whatever this American monstrosity is:

[-]

Fun-Times-13@reddit

It looks like the recoil would tear this plane in two

[-]

ShamScience@reddit

Surely it would be far cheaper for the pilot to just pay for actual penis enlargement surgery?

[-]

arvidsem@reddit

It's a toss up as to whether the target or the pilot of the plane will "find out" if you tried to fire that in the air

[-]

It's actually a helicopter, a Piasecki H-21. the intended use was for the helicopter to land, deploy that little foot thing you can see in the picture to support the gun, fire, and then fly away to avoid counter fire.

[-]

the_Q_spice@reddit

More like the Mutually Assured Destruction.

Helo could maybe take out the AAA, but in return for shooting itself down with the recoil.

[-]

Gozertank@reddit

I wish modern aviation was as certifiably batshit inspiring as this.

[-]

Expensive_Weird7988@reddit

Hell yeah 👍

[-]

Disastrous_Cat3912@reddit

Piasecki H-21 with a 75mm or 195mm howitzer mounted on it. Probably a prototype from the AC-47 era when trying to figure out aerial fire support aircraft in 1960s during Vietnam war.

[-]

KokoTheTalkingApe@reddit

It doesn't look like the gun will point down though.

[-]

Dudeus-Maximus@reddit

A quadrant adjustment system is clearly visible in the picture. The weapon is pictured at maximum quadrant. At minimum it looks like it would probably have a 30-45 degree down angle.

[-]

fulltiltboogie1971@reddit

I think the aircraft would roll left and circle to stay on target.

[-]

TacTurtle@reddit

No, this was designed to land and use the ground to absorb the recoil as a mobile firebase concept.

[-]

Brandon_awarea@reddit

I mean… it’s more reasonable than trying to hit targets while airborne.

[-]

TacTurtle@reddit

There were a couple WW2 bombers equipped with large cannon or howitzers, the B-25G for instance would have a 75mm howitzer in the nose.

[-]

CAB_IV@reddit

That wasn't even a howitzer. It was a lightened version of the Sherman Tank's gun.

The B25G had a manually operated gun, then the B25H had an automatic version. This weapon was also developed back into a tank gun and used on the M24 Chaffee light tank.

[-]

kiffend@reddit

The 75mm guns used in the B-25 we’re designed from scratch for that role. Starting back in 1938. They were NOT modified Sherman guns.

[-]

CAB_IV@reddit

Seems difficult to do since the B25 didn't even first fly until mid-1940, and the G/H models didn't come out until 1943.

The Wikipedia page does imply that the gun started as an anti-aircraft gun, but it wasn't built for aircraft.

The lightening was done to make it appropriate for a gunship aircraft, and because the gun was light, it allowed the M24 to be an up-gunned light tank relative to earlier light tanks like the Stuart.

Their all developments of the same basic design.

[-]

kiffend@reddit

The first 75mm aircraft cannon equipped trials were done in 1938 with a B-18 Bolo.

[-]

CAB_IV@reddit

The B18 was equipped with an M1898 75mm. With a designation like that, it tells you all you need to know. Its not really the same gun.

The relevant family of 75mm guns are the M2 through M6. They're all derivatives of each other, with the M3 tank equipping either the M2 or M3 75mm gun, the Sherman equipping the M3 75mm gun, the B25 equipping the M5, and the Chaffee equipping the M6.

Presumably, the M1 and M4 75mm guns aren't related or were limited prototypes.

[-]

kiffend@reddit

Never said it was the same cannon. I said the development of an airborne cannon first took to the air in 1938.

[-]

LightningFerret04@reddit

Every source that I’ve ever read has said that they either used the M4 or the 75mm T13E1, which are a versions of the 75mm M3, are they not?

[-]

kiffend@reddit

Yes, it was a M4 aircraft cannon, but that had nothing to do with the M4 Sherman.

The aircraft cannons M4 and T13E1 have very little interchangeability with the M3 tank cannon. The M3 design May be considered a starting point, but it wasn’t a M3 that was modified. The aircraft cannons were new development.

