Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, WRW said:

Any good for drones?

Interesting question: it's a similar approach to AHEAD but I believe with many more, but much smaller projectiles (see Bojan's pic).

Dispersion pattern would presumably be a big part of the answer, but the approach might have advantages vs. smaller, lower flying drones.  I believe Ssnake was on this track in the Drones vs. AFV thread:

Quote

the 35mm AHEAD has rather large tungsten pellets, optimized for effect on fast moving jets with deep penetration into the aircraft body. rather than a high number of smaller fragments for an increased debris cloud density

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What always amazes me that if you put some ATGMs on the same wheeled chassis nobody questions the wisdom of it,  but once you put a gun on it, that is bigger than the auto canons, everybody seems to question the idea and starts comparing it to a real MBT. Against MBTs it is a anti-tank vehicle that carries more rounds (not better protected though) than the typical ATGM carrier carries missiles (not better protected either). It does not need to guide the round after firing and has a decent HE capability.  It can go places no MBT can go and it does move faster by a lot.

As a family of vehicles the line makes a lot of sense imho. You have the Draco AAA, the Frecia IFV, the ATGM carrier and the mortar carrier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, seahawk said:

What always amazes me that if you put some ATGMs on the same wheeled chassis nobody questions the wisdom of it, 

Everyone who has ever put ATGMs on tracked chassis questioned wisdom of it. Wheeled chassis (Soviets with BRDM being most prominent example) were used for the economic reasons primary.

Quote

but once you put a gun on it, that is bigger than the auto canons, everybody seems to question the idea and starts comparing it to a real MBT.

Because marketing for such vehicles is comparing them to MBTs "MBT like firepower". Except armor does not allow it to effectively employ "MBT level firepower" vs vast variety of the threats.

Even if you want to use it for infantry support it has no real benefits over lower velocity gun or gun-mortar vs anything other than MBTs.

Quote

Against MBTs it is a anti-tank vehicle that carries more rounds (not better protected though) than the typical ATGM carrier carries missiles (not better protected either).

It can only do one thing, fight from ambush positions, just like ATGMs can. And ATGM vehicles are way cheaper, can be ligher (or better armored at the same weight level) and much smaller, since they don't really need 3-men turret.

Yes, ATGM might be more expensive than tank round, but compared how many times it is used vs tanks it is a false economy.

Quote

 It does not need to guide the round after firing and has a decent HE capability.

There are F&F ATGMs widely available now. HE capacity is inferior to a much cheaper and less weight low-velocity sollutions.

Quote

It can go places no MBT can go and it does move faster by a lot.

And MBT can go way more places where that thing can not. Try forrest with a fallen trees. Or ask Croats how Patrias fare in the Slavonian mud where even Bradleys had no significant problems... 😂

Strategic mobility is nice, but IRL most of longer transports are done by train, be it wheeled or tracked vehicle.

Yeah, I know west is still obsessed over Russian drive with BTR-80 to Pristina, but that is a gimmick of a limited value if those forces can not be be supported with heavy forces.

Quote

As a family of vehicles the line makes a lot of sense imho. You have the Draco AAA, the Frecia IFV, the ATGM carrier and the mortar carrier.

You could have low-velocity 120mm gun-mortar supporting infantry for a fraction of price and for a fraction of the weight. If you really, really need to fight heavy armor with such forces F&F ATGM will do it.

MBTs can afford to be "jack of all trades", since it's armor allows it. Armor on light forces does not allow those to be such. "Specialization is for insects", which is what those forces really are. So specialize:

- low velocith 120mm gun-mortar for blasting derkas. If you really need hang 2-pack of F&F ATGMs in case some rusty T-55 appears. You can get lower weight or better armor than with 120mm tank gun.

- F&F ATGM vehicle, when you really have to go toe-to-toe with heavy forces.

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not seen anybody comparing them to MBTs, yes they claim to have similar firepower, but they are also employed in a formation made up from other wheeled vehicles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Italians are sadisfied with Centauro because it offers heavy firepower for their wheeled medium brigades, both against infantry with DM-11 airbust rounds, and against "medium" armoured threats (with the flexibility of reliably engaging MBT if the needs arose). It also give heavy firepower for otherwise light reconnaissance units. The Ariete goes into heavy brigades which have tracked Dardo IFV. 

Chief role of medium brigades is rapid reaction force and force projection (paece keeping where Italians are very active).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Even if you want to use it for infantry support it has no real benefits over lower velocity gun or gun-mortar vs anything other than MBTs.

In the age of long range infantry weapons does not seems sensible the use of low velocity guns against infantry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

Low velocity 100mm on BMP-3 can be used up the 4000m, same as high velocity tank guns can. FCS solves largest problem of LV guns, large consequences of errors in ranging. Other problem is engaging moving targets, but infantry is moving pretty slowly so it is of much less consequence than when engaging AFVs. And even there modern FCS helps a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

low velocity is relative no? if you are infantry and the enemy AFV  has fired a low velocity HE dust bin at you ...what difference does it make how soon it gets there? you just have a bit more time to say a last word or two...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seahawk said:

Makes hitting a moving target harder (like other wheeled APCs), while the high velocity guns works equally fine against moving and stationary targets. 

Not at short ranges with modern FCS. Anything at longer ranges warrants ATGM anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a wonderful triangulation with the Polish thread of 1%(Swimming) and 10%(shooting fleeting hard targets) driving decisions. The whole matter is moot since sticking an autocannon on a remote turret is pretty straightforward, along with a ATGM armoured launcher.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2020 at 2:35 PM, Nikolas93TS said:

Italians are sadisfied with Centauro because it offers heavy firepower for their wheeled medium brigades, both against infantry with DM-11 airbust rounds, and against "medium" armoured threats (with the flexibility of reliably engaging MBT if the needs arose). It also give heavy firepower for otherwise light reconnaissance units. The Ariete goes into heavy brigades which have tracked Dardo IFV. 

Chief role of medium brigades is rapid reaction force and force projection (paece keeping where Italians are very active).

I would like to see Canada go to a Heavy and Light Brigade setup as well. We will always be an expeditionary army, with no idea where we will fight next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still do not see the problem with the vehicle. The Italians have a 120mm MBT anyway and they have a family of wheeled vehicles based on the chassis as well. They have the autocanon version, the ATGM version and a few more (mortar, AAA, even a 155m howitzer piece), I do not see why having a 120mm gun version is bad. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, seahawk said:

Still do not see the problem with the vehicle. The Italians have a 120mm MBT anyway and they have a family of wheeled vehicles based on the chassis as well. They have the autocanon version, the ATGM version and a few more (mortar, AAA, even a 155m howitzer piece), I do not see why having a 120mm gun version is bad. 

I believe that, in theory, the 120mm gun is overkill - I'm more or less aligned with Bojan, but I can see a practical argument for the 105/120mm high velocity gun approach: ammunition commonality.

The old model was that it was simple to develop and field not only a new gun but also a new range of ammunition for it.  That seems to be less and less true as time goes by, especially as gun rounds get smarter.  Using a NATO standard 120mm means that the Italians, and any other Centauro II customers, can take advantage of a wide variety of ammunition development from a wide variety of countries and presumably get some economies of scale with ammunition procurement for 120mm armed tanks.

Is this enough of an advantage to make it a preferred choice?  I don't know, but it would be sensible to consider.  The only practical alternative for western armies would presumably be a breech loaded 120mm mortar, which has its own ammunition standardization / economies of scale advantages, but which is optimized for indirect fire vs the direct fire role of the Centauro.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is silliness. There is no NATO commonality once you get into multimode or muzzle set fuzes etc. There is no economy as scale as ammunition is produced in small quantities by different plants in different countries with different components. It's just laziness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, CaptLuke said:

I believe that, in theory, the 120mm gun is overkill - I'm more or less aligned with Bojan, but I can see a practical argument for the 105/120mm high velocity gun approach: ammunition commonality.

The old model was that it was simple to develop and field not only a new gun but also a new range of ammunition for it.  That seems to be less and less true as time goes by, especially as gun rounds get smarter.  Using a NATO standard 120mm means that the Italians, and any other Centauro II customers, can take advantage of a wide variety of ammunition development from a wide variety of countries and presumably get some economies of scale with ammunition procurement for 120mm armed tanks.

Is this enough of an advantage to make it a preferred choice?  I don't know, but it would be sensible to consider.  The only practical alternative for western armies would presumably be a breech loaded 120mm mortar, which has its own ammunition standardization / economies of scale advantages, but which is optimized for indirect fire vs the direct fire role of the Centauro.

That is the point. The Centauro 2 is available with 105 or 120mm gun. The Italians chose the 120mm so it can use the ammo of the Ariete. 105mm tank ammo is probably running out in the inventory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is exactly the point: 120mm was requisted because it could use the same ammunition and benefit from the latest armour piercing and multirole rounds developed for a newer gun. When Centauro I was introduced, commonality with Leopard 1 was demanded (while M-47 were being withdrawn from second line units which were deployed down the peninsula).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...