Which IJN destroyer had the unlucky honour of being sunk by a B-25 armed with that said gun?
None that we know of, the 75mm was ineffective it was hard to aim, too slow to fire, and heavy as hell. Most of them were just removed for more machine guns or to save weight for rockets which could be salvo fired on mass during a pass and had much greater explosive power to boot. The 75mm gun HE shell isn't even really that potent it was equivalent to about four stick grenades in explosive charge. It wasn't going to sink anything of significant size without tons of hits.
The B-26 with torpedoes would be much more effective anti-shipping weapon, but the Air Force didn't train for that before the war and then gave up on it too quickly, the B-25 could have done the job too the Russians modified theirs and used them to decent effect as heavy torpedo bombers, but the US never integrated torpedoes onto the B-25. It was also very stupid and refused to learn clear lessons from the early actions, the total ineffectiveness of it's level bombing at Midway for instance was heavily criticized, but it was basically deaf too it. You can find quotes from it's leaders talking about how it "took time to prove they were right" about level bombings effectiveness, which shows a blindness to reality so profound it's hard to comprehend. It refused to invest in dive bombers or training for lower level attacks and continued more or less futile medium to high altitude level bombing attacks into the Solomons.
The B-26 in general was actually an excellent plane once a few kinks were ironed out, but it was one that required good training that wasn't always in evidence early in the war. However once those factors were fixed it's virtues could show: good range, quite fast for type, good defensive armament and structural strength, with a fine weapons load for it's size. Used as a medium altitude bomber against targets not far behind the frontline like bridges, rail links, etc in a quasi interdiction role it proved very effective and had the lowest per sortie loss rates among bombers in Europe during combat operations.
The A-26B Invader (which was the plane I was thinking about). While not of much use during the war, it more than made up for it during the Korean War and beyond. This is basically the "more dakka" bomber, with basically up to 20 machine guns, 16 of which facing forward.
The B-26 with torpedoes would be much more effective anti-shipping weapon, but the Air Force didn't train for that before the war and then gave up on it too quickly, the B-25 could have done the job too the Russians modified theirs and used them to decent effect as heavy torpedo bombers, but the US never integrated torpedoes onto the B-25. It was also very stupid and refused to learn clear lessons from the early actions, the total ineffectiveness of it's level bombing at Midway for instance was heavily criticized, but it was basically deaf too it. You can find quotes from it's leaders talking about how it "took time to prove they were right" about level bombings effectiveness, which shows a blindness to reality so profound it's hard to comprehend. It refused to invest in dive bombers or training for lower level attacks and continued more or less futile medium to high altitude level bombing attacks into the Solomons.
To be fair, the Japanese did used the Mitsubishi G4M (an equivalent counterpart to the B-25) as heavy torpedo bombers. Let's just say it resulted in many of them shot down due to lack of protection. I guess the American "learned" their lesson from the Japanese (medium to high altitude level bombing attacks generally made it safer from counterfire, be it from anti-aircraft weapons or fighter planes).
None that we know of, the 75mm was ineffective it was hard to aim, too slow to fire, and heavy as hell. Most of them were just removed for more machine guns or to save weight for rockets which could be salvo fired on mass during a pass and had much greater explosive power to boot. The 75mm gun HE shell isn't even really that potent it was equivalent to about four stick grenades in explosive charge. It wasn't going to sink anything of significant size without tons of hits.
The B-26 with torpedoes would be much more effective anti-shipping weapon, but the Air Force didn't train for that before the war and then gave up on it too quickly, the B-25 could have done the job too the Russians modified theirs and used them to decent effect as heavy torpedo bombers, but the US never integrated torpedoes onto the B-25. It was also very stupid and refused to learn clear lessons from the early actions, the total ineffectiveness of it's level bombing at Midway for instance was heavily criticized, but it was basically deaf too it. You can find quotes from it's leaders talking about how it "took time to prove they were right" about level bombings effectiveness, which shows a blindness to reality so profound it's hard to comprehend. It refused to invest in dive bombers or training for lower level attacks and continued more or less futile medium to high altitude level bombing attacks into the Solomons.
The B-26 in general was actually an excellent plane once a few kinks were ironed out, but it was one that required good training that wasn't always in evidence early in the war. However once those factors were fixed it's virtues could show: good range, quite fast for type, good defensive armament and structural strength, with a fine weapons load for it's size. Used as a medium altitude bomber against targets not far behind the frontline like bridges, rail links, etc in a quasi interdiction role it proved very effective and had the lowest per sortie loss rates among bombers in Europe during combat operations.
Well records prove that Amatsukaze was attacked by B-25s and had to be scuttled. Most likely to have been skip-bombed.
Also, the 75mm in the B-25 was said to have been used against another destroyer but failed. It did however blow up a transport plane ferrying 2 high level officers to Wewak...
