Why not but a 120mm on the stryker?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

flamingknives 10/7/2006 2:56:27 PM

Define effective?

In what way is the Giat 90mm 'better'?

As for comparison with the CV90, the CV90120 weighs 32 tonnes while the MGS weighs 21 tonnes.

Quote Reply

Apokalypse 10/7/2006 4:24:28 PM

Define effective?

In what way is the Giat 90mm 'better'?

As for comparison with the CV90, the CV90120 weighs 32 tonnes while the MGS weighs 21 tonnes.

First off all.
The CV9030, armed with a 30 or 25mm autocannon weights 26 tonnes link CV90120-T, armed with the 120mm weights 28 tonnes link guess the step from 105 to 120 in added weight isn't as big as the step from 25mm autocannon to 120mm.

When it comes to the power of the giat 90mm I was basically thinking of tank and bunker kills. Unfortunatly I didnt find much sites on the gun in the french ERC 90 Sagaie. I've been told that it is a much better tank killer then the AMX-10 with it's nato 105mm.

When I have time I will find some documentation for my claims...

Quote Reply

doggtag 10/7/2006 5:55:19 PM

When it comes to the power of the giat 90mm I was basically thinking of tank and bunker kills. Unfortunatly I didnt find much sites on the gun in the french ERC 90 Sagaie. I've been told that it is a much better tank killer then the AMX-10 with it's nato 105mm.

When I have time I will find some documentation for my claims...

As far as 90mm guns, editions of Jane's Armour & Artillery and Armour & Artillery Upgrades will give fair enough gun/ammo data.

The Belgian 90mm MECAR KEnerga fires an APFSDS round @ 1400m/sec,

roughly the same performance of the CMI Defence (C0ckerill) Mk 8 gun. link

These 2 are higher pressure guns well suited for anti-armor (KE) work.

The CMI Mk 3 gun (used on Scorpion 90 and others, once recognizable by its triple baffle muzzle brake, although the latest versions have an efficient single baffle) is a lower-powered, lower recoil weapon that is more ideal for HEAT shells rather than APFSDS, link

as is the short-barreled GIAT 90mm F1 gun (D-925?), as used in the Ratel 90, AML 90, etc.

These are lower pressure guns that are more favorable for HEAT shells instead of APFSDS.

The French also have the CN90F3 gun (AMX-13, etc), as well as the 52 caliber CS 90 Super (F4?) fitted to the Sagaie 6x6 (the Lynx 6x6 being different in having the shorter barreled weapon). The CS90 can achieve 1275m/sec with APFSDS. These are their higher pressure 90mm guns. At one time, they claimed the Sagaie was capable of defeating a T-72 (1980s era?) in the frontal arc.

The 105mm in the AMX-10RC is the F2 gun, a medium pressure weapon, as compared to the higher pressure 57 caliber CN105F1, used on numerous vehicles from the Israeli Super Shermans (in a reduced barrel length) to AMX-13/105s, the AMX-30, and scores of others.

The CN105F1 can reportedly reach 1525m/sec with its OFL 105 G2 APFSDS round.

France also ha available a 105mm G2 gun (firing the OFL 105 G2 @ 1495M/SEC),

and a 105mm G1 (firing the OFL 105 G1A APFSDS @ 1460m/sec).

Whether or not the Stryker MGS can ever fit a 120mm remains to be seen.

The Thunderbolt development of the M8 AGS was trialled with a 120mm, and if the 120mm gun being developed for the FCS tank works as promised (XM360?), it may be fine tuned enough to eventually fit into the Stryker MGS, although it may reduce the already limited 19 rounds in the MGS by one or two.

If they really intend it to be an infantry support weapon primarily and not an antitank weapon, maybe the MGS would be more favorable if redesigned to take the 120mm NEMO (the new single barrel variant of AMOS), allowing the kind of fire support nearby infantry need (direct or plunging fire).

Matter of fact, the NEMO both outranges (10+km) and outshoots (7-10 rds/min) the M68 derived gun of the Stryker MGS. Only shortfall it really has is no suitable APFSDS ammo...which, theoretically, infantry don't need (aren't the SBCT's Javelin teams supposed to take on tanks?).

link

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier 10/7/2006 6:42:02 PM

Whats the point on having an outdated 105mm on the stryker when you easy without much weight and cost gain can put a 120mm smoothbore on there instead? I'm against putting the 105 on there in the first place, a 25 mm autocannon would be best for infantry cover...but what the hell if up with the 105mm?

