Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

General artillery, SPGs, MLRS and long range ATGMs thread.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Object 326 SPG (Unofficial name - "Shayba"), was an initiative development by DB. 46 rounds, "double stack" in circular autoloader, crew in hull compartment outside of "turret". The gun, ammunition ra

2S18 Pat-S, an experimental precursor to the 2S31.  Armament was a SA61 152mm howitzer.    

Some information about Bereg ("Coast") coastal defense system.    System consist of 3 vehicle types - SPGs, command post vehicle and "Combat duty support vehicle". On a photo above SPG is on

Quote

   According to the Jane's International Defense Review magazine, in the article Christopher F. Foss, BAE Systems Hägglunds AB (one of the Swedish divisions of BAE Systems corporation) completed the prototype demonstrator of the 120-mm double-barreled self-propelled mortar Mjölner for the Swedish army, on the chassis of the infantry fighting vehicle CV90, and intends to begin testing the system in the near future.

4776663_original.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little bit unusual thing:

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2896854.html

 

   South Korean missile complex Bigung

Quote

   It is reported that at the opening of the Seoul International Aerospace & Defense Exhibition 2017 (ADEX-2017), which opens on October 17, 2017 in Seoul, the capital of South Korea, the serial model the South Korean missile complex Bigung will be publicly shown for the first time. Earlier it was reported that at the end of 2017, it was planned to start supplying Bigung missile systems to South Korea marines.

4782609_original.jpg

 

Quote

   The combat vehicle of the complex is a 40-missiles (two 20 missiles launching units) mounted on the automobile chassis (6x6) launcher. Rockets are the 70-mm light guided missile (LOGIR) of the joint US-South Korean development. The LOGIR missile (the South Korean version is designated as K-LOGIR) was developed by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) by the South Korean company LIG Nex1 (part of the LG group) based on the well-known 70-mm unguided rocket Hydra 70, but it is equipped with the so-called Low-Cost Imaging Terminal Seeker (LCITS), created under the auspices of ONR, using imaging infra-red (IIR) imaging technology, with an additional low-cost inertial correction unit at the marching part of trajectory. Thus, the LOGIR rocket implements the "fire and forget" principle. The LOGIR missile is designed to defeat predominantly small-scale and high-speed surface targets - apparently, because of the limited cost requirements of the LCITS GOS, its use for less-contrast ground targets will not be effective enough.

 

   Bigung is essentially a mobile coastal defense system. The main task of the Bigung missile complex is the fight against various combat and landing crafts of the DPRK, and first of all with hovercrafts being built in the DPRK in series.

 

   It is alleged that during the mass production the cost of the K-LOGIR missile will not exceed $ 10 thousand. The missile has a mass of 15 kg and a length of 1.9 m. The range of fire is declared "more than 6 km". Although in fact the LOGIR was developed by the American side, LIG Nex1 has developed and produces an element base for the GOS and other missile systems, which allows to significantly reduce their cost, and will lead a full cycle of the release of these systems.

   The US-South Korean memorandum of understanding on the joint development of the LOGIR missile was signed in March 2007. Since 2010, LIG Nex1 together with the Defense Development Agency (ADD) of the Ministry of Defense of South Korea led the development of the Bigung missile complex. It was reported that in 2016, during tests of the Bigung complex, 20 test rocket launches with good performance were made. As a means of target designation, Bigung's combat machine uses an electron-optical station on a lifting mast.

bigung

 

20110516092541

 

2015072420091641700

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2017 at 12:05 AM, Renegade334 said:

*rolls eyes* Finally.

Now all they have to do is either retrofit the A7 Paladin with a 52-cal tube or perform a major necromancy spell on the XM2001 Crusader and the US Army will actually have a decent SPH that can keep up with its peers.

 

"The M109A7 is in low rate production with mobility improvements that will allow it to keep up with the armoured combat teams, as well as, to allow the next set of improvements focused on the turret and gun. On the later a longer 58 calibre 155mm gun with a 70 km range is the centre piece."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it should be a 52-caliber barrel...but given the number of typos and awkward sentence structures in that article, I think we can chalk it up as a mere mistake.

 

Anyway, if they've made good progress on the new gun, I hope they've done the same with that proposed autoloader...watching artillerymen manually (and sloooooowly) chamber rounds in the Paladin can be painful to watch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that was the case. At anyway rate it's good to see U.S. Artillery is getting some love. The paladin was really starting to get left in the dust. 

 

Another thing that's been on my mind is I wonder if any technology from the M-SHORAD Bradley could end up on the later IFV varients. In particular the 30mm cannon and a universal missile system. Both of these would give it a pretty substantial firepower boost and added flexibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JNT11593 said:

I thought that was the case. At anyway rate it's good to see U.S. Artillery is getting some love. The paladin was really starting to get left in the dust. 

