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.

  • 3370
    MEMBERS
  • 192422
    MESSAGES
  • 17
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

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

Started 14/6/22 by gatnerd; 24135 views.
graylion

From: graylion

18-Oct

schnuersi said:

A SPAA behaves differently to a tank or FSV. They move differently and use different positioning. The tactics are quite different.

Let's assume you have SPAAGs based on the same chassis as your regular vehicle (IFV eg Lynx/Boxer)). Where would you put them? Platoon? Company? Battalion? I am thinking Platoon.

  • Edited 18 October 2022 15:46  by  graylion
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

18-Oct

graylion said:

Let's assume you have SPAAGs based on theb samne chassis as your regular vehicle (IFV). Where would you put them? Platoon? Company? Battalion? I am thinking Platoon.

You mean like back in the day the Gepard, which has the same hull as the Leopard 1 MBT.
The Gepards use to be organised into the AA regiments of the divisions during peace time. They have been intended to be allocated to the brigades and battalions as needed.
Personally nowadays I would form mixed battalions which contain armor and armored infantry companies with a troop of SPAAs at company level. Depending of the exact capabilities of the SPAA and the APS and point defense systems of the other AFVs even a platoon on battalion level might suffice. Its a question of overlapping egangement envelopes and capabilities.

Enlarging platoons IMHO and in my experience is not a good idea. A platoon leader can barely control a four AFV platoon. This allready is a very demanding full time occupation. Adding in more vehicles results in a more unvieldy unit and will overburden the leader. In additon there is the mission conflict. SPAAs should stay back and provide overwatch with the biggest field of fire possible. Not stand in position on the frontline next to IFVs or tanks. The mission of an SPAA means it needs to stay away from the unit (or units) its supposed to protect and follow them in a loose fashion to provide best coverage. This would be a nightmare to control as platoon leader of tanks or IFVs with attached SPAA. I think it would be best to allow the SPAA to operate independent in the combat zone of the company or battalion so the troop or platoon leader of the SPAA as a specialist with no other task can provide the best cover.

graylion

From: graylion

18-Oct

question is - in the presence of a plethora of drones, including swarms,do they not need to be closely at hand? And I have been thinking along your lines regarding Battallions, but Russia did not exactly prove the concept of the BTG recently ...

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

18-Oct

graylion said:

question is - in the presence of a plethora of drones, including swarms,do they not need to be closely at hand?

That is why I wrote it depends on the capabilities of the point defense and ADS of the other AFVs in the unit or formation.
It they are all equiped with means to defend themself against drones coming at them the SPAA only needs to provide area coverage. Should something slip trough its not such a big problem. Personally I would equip a next Gen tank and IFV so that they are capable of defending themself against a swarm attack of a dozen or so drones. Defense by shooting them down that is. Counter measures, decoys, ADS and armor are in addition.
While I do not think something like the BMPT is a good concept I do think a powerfull and versatile AC with the proper fire controll and large amounts of ready ammo are needed in additon to a large caliber gun. This is why I think 20 rounds main gun ammo are not such a big problem... because the main gun, the one used allmost all the time, most likely will be the AC. The gun is just the big gun which is used against targets that require that level of firepower and especially penetration. Currently I am trying to figure out what size of AC would be good or ideal.


An SPAA only armed with guns, which I would concider an outdated concept nowadays, can provide an evelope of up to 5 km radius. With missiles 10 km radius are possible. If attached at company level and in the combat area of a company a troop of SPAAs armed with guns can also provide C-RAM which IMHO is at least as important as anti drone.
I also think the SPAA as sensor carriers will be helpfull simply by providing data and warnings. The main problem for AFVs is the lack of situatational awareness concidering the air situation. Combine this with a drone and counter drone asset at company level (the company HQ ideally would get a drone transport and control vehicle and a ELINT and EW asset. If the entire company networks this data it shoudl be rather easy to deal with drone threats should they emerge.

graylion said:

And I have been thinking along your lines regarding Battallions, but Russia did not exactly prove the concept of the BTG recently ...

