Maybe in ten years...

[Korpen]

Hm, largest revolver cannon I could find is of 35mm caliber. And that's from the 1990s.
And there were no belt-fed weapons with 20mm caliber until mid-1920s. 30mm autocannons were developed only in the 30s.

Hoist feed would limit ROF anyways to that of a single barrel.

I am pretty sure you know, but in the name of clarity:
A revolver cannon is not the same thing as a gatling, in a revolver cannon it is only the breach that rotates, all rounds are fired trough a single barrel. That is why they can be larger then gatling, much less mass to spin.

[Ithekro]

I'm thinking of a much slower pace (also of the loading/firing point incorrectly, but that's something else) since we are taking of a nearly 2 inch shell.

[Valles]

Well, I'd've called the ammo feed a belt, but that'd sound even sillier. Wikipedia fails me, for once, but my mental image is based on certain types of excavators: http://modellfeldbahn.ch/bucketchainexcavator.html

That is, a segmented belt picks up one or more shells per segment at the bottom of its run and dumps them out into a small hopper at the top.

I am not concerned with history. I am concerned with physics. For that matter, my interest is not in truly high rates of fire like those required for aerial work in the modern day, but in relatively high ones for a weapon of the given caliber.

[P3D]

Well, I'd've called the ammo feed a belt, but that'd sound even sillier. Wikipedia fails me, for once, but my mental image is based on certain types of excavators: http://modellfeldbahn.ch/bucketchainexcavator.html

That is, a segmented belt picks up one or more shells per segment at the bottom of its run and dumps them out into a small hopper at the top.

Such a chain hoist mechanism would have very difficult time to adjust to elevation. The hop would take up too much space. End result is that your ROF is still limited by what the hoist could do.

I am concerned what the technology of the given time was capable of. Physics itself could have allowed you to build a nuclear reactor in 1930. What the technology could do is easiest to be determined by historical examples. If there's a larger that 5 year difference, most probably not.

Several things and gadgets that people make up in this board might not be feasible at all IRL, but to prove it either way is impossible.

[Korpen]

Well, I'd've called the ammo feed a belt, but that'd sound even sillier. Wikipedia fails me, for once, but my mental image is based on certain types of excavators: http://modellfeldbahn.ch/bucketchainexcavator.html

That is, a segmented belt picks up one or more shells per segment at the bottom of its run and dumps them out into a small hopper at the top.

I am not concerned with history. I am concerned with physics. For that matter, my interest is not in truly high rates of fire like those required for aerial work in the modern day, but in relatively high ones for a weapon of the given caliber.

The i will be Mr. Boring and point out that there are no sane reason for going for a gatling over a more conventional single barrel automatic design, the only advantage of a gatling in this case would be that fewer rounds a fired trough a single barrel. But we are aboard a ship and water-cooling weight less then four extra barrels...

[Tanthalas]

not to argue for or against the system. but I personaly am using 20mm MGs atm (ok so its like 19.896mm or somthing) and I know others are using 1" MGs on their ships thats 25.4mm.  So I could posibly belive 35mm in a few years (depends if SS will let you do it or not I havnt tryed).

[Korpen]

not to argue for or against the system. but I personaly am using 20mm MGs atm (ok so its like 19.896mm or somthing) and I know others are using 1" MGs on their ships thats 25.4mm.  So I could posibly belive 35mm in a few years (depends if SS will let you do it or not I havnt tryed).

Sure you can, but to what purpose? If it is about shooting up people and small boats, a 8mm MG works just as well. And if you want to blow bigger things out of the water, well then a 75 is far more flexible, and with much better range.

[Ithekro]

The only basic reason to do this that I can think of (aside from being strange) would be if a country does not figure out how to make Maxim-like Machine Gun technology.  But even then I'm not so sure about this one in terms of size verses just going it one at a time in one barrel.

Is it possible to not be able to use a clip-like feed (such as on the 20mm cannons of the 1940s) but work a gatling-like system in place of it to maintain a roughly even rate of fire?

[Tanthalas]

not to argue for or against the system. but I personaly am using 20mm MGs atm (ok so its like 19.896mm or somthing) and I know others are using 1" MGs on their ships thats 25.4mm.  So I could posibly belive 35mm in a few years (depends if SS will let you do it or not I havnt tryed).

Sure you can, but to what purpose? If it is about shooting up people and small boats, a 8mm MG works just as well. And if you want to blow bigger things out of the water, well then a 75 is far more flexible, and with much better range.

LOL my plan was just to keep TB skippers honest

[Valles]

Such a chain hoist mechanism would have very difficult time to adjust to elevation. The hop would take up too much space. End result is that your ROF is still limited by what the hoist could do.

