PDA

View Full Version : Gatling guns in WW2



XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 03:48 PM
I often wonder why nobody tried gatling guns on planes in WW2. Instead of 6 or 8 fifty cals why not one 4500rd/min multi-barrel? The technology was there; has been since civil war times.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 03:48 PM
I often wonder why nobody tried gatling guns on planes in WW2. Instead of 6 or 8 fifty cals why not one 4500rd/min multi-barrel? The technology was there; has been since civil war times.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 03:52 PM
I would imagine the weight would be a factor in throwing off the centre of gravity of the plane.

As well, one jam and you are toast.

My two cents.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>http://canflag.ptbcanadian.com/images/provincal/small.coat/crest.gif
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 04:27 PM
Yes, weight was an issue. They didn't have electrically driven ones yet.

&lt;script>c2="#444839";c3="#000000";c4="#444839";c5="#444839";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=c2;a[a.length-3].bgColor=c3;a[a.length-4].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-5].bgColor=c5;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c5;image="http://www.themenkey.net/~vecdran/il-2.jpg";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+image+")";oa.backgroundPosition="left center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat"; var VecAvatar='http://www.themenkey.net/~vecdran/A.gif'; var a=document.all.tags("img"); for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=VecAvatar;a=document.all.tags["td"); for[i=0;i<a.length;i++) if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["vecdran")!=-1)ii=i</script>
<center>http://www.themenkey.net/~vecdran/brushedmetal.gif
<center><table style="filter:glow[color=#8BD8E8,strength=4)"><TD><font color="#003D76"face="americanabt">If you meet me ingame, watch the chat,
you'll find me screaming about how good
I am at stalling into the ground</font></table><table style="filter:glow[color=#7BDB4C,strength=7)"><TD><font color="#092201"face="arial">--Professional Plane Staller--</font></table></center>

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 04:56 PM
lol i just tried to imagine a Mustang equipped with a civil war version of that gun chasing a 109 and the pilot has to turn this thing by hand whenever he wants to shoot lol /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'd like to try the A10 in Lock On.

http://www.just-pooh.com/images/eten.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 05:18 PM
Might also be an issue of space. Event the 20mm cannons didn't fit entirely in the bf019 E wings. let alone a multi-barreled gun. The fairings that would be needed would probably kill all aerodynamic.

It could've been used by bombers but, one jam in the heat of the battle and it is over.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://members.chello.se/ven/ham-pin.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 05:21 PM
Mk103 wrote:
- I often wonder why nobody tried gatling guns on
- planes in WW2.

It was tried. The germans had one in development
at the end of WW2 that I believe was developed
into the 30mm Aden cannon by the British. It was
called something _like_ the Mk201C or something.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 05:42 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
-
- It was tried. The germans had one in development
- at the end of WW2 that I believe was developed
- into the 30mm Aden cannon by the British. It was
- called something _like_ the Mk201C or something.
-
-

The number is 213, but it was a revolver cannon not a rotary cannon. The British, French and Americans all developed cannons from it.




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 05:56 PM
There werent any andvanced materials or manufacturing technics.
The most advanced machine gun of the time was german MG42 the allies were amazed by it(and afraid).
And fitting multibarreled cannon (whirbewind) in air plane is not possible because of the weight.

About civilwar gatling,the fire rate werentthat high http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 08:58 PM
Weight was of great importance. Also you must consider the ammount of ammo, recoil, cooling effectand last but not least, these things are big!

"An attack against a unit of Flying Fortresses was something like controlled suicide...Sometimes 50, Sometimes 80 machine guns were firing at you... You attempted to close you eyes & continue to fire, Frightened to death, Frightened to death."

Oberst Johannes Steinhoff (176 kills)


http://www.jg54greenhearts.com/Lang.htm

http://home.wanadoo.nl/wana.mail1/Op****/WurgerwhinerLogo.jpg



1C Ankanor, Defender Of The Truth

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 09:33 PM
How come the germans never tried a variant of the MG42 in aircraft. It wouldve been awesome compared to the crappy MG17(well maybe its just crappy in FB).

