Machine Guns and Cannons (Ground, Vehicle, and Aircraft Mounted Weapons)

<< < (10/59) > >>

dy031101:
Recently I Googled a site that compared various aircraft guns built during WWII.

The site mentioned a T17 machinegun that is a reverse-engineered version of MG151 for use with the American .60 cal. cartridge.

Almost nothing (except for the fact that it was not formally adopted for use) came of the Googling efforts for that gun.

Does anyone know more about that gun?  Like how successful the gun was in tests...... and some pictures of the .60 MG would be nice, too.

Thanks in advance.

joncarrfarrelly:
Quote from: dy031101 on October 11, 2008, 07:44:49 PM

Recently I Googled a site that compared various aircraft guns built during WWII.

The site mentioned a T17 machinegun that is a reverse-engineered version of MG151 for use with the American .60 cal. cartridge.

Almost nothing (except for the fact that it was not formally adopted for use) came of the Googling efforts for that gun.

Does anyone know more about that gun?  Like how successful the gun was in tests...... and some pictures of the .60 MG would be nice, too.

Thanks in advance.


A post from Tony Williams on another board:
From 'Flying Guns World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45' by Emmanuel Gustin and myself:

"The Americans constantly searched for higher muzzle velocities in their HMGs, producing experimental weapons mainly based on the Hispano (T18 series) or MG 151 (T17 series) cannon. The T18s were adapted to 15 mm or .60" calibre, but the conversion turned out to involve too much work so they were dropped. The T17 was developed to accept the US Army's experimental .60" anti-tank cartridge (15.2x114) in a project which started in 1942 and continued until 1946, achieving orders for up to 5,000 weapons and production of about 300, none of which saw service. The T17E3 weighed 61 kg and achieved only 600 rpm; the T17E5 reduced the weight to 58 kg and speeded up the mechanism to 700-750 rpm. There was also a Johnson short-recoil design chambered for both the 20x110 HS 404 round and the necked-down 12.7x120 high velocity version (.50" HV), but this was equally unsuccessful.

The ammunition used by these weapons was impressively powerful for the calibre. The .50" HV achieved over 1,220 m/s with a 46 g bullet, the .60" anti-tank cartridge fired a 76 g bullet at 1,100 m/s, and a necked-down .50" version (12.7x114) propelled a 43 g bullet at 1,200 m/s, or 32 g at 1,340."

As a matter of interest, the .60 cartridge was also used in some postwar designs, namely the Vulcan rotary and the revolver cannon which became the M39, but it was rejected in favour of a necked-out version of the cartridge - the 20x102 - which is still in use today in the M61 Vulcan and various other guns.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Tony's comments are basically the same as those he makes about the .60 series in his book 'Rapid Fire' and are in line with the short mention of the .60 types in the book 'Small Arms of the World' by Smith and Smith. The Smith book has a photo of the T41/T17E5 version that I'll scan when I have a chance.

One note, the T17 was not a 'reverse engineered' MG151 any more than its .60 cal stablemate, the T18, was a 'reverse engineered' Hispano 404, in both cases the weapons were a reworking of the base design so it could use the .60 cartridge. In the case of the MG151 the .60 cartridge (15.2mm X 114mm) was more powerful than the 15mm X 96mm cartridge for which it had been designed.
Re-designing, re-engineering and outright copying are not the same as 'reverse engineering', which, BTW, is a much abused term.

Jon

dy031101:
Thanks.

I still want to make sure though...... is it unsuccessful as in "not working well" or just "not adopted for service"?

PanzerWulff:
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on June 01, 2008, 02:49:30 AM

Quote from: Jschmus on May 31, 2008, 02:43:20 PM

I think the pod itself is nifty-looking, even though the weapon fizzled.  My question is this: could the pod have been recycled to fit a different, lighter cannon?  Maybe the GAU-12 25mm cannon, as fitted to the AC-130 and AV-8B, or a more modern 20mm?  Also, the kit includes these snazzy blue markings for the pods.  Wouldn't an operational pod be a little less decorative?
If you have the 1/72nd scale gun pods, you could use a bit of scale-o-rama and scale them up to become a .50" caliber gun pod on a 1/48th scale model.  If these pods are available in 1/144th scale, there is a good chance of passing them off as .50" gun pods on a 1/72nd scale model.  I beleive it was Blackops that did that with some of these pods on a helicopter project a year or so ago. 


I actually used that pod in just that way on my IsraeliBO-105/I "Akrav" (Scorpion)I built last year



"Panzer"

dy031101:
I've finally located what I've meant to post for a while......

A chart made by Cockerill about what vehicles can take their 90mm Mk.3 and Mk.8 as an up-gunning option.

The left hand side column is for the Mk.3 whereas the right hand side column is for the Mk.8 (which, IIRC, is compatible with 90mm ammunitions of old Pershing and Patton tanks).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page