|
Cessna posted:Right, but the point is that the MG is not enclosed inside the cupola like it is on a US M60. I read some article ages ago about tankers in Operation Bomb Useless Dirt using the coax a lot for precision work since it's hooked in to all the main gun optics and provides a high degree of accuracy with lower risk for collateral damage. Not sure how true it was.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Cessna posted:Most US tanks (I can't think of an exception) have a co-ax. But the US tanks' co-ax is inside the turret, while the Israelis mount one outside. IDF tanks with the "Counter-Sniper Weapons System" have two coaxial machine guns. The regular, under-armour 7.62 NATO machine gun inside the tank, and a secondary M2 Browning mounted on top of the main gun. The M2 is for shooting at snipers, the 7.62 NATO machine gun is for your regular coax tasks. And here's the US trying something similar with the TUSK, apparently? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:IDF tanks with the "Counter-Sniper Weapons System" have two coaxial machine guns. The regular, under-armour 7.62 NATO machine gun inside the tank, and a secondary M2 Browning mounted on top of the main gun. The M2 is for shooting at snipers, the 7.62 NATO machine gun is for your regular coax tasks. Sure, adding a .50 will help add firepower. But I seriously doubt that they're being so selective in combat. "Don't use the .50, Moshe, he's not a sniper!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
why wouldn't you just use the coax 7.62 i feel like the gains are kind of marginal
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Which doesn't mean it didn't happen, it definitely did. Just that as always it was better to be rich or powerful than poor and marginalized. Fangz posted:Hmmmmmm, I think that depends a *lot* on period. In many situations no, you are not gonna burn that hovel down because why would you damage the property you went to the whole trouble of going to war in the first place to acquire? Speaking for the middle ages there are exceptional instances where being wealthy was a losing proposition compared to being poor but look at things like the treatment of common soldiers and you see that there was a survivability advantage to wealth for the vast majority of warfare in the prtiof. This is not to mention the compounding advantages of avoiding front-line participation in warfare (of which scutage is perhaps the most famous example but there are others) and also in terms of armor and things like medical care, bedding, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
poor motherfuckers don't get ransomed and paroled either
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:why wouldn't you just use the coax 7.62 An M2HB is an impressive weapon. It does a lot more damage than a 7.62. If your target is hiding behind a wall, no biggie, just shoot through it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:why wouldn't you just use the coax 7.62 The M2 has superior range and penetration of building walls to the standard coax. The 7.62 NATO machine guns can carry significantly more ammo for shooting people who aren't far away or behind several layers of bricks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
Cessna posted:An underappreciated part of this is the fact that putting a machinegun in a cupola makes it significantly less effective. I've mentioned what a piece of garbage the M85 machinegun of the M60s was earlier in this thread (or the previous MilHist thread). They kept on with the coaxial M2 until the mid series Mk.5 Chieftains in the mid 70s when someone finally got Barr and Stroud to get their arses in gear and make a laser rangefinder. The tank also had a coaxial MAG for shooting at infantry though, the HMG was strictly for ranging. Supposedly it was remarkably fast with a trained crew and it's still the only way to account for crosswind at the position of the target instead of just the position of your tank. If you intend to have an armoured battle in a hurricane the early Chieftain Mk.5 might well be the best AFV to take.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Originally in 1961 the first Chieftain prototype was fitted with a coaxial M85 with tracer ammunition for ranging but this was rapidly done away with. Not in favour of a modern coincidence or stereoscopic rangefinder, or a cutting edge laser system, but in favour of an M2. No surprise there, the M2 is a vastly better gun than the M85. FrangibleCover posted:The tank also had a coaxial MAG for shooting at infantry though, the HMG was strictly for ranging. Supposedly it was remarkably fast with a trained crew and it's still the only way to account for crosswind at the position of the target instead of just the position of your tank. A co-ax is very useful for this. You walk tracers onto a target until you like where they're hitting, then hit it with main gun. YES, a modern laser rangefinder and wind sensor is better. But we're talking 50's technology here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:why wouldn't you just use the coax 7.62 Better performance against cover, .50 BMG is less "a rifle round in a machine gun" and more "fun-size auto-cannon round". Skip to 11:38. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50TXI-NnGzc
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The tankers in Vietnam often did something similar; even though the M2HB is a great weapon, putting it in a cupola makes it worse. In response they'd put it on an improvised pintle mount: I've been staring at this last image for a while, and just can't work out what's happening with the guy in the front. How does he get out? What is he doing? How does he not go deaf? Does his head ever get whacked by the barrel of the gun? Is he able to duck if people start shooting at him? And so on. (Also, what on earth is that big square Ace thing up there....)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Hmm, I suppose you are right on seeing across the channel in some locations, but still, from a view like this you are going to have a hell of a time telling if you are overshooting or undershooting the target. With a view like that it should be pretty easy to get some shots below the waterline and just sink the drat thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:With a view like that it should be pretty easy to get some shots below the waterline and just sink the drat thing. Naval cannon shells are not straight line laser beams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:With a view like that it should be pretty easy to get some shots below the waterline and just sink the drat thing. It's quite difficult to sink England, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's quite difficult to sink England, sadly. Give me a bus and some spray paint and I'll sink britain inside 3 months
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:radar gunlaying was a pretty new concept during the war and the British struggled with radar-laid guns during Cerberus. I would argue this is less of an issue when you are a fixed position land installation with all the time in the world to preregister your shots/calculate your ballistics. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
There’s a reason why the Allies devoted so many resources to wrecking the V3 cannon sites before they were even finished. The Germans would have never been allowed to set up effective channel guns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:I've been staring at this last image for a while, and just can't work out what's happening with the guy in the front. 2. Carefully, by climbing out of that hatch. But if the turret is in the wrong position, there's an escape hatch in the floor which is even harder to slip out of. 3. He has ear protection on under the helmet, also they try not to fire the big gun when he's poking his head out. (EDIT: Realized you can't really see what he's wearing clearly there.) 4. If he's not paying attention, yes. 5. Absolutely. 6. IR illumination light for active night vision system, with a pretty nifty custom cover. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash is correct, but I'm going to expand on his points.Comrade Gorbash posted:2. Carefully, by climbing out of that hatch. But if the turret is in the wrong position, there's an escape hatch in the floor which is even harder to slip out of. Sort of. It's called the "drop hatch." Pull the lever and the hatch drops out from the bottom of the hull. And by drop, I mean drop - it's not on hinges, it completely falls out. The seat swings down too; you do NOT want to do this while driving or you will find yourself lying on the ground as the tank drives away without you, hopefully not squashing you in the process. It's a one way trip, only to be taken under circumstances like "the tank is on fire." To get the hatch back in someone strong has to crawl under the tank and bench-press it back into place while someone inside engages the lever. There is also a pass-through in the lower rear side of the turret basket. If the turret is rotated directly to the rear you can pass from the turret to the driver's and vice-versa. The pass-through is large enough to fit one person. As an aside, the opening is called "the turret monster." The turret motor is strong enough to crush pretty much anything put in there. Guess what? If you're driving with the hatch closed if you can lean your head back into the gap. I still have the odd nightmare that my head/helmet has become stuck therein and someone starts to engage the turret motor. To placate the turret monster it is standard procedure to sacrifice something to it before any operation. The platoon will take something - an old pair of boots, for example - and crush it. Sure, officially the purpose of this is part of a safety briefing to remind everyone how dangerous it is, but all tankers know in their heart that it is really a blood sacrifice to appease an angry god. Note that this is how things were on M60s; M48s were identical in every way that matters here. M1s do not have the "drop hatch," but the turret monster still lurks within their hulls. Also, M1s are designed to be driven "buttoned," and are a lot more comfortable than M48s or M60s. I never quite fit in the driver's station of an M60, but I'm a bit over 6'1". M1s are a different story, they're quite comfy even if you're tall. quote:3. Those headphones are also ear protection, also they try not to fire the big gun when he's poking his head out. True. You don't shoot when the driver is unbuttoned in peacetime. In wartime, well, you take your chances. And CVCs only provide a level of hearing protection; as I've mentioned before I have permanent hearing loss as a result of my time in. This is (probably) mostly from engines, but gunnery did NOT help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 02:19
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:1. Driving the tank. That's a lot easier to do when he looks out like that as opposed to driving buttoned up. The controls and seat are designed so they can be used in either hatch up or down position. probably not wearing ear pro under the helmet. the helmet, at least the version from the 1980s that we use now, provides some pretty significant hearing protection. if you wore ear pro under that, it would be difficult to hear the intercom. i think the gun is interlocked to not fire or depress over the hatch when its open.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
vains posted:probably not wearing ear pro under the helmet. the helmet, at least the version from the 1980s that we use now, provides some pretty significant hearing protection. if you wore ear pro under that, it would be difficult to hear the intercom. This is true, but extended exposure even with a CVC will still cause damage. Also, you don't always have a CVC when you're working on the vehicle - ramp work, etc. - and I'm old enough for hearing protection to have not been available, much less mandatory, when you were on the ramp. These days you'll get in trouble if you don't have earplugs in, due to high numbers of VA claims for hearing loss. (No, I've never bothered.) vains posted:i think the gun is interlocked to not fire or depress over the hatch when its open. Alas, no. You can't depress it down so low that it will squash the hatch or hull, but it would hit a driver who isn't ducking. Most AFVs don't have this sort of thing, because you don't want to introduce any sort of system that will keep the gun from firing if it malfunctions, as such things tend to do so when you really don't want them to. Instead they tend to use more "brute force" type solutions. For example, this old M48 has a loop-guard on the turret to prevent traversing/depressing the cupola MG to where it can shoot the main gun:  There are exceptions, of course - the old EDWS turret on the AAV used to automatically elevate to clear the driver/hull when you swing it to the port side of the vehicle, but this is more of an immediate need as the gun could actually shoot the driver/vehicle itself if pointed that way. (A modern tank's main gun can't shoot the tank itself due to its length.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
All good points, I should have said he should be wearing hearing protection  YMMV on whether he is, especially given the era.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:All good points, I should have said he should be wearing hearing protection Absolutely. Things like hearing loss just weren't taken seriously back in the Vietnam era; a lot of the old platoon sergeants I had who were Vietnam vets were practically deaf. (Which may explain why they shouted so much.) It wasn't until I was in, in the late 80s - 90s that hearing loss was considered and they started issuing earplugs for ramp work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's quite difficult to sink England, sadly. This is no reason not to make a jolly good go of it, by Jove 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Absolutely. Things like hearing loss just weren't taken seriously back in the Vietnam era; a lot of the old platoon sergeants I had who were Vietnam vets were practically deaf. (Which may explain why they shouted so much.) It wasn't until I was in, in the late 80s - 90s that hearing loss was considered and they started issuing earplugs for ramp work. Yeah, my grandpa has had hearing issues for as long as I can remember due to Avro Lincoln and Shackleton engines and my dad has finally started wearing the hearing aids he's needed for ages as a result of years flying Victors and Nimrods...