I do not think about BTGs. The battalion i proposed is still part of a brigade which is part of a division. I just would soften up the sharp division in armor and armored infantry battalions. To create mixed units that train together and have a common esprit de corpse.
As for the situation of the German Army while there are seperate armor and mech inf battalions during peace time these have been supposed to be split up to form mixed battlegroups in case of war. Back at the end of the cold war every armor brigade had a mixed battalion. So the concept to fight in mixed units allready is there. I just would to make it a permanent thing. Allready during peace time.

stancrist

From: stancrist

18-Oct

Fun tank meme on the Marines getting rid of their tanks:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sir, remember how the Commandant got rid of all our tanks because he said we were only going to be manning forward bases on tiny islands in the Pacific?"

graylion

From: graylion

18-Oct

schnuersi said:

Should something slip trough its not such a big problem. Personally I would equip a next Gen tank and IFV so that they are capable of defending themself against a swarm attack of a dozen or so drones. Defense by shooting them down that is. Counter measures, decoys, ADS and armor are in addition.

I'm gonna stick with the Rheimetall paradigm for argument's sake. So if we have a "Panther 2": Main gun 130mm, RWS with 20x102mm? That could work. IFV: 30mm Lance turret with what again a 20x102 RWS? Or a microwave gun?

graylion

From: graylion

18-Oct

schnuersi said:

Back at the end of the cold war every armor brigade had a mixed battalion. So the concept to fight in mixed units allready is there. I just would to make it a permanent thing. Allready during peace time.

What would this kind of battallion look like? 2 Cy Cav, 2 Cy Mech Infantry? Plus what? 155 guns? 120 mortars? Spaags? SAM? ECM?

stancrist

From: stancrist

19-Oct

Refleks said:

Tanks still have a place...

I agree.  IMO, the USMC Commandant is indulging in wishful thinking with his "The Corps is only going to engage in littoral operations".

He is also ignoring USMC history in conflicts of the last 60 years: World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, OIF, OEF.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

19-Oct

graylion said:

IFV: 30mm Lance turret with what again a 20x102 RWS?

If you have a 30 mm AC you don't need an additional 20 mm AC. IMHO that makes no sense at all.

graylion said:

Main gun 130mm, RWS with 20x102mm?

To be a true secondary weapon IMHO a 20 mm AC is not powerfull enough. While 20 mm might be nice as a .50 cal and 40 mm AGL replacement this is where its utility ends nowadays.
If the idea is to use the AC agains allmost anything that does not require a 130 mm shot it should be quite powerfull. IMHO 30x173 is the absolute minimum. If we take an off the shelf solution I would argue for 40 mm CTA. This weapon can kill anything except other tanks, which is where the 130 mm comes in, and fires shells large and heavy enough to be usefull against anything else. With airburst it will be very effective against drones as well.
An optimised non off the shelf solution most likely would be different.
As last ditch close in defense MGs in RWS can be linked into the FCS as well and engage. The APS will also be used should a drone get that close.

graylion said:

Or a microwave gun?

No. Unnecessary. Also a single purpose weapon. We might see laser effectors for APS in the future. But I am not convinced since such systems are rather vulnurable.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

19-Oct

graylion said:

What would this kind of battallion look like? 2 Cy Cav, 2 Cy Mech Infantry? Plus what? 155 guns? 120 mortars? Spaags? SAM? ECM?

Using the current German organisation as a base:
- HQ company
-1 company of armor
-2 companys of mech inf
-1 fire support company (120 mm mortar, drones, missiles and similar)

The SPAA, ECM and similar assets are integrated into the companies.
SPAA for example one AA platoon in the HQ company and one troop in each of the other companies.
ECM and EW similar distributed.
155 mm artillery is a brigade level asset and not part of such a battalion.
Its also possible to change the armor to mech inf ratio. Or it would be possible to use an even ratio in a four combat company setup. The German army used a four company, for platoons per company structure for some time. While four companies per battalion do work i am not so convinced about the four platoon structure.

TOP