*Play World of Tanks here* tanks.ly/3wSJPOl Thank you World of Tanks for sponsoring this video. During registration use the invite code *COMBAT* to get for free: 7 days of premium access, 250k credits, the premium tank Cromwell B, and 3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger 131, T78, and Type 64 if you’re a new player. For *returning players* (who already have a WG Account AND haven’t played WOT for +30 days): 3 days of premium access, the 2D Style “Bargain” camouflage, 7-day rental of Premium Tank Centurion Mk. 5/1 RAAC or a 100k credits compensation, if you already have this tank in your garage.

@ripvanwinkle2002

Ай бұрын

The thing i like about this aircraft, is the sheer "Americaness" of it.. "we've mounted a Tank Cannon on your Bomber..." " yea but uh... still room for more .50 cals dont ya think?" it can be said the US military never goes to any battle without our Momma Ma Deuce

1:07 Once again, my father appears in a KZread video! He was one of the engineers responsible for the tooling of the B25G 75mm cannon mount. The work was done at the B 25 Fairfax plant in Kansas City Kansas.

@MilitaryAviationHistory

Ай бұрын

That‘s awesome!

@POLARTTYRTM

Ай бұрын

That's so cool man, you can consider your father a historic figure for appearing on this type of video as this is rare archive footage.

@johngalt9737

Ай бұрын

8:11 there he is again

@JohnGeorgeBauerBuis

Ай бұрын

One of my friends has a model railroad with that factory on it, albeit after it became an automobile factory post-WWII.

My Grandfather flew as Navigator for 62 missions to Germany in WWII in a B-25 Mitchell... Was shot down twice in the Sea... He lived until he was 89... a great Man

@keithad6485

Ай бұрын

I was always under the impression, USAAF bomber crew completed 25 missions then went back to US. Did he volunteer for more missions?

@DavidReese2ndA

Ай бұрын

@@keithad6485 Yes correct.. My Grandfather said no... He said he wasn't done, he didn't want to stop serving until the Job of getting Germany was defeated... I have His Distinguished Flying Cross Award

@DavidReese2ndA

Ай бұрын

@@keithad6485He flew as lean Navigator of a formation attacking the Brenner pass rail lines in San Ambrogio, Italy. Isidor Berkson, First Lieutenant, Air Corps 310th Bombardment Group...

According to Gen. Kenney's book, the "strafer" B-25s and A-20s did just fine against shipping once they perfected the skip bombing technique. Even a fairly light bomb (ie 100 lbs) is going to be more powerful than a 75mm shell (16 lbs). The idea was, suppress AA fire with a storm of .50 cal on a high speed run-in and skip a bomb into the side of the ship.

@mikepette4422

Ай бұрын

exactly suppression of the returned fire from shipboard AA was the goal not to sink ships with the guns

@bilalsadiq1450

Ай бұрын

That's surprisingly similar to the A-10 story in the Gulf war and later, where the use of the 30mm cannon for tank killing got sidelined due to the use of AGMs on the hardpoints. Kinda makes it redundant to use in the end if all the compromises to mount the cannon aren't even used (although it was still useful in COIN operations so it wasn't a complete loss).

@lookythat2

Ай бұрын

@@bilalsadiq1450 To me one of the most underrated features of the A-10 was its wealth of hardpoints. Like the A-1 "Spad" it was intended to replace, it was intended to be able to carry just about everything -- and lots of it. The USAF was remembering the Spad -- the first concept for the A-X program was for a turboprop. If a peer conflict had broken out, the 30mm would've seen lots of action. There would've been lots of targets, 30mm is a lot cheaper than Hellfire missiles, and they'd have more than six shots (a normal Hellfire load).

@forcea1454

Ай бұрын

​@@lookythat2If a peer conflict broke out, the 30mm would have received very little use, unless the USAF wanted to have unsustainable casualties in the face of Shilkas, Strelas and Osas.

@davidbriggs7365

Ай бұрын

@@forcea1454 Actually, one of the FIRST targets the A-10 would have shot would have been the enemy AA.

You weren't wrong saying '20 mil'. 'Mil' is often used by Americans as a short way of saying 'millimeter'. We also use 'mike mike' for 'mm', 'mike' representing the letter M in the phonetic alphabet.

@FrankJmClarke

Ай бұрын

Yes. "Nine mil" is as common as "Nine millimeter". I always do my Austrian accent on "Nine millimeter", though :).