[-]

LightningFerret04@reddit

How far removed are we talking about though? I mean something like the P-82 was a new design, but being derived from the general design of the P-51, I would still consider it as part of the Mustang lineage

[-]

Eagle-Enthusiast@reddit

I think this is a confusing topic. The M4 cannon was not “The cannon from the M4 Sherman”. It’s kind of like how the US had so many M1 whatevers that people get confused. So in the sense that the aircraft cannon has a common lineage, yes, and also shares a common lineage with a handful of extant field guns at that time. It was just a model designation for a family of tank guns, M3 through M6.

[-]

kiffend@reddit

It was a new development weapon system. Did they use knowledge learned from the history of cannon development? Sure. Were there some common parts between aircraft and tank cannons? For logistics sake, I hope so.

What they were not was pulled out of a tank, modified and stuck into a plane as was stated earlier in this thread.

[-]

KommandoKazumi@reddit

And it was imtended to be used against naval targets. Not ground targets.

[-]

TacTurtle@reddit

They were used quite effectively against trains, oil storage facilities, and even anti-aircraft emplacements.

[-]

KommandoKazumi@reddit

Yea, after they found out that merchant ships can shrug off a 75mm gun

[-]

Mattloch42@reddit

They didn't "shrug" them off, but putting holes in superstructure above the waterline did little to sink them. Usually you want to put the holes in below the water, so that the water goes into the boat. Which is why they shifted to skip bombing and just used 50 cals to clear out any antiaircraft emplacements in the superstructure or deck.

[-]

Cetun@reddit

The one you showed was an H. They were okay against ships but they were unwieldy and not particularly popular with crews, many were replaced with additional forward firing .50

The B-25 J was a return to a bomber configuration but they had modifications for a strafer version that just brought back the additional .50s and never brought back the 75mm

The Germans also used a semiautomatic Bordkanone BK 7.5cm as a tank hunter but they ditched it also for smaller canon like the 5cm and 3.7cm

Other countries also put canon on their ground attack aircraft but they didn't go above up to 75mm. The Japanese tried 57mm but ended up replacing it with a 37mm.

The recoil was problematic, they were heavy, had limited explosive capacity and you could only get a couple shots in every pass. It was later found out that rockets were lighter, harder hitting, didn't require a separate crew member, had barely any recoil comparatively, were easier to mount (didn't require structural reinforcements, could be mounted easily on an existing hard point), and you could launch your entire payload in one pass if needed.

[-]

FreeMasonKnight@reddit

I mean an AC-130 does just that. So the concept was always there. Also a howitzer shell is the size of an arm, so it’s not like you have to hit a grain of rice at distance.

[-]

blexta@reddit

And yet there's still a 105mm howitzer on the AC130J, which has also been on previous C130 gunships.

[-]

gentsuba@reddit

So the helicopter needs to land,turn off the engine and apply the rotor brake before it can shoot? Seems rather slow compared to carrying the artillery piece under sling.

[-]

TacTurtle@reddit

How fast do you think you can then lower shells to the slung artillery, drop off crew, plot the fire mission, then hook everything back up and reposition?

[-]

gentsuba@reddit

I was thinking of keeping it strap to the helicopter and the helicopter landing nearby,sure you'll need to ferry up shells from the helicopter to the gun and then take them back when the fire mission end up.

[-]

snappy033@reddit

You’d need a massive clearing to do that. You’d be worse off than traditional artillery who can set up in the woods or other cover. You could basically only fire from farmers fields and highways maybe.

[-]

datguydoe456@reddit

Why wouldn't you keep the ammo on the helo?

[-]

snappy033@reddit

Then you gotta deal with the artillery piece being set down on a stump or in a mudhole or a million other non-level scenarios. You’d need heavy equipment to reposition it. Then you’d need to sling it back up and move it again.

I can see the use case of landing, firing off some shells then moving way faster and to more varied terrain than a ground crew could ever do. Much more unpredictable for the enemy even if you used it to supplement traditional artillery, confusing the enemy and obfuscating positions.

[-]

Ambiorix33@reddit

I mean good luck carrying that through the jungle on a sling :p

[-]

Cthell@reddit

Actually, the plan was to do both - it could either land and slew the howitzer like a regular gun, or fire it in a fixed forward position like a "regular" helicopter-mounted gun pod.

