Multi-barrel guns in WWII
Jim
disappeared around 1911 being replaced with gas-operated machine guns.
They reappeared in 1946 (after a brief appearance in ww1) with the GE
Vulcan.
While not necessarily practical for single-engine fighters, wouldn't the
technology be a good thing in muti-engine fighters (and adapted ground
attack aircraft such as the B25) instead of up to a dozen standard
machine guns? Or a single 20mm Vulcan instead of 4 30mm cannon? The
technology was there, so, why not?
Thanks,
Jim
Rob Arndt
Wasn't needed.
Germans had motorized guns by the end of WW1 installed in Pfalz
D.XIIs- the Motorgewehr (Motor Gun) and were geared with the motor.
They fired 1,400 rpm!!! Germans also had another MG called the GAST
gun that were two-barreled and interlinked which could fire 1,600
rpm!!!
AFAIK, these did not make combat, the Germans hiding them from the ACC
until discovered in the early 1920s.
During WW2, Mauser was working on the single-barrel revolver cannon-
the initial Mauser 20mm MG-213/20 or more properly designated variant
30mm MK-213C. Fw-190s were testing them when the war ended. They were
intended for the next generation German jets and Fw Ta 152. Postwar
they were copied by Britain as the ADEN 3M and French DEFA 540
cannons.
Gast Gun:
http://ram-home.com/ram-old/gast-792.jpg
http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/535/Gast_Gun.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gast_gun
MK-213:
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/MK%20213/Bilder/MG213.jpg
Calibre: 30 mm
Length: 1.630 mm
Weight: 75 kg
Rate of fire: 1,300 rounds per minute
Muzzle velocity: 1,000 m/s
Effective range: m
Variants:
20 mm MG 213/20
30 mm MK 213/30
Schematic comparison of MK-213 in Ho-X vs MK-108:
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/MK%20213/Bilder/hox-2.gif
Ho-X:
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/MK%20213/Bilder/Ho%20X%20klein.jpg
Rob
* Note: NONE of the German revolver cannons were based on the Gatling
design.
Halmyre
Proof?
--
Halmyre
Daryl Hunt
Easy answer. At the time of the B-25, canons and MGs jammed.
You had to carry more than one of a specific caliber to do the job.
Also, your heavier caliber guns were slower and had poor range.
Take for instance the MG108 from Germany. Good stopping power
but you had to get close. Closer than the range of the 50 cals
shooting at you. The Olds 37mm was no different.
Also, the amount of ammo for each gun. The Heavier calibers
might do a lot of work when you had ammo but due to weight
restrictions you might only have 30 or 40 with the ability to
reload it once or twice before you ran out of ammo. In front line
fighters case, you don't have the option of reloading. So you
have 30 or 40 rounds. You run out of those pretty quick unless
you get might close. So you go with the 50 cal or the 12.7 mm
which can carry more ammo and has more range to get your big fun
into firing position or you leave the big gun home.
Daryl Hunt
Which Mauser copied Colt. Not point here except you are giving
credit to a German Company copying another country and NOT paying
the royalties. Germany operated by attacking it's neighbors and
not paying any royalties because you just didn't pay royalties to
those you were at war with. Worked great in the 1800s but that
method of expansion was proven to be too deadly in the 20th
century and it failed. To the Victor go the Spoils worked in the
19th century and it worked into post WWII.
Colt had the revolver shot gun and rifle since the last 3/4 of
the 19th century. It was a terrible thing to face in war. Colt
had the Revolving Barrel since 1865 another terrible thing to
face in battle. The only thing Mauser did was add a motor,
nothing more.
The M-61 does not owe it's existance to anything other than Colt.
Keith Willshaw
The technology wasnt really there. The origins of the M-61
go back to 1946 when the USAF realised it needed more firepower
and in 1946 it issued the contract for "Project Vulcan"
It was 1959 before the design matured enough to make it
into production and even then early versions had problems
with misfires.
Its also a honking big lump of metal, the best part of 6ft long
weighing 250 lbs without ammo. There were damned few
single seat fighters you could fit one on. The P-38 might
have managed it and you could probably shoehorn one
into a meatbox but thats about it.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
> On 2/27/2011 10:58 AM, Jim wrote:
>> Multi-barrel rotary machine guns first appeared in the 1850s but
>> disappeared around 1911 being replaced with gas-operated machine
>> guns. They reappeared in 1946 (after a brief appearance in ww1)
>> with the GE Vulcan.
>>
>> While not necessarily practical for single-engine fighters,
>> wouldn't the technology be a good thing in muti-engine fighters
>> (and adapted ground attack aircraft such as the B25) instead of
>> up to a dozen standard machine guns? Or a single 20mm Vulcan
>> instead of 4 30mm cannon? The technology was there, so, why not?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jim
>
> Easy answer. At the time of the B-25, canons and MGs jammed.
> You had to carry more than one of a specific caliber to do the job.
>
> Also, your heavier caliber guns were slower and had poor range.
> Take for instance the MG108 from Germany. Good stopping power
> but you had to get close. Closer than the range of the 50 cals
> shooting at you. The Olds 37mm was no different.
>
Yet the USAAF fitted it to the P-38
Keith
Eunometic
> Multi-barrel rotary machine guns first appeared in the 1850s but
> disappeared around 1911 being replaced with gas-operated machine guns.
> They reappeared in 1946 (after a brief appearance in ww1) with the GE
> Vulcan.
>
> While not necessarily practical for single-engine fighters,
If you've ever read many WW2 pilots combat accounts you will notice
the large number of times the pilots claim the guns jammed. (These
often come up as 'the one that got away' but I suspect quite often it
cost the pilot his life)
This was not just bad gun design or poorly manufactured ammunition but
the high G of combat.
One of the reasions engineers were driven to rotating barrels and
revolver breaches was the inherant self clearing abillity ie
resistance to jamming. Under high "G" the guns reciprocating
mechanisms are prone to jamming. Revolving type weapons simply tend
to extract a misfired round.
Obviously it is theorectically possible to synchronise a revolver type
weapons rotation with the propeller and thus fired through the
propeller arc and this was a motication in WW1 but probably not in
WW2.
Another reason is that reciprocating type weapons tend to have to
lower cadence rate as muzzle velocity and projectile weight go up.
wouldn't the
> technology be a good thing in muti-engine fighters (and adapted ground
> attack aircraft such as the B25) instead of up to a dozen standard
> machine guns? Or a single 20mm Vulcan instead of 4 30mm cannon? The
> technology was there, so, why not?
While the Vulcan/Gatling guns offers excellent reliabillity and
sustained firing rate it has two problems.
1 Very bulky, needs a single large space reserved on the airframe
which is difficult in smaller fighters.
2 Spin up time means revolver canon migh even fire more rounds in the
first second.
Daryl Hunt
And abandoned it before the Production Model. Instead, they went
with 50s and 20s. both had more range, more ammo to be carried.
And there wasn't a whole lot the 20mm couldn't crack.
Remember, the P-38 was the first US modern fighter. It pulled Gs
and did things that even a P-51 would pale at doing. Remember
that vid I posted about Robin Olds where he pulled so many gees
he blew out his side cockpit window? That ability to put the
fighter into those many gees so readily that it became SOP for
the P-38 made the jamming of guns a reality. The Olds 37 mm had
to be removed due to that factor. It jammed almost every time.
What what good is a jammed super gun and all that ammo onboard
when it's jammed. The P-39 couldn't pull that severe a G and the
37mm worked out well for it.
The least jamming for the P-38 was the 50 cal and those US
fighters that followed it all got multiple 50 cals. Even then,
it was nothing to have a fighter land where 3 of the 6 or 4 or
the 8 were jammed.
Eunometic
> On 2/27/2011 1:41 PM, Rob Arndt wrote:
>
> > During WW2, Mauser was working on the single-barrel revolver cannon-
> > the initial Mauser 20mm MG-213/20 or more properly designated variant
> > 30mm MK-213C. Fw-190s were testing them when the war ended. They were
> > intended for the next generation German jets and Fw Ta 152. Postwar
> > they were copied by Britain as the ADEN 3M and French DEFA 540
> > cannons.
>
> Which Mauser copied Colt.
The Colt Model 1855 revolving carbine and rifle was simply like a hand
gun revolver but firing a rifle cartridge and having a full length
rifle barrel.
There was no automatic round loading and cartridge extraction.
Daryl Hunt
So you conveniently leave out the other colt that all others
copied or improved on. Your Strawman is noted.
