40mm Bofors as aircraft mounted weapon, WW2?
David E. Powell
to work with a lot of experimental cannon, why not the 40mm?
Fit a ventral tray to an He-111 in 1942 with 1x or 2x Bofors and it
would be evil. Or nose mount on a Bf-110.
For the allies most of their cannon stuff as far as stuff at 40mm or
over was to go after ground targets or sea targets so I can see them
engineering different weapons, as the 40mm could not have replaced the
57mm Molins gun. I wonder if it was ever considered for the Hurricane
modifications, though, as a backup if the other cannon they were
working on didn't work. It might not have been the best antitank
weapon, but on anything else would be really nasty. One could also
load standard or proximity rounds.
As both sides in the European, African and Mediterranean theatres had
access to it, I wonder if it was ever considered as an aircraft-
mounted weapon back then.
Not to mention the British and Commonwealth forces in the Pacific.
David
Daryl
For some reason, the Allies (England and US) were stuck playing
around with the 37mm Olds that jammed in the high performance
fighters. Yes, the Bofar would have been a far superior canon
with it's clip feed. I am sure they could have come up with a
decent box feed for it as well.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com/ for free movies and Nastalgic TV.
Tons of Military shows and programs.
Keith Willshaw
> If the Germans needed a defensive weapon against bombers, they seemed
> to work with a lot of experimental cannon, why not the 40mm?
>
They used a 30 mm gun but withthe 40 mm the problem is
that the rate of fire is lower and the weight of the installation is
much higher
> Fit a ventral tray to an He-111 in 1942 with 1x or 2x Bofors and it
> would be evil. Or nose mount on a Bf-110.
>
However an L/50 40 mm Bofors gun weighs round two tons
so your He-111 is going to be useless as a bomber and is too
slow to be used as a fighter.
Put that much weight in the nose of an Me-110 and you
will have a real impact on performance , if it can even get
off the ground
> For the allies most of their cannon stuff as far as stuff at 40mm or
> over was to go after ground targets or sea targets so I can see them
> engineering different weapons, as the 40mm could not have replaced the
> 57mm Molins gun. I wonder if it was ever considered for the Hurricane
> modifications, though, as a backup if the other cannon they were
> working on didn't work. It might not have been the best antitank
> weapon, but on anything else would be really nasty. One could also
> load standard or proximity rounds.
>
Weight again, the Vickers Class "S" 40 mm gun weighed only 320 lbs
and the 20 mm Hispano was under 100 lbs
> As both sides in the European, African and Mediterranean theatres had
> access to it, I wonder if it was ever considered as an aircraft-
> mounted weapon back then.
>
> Not to mention the British and Commonwealth forces in the Pacific.
>
> David
Lugging a 2 ton gun around is not a great notion for a WW2 fighter.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
The UK did NOT use the 37mm Oldsmobile Gun
They rejected the P-39 and P-63
As to why they didnt use the Bofors the answer is simple
Oldsmobile 37 mm
Weight 213 lb (97 kg)
Bofors 40 mm L/60
Weight 4,370 lb (1,981 kg)
Keith
Halmyre
> so your He-111 is going to be useless as a bomber and is too
> slow to be used as a fighter.
>
So, no change there then!
--
Halmyre
Daryl
The weight of the Bofors in the AC-130 is a fraction of that. It
does weigh a bit more than the olds but when you strip all the
crap off it you can get it below 300 lbs.
Mike
>
> The UK did NOT use the 37mm Oldsmobile Gun
>
> They rejected the P-39 and P-63
>
> As to why they didnt use the Bofors the answer is simple
>
> Oldsmobile 37 mm
> Weight 213 lb (97 kg)
>
> Bofors 40 mm L/60
> Weight 4,370 lb (1,981 kg)
>
> Keith
>
I would think the Bofors weight includes the carriage and the rest of
the gun platform. Stripped to just the barrel what would the weight be?
The Olds if mounted as a AA weapon on the ground, what would it weigh?
Peter Skelton
reduction in the 300 lb range, it's still a heavy and bulky beast to fit
in a plane with an inconvenient ammunition path.
--
Peter
Dean Markley
Why is the bofors so heavy?
Alan Dicey
Hmmm.
Tony Williams says the Hungarians mounted a 40mm Bofors in an ME-210.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Bofors.htm - about half way down.
Posts on another forum using Hungarian sources seem to say that no
combat missions were flown
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=103890
The lightest unpowered mount seems to have weighed 2000 lb with gun. At
a wild guess the gun may weigh around 1000 lb?
