Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.

[HobbesHurlbut]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22822532/russian-tank-flips-over-kursk/

 :o

Ruger

oh it flip over on its side when moving up on the trailer.

[VhenRa]

I was told years ago when I was a Specialist that the M60 with it extra height over the M1 actually had a better thermal and ballistic computer (more room for it), and with this it was considered probably one of the best tanks in the world for defensive engagements. When you are fighting from prepared positions armor is less of much of a concern (note did not say none, just less) so if the fire control is upgraded along with the weapon and such it could make a very effective tank to be used against those who only have light armor or in the defense.

That might have been true originally, but I doubt it today, given how the M1 has received upgrades over the years.

[CDAT]

That might have been true originally, but I doubt it today, given how the M1 has received upgrades over the years.

True the M1 of today is probably better than the M60 of yesterday, but this was partly in regards to the updating of the M60, with that much room how much could they upgrade its systems?

[ColBosch]

I can tell you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the M1A2 SEP-v3 TUSK-II (boy, there's a mouthful) is quite a bit better than any M60. ;) Supposedly the v4 update, scheduled for Any Day Now, will even further improve the platform. Given that I trained on a "standard" M1A2, and was able to achieve one-shot-hits while moving the first time I sat in the gunner's seat, I'd say the computer even a decade ago was pretty damn good.

[ANS Kamas P81]

able to achieve one-shot-hits while moving the first time I sat in the gunner's seat, I'd say the computer even a decade ago was pretty damn good.

aimbot hax plz ban

[Matti]

aimbot hax plz ban

I can imagine Iraq tankers saying something like that ;D

[ColBosch]

I can imagine Iraq tankers saying something like that ;D

Not for long, they didn't.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Considering the spot-first-shoot-first-kill-first capability of the Abrams, I think any variably-emphatic translation of "what just happened?" was their version.

So Bosch, are ALL the Strykers getting the 30mm RWS or just a few?  Articles I come across keep suggesting it's planned to be an upgrade to the whole force, not just the Germany-based units.



That's a big notaturret.  Does it slide backwards on rails and tuck itself on the back of the vehicle so it can be airtransported, or are they still working on that...

[ColBosch]

So Bosch, are ALL the Strykers getting the 30mm RWS or just a few?

Hell if I know. They SHOULD, but...well...no idea.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Slightly frighteningly, I come across the mention that the Kongsberg gun will run 30x173 (yay!) possibly for ammo commonality between the A-10's supply, but...it takes "less than" ten minutes to reload a 75 round magazine?  That's mildly frightening; is that just because the RWS has noone in it or what?

[ColBosch]

That is very interesting. If it is the same 30x173mm, that's actually a credible armor killer in its own right. As for "under ten minutes," I bet it needs to be single-loaded. 30x173mm is BIG (nearly 2 lbs. a round), and a detachable magazine for it would not only be huge and unwieldy, it'd also weigh enough to be a hazard to the crew. Besides, I sincerely doubt a Stryker can survive combat long enough to dump all 75 of those rounds; if it does, the situation is hot enough that it should be advancing to the rear.

[ColBosch]

...actually, here's the data sheet for the 30x173mm. Enjoy, and it confirms that the ammo is interchangeable between the Mk. 44 and GAU/8.

https://www.gd-ots.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/30x173mm-Ammunition-Suite-MK44-Cannon-Version-3.pdf

[ColBosch]

...and the Mk. 44 is the Bushmaster II. The entire turret system is the Kongsberg Protector.

That's it for now. :D

[Kidd]

Considering the spot-first-shoot-first-kill-first capability of the
So Bosch, are ALL the Strykers getting the 30mm RWS or just a few?

Just a few. The Stryker 30mm is about as strategically mobile as an M1 Abrams, and remember the original concept is supposed to replace the Humvee and deuce-half as a battle taxi.

[marauder648]

Silly question.

