NationStates

Gallia- wrote:

New Korongo wrote:It would have an advantage in an anti-structure/anti-fortification role because the amount of high-explosive in each round would be higher, but it probably wouldn't offer a meaningful increase over the performance offered by 120 mm and 125 mm guns while also restricting the amount of ammunition the vehicle could carry.

Typical 125mm guns throw HE shells twice the weight of anything M81 had, so no this is wrong.

Are you sure? I thought most 120 mm and 125 mm high-explosive rounds have a filling weight in the region of 3 kg, while the M657 cartridge had a filling weight of 4.3 kg.

New Korongo wrote:

Gallia- wrote:
Typical 125mm guns throw HE shells twice the weight of anything M81 had, so no this is wrong.

Are you sure? I thought most 120 mm and 125 mm high-explosive rounds have a filling weight in the region of 3 kg, while the M657 cartridge had a filling weight of 4.3 kg.

It appears I was wrong, it's not "twice", I thought the projectiles for M81 were more like 14 kg, but they're 19 kg.

Filler weight is sort of irrelevant. 3OF26/36 has a fill weight of 3,4 kg, but the projectile mass is 4 kg overall. The muzzle velocity is higher by nearly 200 m/s, and the shell is airburst fused. Time of flight and projectile mass are more important. Time of flight is actually the most important quality of a shell, since that directly affects the accuracy and range; and projectile mass affects splinter size and quantity.

Regardless, M657 also never existed outside of a test range, so it's bit disingenuous to select that over M409, which was the actual high explosive round used.

For my military's main armour I want to use something like the Sheridan. I know the Sheridan was.....less than successful, but I love the 152mm gun-launcher and the shillyshally missile or whatever the hell the pronunciation is. How stupid of an idea is it to use the Sheridan as inspiration? I love the idea of a light mobile tank with a big stupid gun-launcher. Would a Sheridan type vehicle even be any use in this decade?

To add to what everyone said, today you can make a gun-launcher of virtually any tank gun. There are missiles for guns as small as 100mm out there.

The Sheridan's problems had more to do with the technology just not quite being there yet other than any inherent problem with the concept.

Because a low velocity low pressure gun-launcher is perfectly comparable to a low recoil high pressure gun.

The concept was flawed from the start.

Allanea wrote:So um.

What does the Leopard 2's driver do if there's an onboard fire - say the tank is shot - and he needs to get our RFN?

The driver sits literally next to the bulk of main gun stowage.
He may not need to.

Summercrest Isles wrote:For my military's main armour I want to use something like the Sheridan. I know the Sheridan was.....less than successful, but I love the 152mm gun-launcher and the shillyshally missile or whatever the hell the pronunciation is. How stupid of an idea is it to use the Sheridan as inspiration? I love the idea of a light mobile tank with a big stupid gun-launcher. Would a Sheridan type vehicle even be any use in this decade?

As main armour? Absolutely not. The vehicle was too light for its gun, too light to be protected and heavily maligned. As a support vehicle to provide fire in support of infantry and tanks, it could work. But it will not do the work of tanks.

Summercrest Isles wrote:

Democratic Koyro wrote:
You don't need a stupidly big gun launcher when you can fit tank cannons that can fire ATGM's onto lightweight air-mobile (or even para capable, in the case of the 2S25) platforms.

But muh 152mm gun launcher how else am I supposed to blast bunkers away? Little baby 120 and 125mm guns won't cut it dangit! But in all seriousness, would an actually reliable well made version of the 152mm gun launcher have any advantage over a 120mm/125mm smoothbore cannon?

A 76mm gun is entirely sufficient to deal with fortified positions. As is a 90mm gun, 85mm RPG, 83mm recoilless rifle, 100mm gun, 105mm gun, 115mm gun...
The five inch guns of today (120/125mm) are that large primarily to accommodate capable anti-tank rounds. They are entirely sufficient for dealing with fortified targets. In fact the M830A1 HEAT round for the M1 Abrams is subcalibre. It's under 100mm calibre I think.

A 152mm gun launcher is a less-capable missile launcher and less-capable gun.

Mine is an Anti air gun.

