Armament options for WWII era AC-47

[Gabe]

If the gunship was conceptualized in WWII what kind of armament options were off the shelf? I assume the C-47 would be the platform of choice. As this predate the modern minigun, what were the options when it came to guns with the rate of fire and sustainability for the job?

[Marek Tucan]

AFAIK there was AC-47 variant armed with 10 M2 .30 machineguns, so for WWII I would say:

-10xM2 .30

-maybe some lower no. of M2 .50?

-Or 20mm AC?

-or even single Bofors 40? Might need something sturdier than C-47 though... Would it be an opion for say B-24?

[Sardaukar]

75 mm howizer of course.

[seahawk]

M2 Browning - what else?

[KingSargent]

The AC-47 type gunship works only when the enemy has no air of his own and minimal flak support. Trying to keep a slow airplane orbiting over troops equipped in WW2 fashion was suicide, as about 50% of the French "Army cooperation and observation" aircraft discovered in 1940.

[seahawk]

The AC-47 type gunship works only when the enemy has no air of his own and minimal flak support. Trying to keep a slow airplane orbiting over troops equipped in WW2 fashion was suicide, as about 50% of the French "Army cooperation and observation" aircraft discovered in 1940.

 

In daylight, but at night? Perhaps not workable in Europe but in the pacific, especially in the continental region, it could work.

[Marek Tucan]

The AC-47 type gunship works only when the enemy has no air of his own and minimal flak support. Trying to keep a slow airplane orbiting over troops equipped in WW2 fashion was suicide, as about 50% of the French "Army cooperation and observation" aircraft discovered in 1940.

 

Would the equipment be all that divvrent from Vietnam? AA machineguns, light AA guns... Orbiting observation planes over targets (say Henderson field during Japanese nighttime raids) was risky as well, but I cannot recall them suffering some serious casaulties.

[Argus]

A gang of 20mm Hispano's should do quite nicely, exact numbers would be a trade off with ammo weight, and I can't see much use for it outside of a few niches. The US might have been able to use a gunship based on say a B-24 (for range) over the pacific islands, and the 14th Army might have found C-47 version of help over Burma.

 

shane

[Marek Tucan]

Maybe also flak suppression during airdrops?

[Gabe]

Was there a reason the C-46 was never made into a gunship?

[Arthur Hubers]

Was there a reason the C-46 was never made into a gunship?

There was a proposal for the AC-46K, but by the 1960s there were only very few Commandos left in service. It would need self-sealing fueltanks as well, which it never got (and which caused it's very high losses during Varsity when compared to the C-47s). They did try to make everything into a gunship in those days though: apart from the NC-131 proof-of-concept, and the AC-47/119/130, there was the NC-123K (intended first as gunship but entered service as bomblet-dispenser) and even an AC-97 proposal.

 

And yes, before enough miniguns where available, there was a package with 10 M2s for the C-47s. Some of these went on to serve with with VNAF.

[seahawk]

Don´t forget the mighty O-1 Gunship with the side firing M60.

[Yama]

Would the equipment be all that divvrent from Vietnam? AA machineguns, light AA guns... Orbiting observation planes over targets (say Henderson field during Japanese nighttime raids) was risky as well, but I cannot recall them suffering some serious casaulties.

 

German light flak was exceptionally deadly. FAF sorely found out this in 1944. Loss rates in low level attacks with medium bombers and fighters were unbearable high. And this was in Lapland, which was hardly priority area for Germans AAA-wise...

[Marek Tucan]

German light flak was exceptionally deadly. FAF sorely found out this in 1944. Loss rates in low level attacks with medium bombers and fighters were unbearable high. And this was in Lapland, which was hardly priority area for Germans AAA-wise...

Was thinking more about Pacific theatre.

[rmgill]

Was thinking more about Pacific theatre.

 

Less effective with no night vision so you have to orbit during the day. Orbiting an enemy strong point where they might have ground based AAA is generally unhealthy. I figure in the areas where there aren't, fighters or conventional forward facing gunships did just fine. When you have environments where the ground based AAA is non-existant or ineffective at times (night) then you can orbit with impunity and work targets as you see fit with a stable side firing platform.

 

I'm surprised no one has suggested an airborne 8" gun.

 

[Marek Tucan]

Less effective with no night vision so you have to orbit during the day.

Didn't original AC-47's rely just on illum flares with no other king of night vision?

[JOE BRENNAN]

Didn't original AC-47's rely just on illum flares with no other king of night vision?

Yes, there were experiments with early FLIR and image intensifier scopes on AC-47's, and they sometimes later operated in concert with night vision equipped a/c but for the most part they relied on flares, and they mostly operated at night. The biggest demand was to help repel attacks on isolated outposts, which were almost always at night, and AC-47's were also used for road interdiction in Laos, though the later night-vision equipped gunships are more famous for that mission. As mentioned some (3 early 'FC-47's') AC-47's had armament of 10*M2 .30 cal, high cyclic rate aircraft guns. In the 1960's the 10 mg armament was just viewed as a stopgap and mainly for training, in view of temporary shortage of miniguns. But, there's no reason the same general concept wouldn't have worked in similar tactical situations of usually night attacking light infantry in the Pacific War and Korean War too. German infantry relatively rarely attacked at night.

