PDA

View Full Version : Gatling Gun/Vulcan Cannon in action, Wow.



Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 03:34 AM
Just found this vid :- Awesome firepower :-


http://pfm6.fmed.isu.edu/Vids/Military/gatlinggun.wmv

I understand there may be reliability issues with gattling guns (in vietnam it was said that the guns on the helicopter doors hardly ever worked), but imagine being on the recieving end of that lot if it WAS in working order.

Its almost like a laser with a constant stream, rather than a conventional machine gun with 'stop/start/stop/start/' hammer effect.

They are all based on the German Mk213 revolver cannon, developed in WW2 but luckily never went into service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_MG213C
More military vids etc :-

http://pfm6.fmed.isu.edu/Vids/Military/

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 03:34 AM
Just found this vid :- Awesome firepower :-


http://pfm6.fmed.isu.edu/Vids/Military/gatlinggun.wmv

I understand there may be reliability issues with gattling guns (in vietnam it was said that the guns on the helicopter doors hardly ever worked), but imagine being on the recieving end of that lot if it WAS in working order.

Its almost like a laser with a constant stream, rather than a conventional machine gun with 'stop/start/stop/start/' hammer effect.

They are all based on the German Mk213 revolver cannon, developed in WW2 but luckily never went into service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_MG213C
More military vids etc :-

http://pfm6.fmed.isu.edu/Vids/Military/

Friendly_flyer
09-08-2006, 03:44 AM
Oh bugger!

GR142-Pipper
09-08-2006, 03:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I understand there may be reliability issues with gattling guns (in vietnam it was said that the guns on the helicopter doors hardly ever worked), but imagine being on the recieving end of that lot if it WAS in working order. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The 20mm M61 has been the standard U.S. air-to-air weapon for the last 40 years now (F-104, F-105, F-4E/F, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, A-7D/E). It's very reliable, works beautifully and, yes, it will get your attention in a big way if you're on the receiving end.

GR142-Pipper

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 03:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I understand there may be reliability issues with gattling guns (in vietnam it was said that the guns on the helicopter doors hardly ever worked), but imagine being on the recieving end of that lot if it WAS in working order. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The 20mm M61 has been the standard U.S. air-to-air weapon for the last 40 years now (F-104, F-105, F-4E/F, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, A-7D/E). It's very reliable, works beautifully and, yes, it will get your attention in a big way if you're on the receiving end.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was the manually fired ones which had the most problems.

I am not sure of the reasons, big possiblility that they were suseptable to the dust thrown up by the helicopter, or maybe they used up their ammo so quickly that they never had enough.

Maybe someone else can tell us more on this.

The Cannons on aircraft are no doubt much better maintained and dont have to be 'marine proof'

CD_kp84yb
09-08-2006, 04:06 AM
That Mg213 and Gatling gun are two different guns. The 213 has one barrel (or tube like we say) and use multiple chambers (like a revolver) the Gatling has multiple barrels each with its own chamber. And was invented in 1800 something.

cheers

GoToAway
09-08-2006, 04:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
They are all based on the German Mk213 revolver cannon, developed in WW2 but luckily never went into service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No they aren't.

"Gatling guns" are based upon the Gatling gun, invented by Richard Gatling and first used during the American Civil War.

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 04:19 AM
Yeah sorry, I just found out.

Its all the modern Rotary Aircraft Cannons which are derived from the Mk213.

Gattling guns are just powered versions of the old 1800's crank handled things.

Sorry for the misinformation.

Treetop64
09-08-2006, 04:23 AM
LOL! Those look like Olegs "Jelly Bean" tracers!

Copyright infringement!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BADroadrunner
09-08-2006, 04:29 AM
that was on that 1 show on discrovery. i forgot the name of it but i belive i seen it on the military channel.

Charos
09-08-2006, 05:19 AM
OK Question.

Gatling gun models (http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=inventors&zu=http%3A%2F%2Ftri.army.mil%2Flc%2Fcs%2Fcsa%2Faag atlin.htm)

The gatling gun appeared in the 1860's and the maxim gun in the 1880's by the turn of the century
the gatling gun had a a ROF of about 1500 and the maxim gun 600.

