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

[dy031101]

Recently I Googled a site that compared various aircraft guns built during WWII.

The site mentioned a T17 machinegun that is a reverse-engineered version of MG151 for use with the American .60 cal. cartridge.

Almost nothing (except for the fact that it was not formally adopted for use) came of the Googling efforts for that gun.

Does anyone know more about that gun?  Like how successful the gun was in tests...... and some pictures of the .60 MG would be nice, too.

Thanks in advance.

[jcf]

Recently I Googled a site that compared various aircraft guns built during WWII.

The site mentioned a T17 machinegun that is a reverse-engineered version of MG151 for use with the American .60 cal. cartridge.

Almost nothing (except for the fact that it was not formally adopted for use) came of the Googling efforts for that gun.

Does anyone know more about that gun?  Like how successful the gun was in tests...... and some pictures of the .60 MG would be nice, too.

Thanks in advance.

A post from Tony Williams on another board:
From 'Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45' by Emmanuel Gustin and myself:

"The Americans constantly searched for higher muzzle velocities in their HMGs, producing experimental weapons mainly based on the Hispano (T18 series) or MG 151 (T17 series) cannon. The T18s were adapted to 15 mm or .60" calibre, but the conversion turned out to involve too much work so they were dropped. The T17 was developed to accept the US Army's experimental .60" anti-tank cartridge (15.2x114) in a project which started in 1942 and continued until 1946, achieving orders for up to 5,000 weapons and production of about 300, none of which saw service. The T17E3 weighed 61 kg and achieved only 600 rpm; the T17E5 reduced the weight to 58 kg and speeded up the mechanism to 700-750 rpm. There was also a Johnson short-recoil design chambered for both the 20x110 HS 404 round and the necked-down 12.7x120 high velocity version (.50" HV), but this was equally unsuccessful.

The ammunition used by these weapons was impressively powerful for the calibre. The .50" HV achieved over 1,220 m/s with a 46 g bullet, the .60" anti-tank cartridge fired a 76 g bullet at 1,100 m/s, and a necked-down .50" version (12.7x114) propelled a 43 g bullet at 1,200 m/s, or 32 g at 1,340."

As a matter of interest, the .60 cartridge was also used in some postwar designs, namely the Vulcan rotary and the revolver cannon which became the M39, but it was rejected in favour of a necked-out version of the cartridge - the 20x102 - which is still in use today in the M61 Vulcan and various other guns.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Tony's comments are basically the same as those he makes about the .60 series in his book 'Rapid Fire' and are in line with the short mention of the .60 types in the book 'Small Arms of the World' by Smith and Smith. The Smith book has a photo of the T41/T17E5 version that I'll scan when I have a chance.

One note, the T17 was not a 'reverse engineered' MG151 any more than its .60 cal stablemate, the T18, was a 'reverse engineered' Hispano 404, in both cases the weapons were a reworking of the base design so it could use the .60 cartridge. In the case of the MG151 the .60 cartridge (15.2mm X 114mm) was more powerful than the 15mm X 96mm cartridge for which it had been designed.
Re-designing, re-engineering and outright copying are not the same as 'reverse engineering', which, BTW, is a much abused term.

Jon

[dy031101]

Thanks.

I still want to make sure though...... is it unsuccessful as in "not working well" or just "not adopted for service"?

[PanzerWulff]

I think the pod itself is nifty-looking, even though the weapon fizzled.  My question is this: could the pod have been recycled to fit a different, lighter cannon?  Maybe the GAU-12 25mm cannon, as fitted to the AC-130 and AV-8B, or a more modern 20mm?  Also, the kit includes these snazzy blue markings for the pods.  Wouldn't an operational pod be a little less decorative?

If you have the 1/72nd scale gun pods, you could use a bit of scale-o-rama and scale them up to become a .50" caliber gun pod on a 1/48th scale model.  If these pods are available in 1/144th scale, there is a good chance of passing them off as .50" gun pods on a 1/72nd scale model.  I beleive it was Blackops that did that with some of these pods on a helicopter project a year or so ago. 

I actually used that pod in just that way on my IsraeliBO-105/I "Akrav" (Scorpion)I built last year



"Panzer"

[dy031101]

I've finally located what I've meant to post for a while......

A chart made by Cockerill about what vehicles can take their 90mm Mk.3 and Mk.8 as an up-gunning option.

The left hand side column is for the Mk.3 whereas the right hand side column is for the Mk.8 (which, IIRC, is compatible with 90mm ammunitions of old Pershing and Patton tanks).

[GTX]

Interested to see a PT-76 so armed.

Regards,

Greg

[Weaver]

Some observations:

AML-90: is the Mk.3 significantly more powerful that the GIAT weapon already fitted?

VABs: the turrets in the drawings look too far forward. The VAB's engine is just behind the driver, so any turrets have to be towards the rear.

SIBMAS: Malaysia bought some of these with the Cockerill Mk.3 turret. I'm surprised that the Ratel doesn't appear on this list, given that it's virtually the same shape as the SIBMAS and that SA is currently offering 2nd hand ones for export.

Cascavel E-9: I thought this had the Cockerill gun anyway?

ERC-90 Sagaie: not sure what the point of changing a Sagaie to the Mk.3 would be, given that the standard vehicle has the MUCH more powerful GIAT TS-90 weapon. If it was an ERC-90 Lynx, on the other hand, then that's fair enough, since the Lynx only has the low-powered AML-90 turret (in case you're wondering what the point of the Lynx is, it's lighter and shorter than the Sagaie, so more recce than anti-tank orientated. Cheaper too.)