The RAF used the competent 40mm Vickers S gun pod-mounted under
Hurricane wings. The S gun was first intended to be turret mounted in
bombers and was therefore much smaller and lighter than the Bofors (and
less powerful). Tony Williams goes over this in Rapid Fire, his book on
HMG and autocannon.
Keith Willshaw
Its designed as a ground gun with a longer barrel, more
powerful cartridge and higher muzzle velocity.
Bofors
Cartridge 40x311R
Projectile weight 955 grams
Muzzle velocity 850-900 metre /sec
Muzzle energy 345,000-387,000 joules
Oldsmobile 37
Cartridge 37x145R
Projectile weight 608 grams
Muzzle velocity 610 m/sec
Muzzle energy 113,000 joules
The Bofors had a large propellant charge and that
requires a more robust gun assembly.
Keith
Alan Dicey
>
> I would think the Bofors weight includes the carriage and the rest of
> the gun platform. Stripped to just the barrel what would the weight be?
> The Olds if mounted as a AA weapon on the ground, what would it weigh?
The M4 was developed as an aircraft gun and was lightweight. The Bofors
was developed as a tank and AA gun, requiring long range, so a larger
charge, heavier projectile, and construction to suit
Mike
>
> The lightest unpowered mount seems to have weighed 2000 lb with gun. At
> a wild guess the gun may weigh around 1000 lb?
>
> The RAF used the competent 40mm Vickers S gun pod-mounted under
> Hurricane wings. The S gun was first intended to be turret mounted in
> bombers and was therefore much smaller and lighter than the Bofors (and
> less powerful). Tony Williams goes over this in Rapid Fire, his book on
> HMG and autocannon.
>
Weight
L/60: 1,981 kg (4,370 lb)
Carriage (unpowered)
522 kg (1,150 lb)
Alan Dicey
There are more places than Wikipedia to get your information from. I'm
using Tony William's book.
George
[..]
>
>As to why they didnt use the Bofors the answer is simple
>
>Oldsmobile 37 mm
>Weight 213 lb (97 kg)
>
>Bofors 40 mm L/60
>Weight 4,370 lb (1,981 kg)
Correct, *if* you include the trailer, sighting system, gun
pedestal, traverse / elevation gear, and such. The AC-130
application dispenses with most of this.
--
George Ruch
"Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?"
John Szalay
news:a5c0u6pg0m9eu08p3...@4ax.com:
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [..]
>>
>>As to why they didnt use the Bofors the answer is simple
>>
>>Oldsmobile 37 mm
>>Weight 213 lb (97 kg)
>>
>>Bofors 40 mm L/60
>>Weight 4,370 lb (1,981 kg)
>
> Correct, *if* you include the trailer, sighting system, gun
> pedestal, traverse / elevation gear, and such. The AC-130
> application dispenses with most of this.
Next step
KC130J HarvestHawk Phase I, II & III
http://www.marines.mil/unit/mcascherrypoint/Pages/KC130JHarvestHawk20110401
.aspx
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Harvest-Hawk-Aims-to-Arm-USMCs-KC-130J-
Aerial-Tankers-05409/
Daryl
> George<george...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:a5c0u6pg0m9eu08p3...@4ax.com:
>
>> "Keith Willshaw"<keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>>
>>> As to why they didnt use the Bofors the answer is simple
>>>
>>> Oldsmobile 37 mm
>>> Weight 213 lb (97 kg)
>>>
>>> Bofors 40 mm L/60
>>> Weight 4,370 lb (1,981 kg)
>>
>> Correct, *if* you include the trailer, sighting system, gun
>> pedestal, traverse / elevation gear, and such. The AC-130
>> application dispenses with most of this.
>
>
>
> Next step
>
>
> http://www.marines.mil/unit/mcascherrypoint/Pages/KC130JHarvestHawk20110401
> .aspx
>
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Harvest-Hawk-Aims-to-Arm-USMCs-KC-130J-
> Aerial-Tankers-05409/
Interesting. A Missile Firing, 30mm Cannon Herky Pig. Done on
the cheap.
Andrew Chaplin
news:irojok$a46$1...@dont-email.me:
> The weight of the Bofors in the AC-130 is a fraction of that. It
> does weigh a bit more than the olds but when you strip all the
> crap off it you can get it below 300 lbs.
