NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Mitheldalond]

Why didn't anybody put a Gatling gun on fighter aircraft in WWII? I mean, the thing has been around since 1862, and with a prop fighter you've already got an engine and propellor spinning at 2000-3000 rpm. It seems like it should have been fairly easy to rig something up, and then you'd have a fighter with a gun firing at the same speed as your engine/propellor. Does it just come down to ammo consumption, or is there some other reason?

Fake edit: I'm thinking of something like the P-39 with its engine behind the cockpit, so that there would be room for the gun in the nose.

Actually, rate of fire would be how fast it's spinning times the number of barrels, wouldn't it?

Have you considered how heavy and large it would be? Including the ammo it would use?

I doubt a .50 cal Gatling gun would be larger or heavier than a 37mm cannon and a pair of M2 Brownings, which is what the P-39 actually carried in its nose. The GAU-19 only weighs 139 pounds, though a WWII version would likely be heavier.

You might be able to get away with a 20mm on larger twin-engined aircraft; the M61 Vulcan was apparently designed in 1946, and weighs about 548-648 pounds including the feed system.

[Spirit of Hope]

Have you considered how heavy and large it would be? Including the ammo it would use?

I doubt a .50 cal Gatling gun would be larger or heavier than a 37mm cannon and a pair of M2 Brownings, which is what the P-39 actually carried in its nose. The GAU-19 only weighs 139 pounds, though a WWII version would likely be heavier.

You might be able to get away with a 20mm on larger twin-engined aircraft; the M61 Vulcan was apparently designed in 1946, and weighs about 548-648 pounds including the feed system.

Yes a .50 cal gatling gun probably wouldn't take up more space than a 37mm cannon and a pair of M2 Brownings. However how much higher would its rate of fire be than the 2 M2 Brownings? And you would loose the 37mm cannon, which would be a devastating air to air weapon if it hit, and could be used to attack other targets effectively to, an advantage the .50 cal gatling gun probably wouldn't have.

[The United Remnants of America]

I doubt a .50 cal Gatling gun would be larger or heavier than a 37mm cannon and a pair of M2 Brownings, which is what the P-39 actually carried in its nose. The GAU-19 only weighs 139 pounds, though a WWII version would likely be heavier.

You might be able to get away with a 20mm on larger twin-engined aircraft; the M61 Vulcan was apparently designed in 1946, and weighs about 548-648 pounds including the feed system.

Yes a .50 cal gatling gun probably wouldn't take up more space than a 37mm cannon and a pair of M2 Brownings. However how much higher would its rate of fire be than the 2 M2 Brownings? And you would loose the 37mm cannon, which would be a devastating air to air weapon if it hit, and could be used to attack other targets effectively to, an advantage the .50 cal gatling gun probably wouldn't have.

I propose the GAU-8 Avenger or GAU-12 Equalizer.

[Spirit of Hope]

Yes a .50 cal gatling gun probably wouldn't take up more space than a 37mm cannon and a pair of M2 Brownings. However how much higher would its rate of fire be than the 2 M2 Brownings? And you would loose the 37mm cannon, which would be a devastating air to air weapon if it hit, and could be used to attack other targets effectively to, an advantage the .50 cal gatling gun probably wouldn't have.

I propose the GAU-8 Avenger or GAU-12 Equalizer.

Are either of those .50 caliber gatling guns that could be equipped inside a WWII fighter? No. Yes they are better ground attack weapons than a 37mm cannon, but they couldn't have been produced or used during WWII.

[Mitheldalond]

I doubt a .50 cal Gatling gun would be larger or heavier than a 37mm cannon and a pair of M2 Brownings, which is what the P-39 actually carried in its nose. The GAU-19 only weighs 139 pounds, though a WWII version would likely be heavier.

You might be able to get away with a 20mm on larger twin-engined aircraft; the M61 Vulcan was apparently designed in 1946, and weighs about 548-648 pounds including the feed system.

