good on Army Pershing development or failure to do so). Reports were that the E8 ate T-34/85 for lunch. By then they had the HVAP shell as standard and it worked and worked well.

[RC20]

Not really, or at least not the way you're telling it. I knew a guy who had a very similar set of experiences. Between Normandy and the Rhine, he had 5 Shermans shot out from under him. Every time one or more of the crew was either seriously injured or killed. He was wounded once, recovered and went back into another tank. The 5th time he was badly burned, but did revcover and went back and when his CO told him to get in another Sherman, he refused. Flatly. "sir, send me to Leavenworth if you want but I am NOT getting back in a tank!" SO, the CO sent him to the tank recovery group, instead.

You are making the point. The crews tended to survive a shoot up. How many you could survive was totally relevant to the person being put back into combat.

So flip it around, the whole crew gets killed each and every time. Then your total casualty rate escalates, you need more crews only to have them killed.

Cooper focused on what he thought was relevant. For him it was, but for the war effort it was not.

We live and breathe indivual accounts. The war is won or lost on the whole.

And not I don't take this casualty. I grew up with those WWII vets, My dad was one, an uncle another and several friends and acquaintance in latter years.

One friend said volunteering was the stupidest thing he ever did in his life. Severely wounded at the Battle of the Bulge, recovered, given an option on aircraft and served out the rest of the war on B-17s.

I don't know how my dad felt specifically, he trained as a Motor Mak and had a career in mechanics after the war. But he served on Gunboats and saw intense combat. All I know is my Uncle said he had nightmares for years after.

But without those men and what they sacrificed not knowing what they were going to face, we would have lost WWII.

[Pumpkin]

Speaking of guns,
Were the B-17 ball turret gunners able to exit the turret and into the plane via cable or ropes? I read that the ball turrets parachute was located inside the fuselage, not the cramped turret.

[Mike Irwin]

"The key point is for tanks it was not the fuel that was the issue, it was almost 100% the ammo."

Uhm... yeah. I made that exact point.

In multiple posts.


As for Japanese damage control, there were a lot of reasons it was pitiful. Part of it was cultural, part of it was doctrine (specialized teams instead of training every person in DC) and virtually no training as the war progressed.

As for CO2, what most people don't know is that Japan pioneered the use of CO2 suppression systems to flood avgas lines and tanks in the 1930s, long before the US started doing it.

[105kw]

In order for the ball turret gunner to get into or out of the turret, it had to be with the turret pointed straight down.
SOP was for the gunner to man the turret after take off. No he couldn't wear his parachute. If he had to bail out, and power or damage rendered the turret inop, he had to hope the radioman, or waist gunner could force the turret to a position he could get out.

[Pumpkin]

Thanks 105kw,
I had always assumed that they entered the turret from it ground before takeoff.
Very brave men, the bravest.

[bamaranger]

Uhhhhhhh........weren't we discussing aircraft armament?

[Pumpkin]

There were 2 50’s in the ball turret, I think that counts as armament.

[Mike Irwin]

"Uhhhhhhh........weren't we discussing aircraft armament?"

We've broadened our horizons to all sorts of stuff with guns.

[RC20]

As for Japanese damage control, there were a lot of reasons it was pitiful. Part of it was cultural, part of it was doctrine (specialized teams instead of training every person in DC) and virtually no training as the war progressed.

As for CO2, what most people don't know is that Japan pioneered the use of CO2 suppression systems to flood avgas lines and tanks in the 1930s, long before the US started doing it.

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

From 1941 on through 43, they had some ships get seriously pounded and did not sink.

Add in CO flush (did not know that)

So maybe Japanese damage control depended on the officer in a top down organization. But I find it hard to believe they were inept.

I can see compounding factors getting involved. Loss of experience crews going into latter 43 on. Also the overwhelming attacks that developed with a bigger and bigger carrier fleet.

Equally the US had more and more trained lessons learned damage control and people as things flipped around.

Inept would be Halsey and the Battle off Samar in many ways. He knew better than to believe pilot reports of hits. Equally he had no air coordinator over the Center Fleet and they focused on Mushashi vs hitting and damaging more ships.

[RC20]

Uhm... yeah. I made that exact point.

In multiple posts.

Yes you did but not as bluntly and Amp 44 was not getting it and repeating the Cooper myth.

I kind of prefer the blunt sledge approach.