Mauser MG 213

[DerGiLLster]

Okay, let's say we discard the concept of a revolving auto-cannon and imagine Germany attempts to make revolving cannon based off of the Gatling gun design. Do you think they could have pulled it off?

Also would would one cannon producing a volley of bullets be more effective than multiple cannons or no difference at all. Imagine Germany producing a 20mm minigun into the nose of a plane and unleashing on the allied planes. I would imagine it to be devastating, as the German planes would simply have to pass the planes and in a fraction of a second dozens of cannon rounds would be thrown on a fighter, ripping it to shreds.

Would the cannon have been a devastating add-on to the plane?

 

[Koopernic]

Okay, let's say we discard the concept of a revolving auto-cannon and imagine Germany attempts to make revolving cannon based off of the Gatling gun design. Do you think they could have pulled it off?

Also would would one cannon producing a volley of bullets be more effective than multiple cannons or no difference at all. Imagine Germany producing a 20mm minigun into the nose of a plane and unleashing on the allied planes. I would imagine it to be devastating, as the German planes would simply have to pass the planes and in a fraction of a second dozens of cannon rounds would be thrown on a fighter, ripping it to shreds.

Would the cannon have been a devastating add-on to the plane?

The Gatling mechanism might have been best for ground based and naval based 20mm FLAK as you can get of long magazines by using a power drive thereby getting rid of ammunition handlers who were slaming in 20 round magazine on alternate guns to get a sustained fire. This makes sense if you have power drive for the gun. As far as I know power drive on German 20mm quad FLAK was usually limited to U-boats where the use of three crew to traverse and elevate and cross level would have required too much deck space.

The Revolving Breach of a revolver gun is stopped and locked so that it can be fired. Hence it could be synchronised with a propeller. the advantage of the Gatling and revolver breach mechanism is that they don't trade of velocity for cadence. So you can have both a high rate of fire and a high velocity.

A gatling type mechanism 'might' fit between an engine bank but I think it would be restricted to jets and maybe twin engine aircraft. I don't know how useful it would be in say a tail gun position on 4 engine bomber.

A Gatling type gun would probably fit into the nose of the Me 262 and provide almost the same fire power as the quad MK 108 but at greater range, perhaps enough to significantly reducer exposure to 0.5 inch return fire. A more powerfull round than the MG151/20 would also help, somethings similar to the powerfull C38 round used in the quad FLAK. Of course they could end up producing a 30mm gatling with a relatively low velocity 30mm round. The barrel could be a bit longer than the standard Mk 108 as there would be no concerns with the bolt not having returned home.

Perhaps a two barrelled version would fit into the Me 109 engine banks, giving enough fire power and reliability to get rid of the twin machine guns, whose weight and drag robbed the aircraft of speed.

The advantage of revolver guns and gatling is that they are not prone to jamming even under heavy G and can handle long belts.

 

[DerGiLLster]

The Gatling mechanism might have been best for ground based and naval based 20mm FLAK as you can get of long magazines by using a power drive thereby getting rid of ammunition handlers who were slaming in 20 round magazine on alternate guns to get a sustained fire. This makes sense if you have power drive for the gun. As far as I know power drive on German 20mm quad FLAK was usually limited to U-boats where the use of three crew to traverse and elevate and cross level would have required too much deck space.

The Revolving Breach of a revolver gun is stopped and locked so that it can be fired. Hence it could be synchronised with a propeller. the advantage of the Gatling and revolver breach mechanism is that they don't trade of velocity for cadence. So you can have both a high rate of fire and a high velocity.

A gatling type mechanism 'might' fit between an engine bank but I think it would be restricted to jets and maybe twin engine aircraft. I don't know how useful it would be in say a tail gun position on 4 engine bomber.

A Gatling type gun would probably fit into the nose of the Me 262 and provide almost the same fire power as the quad MK 108 but at greater range, perhaps enough to significantly reducer exposure to 0.5 inch return fire. A more powerfull round than the MG151/20 would also help, somethings similar to the powerfull C38 round used in the quad FLAK. Of course they could end up producing a 30mm gatling with a relatively low velocity 30mm round. The barrel could be a bit longer than the standard Mk 108 as there would be no concerns with the bolt not having returned home.

