Tony WilliamsJust a couple of points in addition to those made by Melvyn.
The first book is the hardest to get published. When I had the idea for ‘Rapid Fire’, I wrote a detailed summary and the entire first chapter, and carefully researched which publishers would be most likely to be interested before I started sending it out. Even so, I had three or four refusals before it was accepted (amusingly, someone closely associated with one publisher told me after the book had emerged that he wished I’d asked them as he would have loved to produce it – his firm were one of the refusers…).
Once the book emerged and was modestly successful (I endorse every word about not doing it to make money…), the publisher was very receptive to my other ideas, and even asked me to consider writing books on related subjects. Establishing a good relationship with a publisher is extremely important to continued publishing sucess.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsFrom ‘Flying Guns: the Modern Era’ (due to be published next month – see: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/ )
“Another advantage of using cannon was demonstrated in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002. During an intense infantry battle at Takur Ghar in late May, in which US forces were ambushed and in considerable danger, air support was called for. The AC-130 was not permitted to intervene in daylight due to its vulnerability, so USAF fighters were sent to help. For a part of the battle the Afghan combatants were too close to the Americans for rockets or bombs to be used, so the fighters – F-16s and even F-15s – went in strafing with their 20 mm cannon, as did the Navy’s F-14s and F/A-18s on other occasions. Even RAF Tornadoes were reported to have carried out gun strafing runs on at least one occasion. It may logically be argued that it is foolish to risk an extremely expensive aircraft, with its expensively trained pilot, to being lost due to very low-tech ground fire, but sometimes the risk needs to be taken to save friendly lives.”
A point which could be made about the Russian gunpods is that some of them are steerable. Another quote from FG:TME
“Russia has developed by far the most interesting range of gunpods, as many of them permit the gun to be elevated and traversed in use. The best-known pod in which the guns stay conventionally fixed is the UPK-23-250, for one 23 mm GSh-23 and 250 rounds, which weighs 218 kg loaded. Pods with flexibly-mounted guns include the SPPU-22 which carries the same gun and slightly more ammunition (260 rounds) and permits adjustment in elevation only, from 0º to -30º, but weighs 320 kg loaded; the SPPU-6 for the GSh-6-23 rotary gun with 500 rounds, weighing 525 kg, which permits 0º to -45º elevation and plus or minus 45º of traverse; and the SPPU-687 (alternative designations found in some references are 9A-4071K or 9A-4273) pod for the 30 mm GSh-301 and 150 rounds, which weighs 480 kg loaded and permits 0º to –30º of elevation and plus or minus 15º of traverse.
The SPPU-22 and SPPU-6 have both been observed fitted to the Su-22 and MiG-23 (SPPU = Samolyatnaya Podvizhnaya Pushechnuaya Ustanovka or Aircraft Steerable
Gun Pod). They are used in ground attack and the elevation is varied by computer according to a programme set by the pilot which requires the plane to fly at a certain height and speed to maintain accuracy. Once the gun is on target, the computer theoretically keeps it there as the plane flies straight and level. Even more remarkably, some of the pods can be fitted pointing backwards as well as forwards. It seems that these pods are used in flak suppression; some spray the ground positions on the in-run and the rear-facing ones spray them again as they are climbing away. The sideways-firing SPPU-6 is intended to be controlled by a second crew member, so is used with aircraft such as the two-seat Su-27IB.”
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsSkip bombing is practised at straight and VERY low level. The idea is that the bomb hits the ground (or sea) while still horizontal, so it skips off the surface and may continue skipping for some distance until it hits something. It was usually used against ships but also against tanks.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsWell, IIRC the USAF has tried to can the A-10 three times over the years – including immediately before the 1991 conflict, and the last attempt being last year (they beat a hasty retreat after the Army reacted).
Most air forces traditionally hate mudmoving. Mainly it’s political (they like to focus on missions which only they can do, NOT simply act in support of the other arms) and partly because it requires specialist equipment and training, and is dangerous.
Don’t mistake me, I think it’s a good idea for the USAF to get the STOVL F-35. However, I’ll reserve judgement about whether it can really replace the A-10. The USAF tried once before to replace it with a modified fighter and produced the A-16, a version of the F-16 optimised for ground attack and fitted with the 30mm GAU-13 pod, but it was a failure and was quickly withdrawn.
The USAF prefers to deliver its close support from a great height, using PGMs. This works some of the time, but not always. The classic case of failure was in the Balkans, when NATO confidently stated that they had taken out most of the Serbian armour. Until the conflict ended and all the tanks rumbled out of hiding – the planes had been bombing decoys.
