Silverwind's first target. I mean, Tank.

NARSES2 · June 26, 2015, 06:47:07 AM

The early Centurions had a 20mm Polsten cannon. Not sure if it was independent of the main gun or not ? Obviously not considered successful as it was soon dropped.

Logan Hartke · June 26, 2015, 07:59:46 AM

The AMX-30 had a coaxial 20mm and even its replacement the Leclerc has a coaxial .50cal.

Cheers,

Logan

rickshaw · June 27, 2015, 03:29:52 AM

Quote from: NARSES2 on June 26, 2015, 06:47:07 AM
The early Centurions had a 20mm Polsten cannon. Not sure if it was independent of the main gun or not ? Obviously not considered successful as it was soon dropped.

That was because you could carry far more rounds for an MMG than a Cannon, Chris. Yes, the Polsten was independently mounted compared to the main mantlet of the 17 Pdr on Centurion Mk.1s.

Its interesting how different considerations determine the secondary armament of MBTs. In the UK, the role of the tank is to use it's main gun on targets worthy enough for it and it's secondary armament on those "soft" targets that aren't. In the US its been a bit up and down, between .30/7.62x51mm and .50cal weapons. In France it's been between 7.7mm/.30/7.62x51mm/12.7mm/20mm. In the fUSSR/Russian army, it's been 7.62x54/12.7mm weapons. In Germany it's been purely 7.92/7.62x51mm weapons.

Captain Canada · June 27, 2015, 07:28:21 AM

Yes I see it now !

NARSES2 · June 27, 2015, 07:31:20 AM

Quote from: rickshaw on June 27, 2015, 03:29:52 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on June 26, 2015, 06:47:07 AM
The early Centurions had a 20mm Polsten cannon. Not sure if it was independent of the main gun or not ? Obviously not considered successful as it was soon dropped.

That was because you could carry far more rounds for an MMG than a Cannon, Chris. Yes, the Polsten was independently mounted compared to the main mantlet of the 17 Pdr on Centurion Mk.1s.

Ta

kerick · June 27, 2015, 04:33:20 PM

Always an issue no matter what the vehicle or aircraft. Do you want a bigger punch or carry more ammunition?

rickshaw · June 27, 2015, 06:30:59 PM

Quote from: kerick on June 27, 2015, 04:33:20 PM
Always an issue no matter what the vehicle or aircraft. Do you want a bigger punch or carry more ammunition?

I think it depends on how long the planners believe the vehicle will last in battle and what targets the secondary armament could be used for. The Swedes hold the record for an MBT proposal with a 40mm secondary weapon. The problem with that is you start seriously eating into space for ammunition for your main armament...

Weaver · June 28, 2015, 05:25:23 AM

Quote from: Logan Hartke on June 26, 2015, 07:59:46 AM
The AMX-30 had a coaxial 20mm and even its replacement the Leclerc has a coaxial .50cal.

They're the honorable exceptions to the rule though.

My thinking is that there are lots of targets that an MBT needs to engage which would be overkill for it's limited stock of main gun rounds but need more range and/or terminal effect than a 7.62mm. I think the ideal would be a podded 20mm weapon on the side or top of the turret which rotated with the turret but elevated independently, giving the gunner the ability to engage small high-angle targets, especially infantry in tall city buildings.

kerick · August 04, 2015, 07:22:04 PM

On a tank a RWS might work. Use 50cal or the 40mm grenade launcher. Otherwise a Bradley type would be good but then you have another vehicle to support.
I believe a RWS would have a higher elevation than the TUSK mod with the 50cal mounted on the mantlet.

silverwindblade · October 05, 2015, 11:50:45 AM

So, anyway - getting back to my model...

This is where it's at so far. Just moving into the major weathering stages now.
My solution with the minigun was to build a 'basket' behind the commanders hatch which holds the ammo can for the M134D. I had to fabricate a longer ammo belt from some wine bottle foil which doesn't probably look as good as it could, but the kit-supplied one in resin wouldn't bend the way I wanted, or stretch as far. Future lesson there is to check the length of the belt before I attach things, or to use a less ammo-intensive secondary weapon...

I scratch-built some more modern antennae as well to go on the turret, to make it look a bit more modern/futuristic. I have a back-story in mind for this beast that will probably be retro-actively applied to all my builds so far, and going forward that'll explain the modernising of an older vehicle.
I'll get a bunch of better lighted pics when I'm ready to say it's finished that show the details better too. I snapped these on my phone camera quickly as I just wanted to update the thread with my progress, I know they're not great quality-wise.

Captain Canada · October 05, 2015, 12:44:59 PM

Great work so far ! Thanks for thinking of us and putting up an update. Love the secondary armament nice idea there, and rally adds to it. Looking forward to seeing the better pics.

NARSES2 · October 06, 2015, 06:39:22 AM

Coming along nicely

kerick · October 17, 2015, 05:23:16 PM

Any news on this puppy?

Mr.Creak · October 17, 2015, 06:11:26 PM

Quote from: rickshaw on June 27, 2015, 03:29:52 AMIts interesting how different considerations determine the secondary armament of MBTs. In the UK, the role of the tank is to use it's main gun on targets worthy enough for it and it's secondary armament on those "soft" targets that aren't. In the US its been a bit up and down, between .30/7.62x51mm and .50cal weapons. In France it's been between 7.7mm/.30/7.62x51mm/12.7mm/20mm. In the fUSSR/Russian army, it's been 7.62x54/12.7mm weapons. In Germany it's been purely 7.92/7.62x51mm weapons.

Heh, I've just added a comment to someone's post over on Quora concerning this.
The M1 Abrams - counting from programme inception in 1972 - went from 50 cal to 7.62 to 20/30 mm Bushmaster and down then round a few more times before settling on 7.62 as a co-ax.
And Germany currently considers 5.56 as sufficient for the co-ax on their new Puma IFV.

silverwindblade · October 18, 2015, 11:57:59 AM

QuoteAny news on this puppy?

Funny you should mention that! I finished it off today, and here are the pics:

The Model:

The kit is a LEE models 1/35 Challenger 1. This itself is a bootleg of the Tamiua Challenger 1 Mk.3 kit. The kit was a gift from a friend, who had started it, but had lost interest. He was originally building it as the NATO German Challenger 1, and had got as far as painting most of it. I wanted to create a Middle-Eastern use one, which meant I had to strip the paint. I also had plans to add an RWS and a minigun for the commander. So, I carefully disassembled the kit, and then stripped off the paint using Fairy Power Spray.
As the kit had been left in a box idle for some time, a few bits had one missing, or were otherwise snapped or unusuable. Among these was the stowage basket for the front of the turret. I picked up a replacement set of turret stowage from Castoff Models in resin, and I think they greatly improve the look of the kit. A replacement thermal sight was also included.
I further added a Live Resin minigun station, which while looking amazing, was a pig. The belt for the ammo was really hard to shape, and ended up snapping, leading to me replacing it with a (poorly) scratch-built one from some wine bottle foil.
The RWS with the Mk.19 grenade launcher is an AFV club set that went together wonderfully, and fit perfectly where I had in mind for it. A few items from a Tamiya stowage set completed the look, along with some scratch-built, more modern antennae like the ones seen on vehicles in Iraq in the current day.

Considering the kit cost £4.00 new, and I got it for free, I've probably spent a reasonable amount on it, but I wanted to try and ensure that my first armour model turned out well. I'm pleased with the results, especially considering that a lot of it is new skills to me, or ones I'm revisiting. It's definitely given me the bug to build a lot more vehicles in the future, too.