Puff in the 1930s

Side shooting CAS aircraft first appeared commonly in combat in the 1960s, with the USAF. Puff the Magic Dragon, or more properly the C47 Spooky, being the common names used. A variety of weapons went on the aircraft, tho high volume 'mini guns' were the best known.

So, what are the odds a similar tactical support bomber might emerge in the 1930s, and how practical would it be in combat in that era & the 1940s? How might it develop?

Given the limited range of the guns, its low/slow attack profile its not going to be a independent attack weapon in many circumstances. Still there seem to be some possibilities with good tactics and support partners.
 
They can't operate in the face of any sort of serious opposition, I'd think 50cal HMG would put them in danger.

Perhaps the Germans could use Ju53s with side firing MGs on anti partisan operations in occupied Soviet territories and the Balkans.
 
Over Normandy the rule for the US Cub pilots flying artillery spotting & liaison was "1000 up & 1000 back". Given that AA MG & cannon were not located right on the forward edge that apparently gave them a small safety margin. I wonder what the effective range of the German 20mm aircraft cannon would be on this sort of platform? What about a 40mm Bofors such as the Brits used?
 
They can't operate in the face of any sort of serious opposition, I'd think 50cal HMG would put them in danger.
AC-47 would be shot up by DSHK 12.7mm on the ground, so had attack choppers and Skyraiders nearby.

But as far as what the Douglas could do, in the late '40s, in a flyoff between a F-51 and an R4D, the USN version, a good Navy flier in one with almost empty fuel tanks could out turn that Mustang at that low level ans even stay on the his tail for an embarrassingly long time.

And yes, Inter-Service rivalry at play, as well a lot of side bets and alcohol.
 

Deleted member 1487

Side shooting CAS aircraft first appeared commonly in combat in the 1960s, with the USAF. Puff the Magic Dragon, or more properly the C47 Spooky, being the common names used. A variety of weapons went on the aircraft, tho high volume 'mini guns' were the best known.

So, what are the odds a similar tactical support bomber might emerge in the 1930s, and how practical would it be in combat in that era & the 1940s? How might it develop?

Given the limited range of the guns, its low/slow attack profile its not going to be a independent attack weapon in many circumstances. Still there seem to be some possibilities with good tactics and support partners.
AFAIK it wasn't possible before the minigun. They tried it with fast firing .30 cals, but even with 10 of them they couldn't saturate the target enough and had serious jamming issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_AC-47_Spooky#Design_and_development

There is also the issue of survivability with enemy fighters and ground fire to worry about. Against partisans or lightly equipped enemy in the jungle perhaps it could work with proper escort. Frankly the forward firing gunships of the era were the way to go, especially if anyone works out FFARs earlier.

I could see the USAAF trying something like this out with a DC-3 and a bunch of MGs, but compared to the B-25 it isn't really that great an option.
 
AFAIK it wasn't possible before the minigun. They tried it with fast firing .30 cals, but even with 10 of them they couldn't saturate the target enough and had serious jamming issues.

I think that was partially from using old ammo and guns left over from WWII
 
Over Normandy the rule for the US Cub pilots flying artillery spotting & liaison was "1000 up & 1000 back". Given that AA MG & cannon were not located right on the forward edge that apparently gave them a small safety margin. I wonder what the effective range of the German 20mm aircraft cannon would be on this sort of platform? What about a 40mm Bofors such as the Brits used?

The 3.7-4cm AA guns ranged past 4 km, the 2cm will make to 2km at best vs. big & slow target. That type of target is a fair game also for the heavy guns, provided it is not flying tree-top while still at low altitude.
Germans were not shy to manhandling the 1-barreled 2cm anywhere it was deemed useful. Note that they also have had self-propelled pieces already by 1941.
 
The 3.7-4cm AA guns ranged past 4 km, the 2cm will make to 2km at best vs. big & slow target. That type of target is a fair game also for the heavy guns, provided it is not flying tree-top while still at low altitude.
Germans were not shy to manhandling the 1-barreled 2cm anywhere it was deemed useful. Note that they also have had self-propelled pieces already by 1941.

Except that Puff is not for close-air support against peer opponents but COIN-ops against rifle armed guerrillas or in the 1930s tribesmen, the kind of people who might have been interested were the British, French, Dutch and Spanish. I think the issues therefore are not light flak but the ability to provide saturation fire (already noted above), loiter time on target for an aircraft with a sufficiently tight turning circle to be effective and air-ground communications.

It may be the psychological effects of air power would have compensated for the lack of saturation fire in the time period which means you need to find an aircraft with sufficient heft, legs and agility while also assessing if a viable form of communications could be developed to make such a method of air support effective. I am not sure that you could do any of that in the period but AH can cover failed attempts as viably as success.
 
Except that Puff is not for close-air support against peer opponents but COIN-ops against rifle armed guerrillas or in the 1930s tribesmen, the kind of people who might have been interested were the British, French, Dutch and Spanish. I think the issues therefore are not light flak but the ability to provide saturation fire (already noted above), loiter time on target for an aircraft with a sufficiently tight turning circle to be effective and air-ground communications.

I was under impression that it is okay to answer a question asked on a public forum.
With that said - any kind of airforce used against people that can't fight back is a boon for an 'advanced' nation. High levels of firepower just increase the problem for 'backward' opponent.

It may be the psychological effects of air power would have compensated for the lack of saturation fire in the time period which means you need to find an aircraft with sufficient heft, legs and agility while also assessing if a viable form of communications could be developed to make such a method of air support effective. I am not sure that you could do any of that in the period but AH can cover failed attempts as viably as success.

British have bombing sheds of natives in 1920s/30s using canvas-clad biplanes, made their policing job on the far-flung empire much easier, cheaper and less blody than it would've been the case with ground forces. A stressed-skin A/C with multiple guns & crew (one can man the Morse-code radio until the voice radio is perfected), 2-3-4 engines would've been devastating for that or similar job.
 
Top