CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Surely a precise 30mm is better than a 120mm. And for a group rushing up a short road, a minigun is more effective than a 7.62 coax.
In what way would a “precise 30mm“ be “better” than an equally, if not more, precise 120mm? Especially when the 120mm comes with interesting flavours of submunition and canister?

A massed infantry rush on a tank is most likely to be met with whatever is in the main armament at the time, for the muzzle blast as much as anything else. As for 4000 rpm vs 600rpm (minigun vs regular MG) I’m not sure that the Gatling will be substantially more effective since your ability to sweep the weapon around (necessitating a higher rate of fire) is limited by the traverse rate of the turret.

I do think that a Gatling in rifle calibre like the minigun could be useful as a coaxial or RWS mounted weapon, but it’s more along the lines of running at a reduced rate to reduce the need for barrel changes or possibly high rates in very short bursts at fleeting targets or those at long range.

As @Gassing_Badgers suggests the advantages of a specialist vehicle is likely outweighed by the cost of those specialisations outside its optimised environment. The best you are likely to get is modifications to the universal chassis.
 
Based on the Merkava chassis, not converted gun tanks.
Must have got confused with the other tank conversions to APC.

You sure about that? Are you not mixing it up with the M4?


Tankers and top covers were issued them around 2007/8 in Iraq's urban areas. The weapon was on top of personal and vehicle mounted weapons, although this chap doesn't seen to have either of those to hand.

 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Must have got confused with the other tank conversions to APC.
Oh, any amount of those - Centurions, captured T-Series...
Tankers and top covers were issued them around 2007/8 in Iraq's urban areas.
Happy to stand corrected - never knew that, thanks.

It's interesting that when the M2 Bradley went into service (the M3 always had the ports blanked over), lots of people complained that Warrior should have had firing ports, too. And yet those on the M2 were done away with pretty damn quickly.
 
Oh, any amount of those - Centurions, captured T-Series...

Happy to stand corrected - never knew that, thanks.

It's interesting that when the M2 Bradley went into service (the M3 always had the ports blanked over), lots of people complained that Warrior should have had firing ports, too. And yet those on the M2 were done away with pretty damn quickly.
M3 only carried two blokes in the dismount area. I'm pretty sure I've seen early pics and drawings with the M3 carrying them but it wasn't really their task to get into fights.

didn't uparmouring the Bradley's cover up the ports?

same would have happened to warrior in Bosnia,if they had them fitted.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
M3 only carried two blokes in the dismount area. I'm pretty sure I've seen early pics and drawings with the M3 carrying them but it wasn't really their task to get into fights.

didn't uparmouring the Bradley's cover up the ports?

same would have happened to warrior in Bosnia,if they had them fitted.
No, the firing ports were always covered on the M3. The ball mounts were there but had no holes for the weapons to poke through - just blank plates. It was a recognition feature.

Yes, uparmouring covered the ports.

From memory, ports were an option on the export Warrior.
 
No, the firing ports were always covered on the M3. The ball mounts were there but had no holes for the weapons to poke through - just blank plates. It was a recognition feature.

Yes, uparmouring covered the ports.

From memory, ports were an option on the export Warrior.
Do you remember Richard North whinging like f#ck that the Brits had messed up the Mastiff by covering up the windows and firing ports with actual armour when converting baseline Cougars?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A massed infantry rush on a tank is most likely to be met with whatever is in the main armament at the time, for the muzzle blast as much as anything else. As for 4000 rpm vs 600rpm (minigun vs regular MG) I’m not sure that the Gatling will be substantially more effective since your ability to sweep the weapon around (necessitating a higher rate of fire) is limited by the traverse rate of the turret.

I do think that a Gatling in rifle calibre like the minigun could be useful as a coaxial or RWS mounted weapon, but it’s more along the lines of running at a reduced rate to reduce the need for barrel changes or possibly high rates in very short bursts at fleeting targets or those at long range.
I think a MK44/M134 Minigun would be a terrible idea for a front line land weapon. The weight of the ammunition would be horrendous, 3000 rounds weighs something like 75 Kilos and would have to be loaded in such a way that the rounds don't get scratched or covered in dust.