Ardoki wrote:There would be less tank destroyers in the mechanised brigade than there would be tanks in an armoured brigade. The tank destroyers were to supplement the APCs in case of danger. The armoured brigades would be for breakthroughs, so would be more powerful.

But would you suggest relying on IFVs? How much more expensive are they when compared to APCs generally?

Yes, because otherwise your mechanized brigades will be very short on actual firepower. They have no tanks and a smaller number of "tank destroyers," and their APCs will have less armor and firepower than an IFV.

The difference in cost between a modern APC and modern IFV is not so large as to preclude the latter from replacing the former in practically all combat roles except where strategic mobility is a factor. Which is why I asked what the role of the brigade was. If strategic mobility were a priority, like it is with the US Army's Stryker brigades, you might have a reason to use such vehicles. But if it's designed for any sort of direct combat, the cost of IFVs for your entire mechanized force will be small compared to the improvement in effectiveness and survivability.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

Ardoki wrote:There would be less tank destroyers in the mechanised brigade than there would be tanks in an armoured brigade. The tank destroyers were to supplement the APCs in case of danger. The armoured brigades would be for breakthroughs, so would be more powerful.

But would you suggest relying on IFVs? How much more expensive are they when compared to APCs generally?

Yes, because otherwise your mechanized brigades will be very short on actual firepower. They have no tanks and a smaller number of "tank destroyers," and their APCs will have less armor and firepower than an IFV.

The difference in cost between a modern APC and modern IFV is not so large as to preclude the latter from replacing the former in practically all combat roles except where strategic mobility is a factor. Which is why I asked what the role of the brigade was. If strategic mobility were a priority, like it is with the US Army's Stryker brigades, you might have a reason to use such vehicles. But if it's designed for any sort of direct combat, the cost of IFVs for your entire mechanized force will be small compared to the improvement in effectiveness and survivability.

That's why the bulk of Theodosiyan infantry, whether they're Rep Guard,Nat Guard,Army and Marines put heavy emphasis on IFVs in mechanized force, while putting fewer in APCs, or motorized force.

Theodosiya wrote:

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Yes, because otherwise your mechanized brigades will be very short on actual firepower. They have no tanks and a smaller number of "tank destroyers," and their APCs will have less armor and firepower than an IFV.

The difference in cost between a modern APC and modern IFV is not so large as to preclude the latter from replacing the former in practically all combat roles except where strategic mobility is a factor. Which is why I asked what the role of the brigade was. If strategic mobility were a priority, like it is with the US Army's Stryker brigades, you might have a reason to use such vehicles. But if it's designed for any sort of direct combat, the cost of IFVs for your entire mechanized force will be small compared to the improvement in effectiveness and survivability.

That's why the bulk of Theodosiyan infantry, whether they're Rep Guard,Nat Guard,Army and Marines put heavy emphasis on IFVs in mechanized force, while putting fewer in APCs, or motorized force.

You have the big bucks.

Okay so the Sheridan is a dumb idea

How about the Stingray or M8 AGS?

there is nothing terribly wrong with either

Of the two what would you say is the better design?

whichever you personally prefer

So they're basically the same thing different company?

Summercrest Isles wrote:So they're basically the same thing different company?

Stingray if you want a thing that was adopted, Buford if you want to fly a tank when the Hercules carrying it gets shot down, A-team style.

Summercrest Isles wrote:So they're basically the same thing different company?

they were made for the same rfp or w/e

expeditionary tank is the other one but you can ignore it

Oh okay. How does the VFM 5 compare to both?

it doesnt have hte automatic loader of M8

i think that's the only major difference?

I think I'll probably just go with the Stingray since it looks the coolest. Then we'd also have like, LAV-300s or something and a bunch of other wheeled stuff.

with round hatches

what is a decent diameter to go with

Gallia- wrote:

Summercrest Isles wrote:So they're basically the same thing different company?

they were made for the same rfp or w/e

expeditionary tank is the other one but you can ignore it

Expeditionary tank died for our sins.

Immoren wrote:Future of mounted warfare

10/10 would use to beat the hun

Ardavia wrote:with round hatches

what is a decent diameter to go with

60cm.