Trains.com

classic warbirds attacking trains

21692 views
440 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Monday, August 12, 2019 6:02 PM

Military engineers of any country, especially the Germany of the time, were pretty good at figuring out what the important infrastructure targets were likely to be and where the appropriate repair materials should be staged, which is the best way to expedite repairs.

But the thing is, after the invasion both the American and British air forces were too good  at destroying rail infrastructure.  After the Normandy breakout the pusuit of the Germans was hampered by all the destroyed rail lines and bridges, which obviously the Germans didn't need at that point.  Much needed supplies, especially fuels, just couldn't be moved fast enough.  

Oh well, hindsight's "20-20."  No-one expected the Germans in France to collapse as fast as they did. 

Any way, Mr. Steve asked about armored trains earlier.  Here's a good 12 minute history of armored trains in WW1.  VERY interesting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Jl5KdG-Tc    

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Monday, August 12, 2019 5:56 PM

If the Bf 109g, a pretty small fighter,  could handle 20mm  cannon mounted underwing successfully ,  I think it indicates that cannons are not problematic. 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, August 12, 2019 5:01 PM

Steve Sweeney

Curious. I don't see mention of the B-26 Marauders. (Did I miss it?) I thought they were involved in fighter-bomber operations including strafing runs and close air support?

 

I've read that leading up to D-Day and somewhat after, B-26's were used a lot in taking out railroad bridges from medium altitudes over France and Germany. I was surprised to read that construction battalions could rebuild those bridges just about as fast as the allies could take them out.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Monday, August 12, 2019 10:17 AM

Railyard at Marburg Germany being bombed by the 9th Air Force on February 22nd, 1945.

 

Captured rail shipment of Me-109 fighters.

 

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Monday, August 12, 2019 10:15 AM

"Lest we forget..."


I was going to make a funny comment with a post a few minutes ago, but I can't after seeing that B-26.  I'll have to wait for a while.  

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,881 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Monday, August 12, 2019 10:12 AM

A sad picture of a B-26 just moments before spiraling out of control, after taking flak damage while on a bombing run on a railroad bridge in Marzabotto Italy (I'm not fudging the target in disregard/defiance of the above post; It's really what the photo caption states.). 

Moderator
  • Member since
    April 2013
  • 187 posts
Posted by Steve Sweeney on Monday, August 12, 2019 9:28 AM

The thread is diverging from rail again. Please keep on track.

Steve Sweeney
Digital Editor, Hobby 

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 2,325 posts
Posted by rdamon on Monday, August 12, 2019 9:13 AM

Which led to the A-10 and the GAU-8 ;)

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Monday, August 12, 2019 8:57 AM

54light15

I have seen pictures of a B-25 with one cannon mounted in the nose, offset to one side. Was that a 75MM? I imagine it would damage the aircraft if used. 

 

Yes it was.  The problem with the 75mm was it shook the airplane tremendously and filled the cockpit with smoke, at least according to an "Air Classics" magazine article I read years ago.

"Redneck engineering" indeed!  Show what happens when you turn a lot of American kids loose with some high-powered machinery, "back-yard mechanic" skills and a "go for it" attitude!  

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Monday, August 12, 2019 8:46 AM

I have seen pictures of a B-25 with one cannon mounted in the nose, offset to one side. Was that a 75MM? I imagine it would damage the aircraft if used. 

  • Member since
    July 2016
  • 2,631 posts
Posted by Backshop on Sunday, August 11, 2019 9:13 PM

4 20mm cannon wouldn't bother a B25.  The much smaller P38 Lightning had 1-20mm and 4-.50cal MG in the nose and did fine. It was the 75mm cannon that did the damage.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Sunday, August 11, 2019 8:58 PM

SALfan
These were not successful, because the recoil from the cannons shook the planes to pieces.

I believe you'll find it wasn't the vibration that was the problem, as I recall it was the 'retro-rocket' effect of the recoil.  The four cannon together slowed the plane abruptly to below safe flying speed with even a reasonably sustained burst, with the plane having to be essentially in a steep dive to get the cannon to bear on the target.  Subsequent recovery, unassisted by any practical means of recovering airspeed combined with much heavier wing loading, would be difficult and dangerous at best; more troublesome if you were expected to execute evasive maneuvers at the same time...

You can reduce some of the effect of 'felt' recoil using recoilless-rifle techniques like active hydraulic mounts or muzzle brakes.  Note that one of the points of the 20mm shell is that the projectiles rely on explosives, not momentum, for most of their damage, so the actual mass being ejected during a nominal period of firing can be relatively low.