Why don't they put the GAU-8 on a tank or AFV?  Put it in a suitably high elevation mounting to allow it to engage targets shooting down on you and you'd have an absolutely terrifying COIN vehicle.

[Kidd]

 terrifying COIN vehicle.

What is collateral damage? Yes terrifying indeed, but in the wrong way I think.

Besides, the need isn't there for an AFV to spit out a huge volley of shells within a split-second targeting window, which is what a CAS jet dropping out of the clouds needs to do.

[marauder648]

The Soviets used a simple variant of the ZSU-23/4 in Afghanistan where they just pulled the radar off it and used optical sights to engage targets that were often firing down on convoys.  Its the same kind of situation that forces find themselves in today.

This is an AU thing but still

Magach 5 Avenger

Following the Yom Kippur War the IDF’s holdings of M48s and M60s were dramatically reduced (500 and something down to 200 and something). OTL the US resupplied with M48A5s and more M60s. In this TL, however, some of the M60s supplied were M60A2s. Whilst the IDF had no intention of fielding the M60A2's gun/missile system they were desperate for AFVs. The A2 turrets were removed and replaced with either salvaged M60 105mm gun turrets or the new twin 120mm breach loading mortar turret (another story/project). Having suffered such great losses of its MBT force to Egyptian AT missile teams, the IDF were keen to come up with/prove the concept of a tank escort support vehicle. A deal was struck with the US for the IDF to acquire a limited number of GAU-8s to be retrofitted into the discarded M60A2 narrow profile turrets. With the barrel group sticking out front, the length and width of the turret was about right - although some modification was required to accommodate the large ammunition drums. The turrets, which were entirely unmanned, were then fitted onto older M48 hulls (same sized turret ring) with the 3-man crew (Commander, Gunner and Driver) being positioned within the hull. The end result was not, and was never intended to be, a MBT. The Magach 5 Avenger proved to be highly capable in its escort/urban role and, although never produced in large numbers, proved to be extremely popular with both AFV crews and infantry alike.


Factual detail:
- The A-10 routinely carries 1150 rounds of 30mm ammunition for its GAU-8 Avenger cannon. The GAU-8 was designed to have 2 rates of fire - slow 2100rpm and fast 4200rpm. In operation the gun now has a fixed rate of fire of 3900rpm. However, I would suggest that in a ground vehicle mount the slower rate of fire would more than suffice. Thus at 2100rpm you fire 35 rounds every second. This gives you approximately 32 x 1-second bursts from 1150 rounds.
- This compares favourably to a modern SPAAG such as the Gepard, which carries only 320 rounds per gun but also only fires each gun at a cyclic rate of 550rpm. In other words, 9 rounds per gun per second for a total of approximately 36 x 1-second bursts.
- In order to prevent possible ingestion of spent cases into its engines, the A-10 keeps hold of its fired empty cases in the rear drum immediately behind the ammunition feed drum (All of this is part of the overall 5.93m length of the gun system).
- There is no ingestion problem on a ground vehicle and so no need to retain the spent 30mm cases, thus the second drum could be used to hold more ammunition, effectively doubling its capacity to 2300 rounds. This would give approximately 64 x 1-second bursts from one complete ammunition load. The bonus, of course, is that each 1-second burst fires 35 rounds down range as opposed to the Gepard which fires 18 rounds per second from its 2 barrels.
- The GAU-8 operates a linkless round system with the rounds effectively pushed along the feed rails by the ammunition drum, which is designed like a giant corkscrew. Whilst this storage and feed system could be replaced with something less linear there is, I believe, scope for some sort of gun elevation system, which would only move the front part of the gun without adversely affecting the flexible feeds. In the A-10 mount this mid section appears to be taken up with what I assume are hydraulic and/or electric motors to spin the barrel group and power the ammunition drums. Without the limitation of aircraft space and weight constraints, I am sure that the above mentioned elevation system could be worked out.
- The empty cases are ejected from a armoured port on the right-hand side of the turret. The process of reloading the ammunition drums is facilitated through an access panel on the rear of the turret which allows a reload feed belt to be attached.

