Jump to content

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


Tied
 Share

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.  

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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,

Link to comment
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)

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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/

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...