The bad news is that the sequential cannon shells can be fuzed to detonate at different delays, as the armorer prepares the chain.  So instead of just shredding the surface as AP machine-gun bullets do, you can get penetration to what may be several depths, through the presumed structure of the ship (and its crew and cargo, particularly including that of troop transports).  Even a comparatively short firing can produce more severe damage than the same 'throw weight' in one large explosive projectile hit like the shell from a larger-bore ship's gun.

We might gainfully compare the net recoil effect of the 37mm cannon in the Airacobra with the 4 20mm on the proposed design.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,020 posts
Posted by tree68 on Sunday, August 11, 2019 8:44 PM

SALfan
IIRC the P-39 was designed as a ground-attack plane, so it should have been pretty good at the job.

It rather shares that characteristic with the A10 "Wart Hog," essentially an airplane built around a weapon (the Gatling gun, in that case).   An A10 would be hopelessly outclassed by just about every fighter in the air today, but it's the cat's meow for ground support.

The A10, with it's depleted uranium projectiles, certainly would have wreaked havoc on German trains in WWII.

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    April 2002
  • From: Northern Florida
  • 1,429 posts
Posted by SALfan on Sunday, August 11, 2019 8:28 PM

To respond to some earlier posts in this thread, IIRC the P-39 was designed as a ground-attack plane, so it should have been pretty good at the job.  My memory may be playing tricks on me, but I believe some "redneck engineering" by the 5th Air Force (with McArthur in the Southwest Pacific campaign) mounted four 20-mm cannons in the nose of a B-25 for the purpose of sinking ships.  These were not successful, because the recoil from the cannons shook the planes to pieces.  Can't imagine how the fire from 4 cannons would have torn thru an un-armored merchant ship.

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Sunday, August 11, 2019 5:14 PM

Well, maybe the 1919 fly-through might have been the target of an attempted cover-up as well, but those crazy French fighter jocks had two  movie cameras set up to catch it!  They wanted  it recorded for posterity!

The Parisians and the French people in general probably got a kick out of it too!

Too bad there weren't cell phone cameras around in 1968 London, any video of that RAF pilot's wackyness would have been priceless!  

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, August 11, 2019 3:15 PM

Flintlock76
That Nieuport under the Arc protest was nothing compared to what this guy did!

Although fifty years apart, gotta love 'em both!

One with a Nieuport in Paris, one with a Hawker Hunter jet in London!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gavx54dKYvI  

50 years later the protest would not have been able to be covered up.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Sunday, August 11, 2019 2:37 PM

That Nieuport under the Arc protest was nothing compared to what this guy did!

Although fifty years apart, gotta love 'em both!

One with a Nieuport in Paris, one with a Hawker Hunter jet in London!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gavx54dKYvI  

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Sunday, August 11, 2019 9:22 AM

Great stuff! If you've never seen it, watch "Detour" with Tom Neal and Ann Savage- it's the worst and best film noir ever made. Watch it and you'll see why.  

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037638/ 

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Saturday, August 10, 2019 9:19 PM

Don't mess with The Penguin!

He's got twin fifties and he knows how to use 'em!

Don't mess with The Joker either!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PzPE69_mqo  

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, August 10, 2019 8:44 PM

The President and the Penguin 'The Rear Gunner'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKdLbEQ6Dv8

Rail mounted targets in training.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Saturday, August 10, 2019 8:33 PM

Oh boy!  Running engines over and over to take off power is not good.  Don't remember turbo prop engines.  Those probably deriviative of Allison 501-D13 engines depending on their date of manufacture.  Alot depends on how long TO power applied.  Can count as a cycle towards cycle limit but will bet was not counted ?

 Number counts toward hot section inspection or maybe even a replacement of a compressor or turbine disk.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, August 10, 2019 7:34 PM

Miningman

Now the site of Glenn L. Martin State Airport.  Home of the Maryland Air National Guard and the Maryland State Police helicopters in the Baltimore/Central Maryland area.

Back in the early 1980's a sports car club I belonged to obtained permission to conduct an 'autocross' (single car parking lot speed contest around a traffic pylon marked course).  All cars participating were stock or slightly modified vehicles that were all street licensed and all without open exhausts.  The event was 'delayed' several times as the State Police operated helicopters into and out of their facility.  Additionally the MANG was training with their four C-130's -  all morning sitting at the end of a runway that was a couple of hundred yards from the area we had permission to use - running take off check list practices - idling and then running the engines up to take off power - over and over and over again.  In the afternoon they then put their morning practices into action and practiced take offs and landings - taxiing after landing back to the end of the runway where they had been doing their morning practices (wind direction).

