Gatling guns
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Why don't we see more instances of gatling guns being mounted on ground-based fighting vehicles? This Chinese light armored vehicle has a 30mm gatling gun. Why doesn't the USA make a Stryker variant with a GAU-13/A to counter it? Seems like it would be a perfect fit. But more generally, why aren't gatling guns more popular for IFV's and such? Just imagine the psychological impact that such a vehicle would have on the opposition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM82Vuq3PdM
Wheeled apc's are not combat vehicles
>>29122432
Then why is the US army up-gunning all the Strykers with 30mm and Javelins?
>>29122509
In what situation would you need the higher RPM?
>>29122432
Uhhh, since when?
Are you seriously suggesting that from a practical standpoint an M113 is more of a combat vehicle than a LAV or BTR?
for soft targets you can use smaller guns
armored targets usually require explosives
>psychological impact
This isn't a good reason for implementing anything. You want to kill them
>>29122550
What's the downside? You get a more reliable gun that can shoot faster and the ability to go all out and suppress huge areas by yourself.
>>29122575
Automatic riflemen and light attack vehicles like Humvees can do the same thing.
If you're going to haul an armored vehicle up for fire support it's better off bringing something those two can't/shouldn't.
>>29122414
Its not needed. The only reason ground gatling guns were a thing was because they were hand cranked and provided more cover fire than singe shot rifles of the time. After self loaders became a thing gatlings no longer were seen on the ground because they were too heavy. Planes used them because ROF was needed.
>>29122569
>psychological impact is irrelevant, there is only kill
GEE WELL I GUESS THE ENTIRE DOCTRINAL PARADIGM OF USING SUPPRESSIVE FIRE IS INVALID NOW
How smart of you anon
It's a heavier armament that eats up ammunition at a far more than practical rate for little benefit.
>>29122414
I guess that I REALLY wanted to know was if it would be feasible to build a land-based vehicle that uses the GAU-13/A as its primary weapon. Would the ammunition be just too big? Is there some reason why it wouldn't be able to feed? Would the recoil be too intense? And let's say it has to be mounted onto a Stryker, not a tank.
>>29122602
>gatlings
>no longer were seen on the ground
Except in, you know, OP's vid. C'mon now...
>>29123392
1) Recoil - 25mm on the LAV-AD (comparable to Stryker chassis) is probably the max caliber for a gatling-type cannon on a wheeled APC hull
2) Ammo - for comparison, GAU-8 ammo drum holds 1,150 rounds and has ROF of 3,900 rpm. Thus, the entire GAU-8 system, which weighs 4,000 lbs., holds enough ammunition for just 17 one-second bursts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger
>>29123686
>>29123392
Whoops I'm retarded, GAU-13/A has a reduced ROF of 2,400 rpm. But, still...
>>29122414
Because for the most part you don't need the ROF. It's much less weight for just a single barrel. Air defense vehicles are the one possible exception.
>>29123168
Suppressive fire means nothing if it only lasts for 5 seconds you insufferable cunt
>>29122414
because the only practical application of a gatling gun with a high ROF is for shooting fast-travelling targets, or shooting from fast-traveling platforms
neither of which apply for most ground vehicles. compared to a basic cannon a gattling gun weigh more and burn through ammo faster
>>29123686
>>29123723
Would a bofors-style 40mm airburst cannon be more plausible?
>>29123844
I found something that fits the description.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGj_ioyZaIk
>>29123988
Yes, we fucking know.
>>29124017
Sure you did.
>>29124109
Anyone who knows the slightest thing about modern militaries knows of the existence of the CV9040, as well they should, as it has been around for decades and the CV90 is one of the more successful export vehicles out there.
>>29124186
You showed your ignorance for all to see here >>29123844
There's no point acting smart after the fact
>>29124260
only a handful of the AA version of the CV90 exist and its existence is not common knowledge
>>29123753
Chamber it in .22 lr, now you can carry more ammo
>>29122414
Imagine you can carry 200 rounds of 30mm
Do you want that spread out over a full 1-2 minutes of solid fire using a Bushmaster that you can easily correct and not get carried away with
Or do you want 4 seconds of fire from a GAU-13
>>29123732
This.
