Author Topic: Not that I'd fly it, but...  (Read 3747 times)

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2007, 09:04:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Dichotomy
not if you're using Krusty math  ;)


Zing!!!!!!!!!!

:D

Bronk
See Rule #4

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2007, 09:31:14 PM »
If I just wanted only 8-guns, I'd fly the P-47 :lol

I was also thinking of the cheek blisters. I just didn't want to say "12 guns in the nose" and have folks thing I meant inside the nose.

Offline Sweet2th

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1040
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2007, 01:44:26 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
It was meant for shelling barges and shipping, and it was felt to be so poor in doing that job that they ditched it as soon as they could in favor of a standard hard nose.



They sure did ditch it, they even started mounting them in A-26's they were so unpopular.Too be honest, someone drops a bomb on my friends while they are sleeping i don't think i would ditch firing that big arse gun at them.

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2007, 07:07:03 AM »
bring us all those B25 variants.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2007, 07:09:50 AM by Nilsen »

Offline stephen

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 744
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2007, 09:42:40 AM »
for Krusty
My friend I believe your overestimating the the topturret thickness, a 75mm from a 30degree angle might bounce off, get up to around 55-60 degrees and itll likely bust through killing the crew, this of course doesnt mean you can fire at any part of a tankfrom hi up and kill it, a turret is a small target from 200ft up in a b25.............

The 75mm would never, ever, under any circumstances, kill any armored vehicle in this game. It might kill the gun in the open-topped ostwind.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2007, 09:50:43 AM by stephen »
Spell checker is for Morrons

Offline BaDkaRmA158Th

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2542
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2007, 02:56:57 PM »
"Counts with fingers"

Hold da heck on..
"nose""gun package""top turret" "gunsgunsguns"
    8+            4+                2+                =14

Sorry to ruin your math guys but thats turret up top is capable of being turned and fired forwards.

Therefor you get x2 more guns.


Just thought you may wanna know. ;)
~383Rd RTC/CH BW/AG~
BaDfaRmA

My signature says "Our commitment to diplomacy will never inhibit our willingness to kick a$s."

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2007, 04:05:28 PM »
For "sweet2th": they tested it on the A-26. It was far from common.

For Stephen: It was not an armor piercing round. It never had AP rounds. It was HE only, and it would detonate on contact with any tank you fired it at (exploding harmlessly outside the armor plate, zero penetration)

EDIT: The japanese tanks were so poorly made it might take out one or two types, but for all purposes in AH it would only work on jeeps or M3s or LVts. Flaks/Pnzrs/Tigrs/T34s would be immune to its firepower.

Offline BaDkaRmA158Th

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2542
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2007, 04:59:08 PM »
I wouldnt say useless, it could still track a tank,and for the flak if hit from a high angle would kill everyone in the gun.

m8's have weak tires for even a ground hit near by might pop them.
m16's have tires also,so they could be stoped or damaged.

Dunno if i would under estimate a 75mm high exspolsive round being fired from 300+ mph :|
blowing up on impact or not,the damage would still be brutal.
"man how i would love to place a round under a t34 and watch it flip & roll."

Abit,would still make a panzer or tiger laugh. :)
~383Rd RTC/CH BW/AG~
BaDfaRmA

My signature says "Our commitment to diplomacy will never inhibit our willingness to kick a$s."

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2007, 05:07:02 PM »
A single rocket probably has more explosives onboard than a single 75mm HE round. Sure, you might track something... if you hit it enough, in the same spot, with 10 consecutive passes all hitting the exact same spot. But in a single pass you could drop a single bomb on it and simply blow it up, outright.

Offline Ball

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1827
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2007, 05:21:49 PM »
I think it could be fun.

Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
A single rocket probably has more explosives onboard than a single 75mm HE round. Sure, you might track something... if you hit it enough, in the same spot, with 10 consecutive passes all hitting the exact same spot. But in a single pass you could drop a single bomb on it and simply blow it up, outright.


That is like saying, why take a 190 to fight when you can simply take an LA7?

Variation and challenge is a great thing.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2007, 10:32:20 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
A single rocket probably has more explosives onboard than a single 75mm HE round. Sure, you might track something... if you hit it enough, in the same spot, with 10 consecutive passes all hitting the exact same spot. But in a single pass you could drop a single bomb on it and simply blow it up, outright.


75 mm is just under 3".  A 5" rocket is basically a 5" gun shell with a rocket motor.

Now what's easier to aim?

The 75mm cannon is more or less directly mounted under the pilot.
So where his nose is pointing thats where its going to hit.
I'd guess there is much less drop also.

All rockets except for P-38 G/J are wing mounted. You have to compensate for faster drop and wing mounting.

Krusty I know you fly FSO and scenario.   Think about what all B25 models would bring to the table there.