 

Another thing that's been on my mind is I wonder if any technology from the M-SHORAD Bradley could end up on the later IFV varients. In particular the 30mm cannon and a universal missile system. Both of these would give it a pretty substantial firepower boost and added flexibility.

 

Retrofitting the new 30mm chain cannon on the Bradley's turret might be more wallet-friendly than swapping the current manned unit for a Kongsberg MCT-30 with a pre-installed XM813, even though the latter combination would improve the vehicle's survivability. Is there any feedback on whether the AFV crews prefer to have a fully unmanned turret, or a manned one where the crew can go topside to surveil the surroundings?

 

As for the missile part, the Bradley is pretty much stuck with TOW, Javelin and Stinger (and each requires a dedicated launcher, unless they come up with a universal container or common launch rail). Hellfire (the radar version, at least) can't be used without those pMHR radars or some forward designator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

 

Retrofitting the new 30mm chain cannon on the Bradley's turret might be more wallet-friendly than swapping the current manned unit for a Kongsberg MCT-30 with a pre-installed XM813, even though the latter combination would improve the vehicle's survivability. Is there any feedback on whether the AFV crews prefer to have a fully unmanned turret, or a manned one where the crew can go topside to surveil the surroundings?

 

As for the missile part, the Bradley is pretty much stuck with TOW, Javelin and Stinger (and each requires a dedicated launcher, unless they come up with a universal container or common launch rail). Hellfire (the radar version, at least) can't be used without those pMHR radars or some forward designator.

 

If there has been any feedback my googlefu is to weak to find. I haven't even heard about the Bradley testbed with 30 mm on for about a year or more now. Another thing with the MCT-30 is can it even add an ATGM capability? That's a feature I'd imagine the army wouldn't like to lose unless it absolutely had to.

 

17 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Where did the missile supposedly hit, I cannot see an obvious spot in that video.

Possibly demolished like that one in Baiji?

 

Back on the topic of artillery though.

 

h3cnupcl3dtz.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JNT11593 said:

 

If there has been any feedback my googlefu is to weak to find. I haven't even heard about the Bradley testbed with 30 mm on for about a year or more now. Another thing with the MCT-30 is can it even add an ATGM capability? That's a feature I'd imagine the army wouldn't like to lose unless it absolutely had to.

 

About the MCT-30: yeah, it can. The vehicle down below is an Indian Tata Motors Kestrel, topped with a Kongsberg Protector MCT-30 and Spike launchers; it's definitely doable though the arrangement looks a bit haphazard.

 

PROTECTOR_MCT-30R_Kongsberg_on_TATA_Moto

 

As for the MCT-30-equipped Bradley, I guess budget constraints are the reason why we aren't hearing much about it. The Stryker Dragoon upgrade was probably deemed more important and must've cannibalized a lot of the Bradley funding (both development and procurement).

 

EDIT: now I can't decide whether those are Spikes or Javelins, since the launchers and their foam covers look so damn similar to each other, especially seen from that angle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

 

About the MCT-30: yeah, it can. The vehicle down below is an Indian Tata Motors Kestrel, topped with a Kongsberg Protector MCT-30 and Spike launchers; it's definitely doable though the arrangement looks a bit haphazard.

 

PROTECTOR_MCT-30R_Kongsberg_on_TATA_Moto

 

As for the MCT-30-equipped Bradley, I guess budget constraints are the reason why we aren't hearing much about it. The Stryker Dragoon upgrade was probably deemed more important and must've cannibalized a lot of the Bradley funding (both development and procurement).

 

EDIT: now I can't decide whether those are Spikes or Javelins, since the launchers and their foam covers look so damn similar to each other, especially seen from that angle.

The two ATGMs are identical, and considering the RWS does only mount a javelin, it means the MCT-30 in this picture has two Javelins. 

 

Never heard about the MCT-30 using anything else than Javelins. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Beer
      I haven't found an appropriate thread where to put some interesting rare stuff related to WW2 development, be it industrial one or makeshift field modifications. 
       
