Author Topic: Missiles on gun tanks  (Read 24873 times)

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Missiles on gun tanks
« on: February 21, 2013, 09:11:26 PM »
What I mean by this is not single-purpose ATGW vehicles on a tank chassis, but rather a vehicle (we'll allow wheels too) that has a turret with a substantial gun in it AND an ATGW capability. Most of these proposals were never built for obvious reasons to do with reloads and reloading, but they were mostly workable and so would make an interesting What If, if a suitable backstory could be concocted.

I think they fall into two categories:

1. Gun-launched ATGWs:

Sheridan with Shillelagh (service)
M60A2 with Shillelagh (service)
MBT-70 with Shillelagh prototypes only)
T-55 with 9K116-1 "Bastion" ATGW (service)
T-62 with 9K116-2 "Sheksna"  ATGW (service)
T-72/80 etc with 9M119 "Svir/Refleks" ATGW (service)
BMP-3 with 9K116-1 "Bastion" ATGW (service)
Israeli LAHAT missile used from various 105/120mm gun-armed tanks

AMX-30 with ACRA (a 142mm gun/launcher: abandoned due to cost):





2. Separate guns and ATGWs

AMX-13 with SS-11.   One of the few such designs that actually went into service. 2 x twin SS-11 on open rails on front of turret, either side of gun barrel.




AMX-13 with HOT. Proposed replacement for above. 2 x triple HOT boxes on either side of the turret. Close to adoption, but the French Army changed it's ideas on ATGWs and bought the VAB Mephisto instead.



The early version had 2 x quad HOT launchers:




Vickers Mk.2 MBT with Swingfire. This was a Mk.1 fitted with 2 x twin Swingfire boxes on either side of a modified turret bustle. Mock-up only.




M47 with Swingfire. Similar proposal to above, fitted with 2 x twin Swingfire boxes on either side of a modified turret bustle. Mock-up only.




Saladin with Swingfire. Standard armored car fitted with 2 x single Swingfire boxes on either side of the turret. Mock-up only.




Centurion with Swingfire. Seems to be basically the same system as the one on the Vickers Mk.2 Mock-up only.



 
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 03:18:02 AM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2013, 01:53:46 AM »
Pics added.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2013, 02:43:26 AM »
So many ideas...don't know where to start.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Frank3k

  • Excession
  • Formerly Frank2056. New upgrade!
    • My webpage
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2013, 02:52:25 AM »
There's also the M901 ITV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M901_ITV) based on the M113.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2013, 03:19:49 AM »
There's also the M901 ITV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M901_ITV) based on the M113.


Yes, but that's not a gun tank with extra ATGWs, is it? Its a dedicated ATGW carrier (i.e. it can't do anything else except fire ATGWs) based on an APC.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2013, 03:49:39 AM »
What If ideas on this theme

I suppose the main question is why would you want to add missiles to a tank? I can see roughly three rationales for it (note that I don't necessarily agree with any of these personally, but this is how the thinking might go):


1. ATGWs on a Main Battle Tank.

The only reason I can see for doing this is to extend the tank's engagement range and maintain lethality out to maximum range. In the period where most of these schemes were proposed ('60s/'70s), heavy ATGWs comfortably out-ranged tank guns and a HEAT warhead is just as lethal whatever speed it's doing, whereas an APFSDS round gets less lethal as it slows down with distance travelled.

This argument is probably most persuasive for the lightly-armoured 1960s "protection-through-speed" MBTs such as the Leo I, AMX-30 and Vickers MBT, since they can least afford a point-blank slugging match with any gun of three-figure calibre, and so they have a vested interest in thinning out the opposition at the greatest possible range. Problems are quantity of reloads, difficulty of reloading and increased fire/explosion hazard.

Whiff ideas:

Pz.61/68 with ATGWs (not sure if there's a kit).

T-55/T-62 with external ATGWs instead of gun-launched ones.

Leo-1/AMX-30 with ATGWs.



2. Light Tanks/Armoured Cars with ATGWs.

This is possibly the most useful option, as the AMX-13/SS-11 demonstrates. A vehicle whose primary function is recce/escort/screening may very well come up against enemy MBTs yet it can't possibly carry a tank-killing gun because it's too small and light. Adding ATGWs gives it some "equalisers". Difficulties are all the same as the MBT platform, but less significant since any tank-killing rounds (even a small number) are better than none, and light tanks in combat with MBTs are chronically vunerable anyway.

Whiff ideas:

M41 Walker Bulldog with M47/Vickers MBT style ATGWs (not neccessarily Swingfire). This would be essentially a US version of the AMX-13+SS-11 combo.

M26 Chaffee: as above. Installation probably more like the Saladin/Swingfire setup.

PT-76 with AT-3 Sagger mounted over the gun in similar style to the BMP (this is another one which I find it hard to believe hasn't been tried for real).


3. Retro-fitted oldies.

You might imagine a nation with a fleet of WWII leftover tanks which can't, for political or economic reasons, get them replaced or refitted abroad, and doesn't have the heavy engineering design & production capability to up-gun them locally. It is, however, a lot easier to bolt rails/boxes to the outside of a tank than it is to fit it with a new gun, and it's also quite easy to disguise the origin of an illegally copied ATGW with minor changes to fin shape and box style.

Whiff ideas:

Put "local" versions of any early ATGW onto any of the following platforms, chosen for their post-war availability:

M4 Sherman
M3/M5 Stuart
M26 Chaffee
Comet
T-34/76
T-34/85
M8 Greyhound
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2013, 04:34:46 AM »
PT-76 with AT-3 Sagger mounted over the gun in similar style to the BMP (this is another one which I find it hard to believe hasn't been tried for real).

Put "local" versions of any early ATGW onto any of the following platforms, chosen for their post-war availability:
M8 Greyhound


Variations on both of these ideas were tried.



Quote
PT-71: PT-76 fitted with 'Malyutka' anti-tank guided weapons system.






Quote
NAPCO M8 TOW: The Colombian M8 TOW is equipped with the M220 launcher on top of the open turret. The 37mm gun is replaced by a .50 calibre M2. There a three missiles inside the vehicle, one on the turret rear and one in the launcher. The tripod is carried on the right side of the hull, towards the rear. Colombia has some 6 vehicles of this type.


Cheers,

Logan

Offline finsrin

  • The Dr Frankenstein of the modelling world...when not hiding from SBA
  • Finds part glues it on, finds part glues it on....
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2013, 05:46:33 AM »
Do like your Retro-fitted oldies platform suggestions  :)
That M8 is soooo good  :)

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2013, 11:23:31 AM »
Cheers Logan - I thought I'd seen Sagger on the PT-76, but I couldn't find a reference to it and was beginning to think I'd imagined it.

The M8-TOW is very interesting, although I'm not sure that it fits the criteria, since it's 37mm gun has been replaced by a .50 cal, which puts it more into the category of a dedicated ATGW carrier since it's only gun is a small-calibre self-defence weapon. This is the same reason why I exclude the Ferret with Vigilant or Swingfire: yes, it's got a gun turret, but the only gun is a 7.62mm MG, so it's not significantly different to a Striker in capability.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2013, 11:32:38 AM »
1. ATGWs on a Main Battle Tank.


The fact that Taiwan actually copied the Malyutka ATGM gave me an idea of a M48 turret with a bustle that actually serves as a compartment for Malyutka-copy launcher(s) à la BRDM-1, possibly providing the missile system some protection against elements and hostile actions.

Is it practical to incorporate mechanism associated with top-attack capability into the Malyutka missile?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 11:35:07 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2013, 11:54:53 AM »
More real-life projects, this time based on the Panhard AML armoured car. Neither of these went into production although they were developed enough to be offered as export options.

1. AML 60-7 with ENTAC. The paired ENTAC boxes slide out sideway from behind the turret for firing. Although this vehicle's only armed with a 60mm mortar and two 7.5mm MGs, I see no reason why a similar launcher couldn't be fitted to any tank or armored car turret :




2. AML 90 with SS-11. This is effectively a wheeled equivalent of the AMX-13 SS-11 carrier:

"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2013, 05:28:33 PM »
Soviet T-62s were armed with ATGWs in the Soviet Army for a short period.  It was an experimental attempt at, as you point out, increasing the lethal range of the tank, as well as improving accuracy (ATGWs were until the advent of cheap computer FCS, more accurate than tank guns at extended ranges).  It took the form of a large box on the rear of the turret carrying a Drakon ATGW.  The same missile which features in the dedicated ATGW tank, the IT-1 Drakon.  Ace do a 1/72 version and Trumpeter a 1/35 one.  Not many of ether were made BTW (about an armoured Regiment IIRC).



