By Gatling Gun I assume you are referring to an electrically powered weapon like the various Vulcan Cannon and Minigun derivatives.

 

The most likely reason was that no one saw a pressing need for such a weapon in the time frame available.  If you look back at the weapons used in WW2 there are actually very few items fielded in large numbers that were not items in development before the war or derivative of those designs.

 

Another is that most vessels in the period did not have a surplus of electrical power

 

Then there is the complexity of the weapon system itself.  While the gun is a simple and reliable design, designing the high speed ammunition feed from scratch would be a nightmare.  Once you have all that, then you need to figure out how to mount and point the gun and a lot of ammunition.  There is no quick way to reload the ammunition drum, so you will need one big enough for say a 1/2 hour multi-plane engagement.  If this were in 20mm then I expect that the result would be about the same weight as a 40mm quad mount when you include about 10,000+ rounds on the mount.  You also lack anything beyond the Mark I fire control system (eyeball, brain, and Kentucky windage).

 

The real Kamikaze killers were the 5" guns with radar proximity fused munitions. 

Look at the M-16 GMC...AA Halftrack with Quad .50 HMG's...lots of Firepower, no electrical requirements, utter reliability. They were very useful for infantry support in WW2 and Korea...So were the M-19's with Dual 40mm AA.

This begs the question....why dont we use the M-167 Vulcans as a ground support weapon...equip with thermal sights, 20mm HE rounds...park them on overwatch and blast any Taliban on foot within their LOS.

 

Lets see, is it because:

The main problem in Afghanistan is not a shortage of firepower, it is a shortage of logistics.

 

Hence the insane BHO strategy of trying to Stalingrad our army, because without dealing with the Pakistan problem, we have no LOC to the sea..

 

Nobody could have anticipated the kamikaze strategy at the start of the war. If they had, perhaps they would have given more impetus to the development of a rotary-type weapon as a CIWS option. The proximity fuse is considered one of the great achievements coming out of WW2. However dozens of allied shps and many more were damaged regardless of the proximity fuze, fighter screens and thousands of small caliber weapons deployed to protect the fleet. But this is all in hindisght and hindsight is always 20-20 vision.

The only ship mounted defense that would have worked then; is large caliber AAA (5/38 or 3/50), proximity fused shells and a radar director. All of that was 1944/45 and too late.  The USN tried from 1935 on to fix the threat  with the 1.1 inch quad as a mount that could down an attacker with a bullet hose of 28 mm impact fused explosive shells.at a rate of 400-450 r/m from each quad barrel mount. This didn't work because they moiscalculated how long the aircraft in a head on aspect would bve in the bullet stream. At a slant MER of about 5000 meters, a single mount would have 2000 meters of usable interval to engage  The usual aircraft at the time was estimated to attack at about 190 mph, or about 100.ms. That is 20 seconds or less to lay in and get 150-170 shells within range of a Japanese bomber. that would release its payload. The torpedo plane at 50 m/s wouold release 1000 meters away, so thew defense would have the same 20 seconds against a head on aspect target.

 

The 1.1 shell was too small, and the slant range too short. The 40 mm Bofors was USN panic pressed into servoce to replace the "Chicago organ" since it used a 40 mm shell, had a MER slant of 7000 meters and could bullet stream in a quad mount at about 480 r/m. Thus improved engagement time to 30 seconds. It worked somewhat against the Japanese so that conventional attack at the Turkey Shoot was suicide for the singletons after Spruance's fighters worked Ozawa's boys over.

 

Couldn't stop a cruise missile as the idiot, Halsey, and the unfortunate Sprague discovered off Samar. 

   

Would the gatling gun of the day work?

 

You would need an electric driven bearing and azimuth driven two axis stabilzed mount and an electric driven 3 barrel 30mm/70 caliber gun with a 1000 r/m  rate of fire, with an electruc driven optical director to point it and a gun crew that can serve it. That will give you 48 shells into a target in 3 seconds. That will work for the attacks expected in 1935. It was beyond the technology of the day and won't work in 1944.. 

