A few questions about WW2.




 
--
 
January 11th, 2014  
koalaburger
 
 

Topic: A few questions about WW2.


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?
January 11th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by koalaburger
1. Why didn't the allies reverse engineer the 88mm flack gun? It seems to have been an amazing weapon.
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.

Quote:
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?
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.

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

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

Quote:
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?
No clue.
January 11th, 2014  
koalaburger
 
 
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.
--
January 11th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by koalaburger
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.
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
January 12th, 2014  
Hutchie
 
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.
January 12th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutchie
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.
The F4U Corsair was very popular with the RNZAF who purchased 430 of them to equip its Pacific squadrons.
January 12th, 2014  
muscogeemike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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.
This in one American who agrees with you.
January 12th, 2014  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Three other aircraft come to mind, the tank buster Hawker Hurricane, the rocket firing Hawker Typhoon (known as the "Tiffy") and the Mosquito
January 12th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
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.
January 12th, 2014  
-- Dusty
 
 
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.
 


Similar Topics
Web Videos: P-47 Action, WW2 Fighter Tactics, XF92A, WW2 Carriers, B-52s & more
Web Videos: Thundering P-47s, WW2 Test Pilots, F-105s, WW2 Subs, 8th AF Bombers
Stupid questions
*Joining the Military - Questions Abound - Help Appreciated!