Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: 120mm AMS in Australian service
BLUIE006    6/2/2008 4:45:13 AM
The 120 AMS (120mm Armored Mortar System) is a single barrel, smoothbore 120mm mortar turret suitable for integration on medium weight armored vehicles such as M113 and Piranha III. It is operated completely under armor featuring reduced recoil and semi-automatic loading system which makes possible integration on most types of wheeled and tracked vehicles. The 120 Armored Mortar System mortar-turret fires existing and planned 120mm mortar ammunition and can be employed for direct fire engagements as well as indirect fire engagements. A 7.62mm machine gun and smoke grenade launchers provide additional self-defense capability. h*tp://www.deagel.com/Weapon-Stations/120-AMS_a001428001.aspx The 120 AMS has been integrated on M113A4 and Piranha III 8x8 chassis and is currently in service with the armies of Saudi Arabia and Australia. Australia / 20 Saudi Arabia / 73 I had no idea ADF used 120 mortar?? Is this part of MINCS(L) AMP 48.36 – Army Mortar System Project The DMO site says its unapproved
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT
Herald12345       6/28/2008 7:34:44 AM




AGA,



 My comment regarding DPICM for danger close was advocating not expelling teh grenades, but replacing the expulsion charge with a detonating charge, which both the M483 and M864 have teh ability to do.  But if the ADF dont have either those rounds in the inventory as they are "Evil Cluster Munitions" ;) its a moot point.




I understand that those rounds can do that, but that would lead to too much shrapnel which is what I'm suggesting needs to be avoided for DC missions. I'm talking about something that gets rid of the outer shell but leaves the HE core on the round. Apparently it doesn't exist at the moment, but given this discussion I don't see why it shouldn't.



Reverse Bouncing Betty? The cargo shell punches into the structure or ground and then kicks out a blast charge that explodes after  the cargo shell impacts? That would be kind of HARD to do but a base ejector type of shell might work in that kind of setup.........
 
Trouble is building a thin wall container for the ejected charge that wouldn't crush under the shock of cannon launch, yet still could survive the kick out charge, and still not wind up as fragmentation when the BB bursting charge goes off. Frangible ceramic? Something that would stay rigid as long as encased in the cargo shell, but which would shatter to dust once the bursting charge went off in mid air after kickout?
 
Asking an awful lot from that bucket..............
  
Just speculating.
 
Herald
 
 
   
 

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Herald   6/28/2008 8:03:37 AM


Reverse Bouncing Betty? The cargo shell punches into the structure or ground and then kicks out a blast charge that explodes after  the cargo shell impacts? That would be kind of HARD to do but a base ejector type of shell might work in that kind of setup.........

 Trouble is building a thin wall container for the ejected charge that wouldn't crush under the shock of cannon launch, yet still could survive the kick out charge, and still not wind up as fragmentation when the BB bursting charge goes off. Frangible ceramic? Something that would stay rigid as long as encased in the cargo shell, but which would shatter to dust once the bursting charge went off in mid air after kickout?

 Asking an awful lot from that bucket..............

  Just speculating.

 Herald

That might be another option. It probably wouldn't matter if there was some fragmentation effect from a thin-walled container, as light fragments would loose energy quickly and would avoid damage too far from the blast.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       6/29/2008 4:15:31 AM




155mm logistics.  Anybody who thinks that a couple of dozen NH90 and a couple of handfuls (hopefully) of Chinook constitutes a serious heli force has lost contact with reality.  Repeating myself, UK ran the numbers, concluded 155mm was unsustainable for their light forces and quickly reverted to 105mm. 



You didn't say that in your previous post, you said,

 

As for M777, the interesting question is why did UK reject it (and Caesar) in their trials.  No doubt some will say budget pressures but if they were really wonderful the benefits would have outweighed this.  My theory is they've woken up to old truths, M777 has a crap rate of fire and neither of them were much good for fast and wide traversing, which is proving essential in Iraq and has probably jogged folk memories. 
 

You were speculating without any evidence, but that speculation has now morphed into insistance that it actually happened. That makes you a liar as well as wrong. Give it up.



