Gatling gun in WWII

[Blightsmite]

I've posted a similar question is another less-educated forum. The response I got was less than satisfactory. Although, it is a historical question, so there may be no real answer.

Gatling gun technology and theory have no-doubt been around since the late 1800's. Yet it's 'take-off didn't happen until the 50's or 60's.
All-the-while, in WWII, there was no doubt a need for weapon platforms with a high-volume rate of fire. From CAS to AAA to defense against human wave attacks (eastern front), there was no lack of need for pure "number of bullets on the target in a short amount of time" weapon

That brings me to a question that I have asked myself for several years:

Why didn't weapons developers make use of the already available and theory of the Gatling gun?

My question may make more sense when I give you example like this:

One quad-mount .50 (w/ 4 .50's) vs one GAU-19

The examples could be extended to B-17s; B-29; ground based AA; IL-2 Sturmovik's' etc.



In preparation for at least one inevitable argument:

I know the technology hadn't advanced that far YET. It seems though that they have explored almost EVERY option available (they were very smart back then) except the one I propose

 

[Waylander]

Even the MG 42 with its 1500 rpm was too fast.
In the end something between 1000 and 1300 is enough to break every human wave attack if you need to do so and normally even this stretches your supply. (That's the reason for our MG3 "just" firing 1200 rpm)

.50 is normally too heavy for normal squad support. A smaller round is also able of doing the job.

For everything else than infantry use I look for more qualified persons to give their comments.

 

[LancerMc]

That is a good question, and I don't know for sure. :unknown

I would think it may have to do with the fact the gatlings were very complicated and expensive guns to make during the war. Some gatlings required electrical power to work and the power generation on aircraft was limited and new on aircraft of the period. I would also think gatlings were limited because of the amount ammo they required. B-17's could carry a signifcantly larger bomb load but due to their need at long range they could only carry about 4,000lbs of bombs on a mission to Germany. If the aircraft was forced to carry large amounts of ammunition, I am sure they the would have to cut the bomb load or range.

For close support aircraft, I have real no idea why they weren't used. I am sure a gatling would have been a better choice in some of our CAS planes then Browning .50's, 20mm cannons, and even the odd 75mm cannon.

I hope someone else on the forum is able to give you a better answer then myself.

 

[eckherl]

That is a good question, and I don't know for sure. :unknown

I would think it may have to do with the fact the gatlings were very complicated and expensive guns to make during the war. Some gatlings required electrical power to work and the power generation on aircraft was limited and new on aircraft of the period. I would also think gatlings were limited because of the amount ammo they required. B-17's could carry a signifcantly larger bomb load but due to their need at long range they could only carry about 4,000lbs of bombs on a mission to Germany. If the aircraft was forced to carry large amounts of ammunition, I am sure they the would have to cut the bomb load or range.

For close support aircraft, I have real no idea why they weren't used. I am sure a gatling would have been a better choice in some of our CAS planes then Browning .50's, 20mm cannons, and even the odd 75mm cannon.

I hope someone else on the forum is able to give you a better answer then myself.

Your biggest issue for this type of weapons system during WW2 would be the power unit to keep it firing, back then it would be too large to fit on a vehicle, the technology just wasn`t there to be able to place it in a combat configured vehicle. Gatling guns can really take their toll on a aircraft frame when they fire, look at the A-10 when it fires, the gun actually has a governor in place to only give it a 2.5 - 3 second shot burst and this a enough to almost stop it mid air, also they would of had issue`s with the technology for the power supply. The firing sequence of a gatling gun has to be timed perfectly with the power system or it will jam and then you will have big issues in trying to unjam it, it can be time consuming.

 

[Ths]

I don't know, but I would guess at some factors:

1. As mentioned - the power requirement to accellerate 5-7 gunbarrels AND to keep it firing AND break the carousselle.
2. Problems of installing it a propfighter. OK the P-38 would have been an option; but there was great problems with the 20 mm (AFAIR). It was originally a Madsen MG. But after Denmark was occupied it wasn't really an option.
3. The construction of airplanes at the period was quite flimsy and CAS aircraft had problems with heavy weight for armour and guns, plus terrible flight characteristics. No need to provoke with a nasty new design. Henschel made a dog and the P-39 wasn't above critisism.
4. The infantry combat vehikle at the period was Bren-carriers. Infantry was generally motorised - ok there were halftracks,but ...
5. The tanks had problems enough deciding what main gun they should have.

Development of guns is a very long drawn process to achieve the reliability and maintainability required for operating in dirt and by scared short term servicemen.

 

[Manfred]

Actualy, experiments were conducted in the 1800s, attaching a belt-drive to a Gatling... from a steam engine.

Obviously, nobody but the Navy would have had a use for a contraption like that, and the US Navy was allowed to rot at dockside for a generation after the Civil War.

I dont have the exact information on how the tests went, but a very high rate of fire was reported. I can only imagine what the wear and tear on that kind of equipment must have been!

As is so often the case, a good idea had to wait decades for people to understand its value.

 

[Ths]

With the Gatling gun and other good ideas: They do not work in a vacuum.
Aeroplanes had been constructed on drawing tables and as gliders for centuries; but it took a light and powerfull engine to get it off the ground.

This is the inventers lot: His invention is useless - untill somebody else comes and steals it, puts in conjunction with other pilfered technology.