The gatling gun was dropped soon after in favour of the maxim design.
Aircraft in WW1 had multiple machine guns and by WW2 single fighters were carrying up to 8 of them.
Why was the gatling gun shelved when it seems at the time in firepower it was way above its competition?
It seems the focus was on a lighter infantry weapon.?

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 06:07 AM
I have just been reading about this very subject.

Even WW2 planes could not carry the extra weight needed to power the Gatling gun. Its a very heavy system with its battery and ammunition included.

Only in the 60's with the jets could a fighter finally carry the whole powered gatling gun setup.

'The original Gatling gun had fallen out of favor because of the need for an external power source to rotate the barrel assembly, but the new generation of turbojet-powered fighters offered sufficient electrical power to operate the gun, and electric operation offered superior reliability to a gas operated weapon. With multiple barrels, the rate of fire per barrel could be lower than a single-barrel revolver cannon while still giving a superior total rate of fire.'

tigertalon
09-08-2006, 07:09 AM
Impressive!

Now imagine a gas (rather than electrically) operated GSh-6-23 (GSh) with viturally no spin up lag (cruical in aerial dogfight for example), a fire rate of 9-10.000 rpm and a 23x115 AM-23 munition. It's carried by MiG-31, Su-24 and SPPU-6 gun pod with movable barrels.

Or, even a 30mm version as a CIWS on some russian ships, with each system being composed of 2x 6-barreled 30mm AO-18KD (GSh-6-30) plus 8 missiles similar to the ones on Tunguska system (SA-19 by NATO):

http://www.oao-ratep.com/kashtan.gif

Wouldn't like to be a pilot of a chopper on a receiving end of these babies either.

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 08:03 AM
Do the newer aircraft gatling guns spin all the time so that there is not 'spin up lag'?

I would suspect they have a system where they press a button when combat area is to be entered adn the barrel spins relatively fast all the time, but this is just a guess?

tigertalon
09-08-2006, 08:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Do the newer aircraft gatling guns spin all the time so that there is not 'spin up lag'?

I would suspect they have a system where they press a button when combat area is to be entered adn the barrel spins relatively fast all the time, but this is just a guess? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would make sense at first sight. Still, only electrically operated guns (M61 for example) could be spinning all the times, plus they'd heavily burden the electrical supply, badly needed for operation of all other sensors, radars, avionics etc...

Never heard of something like that.

Jaws2002
09-08-2006, 08:55 AM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-10829087031024...q=tunguska+gun&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-108290870310243909&q=tunguska+gun&hl=en)

Check this mean mofo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

tigertalon
09-08-2006, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-10829087031024...q=tunguska+gun&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-108290870310243909&q=tunguska+gun&hl=en)

Check this mean mofo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, and keep in mind tunguska has 'only' twin barreled cannons...

NonWonderDog
09-08-2006, 09:27 AM
Those Vulcans are crazy, indeed. Maximum rate of fire of 6000 rpm. One hundred rounds per second. Yikes.

horseback
09-08-2006, 10:34 AM
After I left the US Navy, I worked for a defense company that provided tech support for major inspections like INSURVs & SEASQTs (I did search radars). In the early 1980s, the CIWS system was being introduced to the Fleet, and the test/demo for that was always very popular.

It involved a target drogue carried by a Learjet type aircraft at low alts, usually below 500ft (simulating a cruise missile type attack). Ideally, the drogue would cross over the ship from side to side rather than from end to end, allowing both CIWS to engage before the drogue got above the ship.

The reasons for this became apparent when I did a SEASQT on the USS JOHN HANCOCK in early 1984; the towplane made its pass from bow to stern instead of from the briefed port to starboard. The forward CIWS engaged first after having to wait for the towplane to clear its line of fire, cutting the cement filled drogue in half as it passed over the ship. Standing on the upper deck of the superstructure, I watched it tumble end over end towards the fantail, where a good 50-60 observers had gathered. These individuals stampeded forward as the drogue's back half barely cleared the safety netting on the fantail.

