General > Discussion

regarding gatling/minigun

<< < (8/22) > >>

TrashMan:

--- Quote from: Winter on June 08, 2008, 04:00:40 pm ---You're still missing the point. There are no short controlled bursts with a minigun. It was not made for short controlled bursts and will never be able to compete with a weapon that doesn't require spinning up barrels in a twitchy urban combat scenario. It will also never be as light, as manoeuvrable or as useful as an ordinary assault rifle or machine gun in ANY role it could possibly fulfill.

Miniguns are completely unworkable as an infantry weapon and no amount of future technology wank is going to change that. Ever.

--- End quote ---


Tell that to the GAU-8 avenger.. It can fire in 1 or 2 second bursts. In fact, it's customary:


The Avenger's rate of fire was originally selectable, 2,100 rounds per minute (rpm) in the low setting, or 4,200 rpm in the high setting. Later this was changed to a fixed rate of 3,900 rpm. In practice, the cannon is limited to one and two-second bursts to avoid overheating and conserve ammunition; barrel life is also a factor, since the USAF has specified a minimum 21,000-round life for each set of barrels.


regarding spinup time:

The GSh-6-23 differs from most American multi-barreled aircraft cannon in that it is gas-operated, rather than externally powered via an electric, hydraulic, or pneumatic system. Although the engineering difficulties involved in producing a gas-operated rotary cannon with such a high rate of fire are considerable, they create less of a drain on the aircraft's power systems, and they accelerate to their maximum rate of fire much more quickly. There is less "spin-up" time for the barrels than with an externally powered rotary cannon, a significant advantage in aerial combat, where the window of opportunity to place multiple rounds on target can be vanishingly short.

The GSh-6-23 has an extremely high rate of fire, with maximum cyclic rates of 9,000 to 10,000 rounds per minute. Compared to the U.S. M61 Vulcan, the GSh-6-23 fires 50-66% more rounds per minute, has a heavier projectile, but lower muzzle velocity. The rapid rate of fire exhausts ammunition quickly: the MiG-31(800 rounds maximum) aircraft, for example, with 260 rounds of ammunition, would empty its magazine in less than two seconds.




--- Quote ---Miniguns are completely unworkable as an infantry weapon and no amount of future technology wank is going to change that. Ever.
--- End quote ---
Miniguns are not supposed to be main infantry weapons. They are specialized support weapons, like bazookas or LAWs. And apparently, they are workable.

Falion:
I'm not really too sure a mini-gun has that much of a role in such a game as this. That is just my opinion of course, but I'd rather see more alien technologies to effectively research and make into effective human weaponry.

That said, never say never, in regards to what the future may actually hold. At one point in history, the locomotive was told to the public that it would travel at more than 20-30 MPH. Many "intellectuals" held the belief that such was completely impossible...as at such a speed, all of the air would be sucked out of the train and everyone aboard would die. Of course we laugh at such today, but they really believed it. Also, at one point the US patent office, or someone involved with it I believe said, "Everything that can be invented already has been invented, and there is no further need for any more patents".

Good thing no one listened to that idiotic statement ROFL, but the point is who actually knows what future tech will allow for weapons in the future...it is pure speculation.

Winter:

--- Quote from: TrashMan on June 08, 2008, 05:00:55 pm ---
Tell that to the GAU-8 avenger.. It can fire in 1 or 2 second bursts. In fact, it's customary:


The Avenger's rate of fire was originally selectable, 2,100 rounds per minute (rpm) in the low setting, or 4,200 rpm in the high setting. Later this was changed to a fixed rate of 3,900 rpm. In practice, the cannon is limited to one and two-second bursts to avoid overheating and conserve ammunition; barrel life is also a factor, since the USAF has specified a minimum 21,000-round life for each set of barrels.


regarding spinup time:

The GSh-6-23 differs from most American multi-barreled aircraft cannon in that it is gas-operated, rather than externally powered via an electric, hydraulic, or pneumatic system. Although the engineering difficulties involved in producing a gas-operated rotary cannon with such a high rate of fire are considerable, they create less of a drain on the aircraft's power systems, and they accelerate to their maximum rate of fire much more quickly. There is less "spin-up" time for the barrels than with an externally powered rotary cannon, a significant advantage in aerial combat, where the window of opportunity to place multiple rounds on target can be vanishingly short.

The GSh-6-23 has an extremely high rate of fire, with maximum cyclic rates of 9,000 to 10,000 rounds per minute. Compared to the U.S. M61 Vulcan, the GSh-6-23 fires 50-66% more rounds per minute, has a heavier projectile, but lower muzzle velocity. The rapid rate of fire exhausts ammunition quickly: the MiG-31(800 rounds maximum) aircraft, for example, with 260 rounds of ammunition, would empty its magazine in less than two seconds.


Miniguns are not supposed to be main infantry weapons. They are specialized support weapons, like bazookas or LAWs. And apparently, they are workable.

--- End quote ---

Well done, you've copy-pasted an entirely irrelevant article about a huge gasoline-powered aircraft-mounted gatling gun into a discussion about infantry weapons.

Regards,
Winter

TrashMan:

--- Quote from: Winter on June 08, 2008, 05:48:36 pm ---Well done, you've copy-pasted an entirely irrelevant article about a huge gasoline-powered aircraft-mounted gatling gun into a discussion about infantry weapons.

--- End quote ---

You never heard of a thing called MINIATURIZATION?

Besides, it's the principle behind the articles, the workings - scale can be changed. Obviously you're not gonna use 30 or 20mm shells for a infantry-based gattling cannon, and thus the weapons itself would be smaller.

Note that you said gattling weapons don't fire in bursts - I proven that they can and do.

You then said that spin up time is too long - I shown you working ways it can be improved.

You mention the ammo issue - I've show you that there are ways to store and carry a bit more ammo (not much), but more importantly, that having lots of ammo isn't the most important thing in weapons. There are so many big, single use weapons out there.

So to conclude. Gattling based weapons aren't used by todays military as infantry weapons. (probably because the government won't waste $$$ on it when it can research laz0r weapons and invest in newer jets)
That doesn't mean that they can't be used, as the technology is more or less there.
Last, but not least, the game takes place quite some time in the future, and the last attempt at infantry-carrier gattling weapon was back in the 80's.

If you don't want such a weapon in the game, fine...but don't tell me it's impossible for such weapons to work if you haven't done your homework on the subject. Half the sci-fi plasma/particle/whatever weapons are more redicolous than that (specificely, why waste money and time trying to produce something like that when simpler technology works just as effectively; and secondly, a foot soldier's firepower will always be limited - after all, what's the point of heavy veichle support and urban fighting if you're single soldier cna nuke the city he's supposed to protect?)

Kildor:
miniaturisation, especially miniaturisation of weapon has its own limits. Especially, if we talk about powder weapon.

And gatling must be big and heavy weapon — it need this to be a gatling.

PS: sorry, but 'nanorounds' with 'nanobullet' is worst and foolish weapon that can be.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page