Stumbled across this today. Does make some argument for the 105mm over a Medium AC for a building buster.

https://twitter.com/JonHawkes275/status/1625104726273536000

gatnerd said:

Stumbled across this today. Does make some argument for the 105mm over a Medium AC for a building buster.

Following this simple logic 120 mm or 155 mm would be even better. I am sure a single 120 mm could have achieved this effect and a 155 mm would have made the target disapear entirely. Since the argument "bigger is better" is used here why stop at the arbitray 105 mm? Hell why not go 8 inch or 240 mm worked fantastic angainst reeinforced structures in the past.

Seriously, the pictures are obvious typical manipulative marketing BS.
For starters: why did they fire two 105 mm rounds (of unspecified type) but only ever one of the AC calibers?
Why not 105 mm APFSDS? Since they bothered with this type for the other calibers.
Why did they stop at 35 mm for the ACs? Why not 40 mm or the coming up 50 mm?
Why no 90 mm guns (which is what Cockerill is really known for)?
Why is the comparison not by shot or cartidge weight? Or cartidge and gun volume?

Of course if i just look at what makes the biggest and loudest bang on target the biggest weapon allways looks best. But in this case, as pointed out by me above, there is no logical end. Its allways possible to go even bigger. The important factors are not wich single round makes the largest hole but how do I get the required hole size with minimum effort and resources invested.

35mm HE did make a nice hole, a burst of that would surely cause problems for the wall.

40mm CT also great at that.

Then again, 105 and 120 weren't exactly made for that, and in my opinion using them for the role is actually a solution in search of a problem.

I can only imagine how effective Super 40 and 50 Supershot would be, I guess that they'd do just fine for all but a few niche roles, and the costs to upgrade current vehicles are negligible when compared to cased telescoped and other exotic solutions.

schnuersi said:

Seriously, the pictures are obvious typical manipulative marketing BS.

For starters: why did they fire two 105 mm rounds (of unspecified type) but only ever one of the AC calibers?

Why not 105 mm APFSDS? Since they bothered with this type for the other calibers.

Why did they stop at 35 mm for the ACs? Why not 40 mm or the coming up 50 mm?

LOL.  Why?  Why?  Why?  Why?  You answered your own questions why:  It's marketing BS.

In case you didn't notice, the poster duly noted it was from a "pitch" by Cockerill Defense.

?????? \ Jon Hawkes ???????: "@prezalar My emphasis https://t.co/BoNTTBFLtr" (twitter.com)

As for 40mm effects, here is some marketing BS from CTAI on similar reinforced concrete:

Jon Hawkes on Twitter: "@SimeonHawkins Struggling to find the video and pics, but in the meantime here is this shot at least of what hte GP-D round does to concrete https://t.co/knvADnGN6m" / Twitter

stancrist said:

LOL. Why? Why? Why? Why? You answered your own questions why: It's marketing BS.

Yes I did.
I just pointed out why it is marketing BS.

schnuersi said:

Following this simple logic 120 mm or 155 mm would be even better. I am sure a single 120 mm could have achieved this effect and a 155 mm would have made the target disapear entirely.

Well I did wish MPF was 120mm (although moreso for it to be able to bust tanks in an emergency / ammo commonality).

I recall reading a Russian mil blog, a good one, where the author discussed Russias experience 'building busting' with tanks to root out insurgents in Syria. Based on their experience, some thought the tank guns should be boosted to 152mm for better effects against the sturdy buildings in syria.

....

In terms of the AC vs 105mm comparison, I agree thats not a fair comparison (1x AC vs 2x 105mm.)

I'd like to see the same test done of 2x105mm vs however many AC shells can be fired in X seconds it takes to fire 2x105mm (say 7 seconds).

**edit** just came across a video from Ukraine of a house getting Autocannone'd, it does give an idea of how many AC shells can be pumped into a house in a few seconds. Unfortunately video ends without showing the results, but one has to image the house has been severely remodeled.

Twitter

????????? ?? ?????? on Twitter

??????????? ?????????? ???????? ? ?????????? ??????? ??????? https://t.co/uJidcYoic2

Read more from Twitter

Ouch.

I guess that the wallpaper might need some work now.

gatnerd said:

I recall reading a Russian mil blog, a good one, where the author discussed Russias experience 'building busting' with tanks to root out insurgents in Syria. Based on their experience, some thought the tank guns should be boosted to 152mm for better effects against the sturdy buildings in syria.

I don't think that arming a tank for a very specific scenario makes sense.
If 152/155 is desired call in an artillery strike. Furthermore I think in most cases its not desirable to actually bring a building down.

schnuersi said...

I don't think that arming a tank for a very specific scenario makes sense.
If 152/155 is desired call in an artillery strike. Furthermore I think in most cases its not desirable to actually bring a building down.

I recall stories of the British Army using Practice HESH rounds instead of the real thing in Iraq to limit collateral damage.

We have seen in the current war in the Ukraine that both sides are using MBTs as ad hoc artillery support systems. Perched atop ramps to gain elevation and well outside the usual tense fire parameters the fire missions results, are questionable. Not unlike the rocket volleys fired by helicopters being attack or transport. Now, with this in mind, will any new vehicle to adopt the MPF profile will get an upgrade in the FCS to extend the envelope? Will it make sense?