• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

A-26 Invader with 105 mm??

Speedy

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Hi

http://rapidshare.com/files/116561178/A-26-105.jpg.html

I found this in Chinn's "Machine Guns" book (vol.V, p.387). I know that 37 mm and 75 mm guns were tested on A-26, but first time I see 105 mm howitzer. Maybe someone have more information about this project?
 

frank

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
617
Reaction score
4
Got a link that works?


Speedy said:
Hi

http://rapidshare.com/files/116561178/A-26-105.jpg.html

I found this in Chinn's "Machine Guns" book (vol.V, p.387). I know that 37 mm and 75 mm guns were tested on A-26, but first time I see 105 mm howitzer. Maybe someone have more information about this project?
 

FarSight

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
What kind of howitzer this was supposed to be?

AFAIK There seems to have been at least two candidates: 105mm T12 aircraft howitzer and 105mm T9E2 autoloading recoilless howitzer.
 

Hoo-2b-2day

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
This is probably a fantasy design or at best a sketch by someone no overly familiar with the A-26 layout.
There is no record of any aircraft in WW2, other than the Piaggo P-108 having flown with an gun larger 75mm, not even an experimental aircraft. the USAAF/USAF consistently state the 75mm* was the biggest gun carried up until the AC-130 which did have a 105mm howitzer. There does not appear to be any verifyable evidence that Douglas even considered a weapon on this size for the A-26, I have found no mentions in numerous books including McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 (Francillon).

(*This does not count recoilless weapons or experimental rocket guns such as were trialed on the B-25 in WW2)

Also a quick look at the image provided, the 105mm appears to occupy much of the space used for the forward landing gear. Even the smaller 75mm had to be placed higher up to get enough space in the nose. The position look very much like the B-25G/H models so I would suggest that someone has done a bit of "wishfull' drawings without consideration the the A-26's actual layout. Even one of the "light" model of a 105mm weapon were much wider than the 75mm weapons so I doubt that one would have fitted into the slim A-26 nose at all (unless you accepted a fixed nose wheel).
 

Mil-tech Bard

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
You might be looking at a recoilless 105mm. There were two US Army Ordnance designs at the time.
 

Tony Williams

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
402
Reaction score
30
Website
www.quarryhs.co.uk
I very much doubt that it would be recoilless. Such guns generate a huge blast from the back end and there seems to be nowhere it could go in that sketch except into the fuselage - which would result in its immediate demolition.
 

Pelzig

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
441
Reaction score
0
The sketch is just that...sketchy without detail. It would be a simple matter to vent waste gas from the recoilless rifle out into the air stream.



Tony Williams said:
I very much doubt that it would be recoilless. Such guns generate a huge blast from the back end and there seems to be nowhere it could go in that sketch except into the fuselage - which would result in its immediate demolition.
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
6
The B-25H carried a 75mm cannon as standard armament. -SP
 

Tony Williams

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
402
Reaction score
30
Website
www.quarryhs.co.uk
Hikoki1946 said:
The sketch is just that...sketchy without detail. It would be a simple matter to vent waste gas from the recoilless rifle out into the air stream.
It may be possible but it wouldn't be simple - what comes out of the back of a 105mm recoilless gun isn't "waste gas" - it's effectively a large and violent explosion, as about 80% of the propellant gas vents to the rear at supersonic velocity, capable of causing structural damage not just lethal injury. When such guns are fired on the ground, there is a very considerable fan-shaped safety zone left behind the gun.
 

sienar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
567
Reaction score
78
maybe related?


FarSight said:
There seems to have been another Düsenkanone (jet-cannon?) of 88 variety with revolver type magazine for aircraft.

This reminds me of a somewhat similar American WWII recoilless weapon 105mm T9E2. I have seen just one description of this weapon and it seems to have been a special version of normal 105mm T9 recoilless howitzer with addition of autoloader and it was meant for some type attack aircraft. Firefly, could you shine your light on this or any other allied experimental recoilless weapon?

I have always been more interested in allied secret weapons than this nazi stuff...

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3560.0/nowap.html
 

Tony Williams

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
402
Reaction score
30
Website
www.quarryhs.co.uk
Recoilless aircraft cannon were generally slung under the wings (e.g. Soviet types) where the backblast would be relatively safe as long as the tailplane wasn't in the way or, as in the case of the big 365mm Rheinmetall G104, slung under the fuselage. This is an extract from the book which I co-authored with Emmanual Gustin: Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45.

