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
  • 39
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

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

Started 29-Sep by autogun; 3231 views.
In reply toRe: msg 30
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

4-Oct

Something like the AMOS would be pretty cool:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS

10km indirect fire, 1.5km direct fire, twin barrel 120mm mortar. 

When fitted to a vehicle, both GPS- and inertia positioning are used. The electronic fire-control system utilises digital maps. The twin barrelled AMOS is able to keep up rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute. Using its computer-controlled MRSI feature (multiple rounds simultaneous impact) it is possible to set up a burst of up to 16 rounds that hit the target simultaneously.

Using the SAAB Thor enhanced fragmentation round - which has a greater lethal area then 155mm artillery - would result in a absurdly lethal system. 

Red7272

From: Red7272

4-Oct

autogun said:

The Russians and the Chinese both make use of fire support vehicles armed with 120 mm rifled mortar/howitzers, with a range of ammo including HEAT.

No they have SP mortars with self defence ability.

autogun said:

Apart from the usual HE, smoke and illum, they can be adapted with PGM kits (SAL)  to achieve great accuracy (and even more with purpose-designed PGMs). There are also cargo munitions with various types of bomblet.

None of which helps blow up a house 1,000 metres away.

autogun said:

I have previously mentioned ATGMs and Strix, and the advantages of high elevation, particularly in urban fighting, where the ability to vary the propellant charges allows the mortar to lob bombs up at low velocity so that they come to earth on a steep trajectory - very useful in built-up areas or forests.

And irrelevant for direct fire support.

autogun said:

A tank gun has some specific advantages in direct fire, but it is nowhere near as versatile. 

A tank has armour and a well protected ammunition supply. SP mortars have the crew ride around in the same space as the ammunition, making them a death trap if penetrated. Tanks do fire support and SP mortars do indirect support with direct fire being a last resort for self defence. 

Even the logistics of using SP mortars for direct fire support would be interesting. Do they carry around expensive guided munitions or are they left behind for more HE? What about MP rounds for wall breaching? Do mortar rounds survive hitting reinforced concrete and stone?  Are the crews trained artillery specialists that  then do the direct role as well as their primary indirect role, or separate crews trained in direct fire, infantry liaison and direct infantry support?

Using a separate well protected vehicle with isolated ammunition stowage that trains with infantry is always going to be a better option. 

autogun

From: autogun

4-Oct

It seems to me that various different elements are getting mixed up here. One of them concerns the weapons (mortar vs tank gun); another concerns the vehicles the weapons are mounted on (MBT, or a lighter wheeled or tracked vehicle); and another is the mission training.

Certainly a tank is better protected than a lighter vehicle, but if you look at the title of this thread it does not concern tanks, but Stryker armament.

Why should there be a problem with "blowing up a house 1,000 metres away"?  

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

4-Oct

You need to not only be able to hit the right house but the right part of the right house on the first shot.

With a mortar that very well could be beyond their capability to do repeatably no matter the weather windage etc.

Basically what he's saying is that for western militaries, the issue is actually that vanilla mortars (sometimes you're just not going to have a Gucci round of the right type where it can be got to at the right time no matter how well budgeted and supplied you are which reverts you to whatever rounds you can realistically get to and get loaded QUICKLY!) are too far tilted towards destructive effect on the precision to destructive effect capability axis.

This will mean that there will be times where an urgently needed point fire call will not be answered in anything like a timely fashion because you have to wait for them to get the right round and get it loaded or they will just flat not have the right round at the right time on the right vehicle.

In which case, your fire mission will be DENIED and you will have to risk taking casualties/get hung up unable to move forward until you can reduce the offending thing you wanted shot some other way.

The SP mortar thing sounds really good on paper until you realize that no amount of Gucci specialist individual mortar bombs will ever be enough to blast your command authority's heads free of their own rectal cavities.

Red7272

From: Red7272

4-Oct

Yup, SP mortars and their fancy rounds are an awesome tool and should be available to all battalions.  Motoring around in those ammo packed deathtraps where the enemy can see them so they can fire their pokey dumb rounds at a house seems much less sensible from a logistical, training and organisational point of view. 

As noted above, the people who actually build these platforms have gone to 30 mm autocannon and ATGMs.  A high rate of fire 30 mm RWS or unmanned turret with isolated ammunition, and with stuck on ATGMS like a MP warhead TOW 2 would be the best option. 

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

4-Oct

Yeah, I definitely agree...

It would be extremely nice if we could go to an SP fast fire mortar for all kinds of reasons, but neither the technology the will to build the technology nor the impetus to change how we fundamentally do the business of micromanaging from afar.

There's a really neat document out about where they're taking the IVAS headset HUD/display system out that sounds really hopeful. But even with that, while the potential is there to actually make everything faster and cut micro management...

There's also a lot of inbuilt potential to further ratchet up micro management to levels of absurdity that are terrifying.

A lot of the issues we face are cultural and doctrinal as much as technological. Absent the will to use the technology we have in ways that actually make things better, there's not a whole lot technology can do but make things worse

Red7272

From: Red7272

4-Oct

The Russians have developed their counter UAV technologies dramatically compared to the west and they are in the field and being used now. Likewise Turkey is in the process of developing their UAV potential.

The current war between Armenia and Azerbaijan has all kinds of UAVs and even autonomous loitering munitions in use. The use appears to be mostly on the Azerbaijani side as a Turkish proxy using Turkish systems. I'm waiting to see if Armenia gets any useful help in countering them. 

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1312479997320257536?s=20

Going through the posts on this guy's account will show most of the systems in use.

  • Edited 04 October 2020 16:03  by  Red7272
roguetechie

From: roguetechie

4-Oct

Oh yeah .... I've been watching it very closely.

The armenians are actually doing a really good job of swatting UAV's so far. They WERE only hampered by their unwillingness to actually fire into Azerbaijan...

Until today, things are very much changing in that war as we speak.

For better or worse things are definitely going pear shaped over there.

Personally, I can't blame the armenians and the nagorno karabakh independent state from taking the gloves off.

Hybrid warfare only works if you can bully and browbeat your enemy into not taking the fight to you...

I have some very definite thoughts on just how all this is going down right now, but the only one I'm going to share is that this particular conflict has been very illuminating as to just how actively evil and ineffectual the UN has become. They are kept water carriers for entrenched interests and more than happy to blatantly lie and attempt to manipulate public perception of an incident rather than actualy advocating for the victims of aggression

autogun

From: autogun

5-Oct

Red7272 said:

As noted above, the people who actually build these platforms have gone to 30 mm autocannon and ATGMs.  A high rate of fire 30 mm RWS or unmanned turret with isolated ammunition, and with stuck on ATGMS like a MP warhead TOW 2 would be the best option.

From my website article on mortars:

Russia and China also have in service breech-loading rifled 120 mm mortar- howitzers, suitable for mounting in light to medium-weight AFVs, and intended for both indirect and direct fire support with ammunition developed accordingly. The first was the Russian tracked 2S9 Nona, which weighs just under 9 tons and entered service in 1981. The same armament was fitted to the wheeled 2S23 Nona SVK a few years later for motorised forces, weighing around 14-15 tons, and very recently the 2S31 Vena based on the BMP-3 and weighing around 19 tons.

The Chinese Army adopted a very similar system more recently, the PLL05 weighing 16-17 tons. PLZ-05A is a tracked variant, based on the hull of the ZBD-08 infantry fighting vehicle and similar in concept to the Russian Vena. There is also the Type 07PA, a wheeled export version based on an 8x8 armored personnel carrier. The Type W01 ammunition developed for them includes HEAT for the direct fire anti-armour role (shown on the right), along with conventional fin-stabilised bombs and (to achieve a longer range, greater accuracy and destructive effect) artillery-style projectiles with pre-rifled driving bands. The HEAT round weighs 10 kg, has ranges of 600 m (point targets) and 1,200 m (area targets), and is claimed to penetrate 180 mm RHA at 68° impact. The conventional HE mortar bombs weight achieve 8,500 m range, while the heavier artillery-style projectiles are reach out to 9,500 m. These systems are available for export. 

Red7272

From: Red7272

5-Oct

So you're saying the Abbot was a fire support vehicle because it carried 6 rounds of HESH?

A HEAT round for self defence does not translate into making a vehicle intended for direct fire support.

TOP