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

[kitnut617]

A question, the minigun fires the .30 round, was there ever a .50 made as a minigun ?

Yes, the GECAL .50, available in three and six barrelled versions.

Cheers Weaver, did a google and found it's called a GAU-19

[dy031101]

Interesting (if a bit crude) size comparison of a few cannons for AFV use here......

[dy031101]

I moved this post from the Monster Tanks thread......

Inspired by the British Mark I and descendants, Warhammer 40K, and these:




I've always thought of a tank with side gun sponsons.  Had a brief intellectual exercise based on the Excelsior tank...... but let's take away all restrictions of design basis for this new one.

Preferably I'd like to keep each sponson a one-man position, but I'm also wondering if it can be afforded greater firepower than a single machine gun...... would grenade discharger bank(s) under the sponson gunner's control be a good idea?  Something based on the SA 18?  Or even just modern high velocity 40mm grenade launcher?

[Maverick]

A significant problem with all WH40K armour is height.  I realise that the deformed '25mm' scale they use doesn't help, one look at the figures shows this, but any vehicle that seems to be part of that genre is awfully tall.  One can accept this in those vehicles that are based on their APCs (I think they are Rhinos), but even MBTs and other dedicated vehicles are very tall in comparison to anything in the real world.

Extrapolating these designs into a 'real world' scale (albeit whif) merely compounds the problem.  Sponson type attachments to MBTs would either be very cramped or end up increasing the height of the vehicle.  Add to that, increases in weight and width and the validity of the concept begins to look flawed.

Just an opinion tho.

Regards,

Mav

[dy031101]

Extrapolating these designs into a 'real world' scale (albeit whif) merely compounds the problem.  Sponson type attachments to MBTs would either be very cramped or end up increasing the height of the vehicle.  Add to that, increases in weight and width and the validity of the concept begins to look flawed.

Well this post was placed at first in the Monster Tank thread......

I do anticipate the notion that it won't be in the class of...... AMX-30, for example.  

Still, since this intellectual exercise revolves around gun sponsons, might as well get the maximum value out of the sponsons......  

[Maverick]

Yeah, my bad Dy.

I forgot the original intent of the 'monster' thing.  My only concern was that the 40K stuff isn't all 'monster' in design but rather baseline issue stuff.

Naturally sponsons would be more that applicable to some behemoth type vehicle.  Regarding armament, I'd think that the 'monster' type vehicle would be more applicable era wise in WW1 thru to maybe the 50s.  As a result, 'pom-pom' type weapons (ie 1-2lb short multiple barrels) might be appropriate for a WW1 era moving into heavy multiple MGs (.50cal class) for a later design.  The only thing wrong i'd see with the French gun would be it being a breech loaded single shot weapon.  One of the primary concerns of the French tanks armed with the weapon was the tactical disadvantage of the gunner & loader being the same person then add to that, he was also the commander.  Obviously that particular concern is somewhat removed but the one man operation still would be problematical in my opinion.

Regards,

Mav

[Weaver]

I've often thought the Maxim "pom-pom" gun, (i.e. scaled-up, single-barrelled HMG firing low-velocity 37mm rounds) would be a good support weapon in a tank. The problem in a normal tank is it's excessive inboard length, but on a monster tank, that wouldn't be so much of a problem.

[dy031101]

I forgot the original intent of the 'monster' thing.  My only concern was that the 40K stuff isn't all 'monster' in design but rather baseline issue stuff.

Like Leman Russ?  Well......

I'm flip-flopping between a genuine monster tank and just an over-sized MBT (perhaps with a Soviet-influenced turret to keep the height within a "reasonable" boundary).  

1 pounder "Pom-pom"...... okay, in some instances it doesn't seem too bad in terms of size......

[Maverick]

Dy,

Look at late WW2 allied super-heavy tanks, they were comparitively low slung, albeit turretless and in reality monster SPGs as opposed to true tanks.  I think anything pre-WW2 (or even very early WW2) wouldn't be concerned with height or other issues.  Even the German Ratte project whilst quite fantastical had a normal (well, battleship) turret.  I'd lean towards a pre-WW2 monster tank with all manner of armament.

Regards,

Mav

[dy031101]

Partially answering my own question again......

According to Jane's, the 105mm gun used on the AMX-13 is a "lightened version" of the AMX-30's main gun...... using the same projectiles but less propellant.

Doesn't expressly say if the AMX-13's gun is rifled or smoothbore...... but I guess it'd probably follow the pattern from that of the AMX-30.

There are some mentioning of the L44 gun used by the Sherman being designated as "CN-105-D1"...... perhaps it suggests more in common with the AMX-30's gun rather than that of the AMX-13?

[dy031101]

When I was brainstorming about "making Warhammer 40K's Leman Russ tank make sense", the Mk 108 suddenly comes to my mind.

How suitable is the Mk 108 in ground-based roles?  Would its mine shell be more or less lethal against infantry?

[Maverick]

If Wikipedia is to be believed, the Mk 108 had a bullet drop of 41 m of drop in the first 1,000 m of range.  I've always read it was a was a low velocity weapon, but I think this wouldn't be such a problem in a ground based application.  Against infantry in the open, it's HE shell might do a little damage, but given that the Minengeschoss had a thin wall, one would assume that the shrapnel affect wouldn't be significant enough to perform in the anti-personnel role.  Against light fortifications, softskin vehicles and light armour, I guess it would be effective.  A shrapnel shell with a thicker body would be a better choice of munition against infantry in the open.  In addition, the fusing would have to be radically changed to be an effective weapon in that instance.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

A better solution than thickening the walls of the shell and therefore decreasing the amount of HE carried quite significantly to get better fragmentation, might be to use presegmented wire, which is what is used in most grenades (thrown) nowadays.   The Germans also did some interesting research during WWII on getting better fragmentation out of AA shells.  They found that if they grooved the shell on the inside wall - rather than the more obvious outside walls, they got a more even breakup of the shell.  However, again that relies on the shell walls being considerably thicker, to provide the fragments themselves.

[dy031101]

I see.  Thanks for the points brought up. 

I've always read it was a was a low velocity weapon, but I think this wouldn't be such a problem in a ground based application.

Which brings to my mind another weapon- the 40mm Ho-301, another low-velocity autocannon reputed for being light and rapid-firing.

It has a quoted range of just 150m...... is it getting longer or shorter in ground-based applications against ground targets?

[Maverick]

Donny, I'd think the range would possibly fall if the Ho-301 was ground based.  Even if it remained the same range, 150m is getting pretty close for comfort for an enemy vehicle or soldier to counter the threat and if it performed in much the way it did up in the air, I'd hate to be the one hoping it did its job.

Regards,

Mav