Ship Defense: M-2 .50cal vs GAU-19A .50 cal???

Valid points for including a few 20mm Oerlikon single mounts… but not complex maintenance-intensive mini-gun-style weapons.

Nope. Not in the same context.

That kind of 20/23mm cannon is part of a ships light gun fit and requires a trained gunner. That kind of mount requires no small amount of skill to get results with. Completely different to the 50cal type weapon thats being discussed here which would be manned by any old stoker who volunteered to have a crack at a new duty.

It doesnt make the blindest bit of difference what the relative destructive power of a cannon shell is over a 50 cal if the guy firing the weapon cant hit the target. As stated the gatling takes the kind of coverage offered by the M2 type weapons already used and magnifies them for very little additional ship impact.

Complex and maintenance intensive is a bit of a stretch. Gatlings have always been more reliable shot-for-shot, with equal maintenance, than any other type of cannon I’m aware of.

Valid points for including a few 20mm Oerlikon single mounts… but not complex maintenance-intensive mini-gun-style weapons.

But there is no good reason to do it either. As already noted, the venerable M2HB does the job far more than adequately at lower cost and with less maintenance than any gee wiz this is really cool to watch on Futureweapons solution.

The GECAL 50 is the answer to a question no one is asking.

Yeah, of course… I am basing my opinion on the fact that a 50 cal mini gun looks cool for my arguments that it should be used to protect USN vessels… Not.

The reality is that the USN boats already have small arms on board which probably includes everything from M240 belt fed MGs through to semi auto 50 cal sniper rifles for shooting surfaced mines. The point is that small boat threats in the real world don’t normally consist solely of 30 cal MMGs. The most common weapon loadouts tend to be HMGs, and RPGs. Sometimes they even have light cannon. When planning what weapons you want to use to fight a potential foe it is always better to err on the side of caution.

If you spend $1 billion dollars and outfit all your ships with single barrel 20mm cannon, or even 3 barrel gatling 20mm cannon on a cheap unstabilised mount and some pirate comes up and starts annoying you but their presence doesn’t warrant a 20mm reply you can always get a SAW up on deck to tell them they are not being treated as a joke and they better leave the area before something bad happens.

If however after that first burst from a SAW does nothing to deter the bad guy and they are coming in at high speed, or uncover a 50 cal HMG from 1,000m out (outside the effective range of a SAW) then hosing them down with a 20mm will obliterate all but armoured vessels… if they have a large bomb in the nose you want it to explode well away from the ship.

As I mentioned, the Russian land forces use 23mm twin barrel anti aircraft mounts as base guards, because if the target is a truck bomb you need to hit it hard to actually stop it. (ie set off the bomb or disable it).

Cannon are more expensive but they give you range and hitting power… remember if you are both using 50 cals you are probably the bigger target…

With cannon you might not even deem it necessary to use it in many situations and even if you do use it you can aim to hit the water nearby the target to show you mean business. When the ship is under air attack it also becomes much more useful too.

Sorry to say this but thats gash!. The threat is the swarming small boat attack or, in port/at anchor sniper fire.

In the first case a GAU-19, on its GE naval mount, is far more effective than banging out short bursts from an M2. Remember it may not be Carlos Hathcock on the mount and the longer sustainable fire from the gatling will allow for easier fire adjustment and greater effects on target. The difference in maintenance is going to add up to what….an extra few hours with a gunners mate and a few more spares in weps stores?.

As to the second threat I think some people need to loosen their grip on technology a bit. A man stood behind a gun, perhaps with NVG’s in low-vis, is much more aware of his surroundings than someone sat at a fire control console looking at the world through a 19″ flat panel. The threat to the gatling gunner is high from a sniper, but, the same sniper that can hit the exposed part of a person behind a gun and mount can put a bullet through the sensors or actuation mechanism of your stabilised, remotely operated, expensive mount. Its callous to say it but a gunner with a bullet in him is much easier to replace, to get the mount back firing, than a Typhoon with shot out optronics.

Its true to say that M2’s already in the inventory are nice, cheap, solutions that most navies find an easy option to bolt onto their ships in threat environments. To say that the GAU-19 doesnt offer a better solution for what is, in real terms, a very modest amount of money is way off the mark though.

