Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines

Recommended Posts

On 8/5/2018 at 6:49 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22621/the-army-wants-armored-turrets-packing-120mm-mortars-for-its-strykers-and-other-vehicles

 

US Army wants 120 mortars for its Strykers, this time turreted ones, with direct fire capability (sort of like NEMO).

It's not exactly new info, but it's a good sign that it's not a dead project.

 

 

Seems like a good idea to me.  Might be more handy than the 30mm gun turrets they are currently putting on Strykers.  I would think a 120mm heat round from a mortar would be able to knock out more than just "light armored vehicles" as called for in the LOS requirements in the list Ramlaen posted.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Seems like a good idea to me.  Might be more handy than the 30mm gun turrets they are currently putting on Strykers.  I would think a 120mm heat round from a mortar would be able to knock out more than just "light armored vehicles" as called for in the LOS requirements in the list Ramlaen posted.  

 

Now I'm interested in seeing a 120mm mortar in one of those CMI turrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

120mm mortars should not be a replacement, but a complement.

It's impossible to have a turret that does not cut into the hull as the gun has to be possible to reload while near vertical, let alone one that carries enough ammo.

 

But it does introduce a new capability. By allowing mortar crews to drive on the same battlefield as the IFVs, they can effectively remove the need for MBTs for most of their tasks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Also, my dudes. It has come to my knowledge that Mike Sparks. THE Mike Sparks, also known as JamesBondisReal, denies being associated with BlackTail Defense.

 

There can't possibly be two separate people with the same weird obsessions of aircraft carrier battleship hybrids and supergavins,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

There can't possibly be two separate people with the same weird obsessions of aircraft carrier battleship hybrids and supergavins,

 

Late stage meiosis, mayhap? (can't be mitosis - I refuse to believe the guy has the right number of chromosomes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 8/6/2018 at 10:13 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

But it does introduce a new capability. By allowing mortar crews to drive on the same battlefield as the IFVs, they can effectively remove the need for MBTs for most of their tasks. 

Definitely no.

Having a direct fire capability doesn’t mean the mortar carrier can be used this way. 

 

Mortar carriers can’t go into the same ground as IFV or MBT because there very nature call them on the best place to provide indirect fire support.

To provide fire support, mortar carriers are using on dedicated firing positions, dedicated axes, with a dedicated tempo ruled by half planed rang concern and the request of the « availability » of tubes.

 

The main interests for under turret mortars are :

- MRSI capability ;

- low profile pattern of fly to hit very specifically building areas ;

- and self defense, of course. 

Problems are :

- the cost ;

- heavy weight so lower armor ;

- more difficult deception. 

Share this post


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

 

Definitely no.

Having a direct fire capability doesn’t mean the mortar carrier can be used this way. 

 

Mortar carriers can’t go into the same ground as IFV or MBT because there very nature call them on the best place to provide indirect fire support.

To provide fire support, mortar carriers are using on dedicated firing positions, dedicated axes, with a dedicated tempo ruled by half planed rang concern and the request of the « availability » of tubes.

 

The main interests for under turret mortars are :

- MRSI capability ;

- low profile pattern of fly to hit very specifically building areas ;

- and self defense, of course. 

Problems are :

- the cost ;

- heavy weight so lower armor ;

- more difficult deception. 

It is all well understood, but they place high importance in direct fire capability.

 

Even howitzers with several times the range and just half the armor, were seen as very useful demolition guns at short ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The importance of the direct fire capability is stressed to provide MRSI and self protection. 

 

Of course, SPGH can be used to destroy strongholds with hit and run drills. This is why armored artillery is necessary. But considering the general use of artillery and mortars, it’s an exception. 

 

One point today is the fact that western countries realized clear FEBA no more exists. So, each element of land forces must self protect itself without the help of infantry. 

A very good exemple is the French fleet of Carapace trucks. Half of them have RWS for FARP just for self-protection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

I am not sure what i see on the sides of this thing. Are those some sort of APS modules along whole side armor on top of ERA/NERA?

Is it possible that those 8 things are simply backpacks of vehicle's dismounts? And may be 4 other boxes were intended to represent other items - like boxes of MREs or whatever else could be stored outside of the vehicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2018 at 11:37 AM, skylancer-3441 said:

Is it possible that those 8 things are simply backpacks of vehicle's dismounts?

No, because it’s the best way to loose your kit after the first ride.

And no company can seriously make such a proposal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Serge said:

No, because it’s the best way to loose your kit after the first ride.

And no company can seriously make such a proposal. 

 

I think they’re there (if they are backpacks) because the company is representing how many dismounts it can carry, and that’s not exactly where the passengers’ equipment will actually be stored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Serge said:

No, because it’s the best way to loose your kit after the first ride.

And no company can seriously make such a proposal. 

I don't get what's the difference between my suggestion about backpacks stored outside, and real-life things like that:
Dkjk-JuUcAEkAez.jpg:large

(apart from lack of any ERA/NERA armor on this particular Bradley)

 

/...unfortunatelly that blue render is too small to see words written on those 8 things/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Mighty_Zuk
      I realized we don't have a topic for a proper discussion of what future AFVs should look like, in the style of a general AFVs discussion rather than country-specific threads.
       
      I spotted a revived potential need for future MBTs - a coaxial autocannon to replace the coaxial MG. The reason? An APS neutralizer. 
      Here's my short post on why I think it should happen:
       
      I didn't add it there, but I see lasers as a potential alternative. However, I don't think they're viable because of the power required to properly neutralize an APS's components, especially if these components are dispersed, or worse yet, effectively camouflaged. An autocannon will be able to disable not only the APS but other external components all at once. 
      Similar to the engagement method showcased by Russia where they fired 2 Kornet missiles (almost) simultaneously to defeat an APS, a hypothetical mode of operation could include firing a burst of 2 KETF shells at a target prior to firing a main gun shell.
       
      An additional alternative could be to use a single main gun ABM shell that would initiate outside the scope of the APS's engagement range (e.g engagement range is 30m so it initiates at 50m), but it would have 2 main issues that are a longer time to kill a target and a greater consumption of ammunition (up to a 3rd of ammo would have to be allocated to ABM munitions strictly for anti-armor operations).
    • By Sturgeon
      I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:


       

       

       

    • By EnsignExpendable
      Volketten on the WoT forums posted some XM-1 trials results.
       
       
      Compare this to what the Americans claimed the XM1 will do:
       

       
      Seems like the XM1 really didn't earn that checkmark-plus in mobility or protection. 
       
    • By JNT11593
      So National Geographic has a mini series airing right now called The Long Road Home. I'm curious if any else is watching it right now. The show is about black Friday, and the beginning of the siege of sadr city in 2004. It's filmed at Fort Hood with cooperation from the U.S. Army so it features a lot of authentic armor. The first couple of episodes feature Bradleys quite heavily, and starting with episode 4 it looks like Abrams starting getting more screen time. It's pretty cool if you want to see some authentic tanks and vehicles as long as you can stand some cheesiness and army wife shit.
       
      Edit: Just realized I posted to the wrong board.
       
×