Fortunately, the after CIWS mount did not engage at all-it would most likely have fired on the (larger) falling piece, which would have kept it from clearing the fantail.

The sound is unbelievable. The closest I can come to it is to imagine a huge metal drum filled with rocks being pulled across a cobblestone street at high speeds.

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
09-08-2006, 10:46 AM
After more reading it seems that these guns are indeed very reliable, as Pipper says.

It seems to be lack of ammo which led to me reading that they 'Never working' in Vietman Helicopter doors. (At first I thought it meant they were unreliable)

I guess it doesnt take long to use up your ammo supply in one of those things. A M60 firing for half an hour, may be preferable to a Minigun firing for 2 minutes. Depends on the situation I guess.

Monty_Thrud
09-08-2006, 10:53 AM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//HEAVYBLOODYMETAL.gif

...i'll have two to go pronto...they'll fit perfectly on my Triumphhttp://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//HEAVYBLOODYMETAL.gif

Beirut
09-08-2006, 02:27 PM
You'd think the medium bombers like the B-25 or A-20 would have been great planes to carry gatling guns. Or even the B-17 escort models that carried only AA guns but no bombs.

A P-47 with one under each wing woul'd have been quite something. What a lawnmower! (Oleg, would you mind building us one please?)

VW-IceFire
09-08-2006, 03:07 PM
From what I understand even the most modern Vulcan cannons and other similar weapons have a barrel spin up delay. The new Mauser cannon in the Eurofighter is supposed to have a shorter delay than the Vulcan. Not sure about the 25mm they are putting on the JSF.

That video is really cool....I think the ammo belts were filled with purely tracer rounds as thats alot of tracer. Its neat tho...shows you how "laser" like the tracers are. Or maybe rather how tracer like the lasers are in Star Wars http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Charos
09-08-2006, 03:51 PM
I found this interesting

Early tests of electric drive (http://world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm)

"As the automatically operated machine guns became more and more mature, Gatling guns were gradually forgotten, until the late 1940s. At that time, the speed of combat aircrafts became so high, so even most fast-firing conventional machine guns became too slow to achieve desirable number of hits during the very brief encounters. This spawned the famous "Project Vulcan", that was intended to develop a super-rapid firing weapon for US Air Forces. Project was handled by the General Electric Co. First tests were conducted with the late 19th century Gatlings, fitted with electrical drive instead of manually operated crank; this immediately resulted in the rate of fire of about 4 000 rounds per minute, which was very impressive (it must be noted, that such tests were first conducted in early 1890s, but lead to no practical results at that time -there were no need in the rate of fire of up to 3 000 RpM)"

According to this Tests WERE done approx early 1900's with electric drive but there wasnt any use for a fast fireing weapon.

Since when is there never a use in warfare for a faster fireing weapon - after all thats the reason the gun was developed in the first instance.

erco415
09-08-2006, 03:52 PM
The sound is impressive. I had the chance to hear the 30MM on the A-10 in action, it sounds like something from hell.

Charos
09-08-2006, 04:29 PM
Another article seems to confirm Gatling himself utilised an electric motor in the 1890's as a means to improve ROF.

Electric drive (http://www.northstar.k12.ak.us/schools/ryn/projects/inventors/gatling/gatling.html)

"As a result, many other nations bought and used the gun. During the late 1890s, I attached an electric motor to a few experimental models. Those models achieved a rate of fire that exceeded 3,000 shots per minute, a far cry from the original 200 shots per minute."

So project Vulcan was rehashing what Gatling had done 50 years prior.


" worked to improve the gun for many years following the Civil War, and after may years of partnership, the Gatling Gun Company merged with the Colt Patent and Fire Arms Manufacturing Company."

It would appear after Gatling's death in 1903, Colt did not persue the design further.

Xiolablu3
09-09-2006, 11:53 AM
Thats an aamzing Rate of fire to have in 1890.

Ammo carrying would then be a massive factor, how many horses would you need to carry ammo for that gun?

If they could have altered the fire rate then it would have been even more useful.

However the weight and bulk of such a weapon at that time is too much.