More lately, the Russians have fielded tube-launched AT missiles, returning to the same idea as the Shillelagh and the ACRA, fired from the main gun tube.  The AT-11 Sniper is carried in two parts, in the normal autoloader, with the warhead and booster mated in the breech before firing.  It is of course 125mm in calibre.   There is also apparently a 100mm calibre version which can be fired from BMP-3 and even T-54/55 tanks (if retrofitted with the laser guidance system).

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2013, 08:29:05 PM »
1. ATGWs on a Main Battle Tank.


The fact that Taiwan actually copied the Malyutka ATGM gave me an idea of a M48 turret with a bustle that actually serves as a compartment for Malyutka-copy launcher(s) à la BRDM-1, possibly providing the missile system some protection against elements and hostile actions.

Is it practical to incorporate mechanism associated with top-attack capability into the Malyutka missile?


That's interesting - didn't know about that.  :)

The bustle-mounted pop-up launcher sounds good in theory - M48s don't have much of a bustle so there's certainly room. Might need some bars/rails to stop the wires getting tangled in the hatches/optics (see the M47/Swingfire pic, although those look a bit OTT).

Top attack involves mounting a shaped-charge warhead facing downwards in a (usually) tube-shaped missile which is not a very efficient "fit". In a modern, relatively fat missile airframe, you can get a top-attack warhead that's still a decent size, but I'm not sure about in a Malyutka, which is really, really small.....
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2013, 08:55:51 PM »
One I forgot to mention was the Peruvian adaptation using Sagger missiles on their T-55s.  Several missiles each side of the turret IIRC.



They've also adapted some of their AMX-13s, with Kornet-E ATGW:


Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2013, 10:05:12 PM »
That's interesting - didn't know about that.  :)


Picture included here for information purposes.  Was quickly superseded by imported TOW system though.

According to Wikipedia, Romania and Euromissile came up with a version of Malyutka that incorporates a warhead from MILAN missile.  Can anyone offer an opinion on how it compares with other modern Malyutka developments?

 
Top attack involves mounting a shaped-charge warhead facing downwards in a (usually) tube-shaped missile which is not a very efficient "fit". In a modern, relatively fat missile airframe, you can get a top-attack warhead that's still a decent size, but I'm not sure about in a Malyutka, which is really, really small.....


Also according to Wikipedia FGM-148 has a body diametre only 2mm wider than that of Malyutka (125mm) but packs a warhead more than twice as heavy as that of Malyutka...... of course I do not know if Malyutka's warhead can have the same diametre as its body, and I reckon that a warhead too much heavier than initially specified is bound to bring forth other problems......

All that for the off-chance of running into a Type 99 or Kyū-maru......  ;D
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 02:13:16 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2013, 02:26:42 AM »
Top attack involves mounting a shaped-charge warhead facing downwards in a (usually) tube-shaped missile which is not a very efficient "fit". In a modern, relatively fat missile airframe, you can get a top-attack warhead that's still a decent size, but I'm not sure about in a Malyutka, which is really, really small.....

Also according to Wikipedia FGM-148 has a body diametre only 2mm wider than that of Malyutka (125mm) but packs a warhead more than twice as heavy as that of Malyutka...... of course I do not know if Malyutka's warhead can have the same diametre as its body, and I reckon that a warhead too much heavier than initially specified is bound to bring forth other problems......

BUT

FGM-148 Javelin doesn't do top-attack the way most such weapons do. Most top-attack types fly horizontally above the line of sight, pass over the tank, and fire their downwards-facing warhead by means of a proximity fuse as they do so. This is relatively easy to arrange: a conventional SACLOS missile would be following the line of sight, so you "just" put a fixed "+5 ft" command into it's autopilot.

A typical such weapon is the Bofors BILL 2. This is 150mm in diameter, but only manages to carry a downwards-facing EFP warhead which is 110mm in diameter with a 40mm precursor charge to detonate ERA. The penetration capability of this warhead is classified, but a figure of 550mm RHA has been quoted, which would look pretty poor if it was going into the frontal armour of a modern MBT instead of down through the roof. By comparison, that Romanian Sagger/MILAN hybrid is quoted as penetrating 900mm.

Javelin, on the other hand, has a conventional forwards-facing warhead and flies a climb-and-dive maneuver, coming down at a steep angle onto the top of the tank. This requires the missile to be MUCH smarter, since it needs to know the position of the target in three dimensions, calculate a course to it independently, and maintain a fully-autonomous lock-on through the flight, something that is only possibly because of it's integral imaging seeker. Javelin may be only 2mm wider than Sagger, but it's also 240mm longer and most of that is guidance electronics.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 12:32:11 AM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2013, 01:25:49 PM »
I can actually think of a few other reasons why you may want to do this, though--like you--that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with any of them.

4. Your main gun's no good against armor

This one's very situational, but I can think of a few extreme examples where this could be the case.  Two that come to mind are the cases where the gun is tailor made for high explosive work.  This was far more popular before and during WWII, but a more modern example would be the Centurion AVRE.  While that HESH round does nasty things to tanks, it's neither high velocity nor very accurate.  At long ranges, it would have very poor AT performance.  Need the engineering capability, but don't want to make it a liability in tank combat?  Put a couple of ATGMs on it.

Somehow make a tank's main armament nearly useless against enemy armor.  Maybe all prewar stocks are found to have fatal quality flaws and tend to break up against enemy armor instead of penetrating.  These are things that have happened in wartime before, just usually before the time of ATGWs.

5. Dismountable AT firepower

This one's actually been done before.  US tank destroyers in WWII such as the M10 actually strapped bazookas to the sides of the tank.  The idea was that if the TD was knocked out, they could still carry out their mission.  Similarly, the M50 Ontos could have its recoilless rifles dismounted and put on a tripod.  The Sagger equipped BMP started that way, as well.  This is most useful for airborne troops in practice.

6. Intimidation

Iran's probably working on this one already.  Obsolete tank + obsolete missiles = innovative doom tank!  This is the kind of stuff they do all the time.  Combine two obsolete things and suddenly it's new!  The more intimidating it looks, the better.  Effectiveness isn't the point.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2013, 03:34:36 AM »
Quote
4. Your main gun's no good against armor

This one's very situational, but I can think of a few extreme examples where this could be the case.  Two that come to mind are the cases where the gun is tailor made for high explosive work.  This was far more popular before and during WWII, but a more modern example would be the Centurion AVRE.  While that HESH round does nasty things to tanks, it's neither high velocity nor very accurate.  At long ranges, it would have very poor AT performance.  Need the engineering capability, but don't want to make it a liability in tank combat?  Put a couple of ATGMs on it.

Somehow make a tank's main armament nearly useless against enemy armor.  Maybe all prewar stocks are found to have fatal quality flaws and tend to break up against enemy armor instead of penetrating.  These are things that have happened in wartime before, just usually before the time of ATGWs.

Or simply when you find out your enemy has upgraded tanks and you now fear your tanks will not be effective.  Interim solution is to give your tanks missiles as an added capability.

An example might be this:  Cold War still going in '90s+.  Soviet Union introduces new FST-1/2/3 series of tanks with 152-mm smoothbore guns capable of firing guided missiles with a range of 6,000-7,000 meters and with improved armour.  Whilst waiting for the introduction of the new Leopard III, Challenger 3 and Abrams M1A3 with the new 140mm gun, all three are equipped with external box launchers using various ATGWs...
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2013, 11:15:47 AM »
Odd thought, a poor country in the aftermath of WW II has only Lee/Grant tanks and mounts early ATGW's to give them some chance.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2013, 02:00:04 PM »
I wonder...what about Kramer X-7 Rotkäppchen missiles added to a Panzer IV?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2013, 08:55:50 PM »
I can actually think of a few other reasons why you may want to do this, though--like you--that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with any of them.

4. Your main gun's no good against armor

This one's very situational, but I can think of a few extreme examples where this could be the case.  Two that come to mind are the cases where the gun is tailor made for high explosive work.  This was far more popular before and during WWII, but a more modern example would be the Centurion AVRE.  While that HESH round does nasty things to tanks, it's neither high velocity nor very accurate.  At long ranges, it would have very poor AT performance.  Need the engineering capability, but don't want to make it a liability in tank combat?  Put a couple of ATGMs on it.

Somehow make a tank's main armament nearly useless against enemy armor.  Maybe all prewar stocks are found to have fatal quality flaws and tend to break up against enemy armor instead of penetrating.  These are things that have happened in wartime before, just usually before the time of ATGWs.




