Sweet pic of a destroyed t34 from the bk37 of a stuka

[bangsbox]

[danny76]

Nonsense they would bounce off from that angle!!! 

[bustr]

Offline put a T34 in the drone circuit so it sits on the runway. Fly the Ju87-G2 at it. Fire at sub 100yd. Tungsten carbide core round will pass through the armor. The pilots of the Hs 129 discovered this with their 30mm tungsten carbide core rounds after failures in battle shooting at 200m. When they fired sub 100m, the 30mm rounds passed through the T34 armor like butter. Slapping your plane's tail against the turret and angering was a very real danger. The inventor of the tactic died giving a demonstration against a captured T34. He slapped the tail of his Hs 129 against the turret.

In the game, commander mode will make you dead trying it on most competent GVers.

[Cthulhu]

Offline put a T34 in the drone circuit so it sits on the runway. Fly the Ju87-G2 at it. Fire at sub 100yd. Tungsten carbide core round will pass through the armor. The pilots of the Hs 129 discovered this with their 30mm tungsten carbide core rounds after failures in battle shooting at 200m. When they fired sub 100m, the 30mm rounds passed through the T34 armor like butter. Slapping your plane's tail against the turret and angering was a very real danger. The inventor of the tactic died giving a demonstration against a captured T34. He slapped the tail of his Hs 129 against the turret.

In the game, commander mode will make you dead trying it on most competent GVers.

The tungsten APCR rd is very lightweight compared to the HE and AT rds. Even so, it's surprising that a rd of that size would lose sufficient energy over just 100 yds to fail to penetrate. I'm surprised the Germans didn't experiment with different powders (to raise the muzzle velocity) or possibly a lighter, but longer rd (higher muzzle velocity/greater sectional density for penetration).

Then again, maybe the rd/gun was already optimized within the limits of their technology.

[bustr]

The biggest problem was recoil destroying the aircraft when it came to mounting guns like the Mk101\103 and larger. The more pizzazz you put in the powder or the design of the round to build more initial barrel pressure. The more weight you have to add to the aircraft to over come the reaction. Yes they put a BK 7.5 under the Hs 129. Firing it almost stopped the forward momentum of the aircraft. The recoil mount made an already dog plane into a bigger dog plane. The destructive power of a single round out weighed the problems , dangers, and short lifespan of the platform. By that time the MK103 was the pinnacle of aviation mounted automatic cannon tech for Germany.

Think of the 75mm in the B-25H. Firing it even once, required inspecting the whole aircraft for sheared rivets and other damage. It was the best of the technology at that time especially when the final lightened version was mounted.

The Hs 129 pilots thought the factory specs would work as advertised. They shot British tanks in North Africa at 200m with great success. In Russia the T34 was a different beast. The whole program for Hs 129 almost failed because the 30mm rounds didn't penetrate. Until the sub 100m shooting was discovered. One tiny core inside the tank killed the crew and chewed up other things or, inside the engine compartment killed the engine. Or, setting off one of the tanks own rounds.

[Zimme83]

Saab put a 57mm Bofors gun in the bomb bay of the B-18B, that with 2x20mm cannons and 8 rockets and a top speed of 360 mph made it to a pretty decent gorund attack plane. (bomber version took 3300lbs of bombs)

[colmbo]

Firing it almost stopped the forward momentum of the aircraft.

Not possible.  Think Newton.

[Karnak]

Think of the 75mm in the B-25H. Firing it even once, required inspecting the whole aircraft for sheared rivets and other damage. It was the best of the technology at that time especially when the final lightened version was mounted.

The Mollins 57mm was better. Even per US tests it was better.

[Cthulhu]

I thought we were talking about the Bk37. Sure you can increase the muzzle velocity without necessarily increasing the peak chamber pressure for a given rd. It's just a matter of optimizing burn rate and powder selection. Barring that, reducing the weight of the carrier material in the rd (usually aluminum for an APCR rd and totally useless from a terminal ballistics standpoint) would also allow for a higher muzzle velocity without appreciably reducing the lethality of the rd.

As far as recoil goes, there probably would be little to no net increase in primary recoil force due to firing a lighter projectile at a slightly higher velocity (Conservation of Momentum). There might be a slight increase in secondary recoil due to blast impingement on the muzzle,  but that can be mediated by a well designed muzzle brake.

[bustr]

Yes both the MK101\103 had a well designed brake along with the BK 7.5 when mounted in the Hs 129. Otherwise the program was going to be canceled due to recoil issues. Why are you questioning what men did with their best abilities 70 years ago in a war with limited resources? At that moment the engineers in Germany working with that technology were it in the world. The core of those rounds was considered revolutionary at that time.

You are 70 years later second guessing them while they were in a war with limited resources. What is the point of this?? We both have access to google and you appear to be playing devils advocate with this like many engineers I've known. They did the best with what they had, or are you bent on showing they didn't. How about we hold a séance and ask them........

[pembquist]

did anybody try mounting a recoiless rifle to an aircraft?

[Cthulhu]

Yes both the MK101\103 had a well designed brake along with the BK 7.5 when mounted in the Hs 129. Otherwise the program was going to be canceled due to recoil issues. Why are you questioning what men did with their best abilities 70 years ago in a war with limited resources? At that moment the engineers in Germany working with that technology were it in the world. The core of those rounds was considered revolutionary at that time.

You are 70 years later second guessing them while they were in a war with limited resources. What is the point of this?? We both have access to google and you appear to be playing devils advocate with this like many engineers I've known. They did the best with what they had, or are you bent on showing they didn't. How about we hold a séance and ask them........

I never said they didn't do their best. In fact I pretty much assumed that in my initial post. My comments were regarding how the energy loss over a mere 100 yds was sufficient to defeat the rd, and how it wasn't resolved. It's surprising given that the Germans were experts at solving problems of this very sort.

[-ammo-]

I never said they didn't do their best. In fact I pretty much assumed that in my initial post. My comments were regarding how the energy loss over a mere 100 yds was sufficient to defeat the rd, and how it wasn't resolved. It's surprising given that the Germans were experts at solving problems of this very sort.

I think we have something in common maybe - reloading centerfire and the study of exterior ballistics?

To address your earlier comment...  Optimizing loads for AC armament is too expensive in a war.  The Nation has to balance economics and therefore squeezing out a few FPS for a given round/weapon is out of the question.  Too expensive

[Cthulhu]

did anybody try mounting a recoiless rifle to an aircraft?

Apparently there was some thought to putting one with an autoloader on the OV-10's early on. Wouldn't that be cool.  
 Recoiless guns tend to have low velocities, so if you're looking to kill a tank,  you'll need a HEAT or squash-head rd. Most recoiless guns have HEAT rds for that.

[Cthulhu]

I think we have something in common maybe - reloading centerfire and the study of exterior ballistics?

To address your earlier comment...  Optimizing loads for AC armament is too expensive in a war.  The Nation has to balance economics and therefore squeezing out a few FPS for a given round/weapon is out of the question.  Too expensive

Absolutely. It's a fascinating subject, though lately I've found terminal ballistics and lethality effects to be extremely interesting.

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the wartime economic burden, though I tend to modify my thinking a bit for wartime Germany.  Remember that these are the guys who made countless production line changes (usually to their detriment). That practice couldn't have been very cost effective.