--lbhkilla--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G√¬∂ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 09:49 PM
i wonder about that too. the 42 is still one of the best Mg. the german and austrian army are using modifications of it especially fire rate was cut down a bit cause it overheats fast otherwise. the american Mg is a development based on Mg42 too as far as i know.

http://www.just-pooh.com/images/eten.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 09:58 PM
i'd love to try that gatling in the nose of A-10 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>[i]1mg to me and ur down /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif [i]</center>

<center>-=‚'EverdarK<|>Tracer‚'=-</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:09 PM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- How come the germans never tried a variant of the
- MG42 in aircraft. It wouldve been awesome compared
- to the crappy MG17(well maybe its just crappy in
- FB).
-


They fire the same round with the exception that MG-17 has higher pressure = more punch. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:11 PM
I must say,
1 weight wouldn't be a factor. Not if Germany put a 75mm anti-tank gun on an HS-129 and the Mosquito could carry 4000 lbs worth of bombs.
2 Jams wouldn't be a factor because Gatling guns don't jam (in the regular machine gun sense).
3 Lack of advanced metals wouldn't be a factor because of the complicated/advanced materials used in the 262 and so on.
4 A n electrically driven Gatling gun wouldn't be hard to produce. Slap a electric motor on a multi-barrel and let's go WW2 people.
Imagine what a 6000rd/min 8mm on a BF-110 could do to columns of russian infantry!!



Message Edited on 06/24/0305:13PM by Mk103

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:13 PM
for that matter, remember the mossie with the 57 mm cannon and the B25 with the 75 mm cannon?

I'm a crappy pilot, but one hell of a shot.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:18 PM
IO think in 1926 a russian scientist created a 76mm aircraft cannon, "without recoil" Then in the late 40s they planned installing 2 100mm cannons on a twin-engined jet interceptor. Beware B-29/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://home.wanadoo.nl/wana.mail1/Op****/WurgerwhinerLogo.jpg

"An attack against a unit of Flying Fortresses was something like controlled suicide...Sometimes 50, Sometimes 80 machine guns were firing at you... You attempted to close you eyes & continue to fire, Frightened to death, Frightened to death."

Oberst Johannes Steinhoff (176 kills)

1C Ankanor, Defender Of The Truth

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:19 PM
They should've strapped an Organ gun on a plane too. I mean that technology has been around since medieval times. Can you imagine how easy it would be bringing down an enemy bomber with one B&Z cannonball volley!




<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

<center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Heaven Forbid.</table style></center>
<table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=1)">
<font size=+2><font color="black">Still loving my P-39</font></font> </table style>
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)"> www.blitzpigs.com</center> (http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>) </table style>

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:26 PM
Round wasn't powerful enough, not accurate enough for plane mounting.
lbhskier37 wrote:
- How come the germans never tried a variant of the
- MG42 in aircraft. It wouldve been awesome compared
- to the crappy MG17(well maybe its just crappy in
- FB).
-
---lbhkilla--
-
- http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg.
-
- "Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"
-
- "We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr
- Reichsmarshall."
- When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had
- shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann
- G√¬∂ring who felt himself touched by this, said:
- "That's completely impossible. The Americans only
- know how to make razor blades." and the above was
- Rommels reply.



<center>http://www.themenkey.net/~vecdran/brushedmetal.gif
<center><table style="filter:glow[color=#8BD8E8,strength=4)"><TD><font color="#003D76"face="americanabt">If you meet me ingame, watch the chat,
you'll find me screaming about how good
I am at stalling into the ground</font></table><table style="filter:glow[color=#7BDB4C,strength=7)"><TD><font color="#092201"face="arial">--Professional Plane Staller--</font></table></center>

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:28 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- The number is 213, but it was a revolver cannon not
- a rotary cannon. The British, French and Americans
- all developed cannons from it.

I was getting close at least :-)

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:32 PM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- How come the germans never tried a variant of the
- MG42 in aircraft.

By the point they had developed the MG42 7.92mm
calibre guns were on the way out, being replaced
by 13mm guns and 20mm cannon, except in some
flexible mounts where the MG81z dual barrel
gun (two guns bolted together, essentially) were
used. So the MG42 was too little too late.

In fact MG17s (and MG15, MG81, etc) found their
way to the infantry, and even some MG131s.

Also I am not sure if the MG42 mechanism would
have been suitable for extended firing periods
with no chance of feed problems.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2003, 10:34 PM
Ankanor wrote:
- IO think in 1926 a russian scientist created a 76mm
- aircraft cannon, "without recoil" Then in the late
- 40s they planned installing 2 100mm cannons on a
- twin-engined jet interceptor. Beware B-29/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif -
-

AFAIK those were single shot weapons, zero recoil
because they also fired a projectile backwards.
But they couldn't be reloaded.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 12:28 AM
Surley the gun could work. I don't see why some people have to act a girl about it like BpGemini and others. Some people act like they know everything about why and why not people what they did 60 years ago. YAATD

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 12:31 AM
Message Edited on 06/24/0307:32PM by Mk103

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:08 AM
Mk103 wrote:

"Imagine what a 6000rd/min 8mm on a BF-110 could
do to columns of russian infantry!! "



The same thing the IL-2's did to columns of german infantry. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
2 ShKAS MGs each with ROF of 1800rpm x 2=3600rpm.
2 ShVAK cannons 800rpm x 2= 1600rpm

3600+1600=5200rpm in all, and that includes the much more lethal 20mm cannon rounds.




