Gatling Gun Question?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Herald12345 5/21/2009 9:17:13 AM

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 hindsight 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 miscalculated how long the aircraft in a head on aspect would be 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 would 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 service 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 stabilized mount and an electric driven 3 barrel 30mm/70 caliber gun with a 1000 r/m rate of fire, with an electric 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

Thanks for the feedback. Just curious as to why something similar to a 6-barrel 20mm rotary cannon with a >3000 r/m rate of fire couldn't have been built back then. Was there any technological hurdle to building such a CIWS?

The following hurdles.

Hugh speed slue and elevate two axis stabilized mount. We speak of 60 degrees a second with slam stop and auto-slave track to an optical sight with a man serving it using wheels and and buttons. That is for the sight. He centers and tracks the object.. Then there is the gun which is either geared or analog cabled into the sight to follow the aimer's track lead. it two must have a similar stabilized mount with a similar set of stops and slue rates.

Then

Quote Reply

mabie Thanks Herald 5/21/2009 9:24:13 PM

Thanks for the explanation. You learn something new every day.

Quote Reply

Beazz 5/21/2009 11:19:51 PM

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.

Why not? You mean the US military cannot give ~70 ground troops air and land support at the same time?

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.

Quote Reply

WarNerd 5/22/2009 6:19:01 AM

Beazz -- Your response scarcely deserves a reply.

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.

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

Quote Reply

Beazz Warnerd 5/22/2009 11:36:09 AM

Beazz -- Your response scarcely deserves a reply.

Then don't respond. I didn't ask for any of your arrognat nonsense anyhow. I ask a logical question.

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.

WEll I have no clue what they need or what the weapon in question even looks like. I simply ask why if THEY say they need it we cannot give it? I realize our resources are not unlimited. However, we are not talking about a WWll scenario where the entire armed forces are in action. We are talking about between 2 fronts supplying some ~230K troops with what they need. And I sure don't see how you can tell them they can have support from the air or some ground weapon, but not both. That seems utterly ridiculous to me. Besides, who exactly are you to tell the US Army what it needs or does not need?

Now go crawl back in your left wing hole Mr. Warnerd.

beazz

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Getting supply into Afghanistan. 5/22/2009 12:28:41 PM

In WW II that was no problem. We had very willing allies who maintained our slocs for us and then we comquered whoever was noncooperative between us and the Germans and Japanese and then we went and got them too..

Afghanistan is different.

Its surrounded by the PRCs, Pakistan, Russia, Turkmanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, IRAN. The main supply line by sea is Karachi to Kandahar, right through Balochistani tribal areas and into Kandahar province. Last time I checked the place was lousy with Taliban and drug cartels and NATO was losing.

The stiff that the NATO allies in southern Afghanistan need is trucked in through Pakistan. US stuff until recently was FLOWN into Afghanistan ir railed in from Europe through Russia and the former "stans" in Central Asia.

Now do you see a single secure line of communication or sea line of communication that passes through a state friendly to the United States into where over 70,000 US and NATO troops are otherwise surrounded?

Nope. Most of them are hostile neutrals or ENEMIES.........like Pakistan.

We are in very great danger of losing that damn war. One of the reasons is simply because we have no se3cure line of supply that is easy or robust for us to provision the 100,000+ NATO and US troops that BHO wants to throw into the place.

So yes, it does come down to which is more practical and necessary, a Gatling gun or a more prosaic machine gun pr even a sniper rifle.

You fit means and troop levels to what you can supply and you don't overburden your logistics chain. Fight lean until you CAN shove truck convoys through Pakistan without blackmail or Taliban (read ISI) induced bottlenecks.

MAP 1...

Welcome to map reading 101, which seems to be a problem course a lot of people have around here (especially our strategy clueless resident BHO apologist and naval opinion giver.)

Herald

.. .

Quote Reply

scooterfan Thanks for the map, although.. 5/22/2009 11:59:47 PM

you really should stick to what you know. However, in this case. Logistical nightmare. I would draw parrells to Stalingrad, except the lines in this case are way more restricted. The channel points of France to the German border are fairly close in comparison as far as length of travel, but re-conquored France was much more secure, and probably better fitted with infrastructure than Pakiland. I'm not even considering supply through the northern -stan empires. We are going to bargain with warlords for landing rights and landing rights with way expensive air force transport. What a mess.

I'll take back my comment, herald. You don't have to be a logistics maven to realize the unraveling fur ball which will be AFghan

Quote Reply

Herald12345 5/24/2009 12:19:04 PM

you really should stick to what you know. However, in this case. Logistical nightmare. I would draw parrells to Stalingrad, except the lines in this case are way more restricted. The channel points of France to the German border are fairly close in comparison as far as length of travel, but re-conquored France was much more secure, and probably better fitted with infrastructure than Pakiland. I'm not even considering supply through the northern -stan empires. We are going to bargain with warlords for landing rights and landing rights with way expensive air force transport. What a mess.

I'll take back my comment, herald. You don't have to be a logistics maven to realize the unraveling fur ball which will be AFghan

I did a case study on WW II Pacific logistics. That war was a mess from the naval op art point of view with the bungler in chief, Halsey, not understanding the need for base supply as well as sound battle space management.

Don't get me started on MacArthur, either, who never understood that each additional battalion of combat engineers and a good supply company was equal to an entire infantry division in combat power to that theater once he had his two corps of combat troops in 1943. He didn't need more riflemen as much as he needed bulldozer operators, cargo handlers, supply clerks, and guys who could take accurate ground pressure readings so he would know what burden an island could actually take before he bogged his troops and tanks down.

Logistics screw-ups and bottlenecks as well as tactical bungling by my two favorite foul ups prolonged the Pacific war for at least a year.

I'm not an expert, but I'm not an amateur in subject, either.

Herald

Quote Reply

smitty237 I could be wrong, but..... 5/25/2009 1:42:05 AM

It is my understanding that there are international treaties that forbid using anti-aircraft guns against infantry troops. I can't easily verify this one way or the other, but I heard about this several times while I was in the military. Supposedly this ban even extended to the .50 cal, but it's use was justified by claiming that we were targeting the soldier's equipment and not the soldier himself. Of course this logic would render any restriction against using anti-aircraft cannon against troops absolutely worthless. I do know that this supposed restriction goes back to at least WWII, because I remember Audie Murphy mentioning the Germans using flak cannons against American ground troops in his book To Hell and Back. Anyway, that could be another reason why the US has never fielded the Vulcan for use against enemy ground troops.

Quote Reply

dudley gatlin gun vs machine gun 5/25/2009 2:02:42 AM

Why would any soldier want a gatling gun to sling around when he has a choice of a variety of machine guns which are lighter and more compact and easier to lug through harsh terrain? Every gatling gun Ive ever seen looks like it weighs in at a ton or more. As far as fire power is concerned Ive never heard a soldier accuse the M-60 or SAW of lacking in fire power.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 NEXT