The french Giat 90mm canon is more effective...jesus.

The sweeds did that with the light CV 90...

My suspicion is that you wouldn't be asking those questions if you had a degree in mechanical engineering and were on the design team. Getting a full-power 105mm to work was a trick, the difference in muzzle energy on a 120mm makes it a much fancier trick. Fancy enough the guys designing the system realized it wasn't going to work.

105mm provides breaching, HE, and limited anti-armor capability to the infantry company. 25mm, good as it is for what it does, does not do any of those things. The other issue is that the MGS was designed to utilize the mountain of surplus 105mm ammo we have around.

Quote Reply

doggtag 10/7/2006 8:21:13 PM

So after that mountain surplus of 105mm M68 ammo is used up (or beyond its safe life), what do we do with Stryker MGS?
Scrap it?

Re-gun it?

Re-open the 105mm ammo line?

Will that mountainous stock last for the projected lifetime of the vehicle?

(maybe, maybe not. Depends on the op tempos wherever we end up next decade.)

I'll agree with you that the 25mm is woefully lacking.

Even for the Bradley, when most others are opting for at least 30mm (can carry a reasonable airburst round) in their newest AFVs.

If anything, I'm surprised they didn't opt for a modded M119 105mm howitzer, as that ammo line isn't going away anytime soon (as compared to the M68 ammo line...or has the Stryker contract guaranteed it will stay open, and at an expensive-to-maintain low production rate?).

In its mounting, the M68 mod can't achieve a very high angle (supposedly, direct fire only, no BLOS shooting).

But a howitzer's high angle & lower recoil (as compared to the M68 mod) would've allowed shooting at upper stories in buildings.

Would I use the 90mm?

Can't say for sure.

US firms who at one time were involved in developing 90mm armed turrets for AFVs did state they could create a US production line for 90mm ammo if necessary, as does AAI Corp already for 76mm ammo.

I did like the ARES 75, because its ammo was compact just as is being done with the 40mm CTA, and 3" guns proved their mettle all through the 2nd World War & Korea, as both fire support and anti armor weapons. But that long barrel with its excessive bracing may not be the most ideal if the vehicle finds itself in restricted confines (heaviliy wooded terrain), which the M68 gun will suffer from also.

But we could pack in at least 3 times as many ARES rounds as M68 rounds (somewhere I have a book with the exact ammo specs, but I recall they made the same comparison, per volume).

Quote Reply

Weasel 10/7/2006 11:23:14 PM

"25mm woefully lacking" dog?

You know, if a 7.62mm was firing at me (with intent) I would be digging to china faster than fast.... ;) a 25 mm? crap. I guess that is when you hope the guy firing is either a really good shot, or a very bad shot, depending on your frame of mind.

A 120mm gun on a stryker chassis is a joke (8 tires equals 8 big springs to bounce across the street and back). The 105 is too big IMHO. I much prefer the Oto Melara 60/70 or the AMOS in direct fire mode.

reduce the recoil, reduce the over pressure, retain some big hitting power. Yeah, I like the mortar.

cheers

w

Quote Reply

interestedamateur 10/8/2006 3:56:25 AM

What's the typical range and power of a 120mm mortar used in the direct fire role?

Would it have the power to knock out armoured vehicles?

Quote Reply

shek 10/8/2006 7:23:42 AM

What's the typical range and power of a 120mm mortar used in the direct fire role?

Would it have the power to knock out armoured vehicles?

1. Effectively, as far as you can see.

2. Yes.

The issue is that until the laser guided rounds are fielded in the next 1-2 years or so, you won't be able to hit a moving tank. Also, I wouldn't want to classify the mortar as your primary tank killing mechanism.

Quote Reply

doggtag 10/8/2006 4:39:31 PM

"25mm woefully lacking" dog?

Woefully lacking, as in not the most ideal weapon for everything it's currently being used for.

Sure, in Desert Storm the M919 DU round was credited with penetrations on Iraqi (Russian built) tanks.

Sure, it's fine for technicals and the majority of AFVs the BFV is expected to face (the heavy stuff left for the TOWs).