6 barrels vs 1 barrel for recoil operated
POwer supply vs no power supply
Ammo load vs less ammo load
Lots of wasted ammo for the gatling.

It was just ahead of its time. A small jacketed MG like the Maxim or Vickers would be about 1/5 of the weight, and thats without the ammo. Very important when you are try8ing to get as many guns as you can to the front.

Its like the Tiger vs Sherman argument. 5 Shermans beat 1 Tiger (usually).

Haigotron
09-09-2006, 12:19 PM
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/9605/1_000_000_rounds_a_minute.html

watch this whole clip, it shows the future of the gatling gun...

watch all of it!!!

its the new...barrel full of bullets triggered by electric current deal

can be shot in pattern or all at once like a shotgun

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From what I understand even the most modern Vulcan cannons and other similar weapons have a barrel spin up delay. The new Mauser cannon in the Eurofighter is supposed to have a shorter delay than the Vulcan. Not sure about the 25mm they are putting on the JSF. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

cant they switch it on to spin w/o firing when they get close to the danger zone?

Kocur_
09-09-2006, 02:26 PM
All Gatling guns have some lag, regardless if they are powered weapons like M61 or automatic like GSh-30-6. In both cases power input is more or less constant, while starting rotation of barrel block naturally takes more power than keeping them rotating due to inertia, hence operation is slower at first shots. Advantage on self-powered weapon would be in lack of lag of the motor itself. Btw. there was at least one M61's self-powered versions too (GAU-4/A) - well "semi-" perhaps, for the weapon needed electric drive to start, then it powered it self by gas pistons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
After more reading it seems that these guns are indeed very reliable, as Pipper says.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gatling guns are very reliable, partly by nature, as they have no problems related with powering the operation - they usually are powerd by outside source (electric or hydraulic motor), which also means that a misfire does not affect shooting, partly for... they have to. Their ROF is so high that after few actions they have more round behind them, than some weapons are expected to fire through their entire life cycle. M61A1 has reliability of 10.000 MRBF, scheduled maintenance after 15.000 rds, life of 145.000 rds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I have just been reading about this very subject.

Even WW2 planes could not carry the extra weight needed to power the Gatling gun. Its a very heavy system with its battery and ammunition included.

Only in the 60's with the jets could a fighter finally carry the whole powered gatling gun setup.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really...? M61A1 system needs up to 30PS, but thats the power requrement of the gun itself AND linkless ammo feed system (that big drum), which is powered via shaft by the same electric or hydraulic motor. I cant tell whats the power breakdown, but if the gun was limited in ROF to about 3.000 rpm (which would mean less power needed itself) it could use usual belt feed and linkless feed system requirement would fall off. Now say Fw-190's Bosch electric generator, driven by the engine, had 2,7PS. I dont see how installing say 20PS generator could be any problem in WW2 fighter, surely bombers of the era had more.

NonWonderDog
09-09-2006, 02:40 PM
"Spin up delay" is very misleading when talking about the Vulcan cannon. The gun starts firing as soon as you pull the trigger, but it will take about half a second to get up to the full 6000 rpm cycle rate.

The end result is that a one second burst will fire 70 rounds, instead of 100. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It's really not much of a problem. There's no need to waste power spinning the barrels up before firing.

Xiolablu3
09-09-2006, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I have just been reading about this very subject.

Even WW2 planes could not carry the extra weight needed to power the Gatling gun. Its a very heavy system with its battery and ammunition included.

Only in the 60's with the jets could a fighter finally carry the whole powered gatling gun setup.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really...? M61A1 system needs up to 30PS, but thats the power requrement of the gun itself AND linkless ammo feed system (that big drum), which is powered via shaft by the same electric or hydraulic motor. I cant tell whats the power breakdown, but if the gun was limited in ROF to about 3.000 rpm (which would mean less power needed itself) it could use usual belt feed and linkless feed system requirement would fall off. Now say Fw-190's Bosch electric generator, driven by the engine, had 2,7PS. I dont see how installing say 20PS generator could be any problem in WW2 fighter, surely bombers of the era had more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you tell me why they didnt use them then, lol.

