Additional history nerdery: the commander's cupola on that tank has an MG3 machine gun. Chambered for 7.62x51 NATO, but mechanically a direct descendant of the MG42 . . . aka "Hitler's Buzzsaw."
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Is the M-1 Abrams outclassed now?
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
That's a big mortar - Russians are using a 240mm on a tracked vehicle.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-russian-armys-super-gun-city-destroyer-17416
Then again, this puts everything in perspective. A 17" cannon on a tracked vehicle. Russians gave it a go but it did not work out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B1_Oka
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-russian-armys-super-gun-city-destroyer-17416
Then again, this puts everything in perspective. A 17" cannon on a tracked vehicle. Russians gave it a go but it did not work out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B1_Oka
That's the best way to hump that tube.
17" self propelled arty? While it may not have worked it did win the award in 1957 for "Most Russian Development Project".That's a big mortar - Russians are using a 240mm on a tracked vehicle.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-russian-armys-super-gun-city-destroyer-17416
Then again, this puts everything in perspective. A 17" cannon on a tracked vehicle. Russians gave it a go but it did not work out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B1_Oka
That was the exact scene I was thinking of.
Looks like the Army is trying again to build a light tank. Here are some of the competitors mounting 105mm to 120mm main guns but weighing only 20 - 30 tons compared to the Abrams' 70 tons.
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/10/heavy-competition-for-light-tank-saic-singapore-vs-bae-gdls/
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/10/heavy-competition-for-light-tank-saic-singapore-vs-bae-gdls/
I thought this requirement was why the Army was going for the 105mm Stryker MGS. I mean, that’s a “light tank” in all but name.
According to some articles, it appears the Army was less than satisfied with the 105mm Stryker. If the Army is now proposing a new light tank, that would lead me to believe those articles were correct.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-wheeled-cannon-that-everyone-hates-d5e6d22bdfcc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System
"The Army knows it. After buying just 142 MGS, the branch quietly shut down production. The Army plans to upgrade thousands of other Strykers with new, angled bottom hulls to better protect them against roadside bombs—but not the MGS."
Good article on developments in Russian artillery - and what the US can do to counter it. References a devastating Russian artillery strike on the Ukrainians a few years ago. Interesting that the Russians are reactivating their heavy artillery units (203mm / 8") which has a range of 37,500 meters or 55,500 with a RAP.
KING OF BATTLE: RUSSIA BREAKS OUT THE BIG GUNS
https://www.ausa.org/articles/king-battle-russia-breaks-out-big-guns
KING OF BATTLE: RUSSIA BREAKS OUT THE BIG GUNS
https://www.ausa.org/articles/king-battle-russia-breaks-out-big-guns
There really isn’t much new here except the use of UAV’s. The Soviets ran their guns at battalion level and loved to mass them but never had anywhere near the accuracy on target as the US. They also appear to lack the sophisticated, in field, meteorological system NATO deploys meaning their guns might have range, but their capabilities are limited in their lack of accuracy.
Lots of dubious accusations in that article. That specific Russian Artillery attack is more notable for its particular use of spotting targets in support of irregular warfare units than any earth shattering change in Russian Artillery doctrine.
UAVs can be jammed. Bigger guns are slower to displace. Manual gunnery is still practiced and individual batteries are tasked in direct and general support to individual maneuver battalions on a regular basis. Counter-battery fire is still a thing. Accuracy is important, but not when you’re leveling 5-6km grid squares with a permissive ROE.
Not saying that Artillery isn’t important. On the contrary, It is the more important fire support asset at the disposal of maneuver unit. More concerning is the lack of awareness by the authors of Army aviation attack units and joint EW capabilities. Also, they clearly have not been paying attention to recent operations in Syria. I can not speak to how the US Army operationally employs it’s artillery units, but I can say that the Marines already do a lot of what the article is suggesting, and have been for a long time. There is a point about better training to face a peer adversary, and that has got the attention of high level flag officers recently and is starting to make its way into training curriculum during rotations at 29 Palms and other training areas.
Interesting take on the Sherman tank. Perhaps it was the best tank of the war? In particular, the Sherman jumbo (M4A3E2) had a lot of steel in the front to take a punch.