General > Discussion
regarding gatling/minigun
TrashMan:
--- Quote from: Telok on June 09, 2008, 03:14:36 pm ---For hard targets a LAW rocket type weapon would be best. Currently my grenadiers carry rocket launchers in their packs while snipers and SMGs carry spare rockets. Unfortunately the rockets see almost zero use because they are so large, and end up being one shot weapons anyways.
A minigun on a vehicle is fine. The primary problem with the weapons is the extreme ammunition usage, vehicular cargo capacity allows for this. It is questionable if caseless ammunition would fully compensate for that.
--- End quote ---
Ammo is pretty much always the problem.
The question is - how much is enough. If you take a look at how many bullets aircraft or helicopters carry for their gattling cannons, you'd see that it really doesn't seem like much (ammo is counted in hundreds, not thousands).
Yet they still are used in aircraft. Why? Because you probably wont' need more, and you retreat and re-arm if you need to.
Currenlty, a solider with a rocket launcher can carry what? 6-8 rockets? That doesn't seem like much...only 8 shots and then you're screwed, right? But that's enough for almost any mission.
In the same vein, a gattling gun with 500 bullets may not seem enough, but it definately should be enough for 10+ bursts (assuming a high RoF and 1 second bursts at max speed)
And that usually means 10+ dead enemies.
Alternatively, you can go high-tech and have a LASER MINIGUN. *drools* ;D
Winter:
--- Quote from: BTAxis on June 09, 2008, 03:35:23 pm ---The vehicles we have aren't that big. Nothing like a real tank. They aren't really big enough to carry loads of ammo.
--- End quote ---
No, but UGVs with computer-assisted weapons would be a lot more efficient at conserving ammo than a human soldier, and it would actually be able to aim the weapon (unlike a human, regardless of future tech wank). Give it modern small-calibre rifle bullets like the 4.7mm -- or something even tinier -- and the prospect becomes slightly more plausible.
Overall, the only workable application for these things in UFO:AI would be on vehicles, just like in real life.
--- Quote from: TrashMan on June 09, 2008, 04:52:03 pm ---Ammo is pretty much always the problem.
The question is - how much is enough. If you take a look at how many bullets aircraft or helicopters carry for their gattling cannons, you'd see that it really doesn't seem like much (ammo is counted in hundreds, not thousands).
Yet they still are used in aircraft. Why? Because you probably wont' need more, and you retreat and re-arm if you need to.
--- End quote ---
Wrong. Aircraft cannons don't usually carry that much ammo because they're rarely ever used, missiles being by far the preferable method of engagement. Cannons have been a weapon of last resort ever since the birth of beyond-visual-range engagement. If your craft gets close enough to the enemy to use cannons, unless you're making a ground support run in an armoured Warthog, you are usually in big trouble.
Also, you've completely ignored the fact that infantry soldiers do not have the option to 'retreat and re-arm', ever. It's completely against the purpose of infantry, which is to take and hold an objective until relieved. They can't pop back to base to grab some more bullets when they run out because they're opening themselves up to getting gunned down like pigs if they retreat, and even if they survive they'll be giving up any advantageous ground they may have gained, and would then have to reclaim that ground from an entrenched enemy with heavy losses assured.
Really, don't argue in favour of things (or against them, for that matter) if you don't know the realities behind them. Go into basic training or, failing that, at least read up on things before you make these utterly baseless assertions. Whatever video games may have told you, it was wrong, and there isn't a soldier in the world current or ex-service who will agree with you.
Regards,
Winter
TrashMan:
--- Quote from: Winter on June 09, 2008, 05:22:01 pm ---Overall, the only workable application for these things in UFO:AI would be on vehicles, just like in real life.
--- End quote ---
Except that RL doesn't have power armor.
--- Quote ---Wrong. Aircraft cannons don't usually carry that much ammo because they're rarely ever used, missiles being by far the preferable method of engagement. Cannons have been a weapon of last resort ever since the birth of beyond-visual-range engagement. If your craft gets close enough to the enemy to use cannons, unless you're making a ground support run in an armoured Warthog, you are usually in big trouble.
--- End quote ---
Aircrafts not so much, but helicopters - yes. They use those side-mounted and nose-mounted gattling often while supporting troops. You don't really need THAT much ammo.
--- Quote ---Also, you've completely ignored the fact that infantry soldiers do not have the option to 'retreat and re-arm', ever. It's completely against the purpose of infantry, which is to take and hold an objective until relieved. They can't pop back to base to grab some more bullets when they run out because they're opening themselves up to getting gunned down like pigs if they retreat, and even if they survive they'll be giving up any advantageous ground they may have gained, and would then have to reclaim that ground from an entrenched enemy with heavy losses assured.
--- End quote ---
True, but in UFO you don't really do protraced engagments that last for hours. You don't need much ammo there. And not to mention that you'd probably cart extra ammo for a minigun if you were to carry it (there are missile launcher systems where soldier carrier the launcher and the other extra missiles).
And IF you go into protraced engagements you wouldn't carry a minigun in the first place. You carry equipment appropriate to the mission/situation.
Speaking of which, you don't go into battle with a whole squad carrying miniguns - it is a specialized weapon.
Just like soldiers carry those missile launchers with 1-2 missiles. What do you think happens when they spend the ammo? They use their *gasp* sidearms and fall back, their squadmates (with other weaponry) giving them cover. According to your logic, such missile launchers should never exist then - they are heavy and expend their ammo too quickly!