I am not an expert, its just what I read.

From wikipedia

''The original Gatling gun had fallen out of favor because of the need for an external power source to rotate the barrel assembly, but the new generation of turbojet-powered fighters offered sufficient electrical power to operate the gun, and electric operation offered superior reliability to a gas operated weapon. With multiple barrels, the rate of fire per barrel could be lower than a single-barrel revolver cannon while still giving a superior total rate of fire.'

VW-IceFire
09-09-2006, 10:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
"Spin up delay" is very misleading when talking about the Vulcan cannon. The gun starts firing as soon as you pull the trigger, but it will take about half a second to get up to the full 6000 rpm cycle rate.

The end result is that a one second burst will fire 70 rounds, instead of 100. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It's really not much of a problem. There's no need to waste power spinning the barrels up before firing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly right. Its not so much the delay in firing but the delay in spinning up to full speed. The newest of guns are supposed to spin upto a full cyclic rate faster than older models. Not sure if the Vulcan has been improved at all for the F-22A or not.

Hurri-Khan
09-10-2006, 01:31 AM
Here's another neat clip: http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-3...un_on_test_stand.WMV (http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-3-28_A-10_Gun_on_test_stand.WMV)


&gt;&gt;&gt;-H-K---&gt;

KaleunFreddie
09-10-2006, 02:28 AM
Saw this some time ago.. AFAIK this 'minigun' fires 5mm shells, which should be ineffectual, but the ROF is so high that it chews anything to pieces. pretty impressive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kocur_
09-10-2006, 02:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Well you tell me why they didnt use them then, lol.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the very same reason why other inventions didnt happen earlier, although they could have...

Kocur_
09-10-2006, 03:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KaleunFreddie:
Saw this some time ago.. AFAIK this 'minigun' fires 5mm shells, which should be ineffectual, but the ROF is so high that it chews anything to pieces. pretty impressive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was prototype of Minigun firing 5.56 x 45 NATO instead of 7.62 x 51 NATO, i.e. intermediate round instead of rifle one - the XM214 Microgun aka Six-Pak, but it was never serialled.

tigertalon
09-10-2006, 04:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
All Gatling guns have some lag, regardless if they are powered weapons like M61 or automatic like GSh-30-6. In both cases power input is more or less constant, while starting rotation of barrel block naturally takes more power than keeping them rotating due to inertia, hence operation is slower at first shots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gas operated cannons will spin up much faster due to much more power. Electrical supplies can not compare with gas power output. While both are strong enough to sustain the weapon at it's max rate of fire/roll, they are very different at accelerating it to that rate. So GSh-6-23 (not 30mm) will spin up much faster than M-61 (that needs about .5 sec for max rotation speed). Taking into account that in aerial dogfights only very short bursts are usually fired, this can be quite important. How often aerial battles are guns only is another story.

Kocur_
09-10-2006, 05:05 AM
TT: power input, regardless if its electric, hydraulic or gas (which is nothing more than external combustion piston engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), is about constant. You can judge the power avaliable by comparing max ROFs of two guns. Their spin up time will be proportional - there is no magic, those are just diffrent power sources.

tigertalon
09-10-2006, 05:36 AM
I agree, it is constant. But at gas operated gun it's larger. For every shot fired, there will be way more Joules of energy at disposal from gas operated gun than from electric one. What I am claiming is that initial rotating acceleration of GSh will be much higher than the one of M-61.

ROF or M61 is about 6.000, ROF of GSh-6-23 is about 10.000 with rounds weiging almost twice as much each! Gas will provide more power than electricity (again, I agree, they will both be constant, but far not equal).

Further, comparing weights of GSh-6-23 (roughly 75kg) and M-61 (roughly 110 kg) will make GSh spin up even faster. It's like comparing the accelerating of 'gas' driven ferrari and electric driven TGV. Their final speeds may be comparable, but ferrari will reach it much sooner.

