autogun

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by autogun

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons, particularly in larger calibres (12.7+mm).

  • 3157
    MEMBERS
  • 178969
    MESSAGES
  • 6
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

British turned down Leopard offer.   General Army topics

Started 5/1/17 by autogun; 1825 views.
In reply toRe: msg 1
autogun

From: autogun

14-Jul

Progress is evidently being made, at least as far as thinking is concerned: they have at last come around to the realisation that the 120 mm L/55 smoothbore is the only sensible choice for an upgraded tank: https://www.overtdefense.com/2020/07/13/gun-launched-atgm-for-challenger-2-lep/

In reply toRe: msg 12
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

14-Jul

Unless that gun  launched missile is top attack like lahat its not really  an overmatch of the missiles currently in use on just about every Russian vehicle with 100+mm gun

Red7272

From: Red7272

14-Jul

A new turret with Abrams style ammo stowage and active defences would seem the most logical. Though that has been the case for a while now. 
 

Hard to imagine that a gun launched ATGM is going to be practical or even a particularly good idea. Ground launched Brimstone would be a lot more sensible and less demanding. There must be a way for the tank to hand off real time targets to a separate launcher by now. 

jxexqx

From: jxexqx

14-Jul

Red7272 said...

Hard to imagine that a gun launched ATGM is going to be practical or even a particularly good idea

They've always seemed like an odd idea to me. Given the basic equation for shaped charges is More Diameter = More Penetration then just how useful is limiting your warhead to 120mm calibre when ATGWs are commonly 150mm plus? The main reason for adopting gun launched missiles seems to be that they out-range kinetic rounds but in the real world, in real terrain how often will these long ranges be exploitable? I can see them having some utility in an anti-helicopter role but I can see the gun launched missile being out-ranged by weapons like Hellfire and Brimstone. An externally mounted box with a couple of big, fire and forget ATGWs would seem like a more sensible idea if it really is a good idea to fit ATGWs to tanks at all.

  • Edited 14 July 2020 20:55  by  jxexqx
autogun

From: autogun

15-Jul

I think that a gun-launched missile makes most sense when paired up with a turreted, breech-loading mortar, providing some emergency anti-tank capability. 

Given the much-reduced gun size, weight and recoil, a mortar can be fitted to much smaller and lighter vehicles than a tank gun, and provides a useful variety of supporting fire, both indirect (dumb bombs, guided bombs or STRIX) and direct (dumb bombs, guided missiles). I don't know why there aren't more of them around (China and Russia seem to be the main users).

Red7272

From: Red7272

15-Jul

Did anyone even adopt AMOS?

The West with it's colonial fixation seem to thing Predator + Hellfire plus a few GPS guided tube launched munitions does the same job.  

autogun

From: autogun

15-Jul

Red7272 said:

Did anyone even adopt AMOS?

I think that Sweden and Finland did, in small numbers, but the purpose of AMOS was a bit different: with twin autoloading barrels it has a high rate of burst fire, so is mainly intended for 'shoot and scoot' indirect fire missions against a peer enemy. 

Even NEMO is effectively a single-barrel version of AMOS, retaining the autoloader.

What I had in mind was something like this (Royal Ordnance manually breech-loaded mortar, on a Warrior, 2003):

also on this, the same mortar on a Piranha:

Curiously, Sweden has now adopted something different to replace AMOS: the Mjölner twin-barrelled system. This is a rather weird one as it is not only manually-loaded, but muzzle-loaded! It therefore seems to lose one of the key advantages of a turreted mortar - it protects the crew from the muzzle blast, which is a serious problem for mortar crews, having a long-term effect on hearing (there's a friendly lawyer somewhere near you...).

Red7272

From: Red7272

15-Jul

autogun said:

Curiously, Sweden has now adopted something different to replace AMOS: the Mjölner twin-barrelled system. This is a rather weird one as it is not only manually-loaded, but muzzle-loaded! It therefore seems to lose one of the key advantages of a turreted mortar - it protects the crew from the muzzle blast, which is a serious problem for mortar crews, having a long-term effect on hearing (there's a friendly lawyer somewhere near you...).

AMOS used a convoluted stub case system. This does away with that and it does appear from the video that the crew are in the turret at least. No option to use longer exotic ammo though without physically climbing on the hull and loading it by hand. 

and you don't need the Warrior, a Scorpion should do XD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPN_Ca5OIuY

autogun

From: autogun

15-Jul

Red7272 said:

AMOS used a convoluted stub case system. This does away with that

It isn't gas escape from the base that matters - it's the muzzle blast. With towed systems, mortarmen are particularly vulnerable to that, because they stand right by the muzzle to load it. Even with 81 mm mortars, the effect of the blast is so severe that even the best hearing protection can't do much about it. This was a top-priority issue a few years ago, when I was last involved. Various attempts to reduce the blast were being tried, and in the meantime use of the higher charge levels was banned.

A turreted breech-loading mortar not only keeps the crew under armour, a long way from the muzzle blast, but also permits fitting a longer barrel for improved velocity and range. I don't know to what extent this is a problem with Mjölner, but I can't see how it could be as good as a breech-loader.

In reply toRe: msg 15
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

15-Jul

Secondary not that irrelevant purpose is to engage the attack helicopters.

TOP