A few questions about WW2.

K

koalaburger

Active member
1. Why didn't the allies reverse engineer the 88mm flack gun? It seems to have been an amazing weapon.

2. Did the Allies not worry about tanks as tank killers so much but just for Infantry support because they had air superiority and good anti tank artillery?

3. The mg 42 had a rapid rate of fire. Did this cause any problems in carrying enough ammunition because of the speed in going through it?

4. Which was the best ground attack aircraft? The Stormovic or the Mustang?

5. Did Goering lose a testicle in the beer hall revolt in Munich in 1920? Did the morphine he became addicted to because of this, become the cause of his many errors as a leader? If so, is this the most damage one testicle has ever caused in history?
 
koalaburger said:
1. Why didn't the allies reverse engineer the 88mm flack gun? It seems to have been an amazing weapon.
Click to expand...

The western allies really didn't need to reverse engineer it as they already had their own equivalents, for example the British had the QF-17 Pounder which in was more than a match in performance to the 8.8 cm KwK18/36/37/41in everything but a AAA role where they used the QF-3.7 inch (94mm) AA gun.

There is no doubt that the 88mm was a very reliable and versatile weapon but I would suggest that the thing that made it famous was how it was used rather than any particular manufacturing attribute.

2. Did the Allies not worry about tanks as tank killers so much but just for Infantry support because they had air superiority and good anti tank artillery?
Click to expand...

I personally think it came down to different styles of warfare and thinking in the early and pre-war stages when allied forces were being built coupled with relatively small amount of German armour on the Western front but towards the end of the war there were much larger British and American tanks heading for front line units.

3. The mg 42 had a rapid rate of fire. Did this cause any problems in carrying enough ammunition because of the speed in going through it?
Click to expand...

I imagine that the Germans used burst fire techniques like most other armies and didn't just grip the trigger until it went 'click".

4. Which was the best ground attack aircraft? The Stormovic or the Mustang?
Click to expand...

Well much to the distaste of Americans everywhere I will say the Sturmovik primarily because it was a ground attack aircraft where as the P-51 was a fighter.

5. Did Goering lose a testicle in the beer hall revolt in Munich in 1920? Did the morphine he became addicted to because of this, become the cause of his many errors as a leader? If so, is this the most damage one testicle has ever caused in history?
Click to expand...

No clue.
 
Thanks for the response mate. I know the germans would not just fire away, but if the did bursts the same as the allies they would still go through ammo faster because of more bullets per burst. Sorry, I thought the mustang was the ground attack aircraft that was so good towards the end of the war using rockets against tanks. I thought the 88 was impressive because of the high velocity. I saw a british tanker saying that rather than an arcing trajectory the 88 was straight in which made it more accurate and the high velocity caused more damage.


Cheers and thanks for the first response.
 
koalaburger said:
Thanks for the response mate. I know the germans would not just fire away, but if the did bursts the same as the allies they would still go through ammo faster because of more bullets per burst. Sorry, I thought the mustang was the ground attack aircraft that was so good towards the end of the war using rockets against tanks. I thought the 88 was impressive because of the high velocity. I saw a british tanker saying that rather than an arcing trajectory the 88 was straight in which made it more accurate and the high velocity caused more damage.


Cheers and thanks for the first response.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough the 17 pounder had a far higher velocity than the 88mm using armour piecing rounds:
17 Pounder: 1200 m/s
88mm: 820 m/s
 
The best American ground attack plane was the P47 Thunderbolt. Radial engines could absorb a lot and still bring you home. The P47 was a flying tank, able to absorb a lot and very fast. In fact if you mounted the gatling gun that the A10 Thunderbolt has on it and could shoot thru the prop, it might surprise a few tanks , even today.
 
Hutchie said:
The best American ground attack plane was the P47 Thunderbolt. Radial engines could absorb a lot and still bring you home. The P47 was a flying tank, able to absorb a lot and very fast. In fact if you mounted the gatling gun that the A10 Thunderbolt has on it and could shoot thru the prop, it might surprise a few tanks , even today.
Click to expand...

