Beyond The Sprues
Current and Finished Projects => Physical Models => Land => Topic started by: The Big Gimper on December 26, 2017, 07:42:37 PM
-
Found via Twittter
12 cm lvakan, 52 shot mag with remote-controlled recharging and the capacity to shoot 80 rounds/min.
Via Google Translate:
This is the world's largest mobile air force gun ever, and at the same time the only copy being built. With its entire 12 cm in caliber it is an impressive play - and a clear facit of the fears of the cold war aroused. It would manage to shoot down a high-level bomb plane, loaded with nuclear weapons. But even though the capability of the gun gives respect, the device became too big and untrue for mass production. It weighs a total of 23 tons. However, it has been deployed in Swedish air defense between 1960-73. To carry the play a cargo truck was required.
At the end of the 50's, the robot began to come, Bofors wanted to see if one could compete with a cannon and built this mobile air defense machine gun. However, it became too awkward and it took too long for the shot to reach the goal after firing, so the defense chose to buy robots instead.
(https://dms-cf-05.dimu.org/image/012wX1HbprHz?dimension=1200x1200)
Garnisons- och Luftvärnsmuseet − 91:anmuseet (https://digitaltmuseum.se/011023030922/automatkanon)
-
Are you going to scratch build one?
-
A 23 ton gun?!!! Color me impressed!
Brian da Basher
-
Some more images:
(http://weaponews.com/images/2017/09/04/59275c61760709114ee9964a7cd33135.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2c4XypCIAAuiCI.jpg:large)
(http://img.mp.itc.cn/upload/20170313/ab97d452d28944fbaa9ccd1cc7ae31d6_th.jpeg)
Some more info here (http://weaponews.com/weapons/13989-anti-aircraft-gun-120-mm-lvautomatkanon-fm-1-sweden.html)
-
This just in...
January 17, 2018
Sweden is preparing to send a brochure to 4.7m households warning them for the first time in more than half a century of what they should do in the event of a war. The booklet will deal with issues such as how members of the public can take part in “total defence” during a war and how to secure basic needs such as water, food and heating. It will also cover other threats such as cyber attacks, terrorism and climate change. Its publication comes as debate intensifies in Sweden about defence and security issues, the threat from Russia and whether the country should join Nato.
https://www.ft.com/content/2036e176-fad6-11e7-9b32-d7d59aace167 (https://www.ft.com/content/2036e176-fad6-11e7-9b32-d7d59aace167)
Hmmm.
120 mm/46 (4.7") TAK120
A Bofors fully-automatic weapon intended for large Fast Attack Craft (FAC). Developed on a private-venture basis from the Luftvärnsautomatkanon 4501 anti-aircraft field gun.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSweden_47-46_TAK120.php (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSweden_47-46_TAK120.php)
From a tactical standpoint, a fixed position coastal defense cannon would be a sitting duck destined for a short lifespan. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_cm_tornautomatpj (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_cm_tornautomatpj)äs_m/70
A completely autonomous mobile cannon with an AI computer and drone sensors https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/15382/Kalashnikov-Introduces-Autonomous-Cannon.aspx (https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/15382/Kalashnikov-Introduces-Autonomous-Cannon.aspx)
could be dropped off at any one of a number of pre-picked but camoflauged firing locations in the event that a section of seacoast needed protection.
Here's a modern Prime Mover
https://www.walmart.com/ip/1-32-Scale-Volvo-VN-780-W-Dry-Van-Trailer-Container/46416530?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=6377&adid=22222222227033798834&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=74065866896&wl4=pla-123801486296&wl5=9007306&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=115068449&wl11=online&wl12=46416530&wl13=&veh=sem (https://www.walmart.com/ip/1-32-Scale-Volvo-VN-780-W-Dry-Van-Trailer-Container/46416530?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=6377&adid=22222222227033798834&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=74065866896&wl4=pla-123801486296&wl5=9007306&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=115068449&wl11=online&wl12=46416530&wl13=&veh=sem)
The only inkling that such a project was underway would be in this musuem piece disappeared overnight at some point in the near future.