Or another rationale: high-velocity gun and shell technology is limited to a relatively limited range of countries, both by expertise and manufacturing capability. Say a third-world country find that, for political reasons, it can't buy upgraded guns for it's tanks from supplier A, but it can buy ATGWs from supplier B....

Alternately, maybe you need both capabilities and this is the best way to get it. That AML-60-7 with ENTACs is a good example on a smaller vehicle: if you gave up either the missiles or the mortar you'd lose a significant slice of capability, and the best gun you're ever going to get on that platform is the short GIAT 90mm which has less capability in both armour penetration and high-angle fire.


Quote
6. Intimidation

Iran's probably working on this one already.  Obsolete tank + obsolete missiles = innovative doom tank!  This is the kind of stuff they do all the time.  Combine two obsolete things and suddenly it's new!  The more intimidating it looks, the better.  Effectiveness isn't the point.


I can see this in a Tehran press release any time now:



 ;D ;D ;D
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2013, 09:03:51 PM »
You have to admit Iran has made Wiffing a national priority, they have the back story and the various bits and pieces, now they are just churning out master piece after master piece.

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2013, 10:37:52 PM »
You have to admit Iran has made Wiffing a national priority, they have the back story and the various bits and pieces, now they are just churning out master piece after master piece.


You have to admit, though, their Photoshop skills really need some work compared to some on this forum.   ;)



Cheers,

Logan

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #23 on: February 25, 2013, 11:41:01 PM »
All this discussion kinda makes me wonder what kind of ammunition would be used when a tank manufacturer tests the armour of their product.

NORINCO claims that the frontal armour of their Type 99 could make it through getting shot 8 times by a 105mm gun without significant damage.  While I realize that the best tank PLA has to offer will have to be impressive, I also wonder what'd be the truth behind this advertised invincibility......

Because I am imagining a CM11/12 with a bigger turret bustle, pop-up Malyutka-copy launchers in that bustle, and a resurrected Malyutka-copy programme sporting tandem warhead......
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 12:17:40 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2013, 04:59:04 AM »
There's another one that I'd thought of, then forgotten.

7. The ability to fire behind cover

A tank is a big, expensive, heavy vehicle with a few major disadvantages.  One is that they're basically direct fire AT weapons.  As missiles are becoming more advanced, the ability to fire both from behind cover and hit targets that are themselves behind cover.  In other words, defilade.



I can especially see this in the late Cold War gone hot vehicles.  I can see this being added to normal gun tanks to give them a chance of whittling down the opposition before they get within range.



This type of system came up again with the 9M123 Khrizantema recently.



Cheers,

Logan

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2013, 05:07:38 AM »
Of course another path to take with this is to imagine that perhaps future tanks give up on the main gun as their primary tank killing weapon (say that after 120mm/125mm designers say enough is enough - we're not going to 140mm/152mm).  Instead, in the LeoIII/Challenger 3/M1A3/T-XX etc the conventional gun becomes the secondary weapon (say something around the 50mm size) for dealing with secondary targets and that the primary anti-tank weapon becomes the ATGW.  In this case, you end up with something more akin to a heavy IFV but without the troop carrying requirement.  Maybe even akin to the CV-90 series?



All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2013, 05:08:42 AM »
Another spin might be to have standard tanks but with the missiles for Air-Defence.  LeoII with Stingers or even ground launched IRIS-T? etc...
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2013, 05:32:28 AM »
I'd already considered the AA missile route, but that was OT, so I was focusing on ATGM applications.  I think that if there ever was a major emphasis on defilade firing, I do think you'd see the emphasis on armor decrease proportionally.

Thanks,

Logan

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2013, 11:23:51 AM »
Of course another path to take with this is to imagine that perhaps future tanks give up on the main gun as their primary tank killing weapon (say that after 120mm/125mm designers say enough is enough - we're not going to 140mm/152mm).  Instead, in the LeoIII/Challenger 3/M1A3/T-XX etc the conventional gun becomes the secondary weapon (say something around the 50mm size) for dealing with secondary targets and that the primary anti-tank weapon becomes the ATGW.  In this case, you end up with something more akin to a heavy IFV but without the troop carrying requirement.  Maybe even akin to the CV-90 series?

One of the problems with that is chemical warheads are much more easily defended against than are kinetic energy ones, so at the moment armour is in the ascendency in the continual see-saw battle between protection and penetration.  You would need to see a significant increase in penetration for chemical energy warheads.  So, unless we see a change in the way such warheads presently work, this usually comes with a consummate increase in weight for the missile and it means the missile becomes large, unwieldy and expensive.

A way around that is to use a top-attack profile or the one I prefer, a high trajectory system such as FOG-M.  Because they are attacking the thinnest armour sections on the opposing tank, smaller warheads or even more exotic systems such as EFP can be used.  Both however come with their own difficulties and again, if reliant on chemical warheads can be defeated with reactive armour or active defence systems mounted on top of the tank.

One way around that is to use kinetic energy rounds - either missiles with sufficiently high velocities to mimic guns or guns themselves.  We are though, now reaching as has been noted the limits with 120mm calibre and in the late 1980s NATO agreed to move to 140mm calibre, after the brief stint with a longer-barrelled 120mm smoothbore gun (L/44 IIRC).   However such a large calibre carries problems with loading the rounds and so we have seen a move towards autoloaders.  This in turn has introduced concerns about inadequate crew to perform routine tasks such as maintenance and piquette duty.  Interestingly, the French overcame the problem by introducing "maintenance crews" into their armoured units and placed the now unemployed loaders in APCs to accompany the tanks.

Hypervelocity missiles have been flirted with by the US but they never reached any fruitition.  LOSAT has come and gone, morphing into HATM, so obviously simply making a much faster missile is a little more difficult than one supposes.  While it has the advantage of being recoilless, such a weapon needs to be fly a  line-of-sight course, like a gun so they lose the advantage of being able to utilise full defilade which many normal missiles can.

The US FOG-M and the European Polyphen systems, utilising fibre-optic cable, rather than traditional wires for guidance are IMHO an excellent solution.  They allow firing from full defilade, have no "gather" times and can even be utilised for immediate reconnaissance if necessary, utilising their TV cameras to report back on what is occurring on "the otherside of the hill" as Wellington termed it.  However both have been abandoned unfortunately.   

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2013, 12:36:04 PM »
An idea could be a VLS installed in the rear compartment of an AIFV, looks exactly like the troop carrier version but instead of vegies in the back it has multiple VLS ATGWs.  A very easy if slightly boring Wiff with a number of armoured doors added to a new top plat on the hull rear of your AIFV.

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #30 on: March 25, 2013, 10:25:32 AM »
Hypervelocity missiles have been flirted with by the US but they never reached any fruitition.  LOSAT has come and gone, morphing into HATM, so obviously simply making a much faster missile is a little more difficult than one supposes.  While it has the advantage of being recoilless, such a weapon needs to be fly a  line-of-sight course, like a gun so they lose the advantage of being able to utilise full defilade which many normal missiles can.

LOSAT would be a nightmare in the field. It had a huge firing signature like an MLRS and would basically be a way of saying to everyone on the battlefield here I am over here under this giant plume of white smoke and behind the searing streak of white light.

The US FOG-M and the European Polyphen systems, utilising fibre-optic cable, rather than traditional wires for guidance are IMHO an excellent solution.  They allow firing from full defilade, have no "gather" times and can even be utilised for immediate reconnaissance if necessary, utilising their TV cameras to report back on what is occurring on "the otherside of the hill" as Wellington termed it.  However both have been abandoned unfortunately.

This capability is basically the RAFAEL Spike sytem. Thanks to advances in radio technology longer range missiles can safely use wireless like Spike-NLOS and as was planned for the NLOS-LS PAM and LAM weapons. Lots of other weapons have similar capabilities like Griffon and Delilah.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #31 on: March 25, 2013, 11:07:41 AM »
Any high-performance missile is going to have a large IR, visual, and radar launch signature, the last because the best high-performance solid rocket fuel burns aluminum with amonium perchlorate and that generates quite a reflective plume.  We had fun getting the folding vertical fin of ground-launched TSSAM to unfold through that booster plume and retain it's low-observables characteristics; Northrop ended up doing a bunch of testing with the booster maker to find suitable materials and I got involved as the responsible engineer at Northrop for the boosters and was involved in designing the test fixture.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2013, 01:52:51 PM »
Hypervelocity missiles have been flirted with by the US but they never reached any fruitition.  LOSAT has come and gone, morphing into HATM, so obviously simply making a much faster missile is a little more difficult than one supposes.  While it has the advantage of being recoilless, such a weapon needs to be fly a  line-of-sight course, like a gun so they lose the advantage of being able to utilise full defilade which many normal missiles can.

