Register Register

Author Topic: Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.  (Read 50983 times)

CDAT

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 244
Well, the problem is if your magazine capacity is so small you can't afforf to shoot the APC because there might be MBTs around...

40 rounds doesn't sound that bad, but some of the proposals with 140+ mm guns and 20-30 rounds might really have needed a backup.

40 may not sound bad, tell you stop to realize that is only 17 in the ready rack, 17 in the semi-ready, and 6 in hull storage. Only the 17 in the ready rack was really ready to be used in combat after running out of them the rest are used to refill the ready rack in breaks of combat.

Re: arming tanks with smaller caliber automatic cannons.

Keep in mind that at least in the US your M1s are going to be operating alongside M2s/M3s that have that 25mm cannon. So in a defensive orientation, you'll have the Brads to hose down the IFVs/APCs while the M1s dedicate to killing tanks. So arming them with a 25mm coaxial just means another weapon system to support, possibly reducing the number of main rounds you carry, & creating a situation where the 25mm is overpowered for anti-infantry/suppressive roles. Let the Brads handle the light armor.

Damon.
There is some truth (and my guess why they did not go with it) to what you say, however at least when I was in during full scale combat a Armor Battalion was to become a Armor Task Force by combining it with Infantry. A and C Team's would be tank heavy, with B team being infantry heavy, D Company would remain tank pure to be the unit hammer. So you would not always have the brads around in defensive or offensive operations, and as for just another weapon system, it was the same as the Bradley gun for that reason.

Um. No no no.

*THIS* Chain gun; 7.62N Neat weapon; forward ejecting in some versions.

https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/u-s-a-machineguns/ex-34-chain-gun-eng/

I have never heard of this gun before in any connection to the M1, everything I have ever seen/heard/read whatever has been they went from the 25mm to the M240 but who knows what planes were talked about before the first prototypes were built.

Garrand

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 271
  • "Nicht kleckern, klotzen!"
There is some truth (and my guess why they did not go with it) to what you say, however at least when I was in during full scale combat a Armor Battalion was to become a Armor Task Force by combining it with Infantry. A and C Team's would be tank heavy, with B team being infantry heavy, D Company would remain tank pure to be the unit hammer. So you would not always have the brads around in defensive or offensive operations, and as for just another weapon system, it was the same as the Bradley gun for that reason.

Sure, but that hammer force is still going to be able to kill IFVs with HEAT rounds, saving the Sabots for actual tanks, etc. So while using the main gun to engage IFVs is not ideal, it's still good enough, such that having to support a fourth weapon system on-board the tank still doesn't make sense.

Damon.
Book Blog: bookslikedust.blogspot.com
Minis Blog: minislikedust.blogspot.com

Fat Guy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2376
  • I make beer disappear. What's your superpower?
The chain gun was dropped from consideration for the M1 after Israel's bad experience on the receiving end of the AT-3 Sagger.


Since the BMP-1 mounted the Sagger, it was decided that M1's would be engaging it at the greatest range possible with main gun rounds, totally defeating the purpose of mounting the chain gun in the first place.
"That's too much bacon."  - Said no one EVER!


CDAT

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 244
Sure, but that hammer force is still going to be able to kill IFVs with HEAT rounds, saving the Sabots for actual tanks, etc. So while using the main gun to engage IFVs is not ideal, it's still good enough, such that having to support a fourth weapon system on-board the tank still doesn't make sense.

Damon.

True, but with only 17 rounds ready (this is a mix of Sabot, and HEAT) every one used on a MICV is not able to be used on a tank. And you already had four weapons mounted on the tank, yes two of them are the same most of the time, sometimes it does have four weapon systems. Now only two of those are built in to the tank, the other two are pintal mounted at least at the time we are talking about.

The chain gun was dropped from consideration for the M1 after Israel's bad experience on the receiving end of the AT-3 Sagger.


Since the BMP-1 mounted the Sagger, it was decided that M1's would be engaging it at the greatest range possible with main gun rounds, totally defeating the purpose of mounting the chain gun in the first place.
This is my understanding as well, I am just not sure that I 100% agree with the thinking. Now I was not there (with the Israel's) and was not part of the committee who got the information that they used to make the decision, but the Israel's did not have a autocannon on there tanks. As I have said in other posts with only 17 ready rounds I think having the 25mm as back up is worth the increased risk. A trained crew (nothing special just meeting basic standards) can load and fire one round every eight seconds so it takes them about 2 min 16 seconds (1 min 8 sec for a good crew, and 51 sec for the best crew I ever saw) of combat to run out of ready ammo. After this you are looking at a rate of fire of about 1 round per min give or take a bit. Seeing as the USSR also planed to run tanks and infantry together we could expect to run in to the BMP's with the tanks. This would have given us a target rich environment, so running out of ready ammo I would think would be likely, also seeing as how we were trained to use the main gun for any anti-armor threat. That means a RPG team gets a HEAT round. So now you are running out in no time flat, so having the 25mm would let you use it for RPG teams, light armor including the BMP's, saving the main gun for things that only it can kill. But, it did not happen and so what would have been we will never know.