Now, we know you will leave out facts and try and misdirect. Of
course we already knew this. The Gatling was a Colt product.
Now explain that away.
Keith Willshaw
Incorrect, while the early P-38D had the cannon deleted the later P-38F,
P-38G and P-38L were all fitted with the Hispano 20mm
> Remember, the P-38 was the first US modern fighter. It pulled Gs
> and did things that even a P-51 would pale at doing. Remember
> that vid I posted about Robin Olds where he pulled so many gees
> he blew out his side cockpit window? That ability to put the
> fighter into those many gees so readily that it became SOP for
> the P-38 made the jamming of guns a reality. The Olds 37 mm had
> to be removed due to that factor. It jammed almost every time.
> What what good is a jammed super gun and all that ammo onboard
> when it's jammed. The P-39 couldn't pull that severe a G and the
> 37mm worked out well for it.
>
Trouble is we arent discussing the Oldsmobile 37mm cannon but the
20 mm Hispano.
> The least jamming for the P-38 was the 50 cal and those US
> fighters that followed it all got multiple 50 cals. Even then,
> it was nothing to have a fighter land where 3 of the 6 or 4 or
> the 8 were jammed.
Yet the RAF, Luftwaffe, Soviets and Japanese all built and
installed reliable 20mm cannon
Keith
Rob Arndt
Euno,
No amount of common sense mixed with historical data is going to
convince Daryl and other US flag wavers that Germany had these
technologies independent of the US and even influenced the US and
other nations.
Points:
- the Allies had no motorcannon in WW1- the Germans did and they were
being installed in Pfalz D.XIIs. No Gatling influence at all and 1400
rpm!!! Made by Siemens and other manufacturers.
- the GAST gun had no Allied equivalent with interlinked mechanicla
operation at 1600 rpm!!!
- the Germans had the Mauser MK-213C with its single-barrel revolver
system- again having NOTHING to do with the US Gatling system.
- in the 19th century the Germans experimented with various revolver
systems but went with things like the Needle Gun, first automatic
pistols, and experiemtal auto-loading rifles which carried-over into
WW1 by Mauser. In WW1 Germany had the first TRUE submachine gun with
the MP-18 and then in WW2 the first "assault rifle" (a title that came
directly from Hitler) with the FG-42, STG-44, STG-45... which led to
postwar rifles AK-47, Cetme, G-3, etc...
Daryl might want to try the book "The Gatling Gun: 19th Century
Machine Gun to 21st Century Vulcan" which tells the entire history but
also INCLUDES the German MK-213 as inspiration for the 1946 .60 cal
weapon that led to the Vulcan. Chapter 7 on the Vulcan starts off with
the German history and WHY the engineers opted to return to a revolver
system based on the MK-213 instead of the Colt idea if a 1250 rpm high-
fire a/c MG. Seeing and capturing the MK-213 was inspiration to go to
revolver instead of pursuing higher rpm conventional US a/c guns.
We have been over this before so do we really need to trot out all the
data all over again???
Germany today has the superior BK-27 which fires 1800 rpm on ONE
barrel alone!!! The US was to receive this weapon for the F-22 and
F-35 but politics over foreign weapons killed that idea just like it
killed the German/US HK XM-8 rifle from beign adopted. The troops
wanted it and Congress killed it.
Rob
Keith Willshaw
The Gatling gun was built by Colt and definitely did have
automatic loading and extraction.
Keith
Daryl Hunt
The first production model of the P-38 was the E model which did
not have the 37mm installed. The D was never went beyond the
preproduction stage.
Eunometic
> On 2/27/2011 4:29 PM, Eunometic wrote:
> > The Colt Model 1855 revolving carbine and rifle was simply like a hand
> > gun revolver but firing a rifle cartridge and having a full length
> > rifle barrel.
>
> > There was no automatic round loading and cartridge extraction.
>
> So you conveniently leave out the other colt that all others
> copied or improved on.
What other colt, Mr Magoo?
Your Strawman is noted.
??????
>
> Now, we know you will leave out facts and try and misdirect. Of
> course we already knew this. The Gatling was a Colt product.
> Now explain that away.- Hide quoted text -
Richard Gatling invented the gun, built them at his own exepense in
cincinati, formed the gatling company and only latter lisensed them to
colt.
If you meant "Gatling" you would have said so not "colt"
It appears you wanted us to believe that the colt revolver rifles were
automatic.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you so lazy that you could not look this info up yourself???
ADEN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADEN_cannon
DEFA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFA_cannon
M39:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M39_cannon
There's THREE postwar guns based on the MK-213C.
Rob
Daryl Hunt
> On Feb 27, 3:29 pm, Eunometic<eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 8:20 am, Daryl Hunt<dh...@nspami70west.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/27/2011 1:41 PM, Rob Arndt wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
>>>> During WW2, Mauser was working on the single-barrel revolver cannon-
>>>> the initial Mauser 20mm MG-213/20 or more properly designated variant
>>>> 30mm MK-213C. Fw-190s were testing them when the war ended. They were
>>>> intended for the next generation German jets and Fw Ta 152. Postwar
>>>> they were copied by Britain as the ADEN 3M and French DEFA 540
>>>> cannons.
>>
>>> Which Mauser copied Colt.
>>
>> The Colt Model 1855 revolving carbine and rifle was simply like a hand
>> gun revolver but firing a rifle cartridge and having a full length
>> rifle barrel.
>>
>> There was no automatic round loading and cartridge extraction.
>
> Euno,
>
> No amount of common sense mixed with historical data is going to
> convince Daryl and other US flag wavers that Germany had these
> technologies independent of the US and even influenced the US and
> other nations.
Point, the Colt Galting is from 1865. It used revolving barrels.
the first of the first. The rest of what you are ranting about
has been trimmed as it has nothing to do with anything other than
trying to make us look at the left hand while the right hand is
doing the manipulation.
Jim Wilkins
The ground attack B-25 was created in the field from "repurposed"
equipment.
http://www.ozatwar.com/ozatwar/pappygunn.htm
jsw
Dan
> No amount of common sense mixed with historical data is going to
> convince Daryl and other US flag wavers that Germany had these
> technologies independent of the US and even influenced the US and
> other nations.
Turn that around: no amount of German flag waving will convince
aren't and euno that the Allies developed technologies independent of
Germany or even influenced the Germans. Now doesn't that sound silly
just as what you said?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Idiot doesn't even know his own P-38 history:
The P-38D was the second version of the Lightning to reach production,
after the P-38-LO. Thirty six P-38Ds were built, as part of the
original order for 66 aircraft. The intervening letters were allocated
to projects that did not result in production aircraft. One XP-38A was
produced, with a pressurised cockpit, while the B and C projects did
not even reach that stage.
The P-38D was not fully combat ready. It was meant to be armed with
four .50 calibre machine guns and one 37mm cannon, but none carried
the cannon. However it did carry self sealing fuel tanks, armour
around the cockpit and a low pressure oxygen system, and was
officially recognised as suitable for combat. The P-38D also saw the
introduction of the wing fillets that had originally been installed on
the Lightnings intended for the RAF to solve tail buffeting problems
caused by airflow over the central section of the aircraft.
The P-38Ds were allocated to the 1st and 14th Fighter Groups and were
amongst the first P-38s to see combat. They served in some very
extreme environments – the 54th Fighter Squadron took its P-38Ds to
Alaska in June 1942, while the 27th FS was deployed to Iceland. A
P-38D of the 27th FS scored the type’s first victory over the
Luftwaffe on 14 August 1942, when Lt. Elza Shahan, based on Iceland,
destroyed a long range Fw 200 Condor. He only missed making the first
P-38 kill of the war by ten days, having been beaten by the pilot of a
P-38E over the Aleutian Islands.
Statistics
Engine: Allison V-1710-27 and -29 (F-2)
Horsepower: 1,150hp
Max Speed: 390mph at 20,000ft
Cruising Speed: 300mph
Rate of Climb: 8 minutes to reach 20,000 feet
Ceiling: 39,000 feet
Range: 970 miles
~ http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_P-38D.html
From Aerofiles, Lockheed:
P-38D Lightning (Model 222) 1941 = First to use the "Lightning" name.
Self-sealing tanks, 23mm cannon. POP: 36 [40-774/809].
http://aerofiles.com/lock-p38d.jpg
What a fucking moron...
Rob
Daryl Hunt
history. And you wonder why it reminds me of the Rocky and the
Bullwinkle show.
I can see it now, using a gatling. Spin the barrel. Real fast,
drop in a shell, get your hand out of the way. The shell fires.
Now quickly, before you spin the barrel, use your hand to
extract the brass. Repeat as necessary. That is, unless it has
a Self loading and cartridge extraction.
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, it proves once again that YOU have to trim my posts and change my
subject lines b/c you are a proven LIAR or an IDIOT, time and again!!!
Rob
Dave Kearton
news:%Zzap.78739$9b3....@newsfe23.ams2...
...and don't get a feed jam with it, then you're stuck with the weight of
the gun, the ammo and no useful gun.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Rob Arndt
Yeah, that US bazooka capture in Tunisia is such a war-winning weapon
that the Germans IMPROVED...
Rob
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think you are smoking crack with your idiotic replies and no grasp
of any real history on anything you talk about. You just fucked up
your own P-38 Lightning history.
And don't bring Keith in. We may disagree on a wide range of tech and
histories but Mr. Willshaw at least can debate extremely well. I may
talk a lot of shit, but I do respect Keith. He waves his flag too, but
the British do it the right way, intellectually instead of
emotionally.
Rob
Daryl Hunt
The first Lightning to see active service was the F-4 version, a
P-38E in which the guns were replaced by four K17 cameras.[50]
They joined the 8th Photographic Squadron out of Australia on 4
April 1942.[29] Three F-4s were operated by the Royal Australian
Air Force in this theater for a short period beginning in
September 1942.
Maloney 1968, p. 4.
On 9 August 1942, two P-38Es of the 343rd Fighter Group, 11th Air
Force, at the end of a 1,000 mi (1,609 km) long-range patrol,
happened upon a pair of Japanese Kawanishi H6K "Mavis" flying
boats and destroyed them,[29] making them the first Japanese
aircraft to be shot down by Lightnings.
Lockheed P-38J-10-LO Lightning." Collections Database: National
Air and Space Museum. Retrieved: 6 February 2009.
There were NO P-38D models involved in any kind of combat.
>
> The P-38D was the second version of the Lightning to reach production,
> after the P-38-LO. Thirty six P-38Ds were built, as part of the
> original order for 66 aircraft. The intervening letters were allocated
> to projects that did not result in production aircraft. One XP-38A was
> produced, with a pressurised cockpit, while the B and C projects did
> not even reach that stage.
>
> The P-38D was not fully combat ready. It was meant to be armed with
> four .50 calibre machine guns and one 37mm cannon, but none carried
> the cannon. However it did carry self sealing fuel tanks, armour
> around the cockpit and a low pressure oxygen system, and was
> officially recognised as suitable for combat. The P-38D also saw the
> introduction of the wing fillets that had originally been installed on
> the Lightnings intended for the RAF to solve tail buffeting problems
> caused by airflow over the central section of the aircraft.
>
> The P-38Ds were allocated to the 1st and 14th Fighter Groups and were
> amongst the first P-38s to see combat. They served in some very
> extreme environments – the 54th Fighter Squadron took its P-38Ds to
> Alaska in June 1942, while the 27th FS was deployed to Iceland. A
> P-38D of the 27th FS scored the type’s first victory over the
> Luftwaffe on 14 August 1942, when Lt. Elza Shahan, based on Iceland,
> destroyed a long range Fw 200 Condor. He only missed making the first
> P-38 kill of the war by ten days, having been beaten by the pilot of a
> P-38E over the Aleutian Islands.
Gee, no mention of a D ever being in combat. With only 6 made,
that doesn't exactly make it a Production Model, for sure.
Now to sink your ship.
The USAAF specified that these 36 aircraft were to be designated
P-38D. As a result, there never were any P-38Bs or P-38Cs. The
P-38D's main role was to work out bugs and give the USAAF
experience with handling the type
Baugher, Joe. "Lockheed P-38D Lightning." Joe Baugher's
Encyclopedia of American Military Aircraft,
The rest is trimmed due to the not needing to spread it's bs any
further.
Daryl Hunt
No, it just proves that the Colt was the first and everyone else
built on it's idea. Once again, you are trying to give the WWII
Germans credit for someone elses work.
Daryl Hunt
Improved. Hell everyone improved on everyone elses captured
technology. The US had the best Automatic Rifle in existance
during WWI. There were plenty of them in the armories. The US
elected to use a french Automatic Rifle instead because they were
afraid that the Germans would capture it and copy it. That same
Automatic Rifle was still around for decades in the US inventory.
The Browning Automatic Rifle. If the US had put this into the
firing line and one was captured, the Germans would have been
foolish not to copy it and work on improving it for their own
gains. It's War.
Daryl Hunt
Before you comment on other posts, you really should read the
response. You got blown away over the P-38D.
>
> And don't bring Keith in. We may disagree on a wide range of tech and
> histories but Mr. Willshaw at least can debate extremely well. I may
> talk a lot of shit, but I do respect Keith. He waves his flag too, but
> the British do it the right way, intellectually instead of
> emotionally.
If you are looking to get anyone to side with you over this, just
stick with the other German Cracked history buff. The rest of us
know better.
Daryl Hunt
You know perfectly well which colt. The Cold Gatling. Once
more, you want us to watch the left hand while you manipulate
with the right. Not going to happen.
coffelt2
pressurized sponson fuel tank. A microswitch rigged as a limit switch was
adjusted to stop the firing if gun was aimed at the tank. Like most things
electromechanical, failures do occur. A 37th ARRS PJ or CC perforated a
tank, of course, with resulting low fuel and hasty return to base. The
plastic fire suppression foam inside the tank seems to work OK.
Old Chief Lynn
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> * Note: NONE of the German revolver cannons were based on the Gatling
> design.
Note: if it used revolving barrels, it was based on the
Gatling design.
(According to Rob's Rules !! ;-)
Daryl Hunt
During Nam, minis were hung on just about anything that could
fly. Cargo Planes, Choppers, Fighters, Assault, even Recons and
Spotters. That little gun was very versitile. We even had them
on Specter for awhile until it was noted they didn't have the
range to use them. If a Specter got that low, he was suseptable
to ground fire. They were removed sometime in 1970 or 71.
Schiffner
No it is classified as a carbine. Nice try though and full credit.
>
> There was no automatic round loading and cartridge extraction.
So? Pigs don't have wings I've seen them fly...not that I reccomend it
because the sows get a bit po'd.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> While the Vulcan/Gatling guns offers excellent reliabillity
> and sustained firing rate it has two problems.
> 1 Very bulky, needs a single large space reserved on the
> airframe which is difficult in smaller fighters.
Effectively true; the very high rate of fire demands a
large (and heavy) ammo supply in the belt, just to
provide any meaningful length of fire.
However, the gun itself isn't inordinately bulky.
> 2 Spin up time means revolver canon migh even fire more
> rounds in the first second.
Uh, no. Getting up to speed, such guns fire _fewer_ rounds
in the first second, than in subsequent seconds.
Schiffner
>
> - Show quoted text -
Incorrect, Dr. Gatling did in fact invent the first practical and
functional multibarreled auto loading gun NOT Colt. Now I will grant
you that Mr. Browing did desing the first gas operated machine gun for
Colt. iirc it's nickname was the potatoe digger.
Schiffner
and you are wrong.-
Schiffner
No, no they didn't improve it.
Schiffner
> teuton...@aol.com says...
and do you have a clue as to the difference between the two much less
a clue what the two little boys are having their tamtrum about. Me I
figure they are both having extended menstrul cycles and going through
nicotine withdrawls after the candy store ran out of
chocolate...whiney little bitches
Daryl Hunt
The one that the Military purchased was built by Colt. Simple as
that. Yes, Gatling invented it but Colt produced it.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> Multi-barrel rotary machine guns first appeared in the 1850s but
> disappeared around 1911 being replaced with gas-operated machine guns.
> They reappeared in 1946 (after a brief appearance in ww1) with the GE
> Vulcan.
>
> While not necessarily practical for single-engine fighters, wouldn't the
> technology be a good thing in muti-engine fighters (and adapted ground
> attack aircraft such as the B25) instead of up to a dozen standard
> machine guns? Or a single 20mm Vulcan instead of 4 30mm cannon? The
> technology was there, so, why not?
Due to the much-higher firing rate of the 20mm Vulcan
(6000 rounds per minute in 'high' rate), a large and
heavy load of ammo has to be carried, in order to
provide any reasonable-length bursts of fire.
Space has always been very limited in fighters (and
most bombers, too).