[-]

Ambiorix33@reddit

Thats actually sick as.fuck

[-]

KokoTheTalkingApe@reddit

Hm. So the plane's banking provides the only negative elevation (or whatever is called)? I wonder how well that would work.

On the AC-130, it looks like the big gun can drop about 15 deg below horizontal, maybe more. The mount must be big and complicated.

[-]

HurkertheLurker@reddit

This has a base plate, clearly designed to fire when landed.

[-]

fulltiltboogie1971@reddit

This was probably this CH 47 which was the original to the AC130 specter And they hadn't yet figured out the angles.

[-]

rpc56@reddit

It was a Piasecki not a CH-47. https://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/h-21/images/aero_h-21_03.jpg

[-]

Xivios@reddit

The H-21 is a helicopter.

[-]

snappy033@reddit

It looks like it goes to -15° or so if you zoom in.

[-]

jellobowlshifter@reddit

You fly the aircraft in a circle around the target, with the gunside rolled down.

[-]

CaptainHunt@reddit

This is a helicopter.

[-]

jellobowlshifter@reddit

You've never seen a helicopter bank?

[-]

CaptainHunt@reddit

Have you? If you try to hold a bank in that, the helicopter will start drifting to one side.

[-]

Lampwick@reddit

Look where the pivot point is. Now look where those two horizontal bars are below the barrel. That would be the limit of depression, and it's below the pivot point. It very much could point down.

[-]

yobob591@reddit

The intent is that its an artillery piece that can fly, but it has to land to fire

basically instead of using a helicopter to sling load artillery, just build it into the helicopter

[-]

KokoTheTalkingApe@reddit

Ahhh, that makes sense! It's a fast mobile but otherwise conventional artillery piece.

[-]

DesiArcy@reddit

That was the first-generation concept. There was a later, even more over the top version that had 105mm howitzers mounted on both sides with autoloaders that allowed them to be fired forward while in flight, plus they could land for 'normal' artillery fire -- for ground fire one gun would be fired directly from the helicopter mounting, and the other gun had a fold-out winch system so it could be rapidly dismounted from the helicopter and placed on a standard artillery carriage, which the helicopter also carried.

[-]

IlluminatedPickle@reddit

Iirc this setup was just to test whether the airframe could take the stress.

[-]

Sillysausage919@reddit

It looks like an anti air gun,…. But on a plane

[-]

skijumpersc@reddit

I shoot a 105mm, that gun is elevated all the way up, they can depress the barrel to at least level if not a negative angle

[-]

Girl_you_need_jesus@reddit

Maybe their thought was, “how far can I shoot an artillery shell”, by raising the platform 30k feel, your projectile arch will go much further.

Then later on they realized that air superiority = just fly right over top of them and point it straight down (not straight down but downward angle lol).

Just a guess in development mindset

[-]

feather_34@reddit

Wait, they put a fucking arty piece on the flying banana?

Be still my beating heart, that is wonderfully violent.

[-]

TacTurtle@reddit

Flying artillery battery / firebase concept - can land and fire off arty using the ground mount to absorb recoil, then rapidly displace via the helicopter to avoid counter-battery fire or to another firebase.

[-]

Smooth_Imagination@reddit

It relies on a second aircraft?

[-]

TacTurtle@reddit

The helicopter / arty were supposed to be deployed in groups / wings, the guns remain attached to the helicopter while the recoil transmitted to that bottom base plate like a mortar.

[-]

Smooth_Imagination@reddit

Ah, I thought it was a plane. Thanks

[-]

Marine__0311@reddit

Instead of Shoot-N Scoot, you have Fire-Fly.

[-]

TacTurtle@reddit

The Pop N Hop

[-]

kazukix777@reddit

God bless murica huraa

[-]

42111@reddit

Bigger

[-]

ZuluSkies@reddit

H

[-]

DoctorFluffyCow@reddit

For when you really need to turn left!

[-]

Modo44@reddit

A smoothie.

