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

[Weaver]

It seems the AK-630 is also available with a twin over/under mount.  A turret mounting 12 x 30mm barrels sounds quite imposing, but I shudder to think of the ammunition consumption alone!

Regards,

Mav

OTO-Melara and Contraves (?) were pushing a system called Myriad for a while that had two 25mm gatlings in each turret, running as fast as mechanically possible. The idea was to calculate a "window" that the incoming missile had to fly through and then fill it with tungsten to a density higher than the diameter of the missile. As far as I know, it didn't sell.

[Weaver]

[True.  Interesting though, that the Seacat was shown, despite its age to still be an effect missile in the Falklands/Malvinas conflict.   More I suspect because of its scare value than necessarily because it could hit anything easily.   FEARLESS IIRC managed to down one or two Argentine aircraft with it which was remarkable and is a tribute to the gunner manning the director IMHO.

Seacat's real score is still open to debate. A lot of the supposed kills took place in San Carlos Water with multiple Seacats, Blowpipes, Rapiers and AAA flying about, making it hard to definitively attribute many of the kills to one cause. It should also be rememebered that while Seacat is credited with eight kills, which is the same as Seadart and three more than Seawolf, there were many, many more Seacat-armed ships in theatre and rounds fired. It's actual SSKP was rather poor, even if all eight kills were fair.

Seacat's problem is not accuracy as such: given a well-trained operator (or one of the later fire control systems) and a head-on target, it's about as good as anything else. The problem comes with crossing targets, where the missile's lack of speed becomes a peoblem. Many well-aimed Seacats simply never caught up with their targets.

The RAN's launchers were IIRC electrical, rather than hydraulic but I'm willing to be corrected.  As to why would need to give it precise pointing, I have no idea as you'd only need to point it in the general direction before lighting the blue touch paper.  The guidance system should correct for any minor differences in heading which would be required.

No that's right, but more fundamentally, the RAN launchers only had eight azimuth "stops" which the launcher moved between. As you say, this didn't matter a damn given that the missile was basically a radio-controlled plane that could easily be steered onto a precise bearing after launch, but it obvious offended somebody high up in the RN: probably an ex-gunner who couldn't get their head around the idea of not pointing the weapon at the target...

The chief advantage of the helicopter I'd have thought was its utility - you can do many more things with one which you can't do with a missile.

Indeed, but considered as purely an ASW weapon, it has weaknesses as well as strengths.

If the SAM/gun tracking radar could track the Ikara it would have been able to guide it.  Integrating it though, with the sonar system was more difficult.  Basically you had to be able to compare the two tracks and when they crossed, that was where the Ikara dropped its torpedo.

Well that's what Ikara had to do whatever radar it used: compare a sonar fix to a radar fix and drive the difference to zero. I don't see that that gets any harder with a "borrowed" weapon tracker. Actually Ikara had FOUR different means of providing computer service, which is remarkable given the low number of launchers actualy deployed. Early RAN ships had a stand-alone analogue system, while the Perths had it integrated with their US-supplied NTDS. RN installations used the ADAWS combat system to do the calcs, while the Brazilian "Branik" system used a different, commerical US computer system. The Ikara team were obviously well-used to integrating their baby with different hardware!

[dy031101]

If you're not limited to Western equipment, the Soviet 30mm Gatling gun systems which seemed to sprout all over their ships during the 1970s are IMHO an excellent alternative.   If they could be coupled with a good Western fire control system, I suspect you'd be onto quite a winner.   

Come to think of it, what type of FCS did the Indians pair the gatling guns with on their carrier Viraat?

If I'm doing it on a larger ship, would one gun covering a specific quadrant be more than enough?  Or would the Russian manner of emplacement that could bring at least two guns to bear against most targets be the way to go?

[rickshaw]

The more guns that can bear, the better to prevent saturation attacks from succeeding.  However, even the Soviets didn't hold out much hope if that was to happen.  Afterall, it was how they planned to destroy Western naval forces themselves.

The Indians integrated Western Hulls with Soviet weapons and electronics.  Their Leander hulled Frigates being a good case in point.  Not sure what they did with the Carrier but I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to integrate guns with Western radars.  Missiles are a different story though.

[dy031101]

I was playing with the 25mm gun on some Parallel Universe ideas...





... hoping to denote a CIWS by fitting a Phalanx radar, I was nonetheless reminded of the fact that the weapon is hampered by frequent need to reload.

Would someone help me putting things into perspective and with the question if the problem is bad enough such that I am better off, say, doubling the number of the CIWS mounts?

Thanks in advance.

[pyro-manic]

Well, the standard magazine held 15 rounds according to Navweaps. If you speculate development of a drum magazine (say, 60 rounds, as on the 20mm Oerlikon) you immediately get a more useful time between reloads. Alternatively a belt-feed could be developed, if you want to make changes to the gun itself.

[dy031101]

Despite feeling pretty tempted to think that modern armour technology would afford infantry carriers decent protection, I'm still curious- what if a 75mm gun mounted on a stock Sherman or Chaffee tank is fired against a modern APC or IFV, assuming a chance to do so presented itself?

[Maverick]

It would depend on what 'infantry carrier' you were talking about I'd suspect.

Something of the M113's vintage could be penetrated by MG rounds (AP admittedly), so a 75mm HEAT round would be like a knife through butter.

A Warrior or Bradley would be a different situation I suspect, especially given the extra armour packages developed to defeat modern RPG type weapons.

Regards,

Mav

[mkhulu]

SADF Ratel-20 and Ratel-90 vehicles took on T-55 tanks in Angola , but the Ratel usually came off worse ....

However the SADF Ratels did score some kills.

Also have a look at what damage was inflicted upon the M-113 (or any thin skinned APC / IFV) when struck by a shaped charge...

[dy031101]

Something of the M113's vintage could be penetrated by MG rounds (AP admittedly), so a 75mm HEAT round would be like a knife through butter.

A Warrior or Bradley would be a different situation I suspect, especially given the extra armour packages developed to defeat modern RPG type weapons.

I too suspect that both Bradley and uparmoured M113 types would offer fair resistance to HEAT rounds, since such warheads were already used by ATGM and (as you said) RPG, both kinds of weapons their applique armours were designed to protect against.

I wonder if those guns were still issued solid shot AP rounds post-WWII though......

[dy031101]

After seeing photographic evidence of the lend-lease Matilda infantry tank upgunned by the Soviets, I begin to wonder about this.

I realize that smaller-calibre guns such as ZiS-4, QF 6-pounder, and Pak 38 outperformed those Russian 76mm tank guns in AT roles.  But is it simply because their longer barrel lengths relative to their calibres allowed for higher muzzle velocities?  Or did they have highly-specialized AP ammunitions that allowed them to remain potent up until the end of WWII?

If the latter was the case, would it be safe to assume that by incorporating the same techniques in creating those 50~57mm AP shells the 76mm guns could also have remained effective to the WWII's end assuming the need for such development stayed alive long enough (I understand, there would be little point for increasing the firepower of the 76mm guns as soon as the widespread service of the 85mm gun was assured)?

[rickshaw]

After seeing photographic evidence of the lend-lease Matilda infantry tank upgunned by the Soviets, I begin to wonder about this.

I realize that smaller-calibre guns such as ZiS-4, QF 6-pounder, and Pak 38 outperformed those Russian 76mm tank guns in AT roles.  But is it simply because their longer barrel lengths relative to their calibres allowed for higher muzzle velocities?  Or did they have highly-specialized AP ammunitions that allowed them to remain potent up until the end of WWII?

If the latter was the case, would it be safe to assume that by incorporating the same techniques in creating those 50~57mm AP shells the 76mm guns could also have remained effective to the WWII's end assuming the need for such development stayed alive long enough (I understand, there would be little point for increasing the firepower of the 76mm guns as soon as the widespread service of the 85mm gun was assured)?

Looking closely at the photos I tend to agree with the last poster in that thread.  Looks photoshopped and not even very well, either.

The British attempted to up-arm the Matilda but found they needed a new turret and that needed in turn a larger turret ring to absorb the recoil, with the result they ended up having to put a riser on the hull top to allow the ring to over-arch the tracks.   I simply cannot see how the Russians could have shoe-horned a 76.2mm gun into the existing Matilda turret.

[dy031101]

What about the what-if possibility of improving those 76.2mm guns' AT performance in general though?

[rickshaw]

What about the what-if possibility of improving those 76.2mm guns' AT performance in general though?

You could add a longer barrel and a larger chamber - both would increase muzzle velocity but would come at the cost of greater recoil which must be absorbed - either directly or indirectly via the recoil mechanism.   However, there is simply not sufficient room in the Matilda's turret to allow you to put one in there and the crew.

[Maverick]

To improve a given weapon's performance, there's always the 'squeeze-bore' principle.  I believe the Germans rebuilt some of their PAK weapons with this in mind although the costs associated with manufacture and the shells were prohibitive.

Regards,

Mav