<center>[BlitzPig_Voskhod]<center>
<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gingernuts/blitz_anim.gif <center>

http://airbase.uka.ru/hangar/planes/pix/su27vsf15.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:17 AM
Mk103 wrote:
- Surley the gun could work. I don't see why some
- people have to act a girl about it like BpGemini and
- others. Some people act like they know everything
- about why and why not people what they did 60 years
- ago. YAATD



See his disclaimer, Mk.

Here it is:
"Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot.
If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter.
Heaven Forbid."

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center>[BlitzPig_Voskhod]<center>
<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gingernuts/blitz_anim.gif <center>

http://airbase.uka.ru/hangar/planes/pix/su27vsf15.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 01:21 AM
In 1918, a 12 barrel motor-driven aircraft machine gun was made by the Fokker Waffenfabrik, a branch of the Fokker company directed by Lubbe.

A photo can be seen in "Arado - History of an Aircraft Company" pg14.




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:21 AM
A recoiless rifle is essentially a bazzoka for an easy comparison. It does not 'fire' a projectile backwards but has an open breach that releases the shell casing (if any) backwards. The recoil is almost completely removed because the hot gases are not expelled forwards but forwards and backwards nearly equalizing forces.

The main downfall is that even though simple to reload it takes large movements and would be prevalent to jamming due to loading automation technologies of the time, as well as a much reduced 'approximately halved' muzzle velocity of a projectile of similar size fired from a closed breach weapon with same charge.


AaronGT wrote:
-
- Ankanor wrote:
-- IO think in 1926 a russian scientist created a 76mm
-- aircraft cannon, "without recoil" Then in the late
-- 40s they planned installing 2 100mm cannons on a
-- twin-engined jet interceptor. Beware B-29/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif -
--
-
- AFAIK those were single shot weapons, zero recoil
- because they also fired a projectile backwards.
- But they couldn't be reloaded.
-
-



http://cragger.freeservers.com/images/il2_sig_1.jpg


Message Edited on 06/24/0308:27PM by Cragger

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 05:28 AM
Who needs a gattling cannon with this setup?

<a href=http://members.tripod.com/~bberg/88ppsh.jpg>Tu-2 Ground attack</a>

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 07:37 AM
Tripod does not allow remote linking.

http://cragger.freeservers.com/images/il2_sig_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 07:39 AM
Waste of badly needed SvKAS machine guns if you ask me. Would have been better served in the hands of grunts on the ground during the long eastern march.

http://cragger.freeservers.com/images/il2_sig_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 07:40 AM
Kradreve wrote:
- i'd love to try that gatling in the nose of A-10



In the nose ??? ummh yeah ... wellllll

fluke39
06-25-2003, 08:57 AM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Ankanor wrote:
-- IO think in 1926 a russian scientist created a 76mm
-- aircraft cannon, "without recoil" Then in the late
-- 40s they planned installing 2 100mm cannons on a
-- twin-engined jet interceptor. Beware B-29/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif -
--
-
- AFAIK those were single shot weapons, zero recoil
- because they also fired a projectile backwards.
- But they couldn't be reloaded.
-

IIRC by the mid-late stages of the war several recoiless cannons were in use in airplanes



<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/ffluke.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 08:57 AM
About the comment on the 75mm anti-tank cannon on the Hs-129. It wasn't a cannon persay, they installed a battery of six 75mm recoiless smoothbore tubes that fired downward and to the rear. The setup was automatically fired when the aircraft overflew metal objects.

Also weight would definetly still be a problem. While a few planes employed a 75mm cannon it tended to be used on larger aircraft (i.e. solid nose B-25's in the Pacific either had up to 14 forward firing .50's, including the top turret or around 10 forward firing .50's and one 75mm) needless to say it didn't carry much ammo for it especially in smaller aircraft. What you're talking about is a multi-barrelled large calibre weapon rotating at high speeds, put that on a small sized aircraft of WWII era and I'd imagine you'd have ammo load, rotation, center of gravity, torque, etc.,etc. problems.

edit; Now that I think about it I think I do remember reading about a few Hs-129's carrying a clipped 75mm cannon under the fuselage, but even then it's a big jump to a gatling gun type set-up.

http://www.dodhq.net/~pmf/Seegz/Segal.bmp

There are two kinds of people in this world, those with loaded guns and those who dig. Start digging.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 09:45 AM
Cragger wrote:
- A recoiless rifle is essentially a bazzoka for an
- easy comparison. It does not 'fire' a projectile
- backwards but has an open breach that releases the
- shell casing (if any) backwards.