To simulate destroying shipping use a CV group, destroy cv and cruiser and puffy on destroyers.
Killing the destroyers  would simulate stopping a resupply group.

Just some stuff to think about.

Bronk
« Last Edit: March 19, 2007, 10:45:09 AM by Bronk »
See Rule #4

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2007, 08:07:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bronk
75 mm is just under 3".  A 5" rocket is basically a 5" gun shell with a rocket motor.

Now what's easier to aim?

The 75mm cannon is more or less directly mounted under the pilot.
So where his nose is pointing thats where its going to hit.
I'd guess there is much less drop also.

Bronk



Diagram here

System configuration here

Excerpt from the website:

Radar Gun Director:  Each of VMB-613's aircraft was equipped with the AN/APG-13A radar gun director for the 75mm cannon.  Commonly referred to as Falcon, it was developed by General Electric and operated on the S-band.  It was designed to provide continuous range data and elevation corrections to the pilot's gun sight, allowing for the trajectory of each 15 pound shell at ranges of up to 5,000 yards.  With this range, VMB-613's aircraft could effectively engage shipping targets while remaining outside of the range of light anti-aircraft fire.  Designed for use against shipping targets, the AN/APG-13A was not effective against most land targets as rough terrain did not allow for good target discrimination at ranges in excess of 1,500 yards.  The entire AN/APG-13A weighed approximately 105 pounds and consisted of the following:

Endfire Antenna - The most visible component, the endfire antenna, was mounted on the upper-nose of the aircraft on the axis of the 75mm cannon.  It provided a sweep of 28 degrees of azimuth and elevation.  

Indicator - The indicator was a radar scope that was operated by the copilot.  Once the pilot had identified his target, the copilot would acquire it on the indicator at about 6,000 yards.  As the run-to-target continued, the copilot would turn a crank on the side of the indicator unit to keep the range step on the radar scope lined up with the left hand side of the target echo.  This action would turn a cam which would change the angle of the pilot's optical reflector sight, thereby providing continual range corrections to the gun sight.  This eliminated the need for the pilot to estimate ranges and manually adjust the optical reflector sight.  

Range Dial - The third component, the range dial, was located near the gun sight.  Operated by the same action that adjusted the optical reflector sight, the range dial provided the pilot with the range to the target, enabling the pilot to determine when to commence firing and when to break off the attack in order to remain outside the range of light anti-aircraft fire.

Lighthouse Tube Receiver - The final component, the lighthouse tube receiver, was located under the copilot's seat.  This device received the radar signal from the endfire antenna and fed the signal to the indicator.

A diagram of the AN/APG-13A radar gun director and photographs of the indicator, lighthouse tube receiver, and range dial is provided at the following link:  AN/APG-13A Radar Gun Director

Annecdote from one of the Marines:

"Anytime an aircraft returned from a mission, we needed to find out if the 75mm cannon had been used.  If it had, we began a lengthy process to look over the entire aircraft.  This was necessary as the firing of that cannon caused hydraulic leaks, and rivets in the airframe to shear-off.  We used flashlights and crawled over every inch of the aircraft to locate leaks and damaged rivets so that they could be repaired before the next mission.  Contributed by Michael Jacus Jr."

I encourage anyone that's interested in learning more about the aircraft and weapon system, check out the VMB-613 website at http://www.vmb-613.com.  If you click on the links to the months they were operational, you can read copies of the after-action reports.  There are quite a few that reference using the 75mm cannon against gun emplacements, buildings, docks, and some small surface craft.  Whether or not the 75mm could take out a tank is, IMHO, looking at the capability the wrong way.  With an effective range of over 5 kilometers, you begin to be able to plink ships from outside ack range.  Pretty nice capability if you ask me, even though puffy would still be an issue.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2007, 09:56:53 AM »
Stoney

Thats some good info. However just like the 51-d's lead comp sight. it would not be modeled in game.

With a bit of practice I think it would be possible to make longer shots.

Bronk
See Rule #4

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2007, 10:13:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bronk
Stoney

Thats some good info. However just like the 51-d's lead comp sight. it would not be modeled in game.

With a bit of practice I think it would be possible to make longer shots.

Bronk


Agreed Bronk.  My point was to show that they didn't just "throw in a 75mm gun" for the H model and force the pilots to use Kentucky windage :)
It was a pretty sophisticated weapon system for the time, and, if the after action reports on the site are accurate, it was highly effective, for its intended purpose.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Not that I'd fly it, but...
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2007, 10:27:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stoney74
Agreed Bronk.  My point was to show that they didn't just "throw in a 75mm gun" for the H model and force the pilots to use Kentucky windage :)
It was a pretty sophisticated weapon system for the time, and, if the after action reports on the site are accurate, it was highly effective, for its intended purpose.



Ahhh, rgr that.


:aok

Bronk
See Rule #4