Machine Guns and Cannons (Ground, Vehicle, and Aircraft Mounted Weapons)

[Joe C-P]

Another question: on Japan's Type 5 Chi-Ri tank prototype, a 37mm gun is mounted in the hull.

I know two-gun arrangements aren't exactly new- M3 Medium, Char B1, and early-model Churchill have those, too, but their hull-mounted guns are either as a result of inability to adopt a turreted big gun or as a specialized second main weapon (Churchill's howitzer); Chi-Ri's hull-mounted 37mm gun was weaker in both HE and AT departments than its turreted gun (75mm or 88mm)...... although I did hear that the cancelled production examples were to dispense with that gun, why was it installed in the first place?

Perhaps the 37mm was meant as an anti-personnel defensive weapon, more powerful than a machine gun. The turreted main gun would also be more limited in how many shells could be carried, so those would be saved for high-value targets like enemy tanks and other armor.
I actually did this with one of my Patchwork World Nieuw Amsterdam landships, and am trying to come up with a logical reason. I figure using it as a big anti-personnel "shotgun" would complement the 76mm high-velocity rifle in the main turret.

[dy031101]

Is there a one-man cannon or MG turret other than the various Israel-made remote weapon stations that has an optional ATGM launcher?

Thinking about something to finish my CM21 3D model with......

[dy031101]

Does anyone have info on this weapon mount?

For example, is it a one-man turret?  How much space does it occupy with the vehicle compared to the chair associated with a conventional commander's cupola?  The main gun looks like a .50 cal. MG; is there a variant armed with a 20mm~25mm cannon available?

Thanks in advance.

[rickshaw]

Does anyone have info on this weapon mount?

For example, is it a one-man turret?  How much space does it occupy with the vehicle compared to the chair associated with a conventional commander's cupola?  The main gun looks like a .50 cal. MG; is there a variant armed with a 20mm~25mm cannon available?

Thanks in advance.

Its a Swiss design, Mowag IIRC.  As far as I'm aware it only ever mounted a .50cal but was designed to take a 20mm as well.  Not sure if it was ever adopted though.  This is all from hazy memory from reading Janes many, many years ago.

[Weaver]

Does anyone have info on this weapon mount?

For example, is it a one-man turret?  How much space does it occupy with the vehicle compared to the chair associated with a conventional commander's cupola?  The main gun looks like a .50 cal. MG; is there a variant armed with a 20mm~25mm cannon available?

Thanks in advance.

Its a Swiss design, Mowag IIRC.  As far as I'm aware it only ever mounted a .50cal but was designed to take a 20mm as well.  Not sure if it was ever adopted though.  This is all from hazy memory from reading Janes many, many years ago.

I think that's all correct, and it was adopted by some export customers. You can see it mounted on a lots of different Piranha hulls in Mowag publicity shots.

[rickshaw]

Mowag mounted virtually everything under the sun on its various AFV hulls.  Most of it was never adopted by anybody though.   I often wondered how Mowag kept going.  For many years all they seemed to do was develop different types of AFVs, have their pictures taken and put in Jane's and similar publications and only occasionally sold small numbers to various South American dictatorships.  Of course then along came the LAV and the USMC and they never looked back.

[Weaver]

They did rather better than that, largely through licence production. They built the German Border Guard ("MW801" ?) vehicles in large numbers and sold quite a few Roland scout cars world wide. There were the Canadian Piranaha 6x6-based Cougar, Grizzly and Husky, and large sales of 8x8 Piranhas to Saudi Arabia (made under licence by GKN in Telford to avoid Swiss export restrictions). Cardoen also made Piranahas under licence in Chile and exported them to various unsavory customers without Swiss hands ever having to get dirty....

[rickshaw]

They did rather better than that, largely through licence production. They built the German Border Guard ("MW801" ?) vehicles in large numbers and sold quite a few Roland scout cars world wide. There were the Canadian Piranaha 6x6-based Cougar, Grizzly and Husky, and large sales of 8x8 Piranhas to Saudi Arabia (made under licence by GKN in Telford to avoid Swiss export restrictions). Cardoen also made Piranahas under licence in Chile and exported them to various unsavory customers without Swiss hands ever having to get dirty....

Most of that was well into the late 1970s.  For the twenty years previously all they seemed to sell were armoured conversions for Unimog truck chassis, the odd Roland and not much else as far as I could tell.  Had a tremendous catalogue of various different vehicles but never seemed to sell them.  The Canadian order was perhaps their big break followed by the USMC and that flowed onto large numbers of others.  And as they say, the rest is history.

[dy031101]

Wikipedia states that the 2A45 gun's rate of fire is 6~8 rounds per minute compared to the 3~4 rounds per minute figure of the A-19, the basis of IS-2/3's D-25......

A couple of questions:

1. I suppose the figure for the 2A45 is that without a tank-mounted autoloader?  Just to be sure.

2. Can I assume that the figure for the A-19 would apply to the D-25, too, since the IS-2/3 never had an autoloader AFAIK?