You should stop treating a gattling gun like a convetional infantry assault rifle.
--- Quote ---Really, don't argue in favour of things (or against them, for that matter) if you don't know the realities behind them. Go into basic training or, failing that, at least read up on things before you make these utterly baseless assertions. Whatever video games may have told you, it was wrong, and there isn't a soldier in the world current or ex-service who will agree with you.
--- End quote ---
I know quite a lot, thank you very much. and what should I care IF or if not a ex soldier agrees with me or not. It's not like running around with a M-16 or swabing the deck makes you an expert on gattling cannons and their application. I rather trust the assesments of people who design and build weapons.
The Microgun can already be carried by a single strong solder (but not fired at full speed standing up). Future advancements in tech can make it somewhat lighter, and powered armor and caseless ammo would allow far greater ammo capacity, while mantaining mobiltiy.
--- Quote ---The XM214 was first developed for aircraft applications. Later General Electric developed it into a man-portable weapon system, known as the GE Six-Pak. The complete Six-Pak system weighed 85 pounds (38.5 kg) with 1,000 rounds of ammunition, comparable in weight to some heavy machine guns. The XM214 itself weighed nearly 27 pounds, or 12 kg.
The Six-Pak consisted of the XM214, the ammunition package, and the power module, and the ammunition module consisted of two 500 round cassettes mounted to a holding rack. Linked ammunition was fed through a flexible chute to the gun; when the first cassette was empty, ammunition would then feed from the second cassette, tripping a visible signal that a new cassette needed to be added to the rack. The power module contained a 24 volt nickel-cadmium battery, a 0.8 horsepower motor, and solid state electronic controls. Unless the battery were plugged into a vehicle's power supply, the battery's charge would be depleted with 3,000 rounds.
Using the electronic controls, the weapon's rate of fire could be adjusted from 400 rpm all the way up to 4,000 rpm. Later editions of Jane's Infantry Weapons claimed a theoretical cyclic rate of up to 6,000 rpm. The electronic controls also contained a burst limiter and handled the automatic clearing of the gun after bursts.
--- End quote ---
That's 38 kg for a weapon designed in the 80's with 1000 rounds of conventional ammo.
You can halve that weight by now. The recoil is the only problem that really remains - and as I said before, there are ways of taking care of that one too.
vedrit:
someone mentioned that nanoammo and nanobullets would not be good. Wrong. A speck of dust, flying at the same speed as a bullet, can still be lethal, especially in the numbers we're talking about. And, considering the size, there wont be much air resistence because of the small surface area, so range would be long, though incredibly inaccurate. But u dont use miniguns and gatlings for accuracy or range.
As for carrying a thousand or so ammo, thats where strenght comes in. You wouldnt put an extremly heavy load on someone like me (6'4", 140 lbs, 3% body fat. Imagine), the weight would crush the guy before he could get off the plane.
And having the allies around carry extra ammo is a very good idea. The gatling could be adjusted to be comapitble with many rounds, much like the IAR, which fires the same rounds as the M-4, the standard infantry rifle for the US army. The IAR has a setting which allows it to fire full auto (Never have to take the finger off the trigger to keep firing), and when the gunner runs out, he can get another clip from his teammate
Aiki-Knight:
--- Quote from: vedrit on June 09, 2008, 08:46:47 pm ---someone mentioned that nanoammo and nanobullets would not be good. Wrong. A speck of dust, flying at the same speed as a bullet, can still be lethal, especially in the numbers we're talking about. And, considering the size, there wont be much air resistence because of the small surface area, so range would be long, though incredibly inaccurate. But u dont use miniguns and gatlings for accuracy or range.
As for carrying a thousand or so ammo, thats where strenght comes in. You wouldnt put an extremly heavy load on someone like me (6'4", 140 lbs, 3% body fat. Imagine), the weight would crush the guy before he could get off the plane.
And having the allies around carry extra ammo is a very good idea. The gatling could be adjusted to be comapitble with many rounds, much like the IAR, which fires the same rounds as the M-4, the standard infantry rifle for the US army. The IAR has a setting which allows it to fire full auto (Never have to take the finger off the trigger to keep firing), and when the gunner runs out, he can get another clip from his teammate
--- End quote ---
Another "clip"? What kind of "clip" would a gatling gun use? at 100 rd/sec, what kind of clip would there be? Only link ammo in large chains would feed such a weapon, and you probably couldn't hand-feed it. Think of the logistics of the ammo! A slower-rate machine gun is already in the game. Look, I fully grant that a gatling gun would do a nice job of tearing apart enemies. But it's a game where the agents start off using modern-day firearms. By the time technology advanced to make a gatling gun possible, it would be late-game, when more powerful beam weapons would be in use, anyway. If I could roll a Bradley IFV with a rotary cannon into the mission and hose down enemies, I would. That would be possible. But you wouldn't have agents using SMGs and a sniper rifle while another agent is using some super-advanced space-age gatling gun - it would be highly anachronistic. If the developers want to deploy a late-game rotary cannon that shoots lasers, that's a little more acceptable. But the multiple barrels are only there to distribute heat from bullet friction. A good fast-firing beam weapon might not have an overheating issue.
Now, if we could deploy a good APC with a rotary cannon on it, that would be cool. Although, I must say, they don't even really mount gatling guns on vehicles, unless for air-defence. The fire rate is too fast to be useful, most of the time. Ultimately, a human-ported gatling gun is a cool idea, but belongs in a different kind of game.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version