Which, is the point I was trying to make…………..:D

Similar situation, navy replacing 7.62mm miniguns with twin M-240 mounts.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007smallarms/5_8_07/Ruehlin_Panel.pdf

Royal Navy having different experience with the weapon. No extraordinary maintenance issues have cropped up that I’ve heard of, probably because we’ve bought spares for once, and the gatlings are inherently simple, stoppage tolerant, weapons. They are well liked for the ease with which inexperienced gunners can get decent results from the weapon too. One Tiff/ET I know said using it was like using those high power watergun games you get at funfairs – you just hose it around for a few seconds til the bullets go where you want them.

‘Requires ship alt to become a permanent mount’ – thats clawing at straws a bit. Dont make it permanent then!. Its a very portable weapons system – why not have it demountable so it can be stored in a safe, dry weapons locker when its not required?.

The whole piece sounds a bit of a desperate justification for the twin-jimpy mount IMO. Having fired a good few hundred rounds through GPMG’s I’d expect more stoppages and more time on the workbench for that twin mount than for the minigun. Having done a 5k run carrying a GPMG I’d expect that a twin mount would be bloody heavy and unpopular to dismount too!.

Anyway seeings that this is a 2006 piece can anyone confirm it actually happened?. Anyone got any images of a twin-M240 deployed I cant remember seeing it anywhere?.

So what about a 40mm AGL aboard a ship for close-in deterrence?

Probably not enough range, slow and almost ballistic projectile, and problems with using the impact fuze and explosive charge on water. It has been seen here and there for use on estuaries, rivers etc where you would attack land targets. Think Colombia, Venezuela etc.

In land forces on vehicles for convoy protection and such a certain standard becomes visible with remote turrets carrying either a .50cal MG or a 40mm AGL.

So what about a 40mm AGL aboard a ship for close-in deterrence?

Similar situation, navy replacing 7.62mm miniguns with twin M-240 mounts.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007smallarms/5_8_07/Ruehlin_Panel.pdf

Small Arms Small ArmsSurface Ship Upgrade/MK44 ReplacementSurface Ship Upgrade/MK44 Replacement

• Replace the MK44 mini-gun system with Twin M240 MG.

MK44 Mini Gun
• System provided as a rapid response measure after USS Cole incident• Fires 7.62mm at 3,000 rounds per minute
• Electrically driven w/six barrels• 80 systems currently in use by Fleet
• No spare parts support in place • Difficult and expensive to maintain aboard ship
• Requires ship alt to become a permanent emplacement• Acquisition cost $72,300 per system (2 per ship = $144,600)

Twin M240 MG (Sufficient FY06 funding to procure 160 ship sets)
• Fires 7.62mm at 1500 to 1900 rounds per minute (combined)
• Can continue to fire if one gun fails• Any of the ship’s M240s can be used to replace failed gun
• Acquisition cost $22,652 per system (2 per ship = $45,304)• Procurement of 300 twin M240 w/mount will cost <$7.0M (150 ship sets)
• Twin M240 MG will be provided in lieu of t funding

But there is no good reason to do it either. As already noted, the venerable M2HB does the job far more than adequately at lower cost and with less maintenance than any gee wiz this is really cool to watch on Futureweapons solution. The GECAL 50 is the answer to a question no one is asking.

Sorry to say this but thats gash!. The threat is the swarming small boat attack or, in port/at anchor sniper fire.

In the first case a GAU-19, on its GE naval mount, is far more effective than banging out short bursts from an M2. Remember it may not be Carlos Hathcock on the mount and the longer sustainable fire from the gatling will allow for easier fire adjustment and greater effects on target. The difference in maintenance is going to add up to what….an extra few hours with a gunners mate and a few more spares in weps stores?.

As to the second threat I think some people need to loosen their grip on technology a bit. A man stood behind a gun, perhaps with NVG’s in low-vis, is much more aware of his surroundings than someone sat at a fire control console looking at the world through a 19″ flat panel. The threat to the gatling gunner is high from a sniper, but, the same sniper that can hit the exposed part of a person behind a gun and mount can put a bullet through the sensors or actuation mechanism of your stabilised, remotely operated, expensive mount. Its callous to say it but a gunner with a bullet in him is much easier to replace, to get the mount back firing, than a Typhoon with shot out optronics.