Yes a .50 cal gatling gun probably wouldn't take up more space than a 37mm cannon and a pair of M2 Brownings. However how much higher would its rate of fire be than the 2 M2 Brownings? And you would loose the 37mm cannon, which would be a devastating air to air weapon if it hit, and could be used to attack other targets effectively to, an advantage the .50 cal gatling gun probably wouldn't have.

Well, the Brownings fire at 750-850 rpm. A six-barreled Gatling gun spinning at 1000 rpm (likely connected to the propeller shaft with reduction gear) would have a rate of fire of 6000 rpm. With 2000 rounds of ammunition, it would have about 20 seconds of firing.

The key with the 37mm is if it hits. Which isn't too likely, except against bombers. Especially when you only have 30 rounds of ammo. It would definitely be devastating, but so would ~100 .50 cal bullets hitting in a second, and you have a better chance of scoring a hit with 100 bullets than one cannon shell.

It's true that the 37mm would be more useful against other targets (like tanks for example), but I had intended this to be an air-to-air fighter anyway. And there are always rockets and bombs.

Edit: I doubt even a B-17 could handle a GAU-8.
EDIT2: I also have the feeling that the sound of the Gatling gun firing would be extremely effective at psychological warfare.

[The Kievan People]

But why is it hindsight? They seem to have had everything they needed.

The technology to build it was about 80 years old, so the gun should have been known and understood. They knew that more bullets increased the chances of a hit or kill (hence the addition of two more .50 cals to later versions of the P-51). The P-39 was even a successful aircraft, so they knew that layout worked.

So why didn't anyone try to do it?

The Americans were happy with what they had.

The Germans had experimented with rotary MGs unsuccessfully in WWI.

The Soviets already had the ShKAS.

[San-Silvacian]

They also had everything they needed for nuclear weapons years before they were built.

Tanks had been theorized in 1907, why didn't they just scrap horses and go with tanks?!

Lockheed had drawn up a design in the 1930s that would have been the worlds first turbo-fan equipped, afterburning Mach 1 breaking fighter jet. Why didn't the USAAC just go with the future?!!!!?!?!

[Crookfur]

Why didn't anybody put a Gatling gun on fighter aircraft in WWII? I mean, the thing has been around since 1862, and with a prop fighter you've already got an engine and propellor spinning at 2000-3000 rpm. It seems like it should have been fairly easy to rig something up, and then you'd have a fighter with a gun firing at the same speed as your engine/propellor. Does it just come down to ammo consumption, or is there some other reason?

Fake edit: I'm thinking of something like the P-39 with its engine behind the cockpit, so that there would be room for the gun in the nose.

Actually, rate of fire would be how fast it's spinning times the number of barrels, wouldn't it?

The germans actually built a number of engine driven guns during ww1 including the Fokker-Leimberger 12barreled rotary gun. None made it to service during the great war however and from what I cna gather allied examiners and testers were not particulalry impressed with them.

The russiand played aorund with rotary barrel guns (gas operated though) during the 1930s but they didn't get anywhere.

Whilst the need for massive fire power was indentified prior to ww2 (see hurricanes and spitfires with 8 .303 guns) the ability to mount big bulky guns without doing fairly horrible things to the aircraft's performance and layout didn't really exist. Said ability didn;t really materialise until the advent of jet fighters at which point a new rapid fire cannon was regarded as being required which is why project vulcan focuesed on fairly big long range rounds

[Mitheldalond]

But why is it hindsight? They seem to have had everything they needed.

The technology to build it was about 80 years old, so the gun should have been known and understood. They knew that more bullets increased the chances of a hit or kill (hence the addition of two more .50 cals to later versions of the P-51). The P-39 was even a successful aircraft, so they knew that layout worked.

So why didn't anyone try to do it?

The Americans were happy with what they had.

The Germans had experimented with rotary MGs unsuccessfully in WWI.

The Soviets already had the ShKAS.

So it could have been done, but nobody really had a reason to do it? I guess I'd better go find myself a reason then.

They also had everything they needed for nuclear weapons years before they were built.