@jonbowman7686

Ай бұрын

I came here to say the same thing, so thank you for doing it first :)

@NM-wd7kx

Ай бұрын

I thought 'mil' was English to be honest, it's common here too

@neilwilson5785

Ай бұрын

I say 'mil' as well and I'm a Brit

@negativeindustrial

Ай бұрын

@@NM-wd7kx We use “mil” here in Texas, as well. In engineering and also machine shops. Although, like the person above mentioned, it is quite impossible to say the phrase “9mm” without the use of a heavy Austrian accent here.

My father was an ANZAC fighting in the highlands of PNG in WWII and described being supported by this 75mm. They could fly level with the ridges and pound Japanese positions.

@keithad6485

Ай бұрын

Which battalion did your Dad serve with? Gutsy soldiers in New Guinea fighting the Nips with the Nips conducting themselves in ghastly inhuman behaviour. I salute your Dad. From a retired Aussie Armoured Corps soldier.

@goodbill55

Ай бұрын

The B 25 gunship was used during the Shaggy RIdge battles. The soldiers and pilots reported that when the B 25 opened up with the 75mm their craft would shudder and from the ground it looked like the aircraft stopped mid flight

I believe this is not a case of a tank gun on an aircraft, since the T13E1 / M5 75mm gun was developed specifically for installation in attack aircraft. A derived version known as the M6 75mm gun was later installed in the M24 light tank, so this is really a case of an aircraft gun on a tank.

@dougjb7848

Ай бұрын

The first 75mm mounted in the B25G was a manually loaded 75 mm M4 cannon, originally developed for armored ground vehicles. The T13E1 was developed from the M4 to be mounted in the B25H, and then that was modified into the M6 version for the M24. So it was a case of a gun for a tank, which was developed into a variant for an aircraft, which was then developed into a gun for a tank.

@Thenotfunnyperson

Ай бұрын

@@dougjb7848 My mind is blown. That is cool information.

@mikepette4422

Ай бұрын

i agree

@steveprophet5247

Ай бұрын

Well said

Small correction at 6:25. The airacobra had a 37 not a 39 mm cannon

@MilitaryAviationHistory

Ай бұрын

Thanks, silly misspeak on my side

@tomppeli.

Ай бұрын

Found my comment

@mrcat5508

Ай бұрын

I got confused about that. Thought I was wrong until I saw this comment

@Bidimus1

Ай бұрын

@@MilitaryAviationHistory You are not the first, and you do a far better job than say.. the "history channel " with 50mm guns in us fighters.

My father-in-law flew straffer B-25's for the 500th squadron/345th bomb Group (Air Apaches) out of Papua/New Ginea in 1943. He only mentioned flying with the .50cal gun package but routinely carried 100 pound para-Fragmentation bombs and 500 # conventional bombs. There is a photo of his a/c coming off a skip bombing run in the book Warpath Across the Pacific that is the historical record of the 345th Bomb Group. According to Ed Allen the modified B-25 c and d models were very heavy on the controls and if the pilot lost either engine for any reason the a/c was committed to a forced landing....it could not maintain controlable airspeed on just one engine.

'Targets--I mean, vehicles...' 🤣

@davidcox3076

Ай бұрын

When you're slinging a 75 mm, everything is a target.

I read a book as a young person about a B-25 pilot in the Pacific theatre. His plane only had the 12 forward facing .50's. He despised shooting nme troops in the water after sinking the transports. The 75mm B-25's sank several transport ships in that book.

@Canis_Lupus_Rex

Ай бұрын

Book was probably Whip, written by Martin Caiden

@johnfarscape

Ай бұрын

Its strange when you hear about the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine doing the opposite, and rescuing enemy troops that were in the water after having their transports sunk, even though at one point they were ordered not to, there were many written cases of it happening “and this includes picking up persons in the water and putting them in lifeboats, righting capsized lifeboats, and handing over food and water" My Grandfather actually had his life saved by a German that rescued him, and got him medical treatment, he survived despite having most of his stomach blown away. I had read about American planes strafing unarmed and surrendering troops in the water, it was in a book called "Allied warcrimes against the Japanese in WW2"

@usslexingtoncva-1639

Ай бұрын

@@johnfarscape Well it probably stems due to the Japanese own tendancy of shooting Allied personnel in the water or in the air

@bigpoppa1234

Ай бұрын

@@usslexingtoncva-1639 If the ships were sunk close to the islands the troops were going to land on, they could still swim or get rescued and go on to fight. But the war crimes they committed likely didn't help their situation.

@unclefart5527

Ай бұрын

Once the nature of this enemy was seen, allied attitudes changed. Aircrew could see anyone on deck being shredded by 0.50s and it was not to everyone's liking.

The B-25 Mitchell is a beautiful aircraft

@keithad6485

Ай бұрын

When ever I see an image of the Mitchell, I always think of Catch 22.