 

Joe

Edited December 16, 2008 by JOE BRENNAN

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

In the 1960's the 10 mg armament was just viewed as a stopgap and mainly for training, in view of temporary shortage of miniguns. But, there's no reason the same general concept wouldn't have worked in similar tactical situations of usually night attacking light infantry in the Pacific War and Korean War too.

 

These experiments were used by the USAF and other forces (Colombia, for example). A large number of M1919s gave a good ROF, but these weapons were burned at an high rate, both barrels and mechanisms. Maybe using newer/better built weapons may have been useful, but still high weapon usure would have been a problem.

[Gabe]

Maybe a quad fifty in the door? Can those shoot for any sustained period of time?

[Shortround6]

The .50 cal Browning was supposed to be limited to about 75 rounds for the first burst followed by a cooling period and then shorter bursts with cooling in between. In combat, of course, life safety takes priority over barrel life but planning a weapon system around a known barrel burner seems strange.

[Simon Tan]

It would be suicidal even in the Pacific as the Japanese had plenty enough 25mm. Against entrenched and bunkered infantry, they would be useless.

[Marek Tucan]

It would be suicidal even in the Pacific as the Japanese had plenty enough 25mm. Against entrenched and bunkered infantry, they would be useless.

My impression is that Vietnamese had plenty enough 14.5mm and 23mm, so where the difference?

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

My impression is that Vietnamese had plenty enough 14.5mm and 23mm, so where the difference?

 

Not the Vietcong/NVA units operating in the South, main target of the AC-47. These usually didn`t had anything better than the rather heavy DShK 12,7x108mm MG, and nothing in a quick sneak attack.

 

Gunships suffered much more operating against the Ho Chi Minn trail, were there were loads of 14,5,23,37,57mm guns and something even bigger ones. The AC-47 was quickly retired and replaced by the AC-130, helped by the AC-119K with jet power augmentation, while the AC-119G replaced the AC-47 operating in the South in COIN roles.

[DanielStarseer]

Ignoring the survivability issues for such a gunship in WW2 (German 2cm singles, twins, and quads, and 37mm flak, Japanese 25mm in singles, twins, and triples, etc),

and disregarding the fact that the Allies had no true night-fighting gear (sensors) other than using flares (the caveman approach),

as far as armament is concerned,

I'm surprised no one has hit on those US-designed 37mm aircraft cannon.

 

Numerous aircraft, from the FM-1 Airacudas to the P-39 & P-63 families, even the XP-67 "Moonbat" would've had as many as 6, (and having seen a "requisitioned" Airacobra 37mm adhoc'ed onto a PT boat's foredeck),

I'd think the generally tame recoil of these 37mm guns, perhaps even on trainable mounts, would've been excellent side door guns for a WW2 Spooky.

 

(Wiki suggests Oldmobile made the Cobra's/KingCobra's T9/M4 37mm cannon ....pretty sure I read somewhere Pontiac had a model also... any quick reference via Tony W's site on this gun's overall performance? Wiki just suggests ~150rpm and ~2000ft/sec velocity...)

 

...better yet, seems that an improved 37mm model (slightly higher ROF, slightly higher MV) might've been an ideal nose armament for A-20 Havocs, even those Pacific theater lots-o-guns B-25s: a 4-gun volley at ~150-180rpm per barrel could put up some heavy destruction, even a Havoc with a pair could've made a good tank buster...

[JOE BRENNAN]

It would be suicidal even in the Pacific as the Japanese had plenty enough 25mm. Against entrenched and bunkered infantry, they would be useless.

The 25mm was a Japanese Navy caliber, usually on warships though sometimes at fixed bases. The standard IJA light AA was the Type 98, a relatively low capability 20mm. However, the main point is that in many or most tactically offensive ops past the early months of the war, the IJA would typically be covering difficult terrain on foot to close with American positions, not taking such weapons along. Then they attacked at night, altogether similar to the larger scale of VC/NVA attacks.

 

And that was most effective mission of the AC-47 in SEA: helping stop relatvely large scale (for that war) VC/NVA attacks at night. The VC/NVA were at least as good at digging, or tunnelling, in on the defensive as the IJA was. Digging out entrenched infantry wasn't what the AC-47 did in SEA either.

 

The AC-47 would have been very useful, and quite reasonably survivable, in say, the defense of Henderson Field: right up its alley.

 

On the ordnance it's true the 10*M2 .30 (not M1919 on the early USAF FC-47's) didn't have the sustained fire capability of miniguns, but it's still upwards of 12k round/min cyclic rate, firing just 2 or 3 at a time while letting others cool off would be significant fire power, with the loiter and self flare dropping ability of a relatively large plane. Even a mix of M2's and watercooled M1917's (or the watercooled .50) would be a possible alternative. It would have been workable even w/o miniguns I think, though less capable.

 

Joe