Author Topic: Missiles on gun tanks  (Read 64405 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

Online 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!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Frank3k

  • Excession
  • Global Moderator
  • Formerly Frank2056. New upgrade!
    • My new 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

Online 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!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

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.

Online 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!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

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