MAH: "Let's start with the why first" America: "...they touched our boats."

@ColonelSandersLite

Ай бұрын

Yeah, that one always makes us extra mad.

It seems skip bombing was more destructive but an interesting concept.

20mm vs .50 cal also comes down to reliability. The Hispanio Suiza cannon had feeding issues (the British ended up fixing this after the US decided to stick with the .50 cal), but the Browning M2 is kind of legendary for their reliability. The initial design was so good that they only in the last couple of years modified it, and that A1 modification was just to make barrel changes easier by eliminating the need to adjust headspace and timing.

@neiloflongbeck5705

Ай бұрын

The Air Ministry selected the 20mm cannon over 0.5in machine gun in the mid-1930s, around the time they selected the Spitfire. They did this even though the 20mm was much less reliable than the 0.50in machine gun as it had more potential.

@kimjanek646

Ай бұрын

They could have just built a 20mm on the browning mechanism like the Japanese did. Honestly kinda strange that they didn’t.

@Caseytify

Ай бұрын

@@neiloflongbeck5705 the RAF favored .303 machine guns for a long time.

@neiloflongbeck5705

Ай бұрын

@@Caseytify yep, but for simplified logistics - the same bullet was used on the SMLE, the Lewis gun, the Vickers K gun, the Vickers heavy machine gun, the Bren gun and their various aircraft guns. But they knew they needed a better gun for the aircraft eventually.

@Caseytify

Ай бұрын

After WW2 the M61 Vulcan became the gun of choice for the US. The A-10 is one of the few planes that doesn't use the Vulcan. Not bad for a gun that's over 60 years old... 😏

Good video Christoph. Thank you. The RAF only fielded a single squadron of Mosquito MkVIII fighter bombers with the Molins 57mm and I understand that they were normally escorted by standard Mosquito fighter bombers. They reportedly used solid shot with the intention of putting holes in a ship’s engine block/s. Also quite good on submarine pressure hulls, I believe.

@richardvernon317

Ай бұрын

They were designed to put holes in U-boats. By the time they got them into service, the 3 inch rocket on the Standard Mosquito FB Mk VI was found to be a better weapon.

@michaelguerin56

Ай бұрын

@richardvernon317 Cheers, I couldn't be bothered doing a 'deep dive' into my books at that stage of the evening.

@richardvernon317

Ай бұрын

@@michaelguerin56 AAEE gave the aircraft a Double plus good appraisal when the Trials were done on the Tsetse, but the problem with the 57mm gum was once all the ammo was fired, the aircraft had to lug around a buttload of dead weight.

@mikepette4422

Ай бұрын

The Molins gun was pretty effective big enough to hurt and small enough to have a good rate of fire

@mbryson2899

Ай бұрын

I can't remember the channel, but I watched an interview with a Tsetse pilot. Hearing what it was like from a primary source was fascinating to me.

The 5 ich HVARs most likely had an impact on the no need for the 75mm.

@cattledog901

Ай бұрын

Yup. Rockets are just a better solution than a heavy large caliber gun. Easier to integrate onto many diff aircraft, just as much if not more explosive firepower, weigh much less, and the aircraft gains its performance back after expending them, rather than carrying around the empty cannon after firing all the ammo.

@lorenzcassidy3960

Ай бұрын

@@cattledog901 I'd say definitely more explosive firepower than a single large caliber gun: the most common configurations on US fighters and fighter bombers of 6 or 8 127mm (5 inch) HVAR rockets are equivalent to a broadside by a destroyer when fired all at once.

@MrLBPug

Ай бұрын

Skip bombing as well. Using a 500lbs or 250lbs bomb that, well, _skips_ along the water surface onto a big merchant ship, causes far more damage than a 75mm shell. It wasn't a bad idea per se to try and use a big cannon, it's just that other methods were more effective.

AktUalLY... The T13E1 75mm was developed as a lightweight gun for the B-25H to be able to fire the French 75mm round. It was the US's common artillery shell. It was only somewhat related to the M4's gun. I think just the breechblock. It was then applied to the M-24 light tank. So it was an aircraft gun that became a tank gun.

@dougjb7848

Ай бұрын

You said AktUalLY and I looked around for Jingles.

My aunt Margie was a “Rosie the Riveter” with North American…one of the planes she worked on during the war was the B-25…she was involved with helping to mount the 75 mm cannon After that she worked for Northrop on the P-61 Black Widow It was very interesting to hear all of her stories about the manufacturing and assembly processes She passed away around 1998 I believe.