Largest of all the RCLs considered for firing from aircraft was a German weapon, the Rheinmetall G104, a 36,5 cm calibre gun designed to fire a 635 kg shell at 315 m/sec, the recoil being balanced by the expulsion of the equally heavy cartridge case to the rear. The intention was to hang the four tonne gun under a bomber and fire it in a steep dive, battleships probably being the main intended target. However, ground firing tests demonstrated that the muzzle and venturi blasts would be so severe that the aircraft would be unable to survive them, so the idea was abandoned.

Slightly more practical German schemes included the 8,8 cm Düsen-Kanone (Düka) 88, which fired a conventional 88 mm shell at 500 m/sec, the recoilless effect being achieved by a high-speed jet. Weight was around 750 kg. The Düka was a repeater, having an eight-round magazine. Although it was test-fired successfully on the ground, the same problems of blast damage to the aircraft occurred and it was decided that it was easier to utilise conventional weapons and control their recoil by means of muzzle brakes and absorbent mountings, so the Düka was abandoned. The same fate befell the 5,5 cm MK 115, essentially a scaled-down Düka, which was designed to fire belt-fed, combustible-case cartridges at 300 rpm and 600 m/s. It was hoped that it would weigh as little as 100 kg, but in fact turned out at 280 kg. At this weight, it offered no advantages, and some disadvantages, compared with the conventional MK 112.
 

Tony Williams

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
402
Reaction score
30
Website
www.quarryhs.co.uk
P.S. I should have added the following extract from the same book:

There was also a project to develop an aircraft version of the US 105 mm howitzer and some tests took place, but the end of the war saw the scheme's cancellation.
 

ACResearcher

Author/researcher/illustrator.
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
202
Reaction score
19
The A-26 was suppposed to be (or they tried to make it into) the answer to every need from ground attack up through night fighter and medium bomber. In many ways this was true, but the USAAF did go a bit crazy, falling into the "if we can build it then it SHOULD be built" mind set.

The 105mm was no exception to the above. I have drawings, photos and documents of the 105mm aircraft-mounted cannon that was designed and built by Oldsmobile. It is late and memory fails, but if I recall correctly I don't think it was ever tested before the war ended.

But let us not stop here. The USAAF actually wanted to test 155mm guns in aircraft. I have a few documents that discuss this, but I don't think anyone was ever actually crazy enough to try to even design one much less build it.

Hope this helps.

AlanG
 

Tony Williams

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
402
Reaction score
30
Website
www.quarryhs.co.uk
ACResearcher said:
I have drawings, photos and documents of the 105mm aircraft-mounted cannon that was designed and built by Oldsmobile. It is late and memory fails, but if I recall correctly I don't think it was ever tested before the war ended.
Excellent! Can you please confirm the nature of the gun (i.e. army howitzer or something more exotic) and also whether it was manually loaded or there was some kind of autoloader?
 

Apophenia

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
46
Interesting. Would this be related to "Notes on the 105 mm Gun Aircraft Mount T17", Rock Island Ordnance Center, 1944?

Another question might be: Did GM's Oldsmobile Division have any involvement in the AN-M9 mount for the 75mm AN-M5?
 

Invader Historical Founda

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
This is probably a fantasy design or at best a sketch by someone no overly familiar with the A-26 layout.
There is no record of any aircraft in WW2, other than the Piaggo P-108 having flown with an gun larger 75mm, not even an experimental aircraft. the USAAF/USAF consistently state the 75mm* was the biggest gun carried up until the AC-130 which did have a 105mm howitzer. There does not appear to be any verifyable evidence that Douglas even considered a weapon on this size for the A-26, I have found no mentions in numerous books including McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 (Francillon).

(*This does not count recoilless weapons or experimental rocket guns such as were trialed on the B-25 in WW2)

Also a quick look at the image provided, the 105mm appears to occupy much of the space used for the forward landing gear. Even the smaller 75mm had to be placed higher up to get enough space in the nose. The position look very much like the B-25G/H models so I would suggest that someone has done a bit of "wishfull' drawings without consideration the the A-26's actual layout. Even one of the "light" model of a 105mm weapon were much wider than the 75mm weapons so I doubt that one would have fitted into the slim A-26 nose at all (unless you accepted a fixed nose wheel).
With respect, the 75mm easily occupied the space in the cockpit that the navigator normally occupied. A 105mm would have reasonably fit as well, especially if the gun was offset in the nose the same way the 75mm was. Also, given the author of the book, I would be very reluctant to classify this as a "fantasy drawing" or simply wishful thinking. The author of the book in question was, at the time, Americas foremost weapons expert and a USMC Colonel. If anyone would know about the use of weapons during and after WWII, itd be him. Thatd be the equivalent of finding something Bill Gates wrote about how software works and calling it fantasy.
 
Top