CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

A thought on this whole RWS/secondary weapon thing.

It seems with bolting an RWS, AMS, sights, commanders viewer, .50cal, 7.62mm and stove pipe on the top of the turret we're getting to the point where we can't see the wood for the trees so to speak. Or at least see the top of the tank for add ons. It'll also have a radar signature roughly akin to my waist line. Equally these will all

(and its beginning to sound about as impractical as the A.19 tank, or the 1938 class medium tank!)

It occurs that we have several problems all requiring the same solution. What if we were to combine these items into single mount?

The APS fire 40mm sized fragmentation grenades to disrupt incoming missiles.
A programmable 40mm grenade could be quite hand in close in terrain to dealing with enemies out of sight or in buildings.
The mount for this could easily mount the Commanders sight as well.
In addition as such a mount would need to be fed by a belt or magazine, it would provide protection against any future developments in drone technology, such as the drone swarm concept.

All of these could be met by a one or two low velocity 40-50mm grenade lobbers.
The APS question has already been dealt with so I will leave that aside other than to say that I expect APS systems to undergo considerable evolution in coming years and it would probably be short sighted to tie them down to integrating too closely with other things having multiple functions.

As for the commander's sight, if that has to be able to be used to aim the main gun then I don't think you want to mount it on the RWS as maintaining accurate alignment would be difficult. You have too many components whose tolerances and motions stack up.

The top of the RWS however may be a good place to mount observation and warning sensors on a short mast.

So far as a near term CR2 is concerned, anything being considered for that needs to be more or less off the shelf right now.
 
Can you elaborate? As it seems that something that can produce enough concussion and fragments to knock a missile out would have a decent effect on a human?
Two key points:

1) Iron Fist is designed to achieve its effect through blast alone - on the basis that you don’t necessarily want an automatically-deployed system showering your dismounts with fragments.

2) In order to project a sufficiently large payload out to the range of an enemy UAS or troops, you’re going to need a sodding great cartridge - quickly your grenade launcher begins to look like a 40-60mm cannon, with a correspondingly huge magazine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Two key points:

1) Iron Fist is designed to achieve its effect through blast alone - on the basis that you don’t necessarily want an automatically-deployed system showering your dismounts with fragments.
Good point, but a blast offensive grenade you can place where you want is just as useful, if not more so, because the lethal radius is lessened as you point out.

2) In order to project a sufficiently large payload out to the range of an enemy UAS or troops, you’re going to need a sodding great cartridge - quickly your grenade launcher begins to look like a 40-60mm cannon, with a correspondingly huge magazine.
I'm not talking about long range, and the required weight penalty. If you're shooting at range, then you can get your turret round and use either of the two weapons usually installed. This is more a close in protection idea, where you can't lay your main weapons onto it.
Bloke hiding on the upper floors of a building as you're tank trundles down the road, being able to lob something that goes bang in through the window is likely to be useful.

An APS has a range of, what 25 meters (one of the Soviet ones fires out to that range)? Being able to make something go bang on demand within 25m of your tank sounds like a bloody nice ability, especially in urban combat.

Equally being able to intercept an incoming projectile at longer ranges adds to protection of your local forces as you don't need to worry about a friendly being caught in the bang. As usual its a series of trade off's between which capability and physical constraints, but it doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem.


Edit:
Further reading, thinking and conversation begins to show the problem off. As an APS is goign to create an explosion anywhere without warning within range then the blast really does have to be very very small.
 
Last edited:
Good point, but a blast offensive grenade you can place where you want is just as useful, if not more so, because the lethal radius is lessened as you point out.



I'm not talking about long range, and the required weight penalty. If you're shooting at range, then you can get your turret round and use either of the two weapons usually installed. This is more a close in protection idea, where you can't lay your main weapons onto it.
Bloke hiding on the upper floors of a building as you're tank trundles down the road, being able to lob something that goes bang in through the window is likely to be useful.

An APS has a range of, what 25 meters (one of the Soviet ones fires out to that range)? Being able to make something go bang on demand within 25m of your tank sounds like a bloody nice ability, especially in urban combat.

Equally being able to intercept an incoming projectile at longer ranges adds to protection of your local forces as you don't need to worry about a friendly being caught in the bang. As usual its a series of trade off's between which capability and physical constraints, but it doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem.


Edit:
Further reading, thinking and conversation begins to show the problem off. As an APS is goign to create an explosion anywhere without warning within range then the blast really does have to be very very small.

You’re going to need a manual override and the sights to lay on your APS in anti personnel mode (its now not going to be stopping that RPG round that might be coming out this window) so you can fire through this window.

Or plan B...

Stitch the upstairs with a burst of .50 from the RWS avd Leave the APS to kill things incoming that can kill the tank.
 
You’re going to need a manual override and the sights to lay on your APS in anti personnel mode (its now not going to be stopping that RPG round that might be coming out this window) so you can fire through this window.

Or plan B...

Stitch the upstairs with a burst of .50 from the RWS avd Leave the APS to kill things incoming that can kill the tank.
Shut up.
 
Good point, but a blast offensive grenade you can place where you want is just as useful, if not more so, because the lethal radius is lessened as you point out.



I'm not talking about long range, and the required weight penalty. If you're shooting at range, then you can get your turret round and use either of the two weapons usually installed. This is more a close in protection idea, where you can't lay your main weapons onto it.
Bloke hiding on the upper floors of a building as you're tank trundles down the road, being able to lob something that goes bang in through the window is likely to be useful.

An APS has a range of, what 25 meters (one of the Soviet ones fires out to that range)? Being able to make something go bang on demand within 25m of your tank sounds like a bloody nice ability, especially in urban combat.