My Grandpa was a propeller expert for the Army Air Corps in the Pacific and the Mitchell was his absolute favorite aircraft of all time. And he loved that some crazy person decided to shove a tank cannon in the nose.

@Colonel_Overkill

Ай бұрын

Everybody loves more dakka lol

@keepyourbilsteins

Ай бұрын

Very cool! My grandfather ran one of the propeller shops at Drew Field (now McDill) in Florida. I'm willing to bet both handled many of the same props during the war.

@glennheth3472

Ай бұрын

@@keepyourbilsteins @keepyourbilsteins Probably! Grandpa worked for Hamilton Standard, which made almost all of the propellers for the USAAF and the Navy. He was basically a civilian contractor but the Army gave him a field a commission when he shipped out to the Pacific.

So the real punch from the A 20, B 26, B 25 came from either skip bombing or parachute borne fragmentation bombs when operating low level. A 75 could have been useful a year earlier going after light shipping or when attacking an airfield point target.

@jagtone

Ай бұрын

Marauders were not really used in this low-level role (or were tried and withdrawn). They were primarily used at medium altitude.

P39: I have a 37mm. B25: Hold my beer!

@kristoffermangila

Ай бұрын

You should have added the Luftwaffe's BK-5 57mm autocannon.

@mikepette4422

Ай бұрын

@@kristoffermangila or the BK 75 on the Henschel 129 I think cris has a video on that. Now THATS the granddaddy of aerial mounted guns at least from WW2 because the Spooky exists today ;)

@thecommentaryking

Ай бұрын

P.108A: none o

@thecommentaryking

Ай бұрын

P.108A: peasants

@christofferwillenfort4035

Ай бұрын

@@kristoffermangila the BK-5 was a 50mm if you want a 57mm you need the "Bofors 57 mm flygplanautomatkanon L/50" or the "Molins QF 6-Pounder Mk IIA"

Good to see you after a long break. In first grade, my favorite planes were the Hellcat, because of a newsreel piece about the new plane that could face up to the zero. Also, the B-25, because of a small plastic toy that i loved but lost. A few years ago i had to make a 1/75 scale plastic model to replace it. I never heard of a B-25 with a tank gun, but did see footage of strafing operations of the B-25, maybe in New Guinea. You may remember me. I’m the one who painted a PBY with military markings for the movie, Midway ( 1976 ). I remember your dream of getting one of the last PBYs to live and travel in. I’m still ‘praying’ for you.

There is an EXCELLENT wartime documentary of B-25s operating in the Pacific called "Mission to Rabaul".

My father, a sergeant 6:05 in the US Marine Corp, flew combat missions in a B25 Mitchell in the South Pacific. He flew in many attack missions against Japanese strongholds in Rabual.

The ingenuity of Pappy Gunn really turned the B-25 into such a formidable air to ground commerce destroyer. Look up the biography of him and learn of one of Americas truly unsung “field expedient” practitioners in the South Pacific.

IIRC, there was a plan to mount a 37mm on the A-26, but it seems only the bomber nose and .50 cal gunship noses were used in the field. It seems that both the A-26 and the B-25 could mount an astounding amount of forward-firing .50 cals, with upwards of 20 that could theoretically be carried, with additional wing mounting and gun pods. I think in practice, only the glazed nose variants of both aircraft used wing-mounted guns. Would love to see pictures that prove me wrong😊

"Why put a tank gun on an airplane?", to keep the A-10 in service obviously. But are you actually hinting, nay even suggesting that the solution is to arm the venerable Warthog with a six-barrel, 75mm / 70??? You're mad, man! Utterly mad! The added weight and recoil! We'll need more engines and a lot more wing area. It will have to be a biplane. It's brilliant. Where's my slide rule. There will be dozens of calculations to make this work...

@angrybirder9983

Ай бұрын

The "big gun on a plane" concept has largely outlived its usefulness. Completely removing the gun from the A-10 would save a good amount of weight, but also mess with the center of gravity so much that it would tip over. A 70mm would be completely insane, since (guided) 70mm rockets (APKWS) can do the same job much better.

Honestly? I genuinely feel that this presentation is your very best one, so far! You obviously did the research. You considered how to present, and then you DID! One of my all time favorite airframes. Thank you for your effort.

My dad was a B-17 pilot in WWII. Among hi old photos was picture of a B-25 with 4 fifties and 4 40mm Bofers in the nose. Dad said it worked well for ships and tanks, but you had to watch how many rounds you fired because the recoil of the Bofers slowed the plane down and if you kept firing you could stall the plane. Dad always said the B-25 in the right hands flew more like a fighter than a bomber. He said it's maneuverability, agility and tight turning radius made it the perfect plane for a lot of mission besides bombing.