Perhaps a two barrelled version would fit into the Me 109 engine banks, giving enough fire power and reliability to get rid of the twin machine guns, whose weight and drag robbed the aircraft of speed.

The advantage of revolver guns and gatling is that they are not prone to jamming even under heavy G and can handle long belts.

Damn Koopernic, your answer kicks ass! I was a little concerned with there being only one post. But your post is detailed and gives great honest data as to what would have been the effect in combat! Also, really Gatling-type guns are immune to G Loads? I knew they could handle long belts but being able to handle G loads are just fantastic!

Also, you answered my second question about the naval version. Yeah, well I was wondering if maybe U-Boats could have been fitted with a single 30 mm version of the Gatling gun, having a barrel several meters in length, having cases with extra powder to produce a more powerful charge, along with the tip of the shells being tungsten, as the higher density of tungsten would provide longer range, similar to the naval version of M61 Vulcan, as those rounds include tungsten to increase the range.

Would that also prove to be effective in combat? I would expect the 30 mm Gatling gun to be out of the rockets range to successfully engage anti-sub aircraft and fighters.

 

[Capt. Vick]

I always wondered if mini-guns in the back of the Devastators at the Battle of Midway would have kept the wolves at bay...

 

[DerGiLLster]

I always wondered if mini-guns in the back of the Devastators at the Battle of Midway would have kept the wolves at bay...

I was thinking the same with the Stuka's as well. Imagine the replacement of twin 7.92mm machine guns with a fast-shooting cannon. Longer range and a chainsaw rate of fire would be unforgiving to the enemy planes wanting to attack it.

 

[Shortround6]

I always wondered if mini-guns in the back of the Devastators at the Battle of Midway would have kept the wolves at bay...

You have to aim it and feed it.

There was some controversy among Navy rear gunners as to wither a pair of .30s was more effective than a single .50 or not. There were believers on both sides. The paired .30s were supposed to be easier to aim (traverse and elevate while fitting the slipstream) and were firing close to 40 rounds a second compared to 12-13 rounds a second for the .50.

Feeding mini-guns or Gatlings was the major problem. They had fitted a pulley instead of the handcrank on an old gatling gun and fitted it with an electric motor and v belt and gotten well over 1000rpm out of it using an accles feed and this was back in the 1890s. Despite much hype about 6000rpm rates of fire the Mini-guns were most often operated at 4000rpm or less in the interest of reliability. The gun was powered by a good sized electric motor and many installations used additional electric motors in the feed system to help move the ammo rather than depend on the gun pulling the belt. The gun could be used with either a beltless feed, electric motor/s pushed ammo through the feed way to the gun, or a belted feed which required a de-linker feed mechanism attached to the gun. The gun is heavy (older ones much more so) and wighes as much or more than a single .50 cal gun. and needs a fair amount of power " Typical power requirements for 3,000 rounds per minute (50 rounds/second) rate of fire are 24-28 V DC, 58 Amp (~1.5 KWt); with increase of rate of fire power requirements rise accordingly."

 

[Shortround6]

There is no way that a Gatling gun will fit "between" the banks of a V type engine but then all the guns that fired through the prop only had the barrel fitting into the V, the receivers were always behind the engine. If you have enough room you could mount a Gatling behind the engine and align the firing position (all Gatlings fire their barrels in one position/location in the circle, like 7 o'clock)

 

[GrauGeist]

In regards to a Me262 and a "revolver" system...how much would it weigh compared to the Mk108? The Mk108 was much lighter than other 30mm cannon due to it's simplified design. The tradeoff was it's shorter range due to a much shorter barrel, however it's speed and the devestating punch of the 30mm Minengeschoss shell made up for that short-coming.

The other issue: ammunition...in the Me262, the nose compartment was limited due to the foreward fuel tank and nosegear assembly. There's really not alot of room up there for ammunition stores.

 

[Shortround6]

Weight of MK 108 firing 30 X 90RB at 600-650rpm =60 kg
Weight of MK 213/30 firing 30 X 85B at 1100-1200rpm=75 kg
Weight of Aden 3M firing 30 X 86B at 1200rpm=87 kg
Weight of Aden MK 4 firing 30 X 113B at 12-1400rpm=87 kg
Weight of 30M541 DEFA firing 30 X 97B at 12-1400rpm=84 kg
Weight of 30M552 DEFA firing 30 X 113B at 11-1500rpm=80 kg

You could replace 4 MK 108s with two MK 213/30 (assuming they worked) with about the same rate of fire and use the weight saving for ammo. Trying for three guns seems to be pushing things.

