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.

  • 3361
    MEMBERS
  • 191225
    MESSAGES
  • 3
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Ukraine weapons thread   General Military Discussion

Started 24/2/22 by gatnerd; 187132 views.
Mustrakrakis

From: Mustrakrakis

12-Jul

That was absolutely correct 20 years ago.  I don't know what the kids are using these days.  I'd assume that it's better now.  It was pretty good back then.  We weren't hit by a single missile, so I'd argue that it was perfect from my perspective.

Moskva had 6 of these mounts.  If someone were to argue that they're so bad that 6 Russian mounts will underperform 2 western mounts, I won't challenge them.  I know what and how many was on Moskva, but I have no idea how well they worked.  That kind of goes back to my original point.  Her demise, when compared with her design criteria, tells a story.  It's not a good one, but it's not a new one either.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

12-Jul

EmericD said:

I would rate the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles very close to the effectiveness of anti-tank missiles. SAM shot against helicopters are sligthly less effective, but that's probably because even a low flying helicopter is still moving at more than 150 km/h, something no tanks and no boats could do.

Thats something I've been worried about for awhile vis a vis the US presence in the South China Sea / Taiwan showdown scenario. 

I'm hoping the US starts focusing more on Cruise Missile Submarines and Cruise Missile Carrier long range aircraft, because I think the current plan of 'we'll just shoot down all the incoming missiles' is doomed for a hard reality check, barring some sort of 'sharks with laser beams on their head' secret development. 

EmericD

From: EmericD

12-Jul

gatnerd said:

I'm hoping the US starts focusing more on Cruise Missile Submarines and Cruise Missile Carrier long range aircraft, because I think the current plan of 'we'll just shoot down all the incoming missiles' is doomed for a hard reality check, barring some sort of 'sharks with laser beams on their head' secret development.

In the old "Harpoon" video game (that was extremely favorable to Western armies), it was possible to perform the complete "red storm rising" campaign from the Soviet side (eradicating all NATO forces in the Atlantic), without a single soviet loss, using only Tu-95s, Tu-22Ms, and hundreds of AS-4 / AS-6 missiles.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

12-Jul

I don't think they use Bonus.
Most likely SMArt 155 has been delivered with the PzH2000.

What can be seen in the video could be the small parachute. But its really to low res to tell.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

12-Jul

gatnerd said:

because I think the current plan of 'we'll just shoot down all the incoming missiles' is doomed for a hard reality check, barring some sort of 'sharks with laser beams on their head' secret development.

I angree.
Most likely the assumption is that "our" systems are more advanced enough to be able to pull this off.
Personally I find the low number of weapon systems especially short range on allmost all western ships quite concerning. Not only concidering AShM but also swarm attacks with drones, small boats or even small aircraft. The AShM saturation attack has been a thing for decades allready. If we look at the experiences made recently in the anti piracy missions and what happened to some navies around the world in the last decades it almost seems like there is sort of a carelessness and complacency .
 

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

12-Jul

schnuersi said:

Most likely SMArt 155 has been delivered with the PzH2000.

That makes sense as thats the German load. 

Both seem for practical purposes basically identical in function?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMArt_155

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

12-Jul

gatnerd said:

Both seem for practical purposes basically identical in function?

Yes. It makes little difference.

This is the really scary stuff. For a tanker this a nightmare. Even more than DPICM.

autogun

From: autogun

12-Jul

I've re-read a rather unusual book: "Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War", by P.W .Singer and August Cole, published in 2015. It is set a few years into the future, and commences with a brief, devastating (but non-nuclear) assault on US forces by China and Russia, focusing on massive cyber attacks and the destruction of US monitoring and communications satellites. I particularly winced at the description of the problems experienced by high-tech aircraft like the F-35 which are stuffed full of electronic chips, many of which were indirectly sourced from China...
 

The US loses, with China seizing the Western Pacific including the Hawaiian Islands, and an uneasy cease-fire follows. A few years later, the US is planning its revenge, making heavy use of obsolescent equipment  without any suspect electronics.

The authors are professionally involved in the defence field, and it shows. This story is very tech-heavy and mostly quite convincing. A rather unusual touch is a 24-page Endnotes section which provides references for many of the ideas and proposed weapon systems. However, there are hazards in being too specific about such matters: much is made of the "million shots a minute" Metal Storm close-in defence gun.

Worth a read, if only to pick holes in!

autogun

From: autogun

12-Jul

Re. the quantity of weapon systems carried by Russian warships...

I recall reading long ago that this was due to a different approach to repairs and maintenance. In Western navies, major warships carry technical crew able to do a certain amount of running repairs, so expect to keep their weapons functional. Russia has fewer such engineers, so keeps them back at base. The considerable redundancy in the number of Russian weapon mountings is due to the expectation that if a system fails, it can be backed-up by another, until repairs can be carried out at the base. 

 I also recall that this was one of the defining capabilities of a cruiser-class warship in the WW2 Royal Navy. A cruiser was expected to be able to handle most of its own repairs and maintenance, so needed a lot more space for supplies, workshops etc. A destroyer was repaired at the base.

TOP