LOSAT would be a nightmare in the field. It had a huge firing signature like an MLRS and would basically be a way of saying to everyone on the battlefield here I am over here under this giant plume of white smoke and behind the searing streak of white light.

You could use an elevating mount which while it wouldn't prevent retaliation it would decrease the likelihood of losing the vehicle.

Quote
The US FOG-M and the European Polyphen systems, utilising fibre-optic cable, rather than traditional wires for guidance are IMHO an excellent solution.  They allow firing from full defilade, have no "gather" times and can even be utilised for immediate reconnaissance if necessary, utilising their TV cameras to report back on what is occurring on "the otherside of the hill" as Wellington termed it.  However both have been abandoned unfortunately.

This capability is basically the RAFAEL Spike sytem. Thanks to advances in radio technology longer range missiles can safely use wireless like Spike-NLOS and as was planned for the NLOS-LS PAM and LAM weapons. Lots of other weapons have similar capabilities like Griffon and Delilah.

Wireless can be jammed or even hacked.

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2013, 04:41:09 PM »
You could use an elevating mount which while it wouldn't prevent retaliation it would decrease the likelihood of losing the vehicle.

Not really. The position of the vehicle would still be betrayed. Mast mounted weapon stations are just the same as hull down vehicles except it increases the terrain conditions you can be hull down in.

Wireless can be jammed or even hacked.

Considering just about every new guided missile has a wireless datalink from Javelin Increment II through to JASSM I think the boffins know what they are doing re signal jamming.

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2013, 04:42:54 PM »
Any high-performance missile is going to have a large IR, visual, and radar launch signature, the last because the best high-performance solid rocket fuel burns aluminum with amonium perchlorate and that generates quite a reflective plume.  We had fun getting the folding vertical fin of ground-launched TSSAM to unfold through that booster plume and retain it's low-observables characteristics; Northrop ended up doing a bunch of testing with the booster maker to find suitable materials and I got involved as the responsible engineer at Northrop for the boosters and was involved in designing the test fixture.

Which is why you want to keep them out of direct line of sight of the enemy. So they can have a reasonable chance to shoot and scoot.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2013, 06:06:37 PM »
You could use an elevating mount which while it wouldn't prevent retaliation it would decrease the likelihood of losing the vehicle.

Not really. The position of the vehicle would still be betrayed. Mast mounted weapon stations are just the same as hull down vehicles except it increases the terrain conditions you can be hull down in.

Partially true.  They do tend to ensure that the launcher is both harder to spot and harder to eliminate.

Wireless can be jammed or even hacked.

Considering just about every new guided missile has a wireless datalink from Javelin Increment II through to JASSM I think the boffins know what they are doing re signal jamming.
[/quote]

One should never assume that a radio signal cannot be jammed or hacked.  Such hubris has, upon several occasions in the past ended up with lots of red faces and invariably dead people.   Be it Tannenberg to the "battle of the beams", Window and through to the recent hacking of drones' video feeds in Iraq, it all started with people making assumptions about the security of their radio systems.

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2013, 07:57:27 PM »
Partially true.  They do tend to ensure that the launcher is both harder to spot and harder to eliminate.

Ehh that’s part of the benefits of hull down?

One should never assume that a radio signal cannot be jammed or hacked.  Such hubris has, upon several occasions in the past ended up with lots of red faces and invariably dead people.   Be it Tannenberg to the "battle of the beams", Window and through to the recent hacking of drones' video feeds in Iraq, it all started with people making assumptions about the security of their radio systems.

Who said anyone in Raytheon, RAFAEL, Lockheed Martin, etc are making assumptions about radio security in their missile guidance system designs?

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #37 on: March 25, 2013, 08:08:17 PM »
I've often wondered whether you could add anti-armour KE capability and anti-aircraft capability to a low-velocity gun by using it to launch a ramjet-powered hyper-velocity missile. The propellant charge would get the thing up to ramjet ignition speed and a solid fuel ramjet (like the Spark missile) would them take over. Guidance could be laser beam riding or semi-active laser.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #38 on: March 25, 2013, 08:56:53 PM »
I've often wondered whether you could add anti-armour KE capability and anti-aircraft capability to a low-velocity gun by using it to launch a ramjet-powered hyper-velocity missile. The propellant charge would get the thing up to ramjet ignition speed and a solid fuel ramjet (like the Spark missile) would them take over. Guidance could be laser beam riding or semi-active laser.

You would need to rely upon a kinetic kill.  One of the problems with ramjet or rocket powered shells is that they lose an appreciable amount of their filling to fuel for the ramjet/rocket.  They also tend to, unless guided, to have often erratic trajectories compared to true guns.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #39 on: March 26, 2013, 01:32:36 AM »
I've often wondered whether you could add anti-armour KE capability and anti-aircraft capability to a low-velocity gun by using it to launch a ramjet-powered hyper-velocity missile. The propellant charge would get the thing up to ramjet ignition speed and a solid fuel ramjet (like the Spark missile) would them take over. Guidance could be laser beam riding or semi-active laser.

You would need to rely upon a kinetic kill.  One of the problems with ramjet or rocket powered shells is that they lose an appreciable amount of their filling to fuel for the ramjet/rocket.  They also tend to, unless guided, to have often erratic trajectories compared to true guns.

The whole point would be to achieve a kinetic kill from a low-velocity gun, and yes, it would definately be guided.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #40 on: March 26, 2013, 10:58:33 AM »
I've often wondered whether you could add anti-armour KE capability and anti-aircraft capability to a low-velocity gun by using it to launch a ramjet-powered hyper-velocity missile. The propellant charge would get the thing up to ramjet ignition speed and a solid fuel ramjet (like the Spark missile) would them take over. Guidance could be laser beam riding or semi-active laser.

You would need to rely upon a kinetic kill.  One of the problems with ramjet or rocket powered shells is that they lose an appreciable amount of their filling to fuel for the ramjet/rocket.  They also tend to, unless guided, to have often erratic trajectories compared to true guns.

The whole point would be to achieve a kinetic kill from a low-velocity gun, and yes, it would definately be guided.

In theory it would be possible then, if that is the objective.  However, in practice it might be more difficult. That rather limits the size of the weapon, 'cause you've got to cram fuel, motor, guidance system and guidance method (fins, etc) into the package.  Not impossible just technically hard.   More than likely 40+mm would be the minimum and I'd expect something more about the 60+mm size.  Not sure how high velocity you'd be able to achieve.  Ramjets require a fair distance to develop thrust and accelerate, even with a boosted launch.  Rockets less so.   So velocity would be rather dependent on range.  More than likely there would be some optimum range where conventional guns are superior but beyond that, a rocket/ramjet fired weapon would be better.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #41 on: March 26, 2013, 12:01:48 PM »
The idea came from a real 1980s missile project called Spark which was essentially a ramjet-powered HVM. I can't recall the exact spec (and can't find it on line) but I do remember that it was small enough to launch from a tank-size gun (i.e. under 155mm) although that wasn't the intention and it's sustainer ignition speed was within the muzzle velocity of a howitzer. It had a solid rocket booster packed inside a solid ramjet grain, so if that booster was replaced by a propellant charge, there'd be room down the middle for quite a bit more gubbins.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #42 on: March 26, 2013, 02:14:03 PM »
The idea came from a real 1980s missile project called Spark which was essentially a ramjet-powered HVM. I can't recall the exact spec (and can't find it on line) but I do remember that it was small enough to launch from a tank-size gun (i.e. under 155mm) although that wasn't the intention and it's sustainer ignition speed was within the muzzle velocity of a howitzer. It had a solid rocket booster packed inside a solid ramjet grain, so if that booster was replaced by a propellant charge, there'd be room down the middle for quite a bit more gubbins.

I sort of know what you are talking about. There were proposals to use a ramjet in an artillery shell to extend range like rocket assist and base bleed. However that’s all I can remember of the top of my head but will look around some files to bring up more.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #43 on: March 26, 2013, 08:54:19 PM »
I found a small entry about Spark in an old reference book last night, but I'm sure I used to have a much more extensive magazine article on it that's probably long gone now, sadly.

It was a bit bigger than I remembered: 165mm diameter, and the air vehicles they actually tested in the late '70s/early '80s had no guidance, but they did have space for it in the intake centrebody. If the concentric booster in the middle of the ramjet was removed, the diamter could be reduced quite a bit. As far as I know, it petered out when attention switched to the rocket-powered HVM that became LOSAT.

The Germans also did some work on ramjet ("athodyd") shells in WWII, with a variety of different intake configurations.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 08:56:15 PM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #44 on: March 26, 2013, 09:06:43 PM »
The South Africans currently have a ramjet artillery round research project underway.




Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #45 on: March 26, 2013, 09:16:08 PM »
A quick search of DTIC indicates that the solid fuel ramjet (SFRJ) had a very wide experimental application in the US during the early 1980s. While I haven’t found any detailed operational information there was a 40mm SFRJ for air defence use and a 75mm SFRJ for anti-tank. The idea was they would be fired by high velocity cannon and the SFRJ would boost and maintain velocity out to typical ranges (4km for the 40mm) round. Therefore reducing time of flight and increasing accuracy. Lead agency was the US Army Chemical Research and Engineering Development Centre (CREDC) and their Tubular Projectile (TUP) developmental program.

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #46 on: March 28, 2013, 01:41:53 AM »



Are there any head inside those helmets ?!?!?!?

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #47 on: March 28, 2013, 08:15:19 AM »
Doesn't appear to be.  They seem to be just resting on the hatch.

jetboy

  • Guest
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #48 on: April 05, 2013, 10:02:00 PM »
What I mean by this is not single-purpose ATGW vehicles on a tank chassis, but rather a vehicle (we'll allow wheels too) that has a turret with a substantial gun in it AND an ATGW capability. Most of these proposals were never built for obvious reasons to do with reloads and reloading, but they were mostly workable and so would make an interesting What If, if a suitable backstory could be concocted.

I think they fall into two categories:

1. Gun-launched ATGWs:

Sheridan with Shillelagh (service)
M60A2 with Shillelagh (service)
MBT-70 with Shillelagh prototypes only)
T-55 with 9K116-1 "Bastion" ATGW (service)
T-62 with 9K116-2 "Sheksna"  ATGW (service)
T-72/80 etc with 9M119 "Svir/Refleks" ATGW (service)
BMP-3 with 9K116-1 "Bastion" ATGW (service)
Israeli LAHAT missile used from various 105/120mm gun-armed tanks

AMX-30 with ACRA (a 142mm gun/launcher: abandoned due to cost):





2. Separate guns and ATGWs

AMX-13 with SS-11.   One of the few such designs that actually went into service. 2 x twin SS-11 on open rails on front of turret, either side of gun barrel.




AMX-13 with HOT. Proposed replacement for above. 2 x triple HOT boxes on either side of the turret. Close to adoption, but the French Army changed it's ideas on ATGWs and bought the VAB Mephisto instead.



The early version had 2 x quad HOT launchers:




Vickers Mk.2 MBT with Swingfire. This was a Mk.1 fitted with 2 x twin Swingfire boxes on either side of a modified turret bustle. Mock-up only.




M47 with Swingfire. Similar proposal to above, fitted with 2 x twin Swingfire boxes on either side of a modified turret bustle. Mock-up only.




Saladin with Swingfire. Standard armored car fitted with 2 x single Swingfire boxes on either side of the turret. Mock-up only.




Centurion with Swingfire. Seems to be basically the same system as the one on the Vickers Mk.2 Mock-up only.



 
Hi,i just love missiles,rockets on tanks or otherwise,heres a few of mine
















enjoy Don

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #49 on: April 06, 2013, 03:09:46 AM »
Some nice work there Don.  What's the third one?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #50 on: April 19, 2013, 02:02:19 AM »
More Peruvian oddity.....

AMX-13 with Saggers. I think this is called an Escorpion:





AMX-13 with SS-11s on the back of the bustle. I think this is Peruvian, but I'm not really sure:



From here: http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/tracked-armoured-vehicles/p34105-amx-13-sm-1.html
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #51 on: April 20, 2013, 07:18:53 PM »
ENTACs on a Ferret. I think this was an Australian modification:



"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #52 on: April 21, 2013, 09:02:51 AM »
It was but it wasn't adopted widely.  I suspect that is a trials vehicle.  I don't remember seeing it when I visited Bandiana's Museum a couple of years ago nor was it at the RAAC Museum at Puckapunyal at the time, so I wonder where it's gone, unless it was a later arrival?

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #53 on: August 09, 2013, 09:49:32 AM »
M48 Patton with SS-11 ATGM:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #54 on: August 09, 2013, 10:06:44 AM »
Nice find!

I think those may be SS-10s rather than SS-11s actually: the wing shape is different.

SS.10 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS.10

Funny what you find out isn't it? Looking at that page, I discovered that the man who designed the SS.10 and SS.11 later went on to make a failed assassination attempt on General de Gaulle, and ended up being the last man in France to be executed by firing squad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Bastien-Thiry

This is the attack portrayed at the start of The Day of the Jackal. His team fired at least 187 rounds at de Gaulle's car but failed to hit him. Maybe they should have used a missile.......
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline apophenia

  • Suffered two full days of rapid-fire hallucinations and yet had not a single usuable whif concept in the lot !?!
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #55 on: August 09, 2013, 10:30:54 AM »
A shot from behind of the AMX-13PA Escorpión that Weaver showed above. This is the Escorpión 1 with Malyutka 2M launchers. The Escorpión 2 upgrade switched to locally-made (but Ukrainian-designed) Barrier R-2 ATGWs.
Under investigation by the Committee of State Sanctioned Modelling, Alternative History and Tractor Carburettor Production for decadent counterrevolutionary behaviour.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #56 on: March 13, 2014, 12:17:12 PM »
Apparently the North Korean P'okp'ung-ho tank can be armed with ATGM and MANPADS launchers.

I wonder if someone has to completely exit the vehicle to operate the MANPADS since the launcher appears to be just a shoulder-fired version mounted on a pole......
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 12:29:13 PM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #57 on: December 11, 2015, 01:59:26 PM »
4. Your main gun's no good against armor

Early Soviet 125mm gun tanks carried gun-launched missiles to compensate for the poor long-range accuracy (?) of early 125mm guns.

Western 105mm L7 gun doesn't seem to have the same reputation; if I want to put ATGMs on a 105mm gun tank, then, how far should the missile's effective range be in order to be useful?
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #58 on: December 11, 2015, 03:34:19 PM »
4. Your main gun's no good against armor

Early Soviet 125mm gun tanks carried gun-launched missiles to compensate for the poor long-range accuracy (?) of early 125mm guns.

Western 105mm L7 gun doesn't seem to have the same reputation; if I want to put ATGMs on a 105mm gun tank, then, how far should the missile's effective range be in order to be useful?

To be a worthwhile exercise, it'd have to be a heavy ATGM with a range of over 3000 metres at least. Something in the TOW/HOT/Swingfire category.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #59 on: December 12, 2015, 05:47:44 AM »
Something in the TOW/HOT/Swingfire category.

Excellent  ;)

"Olifantization" of Vickers MBT Mk.II is a go  ;D

Could Swingfire be refitted with warhead from Spike-ER though?  Or would Spike-ER's warhead be too big?  Or is Swingfire's warhead better than I think?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2015, 05:55:03 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #60 on: December 12, 2015, 06:58:56 AM »
Something in the TOW/HOT/Swingfire category.

Excellent  ;)

"Olifantization" of Vickers MBT Mk.II is a go  ;D

Could Swingfire be refitted with warhead from Spike-ER though?  Or would Spike-ER's warhead be too big?  Or is Swingfire's warhead better than I think?

Well they both have 170mm body diameters, so I don't see why not. If the Spike's warhead is heavier than Swingfire's, the latters TVC system might need modifications to deal with the C of G change.

Swingfire's warhead was roughly equivalent to an early TOW, but it never got the kind of updates that more popular missiles got, so it would probably be significantly behind the game today.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #61 on: December 12, 2015, 08:03:52 AM »
Something in the TOW/HOT/Swingfire category.

Excellent  ;)

"Olifantization" of Vickers MBT Mk.II is a go  ;D

Could Swingfire be refitted with warhead from Spike-ER though?  Or would Spike-ER's warhead be too big?  Or is Swingfire's warhead better than I think?

If the warhead is heavier on the Spike than the existing warhead on the Swingfire, you'll find all sorts of aerodynamic problems with it, including perhaps most significantly, decreased range.   The Swingfire's warhead was perfectly adequate when introduced but wasn't updated as the threat changed.

I wonder why no one has mentioned Malkara.  While it was big and a bit clumsy, it did have a 26lb HESH warhead.  Enough to make the day of the crew of any AFV it managed to hit rather short.   Interestingly, it was developed into a SAM the Seacat/Tigercat.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #62 on: December 13, 2015, 02:36:16 AM »
I wonder why no one has mentioned Malkara.  While it was big and a bit clumsy, it did have a 26lb HESH warhead.  Enough to make the day of the crew of any AFV it managed to hit rather short.