That's within an order of magnitude but light. The barrel and spring
alone are over 200 lbs. The autoloader is over 100 lbs. The breech ring,
breech block, buffer and casing would be another 200 or so pounds. So
about a quarter of a ton and then some, all up. Then you have the ammo.
AD gunners never shifted ammo like the field gunners, but doing daily
maintenance certainly helped build the upper body. With the exception of
the casing, which was only dismounted by gun plumbers, this was all
stuff I regularly man-handled. (I haven't worked on the Bofors/Boffin
since 1981 and my instructor's notes have long been mislayed, so my
figures may be off.)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Eunometic
wrote:
There were two types of Boffors: the L60 and L70. The formers was
much more powerfull than even the HV version of the pom pom (about the
same as the 37mm German guns the FLAK 18, 36, 37 that formed the basis
of the Stukia BK 3.7) and then there was the L70 which was a much
heavier weapon again.
Eunometic
wrote:
They Luftwaffe used Me 410 with the BK 5 (5.0cm) with a weight of
540kg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BK_5_cannon
There is a picture of the special telescopic lead computing gyro
sight they used on cockpitinstrument.de which included a coincident
range finder to long range sniping shots. It seems to have been a
very effective weapon only thwarded by the introduction of long range
escorts.
I don't know if the weapon was used against tanks.
Daryl
Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. Since it was never used in
the field there is no way of knowing. There are tons of ideas
and programs to replace the 20mm gatlin. Not a single one has
been successful.
There was a program to replace both the 40 mm bofors and the 25mm
Gats on the Specter Gunships. After testing, it was found the
30mm didn't have the accuracy required. The birds were
retrofitted back to the 25mm and the 40s. It was a great idea on
paper and 2 of the 30 mils were supposed to do the work of the 25
and the 40. But it failed in application.
Just because someone comes up with an idea doesn't mean it will
work no matter what it was scribed on or by who.
Like my ideas of converting the 40 mm bofor to a WWII fighter.
Yes, it would have worked except it would be heavy, real heavy
and only the twins would have been able to pick it up and fire
it. And stay away from the wooden birds as they won't be able to
take the punishment.
That being said, the A and the B twins would be able to handle
it. But they already had the 75 mm. And the 37mm olds worked
well since they didn't do the extreme gs. Plus, if the guns
jammed, the Nav or the Gunner could just unjam it. Not something
that can be done with ANY fighter.
But the range of the Bofors might have been interesting in a B-25.
Eunometic
Some of these programs failed for political reasons or simply
logistics reasons eg the attempt to use the BK 27 on the Joint Strike
Fighter.
>
> There was a program to replace both the 40 mm bofors and the 25mm
> Gats on the Specter Gunships. After testing, it was found the
> 30mm didn't have the accuracy required.
In the case of the BK 5 it probably would work in the AT role as it
was based on the Standard German Army 5.0cm PAK 39 gun (called the KWK
39 when adpted to the Panzer III) which was quite accurate.
As it turns out the Luftwaffe did use to BK 7.5 on the Henschell Hs
129. This 75mm gun was a fearsome weapon but the defect is clearly
the slowness of the Hs 129.
A BK 5 equiped Me 410 was clearly much faster aircraft but perhaps too
slow to survive in Western allied airspace.
German hopes for tank busting in the west were likely to rely on 3
weapons 1 use of the Panzerblitz II, basically the 55mm R4M folding
fin rocket equiped with the 88mm warhead of the Panzerschrek
(bazooka), 2 cluster bombs dispersing the SDH 4 shaped charge bomblets
and rockets also dispersin clusters of bomblets. Bombing accuracy
would be assured by using the TSA2D computing bomb sight.
The birds were
> retrofitted back to the 25mm and the 40s. It was a great idea on
> paper and 2 of the 30 mils were supposed to do the work of the 25
> and the 40. But it failed in application.
>
> Just because someone comes up with an idea doesn't mean it will
> work no matter what it was scribed on or by who.
>
> Like my ideas of converting the 40 mm bofor to a WWII fighter.
> Yes, it would have worked except it would be heavy, real heavy
> and only the twins would have been able to pick it up and fire
> it. And stay away from the wooden birds as they won't be able to
> take the punishment.
In think the Luftwaffe did manage to fit the long barred Mk 103 (a
30mm gun) to the Me 109K-14 and some Ta 152 by fitting it between the
banks of the V12 engines, since on these were inverted the breech
could in theory be fitted below the pilots seat.