Its true to say that M2’s already in the inventory are nice, cheap, solutions that most navies find an easy option to bolt onto their ships in threat environments. To say that the GAU-19 doesnt offer a better solution for what is, in real terms, a very modest amount of money is way off the mark though.

But there is no good reason to do it either. As already noted, the venerable M2HB does the job far more than adequately at lower cost and with less maintenance than any gee wiz this is really cool to watch on Futureweapons solution.

When it comes to visual deterrence, it does indeed. In terms of combat effectiveness a stabilised mount hooked up to IR directors and a combat system is preferable in my opinion. Which is why vessels currently have both a pair (or four) Mk 38 and a selection of 12.7mm, 7.62mm M240 and miniguns on bridge wings etc. In future this line up will also include laser and acoustic (LRAD) warning/deterrence and will be increasingly automated. See Shipboard Protection System (SPS).

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=161199&d=1206190263

There is no reason why a special purpose gatling gun could not be built to suit the role.

But there is no good reason to do it either. As already noted, the venerable M2HB does the job far more than adequately at lower cost and with less maintenance than any gee wiz this is really cool to watch on Futureweapons solution.

The GECAL 50 is the answer to a question no one is asking.

Oh sorry I forgot, we’re talking about disabling light surface craft without shredding the whole boat. The 4.5 would definitely put an end to any such ideas.

If the target is a bomb in a speed boat then you do need something that will stop it dead in the water and at very short range a missile would be too problematic.

The Russians/Soviets had 12.7mm HMGs added to their ships after the Falklands war and new designs for lighter boats seem to include 14.5m HMG and 23mm gun mounts. They currently are offering a 30mm gun mount for very light vessels, but the standard 30mm CIWS mounts (AK-630 and AK-305) usually include an optronic aiming system for targeting targets like objects in the water (ie divers or mines) and air and sea targets.

Or there’s always the good old 4.5″ (10cm as near as makes little difference) as mounted on most British naval vessels. Oh sorry I forgot, we’re talking about disabling light surface craft without shredding the whole boat. The 4.5 would definitely put an end to any such ideas.

Australia mounts .50’s on most major and minor warships for intimidation of illegal fishing boats that won’t stop, etc.

For more serious work they use the Sea Typhoon and Mini Typhoon stabilised mounts.

Unicorn

I believe that a lot of the newer warships have mounts for miniguns on each side of the bridge. I believe the british Type 23 and T45’s have this. They also carry various other machine guns that can be mounted around the ship.

in the warship program on 5 they had Gatling guns in .5 on board Lusty as well as CWIS and 30mm cannon

Ah! Funny remark above. SAW to defend a 8000 tons ship. Less firepower than a sea bandit in a whaleboat! 😀 Can really believe some Westerners might do that.
Even those crew-served .50cal twins are just symbolic feel-good stuff. A number of stabilized 20mm+ mounts is minimum for asymetric defense. Do you want to play around, or kill what threatens you?

I believe that a lot of the newer warships have mounts for miniguns on each side of the bridge. I believe the british Type 23 and T45’s have this. They also carry various other machine guns that can be mounted around the ship.

The USN also uses dual mounted M-2’s, M-60’s and as I was leaving service SAW’s were making an appearance.

Gatling versions in 5.56mm guns were tried in the US and found to be pretty pathetic. At ranges of 800m they wouldn’t reliably penetrate the skin of aircraft that did not have armour… in other words light sheet metal would deflect the bullets.
As such I would think SAWs would only be token weapons of little practical use.

Firing in short bursts is preferable to blazing away on full auto anyways, being in a non stabilized mount on a rocking ship makes accurate aiming problematic so firing a short burst then correcting isn’t a bad thing.

With weapons like the 50 cal it is often common practise to walk the fire onto the target. If the rate of fire was variable and could be switched during a burst it would be ideal to use a gatling weapon. Start out with a low rate of 300-400 rpm and then jump up to a higher rate at the bullets start impacting the target to 800-1,000 rpm.