VBC-90: these were produced in tiny numbers for the French Gendarmerie (they're a VAB-based armoured car, basically) and had GIAT TS-90s as standard, so again, I don't see the point.

Fuchs: the turrets in the drawings look too far forward. The Fuch's engine is just behind the driver, so any turrets have to be towards the rear.

Saladin: uh-huh: been saying that for years.......

SK-105: since these all have 105s as standatd, I'm not sure what the point is?  

PT-76: good option. Wonder why you can't put the whole Mk.8 on the hull though, instead of just a gun swap? Wonder also about doing the same to the Chinese derivative, which has an 85mm gun as standard. As an aside, a Russian company is offering to re-arm PT-76s with old S-57 57mm AAA guns....

Scorpion: the Scorpion-90 has the Cockerill gun, but I understand that it suffers some cracking around the front of the turret, the aluminium armour not being really up to taking the recoil.

BMP-3: not sure of the point of this, since the standard vehicle has a 100mm gun that can fire ATGWs, unless the owners have fallen out with the Russians and can't get support any more.

Stormer: there's a low-hull 3-man version of the Stormer, which would be a bit less top-heavy than the full APC hull shown in the pics. As standard it has a Delco (?) Desert Warrior turret with a 30mm and 2 x TOW.

[dy031101]

The Mk.3 is touted as having a wide variety of shells (such as APFSDS) developed for it.  I personally don't know enough to comment on the French F1 gun though.

Yeah, PT-76 probably could just take the LCTS-90 turret in place of its original 2-man one.

I find it interesting that in some illustrations (such as the ones for the AMX-13), the barrel for the Mk.8 appears shorter than that of the Mk.3.

Just for the sake of comparison, how lethal is the TS-90 compared to the Mk.8?

[Weaver]

I can't find a set of figures that compare both guns under the same conditions...

Cockerill Mk.8 will penetrate 150mm RHA at 2000m at 60 deg. (from Cockerill brochure)

Cockerill Mk.3 will penetrate 100mm RHA at 1000m at 60 deg. (from Cockerill brochure)



The TS-90 is variously quoted as penetrating:

120mm at 60deg (range not specified)

NATO triple medium vehicle target at 1500m (impact angle not specified)

320mm (nothing specified)


Since the Mk.8's muzzle velocity is a bit higher than the TS-90s, I'd guess that it's a slightly better performer, which surprises me since it's barrel looks shorter. Maybe the TS-90 uses slower burning powder and a longer barrel to give a lower peak recoil impulse? Anyway, scratch my unfavourable comparison of the Mk.8 to the TS-90, but it still stands re the Mk.3 (which I have to admit, I'm more familiar with).

I've duly edited my original post which also had some confusions in it.


With respect to the illustrations, I'd take them with a pinch of salt. I've already pointed out how they've got the turret on top of the engine deck on the VAB and the Fuchs: I suspect that they've substituted the Cockerill barrel in some pics and just highlighted the original barrel in others.


Mk.3 brochure: http://www.cmigroupe.com/files/files/defence/CMI%20DEF_brochure_CSE90.pdf

Mk.8 brochure: http://www.cmigroupe.com/files/files/defence/080221_lcts90_brochure.pdf

Ammo brochure for the TS-90 (don't think they produce the guns any more): http://www.nexter-group.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100%3Amunitions-de-char-de-90-mm-&catid=49%3Amunitions-de-char&Itemid=93&lang=en


(edited AGAIN to finally (maybe) make sense. I keep putting "CM-90" (old name for the Cockerill gun) in place of "TS-90" which is the GIAT gun..... )

[philp]

Always wanted to do a Brazilian M-41 with that gun. 

[ChernayaAkula]

Most interesting!  

Hmmm, maybe I need to get another of those Hobby Boss LAV-150s to play with the turrets on other hulls. How about a German Luchs armed as such? OR LAV-25? Or Japanese Type 87?

EDIT: Seeing this list makes me think of all the cool wheeled armour I'd like to see as mainstream injection kits in both 1/35 as well as 1/72. VBC-90, AML 90, ERC 90, AMX-10RC, Ratel, Rooikat, Boxer,...

[Weaver]

The Luchs is so damn big it cries out for a bigger gun....

[dy031101]

Somehow I've kept thinking of a OT-810-based light tank, either with a Scorpion turret or a CSE-90...... 

[dy031101]

The Luchs is so damn big it cries out for a bigger gun....

Cockerill actually has one- CV LRF 105mm, compatible with NATO standard ammunitions......

==========================================

In Logan Harke's Geriatric Military thread I actually want to fit CT-CV turret to M41, PT-76, Ikv-91, and (maybe a stretch here) AMX-13 light tanks, seeing the turret is a two-man type (with an autoloader) capable of indirect fire and with the option for a hunter-killer sensor suite......

Nevertheless, does anyone know the size of CT-CV's turret ring?

[ChernayaAkula]

The Luchs is so damn big it cries out for a bigger gun....

Absolutely! I've tried comapring parts of the Bobby Boos LAV-150 turret to the Luchs and it seems the turret won't be too big and look just right. The turret rings (however accurate they are in the kits  ) shows that the LAV turret's diameter is not much bigger than the standard Luchs turret's. I'll assemble the LAV turret and snap a couple of pics.
Test fit of a Leo 1A5 turret indicates that the Leo turret looks a good deal too big on the Luchs.