How would that warhead measure up as a demolition weapon as well?
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #63 on: December 13, 2015, 03:19:27 AM »
Something in the TOW/HOT/Swingfire category.

Excellent  ;)

"Olifantization" of Vickers MBT Mk.II is a go  ;D

Could Swingfire be refitted with warhead from Spike-ER though?  Or would Spike-ER's warhead be too big?  Or is Swingfire's warhead better than I think?

If the warhead is heavier on the Spike than the existing warhead on the Swingfire, you'll find all sorts of aerodynamic problems with it, including perhaps most significantly, decreased range.   The Swingfire's warhead was perfectly adequate when introduced but wasn't updated as the threat changed.

I wonder why no one has mentioned Malkara.  While it was big and a bit clumsy, it did have a 26lb HESH warhead.  Enough to make the day of the crew of any AFV it managed to hit rather short.   Interestingly, it was developed into a SAM the Seacat/Tigercat.

Yeah, but the thread is about missiles on gun tanks: how would you mount Malkara on a tank? It barely fitted on a Humber Pig.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #64 on: December 13, 2015, 06:02:42 AM »
I wonder...what about Kramer X-7 Rotkäppchen missiles added to a Panzer IV?

Taking this idea further, what about combining the standard Panzer IV or even Panzer III with one of these box launchers from the Cyber Hobby 1/35th Scale Raketenwerfer Fahrgestell PzKpfw IV:




I recognise that the rockets modelled here are supposed to be unguided ones.  But what if we say that they are wire guided ATGMs (maybe a version of the Rotkäppchen)? 
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #65 on: December 16, 2015, 03:16:19 AM »
T-62 with launcher 2x 9M14 Malyutka/AT-3 Sagger as supplied by eshelon over on SecretProjects:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #66 on: December 16, 2015, 08:41:33 AM »
Something in the TOW/HOT/Swingfire category.

Excellent  ;)

"Olifantization" of Vickers MBT Mk.II is a go  ;D

Could Swingfire be refitted with warhead from Spike-ER though?  Or would Spike-ER's warhead be too big?  Or is Swingfire's warhead better than I think?

If the warhead is heavier on the Spike than the existing warhead on the Swingfire, you'll find all sorts of aerodynamic problems with it, including perhaps most significantly, decreased range.   The Swingfire's warhead was perfectly adequate when introduced but wasn't updated as the threat changed.

I wonder why no one has mentioned Malkara.  While it was big and a bit clumsy, it did have a 26lb HESH warhead.  Enough to make the day of the crew of any AFV it managed to hit rather short.   Interestingly, it was developed into a SAM the Seacat/Tigercat.

Yeah, but the thread is about missiles on gun tanks: how would you mount Malkara on a tank? It barely fitted on a Humber Pig.

Tanks are much larger than the cut down Humber which was used to mount it for airborne use.   I'd expect two of them on the turret rear would work quite well.   An armoured box launcher perhaps?

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #67 on: December 16, 2015, 09:04:02 AM »
Something in the TOW/HOT/Swingfire category.

Excellent  ;)

"Olifantization" of Vickers MBT Mk.II is a go  ;D

Could Swingfire be refitted with warhead from Spike-ER though?  Or would Spike-ER's warhead be too big?  Or is Swingfire's warhead better than I think?

If the warhead is heavier on the Spike than the existing warhead on the Swingfire, you'll find all sorts of aerodynamic problems with it, including perhaps most significantly, decreased range.   The Swingfire's warhead was perfectly adequate when introduced but wasn't updated as the threat changed.

I wonder why no one has mentioned Malkara.  While it was big and a bit clumsy, it did have a 26lb HESH warhead.  Enough to make the day of the crew of any AFV it managed to hit rather short.   Interestingly, it was developed into a SAM the Seacat/Tigercat.

Yeah, but the thread is about missiles on gun tanks: how would you mount Malkara on a tank? It barely fitted on a Humber Pig.

Tanks are much larger than the cut down Humber which was used to mount it for airborne use.   I'd expect two of them on the turret rear would work quite well.   An armoured box launcher perhaps?

It would be a big box.  :-\

Weight   93.5 kg (206 lb)
Length   1.9 m (6 ft 3 in)
Diameter   203 mm (8.0 in)

"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #68 on: December 17, 2015, 12:52:39 AM »

It would be a big box.  :-\

Weight   93.5 kg (206 lb)
Length   1.9 m (6 ft 3 in)
Diameter   203 mm (8.0 in)

Wingspan of 800mm too. Basically, it's a half a Sparrow.

I've offered up some kit bits to have a look at this, and you probably could get a couple of Malkaras onto the back of an MBT turret. They'd raise the profile, be pretty vulnerable, you'd only have two, and they'd be a pig to reload though.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #69 on: December 17, 2015, 03:01:31 AM »
Centurion with SS-11s:



Centurion with Swingfire:



Patton with Swingfire:



Patton with SS-11s:

« Last Edit: December 17, 2015, 03:04:31 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #70 on: December 17, 2015, 03:11:24 AM »
Anyone know what an R-8 is?

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #71 on: December 17, 2015, 03:19:47 AM »
Re Malkara, one could potentially mount a couple on the rear of a Centurion or similar, possibly even using the same launcher arrangement as the FV 1620 Humber "Hornet":





In such a case, I would imagine the Malkara's would be used as the 'first strike' weapon to be fired at maximum range before the main gun came into full effective range or perhaps to take out rear echelon vehicles.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #72 on: December 17, 2015, 07:06:07 AM »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #73 on: December 17, 2015, 08:31:32 AM »
Anyone know what an R-8 is?




I'd suggest it's either an experimental design that never entered production or a figurative drawing, like the tank it's attached to.  Reminds me of the SSM-A-23 Dart in configuration.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #74 on: December 18, 2015, 03:02:08 AM »
Does anyone know of a 1/35 (or 1/48) kit of the FV 1620 Humber "Hornet"?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #75 on: December 18, 2015, 08:24:11 AM »
Does anyone know of a 1/35 (or 1/48) kit of the FV 1620 Humber "Hornet"?

There was way back in the 1970s a 1/40 Midori model.  There are no 1/35 scale models that I'm aware of.  I've been looking periodocally for several years now.  I am thinking about creating some Malkara missiles in Shapeways.

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
    • SketchUp 3D Warehouse - My Digital Models
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #76 on: December 18, 2015, 09:39:53 AM »
Does anyone know of a 1/35 (or 1/48) kit of the FV 1620 Humber "Hornet"?
There was way back in the 1970s a 1/40 Midori model.  There are no 1/35 scale models that I'm aware of.  I've been looking periodocally for several years now.  I am thinking about creating some Malkara missiles in Shapeways.

That must have been the kit that I picked up while in Germany on my first enlistment in the Army.  It was an odd scale and more toy like than a scale model.  Unfortunately it did not survive. 
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #77 on: December 19, 2015, 03:43:53 AM »
I am thinking about creating some Malkara missiles in Shapeways.

Very interested.  I will take a couple...in both 1/48 and 1/35.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #78 on: December 19, 2015, 04:14:12 AM »
I am thinking about creating some Malkara missiles in Shapeways.

Very interested.  I will take a couple...in both 1/48 and 1/35.

Does anyone have 3-view drawing for Malkara missile and its rail launcher (it looks like a rail launcher to me from pictures in this thread at least)?
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #79 on: December 19, 2015, 04:57:02 AM »
These images might help:






All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #80 on: January 22, 2016, 07:16:57 AM »
4. Your main gun's no good against armor

This one's very situational, but I can think of a few extreme examples where this could be the case.  Two that come to mind are the cases where the gun is tailor made for high explosive work.

I am just wondering...... I know nowadays when one speaks of demolition guns, people think of Royal Ordance L9.  But would 105mm howitzer remain viable as a vehicle-mounted demolition weapon?  How do, say, its HESH/HEP rounds perform compared to HESH rounds used by the L7?
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #81 on: January 22, 2016, 08:37:19 AM »
4. Your main gun's no good against armor

This one's very situational, but I can think of a few extreme examples where this could be the case.  Two that come to mind are the cases where the gun is tailor made for high explosive work.

I am just wondering...... I know nowadays when one speaks of demolition guns, people think of Royal Ordance L9.  But would 105mm howitzer remain viable as a vehicle-mounted demolition weapon?  How do, say, its HESH/HEP rounds perform compared to HESH rounds used by the L7?

