Guys, what do you think of this on a wheeled chassis as a generic fire support vehicle? Can do both direct and indirect fire up to 42°. Not for a big army, but something like Ireland?

https://johncockerill.com/en/defense/weapons-systems/cockerill-3000-series/cockerill-3105/

With guided rounds becoming more common every day ,you could upgrade any large-bore cannon to indirect fire as well. You might even make tank on tank top attack at extended ranges a reality. More than anything it now becomes a question of how much organic ISTAR you can add to existing platforms.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

With guided rounds becoming more common every day ,you could upgrade any large-bore cannon to indirect fire as well. You might even make tank on tank top attack at extended ranges a reality.

You mean fire flat(-ish) and then veer up? Does this make sense? And are rounds _this_ guidable?

Not really , even the tank's flat-ish elevation enables it to shoot at considerable range, it just can't hit a point target at those ranges, minimal correction to the projectile could change that ,add to that that finned course corected rounds add some 25% to existing range due to lift fins provide enabling nonbalistic flight profile, it could/should also make cannon launched missile obsolete. But of course today they also lack the optics to ID any target at extended ranges so would need to relly on other sensors, possibly own drones not to mention making seekers and electronics to sustain the G forces of the launch at an affordable cost remains a challenge.

Top attack profile can still be similar to the one used in missiles. A shaped charge to penetrate thin upper armor. You can imagine also potential anti-helo applications, negating the ever-increasing standoff ranges of the ATGMs, ATGMs take forever to fly to ever longer range , tank could reload ,fire and posibly hit well before ATGM reaches its target.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

You can imagine also potential anti-helo applications, negating the ever-increasing standoff ranges of the ATGMs, ATGMs take forever to fly to ever longer range , tank could reload ,fire and posibly hit well before ATGM reaches its target.

105 or 120mm guided AHEAD? ;o)

graylion said...

You mean fire flat(-ish) and then veer up? Does this make sense? And are rounds _this_ guidable?

Fire up and veer down would make more sense, especially for extended ranges.

True dat.

Seems like this would be mainly for urban fighting to engage targets in upper storeys of buildings and the like.  A fixed-charge high-velocity gun with elevation limited to ~40 degrees is not going to be able to (for example) engage targets on a reverse slope, like true artillery might be asked to do.

Its not able to curse correct that much, for that you have the new high elevation 50mm cannon or legarcy SPAAGs 

Why should it need to course correct?  I'm talking about being able to put a tank round through a 6th story window from half-way down the block.  Which a 40-degree elevation will to nicely but a conventional tank turret might struggle with.