Author Topic: Missiles on gun tanks  (Read 40678 times)

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.

Online 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...
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!!!

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

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!!!

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

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.

Online 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...
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!!!

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

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!!!

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

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!?