(https://i.imgur.com/omZBJy3.jpg)
-
But IMHO it could be mounted on a reinforced Leopard 2 hull or so. What do you think?
-
If it was required to travel cross-country, that's be great.
But if this weapons sysmtem was disguised for movement as just another 18 wheeler refrigerated tractor-trailer, the unit could travel incognito, take high-speed avenues of approach [Sweden's autobahns] to those scenic coastal overlooks, shed it's cladding and be in position fast enough to surprise doddering enemy surface traffic on the Baltic.
-
If it was required to travel cross-country, that's be great.
But if this weapons sysmtem was disguised for movement as just another 18 wheeler refrigerated tractor-trailer, the unit could travel incognito, take high-speed avenues of approach [Sweden's autobahns] to those scenic coastal overlooks, shed it's cladding and be in position fast enough to surprise doddering enemy surface traffic on the Baltic.
Good point :smiley:
-
But why go for huge mobile cannon for coastal work when you have mobile missiles and more handy artillery pieces?
-
As I understand it, the US Navy is already defeating anti-shipping missiles that are programmed to perform evasive maneuvers on terminal approach, doing it regularly and with great success ( at relatively high mach speeds, buy maybe not hypervelocity ones.. yet). So if the USN can do that, it's only a matter of time before the Kremlin steals that technology.
As with any modernization program, use of all-the-self components is desirable.
Sweden, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands have chosen the Excalibur precision-guided projectile to address vital security interests, and several other international partners are finalizing procurement plans.
All the Swedes would need to do is resize this from 5" to 4.5", which might be a neat spinoff (120mm Excalibur) meaning that the luftvärnsautomatkanon might be a Test Bed that has the additional benefit of being a wild card in Sweden's 21st Century coastal defense program.
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/excalibur/ (https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/excalibur/)
See also "All Eggs in one basket, undesirable".
-
Excalibur is a field arty round though, the Swede beast here is for Anti-Aircraft fires.
-
If I recall correctly there was a proposal to use the PzH2000 as a CRAM system using programmable air burst rounds.
-
But why go for huge mobile cannon for coastal work when you have mobile missiles and more handy artillery pieces?
I keep thinking of GLCM launch vehicles repurposed to work with the anti-ship version of the Tomahawk as an interesting coastal defense concept, much as I would have encouraged adding a zeroth stage to Pershing II to create a Pershing III small ICBM.
-
Excalibur is a field arty round though, the Swede beast here is for Anti-Aircraft fires.
Uh huh... and?
(https://i1.wp.com/militaryhistorynow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-443-1574-26_Nordafrika_Flakgeschütz.jpg?resize=300%2C188)
Here's your map of potential coastal defense firing positions, secondaries and tertiaries (blunt the blue Arrows & win valuable medals).
(http://coldwarsites.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/img004-www-384x415.jpg)
-
Historical precedence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Drøbak_Sound) for antiquated coastal defense weapons being deployed with effect against a modern warship (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ79i11JSnU)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m54669GqhC1qhsqm1o1_500.jpg)
Eriksen tersely observes “Those ships are running with no lights and no signals — those are the actions of a foe, not a friend.” He makes a momentous decision and shouts out his now-famous command: “Either I will be decorated, or I will be court-martialed. Fire!” The shell from Gun #1 hits the Blücher’s command tower and sets the ship ablaze. Gun #2 takes out the airplane hangar and ignites stored fuel. The explosion disables electricity to the Blücher‘s guns and does damage to its boiler room, reducing engine power. (https://anewbieinnorway.com/2016/12/07/oscarsborg-fortress/)
-
Excalibur is a field arty round though, the Swede beast here is for Anti-Aircraft fires.
Uh huh... and?
b/c there is a significant difference in design of a complete round, more than necking it down to 120mm, between dedicated field and AD arty ammo.
-
Excalibur is a field arty round though, the Swede beast here is for Anti-Aircraft fires.
Uh huh... and?
b/c there is a significant difference in design of a complete round, more than necking it down to 120mm, between dedicated field and AD arty ammo.
Field artillery rounds tend to be either semi-fixed or loose rounds. They have the ability to change the amount of charge used to propel the round. This, plus a change in trajectory can allow an artillery piece to fire to differing ranges and over obstacles. It is what allows modern artillery to use "time-on-target" fire missions where the rounds arrive at the same target at approximately the same time despite being fired from a single gun. AA rounds are usually fixed (ie permamently attached to the case) to ease loading and to make it faster. They are only designed to be fired upwards and so it doesn't matter how fast they do it (in fact the faster the better). One of the problems with field artillery is that because of the complexities of differing charges and trajectories, it makes automating the process much harder.
-
Your theories about what can and can not be done with ordnance, necessity (http://www.newsweek.com/how-defend-baltic-states-russian-invasion-702677) and some inspired engineering are interesting, but contradict certain historical precedences.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/96/c3/c7/96c3c78b549623f6573c414ddee8f816--north-africa-you-must.jpg)
(http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/88mm-antiaircraft-gun/88mm/german-88mm-rounds-ammunition-fig70.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/23/6a/50/236a508498e7f7d5c3d6144a09cd8501.jpg)
luftvärnsautomatkanon has a 52 round magazine (actually, looks like there's two magazines). Drones are cheap these days, drones with laser designators could be flown by freakin' Swedish Boy Scouts to paint Russian ships.If the intended targets really needed a four round ToT burst, preload one magazine with sequentially-loaded shells charged 1-4 (http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA293479). Need a single shot? Right mag. Four round ToT? Left mag.
It's not like the weapon is going to be reloaded or moved during such a scenario [23 ton museum piece technology testbed cum battlefield surprise], no matter how many sinking Russian boats are out on the water. Plus the Swedes, if properly motivated, might come up with something cheaper that works. (http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2016/11/a-ship-with-no-ammunition.html).
-
, but contradict certain historical precedences.
Anti-tank gun re-roled as AD (or vice versa), sure. Fd Arty 155 rounds, still gonna go with a nope.
-
, but contradict certain historical precedences.
Anti-tank gun re-roled as AD (or vice versa), sure. Fd Arty 155 rounds, still gonna go with a nope.
None the less Rhinemetal propose just such an option with their PzH2000 and Dona, combined with a 155mm round using the same AHEAD tech as their millennium 35mm AAA /CWIS
-
Your theories about what can and can not be done with ordnance,
Not theories, practicalities. Field artillery is designed to be fired up and over long ranges and over obstacles. The trajectories that it utilises are designed to allow it's rounds to be fired out to the maximum range of the weapon and over intervening obstacles. Anti-Aircraft weapons/Anti-Tank weapons/Coast Defence weapons are designed to be fired in straight lines, directly towards the target. The only similarities between the types of weapons is that they both go, "BANG!"
The utility of field artillery is such that the crew must be able to readily alter the amount of propellant in the chamber. This is done through having small bags (referred to as "charges") of powder which can be easily removed or added to, when the round is loaded into the weapon. While humans can do this easily, machinery finds it a lot harder. This can be helped by making the charges into small packages in cardboard or plastic. However it still makes it fiddly.
Anti-aircraft/Anti-tank/Coast Defence weapons use fixed rounds to enable easier loading faster. They have fixed charges in the cartridge case. This limits the trajectories they can undertake but then, they usually aren't required to fire indirectly (although, towards the end of WWII, AA guns were used in indirect fire missions - it basically gave them something to do when there were so few aircraft around).