BairdEC

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 107
If you can find engagement reports for BMP 3's, you may be able to get an idea of how well the large-caliber coax works.  100mm main gun, AT-10 ATGM, 30mm coax, 7.62mm coax.  Granted, it's not nearly heavy enough to be an MBT, but the armament array is close enough.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9713
That's arguably an MBT's gunload in the 60s, just not so much today.  Still effective, though.

beachhead1985

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3266
  • 1st SOG; SLDF. "McKenna's Marauders"
    • Kilroy's Wall
I have never heard of this gun before in any connection to the M1, everything I have ever seen/heard/read whatever has been they went from the 25mm to the M240 but who knows what planes were talked about before the first prototypes were built.

Funny. Sure enough; when I look it up; you are right; M240 Coax.

But I know the FN MAG/M240 and I can't see how it fits/why it needs that funny jacket
Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,      Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
The hour when earth's foundations fled,         They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
Followed their mercenary calling,               What God abandoned, these defended,
And took their wages, and are dead.             And saved the sum of things for pay.
     
A.E. Housman

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
If you can find engagement reports for BMP 3's, you may be able to get an idea of how well the large-caliber coax works.  100mm main gun, AT-10 ATGM, 30mm coax, 7.62mm coax.  Granted, it's not nearly heavy enough to be an MBT, but the armament array is close enough.


Actually, that armament mix reminds me of the M3 Lee/Grant - the 100mm gun is low velocity but can also act as a missile launcher (shades of the Shillelagh system?!) while the 30mm autocannon is high velocity and so can take on anything short of an MBT really for armour penetration or can be used with HE for suppression fire if there isn't something to attract the fire of the 100mm gun.


Used in a Soviet-style frontal assault, I can see these suppressing everything short of the NATO MBTs and then being very useful in "mopping up" operations but fundamentally the BMP-3 is an auxiliary to the MBTs.
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

CDAT

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 244
Funny. Sure enough; when I look it up; you are right; M240 Coax.

But I know the FN MAG/M240 and I can't see how it fits/why it needs that funny jacket

As for how it fits, it has no stock, handle, or sights. It has a charging cable in place of the handle and I am sure a few other modifications from the M240B/FN MAG that you are probably familiar with. What funny jacket are you talking about?

beachhead1985

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3266
  • 1st SOG; SLDF. "McKenna's Marauders"
    • Kilroy's Wall
As for how it fits, it has no stock, handle, or sights. It has a charging cable in place of the handle and I am sure a few other modifications from the M240B/FN MAG that you are probably familiar with. What funny jacket are you talking about?

The tube sticking out next to the main gun.

The MAG has a gas tube under the barrel and it isn't remotely THAT long either. Most people using MAGs for coax guns have the muzzles flush with the mantlet or just protruding a bit.
Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,      Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
The hour when earth's foundations fled,         They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
Followed their mercenary calling,               What God abandoned, these defended,
And took their wages, and are dead.             And saved the sum of things for pay.
     
A.E. Housman

chanman

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2301
  • Architect of suffering
I think the Brits are the only ones using rifle-calibre chain guns. Wiki claims there's less gas vented back into the vehicle vs. gas operated. I do recall a Warrior driver in a no-longer-active forum I was on who wasn't a fan of the Warrior installation. Something about the turret dimensions forcing the co-ax to be mounted in an odd orientation and the electric drive motor being very marginal for the job of pulling the ammo belt through those contortions.

One thing that occurs to me is that for AFV use, the chain gun installation might be more complex with the need for the drive motor and operating chain, vs. a more self-contained GPMG installation.


DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
I think the Brits are the only ones using rifle-calibre chain guns. Wiki claims there's less gas vented back into the vehicle vs. gas operated. I do recall a Warrior driver in a no-longer-active forum I was on who wasn't a fan of the Warrior installation. Something about the turret dimensions forcing the co-ax to be mounted in an odd orientation and the electric drive motor being very marginal for the job of pulling the ammo belt through those contortions.

One thing that occurs to me is that for AFV use, the chain gun installation might be more complex with the need for the drive motor and operating chain, vs. a more self-contained GPMG installation.



The "quote" I heard was something like:


Commander: co-ax, engage
Gunner: co-ax engaging
pulls trigger
Gunner: co-ax jam
Both: [expletive laden stream of invective directed at Hughes, the parentage of the makers at Hughes, the parentage of the ammunition manufacturers etc]


https://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Warrior





On a less sweary level, a quick flick through my Haynes Manual on the Challenger 2 reports that the problems were mainly due to poor quality of the disintegrating metal links of the ammunition belts
« Last Edit: 18 August 2019, 16:46:05 by DoctorMonkey »
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

CDAT

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 244
The tube sticking out next to the main gun.

The MAG has a gas tube under the barrel and it isn't remotely THAT long either. Most people using MAGs for coax guns have the muzzles flush with the mantlet or just protruding a bit.
I am not sure what it is for, as the barrel does not stick into it, I have never really thought about it before and may have to ask around.

...

One thing that occurs to me is that for AFV use, the chain gun installation might be more complex with the need for the drive motor and operating chain, vs. a more self-contained GPMG installation.


One other advantage of not using the chain gun, is in the unlikely event that your tank is taken out and you are sill alive, you can pull the gun, put the issued stock kit on it and have a GPMG (with no sights) to use, and as much ammo as you want to carry (or that you had left).

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1658
The tube is for muzzle flash suppression from the coax MG.

The intention is to prevent the muzzle flash from whitening out the gunner's sight at night (i.e. when using image intensification). It was added with the production M1, the original XM1 didn't have it.

 

Register