Browning .50 vs .50 Gatling

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:48 pm

Assuming .50 Gatling style rotary machine guns were available (and the technology was, just no one implemented it) would these make a better defensive gun for bombers? Granted the ammunition consumption rate would be higher but you would probably use less since the groupings would be higher. Also, you could carry a little more since I doubt the twin gun positions would be necessary.

Opinions?

TimAPNY · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:29 pm

I think that the weight for each "gun" would be increase but a lot. Then you have the factor of what will power you gun. It takes Electrical juice to make them sing.

Seeing as most of the Gatlin guns fire at a rate of 4000-6000 rpm,(at lest the M61) I think ammunition usage would sky rocket. Ever seen the pictures of Spooky’s snow shovel?

I forget what the rate of fire is for the M2, I’ve heard that the aviation M2s had a higher rate of fire then those used by ground forces.

The M61A# are electrical powered (used most modern aircraft). That makes the barrels spin and electronically fired. The primer for the cases do not have the mechanical primer that .50 BMG or most center fire small arms have.

The Mini-gun (30 cal) how does that work? Is that a mechanical primer and standard 7.62 NATO?

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:52 pm

True the weight would increase significantly per gun. Perhaps only use them in the powered turrets leaving the single guns the conventional .50.

As for the primer, there shouldn't be an issue about designing a gun around the BMG rounds, gatlings have been designed around a wide variety of rounds.

Ammunition usage, yes it would be significantly higher. But the bursts will probably be shorter.

Now here's the fundamental question. Would a higher rate of fire, which would put more rounds on the target in a give time frame, significantly increase the effectiveness of the defensive fire?

TimAPNY · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:13 pm

I would think it would be better. I can’t see how it wouldn’t be. If I could concentrate that type of fire power when deer hunting I’d have a lot more venison in my freezer, then again maybe not.

My understanding is that the B-29 had a better kill ratio then the B-17 / B-24s because of the computer fire-control system. Now put those two together and you have a killer defense.

DonL · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:21 pm

I have often daydreamed (I have too much time on my hands) of what would have happened if Pappy Gun had modified the nose of a B-17 to take a gatling gun. I bet not to many Zeros would have made head on attacks. 100 rounds of 50 caliber ammunition weighs about 30 pounds ( taken off of an A-20 load adjuster), considering the rate of fire you would probably take up the useful payload in ammunition. Although in the nose of B-25 it might have made a hell of a commerce destroyer. Really interesting subject in my opinion.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

Scott WRG Editor wrote:

Ammunition usage, yes it would be significantly higher. But the bursts will probably be shorter.

Would a higher rate of fire, which would put more rounds on the target in a give time frame, significantly increase the effectiveness of the defensive fire?

I think that better aiming would make more of a difference. The best fighter pilots of WW2 were known to be the ones with the best eyesight (to see the enemy) and the best shooting skills. Those that were handy with a shotgun were some of the best shots. If you can't take the proper aim it doesn't matter how many rounds you can shoot per minute. Also, tracers fly at a different trajectory than ball or armor piercing ammo so walking the tracers to the target may not prove effective (at least in high deflection shots). The Vietnam experience was that with full auto rifles readily available the kill ratio went way down. Spray and pray took over from the proper aiming employed in WW2.

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:12 pm

True, gunnery training would improve the lethality but that combined with density of fire could definately be telling.

One of the other concept along the same subject would be a tri-barrel version of the 30mm Mk 108 cannon used by the luftwaffe. One of the failings of this cannon was an extremely low rate of fire (the other being low muzzle velocity). If you could triple the rate of fire or better your ability to score hits might be improved. One of these in the nose of a Me 262 could be devastating against a B-17 or B-24.

Warbird Information Exchange

Browning .50 vs .50 Gatling

Who is online