Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?

[GermansRGeniuses]

Yes, yes it is. (more than a Mossie undoobitably)

[cheddar cheese]

yup, the b-25 is a cool plane

[the lancaster kicks ass]

one of the better looking twin engined planes of the war.............

[Lightning Guy]

That's a lot of theoretical ship sinking. The 75mm's low rate of fire meant only 3 maybe 4 rounds per pass and only the last one or two shots is really likely to score as long range shooting from an airplane isn't very accurate. You have to remember that destroyers carry virtually NO armor and the concentrated machine guns would have been more than capable of chewing a massive hole in the hull.

[MP-Willow]

Lightening Guy, I would have to agree that the low velocity 75mm cannon was not that great for the ship busting. The solid nose with the 8 or even ten .50s were better. Though I do not understand why the USAAF would not have added some 20mm or 30mm cannons with the B-25?

As for the A-20, it was a great attack aircraft that was only replaced the really great A-26. The Boston, was flown more with the Russians, then others. As for the French order of the A-20, they were given to the RAF after France fell. If was a small order I think about 10 airframes, but I am not shore. I hope that helps. The A-20 was a very good attack platvorm.

[GermansRGeniuses]

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

That's a lot of theoretical ship sinking. The 75mm's low rate of fire meant only 3 maybe 4 rounds per pass and only the last one or two shots is really likely to score as long range shooting from an airplane isn't very accurate. You have to remember that destroyers carry virtually NO armor and the concentrated machine guns would have been more than capable of chewing a massive hole in the hull.

Well anywho, I prefer the big gun because it's basically a howitzer in a plane. Also, they were probably able to get more than 4 shots off, not only if they had a fast gunner, or else just the fact that the gun when fired was like the ultimate airbrake - aerial Brembos. Besides, if you didn't like the gun, you could always use the ten forward firing guns. (I say ten because the dorsal turret could be locked forward just like on the A-20 or A-26, i can't remember) Plus, the big gun could be saved for bigger prey like a sub or small carrier (there weren't that many big sized ones) like a merchant ship with a deck, or coastal targets with the rockets and bombs instead of the fish. Another thing i have remembered is that the B-25's in the pacific were one of the first advocates of bouncing bombs - only these maniacs did it with 500lb GP bombs! - which was used to great effect.

[Lightning Guy]

Here's some info for you. The B-25H was retired in 1944 because there was nothing left in the Pacific that a 75mm would hurt and a cluster of .50cals wouldn't. Army tests with the weapon revealed that in the time it required to get off 4 rounds the B-25 would travel 1,000 yds. That means that even if you open fire at max. effective range you are getting REALLY close by the time you loose that last round. And the initial skip-bombing tests in the Pacific were actually done by B-17s.

MP-Willow, the first solid nosed versions of the A-20 were fitted with 4 20mm and 2 .50 cal in the nose. The 20mm weapons could only carry 60 rounds versus 350 rounds for the .50 cals. Additionally, the 20mm cannon fired rather slowly and was prone to jamming. So the later versions when to a fixed armament of 6 .50cals with 350 rpg.

[GermansRGeniuses]

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

Here's some info for you. The B-25H was retired in 1944 because there was nothing left in the Pacific that a 75mm would hurt and a cluster of .50cals wouldn't. Army tests with the weapon revealed that in the time it required to get off 4 rounds the B-25 would travel 1,000 yds. That means that even if you open fire at max. effective range you are getting REALLY close by the time you loose that last round. And the initial skip-bombing tests in the Pacific were actually done by B-17s.

MP-Willow, the first solid nosed versions of the A-20 were fitted with 4 20mm and 2 .50 cal in the nose. The 20mm weapons could only carry 60 rounds versus 350 rounds for the .50 cals. Additionally, the 20mm cannon fired rather slowly and was prone to jamming. So the later versions when to a fixed armament of 6 .50cals with 350 rpg.