It's a bit hard to compare two weapons, very different in most characteristics.  You could say the 105mm creates a big bang, the 165mm creates a bigger bang.   The major difference is in ranges.  The L9 is designed for short-range, direct fire whereas the 105mm was designed originally as a field artillery weapon and hence capable of longer, indirect fire.   So, in the case of the 105mm, your bang will arrive on target substantially quicker than from the 165mm round.  While you won't be able to see the 105mm in flight, you can sit back, enjoy a nice G&T and still think about what is for dinner and whether you should dress for it, before the 165mm round arrives on target.  ;)

The major difference between the 105mm HEAT and the 165mm HESH is the way in which the blast is directed into the target.  The 105mm HEAT round is much more localised than the 165mm HESH round.   The 165mm will cause considerable collateral damage whereas the 105mm HEAT round won't.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #82 on: January 22, 2016, 09:43:55 AM »
Actually there is a 120mm demolition round used by M-1s issued to armoured engineering units.

"120mm M908 HE-OR-T Ammunition
Orbital ATK's M908 HE-OR-T, a high-explosive, obstacle-reduction ammunition with tracer, is one of the eight rounds in our line of 120mm conventional tank ammunition, which is the most advanced such ammunition in the world.

All rounds are fully compatible with 120mm smooth-bore weapons on M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks and the Leopard 2 main battle tanks with L44 and L55 smooth-bore cannons. The 120mm training ammunition designs provide low-cost, live-fire training to the tank crew.

The M908 round was developed to destroy obstacles and barriers (concrete, rock, dragon's teeth, etc.) that are set up to stop tanks. The round is a modification of the M830A1 (commonly known as the MPAT) where the front fuze is replaced with a steel nose. This provides penetration into the obstacle before detonation.

The M908 has demonstrated performance better than the 165mm M123A1 HEP."

The full list of ammunition types is here
https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/120mm/

Basically if suitable munitions can be provided for standard calibres this makes things much easier logistically, as well as for training.  This particular round means armoured engineering units can operate almost standard tanks along side their more specialised Breachers and AEVs etc.


Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #83 on: January 22, 2016, 09:51:37 AM »
The major difference between the 105mm HEAT and the 165mm HESH is the way in which the blast is directed into the target.  The 105mm HEAT round is much more localised than the 165mm HESH round.   The 165mm will cause considerable collateral damage whereas the 105mm HEAT round won't.

I am actually asking if there is any appreciable difference between 105mm howitzers and 105mm anti-tank guns in demolition roles (it seems like both have HESH/HEP rounds in their ammunition lineups)......

(...... before contemplating any scenario of firing LAHAT out of a 105mm assault howitzer......)
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #84 on: January 22, 2016, 10:55:36 AM »
Depends on the target. If you're just slinging HE around, though, a 105mm howitzer would be just as good as an L7 in everything but accuracy, really. Heck, a 105mm howitzer likely has more HE content than an L7 HE round. The big advantage of a 105mm howitzer over an L7, though, would be in weight reduction—in no small part due to a much lower recoil. The advantage of an L7-type gun, obviously, is its versatility. It's useful against more than just one type of target.

Now, you can put a 105mm howitzer on platforms that can't take an L7-type gun (such as a 5 ton truck or a C-130), but if you can use an L7 on a platform, you may as well, because not all targets are houses.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #85 on: January 22, 2016, 11:12:46 AM »
I know it is about a modern 120mm smooth bore round not the 105mm howitzer and tank guns you are discussing but the answer in in the text I pasted:

"The M908 round was developed to destroy obstacles and barriers (concrete, rock, dragon's teeth, etc.) that are set up to stop tanks. The round is a modification of the M830A1 (commonly known as the MPAT) ......."

specifically:

"........where the front fuze is replaced with a steel nose. This provides penetration into the obstacle before detonation. "

The secret in achieving the desired effect is in the design of the ammunition.  Do you need it to penetrate or explode on impact, what does it need to penetrate, steel, concrete, brick, mud brick?  Do you need to apply an external force to push something over, punch a large hole, or rather penetrate and then shatter a wall or even punch into a building or room and explode it through over pressure.

Even more interesting is the new AMP (Advanced Multi Purpose) round that aims to replace just about all of the above through the use of advanced fusing covering point-detonate, point-detonate delay, or airburst effect to deliver the affect of HEAT, MPAT, Canister or demolition.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2016, 11:36:23 AM by Volkodav »

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #86 on: January 22, 2016, 12:10:38 PM »
Depends on the target. If you're just slinging HE around, though, a 105mm howitzer would be just as good as an L7 in everything but accuracy, really. Heck, a 105mm howitzer likely has more HE content than an L7 HE round. The big advantage of a 105mm howitzer over an L7, though, would be in weight reduction—in no small part due to a much lower recoil. The advantage of an L7-type gun, obviously, is its versatility. It's useful against more than just one type of target.

Now, you can put a 105mm howitzer on platforms that can't take an L7-type gun (such as a 5 ton truck or a C-130), but if you can use an L7 on a platform, you may as well, because not all targets are houses.

Cheers,

Logan

Another advantage of a 105mm howitzer over a 105mm L7 is elevation. The shorter recoil means that the lower velocity howitzer can be given more elevation for the same trunnion height. This might not be relevent in the direct-fire demolition role, but if you're looking to create a versatile fire-support vehicle then an indirect-fire capability adds another club to it's golf bag.

You could make a case that a tank-like versatile fire support vehicle with ATGW, arty and demolition capabilities is more relevent in 120mm than 105mm. 105mm-armed MBTs generally carried a decent number of rounds so they could afford some non-anti-tank ones, but the 40-odd rounds carried by 120mm-armed MBTs seems to be at the lower limit of what tacticians consider acceptable. Pre-Iraq, the US Army went through a phase of not issuing the M1 with ANY HE round.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2016, 12:15:20 PM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #87 on: January 22, 2016, 12:26:15 PM »
Now, you can put a 105mm howitzer on platforms that can't take an L7-type gun (such as a 5 ton truck or a C-130), but if you can use an L7 on a platform, you may as well, because not all targets are houses.

I was thinking of some sort of a M41-type light tank, CEV, or wheeled LAV.

The secret in achieving the desired effect is in the design of the ammunition.  Do you need it to penetrate or explode on impact, what does it need to penetrate, steel, concrete, brick, mud brick?  Do you need to apply an external force to push something over, punch a large hole, or rather penetrate and then shatter a wall or even punch into a building or room and explode it through over pressure.

Didn't think that far- just that options are available within the ammunition lineup would be good enough because the focus of my question involves a gun that is not much good against modern armour without the aid of a guided missile projectile or a companion missile launcher.  Would be nice if significant advantage in terms of explosive weight was there, but weight advantage of the howitzer itself is fine.

You could make a case that a tank-like versatile fire support vehicle with ATGW, arty and demolition capabilities is more relevent in 120mm than 105mm. 105mm-armed MBTs generally carried a decent number of rounds so they could afford some non-anti-tank ones, but the 40-odd rounds carried by 120mm-armed MBTs seems to be at the lower limit of what tacticians consider acceptable. Pre-Iraq, the US Army went through a phase of not issuing the M1 with ANY HE round.

Hum...... I wonder if that is why North Koreans install ATGM launchers on their Chonma-Ho and Pokpung-Ho MBTs.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2016, 11:31:13 PM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #88 on: January 22, 2016, 02:21:04 PM »
Hum...... I wonder if that is why North Koreans install ATGM launchers on their Chonma-Ho and Pokpung-Ho MBTs.

That is more than likely because of the unacceptable dispersion their main guns suffer from at longer ranges.  ATGWs are usually more accurate above 2,000 metres than most MBT guns, particularly Eastern Bloc ones of the type that the North Koreans have access to.  With the advent of more precise machining and fire control systems and computers on MBTs, the West and eventually the Russians overcame that problem.  Its one of the reasons why the development of the US Shillelagh died in the mid-1970s - the standard 105mm/120mm guns were simply too good.  North Korea has been reliant for a long time on aged milling machines, invariably purchased second-hand from the fUSSR.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #89 on: January 22, 2016, 03:16:18 PM »
The major difference between the 105mm HEAT and the 165mm HESH is the way in which the blast is directed into the target.  The 105mm HEAT round is much more localised than the 165mm HESH round.   The 165mm will cause considerable collateral damage whereas the 105mm HEAT round won't.

I am actually asking if there is any appreciable difference between 105mm howitzers and 105mm anti-tank guns in demolition roles (it seems like both have HESH/HEP rounds in their ammunition lineups)......