But against open infantry and insurgents, I still think I'd opt for, minimally, the greater airburst lethality of 30mm ordnance (will we see the USMC switch out the guns on LAV 25s to match commonality with the new EFV?).

From what I've been able to dig up, there aren't any (at least publicly known) plans to make airburst rounds for the Bradley's 25, even though the fuze for the 25mm crew served weapon (OCSW, ACSW?) might be adaptable to it, providing the necessary fire control/programmer are installed into the already-cramped M2/3 BFV ODS turrets.

And I also don't think 25mm is the most ideal hole-puncher to breach walls (and TOWs are a tad expensive, even if we are trying to clear out as much of the older stocks as possible).

I would think the 40mm CTA is the proper route to pursue (it's all in BAe's ballpark now, as they got their hands in it all: CTA gun and UDLP's Bradley manufacturing), as its General Purpose Round shows much more hole punch capability, and most non-military vehicles can be permanently stopped with one round, not the burst fire that chain guns employ now.

link

(Yes, I know it's a PowerPoint. But it's got many good points.)

Here it is in a more user friendly pdf (35pp @ 3.65MB)

link

OK, yeah, sure, it doesn't carry as many rounds (not gonna go there, re the 5.56 vs 7.62 debate),

but one round does easily twice as much damage as a single 25mm (and as the one slide in the ppt shows, the round is barely much longer than standard Bushmaster 25mm amunition, which might allow the Bradleys, with thicker feed chutes, to carry a few hundred 40mm rounds).

Be interesting if the UK does adopt it to replace the Warrior's 30mm Rarden (whose greatest deficiency is that it's clip fed instead of having linkless chutes, and it's not in a stabilized mounting), and how it ends up comparing under battle conditions to 25mm fire support.

A 120mm gun on a stryker chassis is a joke (8 tires equals 8 big
springs to bounce across the street and back). The 105 is too big IMHO.
I much prefer the Oto Melara 60/70 or the AMOS in direct fire mode.

reduce the recoil, reduce the over pressure, retain some big hitting power. Yeah, I like the mortar.

Hells yeah. I like 'em both.

But whereas the 60/70 (IMI or OTO gun, either or) gives us damn nice KE (Jane's suggests 1620m/sec for the IMI's APFSDS, and 1680m/sec for the OTO gun),

the 120mm gun mortar (often called a combination gun, as it combines gun, mortar, and PGM launcher into one) offers us much greater fire support opportunities, and there are easily half a dozen 120mm PGMs for mortars under development now and close enough to production-ready. I'd be curious to see if that MRM munition (both models) could be adapted to fire from direct-fire mortar tubes, not just high-pressure tank guns.

With response to the 120mm's ability to knock out AFVs,

when the French built their MCB81 combo mortar/gun, they created for it an APFSDS round that, fired at low angles & flat trajectories, gave the gun/mortar an anti armor role with a 1000m/sec sabot that could penetrate 90mm at 1000m.

But a 120mm mortar I would suspect would be able to do greater damage with a HEAT warhead. And being as big as 120mm, it could fit a decent precursor/predetonator charge for use against reactive armor, and as a plunging round, should be able to penetrate the roof of any known or projected MBT.

What I like about the 60mm gun (or would BAe, using UDLP's 57mm Mk 3 naval gun technology, suggest a 57mm gun for AFVs, as the Russians have recently done with that S-60 development?) was that, in addition to its useful anti armor KE, it would be easy to create a wall-busting HESH/HEP round for it that should, by weight, perform at least twice better than the 40mm CTA gun.

Anyone have any info on how the HESH rounds from the CVR(T) Scorpion's 76mm performed, as to would they be effective under current ops? (most likely so, bridging the gap between 25 & 30mm cannon fire and guided missiles. It's just that they lacked high velocity for direct fire, yet didn't have decent-enough elevation for plunging fire. But then, Scorpion was technically a recce vehicle.)

Now if we get up to 3" caliber guns, here's where it gets debatable as to why adhere to 75/76mm when 90mm is not much farther away? 90mm gives greater anti-armor KE than 75/76mm, better HE than anything beneath it, but the rounds are considerably bigger (even though French 6x6 AFVs manage to carry almost 4 dozen rounds).

