Jump to content

CaptLuke

Members
  • Posts

    1,027
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://TBD: working on a re-launch

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    San Francisco, CA, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

242 profile views

CaptLuke's Achievements

Crew

Crew (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. So a scaled down version of the 76mm High Impulse Weapon System using the "jet shot" / Fly-K style low signature technique to fill the role of the old 57mm M18?
  2. I never disputed that the ammunition is available in general sense. My questions were more: Is the price affordable to Venezuela Even if it is, is it worth the political fall out from the US that would presumably come to a seller like Singapore, or other US aligned countries, from dealing arms to Venezuela?
  3. It says a lot about the US industrial position that the idea of towing an ATG with a tank, even a light tank, seemed reasonable to contemplate. If the issue was just cross country mobility, then the M5 artillery tractor would have been an option that kept the gun and crew together in one vehicle. I can see the theoretical value in a gun tractor that can also do some movement under fire, and even conduct suppressing fire of its own, but: If an M3/M5 was enough to suppress the enemy, then wouldn't you be better off just using them as a tank platoon? Even if the M3/M5 can move the gun through fire, then what happens to the crew? If you can't get the crew's half-track into position then you have a problem, so once again you're limited by the half track's mobility and armor.
  4. Ref bases, yes, 20/20 hindsight was we should have kept Clark and Subic, but realistically, just sailing an Aegis destroyer or two in Philippine waters is going to provide more air defense capability than however many F-16 the Philippines can afford to buy and maintain and arm. They are probably far better off with some L-159s, FA-50/M-346 at most, with just enough missiles to do airspace protection, and some distributed, mobile air defense assets, and some shore based antiship missiles for the amount of money they have available. (not a novel idea, it's been pitched in other threads and in depth on one poster's blog, that I can't remember at the moment) Long story short, the Philippines trying to think about going head to head with China is fools errand. Think allies and think asymmetric or don't play at all.
  5. I don't think you're going to justify carrying Barret's for anti-armor work: AFV are getting progressively better protected and there are weight and lethality issues, as others have pointed out. On the other hand, if you are already carrying .50/12.7/14.5mm sniper rifles around for long range sniping (people and maybe technicals), then why not supply AP ammunition for a more multi-purpose weapon? So I don't see them becoming more popular in the old ATR role, but maybe they will see some resurgence in anti-AFV use by snipers, unless the heavier rounds are replaced by rounds like the .338 Lapua / .375 SWISS P for long range work.
  6. Arguably that's exactly what they did when they switched out the 50L60 for the 75L24 in the PzIIIN. 75L24 was not as good as your proposal, but was available off the shelf. Penetration with the Gr.38 Hl/B HEAT round was very close (87mm) to your 90mm number and the Gr.38 Hl/C got that up to 115mm. Late war they were looking at firing a fin stabilized 75mm HEAT round from rifled barrels with 140mm penetration, though by then the 75L24 was an afterthought and it was targeted for the 75mm L40-48 weapons. Late war they were looking at the PAW 1000 for vehicle use, which is more or less your suggestion.
  7. USAAF did have limited adoption of the 20mm (Hispano for the nightfighters) but the USN mass production of the 20mm Oerlikon is probably more relevant. That meant that the US had the manufacturing base for both a usable gun and the ammunition for it. The UK "Polsten" variant of the Oerlikon did make it onto the Sherman, though via the Canadian Skink, and also went into service on a Crusader AA variant. If the Luftwaffe had been a credible threat post-Normandy then there might have been a lot more 20mm in theatre, albeit initially all with the UK/Commonwealth. It seems like what was keeping the US army away from using 20mm was: Right or wrong, the US Army liked the 37mm for light/recon vehicles, as shown by it's retention on the later M38 Wolfhound armored car (and on the 8 wheel design that lost out to the M38) well after encountering German recon vehicles armed with 20mm For AA work, the US Army seemed happy with the quad .50 instead of a smaller number of 20mm guns. They were looking at going to a quad .60 (on the M24 chassis) as a next step, so no desire to move to 20mm even late war and well after encountering both Axis and UK/Commonwealth use of 20mm for AA.
  8. I can think of two reasons: It could be they have 106mm ammunition, or can get it cheap, but can't get, or won't pay for, 75mm It's possible that this mounting can fire at high elevations. If it can, it might be substantially more useful in mountainous or urban areas than the original turret.
