PDA

View Full Version : Gatling gun



super71957
08-25-2007, 01:27 PM
In light of MB_Avro"s discussion on cannon vs MG, I got to wondering why the Gatling gun was not reinvented to be used in WWII ??
It seems like not only would this be a great ground weapon, but also in say, a B-17.
Gunners would be able to put alot more rounds on target for the short window he
had to fire.
Not to mention for ships,carriers,gunboats etc.
A 20mm version would have been awsome in these roles.
So what do you think,why no gatling guns?

super71957
08-25-2007, 01:27 PM
In light of MB_Avro"s discussion on cannon vs MG, I got to wondering why the Gatling gun was not reinvented to be used in WWII ??
It seems like not only would this be a great ground weapon, but also in say, a B-17.
Gunners would be able to put alot more rounds on target for the short window he
had to fire.
Not to mention for ships,carriers,gunboats etc.
A 20mm version would have been awsome in these roles.
So what do you think,why no gatling guns?

stalkervision
08-25-2007, 01:36 PM
equiped with a 20mm rotary gatling gun in the rear. Only trouble was it flew so fast that the cannon rounds came out at less then lets say optimium speed... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.aviation-history.com/convair/b58.html

Avont29
08-25-2007, 01:38 PM
a gatling gun is really heavy, it would probally almost definately affect airplane performance, by weighing the plane down.

Choctaw111
08-25-2007, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Avont29:
a gatling gun is really heavy, it would probally almost definately affect airplane performance, by weighing the plane down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not more heavy than 4 or 6 machine guns that's for sure. Richard Gatling got his gun to fire 3,000 Rounds per Minute in a electrically motorized test back in 1898! It wasn't until the late 40's or early 50's (I cannot remember) that a US Air Force officer brought this testing back to life again and the Vulcan was born. I have often wondered why the Gatling was used in the American Civil War and then never again till Vietnam. Even the Russians were sold the design by Gatling himself. His invention made him a famous man and he was treated like a king wherever he went.

Friendly_flyer
08-25-2007, 02:17 PM
I think the answer simply is one of economy. How much protection can you get from a certain amount of money and all that. Using a fairly simple and excellently reliable MG that was already in production probably gave more "bang for the buck".

super71957
08-25-2007, 02:46 PM
All good points.
As far as weight goes I don"t think it would make too terrible a difference on a B-17 for example.However if that was the case then maybe only in key positions.The tail gunner would have loved one of these weapons!
As far as economy goes I can buy that.
Again tho" if better weaponry allowed just one more B-17 to come home per mission then it would be worth it.
One that of course would have normally been shot down.
That is at the cost of 10 good men,there training and the cost of fully equiped heavy bomber.
Sometimes I don"t understand the Army Air Corps way of thinking. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DKoor
08-25-2007, 02:57 PM
Perhaps they could install them in rear positions....

Grand_Armee
08-25-2007, 03:01 PM
I think it may have simply been that nobody thought of it. When Hiram Maxim invented the machine gun, he invented the 'NEW' killing machine. The Gatling gun was old hat.

Maxim's machine (and copies thereof) did 'great' work in WWI. So, at the beginning of WWII, nobody thought they'd need more than a few .30 cal machine guns in their aircraft to do what had been done 20 years earlier. In too many cases it was decided that speed would save the bombers.

Added into the equation is rate of fire/amount of ammo you can carry/weight/speed/bombload.

Only the American heavy bombers carried huge amounts of ammunition for their defence. EVeryone else decided to be much more economical.

When the firearm replaced the bow and arrow, I doubt that anybody went back looking for a better bow with pulley's and cables to increase range and speed of fire.

Anyway...it's just a thought. I didn't read it anywhere.

Now you've made me form a question of my own...but I won't steal your thread. I'll start another.

Taylortony
08-25-2007, 03:07 PM
this would of done http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Pgun.htm

Jaws2002
08-25-2007, 10:05 PM
In the air I think it also has something to do with the amount of electricity needed to power the thing.
I don't know if the planes back then generated that much electricity.

han freak solo
08-25-2007, 10:08 PM
Weren't gun turrets electric-hydraulic affairs??

