Sorry forgot to crop the photo - fixed

  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
    88·
    10 months ago

    79,000 rpm/88 guns = 897.7 rpm/gun, but Wikipedia has the PPSh-41 rate of fire listed as 1250 rpm, which would make this 110,000 rpm.

    But, that drum magazine only has 71 rounds, so you could get 110,000 rpm for about 3 seconds (71 rounds/1250 rpm = 0.057 min = 3.4 sec) … and then what? Fly back to base so you can swap out 88 individual drum magazines? And also do maintenace on any of the guns that jammed?

    Some real redneck engineering energy.

    • Madison420@lemmy.worldEnglish
      31·
      10 months ago

      It’s ww1 thinking. Aerial darts were fairly effective, not really damage wise but fear wise. They imagined the save idea but it doesn’t have the same effect since they aren’t that loud and visually don’t make a s much of an impact as seeing you homeboy suddenly turned into a gruesome pincushion.

    • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.mlEnglish
      19·
      10 months ago

      I have to think those would be a very bumpy 3 seconds, and that it would probably be cheaper and easier to just use artillery and/or bombs.

    • schmidtster@lemmy.worldEnglish
      16·
      10 months ago

      It’s safer than putting 88 people in the line of fire with the same circumstances. Theres the whole it’s less accurate angle, but its safer, man power not put in line of fire could be used to reload and swap magazines.

      • RedditRefugee69@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        10 months ago

        The biggest reasons this straight sucks are: identification of friendlies/civilians from the air, not getting blown up at extremely low altitudes, how crazy spread out everything in real life combat

        • waigl@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          Those reasons would apply to any air based anti-ground operations, even perfectly normal bomber or attacker planes.

          • RedditRefugee69@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            10 months ago

            The spread of an explosive bomb is WAY more than a bullet. So you only bomb places you know there are no friendlies unless you’re using forward facing guns

      • Diplomjodler@feddit.deEnglish
        4·
        10 months ago

        This thing is getting shot down the second it comes into view. It’s never going to even get close enough to an enemy formation to be used effectively.

    • prayer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      10 months ago

      Just for fun: Assuming they are firing perfectly staggered, 110,000 rpm at the top speed of 528km/h (1,833rps at 1,466m/s) gives us a dispersion of 1.25m/bullet. Not bad at all. If a person is standing in this line, there’s a 14.4% chance of being hit (18cm head diameter). If they were crouched or lying down it would be even higher, up to 100% if they were unfortunate enough to lie in the direction the plane is traveling.

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
        5·
        10 months ago

        Won’t this depend a lot on the altitude?

        Also, if the plane is traveling at 1466 m/s it will cover 4984m in 3.4s. So that’s about 1.25 bullets for every linear meter of travel (6248 rounds), but we have to account for the width of the targeted area which would depend on the spread at the distance from the muzzle (dependent on the altitude). Let’s assume it’s a strip 5km long by 10m wide for simplicity… and we’re looking at like 1 bullet for every 8 square meters… that’s going to be mostly miss. If the infantry have any cover at all it’s going to be a very futile exercise.

        You’d probably be better off dropping hand grenades out of the plane than dealing with that ridiculous contraption.

        Also worth noting that flying low enough to be in effective range for the mounted firearms means that the plane will be in effective range for firearms… which is not really where you want to be in a bomber giant target. I wouldn’t want to fly this mission.

        • Czorio@feddit.nlEnglish
          6·
          10 months ago

          1466m/s? Did you mean 150m/s (~400km/h) because you pegged a Tu-2 going about Mach 5 lol

        • gimsy@feddit.itEnglish
          4·
          10 months ago

          1446 m/s is more than mach 3… I don’t think that plane can do that

    • winterayars@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      10 months ago

      Russians love their redneck engineering.

      (The rate of fire might’ve been lower in this configuration, for whatever reason.)

  • Gork@lemm.eeEnglish
    15·
    10 months ago

    A WWII brrrrt gun. Interesting.

    Imagine being the ammo guy hand reloading all those drum magazines though between sorties.

  • Mac@mander.xyzEnglish
    12·
    10 months ago

    Can someone calculate max theoretical thrust from firing these?