(...... before contemplating any scenario of firing LAHAT out of a 105mm assault howitzer......)

My apologies.  The only differences would be in the quantity of HE delivered and the velocity at which it would be delivered.

105mm M101 Howitzer
HE Weight/filling: 19.08/2.18 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 472 m/s (1,550 ft/s)

105mm L7 tank gun
HE Weight/filling: ???
Muzzle Velocity: 1,174 m/s

A cursury web search failed to find the filling but it would in all likelihood be appreciably smaller than the Howitzer round, while as you can see, it flies at nearly four times the rate of the Howitzer round.

Offline Crbad

  • I'd buy that for a dollar!
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #90 on: January 23, 2016, 09:32:32 AM »
I'm curious. Is the ammunition for 105mm tank guns and howitzers interchangeable?  The above information on velocity suggest different chamber pressures. So, I'm guessing... Probably not?
Craig's Bureau of Aeronautics Design: Shoddy engineering and marginal skill for the undiscerning modelling enthusiast.

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
    • SketchUp 3D Warehouse - My Digital Models
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #91 on: January 23, 2016, 10:12:42 AM »
I'm curious. Is the ammunition for 105mm tank guns and howitzers interchangeable?  The above information on velocity suggest different chamber pressures. So, I'm guessing... Probably not?

No, not interchangeable. 

But I see no reason why the 105mm Howitzer HE projectile could not be used in a 105mm Gun (M68/L7) if it were properly mated to the 105mm Gun cartridge.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016, 10:21:39 AM by Jeffry Fontaine »
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #92 on: January 23, 2016, 10:48:44 AM »
I'm curious. Is the ammunition for 105mm tank guns and howitzers interchangeable?  The above information on velocity suggest different chamber pressures. So, I'm guessing... Probably not?

As mentioned by Jeff, the ammunition is not interchangeable.   The 105mm Howitzer round is a "semi-fixed" round - the projectile sits in the cartridge case but is removable, allowing the number of charge bags to be altered to allow the round to be fired to different ranges,  The L7 105mm tank gun round is a fixed round - the projectile is permanently fixed to the cartridge case.  Different L7 rounds have different quantities of propellant in them to allow differing muzzle velocities but the amount of propellant in each round is fixed.   The 105mm Howitzer is an artillery weapon, the L7 105mm tank gun has a heritage which draws from the naval side of artillery development.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #93 on: January 23, 2016, 02:37:06 PM »
Actually there is a 120mm demolition round used by M-1s issued to armoured engineering units.

"120mm M908 HE-OR-T Ammunition
Orbital ATK's M908 HE-OR-T, a high-explosive, obstacle-reduction ammunition with tracer, is one of the eight rounds in our line of 120mm conventional tank ammunition, which is the most advanced such ammunition in the world.

All rounds are fully compatible with 120mm smooth-bore weapons on M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks and the Leopard 2 main battle tanks with L44 and L55 smooth-bore cannons. The 120mm training ammunition designs provide low-cost, live-fire training to the tank crew.

The M908 round was developed to destroy obstacles and barriers (concrete, rock, dragon's teeth, etc.) that are set up to stop tanks. The round is a modification of the M830A1 (commonly known as the MPAT) where the front fuze is replaced with a steel nose. This provides penetration into the obstacle before detonation.

The M908 has demonstrated performance better than the 165mm M123A1 HEP."

The full list of ammunition types is here
https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/120mm/

Basically if suitable munitions can be provided for standard calibres this makes things much easier logistically, as well as for training.  This particular round means armoured engineering units can operate almost standard tanks along side their more specialised Breachers and AEVs etc.
105mm-armed MBTs generally carried a decent number of rounds so they could afford some non-anti-tank ones, but the 40-odd rounds carried by 120mm-armed MBTs seems to be at the lower limit of what tacticians consider acceptable. Pre-Iraq, the US Army went through a phase of not issuing the M1 with ANY HE round.
The Indian gun, is IIRC based on the German 120mm gun with the usual "Indian" flavours which of course will make it incompatible with the German gun!   :o

Now those are two tanks that can use a RWS with ATGM- export Arjun and/or Tank EX MBTs re-gunned with 120mm smoothbore gun (either re-engineered Indian gun or outright imported Rheinmetall gun) and Mini-Samson ATGM RWS.

With an internal ammo capacity of just 39 (Arjun) or 32 (Tank EX) rounds for the main gun, two more shots are two more shots even if those are just 4km-range Spike-LR rather than the 8km-range Spike-ER (that would have been more in-line with gun-launched LAHAT)......
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 12:54:28 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #94 on: January 24, 2016, 03:02:03 AM »
How did this thread go so long without this classic being shown?



There was also this variant:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #95 on: January 24, 2016, 03:02:37 AM »
Does this count?

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #96 on: January 28, 2016, 01:32:59 PM »
How did this thread go so long without this classic being shown?



By virtue of it being an artillery weapon?  ;D

Hum...... I wonder if that is why North Koreans install ATGM launchers on their Chonma-Ho and Pokpung-Ho MBTs.


That is more than likely because of the unacceptable dispersion their main guns suffer from at longer ranges.  ATGWs are usually more accurate above 2,000 metres than most MBT guns, particularly Eastern Bloc ones of the type that the North Koreans have access to.  With the advent of more precise machining and fire control systems and computers on MBTs, the West and eventually the Russians overcame that problem.  Its one of the reasons why the development of the US Shillelagh died in the mid-1970s - the standard 105mm/120mm guns were simply too good.  North Korea has been reliant for a long time on aged milling machines, invariably purchased second-hand from the fUSSR.


Is Iran faring any better for their Zulfiqar MBT project?  Or do they simply have more-open access to OEM Russian 125mm gun than North Korea?

Though I have heard that PRC is exporting new gun barrels as upgrade to early 125mm guns as well......

What about Iran's ability to procure quality 105mm guns to upgrade their T-54s?  And if they want to go with the "intimidation" route, they can put Kornet missile launchers on those upgraded T-54s, North-Korean-style, too......
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #97 on: January 30, 2016, 11:56:41 AM »
In AMX-13 equipped with SS-11, who fires and aims missiles, commander or gunner?

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #98 on: January 30, 2016, 11:57:32 AM »
Does this count?




It is cool, indeed!!!!

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #99 on: February 01, 2016, 10:56:50 AM »
In AMX-13 equipped with SS-11, who fires and aims missiles, commander or gunner?

Not entirely sure, but if I am to venture a guess, I would say the gunner (at least primarily) since most modifications of this nature would involve a missile guidance unit that is fixed to the turret's frontal arc rather than being capable of all-around coverage.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2016, 11:12:45 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #100 on: February 01, 2016, 12:36:17 PM »
Is Iran faring any better for their Zulfiqar MBT project?  Or do they simply have more-open access to OEM Russian 125mm gun than North Korea?

No idea.  Iran has been very secretive about its defence industries since the Revolution in 1979.   AIUI, the Zulfigar MBT has gone through a couple of designs and in the last 5-10 years their ability to source new machinery has been rather limited by both finances and politics.

Quote
Though I have heard that PRC is exporting new gun barrels as upgrade to early 125mm guns as well......

What about Iran's ability to procure quality 105mm guns to upgrade their T-54s?  And if they want to go with the "intimidation" route, they can put Kornet missile launchers on those upgraded T-54s, North-Korean-style, too......

*SIGH* I don't think the Iranians want to intimidate anybody, they're just rather touchy about how they perceive the rest of the world perceiving them.   The Chinese would be a good source but like anything the Chinese produce you would need a carefully worded contract and on hand quality control people to ensure the quality control was up to scratch at production.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #101 on: August 02, 2016, 09:14:38 AM »
Does anyone know of a 1/35 (or 1/48) kit of the FV 1620 Humber "Hornet"?


See here
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #102 on: June 19, 2017, 12:56:23 AM »
I was wondering if anyone tried to put a single TOW launcher onto a tank turret in a manner similar to that of a pintle-mounted machinegun and ended up finding a setup as part of the background story of the M2 Bradley.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 01:02:23 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #103 on: April 09, 2018, 12:53:59 AM »
Object 614A- T-54 with a triple Malyutka missile launcher, which elevates when in use, at the back of the turret.

Source page HERE (Russian Only!).
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline SebastianP

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Missiles on gun tanks
« Reply #104 on: April 09, 2018, 01:18:42 AM »
These images might help:









Paint this black and the missiles orange and put a great big red Cobra logo on it, and it'll look just like one of the vehicles from the GI Joe toyline...