The F4U Corsair was very popular with the RNZAF who purchased 430 of them to equip its Pacific squadrons.
 
Three other aircraft come to mind, the tank buster Hawker Hurricane, the rocket firing Hawker Typhoon (known as the "Tiffy") and the Mosquito
 
The Mustang, as was the Spifire for the same reasons, was very vulnerable to ground fire because of the cooling systrem which was placed at the underside of the plane. The P-47 engine was air cooled.

In short, Patton used tank destroyers to battle the German panzers and used his tanks to cut their supply lines.
If I'm not mistaken, the British did not use this technique and relied more on quantitative superiority.
 
I also have to agree with Monte on the F4U. Somehow the inverted gull-wing design makes it look graceful yet formidable. All because they needed a bigger prop for a bigger engine.

As for the MG42, I have a video game where I can rattle off the MG42 for literally ten minutes and not run out of ammo or overheat the barrel. Too bad that wasn't so in real life.
 
-- Dusty said:
I also have to agree with Monte on the F4U. Somehow the inverted gull-wing design makes it look graceful yet formidable. All because they needed a bigger prop for a bigger engine.

As for the MG42, I have a video game where I can rattle off the MG42 for literally ten minutes and not run out of ammo or overheat the barrel. Too bad that wasn't so in real life.
Click to expand...

Hehe after about 2 minutes of continuous fire the barrel more than likely would have vibrated off or melted.
 
Last edited:
88mm flack gun　was the best anti-tank weapons in ww2? lol
So how can you explain one hidden 75mm gun of Japan detroyed serval of M4 tanks in Okinawa.
 
We changed barrels after 200 rounds on our GPMG's otherwise the rifling washes out and the barrel bends like a banana. Although in a sticky situation I would assume barrels would be changed only when it was safe to do so, even a washed out and bent barrel can send rounds downrange.

The heavy Vickers machine gun proved itself to be the most reliable weapon on the battlefield, with some of its feats of endurance entering military mythology. One account tells of the action by the 100th Company of the Machine Gun Corps at High Wood on 24 August 1916. This company had 10 Vickers guns; it was ordered to give sustained covering fire for 12 hours onto a selected area 2,000 yd (1,800 m) away, in order to prevent German troops forming up there for a counterattack while a British attack was in progress. Two companies of infantry were allocated as ammunition, rations and water carriers for the gunners. Two men worked a belt–filling machine non–stop for 12 hours, keeping up a supply of 250-round belts. They used 100 new barrels and all of the water—including the men’s drinking water and the contents of the latrine buckets—to keep the guns cool. In that 12-hour period, the 10 guns fired just short of one million rounds between them. One team is reported to have fired 120,000. At the close of the operation, it is alleged that every gun was working perfectly and that not one had broken down during the whole period.
 
Last edited:
BritinAfrica said:
We changed barrels after 200 rounds on our GPMG's otherwise the rifling washes out and the barrel bends like a banana. Although in a sticky situation I would assume barrels would be changed only when it was safe to do so, even a washed out and bent barrel can send rounds downrange.

The heavy Vickers machine gun proved itself to be the most reliable weapon on the battlefield, with some of its feats of endurance entering military mythology. One account tells of the action by the 100th Company of the Machine Gun Corps at High Wood on 24 August 1916. This company had 10 Vickers guns; it was ordered to give sustained covering fire for 12 hours onto a selected area 2,000 yd (1,800 m) away, in order to prevent German troops forming up there for a counterattack while a British attack was in progress. Two companies of infantry were allocated as ammunition, rations and water carriers for the gunners. Two men worked a belt–filling machine non–stop for 12 hours, keeping up a supply of 250-round belts. They used 100 new barrels and all of the water—including the men’s drinking water and the contents of the latrine buckets—to keep the guns cool. In that 12-hour period, the 10 guns fired just short of one million rounds between them. One team is reported to have fired 120,000. At the close of the operation, it is alleged that every gun was working perfectly and that not one had broken down during the whole period.
Click to expand...

As I recall the general practice for a WW1 gun crew was 3 or 5 second bursts though wasnt it.