UAVs and UCAVs may revolutionise close support in time, we’ll just have to wait and see!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsPut simply, the USAF hates the A-10, the Army loves it. The main reason is the same in each case: that it is entirely specialised for the close support of the Army, and can’t be switched to other tasks which the USAF may consider more important.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsOriginally posted by GarryB
As far as I know they only used 20kg HE rounds for the 105mms… hardly the ideal AT round.
Not when fired from ground level, no – but fired from above to hit the thin top armour is another matter entirely. The 105mm guns in the AC-130H in Vietnam provied very effective in dealing with tanks.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsAmendments to article
I have amended the ‘Battle of Britain Armament’ article to include additional information about the loading of the .303 guns and the selection of the 20mm Hispano.
See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsTony WilliamsThe ‘Great’ in GB has nothing to do with the status of the country. It is a geographical description, since Great Britain is by far the largest island of the British Isles.
The full name of the country indicates this, as it is: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The reason that GB for Great Britain is in common use (rather than the more accurate UK for United Kingdom) is probably down to the fact that Northern Ireland, for some reason, has its own car ID plates, so ‘GB’ is used for the rest of the UK.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsI’ve had a quick glance through the book of the series, naturally following up the index references to ‘guns’ 🙂 I have to say I was disappointed by the errors, especially since I’d provided them with information and references (at their request) which they evidently decided not to use.
One of the German pilots is quoted referring to the fact that the 109s had ‘3 cm cannon’, whereas they were of course 2 cm during the BoB. One cannot blame the old pilot for a slip of memory, but the editor should have caught it.
There is also some seriously confused information about the .303 ammo used, the story they tell being (IIRC) that the guns used to be loaded with AP and tracer until they contracted with the ‘Belgian De Wilde Company’ for ammo which did both, the implication being that that’s what was used in the BoB. In fact, the ‘De Wilde’ incendiary was heavily modified in the UK from the Belgian’s original design (which didn’t work at all well) and the name was only kept for security reasons. Nor was it the only one used: this extract is from ‘Flying Guns: World War 2’:
“The RAF fighters armed with eight .303” guns differed from the usual practice by loading each gun with only one type of ammunition. During the Battle of Britain in 1940, the reported use was three guns loaded with ball, two with AP, two with Mk IV incendiary tracer and one with Mk VI incendiary (the “De Wilde”). It is not clear why the Mk VI was used so little or why ball was used at all; possibly there was a shortage of the more effective loadings.”
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsOriginally posted by PhantomII
I wonder if the Hurricane Mk.IID was ever credited with any air-to-air kills? It would seem very unlikely but you never know….
There was one possible claim in North Africa. I can’t recall the reference, but IIRC the pilot loosed off some rounds at very long range at a flying boat, or some such. He wasn’t sure of the outcome but (again, this is a distant memory) I think it was discovered afterwards that an enemy plane did go missing in that area.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsFrom ‘Flying Guns: World War 2’ by Emmanuel Gustin and myself:
“The Hurricane IID saw most of its use with No.6 Squadron in North Africa between May 1942 and May 1943, although it was also used by Nos. 5, 20 and 184 and by No.7 Squadron South African Air Force, and about three hundred were built.”
and:
“The IID was not the only Hurricane to carry the 40 mm S gun. The Hurricane IV, of which over five hundred were built, was introduced in 1943 as a specialised ground attack variant. A more powerful engine enabled more armour to be fitted and it had a “universal wing”, designed to take various armament options including the S gun or rocket projectiles (RPs); the changeover could be made by five men in about forty minutes. Most saw service overseas but three squadrons based in England (Nos. 137, 164 and 184) were equipped with this aircraft.”
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsThe Ju 87G was too overloaded to carry bombs as well, although it could if the gunpods were removed.
You may be right about the MGs, although the ballistics of the BK 3,7 were very different from that of the MGs, so I don’t know how much use they would have been in aiming.
Tony Williams
Tony WilliamsCorrect.
Tony Williams
Tony WilliamsThe D variant started with two 7.92mm MG 17s but the D-7 and D-8 had MG 151/20 cannon instead of the MGs.
I have looked at some close-up photos in ‘German Anti-Tank Aircraft’ (Griehl/Dressel) of the wing of the G (a service model) from the front, and there is no sign of any gunports for MGs. As the Gs were converted from the D-5, which had the MGs, it seems more likely that they were in the prototype, but were removed because of the weight problems.
Tony Williams
Sign In