>
> That being said, the A and the B twins would be able to handle
> it. But they already had the 75 mm. And the 37mm olds worked
> well since they didn't do the extreme gs. Plus, if the guns
> jammed, the Nav or the Gunner could just unjam it. Not something
> that can be done with ANY fighter.
>
> But the range of the Bofors might have been interesting in a B-25.
>
> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com/for free movies and Nastalgic TV.
> Tons of Military shows and programs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Daryl
There were a few B-25s with the 75mm mounted on the nose. They
were highly successful.
>
> A BK 5 equiped Me 410 was clearly much faster aircraft but perhaps too
> slow to survive in Western allied airspace.
>
> German hopes for tank busting in the west were likely to rely on 3
> weapons 1 use of the Panzerblitz II, basically the 55mm R4M folding
> fin rocket equiped with the 88mm warhead of the Panzerschrek
> (bazooka), 2 cluster bombs dispersing the SDH 4 shaped charge bomblets
> and rockets also dispersin clusters of bomblets. Bombing accuracy
> would be assured by using the TSA2D computing bomb sight.
Comon, Euno, not another coulda, woulda, shoulda. Talk about
what was being used. Coulda, Woulda, Shouldas can be as
successful as one imagination.
>
>
> The birds were
>> retrofitted back to the 25mm and the 40s. It was a great idea on
>> paper and 2 of the 30 mils were supposed to do the work of the 25
>> and the 40. But it failed in application.
>>
>> Just because someone comes up with an idea doesn't mean it will
>> work no matter what it was scribed on or by who.
>>
>> Like my ideas of converting the 40 mm bofor to a WWII fighter.
>> Yes, it would have worked except it would be heavy, real heavy
>> and only the twins would have been able to pick it up and fire
>> it. And stay away from the wooden birds as they won't be able to
>> take the punishment.
>
> In think the Luftwaffe did manage to fit the long barred Mk 103 (a
> 30mm gun) to the Me 109K-14 and some Ta 152 by fitting it between the
> banks of the V12 engines, since on these were inverted the breech
> could in theory be fitted below the pilots seat.
And you want me to fly what? When, Where? Yer outta your mind.
Suicide IS painful.
>
>
>
>>
>> That being said, the A and the B twins would be able to handle
>> it. But they already had the 75 mm. And the 37mm olds worked
>> well since they didn't do the extreme gs. Plus, if the guns
>> jammed, the Nav or the Gunner could just unjam it. Not something
>> that can be done with ANY fighter.
>>
>> But the range of the Bofors might have been interesting in a B-25.
>>
>> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com/for free movies and Nastalgic TV.
>> Tons of Military shows and programs.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com/ for free movies and Nastalgic TV.
Eunometic
In the context of a lack of japanese air power though.
>
>
>
> > A BK 5 equiped Me 410 was clearly much faster aircraft but perhaps too
> > slow to survive in Western allied airspace.
>
> > German hopes for tank busting in the west were likely to rely on 3
> > weapons 1 use of the Panzerblitz II, basically the 55mm R4M folding
> > fin rocket equiped with the 88mm warhead of the Panzerschrek
> > (bazooka), 2 cluster bombs dispersing the SDH 4 shaped charge bomblets
> > and rockets also dispersin clusters of bomblets. Bombing accuracy
> > would be assured by using the TSA2D computing bomb sight.
>
> Comon, Euno, not another coulda, woulda, shoulda. Talk about
> what was being used. Coulda, Woulda, Shouldas can be as
> successful as one imagination.
Cluster bombs turned out to be the way forward.
The TSA2D computing bombsight was tested from several aircraft
including the Me 262 and FW-190. (the statiscal results are published
on cockpitinstrument.de). It gave good accuracy, especially on the
jets. Certainly enough to get a cluster bomb over a tank.
Raise the bomb to 1000kg you'll proably get close enough within the
normal CEP to over turn the tank in most instances anyway.
Rockets were too inaccurate for tank busting. Cluster dispensors were
one solution. Personally the TSA2D is likely to have been the
favoured solution as its 'tossing' abillity provided standoff release.
>
> > The birds were
> >> retrofitted back to the 25mm and the 40s. It was a great idea on
> >> paper and 2 of the 30 mils were supposed to do the work of the 25
> >> and the 40. But it failed in application.
>
> >> Just because someone comes up with an idea doesn't mean it will
> >> work no matter what it was scribed on or by who.
>
> >> Like my ideas of converting the 40 mm bofor to a WWII fighter.