-
Your theories about what can and can not be done with ordnance,
Not theories, practicalities. Field artillery is designed to be fired up and over long ranges and over obstacles. The trajectories that it utilises are designed to allow it's rounds to be fired out to the maximum range of the weapon and over intervening obstacles. Anti-Aircraft weapons/Anti-Tank weapons/Coast Defence weapons are designed to be fired in straight lines, directly towards the target. The only similarities between the types of weapons is that they both go, "BANG!"
The utility of field artillery is such that the crew must be able to readily alter the amount of propellant in the chamber. This is done through having small bags (referred to as "charges") of powder which can be easily removed or added to, when the round is loaded into the weapon. While humans can do this easily, machinery finds it a lot harder. This can be helped by making the charges into small packages in cardboard or plastic. However it still makes it fiddly.
Anti-aircraft/Anti-tank/Coast Defence weapons use fixed rounds to enable easier loading faster. They have fixed charges in the cartridge case. This limits the trajectories they can undertake but then, they usually aren't required to fire indirectly (although, towards the end of WWII, AA guns were used in indirect fire missions - it basically gave them something to do when there were so few aircraft around).
Ummm modern naval gun fire support is conducted with weapons designed initially as DP anti surface and anti air. Coastal artillery was primarily naval guns and calibres, 6" and 9.2" Cruiser calibres being examples of this.
-
Just looked up Finnish Coastal Artillery. It still uses some fixed 130 mm guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/130_53_TK
Apparently they will be phased out soon.
The shell and charges are loaded separately, and there's two different charges available. Loading is machine-assisted and normal rate of fire is 6 founds per minute, with a capability to shoot 3 rounds in 20 seconds. It can be operated by 4 men but normal crew is 3 NCOs (leader, deputy, and one with the firing solution computer) and 7 men (most of them handling and preparing shells and charges). Maximum range is over 30 km..
-
I've explained how (and provided supporting links) on everything from target designation to modification of smart projectiles and even the loading sequence for alternative target engagements. All I'm reading is "we can't do that, we might get in trouble".
For a place that's supposed to be all about thinking outside the box, we sure have folks who love following straight lines.
(https://img.4plebs.org/boards/tv/image/1366/09/1366099528406.jpg)
Meanwhile, let's have another look at an antiaircraft weapon successfully being used for other-than-originally-intended purposes.
(http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/WWII-Weapons-The-German-88mm-Gun4.jpg)
Using a Patton tank for indirect fire? Let's bend his dog tags so's he can't have any ice cream for desert.
(http://koreanwar-educator.org/memoirs/servais_dean/mem_servais_03_720x451.jpg)
ze Germans, thinking outside that damned box again.
None the less Rhinemetal propose just such an option with their PzH2000 and Dona, combined with a 155mm round using the same AHEAD tech as their millennium 35mm AAA /CWIS
-
Heavy anti-aircraft guns and tank turrets are among things that have been used for coastal artillery too.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/100_56_TK_Kuivasaari_2009-08-02.JPG/800px-100_56_TK_Kuivasaari_2009-08-02.JPG)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_56_TK
-
Ummm modern naval gun fire support is conducted with weapons designed initially as DP anti surface and anti air. Coastal artillery was primarily naval guns and calibres, 6" and 9.2" Cruiser calibres being examples of this.
Naval artillery cheats. They move the ship further out or closer in, to vary the distance to the target to allow the guns to reach it more easily. Coastal artillery tends not to play with trajectories all that much. The elevation on their mounts are limited. There was a fad for a while for Howitzers in coastal defence batteries to allow plunging fire to be used against ships closer in but when the ships put more armour on their decks, their utility became limited. They also tried to use mortars - the US was the only nation that took to them in a big way that I know of - for the same job but again, their ranges were limited and increased deck armour defeated their utility.
I've explained how (and provided supporting links) on everything from target designation to modification of smart projectiles and even the loading sequence for alternative target engagements. All I'm reading is "we can't do that, we might get in trouble".