FYI - even today's fighters run out of 20mm in about
ten seconds (total) of firing.
Daryl Hunt
In todays Air Encounters, you have, maybe, 2 seconds of firing
time in any pass. Usually, you will have much less. Carrying
more than 10 seconds would be a waste of space and weight. I
saw what a M-61 did to a Ferry once. In less than a second in
one pass, it split the ferry in half.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> The technology wasnt really there. The origins of the M-61
> go back to 1946 when the USAF realised it needed more firepower
> and in 1946 it issued the contract for "Project Vulcan"
>
> It was 1959 before the design matured enough to make it
> into production and even then early versions had problems
> with misfires.
I've got to disagree with the timeline. F-105s were flying
with fully-functional M61 20mm Vu;cans by 1955.
I'll believe you about early misfires, though. It was the
mid-60s before they added electrically-fired primers to
the conventional firing pin setup.
Peter Skelton
Not necessarily, they can be brought up to speed before shooting begins.
--
Peter
Eunometic
> On 2/27/2011 4:58 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>
>
> You know perfectly well which colt. The Cold Gatling. Once
> more, you want us to watch the left hand while you manipulate
> with the right. Not going to happen
Oh Mr Magoo, you've done it again.
Rob Arndt
> teuton...@aol.com says...
No, the Mauser MK-213 is a single-barrel cannon with rotating
cylinder. Another fucking idiot. And the high-rpm WW1 guns used either
motors to drive the firing mechanism (Motorgewehr) or used
interconnected firing mechanism (GAST).
You are wrong on all counts!!!
Gatling has to use multiple barrels to achieve high-rpms but look at
the German history:
- WW1 Motorgewehr 1,400 rpm
- WW1 Gast gun 1,600 rpm (twin barrel, one unit)
- WW2 Mauser MG-213/20 1,200-1,400 rpm/MK-213/30 1,100 rpm
- Modern Mauser BK-27 1,800 rpm
Rob
Daryl Hunt
> On Feb 27, 4:37 pm, Dweezil Dwarftosser<f4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> teuton...@aol.com says...
>>
>>> * Note: NONE of the German revolver cannons were based on the Gatling
>>> design.
>>
>> Note: if it used revolving barrels, it was based on the
>> Gatling design.
>>
>> (According to Rob's Rules !! ;-)
>
> No, the Mauser MK-213 is a single-barrel cannon with rotating
> cylinder.
Then it goes back to the 1955 Colt Revolver Guns. Just adding a
motor doesn't mean you invented it. It means you improved on
previous design.
Another fucking idiot. And the high-rpm WW1 guns used either
> motors to drive the firing mechanism (Motorgewehr) or used
> interconnected firing mechanism (GAST).
>
> You are wrong on all counts!!!
>
> Gatling has to use multiple barrels to achieve high-rpms but look at
> the German history:
Well, I'll be. You finally admitted it. Gatling did use
multiple barrels. There may be hope for you yet.
>
> - WW1 Motorgewehr 1,400 rpm
> - WW1 Gast gun 1,600 rpm (twin barrel, one unit)
> - WW2 Mauser MG-213/20 1,200-1,400 rpm/MK-213/30 1,100 rpm
> - Modern Mauser BK-27 1,800 rpm
Your BS doesn't change the fact that Colt was producing both the
Multi barreled and the revolving chamber in the middle of the
19th century. Germany built on those ideas, they didn't invent them.
David E. Powell
> On Feb 28, 8:20 am, Daryl Hunt <dh...@nspami70west.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/27/2011 1:41 PM, Rob Arndt wrote:
>
> SNIP
> > > During WW2, Mauser was working on the single-barrel revolver cannon-
> > > the initial Mauser 20mm MG-213/20 or more properly designated variant
> > > 30mm MK-213C. Fw-190s were testing them when the war ended. They were
> > > intended for the next generation German jets and Fw Ta 152. Postwar
> > > they were copied by Britain as the ADEN 3M and French DEFA 540
> > > cannons.
>
> > Which Mauser copied Colt.
>
> The Colt Model 1855 revolving carbine and rifle was simply like a hand
> gun revolver but firing a rifle cartridge and having a full length
> rifle barrel.
>
> There was no automatic round loading and cartridge extraction.
The Gatling had the total package.
Ian B MacLure
news:f3ea9d53-a86a-42b2...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
>> Germans had motorized guns by the end of WW1 installed in Pfalz
>> D.XIIs- the Motorgewehr (Motor Gun) and were geared with the motor.
>> They fired 1,400 rpm!!! Germans also had another MG called the GAST
>> gun that were two-barreled and interlinked which could fire 1,600
>> rpm!!!
>> AFAIK, these did not make combat, the Germans hiding them from the
>> ACC until discovered in the early 1920s.
>>
>> During WW2, Mauser was working on the single-barrel revolver cannon-
>> the initial Mauser 20mm MG-213/20 or more properly designated variant
>> 30mm MK-213C. Fw-190s were testing them when the war ended. They were
>> intended for the next generation German jets and Fw Ta 152. Postwar
>> they were copied by Britain as the ADEN 3M and French DEFA 540
>> cannons.
>>
>
> Proof?
The provenance of the ADEN and DEFA is well documented as are the
German efforts with revolver guns ( not multi-barrel though )
Ian B MacLure
$2t5....@newsfe24.ams2:
[snip]
>> Also, your heavier caliber guns were slower and had poor range.
>> Take for instance the MG108 from Germany. Good stopping power
>> but you had to get close. Closer than the range of the 50 cals
>> shooting at you. The Olds 37mm was no different.
>>
>
> Yet the USAAF fitted it to the P-38
P-39, P-63 and MTBs.
IBM
Ian B MacLure
news:3cb5f62f-808c-49e8...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 27, 3:29 pm, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 8:20 am, Daryl Hunt <dh...@nspami70west.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 2/27/2011 1:41 PM, Rob Arndt wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
>> > > During WW2, Mauser was working on the single-barrel revolver
>> > > cannon- the initial Mauser 20mm MG-213/20 or more properly
>> > > designated variant 30mm MK-213C. Fw-190s were testing them when
>> > > the war ended. They were intended for the next generation German
>> > > jets and Fw Ta 152. Postwar they were copied by Britain as the
>> > > ADEN 3M and French DEFA 540 cannons.
>>
>> > Which Mauser copied Colt.
>>
>> The Colt Model 1855 revolving carbine and rifle was simply like a
>> hand gun revolver but firing a rifle cartridge and having a full
>> length rifle barrel.
>>
>> There was no automatic round loading and cartridge extraction.
>
> Euno,
>
> No amount of common sense mixed with historical data is going to
> convince Daryl and other US flag wavers that Germany had these
> technologies independent of the US and even influenced the US and
> other nations.
>
> Points:
>
> - the Allies had no motorcannon in WW1- the Germans did and they were
> being installed in Pfalz D.XIIs. No Gatling influence at all and 1400
Exsqueeze me?
That the WWI Allies had no motor-cannon would come as news to the
builders of the SPAD XII & XIV and Rene Fonck who made 11 of his 75
kills with a 37mm moteur-cannon.
IBM
Dan
>>
>>> No amount of common sense mixed with historical data is going to
>>> convince Daryl and other US flag wavers that Germany had these
>>> technologies independent of the US and even influenced the US and
>>> other nations.
>>
>> aren't and euno that the Allies developed technologies independent of
>> Germany or even influenced the Germans. Now doesn't that sound silly
>> just as what you said?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Yeah, that US bazooka capture in Tunisia is such a war-winning weapon
> that the Germans IMPROVED...
>
Again you limit yourself. The Germans didn't invent the aileron,
stepped float, submarine, lighter than air flight, tank, metallurgy,
chemistry, optics, algebra, calculus...etc. When you try to convince us
how naturally superior Germans are you just wind up waving a flag and
make a fool of yourself.
Dan
Here we go again. Your revolver cannon burned out barrels if fired
for extended times. Since the Gatlings don't fire every shot through
every barrel the barrels last longer. A single barrel "revolver" cannon
will fail if fired at high RPM for an extended period. Each design has
its advantages and disadvantages.
Peter Stickney
All true, John, but the alternate installation - 4 M39 revolver guns, as used in the
F-100 and F-101, throws the same volume of lead downrange (1500 rds/min each)
and the 4 guns, their ammo cans and feeds take up at least as much space.
> FYI - even today's fighters run out of 20mm in about ten seconds (total)
> of firing.