Tanks had been theorized in 1907, why didn't they just scrap horses and go with tanks?!

Lockheed had drawn up a design in the 1930s that would have been the worlds first turbo-fan equipped, afterburning Mach 1 breaking fighter jet. Why didn't the USAAC just go with the future?!!!!?!?!

The difference is that the Gatling gun wasn't new technology. It had been around for about 80 years.

[New Oyashima]

Remember when I lost those 3 carriers? Well I just sank 2 of his in a battle, and majorly crippled b another one. Two are limping back to his home ports, but I have signals intelligence and know which paths the home bound ships will take, more or less. What would be the best way to deal with it? A spaced out sub picket line Over the span of a few hundred miles.

[The Akasha Colony]

But why is it hindsight? They seem to have had everything they needed.

The technology to build it was about 80 years old, so the gun should have been known and understood. They knew that more bullets increased the chances of a hit or kill (hence the addition of two more .50 cals to later versions of the P-51). The P-39 was even a successful aircraft, so they knew that layout worked.

So why didn't anyone try to do it?

Where would you put it? It's far too big for the wings. It's too big to be used as a Motorkanone. Where does that leave?

Running it off the engine means siphoning off engine power, at a time when engine horsepower was an extremely important factor in fighter performance. Or you can try to make it gas powered, but that's complicated enough to require a longer term development effort. It isn't something you invent overnight.

Ultimately, the weapons already in service did the job more than well enough. The .50 cal M2 was already in production for the Americans, no need to develop an entirely new gun just for one specific purpose with a completely separate supply chain, and give your maintenance guys a headache. The Germans already had their 20 and 30 mm autocannons, although they experimented with revolver cannons. However, the amount of time required for that experiment (it was not completed until after the war) indicates how such weapons were not something you just invent on a whim.

In order to be adopted, it has to do something decisively better than existing platforms, such that it is worth the cost of switching over. And it simply didn't offer that. It would have been a weapon incompatible with practically every fighter, especially the most common ones in both the Army and Navy. It would have required a new assembly facility, new parts, and new maintenance procedures. And for what? It didn't offer anything a battery of multiple M2s or Hispano-Suizas couldn't.

[New Oyashima]

Remember when I lost those 3 carriers? Well I just sank 2 of his in a battle, and majorly crippled b another one. Two are limping back to his home ports, but I have signals intelligence and know which paths the home bound ships will take, more or less. What would be the best way to deal with it? A spaced out sub picket line Over the span of a few hundred miles.

Or airstrikes?

[Padnak]

lay minefields

wait

victory

[New Oyashima]

lay minefields

wait

victory

That's dumb, or smart.

[Padnak]

lay minefields

wait

victory

That's dumb, or smart.

it would require significantly less submarines then setting up a large screen and would more then likely be just as effective if the carrier is crippled

[The Akasha Colony]

Remember when I lost those 3 carriers? Well I just sank 2 of his in a battle, and majorly crippled b another one. Two are limping back to his home ports, but I have signals intelligence and know which paths the home bound ships will take, more or less. What would be the best way to deal with it? A spaced out sub picket line Over the span of a few hundred miles.

It depends on the resources at your disposal. If you don't have enough mines, a minefields out. If you don't have enough subs, a submarine blockade is out. If you don't have aircraft, an air attack is out.

But there are a lot of other factors to consider. If the carrier still has escorts, then a minefield might be the safest option, provided you have enough mines. Since it allows you to keep your submarines safe from the escorts. If he has no escorts and his flight operations are crippled, then sinking the carrier through a direct attack wouldn't be too hard.

[New Oyashima]

I'm pretty certain I'm engaging the bulk of his escorts still, and I have all three in the area at my disposal. The problem is that might not have time to lay a feild, as I've only Hiryuu'd his flight deck, his engines are still at full speed.

[Padnak]

I'm pretty certain I'm engaging the bulk of his escorts still, and I have all three in the area at my disposal. The problem is that might not have time to lay a feild, as I've only Hiryuu'd his flight deck, his engines are still at full speed.