For a place that's supposed to be all about thinking outside the box, we sure have folks who love following straight lines.
You can be derisive if you so desire however, I am explaining why certain types of artillery were designed the way they were. Your attempts at humour are well, to put it mildly, quite childish. Now, your anti-aircraft gun can fire quite well as an anti-aircraft or an anti-tank or a Coastal defence piece of artillery. It can also be used as a piece of field artillery but it will be less effective than a weapon with separate loading rounds. No one has denied that it can be used as such but it will be an expensive and difficult weapon to use in such a manner. It will have to fire quite high trajectories using fixed ammunition to hit targets closer in, behind hills and other obstacles and have longer times of flight. Personally, I'd rather have a well designed gun/howitzer for that role, than an adapted anti-aircraft weapon.
-
Naval artillery cheats. They move the ship further out or closer in, to vary the distance to the target to allow the guns to reach it more easily. Coastal artillery tends not to play with trajectories all that much. The elevation on their mounts are limited. There was a fad for a while for Howitzers in coastal defence batteries to allow plunging fire to be used against ships closer in but when the ships put more armour on their decks, their utility became limited. They also tried to use mortars - the US was the only nation that took to them in a big way that I know of - for the same job but again, their ranges were limited and increased deck armour defeated their utility.
You missed the part about laser designators and modified Excalibur projectiles.
You can be derisive if you so desire however, I am explaining why certain types of artillery were designed the way they were. Your attempts at humour are well, to put it mildly, quite childish. Personally, I'd rather have a well designed gun/howitzer for that role, than an adapted anti-aircraft weapon.
Lighten up, Brian.
We're talking about the WIFF of putting a museum piece back into action. Everything I cited can be executed, given the constraints already laid out. You're just squirming (again).
-
Story, I ran into a similar issue awhile back. I think we were discussing the book World War Z, the battle of Yonkers in particular. I suggested mounting claymore mines above ground level in trees, street posts, etc.
No! It can't be done! It's a ridiculous idea! There is no provision in the manual for such a thing! I was honestly surprised anyone would care, let alone argue such a hypothetical situation (even though it was supposedly done by both sides in Vietnam). Sometimes it's just best to shrug and walk away.
-
Claymore's in trees? Great idea. That is what duct tape and zip ties are for :)
-
That is what duct tape and zip ties are for :)
It's all good as long the XO circle-X's whatever it is you're not supposed to be doing to make it work on the DA 2404.
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/1f/a5/5e/1fa55eaec8976d97486cb10a6711159c--kellys-heroes-top-movies.jpg)
I suggested mounting claymore mines above ground level in trees, street posts, etc.
Range Control gets all uptight when you daisy-chain Hoffman charges.
Ask me hows I knows that. 8)
-
Naval artillery cheats. They move the ship further out or closer in, to vary the distance to the target to allow the guns to reach it more easily. Coastal artillery tends not to play with trajectories all that much. The elevation on their mounts are limited. There was a fad for a while for Howitzers in coastal defence batteries to allow plunging fire to be used against ships closer in but when the ships put more armour on their decks, their utility became limited. They also tried to use mortars - the US was the only nation that took to them in a big way that I know of - for the same job but again, their ranges were limited and increased deck armour defeated their utility.
You missed the part about laser designators and modified Excalibur projectiles.
A cheat's method of overcoming the limitations inherent in the weapon. You still need varying trajectories to allow you to fire over obstacles.
You can be derisive if you so desire however, I am explaining why certain types of artillery were designed the way they were. Your attempts at humour are well, to put it mildly, quite childish. Personally, I'd rather have a well designed gun/howitzer for that role, than an adapted anti-aircraft weapon.
Lighten up, Brian.
We're talking about the WIFF of putting a museum piece back into action. Everything I cited can be executed, given the constraints already laid out. You're just squirming (again).