Not atypical - but your average MiG is even more shortchanged.
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system
Keith Willshaw
>
> No amount of common sense mixed with historical data is going to
> convince Daryl and other US flag wavers that Germany had these
> technologies independent of the US and even influenced the US and
> other nations.
>
>
> - the Allies had no motorcannon in WW1- the Germans did and they were
> being installed in Pfalz D.XIIs. No Gatling influence at all and 1400
Did NOT enter service, the Pfalz DXII in service was armed with
2в 7.92 mm LMG 08/15 "Spandau" machine guns
> - the GAST gun had no Allied equivalent with interlinked mechanicla
> operation at 1600 rpm!!!
A twin barrelled gun that had no real advantage over two individual
guns mounted side by side. Indeed the installation provided
a single point of failure as a jam would mean losing BOTH guns
The concept was evaluated by the allies and rejected for that reason.
The Mauser revolver cannon was indeed an excellent design but
the motorcannon did NOT see service in WW1 and there is no
real evidence it was a practical weapon.
Keith
Rob Arndt
The US has no monopoly on revolver anything as many nations used
revolvers and experimented with multi-barrel guns which include volley-
fire weapons which do not have to be rotary.
BTW, you again completely ignore the fact that b/c of the Mauser
MK-213 powered revolving cylinder feeding a single-barrel gun DID
force the US designers to back-away from higher-rpm concepts for
single-barrel MGs (,50 And even .60 cal) and instead go back to
revolving barrels.
Germany in no way used the 19th century Gatling as a basis for the
MK-213. But postwar ADEN, DEFA, and US M39 cannons all go back to the
MK-213!!! Germany today uses the 27mm BK-27 which fires 1800 rpm on a
single barrel. The Vulcan doesn't mean anything to them. Even at sea
the Germans rigged 4x MG-3s at 1300 rpm each to counter low-flying sea-
skimming missiles instead of a Phalanx system.
Get your facts straight. The US-slant fails historically.
Rob
Rob Arndt
What's your excuse for German gunpods in WW2 as well?
Rob
Daryl Hunt
No, because after awhile, the patents ran out. But they were
still in force during WWI. There is little difference what was
produced near the end of WWI or right after WWI than what was
produced in 1855 by Colt. There is little difference between
what was "Thought Up" during WWII and what was produced in 1865.
>
> BTW, you again completely ignore the fact that b/c of the Mauser
> MK-213 powered revolving cylinder feeding a single-barrel gun DID
> force the US designers to back-away from higher-rpm concepts for
> single-barrel MGs (,50 And even .60 cal) and instead go back to
> revolving barrels.
Really, now. I guess the single barreled 20mm used in modern
fighters and attack AC never existed? Not hardly. Even today,
if you are cramped for space and weight you still might install
one of the single barreled canons.
>
> Germany in no way used the 19th century Gatling as a basis for the
> MK-213. But postwar ADEN, DEFA, and US M39 cannons all go back to the
> MK-213!!! Germany today uses the 27mm BK-27 which fires 1800 rpm on a
> single barrel. The Vulcan doesn't mean anything to them. Even at sea
> the Germans rigged 4x MG-3s at 1300 rpm each to counter low-flying sea-
> skimming missiles instead of a Phalanx system.
newsflash, they used it no matter how many times you keep saying
they didn't. A Lie told over and over is still a lie. The
Gatling Gun is the basis for your MGs no matter how many times
you keep saying it.
>
> Get your facts straight. The US-slant fails historically.
Considering Dr. Gatling was American I guess that's slanted
history that says he didn't invent the very process that your
Rotating Barrel was based on (not much to go from .45 to .50).
Meanwhile, just because Colt produced the rotating Shotgun and
Rifle (not much of step to go from 30 cal or 10 gauge to 20 mm)
then it's just plain incorrect to say that they didn't have a
thing to do with the revolving cylinder Canon.
My facts are doing just fine. Your cracked history is just that,
cracked. I will dog this until doomsday. I will not allow you
to go unanswered and have someone actually believe your cracked
history, Bullwinkle.
Daryl Hunt
Ah, more strawman. What's your excuse for claiming an invention
that at least two Americans invented in the 19th century and Colt
produced both. No free ride on this one.
Eunometic
> Eunometic wrote:
> > On Feb 28, 8:20 am, Daryl Hunt <dh...@nspami70west.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/27/2011 1:41 PM, Rob Arndt wrote:
>
> > SNIP
> >>> During WW2, Mauser was working on the single-barrel revolver cannon-
> >>> the initial Mauser 20mm MG-213/20 or more properly designated
> >>> variant 30mm MK-213C. Fw-190s were testing them when the war ended.
> >>> They were intended for the next generation German jets and Fw Ta
> >>> 152. Postwar they were copied by Britain as the ADEN 3M and French
> >>> DEFA 540 cannons.
>
> >> Which Mauser copied Colt.
>
> > The Colt Model 1855 revolving carbine and rifle was simply like a hand
> > gun revolver but firing a rifle cartridge and having a full length
> > rifle barrel.
>
> > There was no automatic round loading and cartridge extraction.
>
> automatic loading and extraction.
When one says the word "colt" it is associated with small arms and
rifles that used a revolving breach.
When one says the word "gattling" it is associated with revolving
barrels weapon.
Mr Magoo confused the situation.
The details of the loading and extraction mechanism between the Mauser
revolver and the Gattling are different, for one the gattling doesn't
pause to line up breach and barrel.
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, he's a dumbass that can't tell the difference between a 19th
century _hand-cranked_ multi-barrel MG vs WW1 German geared motorized
aircraft MGs and the interlocking mechanism of the GAST fro ground and
air. Then he tries to mix Colt's revolver history with small arms and
then add the Gatling gun to suggest that the German MK-213 single-
barrel revolver cannon is using US designs!!!
The guy is reaching for straws and is confused.
That's OK b/c I have tons of small arms books as well as the Gatlign
History ref that I gave that credits the MK-213 with jump-starting the
Vulcan. If it had not been built by Germany then postwar the USAF
might have just developed single-barrel higher-rpm MGs in .50 or .60
cal.
Rob
Paul F Austin
> On Feb 27, 12:50 pm, Halmyre<flashgordonreced...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 8:41 pm, Rob Arndt<teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 27, 9:58 am, Jim<ac...@yahoxxx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Multi-barrel rotary machine guns first appeared in the 1850s but
>>>> disappeared around 1911 being replaced with gas-operated machine guns.
>>>> They reappeared in 1946 (after a brief appearance in ww1) with the GE
>>>> Vulcan.
>>
>>>> While not necessarily practical for single-engine fighters, wouldn't the
>>>> technology be a good thing in muti-engine fighters (and adapted ground
>>>> attack aircraft such as the B25) instead of up to a dozen standard
>>>> machine guns? Or a single 20mm Vulcan instead of 4 30mm cannon? The
>>>> technology was there, so, why not?
>>
>>>> Jim
>>
>>> Wasn't needed.
>>
>>> Germans had motorized guns by the end of WW1 installed in Pfalz
>>> D.XIIs- the Motorgewehr (Motor Gun) and were geared with the motor.
>>> They fired 1,400 rpm!!! Germans also had another MG called the GAST
>>> gun that were two-barreled and interlinked which could fire 1,600
>>> rpm!!!
>>> AFAIK, these did not make combat, the Germans hiding them from the ACC
>>> until discovered in the early 1920s.
>>
>>> the initial Mauser 20mm MG-213/20 or more properly designated variant
>>> 30mm MK-213C. Fw-190s were testing them when the war ended. They were
>>> intended for the next generation German jets and Fw Ta 152. Postwar
>>> they were copied by Britain as the ADEN 3M and French DEFA 540
>>> cannons.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Halmyre- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> ADEN:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADEN_cannon
>
> DEFA:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFA_cannon
>
> M39:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M39_cannon
>
> There's THREE postwar guns based on the MK-213C.
There's also the GSh-23L.
'Way too much gets made around here (yes you, Rob) about priority of
"invention". Virtually all of engineering is based on prior art made
useful by advances in other areas, like lightweight hydraulic and
electric motors to drive multi-barreled cannon in this case.
One of the underlying weaknesses of all arrangements of autocannon and
machine guns is the marginal amount of power that can be extracted from
the firing process, either by diverting gas or recovering recoil forces
from the cartridge cases. The lack of robust power over friction margins
makes self-powered guns prone to stoppages from all manner of causes.