Kocur_
09-10-2006, 06:16 AM
Beautiful side of Gatling guns is that one can regulate ROF by controlling power input. GSh-6-23 is faster because more power is used to operate the weapon. If one wanted to have Vulcan shoot at higher ROF, all he would have to do would be attaching more powerful motor. The only difference important form ROF POV (WOW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) between Gsh-6-XX and M61 is power input. ROF "doesnt care" what kind of source is used. Generally speaking: what limits ROF increace is reliability. I wonder what is Gshs MRBF?

Xiolablu3
09-10-2006, 07:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Well you tell me why they didnt use them then, lol.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the very same reason why other inventions didnt happen earlier, although they could have... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it had already been INVENTED in 1890.

Kocur_
09-10-2006, 08:06 AM
What was invented? Possibility of replacing muslce power with electric motor power for operating Gatling gun? Well intersting experiment, but with no practical meaning at all at the time - nobody needed so very fast firing weapon in 1890. Kind of like Heron of Alexandria steam engine from 1st century...
It was simply forgotten until need emerged some time later.

tigertalon
09-10-2006, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Beautiful side of Gatling guns is that one can regulate ROF by controlling power input. GSh-6-23 is faster because more power is used to operate the weapon. If one wanted to have Vulcan shoot at higher ROF, all he would have to do would be attaching more powerful motor. The only difference important form ROF POV (WOW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) between Gsh-6-XX and M61 is power input. ROF "doesnt care" what kind of source is used. Generally speaking: what limits ROF increace is reliability. I wonder what is Gshs MRBF? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Advantages of gas operated gatlings IMO are higher rof, electric-independance (consequently lower weight because of missing batteries), shorter spin-up, less recoil (as some of recoil is 'used' for operation) at the cost of reliability and unability to spin the barrels prior to firing. Reliability probably suffers considerably, firstly because of higher ROF, and secondly because the power output drops every time a shell fails (but it most likely does not stop because of single bad shell).

MRBF of electric gatlings like M61 is some 500.000 rounds http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif can't find the one for russian gatling (it's not even on Williams&Gustin page), but overal I guess this is a kind of 'spit_vs_109' argument.

Xiolablu3
09-10-2006, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
What was invented? Possibility of replacing muslce power with electric motor power for operating Gatling gun? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

Kocur_
09-10-2006, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:

Advantages of gas operated gatlings IMO are higher rof </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really dont think ROF is dependant on the power source. Its dependant on the amount of power and that - on target ROF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">electric-independance (consequently lower weight because of missing batteries) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Electric independance - yes, but I dont see how that can be any advantage in air, sea or vehicle aplications - and there arent any other - apart from 'Predator' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. In all those cases elecricity is both available and (apart from air) necessary to move the weapon around. External powering means that the weapon is clean - no issues related with gas fouling and electric motors are compat, powerful and reliable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">shorter spin-up </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is purely dependant on power input: give me a M61A1 and 100PS instead of say 30PS motor and it will have both higher ROF and shorter spin up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">less recoil (as some of recoil is 'used' for operation) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im affraid not! All examples of self powered Gatling guns I know of are gas operated (some of the barrels have gas orifices, gas goes to gas pipe, piston acts on a cam via a lug and its reciprocative movement is transferred into barrel block rotation). There is absolutely no relation with recoil as the barrels do not reciprocate inside weapon, like they do in recoil operated weapons, which indeed means more gentle recoil.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Reliability probably suffers considerably, firstly because of higher ROF, and secondly because the power output drops every time a shell fails (but it most likely does not stop because of single bad shell). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bet KE of the barrel block is enough to keep the weapon working even in case of a misfire or even few of them probably, not to mention that there is still some pressure in gas pipe of previous barrel). The only consequence of a misfire would be probably momentary lower ROF.

What I see as a reliability lowering factor is gas orifices fouling - perhaps there are some gas regulators (like in gas operated mgs) but I dont really know. Additionally self powered Gatlings are not entirely self powered! Initially such weapons (GAU-4/A, GSh-6-XX, JaKB-12,7) are powered by external power source: electric, pirotechnical (there is a high pressure gas generator, which provides pressure for initial shots) or even... spring loaded device (4 barrel 12,7 x 107 JaKB hmg known from Mi-24).