I had the fortunate experience to be inside a B25 at an airshow in my home town. It was the star of the show and for 500 dollars you could go for a short ride after signing a waver. I settled for the inside tour. Was an amazing experience.

My father was a B25 pilot in the Mediterranean, 12th Air Force. I think you nailed it with the flack making the cannon useless. He used to tell stories about how they would fly in on bombing runs to avoid the flack. One method would be to change altitude as they crossed the 88 flack guns so they could not get a fix on the fuse timing. When I was growing up my father showed be a piece of flack he pull out of his engine cowling and kept in his top dresser drawer. It did leave a lasting impression on him. Joseph Heller wrote a book about his unit, Catch 22.

I will throw one caveat out about this- remember, for a large part of the war the Southwest Asia operations were largely considered low priority, so they rarely got the equipment and support needed- so they had to make do and improvise with whatever they could beg ,borrow or steal (and salvage from wrecks) In fact, quite a few of the "field modifications" of the aircraft flown by the 5th Air Force were the result of 2 men in particular , General George Kenney and Major Paul "Pappy" Gunn. In fact, when Kenney took over in Sept of 42, he did a inspection tour of his units. When he came to Gunns unit, he found him in coveralls on the flight line modifying a A-20 to add extra 50 cals scavenged from crashed P-40's to the nose of the aircraft. Quite a few of their ideas worked out, such as the strafing version of the A-20's & B-25's, the skip bombing techniques, the parachute bombs, etc. The 75 mm gun version obviously was a bit of a mixed bag

My father was posted to 139 WIng, 2nd Tactical Airforce in 1944. They operated B25s and he was one of the radio mechanics. They were the perfect aircraft for their role, but he never mentioned anything about those fitted with very heavy cannons. Anyway, he was eventually moved up to Achmer Aerodrome in late 1945, and was there when the war ended on 9th May.

@richardvernon317

Ай бұрын

2 TAF's Mitchell's were used as Medium Bombers. These aircraft were a 5th Air Force in the Pacific invention.

The concept of a big gun on an aircraft is always fascinating, but it always seems like there are either more practical options or the cannon-ship is too limited in its application. The Mosquito Mk. XVIII 'Tsetse' with its 57mm cannon, was made superfluous by the RP-3 rocket in the anti-shipping role, used by Coastal Command Mosquitoes and Beaufighters.

I have always loved these quirky overgunned aircraft from various nations.

8:41 "So if you're fascinated by these targets, I mean vehicles..." Hilarious.

These was a devastatingly effective attack plane. Pilots also learned to “skip” bombs off the water into Japanese ships.

My dad’s WWII A26 squad had a ship with a 75 mm gun. He said they fired it only once. Damn near knocked the plane out of the sky.

2:37 Correction: General George Kenney, vice Keeney. General Kenney was a great combat leader. His air campaign over New Guniea was brilliant.

The CAF, a while back, used to stand for Confederate Air Force. I don't know they changed it to Commemorative, but it was a good decision, imho.

No mention of Pappy Gunn, the man that was most responsible for adding the extra guns and later putting the cannon in the nose . He did the initial install and then worked with the engineers to improve structure. He was also the first one to sink a Japanese destroyer with the gun. It took quite a few passes though. Although he wasn't supposed to be flying any missions per General Kenny. Also not mentioned was that the bombs usually didn't penetrate the hull. After losing an aircraft that was following to close to the lead when the bomb went off they started using delay fuses. When the bombs went off under the ship the hull cracked and usually sank the ship. The tactic they used was to have one aircraft strafe the ship lengthwise and then the other come in to the side and skip the bombs into it. Read the book the Saga of Pappy Gunn Gen Kennys Reports(down loadable ). I first read about Pappy Gunn in Readers Digest in grade school. When my mother saw the name she told me that he used to come into a cafe she worked at in Charters Towers, QLD, Australia where I was born. That was the first forward operating air base for the USAAF in 1942.

I like this "a chat with Chris" camera angle!

I wonder how many times I walked by this thing at the air museum with minimal interest because it wasn't a fighter. Gives me a reason to go back

Thank you Chris for including the Devil Dog. That is the displayed USMC B25 owned by the CAF based in Georgetown, TX. I wish I knew that you were in the area as I am a crew chief on her. This one has an interesting history as it started as a glass-nosed USAAF WWII bomber and was heading into the Pacific for the invasion of Japan. After the A-Bomb she was halted en route and retirned to the States After a few years of storage, she was then used by the new USAF as an advanced trainer for pilots going into heavies at Reese AFB in Lubbock, TX. Surplused in the 1960s she was sold to private operators ending up flying explosives for mining operations in South America. The last owner had her restored and configured to commemorate one of his WWII friends who was lost on his last mission in the Pacific while flying the PBJ-1. The CAF acquired her afterward and is now based on Georgetown, TX. Good job on this concept story Chris.

