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).

  • 3174
    MEMBERS
  • 180388
    MESSAGES
  • 38
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Stryker 30 mm vs 105 mm?    Army Guns 20+mm

Started 29-Sep by autogun; 3227 views.
Red7272

From: Red7272

2-Oct

RovingPedant said:

Sound like a difference in definition of what infantry support entails. 

Nope, infantry need direct fire support and that platform needs to be armoured to resist infantry AT weapons. The obvious ones are the RPG 29 but also ATGMs. 

RovingPedant said:

Taking a SP mortar into RPG range does not sound wise. The mortar comprehensively outranges the RPG, so why play to your enemy’s strength?

Yup completely stupid, which is my point. 

Red7272

From: Red7272

2-Oct

graylion said:

So armour the turret some more? This is not inherent in the gun system?

Taking it from 11 tonnes to 45 tonnes is going to be more than "some extra armour on the turret.

Once you have invested that much in the platform there is no point to using a mortar any more. Use a real gun with a decent direct fire range.

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

3-Oct

What versatility does a mortar have?

It’s a mortar. Great for plunging HE fire against troops without overhead cover. Pretty much useless in any other situation.

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

3-Oct

Red7272 said...

Nope, infantry need direct fire support and that platform needs to be armoured to resist infantry AT weapons. The obvious ones are the RPG 29 but also ATGMs

Why do you need the direct fire support to enter infantry AT range? Especially when the system in question can fire from outside infantry AT range?

ATGMs are likely to remain a risk to everything but are much less common. A mortar has an advantage against them in that it can fire from defilade and guided shells can be used against high value point targets.

Red7272

From: Red7272

3-Oct

RovingPedant said:

Why do you need the direct fire support to enter infantry AT range? Especially when the system in question can fire from outside infantry AT range?

Because infantry are uncouth slobs who will not sit in one building waiting for you to blow them up with the fire support from a safe range?  The US had 500 Abrams knocked out in Iraq by infantry AT and IEDs with minimal crew losses because of the vehicle protection.  Bradleys were withdrawn because they were a deathtrap in comparison.

autogun

From: autogun

3-Oct

DavidPawley said:

What versatility does a mortar have? It’s a mortar. Great for plunging HE fire against troops without overhead cover. Pretty much useless in any other situation.

Depends on the mounting. A breech-loading mortar in a turret (like NEMO) can fire at zero elevation so can engage targets with direct fire at short range (one of my more vivid memories is watching a Patria NEMO firing ten rounds in one minute at a target 600 m away - the destructive effect was impressive, and that was with inert practice rounds). It could also fire AT missiles like LAHAT. And of course could engage armoured vehicles at long range with STRIX.

This makes it much more versatile than a high-velocity direct fire tank gun, which is much less use in urban areas because the length of barrel can be a problem when manoevring and it can't elevate enough to engage targets high up in buildings.

Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

3-Oct

Saw pictures of the French using a 120mm breechloader direct fire from an AFV. It looked pretty impressive.

Red7272

From: Red7272

3-Oct

Farmplinker said:

Saw pictures of the French using a 120mm breechloader direct fire from an AFV. It looked pretty impressive.

It's basically just a 105 mm with much lower muzzle velocity. The high elevation also exposes the shot trap under the barrel.

I've always thought something like an uparmoured Abbot turret on a warrior would be the idea for a infantry FSV, though probably just using the US 105 mm round since that is semi fixed and would be adaptable to fixed supercharge ammo. It will probably fit on a Boxer given how big that is.

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

3-Oct

Red7272 said...

I've always thought something like an uparmoured Abbot turret on a warrior would be the idea for a infantry FSV, though probably just using the US 105 mm round since that is semi fixed and would be adaptable to fixed supercharge ammo. It will probably fit on a Boxer given how big that is.

But none of those vehicles or turrets would be resistant to an RPG 29 so why would they be any better than a NEMO on an 8x8 chassis?

graylion

From: graylion

3-Oct

autogun said:

It could also fire AT missiles like LAHAT

Or Falarick 120

TOP