Page 33 of 33 FirstFirst ... 24252627282930313233
Results 481 to 494 of 494

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #481
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,443
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post

    On a similar note, how was it done on the M60A2, since the 152 had only 1 loader? I know the breech had some kind of screw mechanism that seemed to come out of a XIXth century naval gun, but that's it...
    The weapon that you/Steve are envisioning can fire 155mm howitzer ammo. A complete round for the 152mm low velocity gun weighed around 50lbs. The M-795 HE projectile alone weights 102lbs. Excalibur weights 106

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate
    Like jlvfr, I was looking at the M60-A2 as a reference point. 152 mm cannon with a relatively stubby barrel that would avoid having a ton of mass hanging out where it's unsupported. I figure a 155 mm wouldn't be too much of a stretch from there.
    The short barrel, and low velocity charge left the M-60A2 with a range of 1.5km. Lots more pressure getting a standard 155 round out the tube. More propellant/pressure means longer and thicker tube.

    Put a 120mm mortar on a vehicle equipped with a javelin/Tow and you already have a system that performs better than a Starship. Without lots of R&D
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  2. #482
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    DAMMIT STEVE!!!!

    Warn me before you post pictures of the Starship!!!
    How about a video then




    Oops wrong Starship

    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  3. #483
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Mar 15
    Location
    Pensacola
    Posts
    41
    Yet another StarshipName:  NASA-2000Starship.jpg
Views: 175
Size:  27.6 KB

  4. #484
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,489
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    The Germans, Israelis, Russians, Czechs, and Americans all have Active Protection Systems demonstrated to be effective at intercepting APFSDS rounds with claims of anywhere from 30%-90% reductions in penetration after interception depending on the system.

    Good reading on the topic here: https://below-the-turret-ring.blogsp...-overview.html
    Thanks I read the details on the link. As I suspected (and correct me if I am wrong) a lot of the systems described didn't seem to handle solid perpetrators very well, if at all. Seems to me there is still work to be done in this field before APS are a matured technology and designers can comfortably start reducing passive armor protection om MBT's.

  5. #485
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    Thanks I read the details on the link. As I suspected (and correct me if I am wrong) a lot of the systems described didn't seem to handle solid perpetrators very well, if at all. Seems to me there is still work to be done in this field before APS are a matured technology and designers can comfortably start reducing passive armor protection om MBT's.
    It seems like it's the Wild West at the moment with a ton of different types of APS, but no real consensus on what types make the most sense.

    There are systems that appear to be effective against solid penetrators, but they largely seem to use HE blast or blast/frag grenades which are not going to be very friendly to nearby infantry or soft skinned vehicles. I'm not sure what the right mix will end up being. Perhaps buckshot style APS to defeat ATGMs and HEAT without slaughtering nearby infantry with ERA optimized for KE penetrators?

    I think the Raytheon Quick Kill system's use of small vertically launched interceptors makes a lot of sense as it gets around the vulnerability of other designs to repeated attacks at the same location. It also allows for a large number of interceptors to be "loaded" at once which allows for the possibility of the system selecting the appropriate warhead for the threat detected. An RPG might be best defeated with an interceptor that sprays a load of buckshot at it, where an incoming solid penetrator round would require an HE warhead to fragment it.

  6. #486
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,361
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Hahaha!

    That bad eh? Was it mostly related to the MGM-51 or the tank itself?
    The only thing good about it was the hull. From the turret basket up it was a POS.

    Additionally, the M728 CEV also used a 165mm gun which fired a 40 pound HESH round for obstacle clearing. Like most of the Army's engineer vehicles, its was also a POS.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L9
    Last edited by Albany Rifles; 18 Oct 17, at 19:31.
    We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a days heat, fell dusty.
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  7. #487
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,489
    Solid perpetrators! Dam it I need to stop using my phone when replying to threads. That and relying on spell check to do my editing.

  8. #488
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,012
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Never seen a cased 155mm round before but there's always a first time.
    For a bit of history:

    Somewhat interestingly the original Schneider Canon de 155C Modele 1915, while also using separate-loading ammunition in a two-stroke cycle had its propellant loaded in a brass cartridge case; unlike the competition (St. Chamond Canon de 155C Modele 1915) this also apparently used fixed propellant loads in the case - the St. Chamond guns basically just placed the powder bags into empty brass cases for loading instead, thus allowing it to vary the powder load.