It is also not squaddie proof in the slightest. Dismantling it is best done in a workshop (preferably by an armorer) with a nice clean bench not on a poncho on the ground, it requires a load of tools, a stand for the bench and lubricating it involves a lot more than just chucking a squirt of OX24 into the working parts. When you get a stoppage (which will happen because of all the dust flying about and people not putting it together correctly) chances are it will get a cluster jam and be US until it gets a complete overhaul and replace loads of parts.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The aim [sic] of a Minigun is a very high rate of fire to guarantee a hit - one pass from a helicopter at speed to catch that VC or NVA out in the open, for instance (one of the Vietnam-era demonstration films was a Huey making a pass over a football field and nailing a rabbit first time, every time). It’s not necessarily about a high rate of fire per se. Same with the Vickers K used by the original SAS on their jeeps. It was an aircraft gun with a very high rate of fire. It needed to put lots of rounds into a small area to guarantee killing another aircraft.

3,000 rds/min sounds great but if all you’re doing is hitting a tight little area with all those rounds you’re not achieving much. Mass infantry attacks? You want a beaten zone - the opposite of the aircraft requirement. You’re going to have swing that Minigun around pretty wildly. Or, use a slower rate of fire. A GPMG*, for instance. Penetration? Probably better off with a .50cal.



*Remember that one of the chief criticisms of the MG42 was its rate of fire. It chewed through the rounds too quickly. The GPMG is probably about right. Hence why it’s still so successful.
 
It'd be interesting to see if there were links between the BMP-T terminator and the use of ZSU 23-4 in Afghanistan by the Russians.

IIRC once they realised the utility of the platform they produced a special variant sans AD radar but with improved optical sights, which are usually a back up for the radar.
 
The aim [sic] of a Minigun is a very high rate of fire to guarantee a hit - one pass from a helicopter at speed to catch that VC or NVA out in the open, for instance (one of the Vietnam-era demonstration films was a Huey making a pass over a football field and nailing a rabbit first time, every time). It’s not necessarily about a high rate of fire per se. Same with the Vickers K used by the original SAS on their jeeps. It was an aircraft gun with a very high rate of fire. It needed to put lots of rounds into a small area to guarantee killing another aircraft.

3,000 rds/min sounds great but if all you’re doing is hitting a tight little area with all those rounds you’re not achieving much. Mass infantry attacks? You want a beaten zone - the opposite of the aircraft requirement. You’re going to have swing that Minigun around pretty wildly. Or, use a slower rate of fire. A GPMG, for instance. Penetration? Probably better off with a .50cal.
The ‘human wave’ requirement is a bit of a niche one, which is probably why most nations consider that a combination of main armament and coax - with RWS if needed - is more than enough to deal with infantry targets.

The US developed and maintained their 120mm canister round almost exclusively for the Korean theatre (and a nod to their experience in Vietnam), however it’s now being replaced by a multi-purpose fused HE round, which can create a nice little (or big) airburst effect...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The ‘human wave’ requirement is a bit of a niche one, which is probably why most nations consider that a combination of main armament and coax - with RWS if needed - is more than enough to deal with infantry targets.

The US developed and maintained their 120mm canister round almost exclusively for the Korean theatre (and a nod to their experience in Vietnam), however it’s now being replaced by a multi-purpose fused HE round, which can create a nice little (or big) airburst effect...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And was last seen when? In our case, Korea. The Hussars were used canister rounds to ‘clean‘ Communist troops off each other’s tanks. (‘Clean’ taking on a different meaning afterwards.)

Exactly. Gun and coax for real life, with Miniguns for video games and press releases.

Right, that’s that dealt with. Next? :-D
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
It'd be interesting to see if there were links between the BMP-T terminator and the use of ZSU 23-4 in Afghanistan by the Russians.

IIRC once they realised the utility of the platform they produced a special variant sans AD radar but with improved optical sights, which are usually a back up for the radar.
The Israelis were using the M163 Vulcan in the ground role when they went into Beirut in 1982. They were caught on TV and got a bollocking off the Yanks - it was supposed to be used in the AD role only.

The M163 has generally been used more in the ground role, ironically.
 
I think a MK44/M134 Minigun would be a terrible idea for a front line land weapon. The weight of the ammunition would be horrendous, 3000 rounds weighs something like 75 Kilos and would have to be loaded in such a way that the rounds don't get scratched or covered in dust.
Well, I should have expected that people wouldn’t read what’s written and veer off to disprove what I didn’t say.
 
The view from our gunner friends is that it’s ok for static targets in a deliberately-planned strike - not so great in a fast-moving battle against moving targets


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Im sure i saw Exactor in FOB Edinburgh doing overwatch duties.
 

Latest Threads

Top