I think that if the B-25G had been available in time for the fights in the Marianas, and Guadalcanal, it would have bee a real show stopper. Unfortunately a good idea for '42, and '43, makes for a poor idea in '44, and '45.

There's a book called Whip, by Martin Caidin, about B-25s in the New Guinea theater. It is a novel; IIRC "Pappy" Gunn is in it, but the protagonist is fictitious. There's a line at the end of the book that I thought so perfect, and obviously always remembered. They are talking about how the success of the field-mod strafers has resulted in making them at the factory. Someone states, "They're even making one with a 75mm cannon." The response is "I'll buy a war bond if I don't have to fly it..."

Here's a surprising fact about the 75mm gun on the B-25 - that gun became the main gun of the M24 Chaffee light tank which was a design of... Cadillac.

I had an American cousin who loaded and fired the 75 mil on the B25H. He told me back in the late 70's that by the time they got the B25H there was really nothing Japanese to shoot up.

My neighbor was a Marine Corps pilot on a B-25, on 6 August 1945 he attacked Rabul. He said they liked the 75mm hitting force but the recoil slowed the plane down too much. He said they would only fire once during an attack. His target priorities were ships, planes, boats and finally anything that they could find. Which was often soldiers farming. On the 16th he was on his way back to Rabal. The crew was told the war was over by radio, so they, dropped everything in the ocean, bombs, .50, and 75

My uncle, Sidney Ballard, told me about B-25's with cannon that he maintained during WWII in New Guinea. He had been an enlisted man in the US Navy and left the navy to become an engineer, managing the logistics of various civil engineering projects. Sid worked for Aviation Enterprises managing maintenance when it started in 1940 in Houston, Texas. Shortly after the start of WWII, he joined the USAAF and was eventually sent to New Guinea to manage aircraft maintenance at an air-base there. I don't know which air-base, but it had hangars (he told a story involving Japanese prisoner labor, a fighter pilot who hated Japanese, and a hanger that was shot up until the figher's guns jammed). He told me that he had ridden in a B-25 with the 75mm gun for a mission which was successful. I don't know whether that was anti-shipping or ground attack. He and the crew thought the gun was not very effective. The aircraft were equipped with racks for rockets on the wings which were, according to Sid, more effective weapons.

@goetzliedtke

Ай бұрын

The reason I know of the rockets is because Sid was educating me on practicality and safety. Apparently, the rockets were loaded on racks which also ignited them with electricity (kind of like an Estes Rocket Engine). The pilot had a switch in the cockpit to ignite the rockets (I don't know if they all went of at once or not). The rack had a hook and a socket with the electric connection - loading involved hooking the rocket's front on the hook and plugging the rocket into the socket. This may have been a field mod since the incident occurred because the switch had been connected reversed. The loader checked the cockpit and made sure the switch was in the off position. He then hooked the rocket on the rack and, when he plugged it into the socket, the rocket ignited and the blast killed him.

Wow, I really appreciate someone who know’s their stuff !

I remember a B25 pilot giving a talk at our school once. He said theoretically you could fire 7-10 rounds before the plane would stall due to the loss of air speed. However in practice, they could typically only manage 3-5 shots. Apparently the smoke from the cannon would get funneled in to the plane and make it's way in to the cockpit. After 3-5 rounds you would often no longer be able to see out the windshield.

So, basically the piston-powered GrandFather to the A-10 Warthog, right?? Hell, YEAH Brother!!!

The B-25 is one of my favorite planes.

Highly recommended the book Air Apaches. Excellent read

My father was a radio operator on A b-25 in the Indo-China theater of war. He told me that when the cannon was fired the plane did NOT go backwards in the air. But it did stop. 😏

It’s crazy to see a 75mm cannon added to the B-25 to must it against the Japanese ships and ground targets.

Even as far as games go, playing simulator battles with a plane equipped with a large caliber weapon in war thunder proves to me that without thick AA cover, these tank guns are far more deadly to armor or emplacements than bombs that could just get replaced by tank gun HE.

Chris: *_"... armed with a big BOOM-BOOM."_* And THAT is ONE READON why we love Chris's channel...😊 *EDIT→* *_"by these targets...I mean vehicles"_* Same...🤭

Some years back, I got a chance to examine one engine block and the T13E1 cannon of General Orde Wingate's B25H (43-4242) which crashed near Thuilon Village, Tamenlong District, Manipur, India. The Assam Rifles had salvaged some of it and they now are on display at the Assam Rifles Museum, Laitkor, Shillong. The aircraft belonged to the 1st Air Commando Group, I believe.

Interesting observations on the 75mm B25. I have seen videos of ground attack by the B25g and h, as well as attacking shipping. And time-line wise, you are correct, there was less and less shipping to target. 😊

Tanks. Targets. Subtle. Hillarious. Similar to how Submariners refer to surface ships. I've been to the New England Air Museum. Great crew there.

A family friend, John Fitch, participated in the flight testing of this weapon off the east coast of the US. He later moved on to the 4th Fighter Group flying P-51s against Germany. He survived the war, was a notable auto racer and invented the yellow sand-filled highway barrel, the “Fitch Barrier”.

My Great Uncle trained crews on the B-25G or H in Florida. He said when the 75 fired, it was hitting a brick wall.

The anti-insurgency H variants were used into the 1960s.

@immikeurnot

Ай бұрын

I think you're thinking of the A-26/B-26.

The Mosquito had only the pilot. No room in the cockpit for a second seat and controls

Great video on the B-25 gun bus and the 75 mm!. It reminds me of the A-10's 30mm

My 5th grade teacher was a navigator on a B-25 with a 75 mm in the nose, during WWII, in the Pacific. "We hunted ships," he said.

Always a fresh look at a subject we thought we knew.

The aircraft shown is NEAM, Windsor Locks CT aka Bradley Field. No radar used, it was an anti tank/ship weapon " A good crew could get off 3 rounds per attack" And " it damn near stopped the airplane in flight "

Wunderbar! Great video, Chris!

I had a friend, Forrest Clemens, who worked for North American Aviation at the beginning of WWII. He was sent to Australia to modify B-25s to carry and fire the 75 mm cannon. Flew a few test missions. Said they had a real problem with smoke in the cockpit from firing the gun. Married an Australian girl, came back to North American, quit and joined the Marines. Ended up landing on Iwo Jima. The number of replacements for his company was about the same as the initial number of people in his company. He survived the war, went back to North American after the war, got laid off after they merged with another company, became a manager and later the owner of a restaurant in Southern California.

8:40 bro got too enveloped into the anti tank and shipping aircraft and accidentally called shermans targets 🤣

Excellent video as always.

The American mentality is that "there is a space there, it can fit, or we can make it fit, therefore we can put a gun there; we will put a gun there." We followed the same mentality on our ships, too. Where the to the point that whenever we refitted or made a new fleet carrier we put more Bofors or 20mm Oerlikons on it. To the point that we were actually running of spaces to put them. America actually played Tetris with how to fit more guns on its aircraft and ships.

And you have to remember that most planes preferred bigger cannons rather than heavy machine guns bc of the fact it maximised damage with a much smaller window of time. Where 12 50cals would probably take several seconds to do damage to a merchant ship, it would also require the b25 to maintain its course directly into the merchant vessel which increases the risk of being hit by anti air. But a bigger auto cannon or even just a big cannon could easily do a lot of damage with a few hits reducing the overall risk that the plane would put itself to achieve the same damage.

What might be an interesting for a future video would be something on the B-24 variants that conducted low-level nighttime anti-shipping operations along the coast of China. Operating from central Chinese bases, those mounted radar and operated against convoys between Southeast Asia and Japan all the way into 1945.

Yet another informative video.Nice one.

"The accuracy of projectiles going down is inversely proportional to the accuracy of projectiles going up."

It was worth the investment because the idea of putting huge artillery in planes lead to the AC-130 Spooky.

@philp8872

Ай бұрын

Not really related. The concept of gunships like the AC-47 or AC-130 is completly different. The guns fire out of the side of the ac so while it is circling it can fire CONSTANTLY, on ground (not naval) targets. It's basically a form of CAS and only possible if you have air superiority and little to no SAM and heavy AAA threat. (although you can defeat light AAA by staying high)

Been a side interest of mine since it's a good story. Bottom line is the armament was often too much for the airframe (remember they kept piling 0.50s into the plane too, often as field mods) and skip bombing became effective with practice. One passage, likely from Fire in the Sky mentioned what a single 0.50 did to someone on deck, repeated strafing turned it into a slaughter house. I seem to remember due to the success of the Mitchells against small shipping it was hoped to use the big gun to take on destroyers.

Great video. Love your channel!

Great video! Luv to see one on the A-26 invader.

The USAAF already had an effective strafer, albeit not designed for the role: the P-38. Four .50s and a 20mm autocannon made for some nasty hits.

