why are water cooled machine guns not mounted on vehicles instead

>>35022671
They're heavier and take up more space.

>>35022671
First is that it greatly increases the weight and complexity of the install.

Second is that tanks would better use the space consumed by 10,000 rounds of MG ammo for additional main gun rounds.

>>35022696
How much of a difference do 20lbs really make on a tank or IFV?

>>35022696
the water may add 50 pounds to a multi-ton vehicle and really more space? barely anything.

>>35022701
10k rounds of gpmg ammo would not take up much space.

>>35022726
The weight difference is significantly more than 20 lbs.

>>35022736
10,000 rounds of .308 is a magazine 1 foot by 4 foot by 4 foot, approximately.

You could fit 5+ main gun rounds there and be better off for it.

>>35022671
I'm guessing it has to do with the radiator that would be required to cool the water and the extra weight of all the water.

Think about it this way; you don't have to cool the air blowing to cool the gun but you would have to cool water cooling a gun. That requires a lot of water, a good pump and a large radiator.

I could be wrong but that's my best guess

>>35022773
ok so its a little more cramped.....is that really the only argument there is?

>we use air cooled because we dont want the extra ammo taking up space

>>35022791
>cooling the water
lol what? The water cools the barrel and evaporates off when it gets too hot, its not its a closed system

>>35022799
No, the argument is that there's no point to minutes long continual burst fire in the post WW1 era, so there's no reason to increase the complexity/size of our MBT or decrease our main gun round digestive storage by adding a water cooled GMPG and 10,000 rounds ammo for it. The whole concept is outdated and stupid, accepting a single compromise in its name is wasteful and counterproductive.

It's utterly purposeless because of evolution in infantry tactics.

>>35022873
so the argument is we dont need the capability anymore? the abrams already carries 10k 7.62 rounds but cant fire them all off if necessary.

>Ian V. Hogg, in Weapons & War Machines, describes an action that took place in August 1916, during which the British 100th Company of the Machine Gun Corps fired their ten Vickers guns continuously for twelve hours. Using 100 barrels, they fired a million rounds without a failure. "It was this absolute foolproof reliability which endeared the Vickers to every British soldier who ever fired one."

so they fired 10k rounds per barrel with no failures. perfect. try that with air cooled and youll melt your barrel in 2000 rounds (being generous).

>>35022957
WWI era vickers machine guns had a rate of fire of 500-600rds/min and had an expected practical RoF of 167rd/min.

Continuous fire out of a vickers gun for 12 hours is only 360,000-432,000rds. That's only 3600 to 4320 rounds per barrel.

And even then in what situation would you need that capability that makes the hundreds of pounds of extra weight and increased mechanical complexity worthwhile?

>>35022799
>a little more cramped
t. someone who's never been in a tank nor has any idea how much space would be needed

>>35023137
can you into reading comprehension? they used 10 guns not 1 and they fired 1 million rounds without a failure. which adds up to 10k rounds per gun per barrel with no failures. it doesnt say how many failures came after the first one which happened around 1 million.

File: abrams.jpg (423KB, 1024x789px)

423KB, 1024x789px

>>35023199
>making this inner diameter larger somehow takes up room inside the tank

File: whyevenlivewithaircooledvehiclemountedweaponry.jpg (49KB, 1280x720px)

49KB, 1280x720px

>you'll never have a watercooled CROWS .50 cal mounted on top of an armored 4x4 with 10,000 rounds of devastation ready to be unleashed
>it cant handle 100 extra pounds (scaled up for 50)

>>35023264
>this inner diameter
>not all the shit that actually would take up interior space
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUqBMC5-HPI&t=14m50s