|
darthbob88 posted:Not likely; from a quick Wikipedia, each 16" gun weighed on the order of 260,000 pounds, while a C-5 has a maximum payload of 285,000 pounds. I expect with some absurdly clever over-engineering you might be able to get a single gun firing down the centerline, A-10 fashion, but that's about it, and probably still impossible. I would hate to see what the recoil does to the airframe.
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 03:55 |
|
|
A quarter million pounds each?! Holy poo poo! Okay, nevermind.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I would hate to see what the recoil does to the airframe.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I kinda miss grover these days, can't really explain why. You're using a weapons system he helped design ?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Open the rear cargo door and make it a 16" recoilless rifle. The bad news is that a quarter million pounds rolling down the length of your plane is going to wreck its balance. The good news is that it’s going almost 20 mph (8 m⁄s), so it won’t be inside the ship for long.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:You're using a weapons system he helped design ? Yes, bad posting.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I would hate to see what the recoil does to the airframe. Even if you got that managed (such as with the recoilless idea below), 16" shells mass around a ton each IIRC. Having that much mass going from the back of your plane to and out the front seems like it would do some really screwy things to your center of gravity, and thus the flight system.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Open the rear cargo door and make it a 16" recoilless rifle. Could you fire it on takeoff for a kind of makeshift JATO?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 04:46
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Not likely; from a quick Wikipedia, each 16" gun weighed on the order of 260,000 pounds, while a C-5 has a maximum payload of 285,000 pounds. I expect with some absurdly clever over-engineering you might be able to get a single gun firing down the centerline, A-10 fashion, but that's about it, and probably still impossible. Use the Stratolaunch, which has a 550,000 lb payload. Plus you could probably fit a turret in the middle wing between the fuselages.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Not likely; from a quick Wikipedia, each 16" gun weighed on the order of 260,000 pounds, while a C-5 has a maximum payload of 285,000 pounds. I expect with some absurdly clever over-engineering you might be able to get a single gun firing down the centerline, A-10 fashion, but that's about it, and probably still impossible. So the C-5 can carry the gun and one shot. Two if you omit the loading mechanism.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
Wikipedia numbers are kinda sketchy, but it looks like a 747-8 could maybe carry one 16" tube and a couple rounds, at least. Might have to sacrifice most of the fuel capacity, though.Gnoman posted:Even if you got that managed (such as with the recoilless idea below), 16" shells mass around a ton each IIRC. Having that much mass going from the back of your plane to and out the front seems like it would do some really screwy things to your center of gravity, and thus the flight system. Assuming recoilless, would the shell not unass itself fast enough to be equivalent to dropping a 2000-pound bomb/cruise missile? The big thing with a recoilless rifle is that is shoots an equal mass (or at least energy, some use a rocket nozzle on the back to accelerate the gas) out the back, so it should be fine. Kinda hard to mount on a plane, though, because the backblast would be ... not good. See the scene in True Lies with the RPG in the van. I think it was this thread where I learned that, but an RPG is a recoilless gun (smoothbore) that gets the rocket a safe distance from your face before the rocket motor lights off. Like so: 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 05:02
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
mllaneza posted:You're using a weapons system he helped design ? I thought he was a cook?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
I'd be more worried about the concussion from the gun. A plane isn't made out of foot-thick armored steel plates.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'd be more worried about the concussion from the gun. A plane isn't made out of foot-thick armored steel plates. IIRC the Germans tried doing a single-shot 14 inch/35.5cm recoilless gun on a bomber for attacking shipping, and the muzzle and backblasts wrecked the airframe when they tested it. They abandoned the project in favor of further developing guided glide bombs.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 07:09
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I kinda miss grover these days, can't really explain why.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I kinda miss grover these days, can't really explain why. People were less on edge with each other then, or so it seemed.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 07:45
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:IIRC the Germans tried doing a single-shot 14 inch/35.5cm recoilless gun on a bomber for attacking shipping, and the muzzle and backblasts wrecked the airframe when they tested it. Not nearly as impressive, but the US had a version of the B-25 with a 75mm gun in the nose. It worked but didn't have sufficient rate of fire or terminal effectiveness.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:Not nearly as impressive, but the US had a version of the B-25 with a 75mm gun in the nose. It worked but didn't have sufficient rate of fire or terminal effectiveness. Made a shockingly effective AA platform, though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5je-xA3r1fI
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 08:10