> >> Yes, it would have worked except it would be heavy, real heavy
> >> and only the twins would have been able to pick it up and fire
> >> it. And stay away from the wooden birds as they won't be able to
> >> take the punishment.
>
> > In think the Luftwaffe did manage to fit the long barred Mk 103 (a
> > 30mm gun) to the Me 109K-14 and some Ta 152 by fitting it between the
> > banks of the V12 engines, since on these were inverted the breech
> > could in theory be fitted below the pilots seat.
>
> And you want me to fly what? When, Where? Yer outta your mind.
> Suicide IS painful.
>
The Russians fired 57mm guns fitted between engine V12 banks.
A 37 or 40 between cylinder banks is clearly doable.
>
>
>
> >> That being said, the A and the B twins would be able to handle
> >> it. But they already had the 75 mm. And the 37mm olds worked
> >> well since they didn't do the extreme gs. Plus, if the guns
> >> jammed, the Nav or the Gunner could just unjam it. Not something
> >> that can be done with ANY fighter.
>
> >> But the range of the Bofors might have been interesting in a B-25.
The L70 version of the boffors.
Daryl
Or the lack of Japanese Sea Power that the B-25 helped to create.
Besides, there were very few Japanese planes that could catch a
B-25.
>>
>>
>>
>>> A BK 5 equiped Me 410 was clearly much faster aircraft but perhaps too
>>> slow to survive in Western allied airspace.
>>
>>> German hopes for tank busting in the west were likely to rely on 3
>>> weapons 1 use of the Panzerblitz II, basically the 55mm R4M folding
>>> fin rocket equiped with the 88mm warhead of the Panzerschrek
>>> (bazooka), 2 cluster bombs dispersing the SDH 4 shaped charge bomblets
>>> and rockets also dispersin clusters of bomblets. Bombing accuracy
>>> would be assured by using the TSA2D computing bomb sight.
>>
>> Comon, Euno, not another coulda, woulda, shoulda. Talk about
>> what was being used. Coulda, Woulda, Shouldas can be as
>> successful as one imagination.
>
>
> Cluster bombs turned out to be the way forward.
>
> The TSA2D computing bombsight was tested from several aircraft
> including the Me 262 and FW-190. (the statiscal results are published
> on cockpitinstrument.de). It gave good accuracy, especially on the
> jets. Certainly enough to get a cluster bomb over a tank.
> Raise the bomb to 1000kg you'll proably get close enough within the
> normal CEP to over turn the tank in most instances anyway.
>
> Rockets were too inaccurate for tank busting. Cluster dispensors were
> one solution. Personally the TSA2D is likely to have been the
> favoured solution as its 'tossing' abillity provided standoff release.
Was tested, was likely to, same thing.
>
>
>>
>>> The birds were
>>>> retrofitted back to the 25mm and the 40s. It was a great idea on
>>>> paper and 2 of the 30 mils were supposed to do the work of the 25
>>>> and the 40. But it failed in application.
>>
>>>> Just because someone comes up with an idea doesn't mean it will
>>>> work no matter what it was scribed on or by who.
>>
>>>> Like my ideas of converting the 40 mm bofor to a WWII fighter.
>>>> Yes, it would have worked except it would be heavy, real heavy
>>>> and only the twins would have been able to pick it up and fire
>>>> it. And stay away from the wooden birds as they won't be able to
>>>> take the punishment.
>>
>>> In think the Luftwaffe did manage to fit the long barred Mk 103 (a
>>> 30mm gun) to the Me 109K-14 and some Ta 152 by fitting it between the
>>> banks of the V12 engines, since on these were inverted the breech
>>> could in theory be fitted below the pilots seat.
>>
>> And you want me to fly what? When, Where? Yer outta your mind.
>> Suicide IS painful.
>>
>
>
> The Russians fired 57mm guns fitted between engine V12 banks.
>
> A 37 or 40 between cylinder banks is clearly doable.
The Russians, at one time, were more desperate than the Germans.
Unlike Germany and the other Allies, if the CO of a Russian
said to fly it, you saddled up and flew it no matter how
unsuccessful it would be.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> That being said, the A and the B twins would be able to handle
>>>> it. But they already had the 75 mm. And the 37mm olds worked
>>>> well since they didn't do the extreme gs. Plus, if the guns
>>>> jammed, the Nav or the Gunner could just unjam it. Not something
>>>> that can be done with ANY fighter.
>>
>>>> But the range of the Bofors might have been interesting in a B-25.
>
>
> The L70 version of the boffors.