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

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Other options for modeling purposes include scale-o-rama of 1/72nd scale SUU-23 20mm gun pods to a 1/48th scale model where they would become the equivalent of a .50" caliber gun pod, perhaps a GECAL50 pod. 

Another weapon that might work and should be considered would be to use 1/35th scale 20mm cannon barrels from the German Flak guns which can become very credible looking 40mm cannon barrels when scale-o-rama is applied and they are used on a 1/72nd scale model.  The 37mm Flak gun barrels could also be employed via scale-o-rama to portray a larger caliber weapon in 1/72nd scale, something in the 75-76mm range which would really look impressive with the conical or pepperpot flash suppressor fitted to the muzzle. 

The 30mm GEPOD30 that is provided in the 1/72nd and 1/48th scale weapons sets from Hasegawa will also work for scale-o-rama to a different scale.  The 1/72nd scale GEPOD30 will certainly look good when mounted on a 1/48th scale model and passed off as a .50" caliber gun pod, again with the supposition that the pod contains a GECAL50 gatling gun.  You could also claim that the pod contained a 40mm Mk19 automatic grenade launcher and mount it on an AH-1, AH-64, or UH-60. 

Plenty of other ideas out there that need to be consolidated on this topic and shared. 

[dy031101]

The topic reminds me- Germany out of desperation at the end of WWII created many "emergency" designs: coal-burning ramjet, air-to-air missile that can be assembled by unskilled labours, and 55mm cannon in whose construction no alloy steels were used......

I couldn't help but to imagine how it would be like to create a Zerstörer by throwing together the three items mentioned above......

Which brings me a question- would weight reduction of the 55mm gun be possible?  (Gerät 58- the gun that used no alloy steels- weighs 650kg...... BK-5 weighs 540kg and is already very heavy for a fighter......)

Or was the "no alloy steels" requirement just the thing to contribute to its weight?

[Maverick]

Dy,

I'd hazard a guess and say the 'no alloy' idea was to preserve such material for actual aircraft/vehicle construction, given Germany's rather precarious situation re: their materiel shortages late in the war.

Regards,

Mav

[sotoolslinger]

Regarding scaleorama, I wanted to come up with something for the Bushmaster as a tankbuster gun pod like the 37 mm's on a Stuka(only that didn't suck) In my backstory I made a 30 mm high velocity , dual side feed , recoil operated, bottom ejecting cannon.

I built it with a reversed drop tank and a 1/72 Pak 40 cannon barrel

It was pretty boring on the back end so I added half of a reversed 500 lb. bomb as a helical feed magazine

As you can see I also reworked the barrel junction to give the impression of a reciprocating assembly.

[dy031101]

I'd hazard a guess and say the 'no alloy' idea was to preserve such material for actual aircraft/vehicle construction, given Germany's rather precarious situation re: their materiel shortages late in the war.

Of course.  I was just wondering if the consequences of using no alloy steels included the heavy weight or was the weight simply the result of differences between design requirements (of an army/naval cannon and those of aircraft cannons)......

[Maverick]

In that instance, I'd say that the differing weights would be the result of their applications as you've suggested.  A PaK 40 anti-tank gun (75mm calibre) would be of considerably heavier construction than the same calibre weapon as used in the Ju-88P & Hs-129B-3/Wa.

Regards,

Mav

[dy031101]

Oh and does anyone have the gun crew arrangement of the Mitsubishi Ki-109 interceptor?

Like where they sit inflight and where they would be when loading and firing the gun?

[sotoolslinger]

Here's a new one :90 mm recoiless revolving autocannon

In the air to air role it will be loaded with fuseable proximity detonating buckshot

[jcf]

The Rheinmetall MK112 5.5cm cannon was basically a scaled up MK108, the target cyclic rate was 300 rounds per minute with a weight of 600 lbs.
Of the first ten test articles, seven weighed 660 lbs and three improved models weighed in at 605 lbs. Smooth operation was not attained at high operating temperatures and in cold weather tests the plain carbon steels used caused component failures that required redesign of many parts. Smooth firing was attained at medium temperatures and a belt lift of two meters was attained, 20 round bursts were fired in the initial tests.

Length overall: 80 inches
Weight: 605 lbs
Rate of fire: 300 rounds/minute
Muzzle velocity: 1,950 feet/second
Muzzle energy: 97.5 foot-tons

Projectile
Diameter: 5.5cm
Length: 8.8 inches
Weight: 3.3 lbs
Explosive charge: 14.8 oz

A 1/48th MK108 could easily stand in for a 1/72nd MK112, ditto 1/32 for 1/48.
Jon

[jcf]

In that instance, I'd say that the differing weights would be the result of their applications as you've suggested.  A PaK 40 anti-tank gun (75mm calibre) would be of considerably heavier construction than the same calibre weapon as used in the Ju-88P & Hs-129B-3/Wa.

Regards,

Mav

The 75mm carried by German aircraft was the PAK 40 converted for aircraft use.

[dy031101]

A 1/48th MK108 could easily stand in for a 1/72nd MK112, ditto 1/32 for 1/48.

Was the barrel lengthened or was it simply enlarged to scale?

[Maverick]

The 75mm carried by German aircraft was the PAK 40 converted for aircraft use.

Whilst it was a conversion, there were some fairly big changes, starting with an autoloader.

Regards,

Mav

[jcf]

The 75mm carried by German aircraft was the PAK 40 converted for aircraft use.

Whilst it was a conversion, there were some fairly big changes, starting with an autoloader.

Regards,

Mav

The autoloader of the BK75 (not used in the Ju 88 mounting, that mounting used a gunner served vertical magazine) was an added on assembly that was separate from the actual gun, the gun itself (tube and breech) was the same.

jon

[jcf]

Thanks for the info Jon.  I'm assuming the rest of the carriage associated with the PaK 40 wasn't included?  Obviously not the wheels, gunshield, etc.

Regards,

Mav

Tube, breech-block and recuperator assembly only.

Jon

[dy031101]

Tube, breech-block and recuperator assembly only.

If the data of a gun have separate entries for gun weight and mounting weight, can I safely assume that the gun weight contains about the items you mentioned above?