Me 262 carried 360 rounds of ammo. With two revolver guns that will last about 9 seconds, with 3 guns it will last 6 seconds. Not sure if you could fit 4 revolver cannon and still have 360 shells.

 

[Shortround6]

Also would would one cannon producing a volley of bullets be more effective than multiple cannons or no difference at all. Imagine Germany producing a 20mm minigun into the nose of a plane and unleashing on the allied planes. I would imagine it to be devastating, as the German planes would simply have to pass the planes and in a fraction of a second dozens of cannon rounds would be thrown on a fighter, ripping it to shreds.

It could be devastating but there are several disadvantages. It takes around a 1/2 second or more to get the gun up to full speed. The gun takes a fair amount of power to run. They did get later versions to be self powered by taping gas off the barrels but I am not sure those guns run at full speed. Getting the gun to feed was a much bigger problem than just getting it to shoot. Even on large, heavy jets the empty cases are returned to the magazine, in part to help maintain the CG of the aircraft.

Now consider one Gatling taking over 1/2 second to wind up and weighing about twice as much as a Hispano and almost 3 times what a MG 151/20 weighs and still needing a power source and feed mechanism. ALso consider that a Hawker Tempest with four MK V Hispanos could fire 52-54 shells per second with no delay. Use enough regular cannon and target effect is about the same.

 

[davebender]

Germany attempts to make revolving cannon based off of the Gatling gun design

WWI Germany built several 7.92mm rotary cannon prototypes. Supposedly one was tested operationally. It's a foregone conclusion they could build similar weapons twenty years later if that's what the generals wanted.

BTW, Austria-Hungary also built such a weapon during 1918. Development was continued by post war Hungary.

 

[DerGiLLster]

There is no way that a Gatling gun will fit "between" the banks of a V type engine but then all the guns that fired through the prop only had the barrel fitting into the V, the receivers were always behind the engine. If you have enough room you could mount a Gatling behind the engine and align the firing position (all Gatlings fire their barrels in one position/location in the circle, like 7 o'clock)

Well then the mg 213 would be best suited for jet fighters such as the Me 262. With the engines at side, we could have enough room and space to put a gatling cannon into the nose of a Me 262.

 

[DerGiLLster]

In regards to a Me262 and a "revolver" system...how much would it weigh compared to the Mk108? The Mk108 was much lighter than other 30mm cannon due to it's simplified design. The tradeoff was it's shorter range due to a much shorter barrel, however it's speed and the devestating punch of the 30mm Minengeschoss shell made up for that short-coming.

The other issue: ammunition...in the Me262, the nose compartment was limited due to the foreward fuel tank and nosegear assembly. There's really not alot of room up there for ammunition stores.

Didn't the Me 262 fly into combat with a 1,200 pound bk5 50mm cannon? Wouldn't there be enough room for a single 20mm gatling cannon along with at least a 500-600 round belt spewing out of the cannon?

 

[DerGiLLster]

Weight of MK 108 firing 30 X 90RB at 600-650rpm =60 kg
Weight of MK 213/30 firing 30 X 85B at 1100-1200rpm=75 kg
Weight of Aden 3M firing 30 X 86B at 1200rpm=87 kg
Weight of Aden MK 4 firing 30 X 113B at 12-1400rpm=87 kg
Weight of 30M541 DEFA firing 30 X 97B at 12-1400rpm=84 kg
Weight of 30M552 DEFA firing 30 X 113B at 11-1500rpm=80 kg

You could replace 4 MK 108s with two MK 213/30 (assuming they worked) with about the same rate of fire and use the weight saving for ammo. Trying for three guns seems to be pushing things.

Me 262 carried 360 rounds of ammo. With two revolver guns that will last about 9 seconds, with 3 guns it will last 6 seconds. Not sure if you could fit 4 revolver cannon and still have 360 shells.

What if we just used one cannon in the center of the nose of a Me 262? Wouldn't it be effective? I would have thought that in this case, the pilot would use the advantages of the speed of the jet, along with the speed of the Gatling cannon to sweep allied aircraft out of the sky.