[rickshaw]

The figure for the 2A45 is with autoloader and is a sustained rate of fire.

The figure for the A19 is considerably lower because of the use of separate cased ammunition for the A19/D25.

Most autoloaders BTW are usually outperformed by manual loaders in the first minute of firing but after that, the human loaders tire whereas the autoloader does not.  Separate cased ammunition as against what in naval parlance is referred to as "QF" or "Quick-firing" ammunition (fixed ammunition [ie the round is permanently fixed to the case of the ammunition to form a single unitary piece of ammunition] ) are much slower to load, particularly in a tank where there is usually only one human loader to do both jobs - load the round and the propellant case.

[Weaver]

Separate cased ammunition as against what in naval parlance is referred to as "QF" or "Quick-firing" ammunition (fixed ammunition [ie the round is permanently fixed to the case of the ammunition to form a single unitary piece of ammunition] ) are much slower to load, particularly in a tank where there is usually only one human loader to do both jobs - load the round and the propellant case.

I understand that experience with the Chieftain/Challenger contradicts that, however much it may seem intuitive. The difference seems to be the awkwardness of handling the long, heavy fixed 120mm round in a confined space as opposed to the "handiness" of the separate projectile and charge.

[dy031101]

I understand that experience with the Chieftain/Challenger contradicts that, however much it may seem intuitive. The difference seems to be the awkwardness of handling the long, heavy fixed 120mm round in a confined space as opposed to the "handiness" of the separate projectile and charge.

I was playing with a hypothetical replacement of an old 122mm tank gun with a new 125mm gun.

If we are talking about just a simple gun replacement (no new turret), would it have precluded the installation of a matching autoloader?

The hypothetical tank's age aside, if we go without the autoloader then, would the replacement have been worthwhile?

[Weaver]

I understand that experience with the Chieftain/Challenger contradicts that, however much it may seem intuitive. The difference seems to be the awkwardness of handling the long, heavy fixed 120mm round in a confined space as opposed to the "handiness" of the separate projectile and charge.

I was playing with a hypothetical replacement of an old 122mm tank gun with a new 125mm gun.

Yes I know, but the same arguments apply.

Another thing: the 2A45 uses separate ammunition too (projectiles in the upper magazine ring, charges in the lower), so without the autoloader, you'd be in pretty much the same position as the A-19.

If we are talking about just a simple gun replacement (no new turret), would it have precluded the installation of a matching autoloader?

It might not have precluded it as such, but the inside of the hull and turret would probably require extensive re-engineering to accomodate it, to the point where cutting a bigger hole in the hull top and fitting the complete T-72 (or whatever) turret might be a preferable option.

The hypothetical tank's age aside, if we go without the autoloader then, would the replacement have been worthwhile?

Yes, I'd have thought so, given the more advanced ammunition available to the 2A45, including guided rounds.

It would be interesting to put an autoloader tank and a manual-loader tank with exactly the same gun back to back and test them, wouldn't it?

[dy031101]

I was playing with a hypothetical replacement of an old 122mm tank gun with a new 125mm gun.

Yes I know, but the same arguments apply.

Another thing: the 2A45 uses separate ammunition too (projectiles in the upper magazine ring, charges in the lower), so without the autoloader, you'd be in pretty much the same position as the A-19.

I know it uses seperate ammos, too, just wondering the relative handiness of the new gun's ammo.

On your previous mentioning of experience with the Chieftain/Challenger contradicting the conventional wisdom, Wikipedia actually claims that Challenger 2 can sustain a higher rate of fire than tanks firing fixed 120 ammos, even those with an autoloader, although so far I haven't found the numbers to display it.

[Weaver]

I was playing with a hypothetical replacement of an old 122mm tank gun with a new 125mm gun.

Yes I know, but the same arguments apply.

Another thing: the 2A45 uses separate ammunition too (projectiles in the upper magazine ring, charges in the lower), so without the autoloader, you'd be in pretty much the same position as the A-19.

I know it uses seperate ammos, too, just wondering the relative handiness of the new gun's ammo.

On your previous mentioning of experience with the Chieftain/Challenger contradicting the conventional wisdom, Wikipedia actually claims that Challenger 2 can sustain a higher rate of fire than tanks firing fixed 120 ammos, even those with an autoloader, although so far I haven't found the numbers to display it.

That's correct, although as Rickshaw correctly points out, fatigue will reduce the RoF of the manual loader if combat goes on for a long time.

Another disadvantage of the Russian autoloader is that it only holds 22 rounds, the rest of the tank's ammo load being scattered around the inside of the vehicle from where the commander or gunner are presumably supposed to retrieve it. Some rounds are stored in moulded-in tubes in the middle of a plastic fuel tank next to the driver....

BTW, the tank-mounted version of the 125mm is the 2A46. 2A45 is the towed gun.