[-]

joe9teas@reddit

A typically monstrous American response to open-air arts events of all kinds. Contemporary dance, poetry, basket-weaving, folk dancing festivals would be neutralised with this aerial system.

[-]

Newbosterone@reddit

That’s Piff, Puff the Magic Dragon’s kid brother.

[-]

SuDragon2k3@reddit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpNx21MjS0A

[-]

Smooth_Imagination@reddit

As the gunner fires, how does the sight adjust for the perpendicular velocity and also changing angle and bullet drop?

[-]

small_chinchin@reddit

Gaijin, please…

[-]

ClueZestyclose2234@reddit

That's what freedom looks like brotha

[-]

requiemguy@reddit

Needs more dakka

[-]

NoMasterpiece2063@reddit

"Ah yes, the time America decided to put a Howitzer in a fucking plane." -thefatelectrician, probably

[-]

Begle1@reddit

Back when the days of cutting edge R&D involved iterating nonsense to see what worked rather than endless computer simulations. I think I'd rather be in that generation than this one.

[-]

NoDoze-@reddit

Ha! This is hilarious!

[-]

bCup83@reddit

That's the counter-flak waste gun. When ol' Fritz has the temerity to shoot ak-ak at you, return the favor! Preferably at a 109 or 190. Easier to aim at than Fleiger-Abwer-Kannon 25,000ft below.

[-]

Macktheattack@reddit

You’re about twenty years off course

[-]

bCup83@reddit

Its still a fun story.

[-]

OldWrangler9033@reddit

I don't think that worked out too well.....for Helio I mean...

[-]

CaptainA1917@reddit

Possibly this was intended to be landed somewhere within reach of the target, then fired.

[-]

minerman30@reddit

The foot is a part of the gun mount, this was meant to be fired while on the ground.

[-]

Easy_Mechanic_9787@reddit

That’s very cool.

[-]

kneegrowpengwin@reddit

Really leaned onto the Scoot portion of Shoot and Scoot

[-]

404-skill_not_found@reddit

Go big, or go home! 🤣

[-]

Mundane-Address871@reddit

In the AC-130 there is.

[-]

Healing_Grenade@reddit

It's spookys great granddad

[-]

UglyLikeCaillou@reddit

NSFW

[-]

silverwings_studio@reddit

That’s called freedom

[-]

Witty-Stand888@reddit

Must suck to be the the pilot and every time that fires your tail is trying to turn you into a tail spin.

[-]

WoodGuy1971@reddit

Is this a "hold my beer" or a "now hear me out" moment?

[-]

psunavy03@reddit

Yes.

[-]

Mysterious-Alps-5186@reddit

Its the "fuck that gun and the block it's built on" mount

[-]

Colodanman357@reddit

If anyone is interested here is a link to Boeing’s design study from this aerial artillery project.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0750150

[-]

LefsaMadMuppet@reddit

Best me to it. If you read into it, one method of attack was to fire two 105mm forward in a staffing type attack.

[-]

Ornery_Year_9870@reddit

Yes, that's a Piasecki H-21. From what I can find out, it was intended to convert a helicopter to mobile artillery. That is: it would need to land to deploy the howitzer. There are a few more photos and concept drawings here.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/proposed-aerial-artillery-system.31797/

[-]

FletcherCommaIrwin@reddit

Ah... that's a bit more clear how this would be deployed.

[-]

VinniTheP00h@reddit

It was proposed by several people (there is a number of drawings of "helicopter with howitzer" out there) and tested by Rock Island Arsenal in 1963. The idea was to make an aeromobile M2A2 105mm howitzer system that would be able to land anywhere (hence a helicopter) and wouldn't have to take a lot of time to (un)sling and (un)fold the whole thing. The proposed tactics would've been to land somewhere, fire a bunch of shots, and GTFO before getting overrun, by doing so providing the troops with artillery support away from fire bases. However, the idea was scrapped, my guess is that a) it didn't make much tactical sense, b) even reinforced with outriggers, the fuselage couldn't take it, and c) didn't look good compared to just calling in CAS planes. Of course, later the idea was successfully implemented in AC-130, but that's a different story.

[-]