    Name:  ww1-france-155mm-mle-1915-schneider-fortress-shell_1_dc64173c57722ba497d2901ad4593ec1.jpg
Views: 143
Size:  20.4 KB

    All 155mm artillery around since then is effectively based upon its successor model (Schneider Canon de 155C Model 1917) which replaced the cartridge cases with bags to save on material; the shells used with the above case should in theory still be compatible with modern artillery guns.

    Soviet interwar artillery - in 152mm - was based on the same breech (the 155mm Modele 1915 was developed from a 152mm howitzer) and thus retained the separate loading cased ammunition in guns that were operated until well after WW2 and in some countries are still used today.

  9. #489
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,835
    Another forum reminded me of this US prototype of the 1980s, an M1 with an unmanned turret and a 120mm autoloader. Let the "they copied it!" conspiracy theories begin!

  10. #490
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,568
    Can someone explain the considerations for using an automated vs manned ammo loading in an MBT?

    Has anything changed in the last couple decades that would lead to a different choice today?

  11. #491
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    Can someone explain the considerations for using an automated vs manned ammo loading in an MBT?

    Has anything changed in the last couple decades that would lead to a different choice today?
    Afaik, lower tank weight, smaller(ish) and 1 less crewman, all of which brings cost savings. But where there's automation there's the added risk of malfunction. And (the veterans here can confirm) the extra crewmember is of great help in tank maintenance tasks.

    Afaik, the only western country using autoloaders is France, but I have no idea how well they are doing (or not) with it.

  12. #492
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,012
    France mitigates the lack of the 4th crewmember on the tanks by adding additional personnel in separate vehicles to their tank companies - in quite considerable numbers; in both examples below this is beside the company-level support staff itself (two VAB and two VLRA).

    In the last iteration (from around 2000 up till 2014), each French tank company of 13 Leclerc rolled around with an extra group with three VAB T20.13 and a VBL. These three APCs provided limited air defence for the company (with 20mm turrets) primarily against helicopters and carried three sniper teams (with FRF.2 rifles) and three anti-tank teams (with APILAS) for providing perimeter security when the company was at-rest. The infantry in these groups was cross-trained as Leclerc tank crews and could in case of casualties or e.g. exhaustion man the tanks instead of their main crews. Operationally that was overall somewhat similar to how Germany operated its Gepard ADA with triple crews available - with one in the vehicles, one manning Stinger posts and one resting.

    That was mostly retired though, in the current Scorpion layout, a tank company (of now 16 tanks / 48 crew) has 24 men in 8 VBL attached - which apparently fill a similar "fill-up" function.
    Last edited by kato; 27 Oct 17, at 14:28.

  13. #493
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,537
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    Can someone explain the considerations for using an automated vs manned ammo loading in an MBT?

    Has anything changed in the last couple decades that would lead to a different choice today?
    There was an industry proposal to add a magazine style auto loader to the Abrams. It would have reduced ammo capacity but not interior space in the turret. It would have preserved the 4th crewman for maintenance tasks, but freed him up for use as a technology operator. Having a dedicated crewman to monitor IVIS-IFF, threat receivers, coms etc would be a quantifiable edge in combat. Technology forces us to divide our attention and things get missed.

  14. #494
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,916
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    There was an industry proposal to add a magazine style auto loader to the Abrams. It would have reduced ammo capacity but not interior space in the turret. It would have preserved the 4th crewman for maintenance tasks, but freed him up for use as a technology operator. Having a dedicated crewman to monitor IVIS-IFF, threat receivers, coms etc would be a quantifiable edge in combat. Technology forces us to divide our attention and things get missed.
    And in the future, operate unmanned systems. The US Army has some big plans for that, and rumor is that the future Chinese and European MBTs could have/keep autoloaders, but will have 4th crewer for that role.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Russia Invites U.S. To A 'Tank Biathlon'
    By Doktor in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16 Aug 13,, 01:04
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14 Apr 12,, 19:14
  3. The Invisible Tank
    By Kernow in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09 Dec 08,, 09:41
  4. Russia claims China backing in Georgia conflict
    By Nauticus in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31 Aug 08,, 15:46
  5. Russia plays spoilsport in T-90S tank deal
    By Yusuf in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 25 Apr 08,, 11:56

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •