[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Re: Re: [DL] bursts per action [MUNCHKINS]
Well I was not comparing the M-2 to an M-1862 gatling, the one I have experience with, because of the technology difference. Likewise I am not going to compare a civil war spar torpedo to a hypercavitating, rocket driven , atomic warhead torpedo. I was going the route of attempting to compare similar technologies, such as the M-2, M-3, and project vulcan strictly for a comparison of of a machine gun vs a gatling. My personal thinking is that the use of high pressure steam through a turbine at the rear of a gatling would generate the rates of fire capable with electricity starting during WWI, the inspiration for project vulcan. I did metion the extra mass of the barrels, and am still of the opinion that the extra recoil is in excess of the extra inertia. The statement about the gatling being on feild carriages early is absolutly correct and illustrates the point, It took a larger carraige to handle the gatling because of the mass and the recoil of the weapon. It takes a lot to hold a gatling in place. The really bulky gatlings though were the 1 inch gatlings army used during the plains wars. By the way the 7th Cav. had a section of 1 inch gatlings assigned to them. Custer chose to leave them back in fort Lincoln. The M1862 is about as bulky as the 12 pound lt. howitzer, which was used in a similar capacity as modern machine guns. The biggest problems of the gatling in the civil war was that the gatling was new, and didn't work as well as it did later, the other was persons who really had no idea how to use the new weapon on the battlefield tactically.
I have enjoyed this discussion, but I think the question was if a gatling really need a better mount than say the M-2 machine gun. To this I still say yes, you need a much stronger system to handle a gatling than a machine gun of similar calibre.
g'day
kevin jameson
"Daniel Gwyn" <dgwyn@colba.net> wrote:
>Hi,
> I would like to point a couple of problems with your comparison. First
>of all, the actual Gatling hand-cranked machine guns had rates of fire that
>were at most about 1200 rounds a minute in the later models. This is only
>about twice the rate of modern machine guns which typically fire something
>like 500-600 rounds a minute and is much lower than the 6000 rounds a minute
>that modern electrically driven multi-barrelled machine guns (or miniguns)
>can pump out. If we compare the Gatling machine guns with their modern
>counterparts, it can be seen that the slightly higher (and it depended on
>how fast you cranked) rate of fire is off-set in recoil terms by the extra
>barrels and therefore extra weight. Gatling guns had 6 to ten barrels and
>were usually mounted on field carriages. Hence, Gatlings were HEAVY.
>Historically, they were generally treated as light artillery rather than an
>infantry weapon. That alone will absorb the extra recoil when compared to
>modern single barrelled machine guns.
> Secondly, the early Gatlings of Deadlands use gunpowder as propellant
>which is much less powerful than nitrocellulose or cordite which came into
>use as propellants in the late 19th century. In simple terms, each shot of
>the Gatling does not generate as much recoil as a modern machine gun.
> Daniel Gwyn
>"Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all."
> Hamlet, Act III, scene i.
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Frempath2@netscape.net <Frempath2@netscape.net>
>À : deadlands@gamerz.net <deadlands@gamerz.net>
>Date : March 17, 2002 2:28 AM
>Objet : RE: Re: [DL] bursts per action [MUNCHKINS]
>
>
>>Actually not, a machine gun has only a fraction of the recoil of a
>comprable gatling weapon. For comparison the WWII corsair had 6 .50 machine
>guns which were later replaced with 4 M-3 20MM cannon so assume that 2 20mm
>are equal to 3 .50 cal. The M-3 had a rof of 700 rounds per minute. So an
>M-3 is equivilant in energy to say 1050 .50 rounds. The gatling version of
>an M-3 is the vulcan, which had varients between 1,500 and 6,000 rounds per
>minute. This equates to a recoil energy equal to 2,750 to 9,000 rounds per
>minute of .50 caliber fire. The M-2 with a cyclic rof of 550 rounds per
>minute does not compare, even after calculating out the extra mass of the
>gatling. I don't know that I would call the 44 pound tripod for the M-2
>flimsy either though.
>>
>From personal exerience though, machine guns and gatlings feel different,
>though both are a hoot to fire. Machine guns are a LOT easier to clean
>though.
>>
>>g'day
>>kevin jameson
>>
>>
>>"Lord Jobe" <lordjobe@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>><snio>
>>>Something as "flimsy" as a tripod holds up an M-2 Browning .50 cal machine
>gun very well, and I think it
>>>would have a lot more recoil than a steam gatling.
>>>
>>>---
>>>"You can observe a lot by watching."
>>> -Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra
>>>
>>>Lord Jobe, God of Psiberspace (The Landscape of My Mind)
>>>"Universes Exist in My Mind."
>>>ICQ# 17774785
>>>
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
>>> unsubscribe deadlands
>>>as the BODY of the message. The SUBJECT is ignored.
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>__________________________________________________________________
>>Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
>Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape!
>http://shopnow.netscape.com/
>>
>>Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at
>http://webmail.netscape.com/
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
>> unsubscribe deadlands
>>as the BODY of the message. The SUBJECT is ignored.
>>
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
> unsubscribe deadlands
>as the BODY of the message. The SUBJECT is ignored.
>
>
--
__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/