  9. SPG aren't always around and guns that could be man handled forward were useful for infantry support. IIRC, the Soviets were keeping 45mm ATG on their TO&E late war mostly for use as Infantry Guns, and only secondarily as anti-tank guns. Though, if this was true, I'm not sure why they didn't just focus more on the 76 mm regimental gun M1943 (76mm gun on 45mm carriage, much like the German 7.5 cm IG 37). Also IIRC, the Germans were on a path towards scrapping their 75mm Infantry Guns for the 8 cm PAW, thus converging ATG/Infantry-Gun support from a different approach.
  10. My "not a statistically valid sample" experience when I was buying last fall: everything going across the counter was pump or semiauto doubles were permanently out of stock (but they're mostly from one manufacturer), and this is still true Mossberg pumps were scarce, but you could still pick up Winchester and Benelli. Mossberg availability has improved since then. Semiautos were available and seemed more popular than pumps As has already been mentioned, last fall shotgun ammunition was the only ammunition readily available. Stocks went down, but didn't seem to go completely out the way everything else did. At one point the only rifle ammo listed as "in stock" at a local big box sporting goods store was .416 Rigby.
  11. If I understand correctly, I think there are a few factors in play: "supporting infantry" does not necessarily equal "infantry standing right next to a tank" Tanks operate out in the streets, which is a very dangerous place for an infantryman to be. A hit on a tank, by a LAW or ATGM, is going to generate blast and fragments anyway, so the incremental danger is only the range/danger-area of the APS that is greater than the danger zone from the LAW/ATGM warhead explosion To what I think is Zuk's point, if an APS hit disrupts the warhead so that it doesn't explode at all, then the blast/fragments of the APS may actually be less than the blast/fragments would have been from, for instance, an ATGM hitting the tank
  12. My impression is that there were very similar experiences with the US and the Germans in WWII As guns got heavier they lost tactical mobility at two levels. They were too heavy for crews to move them in short hops, out from under cover or while under fire (as Bojan has pointed out), and the requirements for large and vulnerable prime movers meant that they could neither emplace nor displace when covered by enemy fire. This meant that the ATG, and supported troops, either defeated an attack or the crews had to abandon the guns to the enemy. ATG could be very effective when they were in the right place and tanks ran into them, but, due to the mobility issue, if they were even slightly out of position they were much less useful to useless. IIRC, the US found this in the bocage: it was very difficult to move an ATG up and emplace it and, even if this was achieved, their field of fire was so limited that bringing them up was considered pointless. I suspect, though I haven't seen it written up, that as ATG required larger, often tracked or semi-tracked, prime movers, the price gap dropped between towed and self-propelled weapons, making the towed option even less attractive. So all of this led to two alternatives: Use self propelled ATG (tank destroyers, panzerjager, sturmgeschütz) Replace the big kinetic energy ATG with lighter designs using HEAT ammunition. The US and UK went down the recoilless rifle route, which was the last hurrah of ATG in the West, and the Germans chose the high-low pressure system. I don't think the US 90mm towed, the UK 32lb, and German 128mm were ever going to be built in any numbers as ATG: the US had the 75mm RR and the money to replace towed ATG with tanks/tank-destroyers, the UK had the 3.7" Burney, and the Germans had the 8cm and 10cm PAW (while the 128mm drifted towards being a field gun with a secondary ATG capability).
  13. There's a translation of a German document from Feb '45 over at https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/317927-german-intended-tank-and-anti-tank-gun-development/ It seems to say that they thought about getting higher velocities either by using very long barrels or by using sub-caliber ammunition (APDS or Cone Bore). Super long barrels were rejected for both technical and production complexity Cone bore was rejected as being over-specialized and difficult to manufacture Sub-caliber AP projectiles were not seen as giving enough of a performance increase, esp at longer ranges, to make them worthwhile, particularly since they might cause issues with existing muzzle brakes. The modest performance increase was presumably at least partly due to having to make the projectiles with steel, since no tungsten was available for them. The same tungsten shortage was presumably taking APCR off the table. The upshot of all this is that they seemed to be happy with regular AP for the large AT weapons (88 L71 and 128mm) and HEAT for everything else. Other pages of the same document, however, show interest in a using the PAW 1000 both with a full caliber HEAT round, for shorter ranges, and a sub-caliber round, firing a saboted 75mm round (possibly a version of the 75mm fin stabilized HEAT round being developed for the Pak40), for engagements at longer ranges.
  14. These days both "light" and "medium" just mean "weighs less than a modern MBT" or, more cynically, "we can't market this as an MBT with a straight face, so we need another name that still has 'tank' in it." . . . and yes, same turret as the tank boat.
  15. An optical sight was standard in the MG34/42 tripod kits for HMG use.
×
×
  • Create New...