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:Not nearly as impressive, but the US had a version of the B-25 with a 75mm gun in the nose. It worked but didn't have sufficient rate of fire or terminal effectiveness. It's kinda amazing how much the French 75 got around. About the only thing it didn't get evolved/modified into was a naval gun, though apparently at one point in WWII a 75mm pack howitzer was mounted on a PT boatm and found unsatisfactory due to the low rate of fire.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 08:43
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Wasn't there a Choose Your Own Adventure type comedy story about a CIA analyst spending most of his time on office politics? Soviet hoagies with a giant mickey mouse painted on the side.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 09:08
|
|
|
Re. 'Bomber with a gun poking out the belly', I give you Pave Gat:  https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d0_1287303302
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
Regular Brain : 16" Gun mount on plane. Galaxy Brain : 16" Recoiless gun mount. Universe Brain : 16" Gyrojet gun mount. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 10:34
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Regular Brain : 16" Gun mount on plane. Still not thinking big enough. 16" Metal Storm mount, aerial shotgun from hell.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
I mean, yeah, you could put a 16-inch gun in a C-5, but then you have to feed it. Are there even any 16-inch shells remaining in inventory in a fireable condition? I assume making new bagged charges would be simple enough. And, most importantly, you would have to screen extra carefully for homosexual aircrew, because according to the Navy they emit gay sabotage waves that cause 16-inch guns to blow up spontaneously.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 11:00
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:Not nearly as impressive, but the US had a version of the B-25 with a 75mm gun in the nose. It worked but didn't have sufficient rate of fire or terminal effectiveness. It looked bonkers.  One of the problems though is that the gun had to be manually loaded by the navigator each and every time. The Germans came up with something better, fielding a lightened version of the 7.5 cm Pak 40 AT gun on the Junkers 88 and Henschel Hs 129. While the resulting cannon - called Bordkanone 7,5 - on the Henschel was highly effective in use (it featured a hydraulic recoil-dampening system as well as an autoloader system, with 12 rounds in a rotary magazine), the platform flying it (B-3) was not produced in meaningful numbers. Of course, the thing looked thoroughly ridiculous.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAWHLMIxfUw Also, there was a prototype Ju 88 that used the Tigers' 88mm cannon, although that did not catch on (for pretty self-evident reasons).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 11:13
|
|
|
The Hs 129 was also notoriously under-engined even before the addition of a comically large gun. It does make coming out of on top of a dogfight in War Thunder while using one immensely satisfying, however. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 11:53
|
|
|
This is a 75mm cannon? How does it achieve that rate of fire on a fighter?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 12:18
|
|
|
CIGNX posted:This is a 75mm cannon? How does it achieve that rate of fire on a fighter? e2: Not every aircraft flew with the 75, but if it did: By still having machineguns/20mm autocannon. I don't know for sure, but I'd wager that the practice with the 75mm was MGs with tracers converging at POI for the 75. So you'd strafe a target with tracers and when you get convergence from the wing guns, you'd be on target for the 75. e: Think spotting rifles / ranging machine guns. IPCRESS fucked around with this message at 12:35 on May 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 12:33
|
|
|
CIGNX posted:This is a 75mm cannon? How does it achieve that rate of fire on a fighter? There were several variants, one had the 30mm Mk103 in a pod about where the 75mm was. Most likely that’s the one in the video given the rate of fire. Supposedly with its tungsten ammo the penetration was comparable to the the GAU-8, just with a massively lower fire rate (also they probably didn’t issue it much at all since tungsten was in pretty short supply). The 75mm always came off as a novelty to me, sure it was devastating when it hit but I doubt there were more than a handful of pilots who were any good with it consistently. The Hs-129 also had really lovely engines, being stuck with Pre-War French engines from the occupation since other priorities kept scooping up everything better. Mazz fucked around with this message at 13:01 on May 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
Preechr posted:I mean, yeah, you could put a 16-inch gun in a C-5, but then you have to feed it. Are there even any 16-inch shells remaining in inventory in a fireable condition?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 12:59
|
|
|
Mazz posted:The Hs-129 also had really lovely engines, being stuck with Pre-War French engines from the occupation since other priorities kept scooping up everything better. Which is really regrettable, since the thing was pretty effective in the eastern theater. It was designed from the start though to not use strategically important engines, this was one of the reasons the thing was built in the first place. It was well suited for the role, since it essentially dealt with the Stukas' main problem when fitted for AT roles..limited ammunition. I imagine that this thing with a couple of Jumos would be pretty formidable. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 13:08 on May 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:06
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Which is really regrettable, since the thing was pretty effective in the eastern theater. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:12
|
|
|
O_O Not a Nazi fan, I'm talking about the weapon man (as compared to its rivals, the Ju88 and Ju87 in that role)..