I remember an old guy showing us how he was trained on a Vickers and the process was to count to 3 and then smack the side of the grips to reset the gun and repeat the process.
 
MontyB said:
As I recall the general practice for a WW1 gun crew was 3 or 5 second bursts though wasnt it.
Click to expand...

When I was a GPMG gunner I use to count 1,2,3, then released the trigger, wait a second or two and repeat. Although some targets like target drone radio controlled model aircraft (practising AA fire) I'd fire a much longer burst. It really pissed off the radio control operator when his model aeroplane was shredded.:p

MontyB said:
I remember an old guy showing us how he was trained on a Vickers and the process was to count to 3 and then smack the side of the grips to reset the gun and repeat the process.
Click to expand...

Brigadier Julian Thompson of Falklands War fame demonstrated his prowess with a Vickers on TV and did as you described. The Vickers was in service during his career in the army so he was trained on the gun. The Vickers were taken off strength in I believe 1966.
 
Last edited:
udaka said:
88mm flack gun　was the best anti-tank weapons in ww2? lol
So how can you explain one hidden 75mm gun of Japan detroyed serval of M4 tanks in Okinawa.
Click to expand...


Pretty much any 75mm gun could have taken out a Sherman tank, there was a reason those tanks were nicknamed "Ronson" by US troops throughout the war.

The 88mm was a good anti-tank gun because it was versatile. I don't think it was necessarily the best. The British 17 pounder had better armor penetration capabilities as well as the German PAK40. The US 90mm gun was also very effective and could take out almost all axis tanks it came across at combat ranges.

As for MGs, 3-5 second bursts are still preached in order to keep your barrel from overheating and to preserve ammo. I was taught to say "Die mother fvcker die" to simulate the 3-5 seconds in the event I elected not to count.
 
The Ronson tag became a little less deserved once the "wet stowage" system was installed and reduced cooks off from around 70% to around 15%.
 
brinktk said:
Pretty much any 75mm gun could have taken out a Sherman tank, there was a reason those tanks were nicknamed "Ronson" by US troops throughout the war.

The 88mm was a good anti-tank gun because it was versatile. I don't think it was necessarily the best. The British 17 pounder had better armor penetration capabilities as well as the German PAK40. The US 90mm gun was also very effective and could take out almost all axis tanks it came across at combat ranges.

As for MGs, 3-5 second bursts are still preached in order to keep your barrel from overheating and to preserve ammo. I was taught to say "Die mother fvcker die" to simulate the 3-5 seconds in the event I elected not to count.
Click to expand...

The British 8th Army captured a British 3.7 AA gun from the Afrika Korps that had been converted from AA to anti tank. A check of the serial number revealed that the gun was originally sent to Russia. I assume the Soviets converted it to its anti tank role, was then captured by the Germans, and then shipped to North Africa. Apparently it worked quite well in that role.
 
MontyB said:
The Ronson tag became a little less deserved once the "wet stowage" system was installed and reduced cooks off from around 70% to around 15%.
Click to expand...

True, but 15% is still rather high. The US TD doctrine also probably helped minimize (face grimacing with the word minimize) the exposure a Sherman crew would have to tank/AT in the ETO.

In the Pacific, this doctrine wasn't necessarily useful since the Japanese had so little armor and the terrain was so much more restrictive. Since the Shermans were used so heavily in an infantry support role I would imagine their exposure to Japanese reinforced AT guns was more frequent. (due the masterful efforts of the Japanese to camouflage their positions, digging in, and expert use of terrain to their advantage) Over the duration of each of those separate individual exposures, 15% adds up...certainly not 70%. But also certainly not something to find solace in either...
 
I also think part of the problem was that they may have misdiagnosed the cause early on as being related to the petrol engine when if you read many of the crew reports it becomes more apparent that it was ammunition stowage that was more likely the fault as the reports describe cordite fires far more often than fuel fires.

Also when you consider the PzKpfw IV also caught fire at about 80% of the time and the PzKpfw V about 60% of the time 15% wasn't a bad number.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top