Waldo.Pepper
08-25-2007, 11:50 PM
A minigun can operate on the electricity that a jeep has available to it.

I think it is weight that is the issue. Its not the weight of the gun per se that is prohibitive. Its the weight of all the ammo that the thing consumes @ 100 rounds per second (ish)

FE_pilot
08-26-2007, 12:03 AM
Maybe there was no good mounting point on fighter aircraft, without dramatically decreasing its performance.

It might have worked on twin engine night fighters though, they seemed to have carried tons of armament from a searchlight to 6x30mm and 2x20mm of the He-219-Owl.

Enforcer572005
08-26-2007, 12:16 AM
As mentioned, they would be kinda large for a wing mount, and the ammo consumption would be prohibitive. They already had .50 cal that fired at extremely high rates, so they didn't need it, as it was sufficient for prop planes.

The Gatling design was adopted in the mid 50s because jets needed a weapon that packed alot of firepower in a short second long burst. If you fly the jets in this sim, you will see, as in reality, that you only have a second or so to put fire on target. The rotory cannon was just the solution, as 100 rds of 20mm in a second was just about right for jet combat.

It just wasn't needed in WW2.

BTW, they were used extensively in the Spanish American war. They are credited with being the main reason several battles were won against the Spanish, despite them being armed with a few Maxim MGs. They were very devastating, and these were the very same weapons used in the Civil war.

Gibbage1
08-26-2007, 12:39 AM
I think the P-38 could of fit a 20MM gattling in the nose. I would of gone for that over the 20MM/50 cal it had. Spitting 20MM shells at 2000RPM is just deadly.

The problem for a fighter is the spin up time. In a dogfight, a lot of shots are snap shots. So having to wait a few seconds for it to spin up will really hurt dogfighting.

Charos
08-26-2007, 12:48 AM
When a technology whatever it maybe in this case the Maxim gun becomes entreched IE: it gathers critical mass (Inertia) it takes alot of force or some unforseen set of circumstances to overthrow it.

The Gatling gun was the better product just as the Beta video casette's were but they both missed gaining critical mass.

Its fallacy to think that the better product wins the day, its the product with the best backing and marketing that usually gets ontop.

Even if this situation occurs for the short term it invalidates patents that only last for 15 years so the end justifies the means.

Charos
08-26-2007, 12:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I think the P-38 could of fit a 20MM gattling in the nose. I would of gone for that over the 20MM/50 cal it had. Spitting 20MM shells at 2000RPM is just deadly.

The problem for a fighter is the spin up time. In a dogfight, a lot of shots are snap shots. So having to wait a few seconds for it to spin up will really hurt dogfighting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can have the Gatling set to spool before target acquisition is acquired.

Problem solved.

scaredycat1
08-26-2007, 01:30 AM
Just the wieght of the ammunition needed for more than a 1 second sqirt or 2 would would make it unfeasable for the horespower back then wouldnt it?

Waldo.Pepper
08-26-2007, 02:14 AM
Toward the end of the war the Germans did develope a gun that was a almost a gatling gun.


"To replace the MK 108 as the standard German heavy cannon, the Mauser company came up with its tour de force, the magnificent MG 213. Initially produced with a calibre of 20 mm, the MG 213 was later to have been built in a 30-mm version as well. The 7.4 ounce shells of the 20-mm version were about twice as heavy as the normal projectile for this calibre, and the MG 213 spewed them out at a muzzle velocity of 3,300 feet per second and a rate of 1,200 per minute. The reason for this superb performance was that the weapon was fitted with a unique revolving chamber which served as both breech and part of the feed mechanism (see diagram). Just too late to see action during the Second World War, the MG 213 represented the zenith of aircraft gun design in 1945 and dominated it for more than a decade afterwards. After the war everybody copied its clever feed system, which are used in the American M-39, the British Aden, the French DEFA, and the Russian NR-30."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/mk%20213%20gun/08-26-2007010441AM.jpg

JimmyBlonde
08-26-2007, 02:25 AM
Well I am glad those AI snipers don't have Gatling guns

Charos
08-26-2007, 03:56 AM
Extending on from previous post:

By and large the primary reason for the Maxim Guns large scale adoption over the Gatling was simply due to the fact that it was before its time.