Equally being able to intercept an incoming projectile at longer ranges adds to protection of your local forces as you don't need to worry about a friendly being caught in the bang. As usual its a series of trade off's between which capability and physical constraints, but it doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem.


Edit:
Further reading, thinking and conversation begins to show the problem off. As an APS is goign to create an explosion anywhere without warning within range then the blast really does have to be very very small.
Have you seen the size of APS grenades? They’re big because of the effect they need to achieve - but pure blast dissipates quite quickly, so much safer than frag.
Realistically, you’re looking at 2-6 grenades on a launcher max - much like MBSGDs - with no easy means of engineering a magazine reload (Trophy does, but that’s an entirely different concept), so if you use it to pop off a sniper, then that’s one less APS round. Assuming you got the sniper with a single round kill.

Furthermore, the slew rate and accuracy of an APS launcher is going to be massively penalised by integrating it as part of a much larger CPS/RWS system.

Sure, it can probably be done, but at what cost and wider system penalty? And all for a niche capability that provides nothing beyond 100m compared to an RWS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
He loves it, craves the attention his ill informed posts generate.

He has on occasion stated that, the USA have offered the following;

MV22
M1A2
F15c
all free of charge, with no links, evidence to support.
 
He loves it, craves the attention his ill informed posts generate.

He has on occasion stated that, the USA have offered the following;

MV22
M1A2
F15c
all free of charge, with no links, evidence to support.
In all seriousness. How hard would it be to swap the gas turbine in the Abrams for a Diesel? The Yanks must have an abundance of them lying in the desert soaking up the sun.
 
He loves it, craves the attention his ill informed posts generate.

He has on occasion stated that, the USA have offered the following;

MV22
M1A2
F15c
all free of charge, with no links, evidence to support.
I’m torn between thinking he’s a troll, a moron, or an agent provocateur trying to irritate people enough to let slip something that they shouldn’t.
 
@California_Tanker I believe you served on Abrams, could you please tell me what this little bit on the gun mantlet is for? I've always wondered, thanks.
Way back in the day, up to maybe the late 1990s, it was used as a mounting point for a .50 sub caliber training device for gunnery tables before you advanced to the big bullets. It was replaced by the current inbore device some two decades ago. It could also be used for a Hoffman gunfire simulator, though it was often mounted on the barrel instead. In recent years, it has been the mount for the .50 CSAMM external coax system, but, again, that is made redundant with the RWS and the like. It has hung around as much due to institutional inertia as any else. A bit like the CITV mount on the M1A1.
 
I’m torn between thinking he’s a troll, a moron, or an agent provocateur trying to irritate people enough to let slip something that they shouldn’t.
He is a belt fed throbber who makes tea in the main building.
 
WWII - the primary, as in 95% of the time role of tanks was supporting infantry. It’s been the same ever since.
Both the British and Americans fielded specialised ‘tank destroyers’ with single purpose high velocity guns in WWII, and what did they end up doing 99% of the time? Supporting infantry as mobile artillery.
Most tanks in WWII never got to fire a single AT round except on a range, but often shot out their barrels firing HE.
The British fielded TDs such as ARCHER because they wished to field as many 17pdr as possible, as quickly as possible, the US because they believed that the Germans would still mount massed tank attacks that would need 'ambush' TDs to halt them, the Russians because they were simple, effective and quick to produce. The Germans built them for the same reasons as the Russians and through expediency due to a defensive war being forced upon them by the Allies from 1942/43 onwards.

Please also point me in the direction of the source of the 'facts' about 'most tanks in WW2 never fired an AT round except on the range'.

Apart from the fact that your post is total bollocks, the rest of it is fine.
 
The British fielded TDs such as ARCHER because they wished to field as many 17pdr as possible, as quickly as possible, the US because they believed that the Germans would still mount massed tank attacks that would need 'ambush' TDs to halt them, the Russians because they were simple, effective and quick to produce. The Germans built them for the same reasons as the Russians and through expediency due to a defensive war being forced upon them by the Allies from 1942/43 onwards.

Please also point me in the direction of the source of the 'facts' about 'most tanks in WW2 never fired an AT round except on the range'.

Apart from the fact that your post is total bollocks, the rest of it is fine.
Its still a bit vague - were you in agreement with Soi/Meerkatz /Son of / Photex or not
 
Please also point me in the direction of the source of the 'facts' about 'most tanks in WW2 never fired an AT round except on the range'.
I spoke to a large number of old and bold who served in [mostly] Shermans in WW2 in both N Africa and NW Europe. From what they told me it was certainly the case that the majority of their effort was HE in support of infantry, but those infantry didn't have access to Warrior or anything similar. Today I would expect a large part of this fire to be achieved by the AIFVs while the MBT dealt with armoured targets, if only because a modern MBT holds barely 60% of the number of rounds of it's WW2 equivalent so prophylactic HE fire is going to be correspondingly difficult to sustain.
 
The British fielded TDs such as ARCHER because they wished to field as many 17pdr as possible, as quickly as possible, the US because they believed that the Germans would still mount massed tank attacks that would need 'ambush' TDs to halt them, the Russians because they were simple, effective and quick to produce. The Germans built them for the same reasons as the Russians and through expediency due to a defensive war being forced upon them by the Allies from 1942/43 onwards.

Please also point me in the direction of the source of the 'facts' about 'most tanks in WW2 never fired an AT round except on the range'.

Apart from the fact that your post is total bollocks, the rest of it is fine.
Facts? Some chance.

I'm still waiting to hear the 'facts' behind the apparent WW2 use of VT fuzes on armour-defeating rounds. Yes, those fuzes that detonate when you miss the target...
 

Latest Threads

Top