Retiring it makes sense, but not using it in the ETO after they hit the beaches doesnt - can you say bunker busting? Can't do that with your beloved .50 cals now can you? I'll answer fir you, NO! There's also the numerous convoys and one BIG target - Tiger II. If a Hs-129 can use a 75mm gun against tanks, why wouldn't a better plane with a better gun be able to hit a bigger target? I didn't know that fact about B-17s TESTING
bouncing bombs, but thats the thing, they TESTED them.
Done rambling.

Off topic, but i now have a feel for some WWII weapons. (American only and just holding and aiming them, no clip, not even with dud bullets, and no firing; don't wanna do that at the mall during a little military expo....)
M1 Garand Semi-automatic rifle minus clip-Heavy and too big for me because of the big stock, but still fairly easy to aim- i put the stock under my arm although if I was to fire i would use normal procedure. Then again, I'm 13 and 5 foot 4 inches; C.C. would be a good tester since he's non-Asian (not racist, just saying most Asians are small - you know it's true) adult sized at 14.
M1A1 Thompson minus clip-HEAVY!!!! easy to handle, nicely sized stock, nice sights, but HEAVY!!!
M1A1 .30 Caliber Semi-automatic Carbine (Airborne version with folding skeleton stock with and without clip-not much difference, the clip was empty)-Sweet like honey.... Light, good sights, light, nice design with the stock and clip containers in pouches on the stock, and light-VERY light.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

it's better for a gun to be heavy, it's easyier to handle, take shotguns, most people prefer the 12 bore to the 20 bore because it's easyer to handle and, due to the extra weight, gives less of a kick..................

[plan_D]

It's not good for a gun to be heavy, far from it. You don't want to be carrying a really heavy gun for miles, try telling someone in the war that a heavy gun was good. I don't think you'd like carrying a Bren gun for miles.

Those guns being heavy Germans, probably weren't, no offence but as you said you're 13 and 5'4. Soldiers are at least 18, and trained meaning a bit more bulk. The Stg.44 now that was heavy, but it was the worlds first assault rifle.

Lanc, have you ever fired a Lee Enfield Mk.4, heavy and it kicks like a mule.

The 75mm would have been good for taking out tanks, and that's only because they'd hit them on the top. A 75mm would have never been able to take down the huge bunkers of the German Atlantic Wall, some of them were 4 metre thick walls which a 75mm shell would just bounce off.

[Lightning Guy]

The problem with the B-25H in the ETO argument is that the B-25 wasn't used (in American hands at least in the ETO). Plus P-47s and P-38s loaded with 500lb bombs and 5in rockets were capable of taking out any tank the Germans had. Also, and I know this sounds farfetched but I've seen it in several sources, the .50cals had a surprising about of success against German armor. Alot of German tanks carried spare fuel externally (a prime target for API ammo) and some P-47 pilots even became skilled at richoceting their shots off of paved rounds into the underside of German armor.

[MP-Willow]

Lightening Guy, thanks for the bit on the 20mm cannons and the A-20s. I have not read a lot on the differnet cannons, maybe that should be my next bit of reading. I still wonder about the seeming lack of use of the cannons in USAAC aircraft. I know the later P-38s had some, but that was not till the J and K models. But I gess it comes down to the thought of fireing speed. The 0.50 inch machine guns were fast and in numbers could take out a lot of things.

A note on the B-25H it also took out the co-piolet position. I am not shure how that affected the mindset of differnt aircrews, but that would seem a little unnerving for me.

[plan_D]

I have also read that Lightning, but it was more luck than anything, bouncing it off the ground. The velocity of the 12.7mm round sometimes compensated for its low calibre.

[MP-Willow]

Lots of rounds put on target helps as well. buttets are cheap!

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Lanc, have you ever fired a Lee Enfield Mk.4, heavy and it kicks like a mule.

no but i've used a .308, that's also a bolt action and more powerfull than a .303..................