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.

  • 3201
    MEMBERS
  • 181708
    MESSAGES
  • 12
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Marines JLTV RWS: 30mm + 7.62 + Stinger   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 21-Sep by gatnerd; 1167 views.
autogun

From: autogun

23-Sep

The obvious problem with using an army-pattern SPG on board a ship is that such guns lack stabilisation - which is really essential for any naval gun bigger than a .50 cal.

Conversely, the problem of using a naval gun as onshore artillery is that they used fixed high-velocity ammo, whereas army guns need to vary the propellant charges according to the situation.

Red7272

From: Red7272

23-Sep

Refleks said:

Naval guns are so rarely used in anger I am an advocate of phasing out of the 127mm and divesting it's supply chain, I'd rather consolidate and share the 155mm chain with the Army / Marines. 

That idea does the rounds periodically. There was even a lightweight 155 mm naval mounting at one point.  A dedicated super charge just designed for the naval round would deal with any questions about the propellant and the existing flick rammer could also be adapted to a naval role.  ROF would be slower than existing naval guns shell weight would be significantly higher. 2x in the case of the 4.5"   Both the 76 mm and the 127 mm are old designs at heart and could do with updating.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_61-52_future.php

Refleks

From: Refleks

23-Sep

autogun said:

The obvious problem with using an army-pattern SPG on board a ship is that such guns lack stabilisation - which is really essential for any naval gun bigger than a .50 cal.


Since I'm thinking of a new design anyway with a maritime environment in mind rather than trying to retroactively marinize an existing design, it might as well incorporate stabilization so it can function in the role (along with a software mode specifically for use as shipboard armament).  While I'm fantasizing of course  ;)

  • Edited 23 September 2020 4:19  by  Refleks
autogun

From: autogun

23-Sep

Refleks said:

Since I'm thinking of a new design anyway with a maritime environment in mind rather than trying to retroactively marinize an existing design, it might as well incorporate stabilization so it can function in the role (along with a software mode specifically for use as shipboard armament).  While I'm fantasizing of course  ;)

Even a new design wouldn't end the problems. 

Yes, it is better to start with a naval mounting since that environment is much more difficult. BUT the ammo and its handling will still be problematic. The army basically wants manual loading as that's simple, compact and reliable (and much cheaper). It also makes separate loading of the projectile and however much propellant you need easier. The navy wants an automated system with fixed ammo using a metal cartridge case (which protects the propellant from fire). Difficult to square that.

I think that BAe got closest to solving this about ten years ago, with the 155 TMF. This basically consisted of the existing 4.5 inch naval mounting with the gun replaced by an ex-army 155 mm tube, of which the UK had many surplus. So it was done by re-using existing kit, and should have been very cheap. Automated ammo handling was achieved, but the big problem was the RN's requirement for a metal cartridge case. This hadn't been resolved in 2010, when there was a change of government and big cuts to defence, so the TMF got the chop. Sad.

Refleks

From: Refleks

23-Sep

autogun said:

The army basically wants manual loading as that's simple, compact and reliable (and much cheaper). It also makes separate loading of the projectile and however much propellant you need easier. The navy wants an automated system with fixed ammo using a metal cartridge case (which protects the propellant from fire). Difficult to square that.

It's a valid point. I referenced this in my original post, basically I'm okay with separate ammunition and a manned turret, even if it's not what the navy would prefer. I understand it's a compromise, but I don't see any functional showstoppers.  The main gun simply isn't used that much on a warship.

The entirety of the ammunition + propellant is contained within the vehicle, isolated from the ship, and is armored against small arms / splinter protection and fragments so it is unlikely to cause an issue unless it receives a direct hit by something big enough to be a problem for the ship, in which case they'd be SOL anyway.  A fire (accidental or otherwise) would be hazardous, and detonation of the ammunition would be catastrophic, but those hazards can be mitigated by thoughtful design -- the bulk of your propellant can be stored in the turret with blowout panels, while the ammunition is in the hull.  In case of fire, a deluge system floods the ammunition compartment in the lower hull to reduce chance of detonation while the propellant deflagrates in the turret above, popping the blowout panels to self vent into the open air.

  • Edited 23 September 2020 6:50  by  Refleks
roguetechie

From: roguetechie

23-Sep

If we can do a naval Brutus I'm in, where do I sign?

TOP