20mm Gatling for tailgunners

Looking at the picture of a B-29 tail gun position at:
File:B29 tail turret.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Turrets
and comparing to the space of the M61 at
File:Vulcan1.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It doesn't look to me like the space demands would have been the limiting factor at least for the gun. Ammo supply might be another consideration though. One of the sites mentions that there as a 60 caliber as well as 27mm test versions. The latter probably would have been a bit much.

 

This would have been the ticket:
M197 Gatling gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Granted it wasn't developed until 1967 so the possibility exists that if time and money had been expended developing a time machine, instead of defeating tyranny, then it's possible to have fitted one to the tail of a B-17. The Allies, specifically the US, was more concerned with improving already proven weapons than they were in re tooling systems that already worked. The Germans were always chasing the "Next Great Weapon" instead of focusing on making enough of what was already working.

I am sure it would have been a very effective addition to an aircraft's defenses and would have been devastating to anything on the receiving end.

 

Biak the LW did have their moments of attack and not so much surprise. if you do a google on September 27, 199 Kassel mission some interesting info may come up even by your's truly. Once again I will state the most effective means of attack on a heavy bomber formation by daylight was from the rear.

as if the Gatling idea could of been in-place one wonders if the LW would then have re-countered with a more effective and accurate air to air missile system ...........who knows

 

of course

go to my friend Jan Zdiarsky's well laid out site and read the history behind this air battle with the US 100th bg and JG 4.

Museum of Air battle on 11.9.1944 - Index Page

got to the 491stbg web-site and punch in history and find the November 26, 1944 airbattle we are still sending infos to the author of the site with corrections. this insane air battle cost the lives of too many from both sides including one of my cousins. 50 Fw 190's lost from JG 301 alone. though similar rear attacks many from slightly above the variant was to attack in small rotte's (2) or in sections of 4 in a diamond tactic after breaking out of straight line staffel strength of 10 to 15 craft.

this should give you some interesting insights hopefully

am exhausted babysitting in-laws - too sad

 

Gee, the stuff you miss overnight!
Okay,i'll try to tick them off....
The 3000 RPM is just a maximum figure, all gatlings can be wound down (not too much or it defeats its purpose of course).
Newton 3rd law would assist in this instance actually speeding the bomber up, a small bullet powered jet! And being far aft, no control surface would be affected by gases.
I'm not sure that just long range fighters were the best defence, plenty of bombers still went down under escort, the ability to defend oneself at that moment would have more bearing on the bombers safety in my opinion.
If the B-29 can handle three guns with three breaches and three expulsion zones then a single gun with a single feed system would seem fairly easy. The ammo can be stored in above, below or side stowage...being kept further back in the aircraft, with the belt reaching forward to the weapon. Where theres a will....
The Germans SHUOLD have been chasing the next big weapon...They were never going to win with quantity, the quality of their weapons were what were going to make the difference, physically and psychologically.
"I am sure it would have been a very effective addition to an aircraft's defenses and would have been devastating to anything on the receiving end. " - My thought exactly. Devastating or at least force the enemy to forgo the tail as an approach.
"as if the Gatling idea could of been in-place one wonders if the LW would then have re-countered with a more effective and accurate air to air missile system ...........who knows " - The Germans did come up with the unguiged air -to air rocket and then a guided missile system (cool huh!?) and yes, this may have been a suitable counter, at least on paper.

 

I agree. Not sure your last comment completey covers the bombing campaign though. As i have said, the safety of the aircraft and crew came secondary to the target, and the allies were working on a one system fits all set up. Airforce brass is also notoriously short sighted and a little cold when it comes to personnel safety or even comfort for that matter. Please don't dismiss, short sightedness, red-tape, laziness, inter-service rivalries and a group still coming to terms with modern bomber tactics, as a possible answer though.

 

That's 500 rounds per minute from each barrel anything less than that and you're better off keeping the twin .50's.
Yes, it seems like it would be like a bullet powered jet; but, it would only have a desirable affect if the plane was in straight level flight. Ariplanes are steered the same as forklifts and boats; very little input to the rear control surfaces has a dramatic result.

It's would be like backing a trailer up when you can't control the throttle. It would be tough

 

Good point! Except there aren't any letter boxes to hit in the sky!
Also most bomber flying IS in a straight line...Except when trying to evade...(just the time the gatling arcs up). This may well result in some funky fish tailing (.303 diffrerent from 20mil)...Might make the damn thing even harder to hit! I might ponder that for a while...

 

Its not a coincidence that losses to fighters consistantly exceeded losses to flak until the Spring of 44, then that trend reversed to the end of the war.

 

Biak,

I think your describing a fake cannon created for a B-29 during WW2. I'll have to check.

 

It has been pretty well covered in the thread, but the reason 'why' or 'why not' EVEN if a M-61 was available would lead to the following questions for say a B-17G ; 1.) could a powered turret be designed to house the gun system (Gun, electric motor, ammo feed- the Cheyenne turret was far simpler than one contemplated for the GE gun), 2.) should it be manually operated by a gunner, or should the gun be directed and fired remotely from a central fire control system, if manual, and the gun is centerline, where do you place the gunner and sight system? 3.) what are the airframe structures requirement for a 3000 rpm 'hose' with 2x+ the mass of each round in contrast to the .50 cal, 4.) what are the CG issues (and the B-17 had progressively worse cg issues during the war), and last but not least - how effective would it be?

The 20mm was far more lethal and even a single 20mm (reliable) would be better IMO than twin fifies - so I believe it would be an improvement. Having said this the real issues in B-17 and B-24 defense against the Me 109 and Fw 190 and Me 410 was more gunner accuracy and capability of the guns to put a concentrated package from a bouncing airframe to a rapidly closing fighter.

Defensive formations of US bombers evolved from the 'staggered combat box' of LeMay's design to various line abreast concepts to counter effective attack strategies of the LW. The LW changed from single ship 5-7 O'clock 'bore right in' which exposed them by a much lower closing speed, and the target for probable 10-20 differnt guys shooting at them for a longer time as long as the bomber was in a combat box formation rather than a straggler. The switch to head on, then company front/head on was as stated an Egon Mayer tactic - extremely effective but required much more pilot skill to shoot in a brief second to two seconds before mid air collision.

As Erich noted the Sturm tactics evolved back to 5-7 O'clock slight dive to increase airspeed and come up from below.

The ultimate answer wasn't defensive firepower but Mustangs and Lightnings and (later) Jugs available to go all the way to the target and back.


The B-29 was the only airframe/fire control system in th US inventory that such a weapon could be effectively used IMO.

 

The B-29 had the 20mm plus 2x .50 cal, but IIRC the .50's were removed when LeMay ordered the B-29s stripped for the low level night missions.

Doolittle had twin broomsticks attached to his B-25 tails to try to fool Japanese fighters on the April, 1942 Raid on Japan