EoTech?
- Thread starter Strangeday
- Start date
Luckyorwhat -- opening fire with an enormous cannon in a small harbour -- or given what the shooter is wearing, from a helicopter, then your idea just aint happening.
Last edited:
Canuck -nope. .50 is what it is because it's about the upper limit for mass and bulk that can be transported and used with un or slightly modified vehicles. I've heard of pickups with 14.5's in the bed being flipped by the recoil in Africa, but that might be bad mounting and firing at the wrong time.
But basically many decades of humans shooting things have proven strongly that a shell with payload is more effective at stopping light or unarmoured stuff. I understand that for a time the .50BMG was the US's anti-tank gun
But the only reason it had such a prevalent life as an aircraft gun was because the US procurement system was hopelessly broken.
Plus it's possible that the ammo for a Gatling .50 to do the same as a light cannon would actually weight more, and the Gatling could spend a hundred bullets on something that 2 cannon shells would have taken care of - which would mean the Gatling is going to run out of ammo quickly and overheat quickly. Plus empty .50BMG cases flying out would probably suck to get hit by, I'm imagining it feeling like getting hit with a beer bottle tossed out of a car driving down the highway. So that's going to be a MAJOR mounting consideration for that gun!
KevinB I'm just reciting books here, but my understanding is that the .50 can have a greater maximum range than an explosive-filled shell, because it doesn't have an explosive filling cutting down the sectional density. And their shape is not going to be aerodynamically maximized. So a low sectional density combined with a poor 'form factor' results in a low ballistic co-efficient, and we know what that means to trajectory. A lot of cannon rounds, for instance the larger German and Japanese WW2 fighter-aircraft ones, really didn't have very high velocities at all.
What's more, you can't tell a .50 to 'stop' if it goes too far So in your scenario if you're in a harbour full of civilians 1600m away and terrorists are charging from 900m, an explosive cannon shell is safer for the civilians than the .50 bullets, because the cannon shell will drop sooner, and it's fuzing options mean it can self-destruct if it misses - of with AHEAD just in front of the target.
And if they've got a helicopter than can fit that inside, and can handle a Gatling .50bmg firing 2000 rpm, they can handle a cannon! And if cannons are for whatever reason not allowed, wouldn't a 40mm AGL have better effect, be more compact, more shootable, more purposeful?
It just seems that the only reason to choose those would be $, $ to buy, $ to maintain, and $ to shoot. But the basic trend, I think, in militaries that are buying good gear is that they can't get real cannons fast enough or big enough. Even in a city if you fire .50BMG at an apartment it will go through the walls, if you fire programmable 25mm it will burst inside the room.
But basically many decades of humans shooting things have proven strongly that a shell with payload is more effective at stopping light or unarmoured stuff. I understand that for a time the .50BMG was the US's anti-tank gun
But the only reason it had such a prevalent life as an aircraft gun was because the US procurement system was hopelessly broken.Plus it's possible that the ammo for a Gatling .50 to do the same as a light cannon would actually weight more, and the Gatling could spend a hundred bullets on something that 2 cannon shells would have taken care of - which would mean the Gatling is going to run out of ammo quickly and overheat quickly. Plus empty .50BMG cases flying out would probably suck to get hit by, I'm imagining it feeling like getting hit with a beer bottle tossed out of a car driving down the highway. So that's going to be a MAJOR mounting consideration for that gun!
KevinB I'm just reciting books here, but my understanding is that the .50 can have a greater maximum range than an explosive-filled shell, because it doesn't have an explosive filling cutting down the sectional density. And their shape is not going to be aerodynamically maximized. So a low sectional density combined with a poor 'form factor' results in a low ballistic co-efficient, and we know what that means to trajectory. A lot of cannon rounds, for instance the larger German and Japanese WW2 fighter-aircraft ones, really didn't have very high velocities at all.
What's more, you can't tell a .50 to 'stop' if it goes too far
So in your scenario if you're in a harbour full of civilians 1600m away and terrorists are charging from 900m, an explosive cannon shell is safer for the civilians than the .50 bullets, because the cannon shell will drop sooner, and it's fuzing options mean it can self-destruct if it misses - of with AHEAD just in front of the target.And if they've got a helicopter than can fit that inside, and can handle a Gatling .50bmg firing 2000 rpm, they can handle a cannon! And if cannons are for whatever reason not allowed, wouldn't a 40mm AGL have better effect, be more compact, more shootable, more purposeful?
It just seems that the only reason to choose those would be $, $ to buy, $ to maintain, and $ to shoot. But the basic trend, I think, in militaries that are buying good gear is that they can't get real cannons fast enough or big enough. Even in a city if you fire .50BMG at an apartment it will go through the walls, if you fire programmable 25mm it will burst inside the room.
Last edited:
