shturmovik for western allies

**dalem** · 13 Jan 07,, 19:06

Originally Posted by Major Dad

Indeed, particularly the B-25G and H models sporting a dozen or so .50 caliber M-2's AND a 75mm cannon.

Yeah. Those versions were so American in concept that it makes me grin. "Ummm, can we put more guns on it? How many? How big?"

-dale

**BD1** · 13 Jan 07,, 20:43

from frans bonne warbirds site - ´´Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress - During the first days of the Americans in Europe, there were no escort fighters available with the range needed for the defence of the B-17's. Looking back at the loss rates of unescorted bombers it was deemed too dangerous to start daylight bombing with unescorted bombers. The only plane able to follow the B-17 all the way was.. a B-17!
Starting as B-17 F's, some 20 bombers were refitted. typically they carried 14 0.50-inch machine guns. Additional protective armor was fitted for better crew protection. Some fortresses had up to 30 guns, or carried heavy cannons. Due to drag of additional turrets, and increased weight, the top speed was so low that the YB-40's could not maintain formation after the normal bombers had dropped their loads, failing in their defensive role.
In a number of test missions they claimed some air-to-air kills, and some damages, but one YB-40 was lost. After this and the fact they could not keep up with the returning formations the project was abandoned. The remaining YB-40's were converted back to standard bombers, or were used as gunnery trainers.
This version however saw the first use of the Bendix chin turret, later installed in all B-17G's
Number converted: 20 ´´

It sure could use a name ´´Flying Hedgehog´´

**~~MrFirst~~** · 14 Jan 07,, 13:05

Originally Posted by dalem

Why no Katyushas? Because the Brits and Americans didn't need them - we had the most accurate and fast artillery arm in the world - our corps artillery was used as a tactical battlefield weapon, oftentimes "on the fly", and we had adequate numbers of tubes. The Sovs needed the Katyushas because they weren't able to produce enough real guns, nor the educated people to lay and fire them, nor the commo gear to coordinate them.

Do you know how many models and how many units of “real guns” Red Army had in the ww2? Before saying something in such ultimate manner it would be better for you to read anything about this.
And I believe you are not serious telling that Russians warring for four years against Germans weren’t able to produce “educated people to lay and fire them”.

Originally Posted by dalem

Would you rather be a German facing a mass of inaccurate Katyushas or a German facing a British "Uncle" fire mission with every CW gun across the entire front ready and able to fire on your particular crossroad defense at once?

You say this as if you know the answer.:-))
You were this German, may be?

**zraver** · 14 Jan 07,, 16:41

The sturmovik wasn't neede din the west. The P-47 as an examle was much harder to shoot down beucase it was faster and its 18 cyl radial could soke up huge amounts of damage where the sturmoviks water colled inline was vulnerable. The western figthers with thier superior engines could also carry more ordnance faster and farther than the Russian birds.

On a side no the biggest gun mounted in a plane and sucessfully used in the attack role in WW2 was the American Mitchell bomber with a 75mm canon in the pacific.

**glyn** · 14 Jan 07,, 18:10

Originally Posted by zraver

On a side no the biggest gun mounted in a plane and sucessfully used in the attack role in WW2 was the American Mitchell bomber with a 75mm canon in the pacific.

In fact a number of aircraft carried large guns. The finest 75mm was almost certainly the PaK 40 carried by the Hs 129. It was also carried by some Ju 88S variants. The British fitted the 6 pounder Mollins into the wooden De Havilland Mosquito which was of 57mm calibre There is even one instance recorded of a Ju 88 being shot down by a single shot from the Mosquito when it unwisely got in the way! The Mollins was tested by the US military who liked its auto feed and the fact it did not jam under the g loadings aircraft were subjected to.

**glyn** · 14 Jan 07,, 18:27

Further to the above, the largest calibre gun carried by an aircraft is the 105mm. The first to carry that calibre was the WW2 Piaggio P.108A and trials were carried out, but the few P.108s to reach service were without the 105mm gun. Today the familiar Spectre carries the 105 along with other ordinance. Incidentally, the 75mm carried in the B-25G series was in fact the WW1 vintage French 75mm artillery piece. The B-25H toted the lighter T13E-1 of similar calibre. If anyone knows of other large calibre guns that flew, I would like to hear of them.

**dalem** · 14 Jan 07,, 19:32

Originally Posted by MrFirst

Do you know how many models and how many units of “real guns” Red Army had in the ww2? Before saying something in such ultimate manner it would be better for you to read anything about this.
And I believe you are not serious telling that Russians warring for four years against Germans weren’t able to produce “educated people to lay and fire them”.

Yeah, the Sovs had lots and lots, but they still weren't enough. Modern artillery is expensive and time-consuming to build. Compared to that, a stack of rocket racks on a truck bed is a snap, and a useful measure.

And it is well-understood that the Sovs were WAY behind in commo technology and the skilled technicians to use it, and also short of the well-educated minds needed to staff artillery fire control centers and even gun crews.

Accurate and timely artillery fire involves a bit more than simply pulling a lanyard.

You say this as if you know the answer.:-))
You were this German, may be?

Of course not, I'm simply making the point that Soviet artillery was not a sophisticated or flexible asset in WWII. It was brute force plain and simple. It was WWI technology and execution, hence the wider utility of inaccurate rocket barrages. Of course I'm just as humped whether it's a 152mm rocket that lands on my trench or a 25lbr shell - I'm not trying to make an argument that Sov artillery wasn't effective when used. Just different.

-dale

**~~Shipwreck~~** · 14 Jan 07,, 19:42

Originally Posted by glyn