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 03:01
|
|
Cessna posted:This is true, but extended exposure even with a CVC will still cause damage. i never wore or heard of people wearing ear pro on the ramp(04-10). i never wore ear pro during gunnery, never was offered any, and never considered wearing it on patrol. the hatches on lavs are interlocked to do this in the area over the drivers compartment and over the scout compartment(if the hatches are open). i assumed this was standard since lavs had the junkiest technology installed and a proximity switch is very old tech.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
vains posted:the hatches on lavs are interlocked to do this in the area over the drivers compartment and over the scout compartment(if the hatches are open). i assumed this was standard since lavs had the junkiest technology installed and a proximity switch is very old tech. Heh - it's a race to the bottom here. That said, I would have jumped at a chance to take an LAV for a drive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
Splode posted:I know that WW2 aircraft were armoured, which prompted (almost) everyone to switch to cannons. Did they stop armouring planes after WW2? Or would regular rifle rounds still bounce off an F-16? What about an F-86? The extra weight of armour plates usually isn't considered worth it on modern attack aircraft. Speed and maneuverability is an armour in itself. A notable exception are Close Air Support planes that are travelling at subsonic speeds. They're low and slow enough that cannons and anti-material rounds become an issue. The cockpit of the A-10 for example is protected by a 1.2 ton titanium "tub". It's designed to withstand 23 mm AA rounds, and has reported to work against 57 mm rounds.  Soviet HMGs can apparently penetrate F-16s on the rare occasions that they're in range. I'd imagine it'd be a similar situation for the F-86. Apparently there was a Cold War attempt to create an armored variant of the F-16 for CAS, but it failed to pass Congress. I'd have no idea how you'd test the penetration of a rifle round below 12.7mm against a flying jet fighter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 07:36
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Hmm, I suppose you are right on seeing across the channel in some locations, but still, from a view like this you are going to have a hell of a time telling if you are overshooting or undershooting the target. Note that while the Cliffs of Dover are visible, their bases are not. Much of the water’s surface is hidden by the curvature of the Earth. From the Tour de Guet in Calais, you could see the surface of the water out to about 23 km, while the Channel is 40 km across. Anything shorter than 25 m at the far side of the Channel is hidden. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 07:54
|
|
|
The US lost a solid handful of A-10s in like a month of ODS when they let them go below 10k, to a mix of AAA and SA-7/13s. Even armored up it’s still a terrible idea to go low and slow on a modern battlefield against people with any sort of actual SHORAD.
Mazz fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
the curvature of the earth owns
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
Extremely on point right here
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 08:50
|
|
|
Whose face is on Deep Battle  goodog posted:A notable exception are Close Air Support planes that are travelling at subsonic speeds. They're low and slow enough that cannons and anti-material rounds become an issue. The cockpit of the A-10 for example is protected by a 1.2 ton titanium "tub". It's designed to withstand 23 mm AA rounds, and has reported to work against 57 mm rounds. Did this originate with the Il-2 Shturmovik? Or else where?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 08:56
|
|
|
Tias posted:Whose face is on Deep Battle Mikhail Tukhachevsky
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 09:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 09:39
|
|
|
more on El Alamein: the impression I'm getting of the battle is making me think of parallels to Kursk - Rommel attacked into the teeth of British defenses (though he might not have known exactly how deep and well-prepared those defenses were), and while he did manage to effect a breakthrough, he had no reserves and no follow-through, while the British did, and they were able to counter-attack, and the offensive ran out of steam from simply having one too many layers of defenders that the DAK had to fight through (and couldn't). Granted, that Rommel never had more than 4 days worth of fuel and no more than a week's worth of other supplies meant that his plan would have petered out regardless, but from the accounts of the British, they still had enough combat power to fight the DAK to a standstill even if gas and the ability to maneuver was not a limiting factor
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 09:46
|
|
|
vains posted:the hatches on lavs are interlocked to do this in the area over the drivers compartment and over the scout compartment(if the hatches are open). i assumed this was standard since lavs had the junkiest technology installed and a proximity switch is very old tech. The LAV is from 1984 and based on a vehicle from the high-tech 1972 space age. The M60 received a bunch of upgrades over the years, but fundamentally it's a continuation of a 1952 design.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 11:08
|
|
|
Tias posted:Did this originate with the Il-2 Shturmovik? Or else where? As far as I know the first plane deliberately designed for Close Air Support was the Junkers J.I / J4, which made its field debut in August 1917. Its also the first all-metal warplane to go beyond prototypes. Before the J.I, both sides had modified existing fighters to specialise attacking ground targets. They'd all fall broadly under the category of fighter bomber or ground attack aircraft. Aside from durability, CAS planes need ground coordination and a large fuel supply in order to be effective. Wireless radio, aerodynamics and combined arms were simply too limited in capability compared to WW2. Strafing could be effective in WW1, but was extremely risky against anti-air. The J4 had limited offensive capabilities despite being built as a flying tank, and would assist ground forces with reconnaissance and supply air drops. The interwar RAF got a lot of use out of attacking Middle Eastern rebels with aircraft; a combined flying calvary and mobile artillery. But it wouldn't be until the development of dive bombing and combined arms that "proper" CAS started becoming widespread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 13:01
|
|
