During WW2 a lot of countries put big guns on aircraft.
Whether it’s a PBJ, a B 18, a Me 410, or this German Ju 88 featuring a PAK 40 7.5cm.
But was it that actually effective? Well, glad you asked, I am Chris, I go
to military archives like the one in Germany and I have a full experience report from the Luftwaffe
to tell you exactly what they thought of it. Spoiler alert: There’s a gonna be alot of
damage in this episode, sponsored by our partner Thurstmaster
For this one, let’s focus on the German’s – they put a 7.5cm anti-tank gun on the Ju-88 to test
if it was viable as an anti-tank aircraft, or Panzerjäger (Tank Hunter) as they were
sometimes called by the Luftwaffe. They did the same with the Hs 129, and a lot of other guns
from 3cm to 5cm, on a lot of other planes. This is notably different to other countries
like the US who to a 75 into a B-25, well PBJ, cause it’s the Navy, or Sweden who had a 57 in
the B 18. Those where mainly for anti-shipping – whereas the Germans wanted tanks to be gone.
Btw, if you want a great book on the B-25 incl. PBJ, get this one
by William Wolf. Except no substitutes. Back to the Ju 88 – todays primary source,
I really love saying primary source, comes from the Versuchskommando für
Panzerbekämpfung dated in April 1943. They had five Ju 88 P’s at the front,
and 8 ready without crews . However, the next file in May indicates that no missions had been
flown yet. Based on the files I have; they appear only to be pushed to the front in September 1943.
The reason for the delays may be glimpsed from a telegram I found from the 25th January 43.
Re: Ju 88 with PAK 40. [Ju 88s are] not operational. Reasons:
No armor protection for crew and ammunition. Carrying capacity increase from 9 to 20 rounds
remains unclear. 200 rounds needed as soon as possible. Firing against tanks
is carried out with provisionally prepared ammunition [....]. According to Rheinmetall,
Junkers will have 2 modified reinforced Ju 88s available at the beginning of February. Short-term
assignment for the purpose of verifying armament with live ammunition is necessary
because these are the first version. Then the files I have leave a big hole until
the 1st – 7th September 43, when six Ju 88 with 7.5cm cannons were ordered to be around Bryansk,
on the Eastern Front. Only a few days they were cleared for a trial operation on the front.
[13 September 1943] Experimental Anti-Tank Command with Ju 88 P-1 (7.5cm BK) was made
available for the purpose of gaining experience in fighting tanks from the
air with large caliber weapons, with the express instruction to
be used only against tanks that have broken through [friendly lines].
There seem to have been a couple of missions flown on the 10th, 11th, and 13th September. And once
again we can see that in real life, missions are a lot more mundane than we are sometimes told.
1st mission on 10.9.43 2 Ju 88 P1 [....] on tanks that
broke through friendly lines. 1 Ju 88 turned back because of engine failure. The other Ju 88 had to
turn back after recognizing the targets and its first attack because of strong fighter defense (7
fighters), since friendly fighter protection had to fly home because of lack of fuel.
2nd mission on 11.9.43 2 Ju 88 P1 [....] on tanks
that broke through friendly lines. 1 Ju 88 effectively strafed a tank. 1 Ju 88 destroyed
a truck due to lack of tank targets. This Ju 88 received 8 hits (infantry rounds) in fuselage,
propeller, and a hydraulic line. 3rd mission on 11.9.43
2 Ju 88 P1 [....] in the same area as the 2nd mission. Due to lack of tank targets,
the mission had to be aborted despite an exhaustive reconnaissance of 35 minutes.
4th mission on 13.9.43 2 Ju 88 P1 [....] on tank 8 km behind the
advancing Russian spearhead. 1 Ju 88 received hits near the left aileron (both spars shot through)
during the first attack. The damaged aircraft returned [...]. The 2nd Ju 88 broke off after
its 2nd attack because of the gun jamming. In the file I have there isn’t more about
operational use of the Ju 88 P BUT there is a lot of information that may help us understand
why these missions were probably not carried out in a high number. I mean even in the literature
these planes are basically only mentioned and then the historians quickly jump back
to the Ju 87s and Hs 129s because there is more information on those. Anyway, I have a really cool
file I want to share with you that shows what happens when you put a PAK 40 on a Ju 88.
It won’t be a surprise that putting a one ton 7.5cm gun with a hefty recoil into a gunpod
underneath a Ju 88 has some drawbakcs from the handling, over the speed, center of gravity,
and so on. Beyond that however, then they started trial shooting at tanks on target ranges, they
discovered that the Ju 88 really didn’t like it. The firing test of the Ju 88 P-1 with Pak 40 is
carried out with 5 aircraft. So far, 216 rounds have been fired at a Russian T-34 tank during
25 takeoffs with a total flight time of 12.55 hours. [...] During the one-week test, only 1-2
aircraft could be made ready for flight and firing each day due to insufficient technical support,
lack of personnel and the amount of repair work on the aircraft’s surface skins.
Now at this point I am in a pickle because of copyright laws – I can show you the text file,
but I can’t show you the pictures that come with it. So a 2D representation where I will
place on all the points of damage has to suffice. [During the trials] it became apparent that the
engine cowling plates could not withstand the high gas pressure of the gun. After 15-20 rounds,
the plates are deformed and torn, screws are loose or ripped off, as are the rivets in the
plates. Handhole covers were torn off during firing despite being secured with strapping.
After 54 shots, a crack was found on one propeller blade. On [one airplane],
the tips of both air screws flew off after the 36th shot. The left propeller was changed after
the 31st shot and thus had only 5 shots. Shooting wise the airplane is faultless.
From a weapon-technical point of view, the loading table and the feed can be criticized.
Well, I did tell you there was going to be a lot of damage – the plane was basically
starting to disintegrate with every shot. I then send this report off to Luke Rickert,
a patreon and structural engineer working on aircraft to get his thoughts on this:
Being this far removed in time and with limited
available information it is possible only to speculate but the insurability
of this gun installation is clear. […], what appears to have happened is
an inertial phenomenon much like that which allows you to install an ax head by hitting
the end of the handle while holding it in the air. The wing mounted engines would stay more
or less in place while the fuselage and gun mount move rearward. Even with the hydraulic
buffers this is dynamic load much different than the forces generated by propeller thrust.
Additionally there may be damage due to the muzzle device which directs
the gasses to the sides to reduce recoil but also could cause damage to the sides
of the engines such as seen with the louvers. So at least in the case of the Ju 88, mounting a
7.5cm seems like a poor idea. The
files I have on planes like the Ju 87, Bf 110 and Hs 129 that were also used in a similar role
also often talk about the fact that their lack of speed plus their size and low altitude made them
very vulnerable. A Ju 88 with a Pak 40 will not have fared better, most likely somewhat worse.
These trials emerged from the German attempt to try out as a many different solutions as
possible to field aircraft with anti-tank weapons that were available to them. They basically tried
every combination and in the end used what stuck – which was not the big guns. Lower caliber, high
velocity guns instead yielded somewhat successful results without impairing an aircraft too much,
like the 3cm MK 101 and MK 103, as well as the 3.7cm BK37. The Ju 88 P then with a Pak 40 was
not a successful product, barely useable in combat conditions, and ultimately a failure.
But I do want to leave on a positive note and show you what a good product, that won’t shake itself
apart through use, looks like and that is this: [Integration] The Thrustmaster Pendular Rudder
Pedals – what’s the link to the video? Well, they weigh as much as an anti-tank gun,
I am not joking. They are fantastic and my most favourite flight siming tool at the
moment. I used to use rudder pedals from another company, lots of plastic and I was basically
learning how to salsa on them in order to get the plane lined up properly – however
Thrustmasters pedals have finally given me silky smooth control, I am like floating through the air
now as if picked up on angel’s wings – you may think that’s their talking points, its not,
I threw those out – these pedals literally have changed my flight simming – it was plug
and play, with quick adjustment to my pedal preferences directly on these legends, and off
I went. Incidentally it also made my shooting better, especially with the big boy guns.
Thrustmaster also makes the fantastic HOTAS Warthog and many other quality control
peripherals – I used their products since – and I checked this -2014- when I got the Thrustmaster
16000M – that btw still works perfectly today even after taking it to multiple continents. Check out
their full offers in the description and upgrade your sim experience – perhaps for those summer
months that are coming
up, plenty of freetime around the corner to get more out of flight siming.