There is a very good reason fro not designing a purpose built Gatling gun type weapon, cost. R&D costs money, then you have to sell enough to at least break even if not show a profit.

Considering the threat and the fact that such weapons would be multipurpose weapons it is not like they would have to develop a weapon from scratch. Optimising an existing weapon would make more sense than using off the shelf weapons that may not do the job well.

Suicide bombers will not always choose nice sunny days in calm weather inside a harbour to make an attack. A stabilised mount and all weather protection for the crew along with stabilised all weather day night sights, if you are serious about really protecting your boat then it is not going to be cheap. Fitting a few HMG and putting mounting points for small arms is a token gesture that looks like they don’t take the threat seriously.

Still it is like the FAA… they don’t do anything till someone dies…

There is no reason why a special purpose gatling gun could not be built to suit the role.

The Soviets had the AK-630 mounts with liquid cooled barrels that were gas powered and didn’t need electric drives. They also had the AK-306 lightweight models with much reduced rate of fire and ammo load for lighter mounts.

The M2 Browning is a well established weapon but has many inherent problems in its design. While actually changing the barrel is fairly straight forward the head space and timing settings for the gun make mean that changing the barrel properly and maintaining reliability is not that straight forward. The normal way to avoid the problem is to simply fire in short bursts and not overheat the barrel in the first place.

On the other hand a lightweight gas powered 50 cal with 3 or 4 barrels could be a simple weapon that is very reliable. At a rate of 500-1,500rpm there would be few problems with overheating the barrels and a single dud round would be cycled and ejected simply through momentum of the action. The rate of fire might drop a fraction from the missing gas impulse from the round that failed to fire, but overall it wouldn’t really be noticible except if a dozen or more rounds in a row were duds… which is very unlikely.

Having said that the target is likely to be a Pirate or a suicide bomber so a heavier round would actually be more use. A 20mm-30mm round of low velocity and not particularly high velocity would actually be more useful in most cases. As an example the Soviets and now Russians widely use their ZU-23 twin 23mm cannon towed anti aircraft gun mounts to protect their bases. A burst of 50 cal is impressive, but if you really want to rip apart a potential truck bomb or speed boat bomb in this case then cannon shells with HE rounds really do make a difference.

Firing off the bows of a potential target with a burst of cannon or HMG would be not a problem but if you really have to stop several tons of speed boat then a cannon probably makes more sense. Supported with a few belt fed machine guns like the FN MAG and I think that would suffice for most targets.

(in the western navies rounds like the 20mm, 25mm, and 30mm shells would do the job, but I am talking about moderate versions… not the A-10 GAU-8 type 30mms for example… the 30mm shell from the Apaches chain gun would be more effective due to its heavier HE payload to smash up the front of the target and stop it.)

Rather than enter into an in depth discussion (this early in the morning my brain wouldn’t stand it:D) I’ll settle for replying to your first line. There is a very good reason fro not designing a purpose built Gatling gun type weapon, cost. R&D costs money, then you have to sell enough to at least break even if not show a profit.

The M2 Browning is a well established weapon but has many inherent problems in its design. While actually changing the barrel is fairly straight forward the head space and timing settings for the gun make mean that changing the barrel properly and maintaining reliability is not that straight forward. The normal way to avoid the problem is to simply fire in short bursts and not overheat the barrel in the first place.

Head space and timing is easy, on both destroyers I was on everyone who received training or fired the gun was given lots of training on how to do that, and it was required maintenance before assuming watch in some ports.
Firing in short bursts is preferable to blazing away on full auto anyways, being in a non stabilized mount on a rocking ship makes accurate aiming problematic so firing a short burst then correcting isn’t a bad thing.

On the other hand a lightweight gas powered 50 cal with 3 or 4 barrels could be a simple weapon that is very reliable. At a rate of 500-1,500rpm there would be few problems with overheating the barrels and a single dud round would be cycled and ejected simply through momentum of the action. The rate of fire might drop a fraction from the missing gas impulse from the round that failed to fire, but overall it wouldn’t really be noticible except if a dozen or more rounds in a row were duds… which is very unlikely.
The USN also uses dual mounted M-2’s, M-60’s and as I was leaving service SAW’s were making an appearance.