Externally-powered guns remove that limitation at the cost of increased
size, weight and power demands. Since aircraft got larger after WWII,
the impact of SWAP increases on aircraft performance was small enough to
be acceptable.
Paul
Keith Willshaw
> On Feb 28, 10:50 am, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Eunometic wrote:
>>> On Feb 28, 8:20 am, Daryl Hunt <dh...@nspami70west.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2011 1:41 PM, Rob Arndt wrote:
>>
>>> SNIP
>>>>> During WW2, Mauser was working on the single-barrel revolver
>>>>> cannon- the initial Mauser 20mm MG-213/20 or more properly
>>>>> designated variant 30mm MK-213C. Fw-190s were testing them when
>>>>> the war ended. They were intended for the next generation German
>>>>> jets and Fw Ta 152. Postwar they were copied by Britain as the
>>>>> ADEN 3M and French DEFA 540 cannons.
>>
>>>> Which Mauser copied Colt.
>>
>>> The Colt Model 1855 revolving carbine and rifle was simply like a
>>> hand gun revolver but firing a rifle cartridge and having a full
>>> length rifle barrel.
>>
>>> There was no automatic round loading and cartridge extraction.
>>
>> The Gatling gun was built by Colt and definitely did have
>> automatic loading and extraction.
>
>
> When one says the word "colt" it is associated with small arms and
> rifles that used a revolving breach.
The word is associated with the Colt Manufacturing company
> When one says the word "gattling" it is associated with revolving
> barrels weapon.
Which was produced by the Colt Manufacturing company
> Mr Magoo confused the situation.
>
> The details of the loading and extraction mechanism between the Mauser
> revolver and the Gattling are different, for one the gattling doesn't
> pause to line up breach and barrel.
Which doesnt invalidate the fact that Colt knew how to build
rotary weapons with automatic loading mechanisms.
Keith
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> >> 2 Spin up time means revolver canon migh even fire more
> >> rounds in the first second.
> >
> > Uh, no. Getting up to speed, such guns fire _fewer_ rounds
> > in the first second, than in subsequent seconds.
>
> Not necessarily, they can be brought up to speed before shooting begins.
Maybe we should ask the target to stand still, while
we get the guns up to speed?
I think not.
Jim
original question. I did do some back-of-the-envelope calculations
regarding weight. From wiki (yeah, I know), an M2 weighs 83 pounds * 6
is 498 excluding tripod whereas the M61 vulcan is 248 excluding the feed
system. I would guess the feed systems for the 6 M2s and the Vulcan
would weigh about the same when the ammo cans, links (vulcan can be
linkless?), and whatever the guide that takes the rounds from the cans
to the gun is called. Other than bulk and having a single point of
failure (non-feature) but a single maintenance point (feature) and
self-clearing of misfires, it would seem that the multi-barrel gun with
its very high rate of fire would have been something that would have
been explored in WWII. At least in the shipboard AA role where bulk is
less of an issue. Just seems strange that in 1946 after the dust
settled someone finally said, "You know, it would be cool if..."
Thanks!
Jim
Jim Wilkins
> failure (non-feature) but a single maintenance point (feature) and
> self-clearing of misfires, it would seem that the multi-barrel gun with
> its very high rate of fire would have been something that would have
> been explored in WWII. At least in the shipboard AA role where bulk is
> less of an issue. Just seems strange that in 1946 after the dust
> settled someone finally said, "You know, it would be cool if..."
>
> Thanks!
Gatling received US Patent #502185 on July 25, 1893 for a motorized
version of his gun for naval vessels. At about the same time the steam
turbine made the torpedo boats they were meant to defend against much
faster and there was considerable debate whether one would be within
range long enough for the Gatling to be effective. Lighter self-
powered machine guns that could be carried on shore expeditions
replaced them.
An original electric Gatling in .45-70 was borrowed from a museum for
a live demonstration of the concept at the start of the Vulcan
program.
Arndt seems to have selective amnesia for answers he doesn't like. I
posted a reference to an article on this a few months ago.
jsw
Keith Willshaw
Multi barrel guns WERE used aboard ships during WW2
they were not rotary barrelled but used water cooling to
dissipate the heat
see
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_2pounder_m8.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4cm-56_mk12.htm
Keith
Peter Skelton
It depends on the tactical situation. If you know you'll be shooting, it
makes sense to spin the gun up. In ground attack applications, or
anti-missile defense - the primary uses of these guns today - that is
often the case. That's why they build in the capability to run up
without shooting.
I think you don't think.
--
Peter
Dan
>
> I think you don't think.
"I stink, therefore I am decomposing" - Descartes after death.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
The M61 Vulcans installed in fighters today do not
have the capability to 'spin up' ahead of time.
(Especially since it would push unused rounds up
into the ammo drum, essentially making them
unavailable for firing.)
If your gun is armed, it is ready to fire.
Pull the trigger, and 20mm starts coming out the
barrel. The first 10-20 of them fired occur while
the barrels are getting up to full speed.
> I think you don't think.
In the case of the M61A1 Vulcan in fighters, there is
nothing to think about; I _know_.
Paul F Austin
> Jim wrote:
>>>
>> I really appreciate all the thoughtful, informative answers to my
>> original question. I did do some back-of-the-envelope calculations
>> regarding weight. From wiki (yeah, I know), an M2 weighs 83 pounds *
>> 6 is 498 excluding tripod whereas the M61 vulcan is 248 excluding the
>> feed system. I would guess the feed systems for the 6 M2s and the
>> Vulcan would weigh about the same when the ammo cans, links (vulcan
>> can be linkless?), and whatever the guide that takes the rounds from
>> the cans to the gun is called. Other than bulk and having a single
>> point of failure (non-feature) but a single maintenance point
>> (feature) and self-clearing of misfires, it would seem that the
>> multi-barrel gun with its very high rate of fire would have been
>> something that would have been explored in WWII. At least in the
>> shipboard AA role where bulk is less of an issue. Just seems strange
>> that in 1946 after the dust settled someone finally said, "You know,
>> it would be cool if..."
>> Thanks!
>> Jim
>
> Multi barrel guns WERE used aboard ships during WW2
> they were not rotary barrelled but used water cooling to
> dissipate the heat
At the end of WWII, 20mm and even 40mm rounds were considered too light
to reliably stop Kamikaze aircraft. That's the reason why the 3"/50 was
developed and all lighter AAA on board ship was suppressed. The 5"/54
was developed to increase the range of heavy AAA, with a round that was
much heavier than the 5"/38, 70 pounds compared to 55 pounds.
Paul
Dave Kearton
news:Vc6dnVhEg-MayvHQ...@supernews.com...
I've always thought that canister would be a handy club in the bag (for that
timeframe).
Obviously only good for the low level approaches - just above the water.
This would keep the bad guys coming down from above, at a steeper angle that
would be slightly easier to evade.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Jim Wilkins
wrote:
> ...>
> I've always thought that canister would be a handy club in the bag (for that
> timeframe).
>
That's pretty much what the proximity fuse provided, but with better
ballistics.
jsw
Dave Kearton
news:74661c4f-9a2c-4faa...@b8g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> jsw
Yep, you're absolutely right. However all the footage I saw, shows
ships' topsides bristling with twin 40mm mounts and "shitloads" of 20mm guns
(.50s on smaller boats) all firing as fast as they can reload into the
midground.
I'm thinking the equivalent of firing a sawn off coach gun down the
hallway - when the planes have passed inside the regular 5" engagement
envelope. Maybe it's not practical - or even wise to take a 5" away
from where it's most effective - but it would be a spectacular sight to see
Betty get shredded.
Maybe I should switch to decaf....
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Jim Wilkins
wrote:> ...>
> Yep, you're absolutely right. However all the footage I saw, shows
> ships' topsides bristling with twin 40mm mounts and "shitloads" of 20mm guns
> (.50s on smaller boats) all firing as fast as they can reload into the
> midground.
>
> I'm thinking the equivalent of firing a sawn off coach gun down the
> hallway - when the planes have passed inside the regular 5" engagement
> envelope. Maybe it's not practical - or even wise to take a 5" away
> from where it's most effective - but it would be a spectacular sight to see
> Betty get shredded.
>
Sanshiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beehive_(ammunition)
jsw
Sunny
"Dave Kearton" <dkearton...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4d6c70bf$0$12079$882e...@usenet-news.net...
> "Paul F Austin" <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Vc6dnVhEg-MayvHQ...@supernews.com...
>> On 2/28/2011 2:50 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>>> Multi barrel guns WERE used aboard ships during WW2
>>> they were not rotary barrelled but used water cooling to
>>> dissipate the heat
>>
>> At the end of WWII, 20mm and even 40mm rounds were considered too light
>> to reliably stop Kamikaze aircraft. That's the reason why the 3"/50 was
>> developed and all lighter AAA on board ship was suppressed. The 5"/54
>> was developed to increase the range of heavy AAA, with a round that was
>> much heavier than the 5"/38, 70 pounds compared to 55 pounds.
>>
>> Paul
>
>
>
> I've always thought that canister would be a handy club in the bag (for
> that timeframe).
Replacing barrels could become a daily event :-)
(We used canister in SVN on Centurion Tanks, barrels didn't last long)
Great against bunkers though.
Dave Kearton
> Sanshiki:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beehive_(ammunition)
> jsw
Yep, saw that too. That seems more of a kludge for a lack of proximity
fusing.
Seeing one of those suckers going off in your face would be unnerving.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Dave Kearton
news:g20bp.11535$MF5....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
Certainly would. I guess the gas erosion would be hideous.
Seen .30 and .50 barrels when they wear out, just about a waste of ammo
(even if that's the only barrel you got)
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Dan
> Seeing one of those suckers going off in your face would be unnerving.
And the very last thing one would ever see.
Keith Willshaw
Interestingly of course since then we have seen the reintroduction
of 20mm and 30mm guns in the form of Phalanx and Goalkeeper for
missile defense and weapons such as Bushmaster to defend against
boat attack.
Keith
Peter Skelton
The development program for the 3" 50 started years before the Kamikaze
threat. The 5" 54 project was more or less concurrent
--
Peter
Paul F Austin
The differences are these from what I've read: Kamikaze aircraft were
fairly slow, so if you managed a catastrophic airframe kill, the bomb on
board would probably splash before hitting the ship. An airframe kill
was necessary, because even if the pilot was killed, an airplane often
continued to fly straight enough to hit the ship.
ASMs on the other hand fly at fairly high subsonic to supersonic speed,
so an airframe kill won't prevent the warhead from flying through the
debris cloud and hitting the ship. CIWS are intended to achieve a
warhead kill outside the lethal radius of the warhead.
It's worth noting that closed-loop controlled autocannon have about zero
effectiveness once the missile passes M1.5. The time between the first
salvo's observation at maximum effective range, the training to zero out
the observed error and time of flight of the second salvo places the
warhead within the lethal radius against an un-armored ship. That's why
missiles (e.g., ESSM) have become the primary close-in defense system.
Boat swarms are a different problem, driven by rules of engagement and
the ability to "service" a bunch of targets quickly. Killing them isn't
hard. Doing it for all of a swarm, while keeping the closest approaching
boat outside the range at which a detonated martyr can inflict a
mission-kill on the ship is the hard part. Antennas and sensors are
pretty soft targets, so even if the first wave bomb-boats are unable to
do much structural damage, sensors may be so degraded that the second
wave has a much better chance.
Helos armed with pretty much anything can engage boat swarms far enough
out to neutralize the threat but the ROE rarely allows that.
Paul
Paul F Austin
We may be splitting hairs here, but Friedman says "Both fire control
radar and the VT fuse were united in the final antiaircraft gun
development of World War II, the automatic twin 3-in/50 intended
specifically as an anti-Kamikaze measure." (Friedman, Destroyers, 2004,
207-208).
The wholesale replacement of all 20mm and 40mm mounts by 3" 50s was,
according to Friedman, driven by the ineffectiveness of the lighter guns
against Kamikaze.
Paul
Dan
I suppose loading the 8" guns with 00 buckshot would be a bit
overkill for small boat threats?
Peter Skelton
Friedman is correct except that the replacement did not happen in WWII.
The components gun, radar and fuse were there before, as he says and I say.
--
Peter
Paul F Austin
even think it would work well. A single round of canister would be
overkill for the boat its aimed at and do nothing against the one a
hundred meters away in azimuth. Autocannon are more than sufficient to
get a kill and a ship can carry a lot more of them than it can major
caliber guns, allowing multiple targets to be engaged simultaneously.
As I said, the main problem is the ROEs. In narrow seas with lots of
innocent traffic, it's tough to say (and enforce) a no-entry zone exists
with five miles of each USN ship. There're notions of analysis of
traffic to detect a swarm of small boats "migrating" in your direction
but I suspect the certainty of the MSM accusing the USN of murdering a
bunch of fishermen (and some would be killed) would make it very
difficult to get weapons release. The bad guys don't unfortunately have
to fly Iranian (or pirate) flags.
Paul
Dan
I wasn't being serious.
Eunometic
My understanding is that the choice of 3 inches was due to the fact
that this was the minimum practical size for radio proximity fuse
though I may be thinking of the US Army Skysweeper (Gun, M51,
Antiaircraft or D48 Gun automatic, 75-mm T83E6,and E7. recoil
mechanism, and loader ramer) .
The Germans, during WW2, after similar analysis determined that a
55mm "single hit to kill" calibre was optimal. It was said to be
partially influenced by the abillity of German FLAK defenses (20mm
guns) to hit Lancaster Dambuster bombers but not bring them down
untill after they had released their weapons. Having an intermediate
range weapon was another need.
The weapon was the "5.5 cm Flak Gerät 58" and had an innovative
recoil/loading mechanism (it fired on the return stroke to minimise
recoil) and hydraulic power drive designed to be used in conjunction
with radar and computers from the start.
40mm weapons tended to use gryo type sights where deflection is
calculated (estimated) from projectile flight time for that range
multiplied by angular rate of target. This spherical co-ordinate
system is only an approximation. Gerät 58's mechanisms were fully
linear and thus were not estimated firing solutions but mathematically
perfect.
The Soviet 57 mm AZP S-60 was built around 5.5 cm Flak Gerät 58.
It should be noted that direct fire AAA weapons bigger than 40mm cause
problems for the gunners. Earlier German attempts at 5cm weapon was
disappointing due to the fact that gun smoke and flash tended to
obscure the gun aimers view. Possibly innovations such as flashless
and smokeless propellants helped as did just having a long enough
barrel as does computerised aiming with the gunners of set from the
weapon.
The Germans don't seem to have been influenced by the need for
proximity fuses. Nevertheless they had 88mm and it seems 128mm fuses
in trial by 1944.
Modern small calibre weapons do not need proximity fuses for an
accurate airburst. The take an accurate radar/laser range, fire the
round, measure the muzzle velocity at the muzzle and then program the
fuze as it exits the muzzle.
>
> The wholesale replacement of all 20mm and 40mm mounts by 3" 50s was,
> according to Friedman, driven by the ineffectiveness of the lighter guns
> against Kamikaze.
Odd since the division of Kamikazee kills was
20% 5 inch.
40% 40mm.
40% 20mm.
The 20mm was loved because it worked even if ships power was down.
Alex Potter
> program the fuze as it
> exits the muzzle.
Eh? How do they do that, then?
--
Alex
Eunometic
A device mounted on the muzzle of the gun measures velocity and also
then program the burst time.
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/img/SS-10_42F9706-6_1.jpg
Alex Potter
> A device mounted on the muzzle of the gun measures velocity and also
> then program the burst time.
>
> http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/img/SS-10_42F9706-6_1.jpg
Thanks for that. Ingenious.
--
Alex
Peter Stickney
> "Paul F Austin" <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Vc6dnVhEg-MayvHQ...@supernews.com...
>> On 2/28/2011 2:50 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>>> Multi barrel guns WERE used aboard ships during WW2 they were not
>>> rotary barrelled but used water cooling to dissipate the heat
>>
>> At the end of WWII, 20mm and even 40mm rounds were considered too light
>> to reliably stop Kamikaze aircraft. That's the reason why the 3"/50 was
>> developed and all lighter AAA on board ship was suppressed. The 5"/54
>> was developed to increase the range of heavy AAA, with a round that was
>> much heavier than the 5"/38, 70 pounds compared to 55 pounds.
>>
>> Paul
>
>
>
> I've always thought that canister would be a handy club in the bag (for
> that timeframe).
The idea was that the 3" shell used in the 3"/50 was the smallest projectile
that could (at that time) carry both a Proximity Fuze and a reasonable
bursting charge.
The problem with Canister is that it doesn't have a lot of range - it
loses speed very quickly. A prox fuzed shell will basically turn itself
into a canister round when its near the target, with the added bonus of
some blast.
> Obviously only good for the low level approaches - just above the water.
> This would keep the bad guys coming down from above, at a steeper angle
> that would be slightly easier to evade.
Another good thing about the twin 2:/50 mount was that it easily supported
GUNAR (Gun and Radar) each mount carried its own fire control radar
and director, fully self contained.
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system
Paul F Austin
And I said as well. Friedman said the development was the last in WWII,
rather than deployment on ships. The 3"/70 that followed was apparently
mostly a post-war development. I'm so glad we all agree.
I don't have a history of the development of the Mark 22 3"/50. When was
its development started? The complete single and dual mounts including
autoloader didn't seem to be completed until after the end of the War.
Paul
Peter Skelton
There's a bit about it on navweaps. What I went on here was the decision
not to go ahead with the 3" mounts on the IOWAs because they wouldn't be
ready in time.
Peter
--
Peter
Paul F Austin
Thanks.
I was re-reading Friedman on the subject of the 3"/70 development which
failed. Although the gun performance was marginally greater than the
3"/50, the weight of the mount was apparently unacceptable in the size
destroyers that BUSHIPS wanted to build in the 1950s. In something the
size of the Spruances, such a mount might have been acceptable, although
if it was comparable to the Mk 42 5"/54 in reliability, you can
understand why it was a dead end.
Paul
David E. Powell
> On 01/03/2011 11:00 PM, Paul F Austin wrote:
>
> > On 3/1/2011 1:06 PM, Peter Skelton wrote:
> >> On 01/03/2011 9:56 AM, Paul F Austin wrote:
> >>> On 3/1/2011 7:53 AM, Peter Skelton wrote:
snip
> >> Friedman is correct except that the replacement did not happen in WWII.
> >> The components gun, radar and fuse were there before, as he says and I
> >> say.
>
> > And I said as well. Friedman said the development was the last in WWII,
> > rather than deployment on ships. The 3"/70 that followed was apparently
> > mostly a post-war development. I'm so glad we all agree.
>
> > I don't have a history of the development of the Mark 22 3"/50. When was
> > its development started? The complete single and dual mounts including
> > autoloader didn't seem to be completed until after the end of the War.
>
> There's a bit about it on navweaps. What I went on here was the decision
> not to go ahead with the 3" mounts on the IOWAs because they wouldn't be
> ready in time.
>
> Peter
The key to remember in WW2 was how much of a balnce it was between
"What can we develop?" and "When can we have it in the field?"
Being the Allies in 1941, would you go with a posse of ships you'll
have by 1944 or put it off to 1946? 1944 will win out... In fact "Next
Tuesday" will probably win out even more. "Give me a minute and we'll
have a dozen." even more so. (See: Sten Guns, Escort Carriers,
Liberator Pistols, Escort Corvettes.)
The Iowas turned out pretty well as they were, and I believe they
outlived the 3 inch mounts ;)
Keith Willshaw
55mm flak MAY have been optimum for low flying aircraft but
Germany never fielded any. They adopted 20mm , 37mm, 88 mm,
105mm and 128mm AA guns
A small number (60) of Flak 41 50mm guns were made but were
not very successful. The preferred replacement for the 20 mm
were the 37mm Flak 37 and Flak 43
Keith
Eunometic
Geraet 58 was built and sucessfully tested, it did not achieve
production.
The term Geraet means apparatus or system: emphasising its integraion
into advanced fire control and servo mechanisms. There was a naval
version as well.
>
> A small number (60) of Flak 41 50mm guns were made but were
> not very successful.
Smoke and gun flash.
The preferred replacement for the 20 mm
> were the 37mm Flak 37 and Flak 43
Sort off. The germans relied on the FLAK vierling ie 4 x 20mm guns
and did not regard the 37mm Flak 37 or the greatly improved 37mm FLAK
43 that urgent.
The barrels of this 20mm weapon were based upon the 20mm FLAK 38, a
much better Rheinmetall barrel than the earlier Mauser 20mm FLAK 30
due to its greater reliabillity and high rate of fire. For a 20mm
weapon it had a heavy projectile and high muzzle velocity.
The gunner usually fired two barrels while loaders alternatly put 40
round clips into the other barrels. This put out a good rate of
sustained fire as one pair of barrles was always firing while the
others were loading and cooling. It was a good weapon with a gyro
sight.
3.7cm FLAK 37 was equal to the Boffors 40mm with about the same
ballistics and rate of fire, it fired from 6 round clips. Theis type
of weapon had been around for quite a time.
The 3.7cm FLAK 43 was a much more powerfull weapon with about twice
the rate of fire of the Boffors or the earlier FLAK 37.
Rob Arndt
After the 50mm Flak 41 was tried and found to be inadequate, a new
specification was issued, owing much to the failure of the 50mm Flak
41 but also to the reappraisal of the German contemporary anti-
aircraft problem. There had been sufficient evidence with the 50mm
Flak 41 to enable a medium anti-aircraft theory to be put forward.
This theory insisted that a medium gun was only justified in defensive
areas where it was vital to destroy 100% of the attacking aircraft,
situations where even a single aircraft getting through could cause
great damage such as with the raid on the Möhne Dam. If a gun could
guarantee this 100% success, than no price was to high to pay for it.
The solution arrived at was to employ a six gun battery with a high
rate of fire. Working from this theory, a new specification called for
what today is called a weapons system in which the radar, the
predictor, the displacement corrector and the guns were all tailored
to each other and formed a cohesive package.
The development of the 55mm gun was a logical consequence of the 50mm
weapon, conditioned partly on the Flak 41’s shortcomings and the
tactical concept discussed above, and partly by Rhinemetall-Borsig’s
discovery early in 1942 that the 50mm caliber was ballistically
unsuitable. It was impossible to produce a shell of the required
destructive power that would also be stable at the high velocities
demanded. The destructive power was based on a ruling that the
explosive content was to be 1.10lb (500gm) which had been proved by
experiment to be the minimum amount necessary to guarantee the
destruction of a heavy bomber with one shot. The velocity demanded was
high to reduce the time of flight and thus improve both the accuracy
and the chance of hitting the target.
Rhinemetall proposed the 55mm caliber and, after considerable delay
while the whole medium anti-aircraft problem was evaluated, the
Luftwaffe finally agreed and issued the specification. 1943 was spent
largely largely in perfecting the ammunition and designing the various
other components of the system. By the spring of 1944 prototype
ammunition and guns had been fired and the results gave rise to a
great deal of rethinking. Several different designs of shells were
then tried in turn, together with various twists of rifling, but the
question of what was finally to be the service standard was never
settled before the end of the war.
The gun itself was little more than a slightly enlarged version of the
50mm Flak 41 using the same mechanism but with the principal of
differentiated recoil to improve stability. The gun is pulled back to
the limit of the recoil stroke and held. It is then loaded and
released, allowing it to run forward driven by the recuperator. It is
fired a microsecond or two before it reaches the fully forward
position. Thus the explosion and the subsequent recoil thrust has
first to overcome the inertia of the forward moving mass before
starting it on its recoil stroke again. The net result is a
considerable reduction in the recoil stress transmitted to the
mounting.
The mounting was also an enlargement of the two axle Flak 41 design
under the title Sonderanhänger 206, but it was also intended to
develop static and self-propelled mountings in due course in addition
to a twin gun version. A notable feature of both the gun and mounting
design was the extensive use of stamped sheet metal components in
order to simplify production. In early 1945 a project was begun to
attach a squeeze bore muzzle to the gun.
The long delay in the ballistic development together with the late
start of the project and its ambitious ancillaries was unfortunate.
Although three prototypes were built, the remainder of the program
never reached the production stage before the end of the war. It is
believed that the work done on the 55mm Flak Ger 58 was seen in the
final version with the Soviet 57mm anti-aircraft gun.
Specifications:
Caliber: 55mm (2.17 inch)
Length of gun: 6,150mm (20.18 ft)
Length of bore: 4,211mm (13.82 ft)
Rifling: 20 grooves right-handed increasing twist, 1/90 to 1/25.5
Breech mechanism: Gas-operated vertical sliding block, percussion
fired
Traverse: 360o
Elevation: -5o to +90o
Weight in action: 3,500 kg (7718lbs)
Rate of fire: 140rpm practical
Muzzle velocity: 1,050mps (3445 fps)
Sources: Ian Hogg, German Artillery of World War Two, Greenhill Books,
2002
~ http://panzercentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=17236&start=0
Rob