I saw a youtube video of b-25s strafing a Japanese air base.. They started firing the 75 at long range, then the .50s, then dropped parafrag bombs. This was a fairly wide area attck because the personnel and planes were dispersed in the jungle, so accuracy was not as mimportat, there were many planes in a wide formation to cover the area.. So the 75 was not only used for attacking ships. The 75s filled the plane with smoke, the maintenance problems, and difficult reloading, etc. The man reloading was lying down in a tight space. I think those things limited their use. As for sinking ships, skip bombing was the widely used effective thing anyway. So it would not surprise me that the 75 had issues and might not have been used much.

You are as usual pretty much on the spot with that analysis. I have seen quite a few gun camera captured strafing runs and the multiple 50's chewed up the japanese air bases just about as well as would be needed. I would think that if the japanese had fielded more and better armour then the tank gun bomber would have had targets that the 50 cals would have had trouble dealing with and the 75 could have destroyed relatively easily. The ability of the plane could have had some value on the interior waterways in Japan shooting up the local transportation system but thankfully we never had to fight over japan supporting troops. The tank gun bomber was a fine plane, its just that the enemy failed to supply the correct targets.

The fact that this was actually taken seriously as a useful weapon is kind of mind boggling to me

have a look at the Tsetse Mosquito used by the RAF for anti shipping strikes - I think it was abandoned in favour of rocket firing Mosquitos and Beaufighters. I think the Tsetse used the British QF 6 pounder with auto feed added !!

The A-20 was turned into madmax aircraft. Some crews would basicaly turn there bomber into a fighter with up to 20×50 cal or more. Rigged so the pilot could fire most guns. They would also put larger caliber weapons on the attack bomber varients.

There's a photo sequence of a 75mm-equipped B-25 -- or so the captions claimed -- attacking a fuel storage silo. It worked. But now you mentioned it -- this one plane could have taken out most silos in one pass simply by using conventional bombs.

I'd say it's fairly reasonable to call the 75mm Mitchell... maybe not a failure but an unnecessary diversion. The J-Model Mitchell went to the All .50 8 Gun nose in it's strafer configuration, and the Douglas A-26 that replaced them had a 75mm mount designed but never fielded, again with operational use having either 6 or 8 .50's in the nose. I suspect rockets also play a role in this discussion, much simpler in 1945 to hang zero-length rails on the wings for a 5" HVAR than try and mount a tank gun inside a plane.

grand video! love the editing and great content. very cool!

Tis better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. I agree with a number of other commentators that the B-25 with a 75mm would have been superb in 1942 around Guadalcanal, but almost useless in 1945 nearing Japan.

You might like to compare with the RAF's use of the Tsetse, the Mosquito armed with the 57mm 6pdr gun developed by Molins originally for RN MTB's and MGB's. The RAF would mix Tsetse's with cannon armed Mossie's and Beaufighters to confuse the Kreigsmarine gunners.

@cedhome7945

Ай бұрын

I watched a documentary about them and a pilot who flew them said he jumped a German bomber and one shot hit it in the engine and it almost vanished from the sky !

@MrLBPug

Ай бұрын

It's 'KrIEgsmarine'. The way it's written always confuses English-speakers, because in English 'IE' is pronounced (somewhat) like the German 'EI'.

Seems like an idea before its time. The C-130 has an artillery piece variant, but it is side mounted so you don't approach head on. A 75mm on a plane could be extremely useful, but the technology wasn't quite there yet and the situation wasn't quite right.

@markhusseymh1

Ай бұрын

AC130 J GHOSTRIDER is the latest version

While on Guam in the mid 70s we found a crashed b25 configured with a 75 mm

You mean to tell me the Allies never got to shoot one of these into a submarine ? I'm American but the "Tse-Tse Fly" version of the De Havilland with the British Army "6-pounder" 57mm infantry antitank gun. It even had a pretty good autoloader made designed and built by a cigarette vending machine manufacturer.

My dad was in the "Army Air Corp" ( I never heard him refer to it as the Air Force), said they tried to put a 105 in a B-24 but the recoil collapsed the airframe.

@WALTERBROADDUS

Ай бұрын

It became the Army Air Forces in 1941.

@External2737

Ай бұрын

​@@WALTERBROADDUSI worked for a company for decades. We were TRW, not Northrop, so I understand refusing to adapt.

@WALTERBROADDUS

Ай бұрын

@@External2737 Dad was a 30 year GE Space guy. It is all Lockheed Martin now.

It seems that there were as many different nose and gun arrangements as there were different letters variants of the B-25.