Why not lay mines with your fleets aircraft? If the enemy carrier is crippled, or at least incapable of fight ops, you likely won't meet any sort of hostile aircraft and you'll be able to get in front and around the hostile fleet before they escape

[New Oyashima]

Would it make since to launch all three? I need to make sure they are sunk, or I might not be able to regain momentum. This is a war defining moment for me.

[The Akasha Colony]

Would it make since to launch all three? I need to make sure they are sunk, or I might not be able to regain momentum. This is a war defining moment for me.

Then I think you may have answered that question yourself.

[New Oyashima]

Would it make since to launch all three? I need to make sure they are sunk, or I might not be able to regain momentum. This is a war defining moment for me.

Then I think you may have answered that question yourself.

Wish me luck! For the empress!

[Imperializt Russia]

They also had everything they needed for nuclear weapons years before they were built.

Fission and the neutron were discovered in like 1935.

[Questers]

Would it make since to launch all three? I need to make sure they are sunk, or I might not be able to regain momentum. This is a war defining moment for me.

Attack with everything you have until they are dead.

[Doppio Giudici]

So I was in an RP with two inexperianced players and everything was fine with some slight bumps in the road.

Then this happened.

East Ukyenstein Airspace
123rd Guards Terror Bomber Air Battalion
Tu-160-3 escorted by KA-47’s
“We are on top of the biggest city of East Ukyenstein”
“Alright bombs away”
*3 Tu-160’s drop their massive payload on the city*
“Let us get out of here before they deploy their air force.”
“More like flying tin cans.”
BLOCKADE TERRITORY
1st decoy fleet
20xKA-47
"Enemy has gone in for the bait. close the distance between the AC-130, and attack it up top.
*The 5 KA-47 aircraft fly ontop of the AC-130, and started diving on its vulnerable top, shooting their canons at the large aircraft, and slow aircraft careful to keep in speed with it. The rest engaging with the enemy aircraft, (remember the KA 47 is a modified SU 47, a highly capable air craft)”

The player refuses to understand that the enemy fighters can't be snuck up on by a SU-47, as he swears his plane is. The other player is using F-16s and I know those aren't blind enough to fly right past without them detecting you.

I think they would both detect each other on radar and fire on each other.

Also, he said he modified the plane so that it can be deployed from a carrier, but he has no carriers and he didn't RP these planes taking off. There is no air-fields in the area.

SO....what do I do? The other player responded because he thought this was reasonable RPing and it's clearly not.

[Roski]

So I was in an RP with two inexperianced players and everything was fine with some slight bumps in the road.

Then this happened.

East Ukyenstein Airspace
123rd Guards Terror Bomber Air Battalion
Tu-160-3 escorted by KA-47’s
“We are on top of the biggest city of East Ukyenstein”
“Alright bombs away”
*3 Tu-160’s drop their massive payload on the city*
“Let us get out of here before they deploy their air force.”
“More like flying tin cans.”
BLOCKADE TERRITORY
1st decoy fleet
20xKA-47
"Enemy has gone in for the bait. close the distance between the AC-130, and attack it up top.
*The 5 KA-47 aircraft fly ontop of the AC-130, and started diving on its vulnerable top, shooting their canons at the large aircraft, and slow aircraft careful to keep in speed with it. The rest engaging with the enemy aircraft, (remember the KA 47 is a modified SU 47, a highly capable air craft)”

The player refuses to understand that the enemy fighters can't be snuck up on by a SU-47, as he swears his plane is. The other player is using F-16s and I know those aren't blind enough to fly right past without them detecting you.

I think they would both detect each other on radar and fire on each other.

Also, he said he modified the plane so that it can be deployed from a carrier, but he has no carriers and he didn't RP these planes taking off. There is no air-fields in the area.

SO....what do I do? The other player responded because he thought this was reasonable RPing and it's clearly not.

You send him to a mentor and they tell him to fix his shit