Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New 130mm MBT gun

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • S2
    replied
    Again...it's been done in SVN by B Co. 1-69 Armor at Ben Het. I don't believe they had LOS from the firing positions. Orienting for direction wouldn't be particularly difficult essentially using SAM and then (literally) boresighting along two aiming posts staked on the LOF. Orienting for elevation would have been the kicker. Assuming ramps built along ONE direction of fire, known projo weight and weapon MV you might be able to extrapolate an elevation setting applied with a gunner's quadrant and then execute an "untrained observer" mission with a TRAINED F.O. shooting W.P. as a spotting round.

    Once impact was observed (absolutely no guarantee IMV short of an aerial observer) it'd be possible to adjust fire laterally only within very narrow limits. Range could only be adjusted by adjusting elevation, again using a gunner's quadrant probably applied directly to the barrel.

    Now, mind you...this adjustment would take for fcukin' ever to get steel on target and would likely prove a huge waste of engineer and A.O. assets.

    Just sayin'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The point is that they're two different missions with different requirements. There's only 24 hours in a day. How do you expect a single crew to learn how to maneuver in a tank battle and how to set up a fire mission on the same day? And can they be proficient in both?
    Not to mention the specialized equipment need to be added to those tanks for accurate indirect fire. Or the support elements required to allow them to shoot accurate fire. And the cost of redesigning those PGMs so that they fire out of a high velocity system.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Negative, wit some prep work like building ramps to get the right elevation, tanks can do artillery barrages. The last time the US did so on a wide scale was Korea. We even trained to do so on the Patton as a 19E. Don't know if the 19k guys did or not.
    No. What you have there, is ramps built so that tanks could fire at "super elevation" to engage visible targets in the mountains. Long range direct fire. Spotted and adjusted by the tank commander.

    The last tank capable of indirect fire was the M-4a3 (105). There was 3 assigned to each tank battalion HQ in the ETO.

    Modern tanks are not equipped with sights capable of indirect fire. Nor will you find any TFTs for indirect fire for tank guns.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    To follow up on my last point, since you cannot have one single crew to do both missions and need two crews, would it not make better sense to give them equipment specifically made for their mission than to bastardize a single system that both crews have to struggle to make it work?

    For the cost of a single LEO C2, the Guns Regiments would want two 105s with supporting trucks.

    Get it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    The point is that they're two different missions with different requirements. There's only 24 hours in a day. How do you expect a single crew to learn how to maneuver in a tank battle and how to set up a fire mission on the same day? And can they be proficient in both?

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    All true sir but I had in mind the fact that modern fire missions use a lot less ammunition due to technical innovation than was previously the case. Also you would be substituting the new platform for tracked artillery units, not eliminating the former artillery components of the brigade etc. So there wouldn't be any actual reduction in the number of tracked vehicles required or deployed. And you are right of course there would have to be a new generation of reloading systems, probably including vehicles to support the increased munitions expenditure.
    Last edited by Monash; 28 Jun 16,, 14:08.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Overtasked comes to mind. Tank crews and gun crews train to different missions. Tanks are maneuver assets. Guns are positional assets. There is some overlap but the main difference is that tanks need to find the enemy and kill the enemy. Guns just need the target area. To ask the gunner to know both how to saturate an area and how to zero in on a target is simply overtasking the poor bugger. Hell, just keeping munition expenditure in mind would be a nightmare.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Since it will impact the target directly, it probably doesn't need to be as big as a 155mm to get the job done.
    Eh, the HE darts used in Vulcano are only 90mm. Perfectly fine, just sleeve it the right way in a sabot like they already do it to fire from 127mm and 155mm. Terminal result equivalent to a 120mm mortar shell, except terminally guided and with a "slight bit" more range. Would have to rebuild it with fins and add a cartridge case though...

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveDaPirate
    replied
    I could see a role for an "Excalibur lite" round for tanks to fire. If the tank can loft the round high enough, it can glide towards whatever target is being lased. Since it will impact the target directly, it probably doesn't need to be as big as a 155mm to get the job done.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 27 Jun 16,, 14:25.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Negative, wit some prep work like building ramps to get the right elevation, tanks can do artillery barrages. The last time the US did so on a wide scale was Korea. We even trained to do so on the Patton as a 19E. Don't know if the 19k guys did or not.
    Now you've got me thinking. Could you (in theory) combine direct and indirect fire roles in the one fighting vehicle i.e. design and engineer an effective, conventional tank with a steep enough elevation to replace tracked artillery platforms in some circumstances. I'm not saying you could engineer a 155mm gun into an AFV and avoid all the drawbacks/limitations mentioned previously when it comes to larger bores in a conventional frame but could you for instance equip an armored force with one platform toting say a 125mm gun that could handle both roles even if it fires less of an explosive charge than its conventional 155 mm tracked artillery brethren. (Noting of course that most modern armies seem to be transitioning, at least in part, to missiles in the H/A role. The idea would be to do away with conventional tracked artillery and just utilize M270s or 142s etc backed up by your new 'tanks' and/or towed artillery as needed.)

    Just asking.
    Last edited by Monash; 27 Jun 16,, 13:29.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Negative on the indirect fire artillery. Tank cannon trajectory is too flat. It's a line of site weapon only.
    Negative, wit some prep work like building ramps to get the right elevation, tanks can do artillery barrages. The last time the US did so on a wide scale was Korea. We even trained to do so on the Patton as a 19E. Don't know if the 19k guys did or not.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by zraver; 26 Jun 16,, 01:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Well, if we're at it... Char 2C. With a bigger gun, at least on the bis. And a couple decades earlier...

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1329733608_1-605.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	86.9 KB
ID:	1468905

    It's a real pity there's none left in museums. The last survivor was supposedly photographed in Sowjet hands in East Germany in 1948.

    Armour was about comparable to a T-34, which is no small feat in 1917.

    One of the design studies for a successor in 1940 called for a 135mm gun (or alternatively using a 155mm as used in one Char 2C prototype). That design was round-binned as there were no 135mm guns available.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlvfr
    replied
    Well, if we're going for madness-in-armour, may I present the TOG II...

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    You Brits did something similar towards the end of the War with your "Tortoise", but the gun was a bit smaller:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Bovington_146_Tortoise_1.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	456.8 KB
ID:	1468884

    Leave a comment:


  • tankie
    replied
    Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
    That's a 105mm... not a 130. So the insides of the tank would probably be too small, since most of it's weight was old school brute-force armour...
    Surprising what a bit of upgrading can do , its got the chassis for it lol

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X