Evidently we're picturing very different arrangements. Besides, at this stage, how much elevating do you need to do?

I am concerned what the technology of the given time was capable of. Physics itself could have allowed you to build a nuclear reactor in 1930. What the technology could do is easiest to be determined by historical examples. If there's a larger that 5 year difference, most probably not.

And there is a vast difference between what was could be done and what people chose to do, for reasons of economy, differing conceptions and viewpoints, or whatever.

I'm not trying to assert that these things come out of thin air. I'm planning to create and properly fund progressively larger gatling mounts from the ones I already have in the next game-decade. I'm perfectly prepared to carry out some prerequisite research first.

Hell, the only reason I really went to the trouble of laying the groundwork for gatlings was to keep people from whining about how automatic guns weren't possible this early.

Reasonable technological rates is the entire point of progressive tech trees, in my mind. What year something happened in the real world is completely irrelevant. This isn't our history. This is Navalism's history. Different players, different people, different pressures. Any one would be enough to produce different results.

I'm not going to argue for a revision of the research rules. I don't have the seniority or 'credit' to do that. But 'not historical' is a bad joke.

[Carthaginian]

Hm, largest revolver cannon I could find is of 35mm caliber. And that's from the 1990s.
And there were no belt-fed weapons with 20mm caliber until mid-1920s. 30mm autocannons were developed only in the 30s.

In the words of Colonel Potter: "HORSEHOCKY."
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_37mm-30_maxim.htm

It's a scaled-up Maxim firing 37mm ammunition. It's the world's first modern autocannon, and it's built WHEN? Lemmie look and see *rummages a bit* OH... lookie here:
"This was the world's first automatic gun and was designed in 1883. "

That's about 50 years earlier than you thought. Apparently you didn't research too damn hard. Not only was it called built but it's demonstration was 'mildly successful.' It had a practical cyclic rate of 100 RPM judged by the later models from other makers, but they were projected at 250 RPM. Ammo was in 25 or 50 round BELTS.

Hoist feed would limit ROF anyways to that of a single barrel.

I don't know... set them for about a 60 RPM cyclic (intentionally slow) and pass up 15 round mags... it could work. ROF would be probably 35-40 RPM per barrel, making for  75-80 RPM per twin (biggest mount I'd try). That would equal the single gun ROF of late 40's full-auto 57mm mounts.

Not a bad line of thinking, IMNSHO.
Being a gunner by trade, I can see it working. Granted a 175 pound magazine would be a rough lift, but 3 men to a gun could handle it: first loader clears the empty mag, second loader flips the new mag off the hoist towards the gun as the first grabs the top of the mag to help position it in the mag well. Then lock, load and the gunner adjusts aim and fires.

[Ithekro]

How maintenance intensive would such a contraption be?

[Carthaginian]

How maintenance intensive would such a contraption be?

Probably not as much as one would think, but probably moreso than is economic.
I didn't say that I'd personally try for it, just that as someone that deals with military hardware and rapid-fire weapons of up to 40mm on a regular basis I could see it being POSSIBLE ENOUGH that someone might wish to try it.

[P3D]

Hm, largest revolver cannon I could find is of 35mm caliber. And that's from the 1990s.
And there were no belt-fed weapons with 20mm caliber until mid-1920s. 30mm autocannons were developed only in the 30s.

In the words of Colonel Potter: "HORSEHOCKY."
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_37mm-30_maxim.htm

It's a scaled-up Maxim firing 37mm ammunition. It's the world's first modern autocannon, and it's built WHEN? Lemmie look and see *rummages a bit* OH... lookie here:
"This was the world's first automatic gun and was designed in 1883. "

That's about 50 years earlier than you thought. Apparently you didn't research too damn hard. Not only was it called built but it's demonstration was 'mildly successful.' It had a practical cyclic rate of 100 RPM judged by the later models from other makers, but they were projected at 250 RPM. Ammo was in 25 or 50 round BELTS.

Hoist feed would limit ROF anyways to that of a single barrel.

Indeed. A reliable  autocannon  that was apparently soo successful and reliable that it was put in service all over the world.

And I am glad that you agree with me fully that octuple/gatling mounts are not feasible and twins are the largest you could get. :P

But, actually,  why 50mm? Caliber too small against surface targets, and RPM makes it unsuitable for AA role. Even with a contact fuse the round will rip through the canvas cover of a plane of those days without blowing up, assuming there's a hit with that abysmal ROF.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Light, automatic cannon have been around since the late XIXth century. There was a niche for them, but no widespread need until the 30's.
The KuKK uses 0,433/11mm MGs, considering the army's 0,256/6,5mm to be too light.
The next one up the food chain, on capital ships, are crank operated Nordenfeldt guns, IIRC in 1,85" calibre.

Borys