      Let's start with two things. The first one is a relatively recently found rarity from Swedish archives - a drawing of ČKD/BMM V8H-Sv tank. The drawing and a letter was found by WoT enthusiasts in Swedish archives in 2014 (the original announcement and the drawing source is here). The drawing is from a message dated 8th September 1941. One of the reasons why this drawing was not known before may be that the Czech archives were partially destroyed by floods in 2002. Anyway it is an export modification of the V-8-H tank accepted into Czechoslovak service as ST vz.39 but never produced due to the cancelation of all orders after Münich 1938 (for the same reason negotiations about licence production in Britain failed). Also later attempt to sell the tank to Romania failed due to BMM being fully busy with Wehrmacht priority orders. The negotiations with Sweden about licence production of V8H-Sv lasted till 1942, at least in May 1942 Swedish commission was present in Prague for negotiations. The tank differed compared to the base ST vz.39 in thicker armor with different front hull shape (armor 60 mm @ 30° on the hull front and also 60 mm on the turret; all sides were 40 mm thick). The tank was heavier (20 tons) and had the LT vz.38 style suspension with probably even larger wheels. The engine was still the same Praga NR V8 (240-250 Hp per source). The armament was unchanged with 47 mm Škoda A11 gun and two vz.37 HMG. The commander's cupola was of the simple small rotating type similar to those used on AH-IV-Sv tankettes. It is known that the Swedes officially asked to arm the tank with 75 mm gun, replace the engine with Volvo V12 and adding third HMG to the back of the turret. In the end the Swedes decided to prefer their own Strv/m42. 

      Source of the drawing
       
      The second is makeshift field modification found on Balkans. It appears Ustasha forces (and possibly some SS anti-partizan units) used several Italian M15/42 medium tanks with turrets from Pz.38(t). There are several photos of such hybrids but little more is known. On one photo it is possible to see Ustasha registration number U.O. 139.

      Few more photos of such hybrid.
       
      It appears that the source of all those photos to be found on the internet is this book, Armoured units of the Axis forces in southeastern Europe in WW2 by Dinko Predoevic. 
       
    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By LoooSeR
      T-14 ARMATA 
      (edited)
              This thread is about glorious russian MBT T-14, known as "Armada", "T-95", "black eagle", "T-99" and other stupid Western names given to Object 148 (T-14 in some recent documents). Here is number of images connected to that vehicle.
       

      Official model of unknown "artillery vehicle". Yeah, Putin, we know that this is T-14. Note Gatling gun on turret right side.
       
      Artist impression of T-14 based on known model, by Fyodor Podporin. 
       

      T-14 will use Relikt ERA, which is considerable improvement over Kontakt-5 in resisting to tandem HEAT warheads and EFPs.

       
      Side skirts would be thicker on a real vehicle, i think. Relikt have AFAIK bigger size than Kontakt-5 ERA build-in blocks.

       
       
       
       
       
      Whole album with renders: 
      http://imgur.com/a/8Tn9b
       
      Video of same render from same artist:

       
       
            People expect that tank would have turret weapon system like what you see on the BMP-3 "Bakhcha-U" turret - a lot of weapons in one turret for one gunner to work with. T-14 is rumored to be equipped with 30 (or even 57) mm autocannon, 4-6 barrel gatling type MG/HMG, new 125 (2A82) or even 152 mm (2A83) smoothbore cannons. Turret is unmanned, crew of 3 would be located in frontal part of hull, behind very serious frontal armor inside of compartment, well protected from all directions. Cannon would be loaded by new autoloading device. I hope that Burevestnik is working on them, those guys managed to make 100 mm Naval gun with RoF of 300 shots per minute.
       
            I really like how turret looks, but i don't understand why there is such a big turret "busket" for unmanned turret with all ammo placed inside of hull in special armored housing. Also, i don't see gunner sight and proposed FSC radar on 3D model (i assume that panoramic sight is for commander). Laser sensors on 3D model are from T-90A variant of "Shtora".
       
            Some officials mentioned works on new active protection system, that consist of powerfull radar station, that can work on "long ranges" and engage incoming projectiles (missiles) with that gatling MG. Will this system survive development stage and be presented on serial tanks is unknown. Although turret for T-15 Armata-based IFV already was shown with new APS "Afganit".
       
            If you pay attention you may see that artist used T-80 rollers for Armata chassis, and this is not a mistake - according to some sources Armata heavy chassis will use T-80 or T-80-like rollers to save weight. And looking at rear part of that tank you may notice a engine deck from gas-turbine equipped version of the T-80, which can be mistake becuase MoD want Armata with new ~1500 HP diesel engine. 
    • By CrashbotUS
      I'm doing some research on cold war era Soviet artillery doctrine and was wondering if anyone had any actual Soviet resources. No need for translations, I can read Russian. 
       
      Right now I have the FM 100-2.1 The Soviet Army:Operations and Tactics from my Army days and some NATO books that really only talk about what we knew from "observational reports". 
       
      I also have some Soviet artillery survivabilty manuals and Soviet artillery order of battle data but I'm have some trouble with actual artillery unit manuals and the like. 
       
      Anyone have a good source? 

×
×
  • Create New...