 

[DerGiLLster]

It could be devastating but there are several disadvantages. It takes around a 1/2 second or more to get the gun up to full speed. The gun takes a fair amount of power to run. They did get later versions to be self powered by taping gas off the barrels but I am not sure those guns run at full speed. Getting the gun to feed was a much bigger problem than just getting it to shoot. Even on large, heavy jets the empty cases are returned to the magazine, in part to help maintain the CG of the aircraft.

Now consider one Gatling taking over 1/2 second to wind up and weighing about twice as much as a Hispano and almost 3 times what a MG 151/20 weighs and still needing a power source and feed mechanism. ALso consider that a Hawker Tempest with four MK V Hispanos could fire 52-54 shells per second with no delay. Use enough regular cannon and target effect is about the same.

There should be a separate option to turn the Gatling cannons motor on and off for there to be firing with no delay. Besides wouldn't the use of a jet fighter using a single cannon in it's nose be just as effective as the Hawker Tempest? Since the Tempests cannons were in the wings, whereas the Me 262 would have a very high firing cannon in it's nose meaning that the pilot would have an accurate view of what it's rounds are going to hit, ensuring greater accuracy. Would it really be the case?

 

[GrauGeist]

Didn't the Me 262 fly into combat with a 1,200 pound bk5 50mm cannon? Wouldn't there be enough room for a single 20mm gatling cannon along with at least a 500-600 round belt spewing out of the cannon?

The Bk5 (1,190 lb) was tested on two airframes but never saw action. Two other airframes were fitted and tested with the Mk214 (1,562 lb). One of the main drawbacks to the this configuration, was the slow rate of fire and the blinding muzzle flash.

There were other armament configurations that seemed more practical:
Me262A1a/U1 carried (2) MG151/20 20mm cannon, (2) Mk103 30mm cannon, (2) Mk108 30mm cannon - only one airframe equipped in this set up and it was nose-heavy and not able to carry enough ammunition.

Me262A1a/U5 carried (6) Mk108 30mm cannon - one airframe was tested in this configuration.

By the way, Heinz Bär used a field modified 6-gun Me262.

I might also mention that the airframes that had the Mk103 mounted suffered cracked and/or damaged supports as well as subframe distortion from the recoil.

 

[Shortround6]

There should be a separate option to turn the Gatling cannons motor on and off for there to be firing with no delay. Besides wouldn't the use of a jet fighter using a single cannon in it's nose be just as effective as the Hawker Tempest? Since the Tempests cannons were in the wings, whereas the Me 262 would have a very high firing cannon in it's nose meaning that the pilot would have an accurate view of what it's rounds are going to hit, ensuring greater accuracy. Would it really be the case?

The only way that works is to have a separate motor working the ammunition feed. However in both cases you are dealing with a fair amount of inertia. A 6000 round per min Gatling gun is spinning it's barrels at 6000rpm. Getting a cluster of 6 barrels to go from 0 to 6000rpm takes a bit of time even with a powerful motor. Once you have the barrels spinning you can switch on the shell feed. Now even with the the shells touching and assuming 10 shells per foot of feed (300 mm for a straight case) you need to feed 10 ft (just over 3 meters) worth of ammo that weighs 48kg (MK 108 ammo) into the gun in one second from a standing start. Now if you have more ammo than just 100 rounds you had to move that too if you are using a linkless feed. If you are using a linked feed then the shell spacing is wider (fewer shells per foot ) and you have to add in the weight of the links. Granted in a ammunition box with belt layered in layers you don't have to move the entire ammo supply at once.

German goal was to shoot down bombers, with targets that big there wasn't a lot to chose between fuselage guns and wing mounted guns. Without a radar range finder very, very few pilots could estimate the range properly and even late war sights needed several seconds of tracking a target to generate the aim off solution. The Idea of Jet plane flying through a formation snapping off short, accurate, devastating burst at fleeting targets doesn't hold up. The German pilots had enough trouble lining up on one bomber per pass on average.

 

[DerGiLLster]

The Bk5 (1,190 lb) was tested on two airframes but never saw action. Two other airframes were fitted and tested with the Mk214 (1,562 lb). One of the main drawbacks to the this configuration, was the slow rate of fire and the blinding muzzle flash.

