Fighter guns - preference

[Professor Brensec]

[quote]Well the poll is closed but I have to go with 8 .30s

[Hagar]

Before anyone starts complaining I noticed this topic has duplicated itself. This sometimes happens & means that it's nuked another topic. I have no idea which one.

I think it has a lot to do with the wall of lead principle, I was told once (and I have no evidence to back this up) that the Hurricanes wings flexed slightly during flight.  This had the effect of spreading the pattern of bullets out and where the German fighters and Spitfire were highly accurate with the Hurricane if you got close enough you simply couldn't miss.

Will. This might be true but guns can also be harmonised. The old hands would take a lot of trouble in the butts getting this just right. Opinions varied & different ranges were used. Some pilots preferred to set the cone of fire short so that it would spread at optimum range. This would obviously work only if a pilot flew the same aircraft on each sortie.

[Professor Brensec]

[quote]1 million rounds per minute equates to 16,660 rounds per second.

According to your calculations Prof that is 333333 grams per second, or 333 Kilograms.

[Professor Brensec]

** I re-operned the poll, as it would seem that there are still people who would like to vote (or maybe change their vote......... )    ;D

[Professor Brensec]

I have to go to bed now, but I'll be back on tomorrow. Actually in about 8 hrs. I'm on dayshifht tomorrow. Very slow, plenty time for SimV.

When I come back on, I want to see some answers as to where they are going to put 20 tonnes of ammo for one minutes firing of this new gun.

Even on the ground it's going to be a major hassle.

The only application that would make any sense to me, is a large Ship. At least they could store the ammo.

I'm going to do research tomorrow on how many .50 cal rounds were manufactured during WWII (I've seen the figure in a site somewhere).
And I'm going to work out how many MINUTES it would take for this gun to spend all of WWII's ammo (.50 cal anyway)  ;D

A worthwhile exercise, I think......................yeah!  ;D

[HawkerTempest5]

OK, as I understand it (I hope someone reads this and corrects me because it's been ages since I saw the docco) Metal Storm uses a caseless round and has more barrels than a mini-gun. The barrels are fixed and each is loaded with several rounds. The rounds are accelerated electrically down the barrel and it has a variable rate of fire. It can fire individual rounds or fire a volly of all it's rounds at once. It does not have a million rounds in it, but at it's top rate of fire it equates to a million rounds per minute. There, I think that's about right. As I said, been a very long time since I saw this on Discovery Channel.

Brensec old pal, sorry for throwning a strop over the Spit/Hurricane thing, but it just seems every time anyone (especially me) brings up the subject and mentions both types (and the P-51) in the same thread, someone complains and tells us to stop comparing them.
I love talking about Warbirds, all warbirds and very much enjoy reading and posting in these disscussions. If we can't talk about it here, where can we?
To anyone not interested I would say, don't read it. I don't read posts that don't interest me and I never post in a thread that I don't find interesting or have something to add to. I NEVER post to tell people to stop talking about a subject and so don't expect that of other people.
At the end of the day, I come here because I enjoy disscussing these topics with you guys.

[Hagar]

I love talking about Warbirds, all warbirds and very much enjoy reading and posting in these disscussions. If we can't talk about it here, where can we?
To anyone not interested I would say, don't read it. I don't read posts that don't interest me and I never post in a thread that I don't find interesting or have something to add to. I NEVER post to tell people to stop talking about a subject and so don't expect that of other people.
At the end of the day, I come here because I enjoy disscussing these topics with you guys.

Well said Tempest. I know nothing of this Metal Storm you speak of, in fact I know very little about guns in general. Most rates of fire are quoted in units the gun itself could not possibly cope with or carry ammo for. One million rounds per minute is one way of comparing it with other weapons.

I stumbled on this while poking around. Thought it might interest some of you. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html
It's an official comparison of the Spitfire Mk XIV with contemporary aircraft dated 15 June 1944. Here's what they say about it compared with the Mustang Mk III (P-51B/C I think).

Conclusion
37. With the exception of endurance no conclusions can be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste.

[Professor Brensec]

Thanks for the info on the gun Hawk and Hagar.

I couldn't see how it could possibly be viable if that was the rate at which it fired all the time.

P.S. Re the 'debate', Hawk. As I said there is no need for anyone to consider any subject closed or too much discussed, as this is a 'living forum'.
It would cease to be if every topic that had been covered already was to be 'howled down'.
It's upsetting that some people will go to the lengths of requesting a topic be locked, because they are sick of hearing about it. It's a shame really, especially for the newer people and those to come in the future.
What exactly will they be 'allowed' to talk about.

As you say, if I don't like a topic or are not interested, I simply don't visit it. It's a very easy solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

If I wasn't the 'pacifist' that I am, I would post a new topic now, that reads "Spit or Hurricane - Which do you prefer?".

What do you think the reception would be?.........lol

[Professor Brensec]

Since the poll opened again, we have another vote for the 4 x 20mm.
That puts that option and the 6 x .50's 'Neck and neck'.

[Loafing Smurf]

Metal Storm has 36 stationary barrels, they are all in rows together in a rectangular box and will all fire all at once. I'm not sure about this too, but what Smoke said, I think the bullets will not have casings, the slugs will be burrowed in explosives. I think the concept is identical to the H&K G-11.

What I dont understand is, how does the cooling system work? The thing must be glowing red after its fired.

The thing I never really hear about is the kinetic darts or rail gun. They are suppose to take down helicopters and tanks based on fast moving projectiles.

[Professor Brensec]

I can't find anything specific on this new gun on the Net yet. So I can't really comment. But I'll keep looking.

I've been continuing with my studies on the different methods used to calculate (as best as possible given all the different factors) the 'effectiveness' of each type of gun and each type of ammo. It's very involved and there is really no way to come up with a difinitive 'number' to class their effectiveness by.

I've just come across an interesting comment. I'm still trying to find something to back it up, because it's a new one on me, and upsets my applecart a bit.

This fellow says that 'tracer' rounds during WWII usually, due to their makeup, followed a different trajectory.
How could this be? That would make them pretty useless for their major purpose.
Although they did have a 'deterrent' value. Also particular types (especially in the Pacific) had the advantage of being able to set fire to ammo and fuel.

I'll keep you posted.    ;D

[Loafing Smurf]

Most of my information is based on some guy that has a father in the Pentagon (well atleat claims to have a father in the Pentagon) back in 1999. I even have a picture of the thing, it is a rectangular box stood up, and the stand is bolted to the sides so it can angled up or down.

[Professor Brensec]

Honestly, I really think they have more than enough ways to destroy anything that a 'fast firing' gun could.

I mean all their ordinance, i.e. missiles (air to air, SAMs and air to ground), GB's, Harms etc all have very impressive hit ratios. They've got the 'Gunships' to rip people up on the ground. What do they need the thing for anyway?

If you ask me it would be a waste of time and money for such a thing, as it would have no specific purpose that couldn't be taken care of, reliably, by something they already have.  ;D

[Smoke2much]

I think it probably comes down to cost.  In the missile  defense area which I think this probably is a single Patriot costs loadsa of money.  This thing will cost a darn sight less.

Will

[Rifleman]

What would you prefer on your fighter?

GAU-8 Avenger

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm