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

[dy031101]

The M61 is a vehicle of the Gundam universe, remember - 20-metre tall nuclear-powered robots (more often than not piloted by untrained teenagers) duking it out with lightsabres and beam cannons. Trying to think about it from a "realistic" angle is a futile exercise IMO.

IIRC, mobile suit pilots were converted from fighter pilots (I don't know, maybe it might make more sense to some than it does to me).  Of course as time drags on, both sides (though especially Zeon) are running out of fighter pilots, too......

M61 tank is under its skin a T-80 on steroid, with the driver cut off from the rest of the crew, who're practically sitting high on top of the main gun autoloader and ammo stowage...... in the command tank variant, the turret crew is reduced to just the commander.

If you ask me, I'd stick with conventional tanks and fighters, as well as the Balls, but then the author needs to find a way to justify the existence of mobile suits, so the way to do it is to make everything else badly designed (I'd have agreed with Old Wombat's assessment if its internal arrangement were sensible...... like Type 90 or Leclerc on steroid instead of T-80)...... and make non-radar-guided weapons be relegated into total obscurity.

Kazuhisa Kondo's Gundam 0079 offers, IIRC, a much more-sensible illustration of "conventional" (i.e. non-mobile-suit) weaponries.

[Maverick]

I think the 'untrained' pilots were those from the Evangelion series, who were teenagers taken from school and then given training.  I'm unaware of the Gundam situation as I'm not a huge anime fan but did watch a few of the Evangelion shows when they aired here in Aus.

Either way, the various universes aren't created by those with any in-depth knowledge of military hardware as can be seen in their designs so I guess the idea of 'normalising' their stuff is a bit of a non-starter.  Whether it's deformed scale stuff from Warhammer or child-like designs from Japan, taking a realistic view of them is a pretty hard task.

Regards,

Mav

[pyro-manic]

The protagonists of anime mecha series in general are often teenagers, who seem to be thrust into piloting an extremely advanced bit of hardware with no preparation, and are then easily able to best seasoned pros from the opposing side. Evangelion is an exception, in that Shinji is initially completely useless (a lot of which is due to his extremely low self esteem), though he becomes more competent as the series progresses. Amuro Ray, the Gundam protagonist, jumps into the Gundam and can pilot it after flicking quickly through the manual, destroying an opposing unit (a Zaku) and driving another away.

Anyway, back on-topic (ish) - has a two-gunned tank ever actually been produced? I know there were some heavy tanks with a big main gun and a co-axial light AT gun, and a couple of twin (or even triple) gunned assault guns, but what else is there?

[Maverick]

Well, one could suggest that the Russian pre-WW2 turreted tanks were of that ilk although they were independent weapons rather than two weapons within the one turret. 

Of a similar design was the Char B1 with it's main gun sponson mounted and a smaller turretted weapon.

Similarly the M3 Lee/Grant design.

There was also a post WW2 German design (the KPz 3) that used two guns, although it was more of an StuG type weapon than a conventional turretted tank. 

On a related note, the new BMP-3 has two seperate weapons, although one is a 'gun' whilst the other is a automatic cannon. 

Also, there's AMOS which is admittedly a mortar system but is a twin weapon. 

As a paper project there was the German Landkreuzer Ratte as well with a battleship type turret and guns. 

Another Panzer46 was the Rutscher, a jagdpanzer type concept with twinned guns.

A Russian WW2 project was the KV-7 with alternate armament arragements including twinned guns.

One could even suggest the original British 'Tank' with its sponsons would qualify, having two main guns.

Another pre-WW2 Russian tank design was the TG Medium tank which had different weapons on the same hull.

Finally, the German Neubaufahrzeug designs used a 75mm main gun & 37mm coaxial.

HTH,

Mav

[dy031101]

Of a similar design was the Char B1 with it's main gun sponson mounted and a smaller turretted weapon.

Similarly the M3 Lee/Grant design.

One of the alternatives that came to my mind during the "making Leman Russ sensible" brainstorming is KwK-43 in turret and PAW 600 in hull.  One fires high-velocity AP shell but has sorry HE capacity, the other fires mortar-derived shells (HEAT and good HE rounds) and is lightweight but lacks range.

But then 1) there is no post-WWII equivalent to the PAW 600- my current intention is to make a Cold-War-era tank that relies on firepower to compensate for its technological inefficiency everywhere else- and 2) perhaps an autocannon can function longer than the PAW 600 before needing to be resupplied within a given internal ammo stowage space......

[rickshaw]

There have been only a few turreted tanks with two guns in the turret.   Generally what gets found is there is conflict and interference between the gunners and the loaders of the two guns.  It is a question of priorities and unless you copy naval practice and have two complete gun crews - as the M3 Medium did, the poor loader has to decide which gun should be loaded first.   You have to decide which gun gets priority for ammunition stowage.

The British seriously considered early in WWII putting a two gun mantlet  their tanks with a 2 Pdr and a 3 In. How. side by side.  One to fire AP and the other HE/Smoke.  However, after consideration they decided it would be better to develop one gun which could fire both types of ammunition.

The Russians played around with the idea but eventually discarded it as well.  The Germans tried it in their pre-war heavy Neubaufahrzeug series, mounting a 37mm and a 75mm either superfiring or side-by-side.  They also tried it in their super-heavy series, the E-100 and Maus with a 75mm and a 150mm side-by-side.  Post-war, the Germans played around for a while with a Leopard hull mounting twin 120mm guns in a casement mount.  The Swedes considered it for their replacement for the S-tank, the UDES-XXI, armed wth a 120mm and 40mm in a coaxial mantlet.   

[dy031101]

If a tank-mounted 105mm howitzer that can serve as an at least half-decent anti-tank piece in times of need (like the 25 pounder is reputed to be) is desired, would it have only taken the development of the right ammunition?

Or would we really have needed a new gun-howitzer altogether?

[Maverick]

Donny, a howitzer implies a high-angle trajectory weapon firing lower velocity HE shells indirectly at distant targets.  AT guns are high-velocity line-of-sight weapons firing smaller HEAT (or other AT rounds) shells at a flat trajectory with targets much closer.  Although there have been exceptions to prove the rule, the design of either type rarely allows it to function in the other's role (ie: AT guns have smaller explosive charges whilst howitzers haven't the capacity to fire high-velocity AT shells).  Within a WW2/early post War timeline, it would take a bit of trickery to have a weapon capable of being effective in both roles.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

If a tank-mounted 105mm howitzer that can serve as an at least half-decent anti-tank piece in times of need (like the 25 pounder is reputed to be) is desired, would it have only taken the development of the right ammunition?

Or would we really have needed a new gun-howitzer altogether?

Not "reputed", mate - actually was.  25 Pdrs were used in North Africa upon occasion.  The 25 Pdr was a "Field Gun" - it was designed to function both as an artillery gun and an anti-tank gun.  The US M101 105mm Gun was not a Howitzer (it could not elevate above the necessary 45 degrees to be classified as a Howitzer).   Any gun can function as an anti-gun.   All it has to do is fire its round at maximum charge (in British terms, usually referred to as "Super-Charge").   Ian Hogg relates how he was trained to fire the 5.5 gun in anti-tank mode and relates that the only round available to do so was plain HE with the fuze removed (thereby rendering it effectively a solid AP round) and firing at Super-Charge.   He suggested that its effects didn't bear thinking about, more than likely demolishing any tank encountered.   Problem was training it quickly enough to bear onto any tank which might be approaching.  5.5in guns were fired over open sights (ie <500 metres) against Fort Shwedagon in Burma when it was recaptured from the Japanese - it had earthen walls 18 feet thick and the guns were penetrating with ease.   Field Guns were designed to be able to traverse quickly, just like purpose built anti-tank guns.

Now, providing the right ammunition for a Howitzer would be tricky.  Howitzers are designed to be fired at relatively low muzzle velocity as they are intended to be high-angle HE throwers,  firing their rounds over obstacles, rather than trying to punch their way through them.   Usually howitzers relied on HEAT, rather than AP for their penetration, once the Monroe Effect was appreciated and at least semi-understood (interestingly, its still not completely understood but appreciably more so than in 1940 - then they just knew it worked).   Even so, the rounds were relatively low-velocity ones and that meant a high arc to their target and problems with windage.

[dy031101]

So if I want a step-up from the 25-pounder, it's best to develop from a medium (114mm) field gun?

[pyro-manic]

The Russian ML-20 152mm gun/howitzer was also very effective in the anti-tank role, capable of destroying all the German heavy tanks.

[rickshaw]

So if I want a step-up from the 25-pounder, it's best to develop from a medium (114mm) field gun?

What you must understand is that in the 1920-30s there was a debate in artillery circles about the difference between what was term "neutralisation" and "destruction".   To "neutralise" a target, it was held that a high rate of fire with sufficient HE and fragmentation to prevent the enemy from manning the parapet of their trenches was sufficient, as that then allowed your infantry to advance to the objective and capture it.   To "destroy" a target, it was held that sufficient HE was required in each shell to demolish the intended objective if a direct hit or even a near miss occurred.

The 25 Pdr was the result of the first line of thinking, the various nation's 105mm guns/howitzers were a production of the second line of thinking.  Each school emphasised the advantages of their respective gun.  The 25 Pdr was lighter, had a longer range and higher rate of fire than the 105mm guns but they laid considerably higher weight of HE on their target and were able to damage or destroy AFVs, which the 25 Pdr generally wasn't (when firing indirectly) - tests carried out at the end of the war had squadrons of Churchill tanks drive through 25 Pdr barrages to no ill effect beyond the loss of radio aerials and external stowage.

The second line of thinking won out post-war for several reasons.  Some technical, some political.   Today, the 155mm is largely considered the minimum calibre for battlefield use - except where lightness is required, such as in airborne or mountain warfare. The Indians still employ guns as small as 75mm for mountain warfare and the Jugoslavs used to make a handy series of small calibre 76.2mm mountain guns.  Nowadays there are also 105mm or even 155mm lightweight, low-recoil guns as well for mountain and airborne use.

Personally, I think 105mm is the more useful calibre in all roles.  Until after WWII however there was one role the 25 Pdr excelled in - counter-battery file with its long range and high ROF.  So much so that the Americans "borrowed" several batteries and used them exclusively in that role.   The Germans greatly feared and admired the 25 Pdr in that role as well for good reason.

[dy031101]

The US M101 105mm Gun was not a Howitzer (it could not elevate above the necessary 45 degrees to be classified as a Howitzer).

What category then do the M101 and particularly its tank-mounted versions used by M4(105) Sherman and M45 Patton belong to?

[Maverick]

I'd hazard a guess that they'd be the very 'gun/howitzer' weapons that Brian previously mentioned.  A hybrid weapon, capable of performing in both roles (to a degree) with the limitations that doing both at the same time holds.  In fact, it's been suggested that the 25 pounder was in fact one of these types of weapons.

Regards,

Mav

[dy031101]

I'd hazard a guess that they'd be the very 'gun/howitzer' weapons that Brian previously mentioned.  A hybrid weapon, capable of performing in both roles (to a degree) with the limitations that doing both at the same time holds.

I remember reading about Israeli Shermans from a book, which claimed that the Israeli prefered the 76mm gun wherever available whereas the 105mm howitzer was regarded as having trouble even as a defensive weapon against the T-34.

The 25-pounder I know; the Sentinel cruiser tank tested the ordnance as a step-up rather than a mere alternative to the initial model's 2-pounder (granted that's not saying as much as being a step-up from a 6-pounder...... but at least that means the 25-pounder is seen as a viable tank gun).

Having said that, the penetration tables that I can find seems confusing with the 25-pounder making 70mm at 366m against a vertical plate whereas the US 105mm's HEAT round can do 102mm within range.