Also, no one seems to have pointed out that it needs a collosal rate of fire when mounted on an aircraft due to innacuracy. You need to put a hundred rounds on target to actually get reasonable hits.
A land based vehicle is inherently more accurate, it'd only need a few shots to hit things its shooting at.
>inb4 muh suppression
You don't supress with 30mm.
>>29122550
possibly trying to take out helicopters. Especially if you go in with the mindset that pretty much every weapon China designs is supposed to compete with western and russian tactics.
>>29124409
.....just use a missile.
>>29124413
but see, then you'd need two weapons instead of just one.
>>29122414
Mostly because getting your legs blown off by a 25 from a bushmaster already has a pretty hefy psychological impact mate.
>>29124419
No, just use a missile. Infinitely better for downing aircraft than a gun.
>>29124420
*hefty
They use ridiculous amounts of ammunition and don't offer any benefit over a weapon that fires more slowly.
>>29124426
missiles are expensive, you can't carry as much of them, are slower than anti aircraft rounds (to the point that some of the fastest aircraft can literally outrun anti-air missiles,) can be foiled by countermeasures, can be spotted by on-board computer systems on your target, and are objectively easier to dodge than anti-air bullets
taking aim at a helicopter (or even locking onto it) and blasting it with a million explosive 20/30mm rounds at the speed of light sounds more effective, even if you don't have a lot of ammo
>>29124455
P.S. Helicopters are harder to pilot than most aircraft. The main rotor supplies the lift, thrust, pitch, and roll all-in-one, as well as the tail rotor being necessary to keep the helicopter from spinning completely out of control. This means that they are easier to take out unless it's specifically designed to take fire and survive like the AH-1Z or Ka-52
after all, my great grandpa (WWII aircraft mechanic) once said "if your plane is harder to fly than a helicopter, you built it wrong"
So we've learned, six barrels = good rof/ not enough ammo
One barrel = ok rof/ ammo a plenty
/k/omrades may i introduce the Gephard!
>>29122414
Impressive.
Truly only China has the know how to field an all around super vehicle.
A vehicle strong enough to fire fast shells that can hit aircraft, can obliterate soft targets, can fire fast enough to hit soft targets of a tank rendering it devoid of things like gunner sights and ERA and can probably kill people far away too. There are stories according to world renown internet experts that the Chines FCS holds the unofficial title for the most accurate FCS in the world. Truly a work of genius, truly there is no analogue anywhere in the world.
>Why don't we see more instances of gatling guns being mounted on ground-based fighting vehicles?
Because there's nothing several small bullets will kill that one larger one won't kill better, and plenty of things a larger bullet can kill that several smaller ones won't.
The only reason to go for a gatling style weapon is for sheer fire rate, and the only reason to go for sheer fire rate is to hit something that's difficult to hit due to it's speed.
So gatling style weapons are pretty much exclusively useful for shooting at, or from flying things.
If you seriously insisted on having crazy RoF on a ground vehicle, put a fucking revolver cannon on it. The 35mm one the germans are playing around with for their CIWS is already mounted in a turret for exactly that.
No delay like a vulcan/gatling cannon (I realize it is minimal but still)
It's ideal for burst firing, one barrel makes it lighter and smaller.
THEY HAVE IT RIGHT NOW. No fucking around making something new when this is literally off the shelf tech.
But why bother? You're not going to need the rate of fire this thing puts out. If you do need more firepower, use the damn 40mm Bofors and call it good.
>>29122414
gattling guns are like the antithesis of an ak-47. lets just mount an ak-47 on a mudslime hill and call it a day.
pic related: valley of east afrika or sumdin
>>29124260
That wasn't even me.
>>29124812
Were the $0.50 really worth it?
>>29124482
m8 its all fly by wire nowadays