I know this thread is gettting a bit long but do try and keep up.  The LIMAWS(G) Assessment phase in 2006/7 and the decision not to proceed (for whatever reason) were nothing to do with the earlier decision to replace Light Gun with M777 (or something) this was circa 2001 and its reversal some 18 months or whatever later.  I've refered to this in an earlier post, after the quoted one on LIMAWS(G).
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       6/29/2008 4:48:23 AM

Yes, firing tables for a totally new family of projectiles is a very long process.  Many thousands of rounds need to be expended with all compatible charge systems and from different tubes to establish what is known as the "Ballistic Kernel".  Now if its a devlopment of an existing round it gets easier with less rounds required to be fired to enable a valid "Tweaking" of existing data.   But its money well spent.  We fired upwards of 30 000 round just doing the firing tables for the MACS out of the Triple seven.  The end result of this expendure of time money and effort has resulted in Forward Observers commenting that its the "Most accurate howitzer they have every observed fire for".  Regarding cost of a compite shell, no idea but i suspect it will be high!!!!

30000 is a huge number for Range & Accuracy firings to determine aeroballistic data (and hardcopy FTs), particularly since it involves a standard dimension ordnance with very well known characteristics and projectiles that are either also very well known or conform to well established parameters.  Obviously modular charges are newer.  R&A frings are applied statistics, and as any statistician will tell you once you've got a sample size that is sufficient to be representative there is very little value in increasing it, diminishing returns set in with a vengence.
 
There may be another issue affecting perceived accuracy, the Lieske model and the predictor corrector method of integration (long used by the US and a NATO STANAG and of course used in the NABK) enable two parameters to be tweaked in a ballistic calculation, first the the step length (ie how frequently in the trajectory the computer calculates projectile position in space), and the tolerance for closing the trajectory (ie when the final step position is calculated and compared to the aimpoint location, how large is the miss distance allowed to be), outside tolerance means another iteration with data changed to reflect the miss distance found.  Faster computers permit shorter step lengths and make it practical to iterate more and get smaller closure distances.  This will appear on the ground as better accuracy. 
 
I'd also note that some years ago I had passing involvememt with aeroballisitc data for 155mm, using UK charges with M483 IIRC.  M483 couldn't be fired anywhere in Europe, so it had to be White Sands.  About 500 rds were needed and the bean counters were well pissed off because this was about double the number needed on a UK range to get the same R&A data.  The extra were needed due to poor quality control at White Sands.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       6/29/2008 7:56:51 AM


I know this thread is gettting a bit long but do try and keep up.  The LIMAWS(G) Assessment phase in 2006/7 and the decision not to proceed (for whatever reason) were nothing to do with the earlier decision to replace Light Gun with M777 (or something) this was circa 2001 and its reversal some 18 months or whatever later.  I've refered to this in an earlier post, after the quoted one on LIMAWS(G).

 
Fair enough, my mistake and my apologies for calling you a liar in this instance.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       6/29/2008 8:48:12 AM





I know this thread is gettting a bit long but do try and keep up.  The LIMAWS(G) Assessment phase in 2006/7 and the decision not to proceed (for whatever reason) were nothing to do with the earlier decision to replace Light Gun with M777 (or something) this was circa 2001 and its reversal some 18 months or whatever later.  I've refered to this in an earlier post, after the quoted one on LIMAWS(G).




 

Fair enough, my mistake and my apologies for calling you a liar in this instance.


I would hasten to add that I am apologising for inadvertantly misrepresenting your quote. That doesn't mean that I believe what you are saying about the UK's reason for favouring the light gun over the M777 in the early part of the decade without evidence. This is especially the case given the other inaccuracies that you have perpetuated here. For instance, your theory that the UK's M777 Portee/Ceasar decision was to do with inadequacy in those designs rather than the costs, has been refuted by a UK government source in Janes. See below.

>>
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    neutraliser   6/29/2008 8:50:42 AM

Oooops!  knock a zero of that number!! 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    What poor quality control at White Sands?   6/29/2008 9:00:50 AM
Somebody, besides the Neut, care to back that assertion up with some FACTS? 
 
Herald

 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    Herald   6/29/2008 9:49:40 AM

Somebody, besides the Neut, care to back that assertion up with some FACTS? 

 

Herald




It could have been a multitude of things.  Poorly conditioned ammo, poor collection of Muzzle Velocity Data, poor MET collection, poor observations of impacts etc.  Ive seen all these things over the years render tests invalid!!!  Im surprised Whitesands was used instead of Yuma Proving Ground who do this type of work day in day out.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/29/2008 6:54:00 PM




Somebody, besides the Neut, care to back that assertion up with some FACTS? 



 



Herald










It could have been a multitude of things.  Poorly conditioned ammo, poor collection of Muzzle Velocity Data, poor MET collection, poor observations of impacts etc.  Ive seen all these things over the years render tests invalid!!!  Im surprised Whitesands was used instead of Yuma Proving Ground who do this type of work day in day out.

Thank you for clarifying that with some confirmable facts, AE.
 
Herald

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics