Machine Guns and Cannons (Ground, Vehicle, and Aircraft Mounted Weapons)

[dy031101]

Fair enough.  Guess I'll stick with the Mk 108......

[jcf]

The thing to remember is that the Ho 301 used a 'caseless' round that was really more of a self-propelled grenade.
It was very much like a giant version of the Volcanic round from the 19th century.
That along with the huge exposed spring and operating mechanism would make it poorly suited as a ground weapon.

Ho 301 round:


Volcanic round (Hunt Rocketball type):

[Old Wombat]

You'd be better off using the Mk 19 grenade launcher (range 1,500 yds) than the Ho-301 (165 yds[+/-]).

I would recommend the QF 2-pdr naval gun, which is also a 40mm weapon (5,000 yds);

Seen here as the QF 2-pdr Mk II mounted as a single train-defence AA unit (1918);

[dy031101]

What if...... I'm looking for a real-life replacement for the glacis-mounted gun in these pictures?

I suppose the Mk.19 would be good as an explosive-projector weapon (the one in the pictures is a light weight artillery)......

[rickshaw]

Range would definitely decrease 'cause the shell would not be getting the added velocity that the aircraft gives whilst flying forward.   The Ha301 would be, as noted, roughly equivalent to a 40mm grenade launcher, with a lower payload.  The 40mm GL round has the advantage - it leaves its shell case behind whereas the Ha301 takes it's with it.  It is effectively a rocket and the shell case becomes parasitic weight.

[Old Wombat]

What if...... I'm looking for a real-life replacement for the glacis-mounted gun in these pictures?

I suppose the Mk.19 would be good as an explosive-projector weapon (the one in the pictures is a light weight artillery)......

A fairly direct replacement/alternate for that would be the Bofors L/60 40mm automatic cannon (see "Continued Use", lower down the page).

I must have lost track somewhere, I thought we were looking at sponson guns.

[jcf]

The Mk 108 (or its big brother the 5.5 cm Mk 112) could have possibilities as a ground vehicle weapon.

Lots of info here:
http://deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/MK%20108/rheinmetall108.htm

From this page:
http://deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv-englisch/dokumente/web/new%20site/frames2/Dokumente.htm

[dy031101]

I must have lost track somewhere, I thought we were looking at sponson guns.

You have not- the sponson guns (rapid-firing MGs or light cannons) are still part of the discussion.    The glacis gun (light artillery or rapid-firing light cannon) is an addition.

I do want to express though that I want to avoid making a "monstrous" (as in like Maus or TOG-2) platform if at all possible.  Could be just oversized, not monstrous, since the intellectual exercise aims to make the tank depicted in the linked pictures relatively "sensible" by real-life standard.

[Old Wombat]

OK, the last pic's I saw were these.





Anyway, as I said; I'd look at the L/60 Bofors for the glacis gun; possibly a 30mm Rarden for the coaxial;
maybe a "Bren-ified" Boys anti-tank rifle (EDIT: or a 20mm FlaK 38 flipped so it becomes a top-loader) as the commander's pintle-mounted gun;
& for the main gun, you're looking at about an 8" (200mm) gun.

(Bear in mind that I have no idea of the size of these things & I'm doing a rough mental scaling from the commander figure.)

[Maverick]

OW, one of the real problems associated with the Warhammer series is the 'scale' of the system.  It's stated as 28mm, but it's a deformed 28mm at best.  I don't know whether it's the limitations of the scale or the sculptors or a deliberate 'look' but WH has always looked off in scale whether in art or miniatures.  I think it's one of the real problems in trying to put true scale weapons into the platforms.  As such, rough scaling is as good as it will get.

One can see the designs were by someone who had little concept of the realities of military hardware, instead heading for something to 'look cool' whether workable or not.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Warhammer favours the "over-chunky-larger-than-life-bugger-the-problems-using-such-weapons" look.  Never attracted me and IMHO looks bloody stupid but loads of adolescent boys find it attractive and fall into the Warhammer marketing vortex.  I find a great deal of its symbology and storyline repellent and part of the over-all societal desensitisation towards such imagery/concepts.  My son was tempted to get into it for a while and while I did little to discourage him, he eventually worked out that the whole thing is a marketing ploy by Wargames Foundry, rather than a real attempt at wargaming.   Oh, and the prices killed it for him, as well. 

[Old Wombat]

Warhammer favours the "over-chunky-larger-than-life-bugger-the-problems-using-such-weapons" look....Snip...

That much is obvious (How the Hell are you going to fit the breech mechanisms of an 8" naval gun & a 30mm auto-cannon into that turret, let alone 1 or 2 crew? ) & I am passingly familiar with the Warhammer stuff (Science Fiction being my other modelling field) &, if you don't get too hung up on realism & think of it as 3D cartooning, many of them are pretty cool designs even if they are merely an expensive marketing ploy (No, I don't own any - too expensive for me, too).

[Cliffy B]

That much is obvious (How the Hell are you going to fit the breech mechanisms of an 8" naval gun & a 30mm auto-cannon into that turret, let alone 1 or 2 crew? )

So how many shells/powder bags can it carry?  I'd love to see how it handles the recoil.  Must set distance and altitude records with each shot (the tank, not the gun )

[dy031101]

OW, one of the real problems associated with the Warhammer series is the 'scale' of the system.

One can see the designs were by someone who had little concept of the realities of military hardware, instead heading for something to 'look cool' whether workable or not.

Warhammer favours the "over-chunky-larger-than-life-bugger-the-problems-using-such-weapons" look....Snip...

That much is obvious (How the Hell are you going to fit the breech mechanisms of an 8" naval gun & a 30mm auto-cannon into that turret, let alone 1 or 2 crew? ) & I am passingly familiar with the Warhammer stuff (Science Fiction being my other modelling field) &, if you don't get too hung up on realism & think of it as 3D cartooning, many of them are pretty cool designs even if they are merely an expensive marketing ploy (No, I don't own any - too expensive for me, too).

Precisely why I said "make it relatively sensible"- I'd like to keep the identifying features and rough shape, but not size or proportion.  And therefore I fear that 40mm/L60 might be too big for the glacis gun without the tank itself being a superheavy.

[Maverick]

Donny, the problem is that if you put 72nd scaled figures or properly scaled 25/28mm wargaming figures into the vehicle, the scale continues to be out in a rather spectacular way (unless of course, the idea is to say that these vehicles are merely larger versions of what would normally be).  Some of the vehicles in the WH40K range would lend themselves to such concepts (providing things like hatches, weapons etc were rescaled as you've suggested), but other things unfortunately wouldn't.  The real problem still lies, however, in the 'chunkiness' of the basic moulds.

On a pricing note, they have released injection plastic vehicles within the range which are considerably 'less expensive' (not cheaper) than the resin original series.

Regards,

Mav