However, some of the recoiless weapons tried on
aircraft really did fire an additional projectile
backwards, and were single shot. I think that includes
some of those mentioned by the previous poster, or
the ones to which I am alluding maybe additional
projects to those mentioned.



Message Edited on 06/25/0308:46AM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 09:47 AM
A book published on the A10 several years ago had a potted history of gats and cited the WWII German interest as a means of increasing rate of fire whilst dealing with the scarcity of the high quality metals required.

The theory was that rather than 1 barrel of very high quality taking (and this is pure example) 100 rpm, you'd use 3 barrels of lower quality capable of handling 60 rpm each. Slower rate reduces barrel wear and temp but the revolver arrangement of breach, bolt assembly and techie stuff beyond me would give the whole assembly 140 rpm.

As an aside I think (but am willing to learn) electrically driven chain guns should not jam from a misfire becuase the load / unload process is not dependant upon the recoil process created from the round in the breech firing sucessfully.

In the Foxhound's Kennel is...

Duron 1.2 Ghz, Win XP, 512MB PC133, , Ti4800SE,SB 5.1, Dx9.0a and a small fowl in a fruit tree of indeterminate origin.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 10:11 AM
Gershy wrote:
- i wonder about that too. the 42 is still one of the
- best Mg. the german and austrian army are using
- modifications of it especially fire rate was cut
- down a bit cause it overheats fast otherwise. the
- american Mg is a development based on Mg42 too as
- far as i know.

The reason is simply that the MG42 is unreliable, thats not a terribly big problem for an infantry gunner as he can un-jam it, but in an aircraft, thats the end of it.

Even the modern MG-3, the version the German and Danish army uses today, is very prone to jams, i have a mate who was gunner support, he hated the MG-3, "You cant fire a damn 50 round belt without atleast 1 jam, its a hog!", allso, it doesent use desintegrating links, and heat is a big problem, they will cookoff easilly if you dont change barrel, and changing barrel is not very easy when compared to the FN-MAG, or even the old BREN-guns, which the MAG borrowed some features from.


The only American weapon based on the MG42 was the M-60, it was a limited success at best, suffering from the same problems the MG42 had whilst adding some of its own, the new MINIMI's are a futher development of the FN-MAG, a mucher better squad based weapon than the MG42 ever was if you ask me.

As for Chainguns, it is not as usefull a design as many people seem to think, the thing a Chaingun does well is fiering large rounds at a high ROF, because the multi-barrel design renders heat less of a problem, but it comes at a cost, namely weight and size, which is not a good thing on an aircraft, for the most part, conventional HMG and cannon designs will be able to fire similar rounds at a slightly lower ROF, which is a better tradeoff considdering they only have half the weight and half the size, hell you can mount 2 of them and end up spitting more lead than 1 Chaingun could.. ofcourse im thinking of WWII and Korea era aircraft here, as modern jets have plenty thrust-to-weight to make it a moot point.

<center>http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg <center>

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:00 PM
Even in Vietnam thses guns were totally unreliable and always breaking/jamming whatever.

Also the amount of ammo you have to carry for just a 5 second burst is phenomenal.



Im sure that cannons were also thought to be much more preferable to MGs by that time anyway. Planes were becoming more and more amoured. THere may have been the technology there for a Gatling machine gun, but Im pretty sure they didnt have the technology for a gatling (vulcan) cannon.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 02:10 PM
changing barrel in the MG3 difficult ????????????

ok, i dont know the Bren, but changing barrel in the MG3 ist not complikatet and quit fast to handle !!

i hated it only for its weight , ~11kg , damn /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 05:06 PM
Sorry, but any LMG design where you need an asbestos glove to change barrel is poorly thought out, take a look at the FN-MAG, flick a switch and remove the barrel using the carry handle, now thats good thinking!

<center>http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg <center>

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2003, 06:34 PM
Gershy wrote:
- i wonder about that too. the 42 is still one of the
- best Mg. the german and austrian army are using
- modifications of it especially fire rate was cut
- down a bit cause it overheats fast otherwise. the
- american Mg is a development based on Mg42 too as
- far as i know.
-

You mean this one? Austrian MG74

http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/mg74-02.jpg



Copyright by Florian Kollmann


Read for more Information (German)

http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/mg74.html


http://home.pages.at/bundesheer-infoecke/th-stg77.jpg


http://www.bmlv.gv.at/images/flagge.gif