There were other armament configurations that seemed more practical:
Me262A1a/U1 carried (2) MG151/20 20mm cannon, (2) Mk103 30mm cannon, (2) Mk108 30mm cannon - only one airframe equipped in this set up and it was nose-heavy and not able to carry enough ammunition.

Me262A1a/U5 carried (6) Mk108 30mm cannon - one airframe was tested in this configuration.

By the way, Heinz Bär used a field modified 6-gun Me262.

I might also mention that the airframes that had the Mk103 mounted suffered cracked and/or damaged supports as well as subframe distortion from the recoil.

So would just a couple of regular 20mm cannons have been effective to begin with?

 

[DerGiLLster]

The only way that works is to have a separate motor working the ammunition feed. However in both cases you are dealing with a fair amount of inertia. A 6000 round per min Gatling gun is spinning it's barrels at 6000rpm. Getting a cluster of 6 barrels to go from 0 to 6000rpm takes a bit of time even with a powerful motor. Once you have the barrels spinning you can switch on the shell feed. Now even with the the shells touching and assuming 10 shells per foot of feed (300 mm for a straight case) you need to feed 10 ft (just over 3 meters) worth of ammo that weighs 48kg (MK 108 ammo) into the gun in one second from a standing start. Now if you have more ammo than just 100 rounds you had to move that too if you are using a linkless feed. If you are using a linked feed then the shell spacing is wider (fewer shells per foot ) and you have to add in the weight of the links. Granted in a ammunition box with belt layered in layers you don't have to move the entire ammo supply at once.

German goal was to shoot down bombers, with targets that big there wasn't a lot to chose between fuselage guns and wing mounted guns. Without a radar range finder very, very few pilots could estimate the range properly and even late war sights needed several seconds of tracking a target to generate the aim off solution. The Idea of Jet plane flying through a formation snapping off short, accurate, devastating burst at fleeting targets doesn't hold up. The German pilots had enough trouble lining up on one bomber per pass on average.

Okay well I wouldn't intend for the cannon to shoot bombers. I only intended for it to shoot at fighter aircraft. For bombers they will just stick to rockets. The R$M rockets were effective in the fact that they could stay out of the bomber's gun range. Besides I feel as if 6000 RPM would be too high of a rate. I was thinking somewhere around 2000-3000 RPM. In that case, it would require less power from the motor, along with activating up much faster.

Please give me more responses. I warmly welcome these criticisms as I am simply trying to understand what was possible with 1930's technology.

 

[DerGiLLster]

The only way that works is to have a separate motor working the ammunition feed. However in both cases you are dealing with a fair amount of inertia. A 6000 round per min Gatling gun is spinning it's barrels at 6000rpm. Getting a cluster of 6 barrels to go from 0 to 6000rpm takes a bit of time even with a powerful motor. Once you have the barrels spinning you can switch on the shell feed. Now even with the the shells touching and assuming 10 shells per foot of feed (300 mm for a straight case) you need to feed 10 ft (just over 3 meters) worth of ammo that weighs 48kg (MK 108 ammo) into the gun in one second from a standing start. Now if you have more ammo than just 100 rounds you had to move that too if you are using a linkless feed. If you are using a linked feed then the shell spacing is wider (fewer shells per foot ) and you have to add in the weight of the links. Granted in a ammunition box with belt layered in layers you don't have to move the entire ammo supply at once.

German goal was to shoot down bombers, with targets that big there wasn't a lot to chose between fuselage guns and wing mounted guns. Without a radar range finder very, very few pilots could estimate the range properly and even late war sights needed several seconds of tracking a target to generate the aim off solution. The Idea of Jet plane flying through a formation snapping off short, accurate, devastating burst at fleeting targets doesn't hold up. The German pilots had enough trouble lining up on one bomber per pass on average.

Okay well I wouldn't intend for the cannon to shoot bombers. I only intended for it to shoot at fighter aircraft. For bombers they will just stick to rockets. The R$M rockets were effective in the fact that they could stay out of the bomber's gun range. Besides I feel as if 6000 RPM would be too high of a rate. I was thinking somewhere around 2000-3000 RPM. In that case, it would require less power from the motor, along with activating up much faster.

Please give me more responses. I warmly welcome these criticisms as I am simply trying to understand what was possible with 1930's technology.