The model, which represents the 2nd Vehicle, 2nd Platoon of the 2nd Magach 5 Avenger Company, is made from parts of a Tamiya M48 Sgt York, a Tamiya M60A2 and a fair bit of scratch build/bits from the spares box.

Sauce - WI/PC. GAU-8 Armed "Firefly" tanks in co-op with M1 Abrams.

[kato]

Why don't they put the GAU-8 on a tank or AFV?

This is why:



You also don't need the 3900 rpm ROF. At all.
A MK-30-2/ABM on a Puma for example fires the same ammunition at 700 rpm, includes air-burst capability and is elevatable to 45°.

[Kidd]

The Soviets used a simple variant of the ZSU-23/4 in Afghanistan where they just pulled the radar off it and used optical sights to engage targets that were often firing down on convoys.  Its the same kind of situation that forces find themselves in today.

The infamous Afghanskii. One of the most effective vehicles in Grozny, also became an RPG magnet as a result. Grandaddy of the BMPT "Terminator".

Again, collateral damage. Some people don't care as much for precision targeting... "And that's all Ah've got to say bout dat."

Also as Kato points out, size. AFVs can just about carry a 30mm, ammo and room for other important stuff. Six barrels AND a useful ammo load? That's steep...

P.s. see the difference between the 25mm Bush vs the 30mm GAU shells below (the two tallest rounds)

[kato]

AFVs can just about carry a 30mm, ammo and room for other important stuff. Six barrels AND a useful ammo load? That's steep...

General Electric did enter a severely cutdown GAU-8 in a specialized turret alongside the radar from the Chaparral for the 1970s DIVAD air-defense system, competing against Sperry Rand with a 35mm gatling (rebarreled from 37mm) and 15-year-old radar/fire control design, Raytheon with an adapted straight-up Gepard turret with twin 35mm, General Dynamics with the same guns as Gepard in a new turret with fire control and sensors copied over from Phalanx and Ford with a twin 40mm design and a AN/APG-66 radar adapted from the F-16. Chassis in all cases was a M48A5.

General Electric never made it past the initial selection; Ford won but later the contract was cancelled for various reasons mostly involving complete failure of the radar system.

The "Magach 5 Avenger" AU tank in the post above is a straight-up modelling of the General Electric DIVAD entry, though with the slight modification of kitbashing a heavily modified Starship turret in there instead of the original turret that was quite a bit less slim.

[marauder648]

Ahh yes that boondoggle that lead to the Sgt York :s

[Matti]

Ahh yes that boondoggle that lead to the Sgt York :s

I understand Sgt York wasn't as successful as Shilka? What went wrong?

[ColBosch]

I understand Sgt York wasn't as successful as Shilka? What went wrong?

Everything.

[marauder648]

I understand Sgt York wasn't as successful as Shilka? What went wrong?

Apparently it was one of the big US defence boondoggles of the past few decades.  To quote Wikipedia

The RAM-D (reliability, availability, maintainability and durability) tests ran from November 1981 to February 1982, demonstrating a wide range of operation concerns.[16] The turret proved to have too slow a traverse to track fast moving targets, and had serious problems operating in cold weather, including numerous hydraulic leaks. The simple electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) suite could be defeated by only minor jamming. The used guns taken from U.S. Army stock were in twisted condition due to careless warehousing. Perhaps the most surprising problem was that the 30-year-old M48 chassis with the new 20-ton turret meant the vehicle had trouble keeping pace with the newer M1 and M2, the vehicles it was meant to protect.

And it went worse from there, it suffered from horrific budget bloat and when called up to do a kind of 'do or die' test it couldn't hit hovering targets or ones going in straight lines and was basically about as much use as tits on a fish.  Throw in some hefty fraud and faking of stats and reports and you end out with a maelstrom of rubbish, a vehicle that couldn't do its role and was basically useless.