When a technology is not self sufficient and depends on other infrastructure for market acceptance and that infrastructure has not yet been invented then it will fail.

In Gatlings case it required a machine large enough to make suitable useage of it and the large amount of associated ammunition.

In the period of 1850 - 1914, there really wasnt much in warfare that didnt walk on two or four legs.

The maxim gun gained traction because it was light weight and firepower could be brought to bare by shear numbers.

Gatling had difficulty because, not only did he have to invent the gun but a vehicle or means in which to effictively deploy it.

The same analogy could be used in Edison's case if he invented the lightbulb without first inventing the means to power it.

One13
08-26-2007, 06:43 AM
some of the problems with Gatling guns are:-
Electric power to run the guns,
Spin up times (when the guns start firing the rate of fire is low),
Ammunition supply, it needs a lot of ammunition and a powered supply to get it into the gun.

I am always suprised that for fighters something like the Gebauer engine powered guns were not used.

Also I think that the Gast type gun could have been used. The Gast machine gun was designed in WW1. It was a twin barreled gun where the recoil of one barrel provided the energy for loadind, chambering and firing the other. It had a rate of fire of 1,600 to 1,800 rpm.
The Russians have produced gas operated cannon versions of this system.
The GSH-23 fires 23x115 shells at 3,000 to 3,400 rpm.
The GSH-30 fires 30x165 shells at 300 to 2,460 rpm.

HuninMunin
08-26-2007, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Charos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I think the P-38 could of fit a 20MM gattling in the nose. I would of gone for that over the 20MM/50 cal it had. Spitting 20MM shells at 2000RPM is just deadly.

The problem for a fighter is the spin up time. In a dogfight, a lot of shots are snap shots. So having to wait a few seconds for it to spin up will really hurt dogfighting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can have the Gatling set to spool before target acquisition is acquired.

Problem solved. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really a fine solution in my opinion.
Gibbage is perfectly right on the spin up time beeing the major reason against gatlings on fighters.
That's why a revolver got picked for the Typhoon and the USAF wanted to have one for the Lighting II btw.
Experience has shown what logic tells anyway:
Air to air bursts are seldomly longer then a second.
The advantage in RoF the Gatling has over a revolver appears at much longer times.
Not to speak of the ammunition needed to practicaly make the Gatlings RoF count.

They are great for ground ( or air to ground) combat though.

PS
I still don't understand why the Mk213 wasn't included in '46.
If theres one thing you gotta have in a fictional '46 scenario it's gotta be the planed standard weapon of all german airplanes from mid 45 onwars.

Kocur_
08-26-2007, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage:
The problem for a fighter is the spin up time. In a dogfight, a lot of shots are snap shots. So having to wait a few seconds for it to spin up will really hurt dogfighting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Gibbage is perfectly right on the spin up time beeing the major reason against gatlings on fighters.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sooo designers and the USAF and USN themselves was just stupid ever after F-100 and F-8 (fmr F8U)...?
Gibbage is actually perfectly wrong on spin up time. Said time of M61A1 is 0.3 to 0.5 second (depending on source). Naturally the cannon DOES FIRE during that time ever since pilot "pulls the trigger", as it is merely time required to reach FULL rate of fire. During that 0,5 seconds Vulcan fires only 40 rounds, which recalculated is equal to 4800 rpm, compared to full 6000 rpm. So no, spin up time is not so much of a problem as history of US FIGHTERS in last half of century would seem to prove...

Gibbage1
08-26-2007, 10:05 AM
You guys are talking about modern day cannons with low spin up times. Im talking about something that may be available near the end of WWII. The technology wasent there. Also, to have the cannon already spinning is not very likley since most aircraft electrical systems were already taxed. The P-38 more then any other aircraft since only 1 of its engines was generating electricity for the entire aircraft. Just having its gun heaters on too long could drain the battery. Also, .5 seconds is almsot have the entire shot you get even with more advanced guns.

Early gun pods on F-4's were air driven, but those also had a spool time since the fan was not always in the air stream. F-4 pilost hated the spool up time.

ImMoreBetter
08-26-2007, 10:18 AM
Ammo consumption and weight.

Adding a gatling gun would increase weight and there wouldn't be enough ammo without adding more.

B-17's only had 300-500 rounds per gun. No extra ammunition or guns was stored, due to weight purposes.

Choctaw111
08-26-2007, 03:49 PM
There is a spin up time, but even the 20mm M61 cannon which saw use on US fighters beginning in the 1950s still fire 60 shots in the first second and have a top firing rate of 100 shots per second. For a spin up time 60 shots in the first second from the moment you pull the trigger is not bad at all.

Bremspropeller
08-26-2007, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Early gun pods on F-4's were air driven, but those also had a spool time since the fan was not always in the air stream. F-4 pilost hated the spool up time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Additionally the SU/U-16 could only be used up to a certain speed.
The SU/U-23 fixed that by a different power-unit which spun up the cannon electricly.

The M61 has proven in combat, however, israeli pilots seemed to prefer the Mirage/ Nesher's twin DEFA 30mm guns over the Phantom's 20mm M61, as they brought out a better punch.

The main issue against gatlings, as far as I am concerned, is it's high ammo output.
100 rounds per second is a nice ROF as long as you hit the target; but miss and you've just wasted 100 precious rounds (out of 500-900 in total, depending on the plane).

Doug_Thompson
08-26-2007, 07:45 PM
Couple of points:

Even at its slow startup rate, an electric-powered Gatling fired at a much faster rate than a standard machine gun.

However, I agree with all the points about ammo consumption and weight. Add to that the aerodynamics. It was a bulky thing to fit under the wing. It could be synchronized, I suppose, but where would you put in in a 1940s fighter? I could see it on a P-38, perhaps.

On bigger, multi-engined planes, I'm sure it weighs much more than a couple of Brownings. Therefore, the turrents would have to be bigger and more powerful to accomodate them, meaning still more weight.

Still, I'd love to have one in the nose of one of those B-25 ship killers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Charos
08-27-2007, 02:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You guys are talking about modern day cannons with low spin up times. Im talking about something that may be available near the end of WWII. The technology wasent there. Also, to have the cannon already spinning is not very likley since most aircraft electrical systems were already taxed. The P-38 more then any other aircraft since only 1 of its engines was generating electricity for the entire aircraft. Just having its gun heaters on too long could drain the battery. Also, .5 seconds is almsot have the entire shot you get even with more advanced guns.

Early gun pods on F-4's were air driven, but those also had a spool time since the fan was not always in the air stream. F-4 pilost hated the spool up time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you will find that the large PSU required to spool a Gatling is because it takes alot of power to move
a large mass extremely quickly - on the other hand the gun COULD be spooled before hand with less gross input
power.
A little like the engine required to accelerate your car to 100km/h in 3 seconds as apposed to 15 Seconds.

Once the mass is up to speed little energy input is required to keep it moving.

Perhaps not an ideal solution but it should work none the less.

Useing lightweight induction motors in the early 20th Century although they have low start-up torque would probably do the job.

Besides air to air is only one small useage of such a weapon.

Im shore the Anti-Air on the ships in the Pacific would have enjoyed its firepower.

Friendly_flyer
08-27-2007, 03:14 AM
Would the spinning mass of the barrel cluster give a sort of gyro-effect?

Charos
08-27-2007, 04:03 AM
All rotating mass has a Gryoscopic affect:

Bike Example (http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/bicycle.html)

If the rotating mass and velocity is small compared to the mass and velocity of the item its attached to then it wont have
any real world significance.

Gryscopic stabilization works because the small affects on an inertial gyro are translated to large control surface outputs.