Ah, the good ol' joke defence. Ah, yes, OK, how about we have instead rockets? Much cheaper to produce and much more accurate, if coupled with laser designators and seekers. Oh, you can put their own guidance systems on the rockets which enhance their accuracy considerably. The Taiwanese have missiles with multiple, redundant guidance systems - Radar, IR, Laser...
-
Guys, chill! Don't make me hand out some paddlin's
(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Thats-a-paddlin.jpg)
-
None the less Rhinemetal propose just such an option with their PzH2000 and Dona, combined with a 155mm round using the same AHEAD tech as their millennium 35mm AAA /CWIS
That's interesting. I worked on the AHEAD trials when the RCA had a battery of GDF-005's. We envisioned using them in anti-anti radiation missile defence, where the operator in the SkyGuard FCU could over ride the gunners in the twin 35 with a 'panic button' that would slew all the troop guns on to the vampire and let loose a combat burst of AHEAD. It was something to see (and hear!!).
I'm really curious about a 155 AHEAD. To be used in an anti-air role, with a PzH2k...I think for it to be effective the round would have to be pre-loaded in the breech? Or something? By the time the air threat is spotted and data passed to the guns, the time it would take to load and slew on to the target, its likely well out of the range of the shell.
One of the reasons AHEAD works is that there are typically multiple barrels firing hundreds of rounds with thousands of tungsten fragments. A PzH with a comparatively low rate of fire (1 or 2 at best before the threat has say, turned slightly) , I'm just not seeing how it can be used in an AD role. Now, if you want to figure out how to employ AHEAD in an anti-pers role...*that* I could see being pretty nasty.
-
None the less Rhinemetal propose just such an option with their PzH2000 and Dona, combined with a 155mm round using the same AHEAD tech as their millennium 35mm AAA /CWIS
That's interesting. I worked on the AHEAD trials when the RCA had a battery of GDF-005's. We envisioned using them in anti-anti radiation missile defence, where the operator in the SkyGuard FCU could over ride the gunners in the twin 35 with a 'panic button' that would slew all the troop guns on to the vampire and let loose a combat burst of AHEAD. It was something to see (and hear!!).
I'm really curious about a 155 AHEAD. To be used in an anti-air role, with a PzH2k...I think for it to be effective the round would have to be pre-loaded in the breech? Or something? By the time the air threat is spotted and data passed to the guns, the time it would take to load and slew on to the target, its likely well out of the range of the shell.
One of the reasons AHEAD works is that there are typically multiple barrels firing hundreds of rounds with thousands of tungsten fragments. A PzH with a comparatively low rate of fire (1 or 2 at best before the threat has say, turned slightly) , I'm just not seeing how it can be used in an AD role. Now, if you want to figure out how to employ AHEAD in an anti-pers role...*that* I could see being pretty nasty.
Been a long time since I read the article but if I recall it was being pursued as a long range CRAM solution where a one vehicle in the section was assigned to CRAM with ready fire rounds ready to go.
-
That makes a ton of sense. CRAM ready to fire, shooting at a target following a predictable unguided ballistic trajectory. I could see that working against a single rocket or mortar bomb. Not sure if the rate of fire could protect against a salvo or FFE.
-
Film footage of this Swedish 120mm anti-aircraft gun during trials would be amazing to see!!
I've had a look on the web, but nothing prevailes 😔
MAD
-
Story, I ran into a similar issue awhile back. I think we were discussing the book World War Z, the battle of Yonkers in particular. I suggested mounting claymore mines above ground level in trees, street posts, etc.
No! It can't be done! It's a ridiculous idea! There is no provision in the manual for such a thing! I was honestly surprised anyone would care, let alone argue such a hypothetical situation (even though it was supposedly done by both sides in Vietnam). Sometimes it's just best to shrug and walk away.
Way back when, *we* lost four guys to an Iranian Quds-manufactured shaped charged IED that AQI placed up on a power pole - where no one would think to look for them.
Boom.