         

Herald

 

 

With a Gatling gun you get 1 machinegun for manufacturing 6 gun barrels.

 

With conventional machineguns you get  6 machineguns for manufacturing 6 gun barrels.

 

The second option makes the most sense in my opinion if you want to get the largest amount of stuff to the troops.

 

 

 

No such thing as overkill...Dead is Dead. A GPS Bomb doesn't mangle bodies?...false arguement there. As far as supplying them...how much logistical support does an A-10 require?....lots plus the support crew. the M-167 would be very useful as an addition to any mission that is already using vehicles. As soon as that baby spins up the Taliban would be off and running.

I do agrere that if you need intel there wouldn't be much to sift thru...

I do think that it would be ideal for hilltop interdiction posts...much better range than a .50. Put some slat armor on it to protect against RPG's...would be very useful.

One question however....will the gun depress enough to engage targets at a lower elevation or close in?...It was designed to engage aircraft and not ground tatgets.

Lets see, is it because:

3.   No one wants to sift through the scattered remains for intelligence.

2.   It would be total overkill and the press would rush to publish all the photos they could get of the bodies (think "Highway of Death") and complaints from the relatives that the US is desecrating the bodies because they are so mangled..

1.   We have better uses for the trucks and planes we would have to use to ship all the ammo needed to feed these beasts. 

 

OK, first off reasons 3 and 2 were gallows humor.  Reason 1 is serious.  There is no question that 20mm gatling would be effective against infantry on foot or in thin skinned vehicles.

 

As for your logistics argument, which would you rather have, 6 x M-167 or one A-10, because you cannot support both.

 

The range advantage is not significant.  The major limitation is your ability to identify potential targets as hostile or non-hostile, something that is frequently very difficult to do until they open fire (or not).

 

The ability to depress the gun below horizontal is probably less of a problem than the inevitable dead zones from a hill top position.  You will also generally not be able to get 360 degree coverage with a single gun without endangering your own people.  And again there is the logistics question:  Which would you rather have for your "hilltop interdiction post", an M-167, or a vehicle hauling a couple of 0.50 cal machine guns, an 81mm mortar, and a load of ammo and supplies?

 

As in anything else, you have to make trade-offs.

OK, first off reasons 3 and 2 were gallows humor.  Reason 1 is serious.  There is no question that 20mm gatling would be effective against infantry on foot or in thin skinned vehicles.

 

As for your logistics argument, which would you rather have, 6 x M-167 or one A-10, because you cannot support both.

 

 

The range advantage is not significant.  The major limitation is your ability to identify potential targets as hostile or non-hostile, something that is frequently very difficult to do until they open fire (or not).

 

The ability to depress the gun below horizontal is probably less of a problem than the inevitable dead zones from a hill top position.  You will also generally not be able to get 360 degree coverage with a single gun without endangering your own people.  And again there is the logistics question:  Which would you rather have for your "hilltop interdiction post", an M-167, or a vehicle hauling a couple of 0.50 cal machine guns, an 81mm mortar, and a load of ammo and supplies?

 

As in anything else, you have to make trade-offs.

 

Still don't understand why our guys cannot have whatever it is they require. We got more land, air and sea transport then the rest of the world combined and we can't keep ~70 troops supplied with whatever it is they need? Especially the weapons they say they need to win.

Beazz -- Your response scarcely deserves a reply.

Yes, we have more, but we do not have an unlimited amount, and it is also needed in other areas.  Nobody EVER has all that they would like.  That's why the old saw ends with "Generals talk logistics" and over half of the troops in military are involved is moving supplies. 

 

Personally I like the old song that goes "You can't always get what you want.  But if you try some times, you just might find, that you can get what you need."  They do not need a 20mm vulcan to win, there are better alternatives