Do we opt for renewed interest in an MCB 81 gun mortar (and in AMOS twin form, even better)? Standard 81mm mortar ammo is half as long as a complete 90mm high power gun round.

A rekindled 20pdr gun (84mm)?

(or my idea: an AMOS in twin 60mm, to exploit that ODAM that DARPA and BAe are trying to make. link

Imagine the burst fire, time on target capabilities such a system could offer for precision close range infantry support!)

It all depends how much of the support we're doing is directly for infantry or anti vehicle ops, and would high angle capability be preferrable as compared to low-angle-only high power guns (which primarily suggests anti-armor KE work)?

And do we need rapid fire, or will an average dozen rds/min ROF be enough?

So is 105 too big for 20 ton 8x8 vehicles?

That CMI CT-CV 105 can, as an option, reach 55° elevation, damn fine for building work. Hell, with a decent fire control suite, it could even be used as an indirect artillery weapon. link

And there was even the DENEL/GDLS cooperative on the LAV 3/LEO: link

105s on 8x8s will work, but I don't think the Stryker MGS design is the best choice at doing it.

(the French manage a medium-power 105 on their 6x6 AMX-10RC, but it doesn't fire high power APFSDS ammo.)

I think we're finally at the point where we need realize you just don't stick high power guns over a certain caliber on chassis within a given weight limit, not if the vehicle itself is expected to take most of the recoil.

Quote Reply

Weasel 10/8/2006 8:41:19 PM

Just quickly,

Talking Bushmaster guns; Go the 40mm over the 30mm, as you get nearly double the HE blast effect for a small size increase in caliber. Mk44-40mm would be my preference.

The 120mm mortar/gun is so easy to do, its not funny (ala experiments with boring out 105 arty(the m102) by navsea). Any 120mm L44 round can be modded with a full mortar charge to fire from the mortar, although I would 86 anything to do with APFSDS.... MPAT and HEAT would be good.

Plus you can fire the new 120 mike mike UAVs from it... :D

starting to make the interim MGS look very interim, hey?

Anti tank stuff should be done by tanks. But if you really want to go there get an ATGM. ITOW is relatively cheap when compared with Javelin.

My one stipulation in using the mortar/gun is that it has to have an ability to elevate (and preferably be used as a traditional mortar for NLOS support fires)....

Just a personal preference.

cheers

w

ps: liked the power point DgTg...

pps: you still in DC shek?

ppps: I hat this new format @^^#&***:(

Quote Reply

Herald1234 Lots of interesting stuff to digest. 10/9/2006 12:22:37 AM

12 cm gun/mortars? Makes sense to me on an armored car fire support vehicle.

And I continue to receive a fine education from the gentlemen posters on this forum.

Thanks for the information, everybody!

Herald

Quote Reply

doggtag 10/9/2006 1:37:25 AM

Talking Bushmaster guns; Go the 40mm over the 30mm, as you get nearly
double the HE blast effect for a small size increase in caliber.
Mk44-40mm would be my preference.

Why stop there? Wouldn't the 50mm Bushmaster 3 (SuperShot) be even more lethal?

(checking out Tony Williams' (see TankNet) site, I still find it hard to believe the 40mm CTA gun outperforms the 50mm Bushie's KE APFSDS performance!)

I was trying to look at things from a space issue: the 40mm CTA takes up considerably less "length space" than those bigger Bushmaster rounds (see the previous power point), even if they are bigger in diameter (not as much an issue, as I was looking from the perspective of a Bradley's internal turret volume and the space occupied by the ammo boxes and feed chutes).

ATK's Bushmaster chain guns, 12.7mm thru 50mm: link

in pdf form:link

The 120mm mortar/gun is so easy to do, its not funny (ala experiments
with boring out 105 arty(the m102) by navsea). Any 120mm L44 round can
be modded with a full mortar charge to fire from the mortar, although I
would 86 anything to do with APFSDS.... MPAT and HEAT would be good.

Plus you can fire the new 120 mike mike UAVs from it... :D

Are you talking about this one?

link

(careful, this pdf is 14.98 MB, the rebored 105 starts on page 14.)

It would seem sensible to me that, if everything works out in the AC-130 mods (25mm's & 40mm's replaced by 30mm Bushmasters, 105 replaced with 120mm), then logically it would seem ideal to further adapt the 120mm system to ground applications (oooh, do we dare suggest a replacement for the M119 eventually?).