More data - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York

As the good ColBosch very rightly said in answer to your question of 'what went wrong', everything is the very right answer.

[Kidd]

General Electric did enter a severely cutdown GAU-8 in a specialized turret alongside the radar from the Chaparral for the 1970s DIVAD air-defense system

How much ammo did it carry? Okay, I can see why it might be considered for the AA role.

Ahh yes that boondoggle that lead to the Sgt York :s

Is that the one which locked on a building's ventilator fan instead of the helicopter target drone, and nearly hosed down the observation stands?

[RunandFindOut]

Like they said, it's a replacement prototype for the M-42 Duster, and probably the last major gun-based AA system.  Everything gunwise since has been pretty close range, operating under an umbrella of missile fire instead of being the primary defense system.  Not to knock things like the M163 VADS but it's a low-and-slow killer, rather than a general all-purpose AA unit.

As for the T249, well, let's just say that the M247 Sergeant York beat it.  And you know what a wonderful platform THAT was.  Still, there's something that brings a tear to the eye when you say "37x219mm at 3000rpm" but maybe that's just me.

Sleep well, little BRRRRRRRRT.  Sleep well.

The T249 actually showed that it worked, that it could kind of hit what it was aiming at.  It didn't loose to the M247 because it was worse than the Sgt. York.  It lost to the 247 because the recoil and vibration from the main gun were so intense they damaged the machine.  The Sgt. York got the nod because they figured that while it was a dumpster fire that the problems with the York were primarily in the electronics and could with effort be fixed.  Whereas the Vigilante actually had working fire control, but every time it fired the main gun it vibrated itself to death and damaged itself.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Is that the one which locked on a building's ventilator fan instead of the helicopter target drone, and nearly hosed down the observation stands?

The observation stands were, it should be pointed out, packed with top level military folks for both the US and England and congresscritters that damn near got reaped by the two Bofors.  Ever see the original Robocop?  It was almost a Poor Mr. Kinney moment...  Why did it happen?  Ford said it was because the vehicle had been 'washed' and that fouled the electronics. 

Really, though, the thing was just unreliable as hell, and whoever came up with it started with the stupid idea of using an M48 chassis and a twenty ton turret, when it was supposed to (somehow) keep up with Abrams tanks.  And it was intended to use WWII-era antiaircraft weapons against modern strike jets like Su-25 or the supersonic MiG-27 or Su-24.  I'll grant those weapons would have been glorious against the Soviet helicopters at the time and would likely have eaten the Hind alive, but...jets?  FAST jets?  Hah.  Frankly it was doomed from the start.

Oh and apparently the fan thing was a separate incident, and was a latrine fan to boot.  (almost as if **** knows where it belongs)  The one that tried to go FEED ME CONGRESSPEOPLE just decided to do that on its own, when it was first turned on.

[ColBosch]

It didn't loose to the M247 because it was worse than the Sgt. York.

Um...

...it could kind of hit what it was aiming at...the recoil and vibration from the main gun were so intense they damaged the machine...every time it fired the main gun it vibrated itself to death...

Sounds worse to me. :D

[kato]

Sounds worse to me. :D

Nah, the Sgt. York is famous for a public fire display in which it first put its full salvo into the ground. Ahead of it. While tracking targets in the air.

As well as the engineers screwing additional radar reflectors onto target drones so it could see them at all...

[marauder648]

I dunno if you guys have seen the now somewhat obscure movie 'Pentagon Wars' its about the development of the Bradley IFV

Although done with extra satire, this is pretty accurate as to how the Bradley started off and then development bloat settled in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

The films rather amusing, a wonderful display of military beauracracy, although its not quite the documentary that Down Perescope was.

And i'm sure that some of the stuff that went wrong with the Sgt York is featured here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iur-noEd4eA