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 13:13
|
|
|
Mazz posted:The 75mm always came off as a novelty to me, sure it was devastating when it hit but I doubt there were more than a handful of pilots who were any good with it consistently. I was under the impression that the 75 on those B-25s were for naval attack against bulk freight transports. Air dropped torpedoes are expensive and skip bombing, although effective, took a lot of practice. Meanwhile, making a dozen slow strafing runs on a dilapidated freighter going 8 knots is relatively trivial and probably sufficient to make it sit in the nearest friendly port for 6 months (late war maybe years?) waiting for parts.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
The Italians designed and extensively tested a 102mm gun installed in a Piaggio P.108.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I was under the impression that the 75 on those B-25s were for naval attack against bulk freight transports. Air dropped torpedoes are expensive and skip bombing, although effective, took a lot of practice. Meanwhile, making a dozen slow strafing runs on a dilapidated freighter going 8 knots is relatively trivial and probably sufficient to make it sit in the nearest friendly port for 6 months (late war maybe years?) waiting for parts. I was talking more about the German 75 used against tanks as referenced. Hitting a boat sized target that is relatively static is probably a lot easier in practice than hitting a T-34, especially with a bunch of 37mm and other poo poo flying in your direction. There were likely some pilots who got exceptionally good with it but I feel like that wouldn’t be the norm. Could always be wrong tho.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Wasn't there a Choose Your Own Adventure type comedy story about a CIA analyst spending most of his time on office politics? I don't recall a CYOA version but that does sound like the CIA-created Hunt for the Red October parody. Pretty sure I heard about that from this thread tho. Arglebargle III posted:I WANT TO BELIEVE that the Russian chemical sensors worked but it wouldn't be the first time that Russian scientists insisted a nonsense device was working for political reasons. I'm more interested in the purported wake detection capabilities. Reminds me a little of how the Polynesians were apparently able to discern the location of distant islands based on ocean swell patterns. Everything about SOKS is questionable and would make for an nerd-interesting Mythbusters episode.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:O_O Glad to hear you're not a nazi fan and just lament a slight reduction in Nazi KDR for some unrelated technical interest in the application of deadly force by Nazis
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
The Sausages posted:I'm more interested in the purported wake detection capabilities. Reminds me a little of how the Polynesians were apparently able to discern the location of distant islands based on ocean swell patterns. Everything about SOKS is questionable and would make for an nerd-interesting Mythbusters episode. My guess is that there is probably some truth to both of these but that the real world mitigates the effectiveness these systems or that there are inexpensive effective countermeasures. Otherwise countries all over the world wouldn’t still be spending vast amounts of treasure and effort maintaining fleets of obsolete submarines.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 03:55 |
|
|
In other news, BD posted two new videos yesterday. One for a new auto navigation system on SpotMini, and another with Atlas actually jogging outdoors.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve9kWX_KXus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjSohj-Iclc
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2018 18:26
|
|