But hell, lots of people already have 120mm gun mortar type systems ready in the here and now for ground applications:

the earlier-mentioned AMOS and NEMO from Patria, Royal Ordnance (now under BAe) once marketed the AMS 120, which is employed on some 8x8 LAVs of the Saudi National Guard, and the Russians have scores of platforms fitted with their NONA series gun system (2S9, 2S23, 2S31).

Scroll down to the lower half of this FAS.org site for info & pic on the LAV Mortar System used by Saudi with its gun mortar: link

Saudi LAV 120

NEMO and AMOS are available over at Patria:link

AMOS is the twin,

NEMO is the single.

For the NONA series, try: link

2S31

2S23

2S9

towed NONA-K gun mortar

All of these retain both features of gun (more accurately, howitzer) and mortar: direct fire, flat trajectory capability, and higher-elevation, plunging fire capability (at various velocities).

In effect, they could be considered to bridge the gap between infantry-transported mortars and self-propelled howitzers, and especially now have the added benefit of PGM capability.

The term gun-mortar most likely was brought about by the French with their 1970s era 60mm and 81mm variants.

They could be considered "guns" because they had breech load capability.

But they also possessed the feature of a locking breech allowing the tube to be muzzle loaded like a standard mortar, having the rounds drop down (only at high enough elevations that allowed the shell to drop) and activated by impacting the firing pin which was "locked" in place (which was all fine for the relatively short barrels of 60 and 81mm weapons, and the weight of their bombs).

But these newest 120mm systems are most likely breech load only, as their barrel lengths, and weight of shell, would suggest great difficulty in muzzle loading them. But especially in the case of the Patria AMOS and NEMO, these newest gun/mortars (the French also coined the term "combination gun" to describe them) have the added benefit of very capable automatic loading mechanisms, with the twin-barrel AMOS being able to achieve a short duration burst rate reported as high as 24 rds per minute, not something achievable with typical field artillery howitzers using full sized (separate loading or fixed) ammunition.

Some time ago, there were threads on here of just how big a fire support weapon we might consider.

Some people brought up the 165mm demolition guns used on British & American engineer tanks.

link

M728 CEV

But there are also 160mm mortars that have been in service for decades, most notably with the Russians, but also the Vammas, Tampella, and Soltam mortars, like Israel mounted often in a Sherman chassis.

link

Sherman 160mm

It would be interesting to see a 160mm combo gun, shades of the Sheridan's 152mm gun launcher,

M551 Sheridan,

but having a longer barrel and greater range (to 10km?). Effectively, we'd be talking something along the lines of a modern-day Brummbar assault panzer (had a stubby 15cm howitzer in its glacis).

Brummbar

For close range fire support, it'd pack one hell of a wallop.

And with a HESH/HEP round, even against an MBT, its large explosive content would cause considerable damage.

...but I'd scoff at the notion of fitting it to a 20 ton 8x8 chassis!

I think for the most part though, 120mm models will suffice, giving us a most ideal combination of range (it's for close support, not long range), rate of fire, and shell lethality against the majority of forseeable targets infantry will have to contend with.

Quote Reply

boris the romanian 10/9/2006 1:48:09 AM

I think the Stryker MGS would be a much better vehicle if the 105mm gun were replaced by a 120mm 2A80 type rifled weapon, like the 2S23 or 2S31. This gun/mortar is good for both direct and indirect fires, throws out a very powerful HE projectile, and has acceptable weight and recoil stats.

Its principal role, after all, is not to blow holes in tanks but to reduce bunkers, MG nests, and hostile buildings to rubble. AT-variant Strykers and infantry dismounts should be used to provide an antitank front, not the MGS.

Quote Reply

doggtag AMOS and NEMO pdfs. Hell's yeah! 10/9/2006 1:53:52 AM

Found these.

AMOS link

That twin turret on the tan CV90 chassis? Damn!

NEMO link

Pretty sweet set up on that BvS-10 articulated carrier.

Quote Reply

doggtag AMOS and NEMO pdfs. Hell's yeah! 10/9/2006 1:54:49 AM

I like the way you think, boris!

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

	News As History - September 7, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us