gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3339
    MEMBERS
  • 189797
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Rheinmetall Panther 2 KF51 Tank with 130mm   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 14-Jun by gatnerd; 5302 views.
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

21-Jun

JPeelen said:

I sort of doubt that the U.S. knows best what the future tank gun caliber should be.

Agree. They don't.
If they don't come up with their own design and introduce it into service befor someone else does its very likely that they will adopt either a licens produced gun or at least design one to the use the same ammo standart.

In reply toRe: msg 41
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

25-Jun

Radar controlled directional 'mine' for protection against drones? or more probably top attack munitions, wonder if this might be a workable interm solution for top attack protection vs full coverage APS

 

In reply toRe: msg 42
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

29-Jun

Tank season continues:

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/06/28/us-army-unveils-contract-to-build-new-light-tank-for-infantry-forces/

While other tanks are heading to 130-140mm, this random ~38 ton 'light tank' will have a 105mm....

17thfabn

From: 17thfabn

29-Jun

The light tank is for fire support of infantry, not so much for fighting other tanks. So for that role the 105 mm is enough.   It will have limited anti-tank capability. And should be more than a match for most IFV. It can fire all the ammunition the M60 and original M1 105 mm could use. 

Hopefully the enemy will play fair and not have their modern MBT tanks go up against our light tanks.

I get the impression the new light tanks will only go to light divisions such as the 82 nd Airborne, 101st Air Assault, 10 th Mountain etc.  

  • Edited 29 June 2022 23:43  by  17thfabn
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

30-Jun

17thfabn said:

Hopefully the enemy will play fair and not have their modern MBT tanks go up against our light tanks.

The problem is that even legacy tanks are a threat to a light tank.
If a T-55 gets a shot at this one it could take it out.

In reply toRe: msg 43
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

30-Jun

While not really light at 38 tons (that is about equivalent to a T62) it something built on an ASCOD hull , it seems any IFV with a 30mm cannon could shred it to pieces. I just don't get it what the fetish of sticking tank guns on APC hulls and pretend its a light tank. 

Chinese take on 35ton tank looks much more like a tank than an APC with a tank gun. Given differences in protected volume its likely much better armored than the new US light tank.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

1-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Given differences in protected volume its likely much better armored than the new US light tank.

Unless you have hard data on the protection level of the Type 15 and the MPF you can not draw conclusions.

Until now i have seen such data nowhere. The stats of the MPF that are available are vague and related to prototypes.  The stats of the Type 15 are vague as well and of questionable reliability in addition.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

I just don't get it what the fetish of sticking tank guns on APC hulls and pretend its a light tank.

That is easy to answer. Its cheaper! Its much cheaper to modify an exsiting hull for a new mission than to design from scratch.
Its also notworthy that very few of these designs actually made it into service. Most are industry projects. Few found customers. To my knowledge the MPF/Griffin is the first that will be purchased in significant numbers.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

1-Jul

Of course, the new US light tank can have some more advanced solutions to armoring that are more weight-efficient . but as the base line low profile tank hull with smaller protected volume offers much more potential for armor for a given weight

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

1-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

but as the base line low profile tank hull with smaller protected volume offers much more potential for armor for a given weight

That is a very basic assumption yet it needs several other factors to be true. For example the armor materials and quality needs to be the same.
You also assume the Type 15 is smaller than the MPF Griffin II. Do you have any basis for this assumption? I don't know any hard data on the dimensions of the MPF prototype. The M8 MGS, the second competitor in the MPF program, is smaller than the Type 15. Quite a bit really.
The Type 15 on the other hand is pretty big. Not as big as an MBT but its not far off. The Type 15 has the dimensions of a Leopard 1. Its a little bigger than a Marder. Yet its lighter than both. Does this mean its less well protected?

The adequate protection of non MBT AFVs is not a trivial problem. MBT levels are usually not required or possible. So what is the most likely threat? Once this has been determined the required protection level becomes clear. It makes little sense to improve protection further. Protection can sensibly only be increased in steps. From one threat to another. If a AFV is protected against 30 mm according to STANAG it makes no sense to improve protection a little. The next sensible step would be 35 mm. After that its 40. Then there is a pretty large gap. Regardless a 120/125 mm or heavy weight modern ATGM will blow right trough. A little more won't help. Concidering that 35 and 40 mm AC are rather rare and allmost exclusively used by Western nations it makes little sense to armor your vehicles to this level.
Since the MPF is mostly a "scare the natives" type of AFV even 30 mm is most likely not required. Mybe 30 mm over the front. 14,5 mm all round and good RPG/LAW and mine/IED protection. With an ADS against the occational ATGM.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

1-Jul

Likely taller western folks next to Griffin vs Chinese folks in front of Type 15 looks to be to massive height difference in the hull 

While i agree that once a protection against tank caliber guns is not required there is little gain in armoring past certain autocannon levels , but note T55. T62 ,T64  basically packed tank cannon levels of 'armor protection ' at weight not much above Grifinns at the 50-60's level tech due to being relatively small in terms of protected volume

Ir i rememebr correctly M8 was only armored against splinters then applique armor upped that to small arms fire  protection and level 3 huge boxes added protection against 30mm

Level 3 package on older XM-8

19.25 tons - Level 1

22.25 tons - Level 2

24.75 tons - Level 3

Griffin

Type 15 or VF5

 

TOP