We completed our event without getting complaints from anyone, neighbors, State Police or ANG.  When we requested to use the property again, later in the year, we were denied.....We made too much noise!  Go Figure - the silent helicopters and the silent C130's.......and all those noisy street cars.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Saturday, August 10, 2019 4:50 PM

I'll "light it up" for you Charlie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF85LiDyVTY  

My corroded beyond belief high-school German's gonna get a work-out...

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Saturday, August 10, 2019 3:21 PM

Here is an interesting compilation of footage featuring the Ju-87g Kannonenvogel "cannonbird" such as ace Rudel (over 500 tank kills, though a pretty unrepentant  Nazi) flew. It could still divebomb,  but had evolved as a sturdy platform for mounting various mm anti-tank cannon. It's  in German,  but the footage is rare, along with some cgi.

https://youtu.be/YF85LiDyVTY

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Saturday, August 10, 2019 2:10 PM

The German's use of armored trains would have depended on the purpose of the train itself.  For example Hitler's Fuehrer  Sonderzug, or "Special Train", certainly was armored, with car-mounted flak batteries.  I'd suppose any train with a Nazi big-wig on board had the same set-up. It would have been impractical to set every train up with armor. 

Certainly any kind of a tasty target the Germans might have had like railyards would have been well-supplied with anti-aircraft.  The usual doctrine would have been to install them in semi-permanent fashion.  They might  have set them up on flatcars to move around in an as-needed, it's certainly possible.  Goes without saying in some areas the flak would have been murderous, those German gunners were well-trained and knew their business.

I did some further research on B-26's in a ground attack capacity.  It was tried in North Africa with poor results and heavy losses, then again in Europe with the same results.  The B-26's performed best in the 10,000 foot (plus or minus) altitude range.  Medium bomber, medium altitude. 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, August 10, 2019 2:00 PM

Steve Sweeney
OK, now I know.

BTW, did the Wermacht (or Luftwaffe for that matter) deploy armored defensive trains? I know of the armored trains from the Eastern front (WWI, Russian Revolution, early WWII, etc.) But did they send out AA batteries on flatcars in rail yards? It would seem to make sense, but don't recall if they did.

Just remember that in WW II the Germans had a leader that 'knew it all' better than any of his Generals or staff that had been tasked with doing those kinds of jobs.  At least to his own mind.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

Moderator
  • Member since
    April 2013
  • 187 posts
Posted by Steve Sweeney on Saturday, August 10, 2019 1:49 PM

Flintlock76

Possibly Steve, but not so much.  The B-26 was classified as a medium bomber so ground attack and strafing would have been a little out of their mission profile.

On the other hand, there was the Douglas A-26, an attack aircraft and light bomber.  They were very  much used for ground attack, as a matter of fact the twin-engine aircraft you see preparing to attack the train in that Burt Lancaster film "The Train" are A-26's, still in service with the French Air Force in the mid-sixties.  As a matter of fact the US Air Force was still using them in the 60's, they were that good!  The Vietnam War was was their "last hurrah." 

There were a few in attendance at the most recent Oshkosh Fly-In.

Wayne 

 

 

OK, now I know.

BTW, did the Wermacht (or Luftwaffe for that matter) deploy armored defensive trains? I know of the armored trains from the Eastern front (WWI, Russian Revolution, early WWII, etc.) But did they send out AA batteries on flatcars in rail yards? It would seem to make sense, but don't recall if they did.

Steve Sweeney
Digital Editor, Hobby 

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Saturday, August 10, 2019 1:02 PM

Possibly Steve, but not so much.  The B-26 was classified as a medium bomber so ground attack and strafing would have been a little out of their mission profile.

On the other hand, there was the Douglas A-26, an attack aircraft and light bomber.  They were very  much used for ground attack, as a matter of fact the twin-engine aircraft you see preparing to attack the train in that Burt Lancaster film "The Train" are A-26's, still in service with the French Air Force in the mid-sixties.  As a matter of fact the US Air Force was still using them in the 60's, they were that good!  The Vietnam War was was their "last hurrah." 

There were a few in attendance at the most recent Oshkosh Fly-In.

Wayne 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy