PDA

View Full Version : 30MM


George Hill
September 15, 1999, 06:26 AM
This may sound off the wall - but it's for a bit of fiction:

Take an M1 Abrahms and enlarge it 10%. Remove the 120MM and install 2 30mm Gats on either side of the turret on articulated mounts - think ZSU on Crack... Ammo feeding from 2 seperate feed systems, with 2 different ammo types - AP, and HE.

No more details - thats just the gist... No this isnt a anti aircraft track either...
Any Tankers with a thought?

------------------
"There is no limit to stupidity. Space itself is said to be bounded by its own curvature, but stupidity continues beyond infinity."
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
The Critic formerly known as Kodiac

Fred S
September 15, 1999, 07:21 AM
George:

I don't know what the value of having a heavily arms medium caliber gun platfrom would be besides air defense. The 30's would be no good against main battle tanks and overkill for dismounted infantry.

There is something like what describe though. its the 2K22 Tunguska-M Air Defense Gun Missile System from Russia. Do a search for it on the internet. Its a fairly large vehicle

HankL
September 15, 1999, 09:22 PM
George, I could forward this to my bro in law but you would not want the results!
Hank
However I might like to have one for urban situations????? What have I just said?

Hank

George Hill
September 16, 1999, 10:42 PM
An A-10's gun IS effective against MBTs... but maybe not against an Abrahms... T-72s get eaten by the Avenger... as does any APC out there...
anyways - this is just a thought.
Hankl - go ahead and forward this thread... Any feed back is welcome. I aint BUILDING this thing - its just for a piece of fiction I am writing.

------------------
"There is no limit to stupidity. Space itself is said to be bounded by its own curvature, but stupidity continues beyond infinity."
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
The Critic formerly known as Kodiac

Daniel Watters
September 17, 1999, 07:39 AM
You are comparing two different scenarios here. From the air, the A10 can easily target a tank from any point on the compass without the tank being able to do much about it. On the ground, you are pretty much stuck with what ever aspect that the target displays when you first run across it. If you can't reliably punch the front armor, you had better hope the other tanker doesn't see you until you can manuever to the side.

Why is this important? The heaviest armor is on the front of the hull and turret. It is typically angled to give the effect of additional thickness and to add to the possibility of ricochets of a ground based attack. The aerial platform negates the benefit of the angled armor; moreover, it can easily attack where the armor is thinner (the sides) and the thinnest (the _top_).

Given a weapon of similar ballistics, the aerial platform has an additional advantage of just simply being at a higher elevation. This gives an added bit of range.

Grayfox
September 17, 1999, 11:26 AM
Why not take the standard Abrams and replace the main tube with a Vulcan? This is all existing technology and would be downright scary to anything less than a MBT.

George Hill
September 17, 1999, 11:34 PM
The Vulcan is little brother to the Avenger cannon.

The A10 can also hit the TOP of the enemy tank - generally the softest part...

Any aspect shots should not be a problem for the Avenger...

I think I should find an A10 driver and talk to...


------------------
"There is no limit to stupidity. Space itself is said to be bounded by its own curvature, but stupidity continues beyond infinity."
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
The Critic formerly known as Kodiac

zot
September 21, 1999, 12:11 AM
where do you buy parts??? i want one of these
they sound better than a .45 Super!!!!can I
modify my Escort to mount a 120mm or a 30mm
Vulcan, I'd be THE truckers nightmare, and deer wouldn't be a problem anymore, maybe a
night vision laser aimed computer guided
missile ? put a few mortars around for smoke or chaff, anyone have a receiver for sale?
GIVE PEACE A CHANCE :}

Dave AA
September 21, 1999, 02:39 AM
There is one big problem with this theory. Ammo. a single GAU-8 cannon, on the SLOW setting, digests about 4000 rounds per min. The ammo drum in an A-10 is about the size of a VW Bug and holds 1100 rounds. How many rounds could you fit into an M1A2? Remember, the magazine MUST be armored, and not compromise the vehicles low profile and mobility. The GAU8 W/ depleted uranium rounds will penetrate armor from almost any aspect, especially at 4000 RPM, but it would be an awfully short engagement. Then you have a 65 ton target.

George Hill
September 21, 1999, 07:03 AM
You put two drums in the turret. This tank would be bigger than the Abrahms. The hull would be set up like a Merkava and all the crew is in the hull. The turret would also be somewhat larger...

The point of this monster - is a armored vehicle that can engage ANYTHING successfully. Oh - and just for giggles, ontop of the turret, is a missle rack. Modified AMRAAMs and TOW missiles...

Remember this is fantasy here...
I am calling it an M-10.

------------------
"There is no limit to stupidity. Space itself is said to be bounded by its own curvature, but stupidity continues beyond infinity."
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
The Critic formerly known as Kodiac

Al Thompson
September 21, 1999, 05:31 PM
OK George -

Why have TOWs ? FOG-M's or Hellfires would be much better. With the FOG-M you'd have battlefield observation past your direct LOS and the Hellfire is a illuminte and fire system. Your dismounts or a buddy could light up the target while you fire from a covered position.

AMRAAM s may be the ticket - don't know much about them.

Might want to think about one GAU-8 with a bunch of ammo as opposed to two with less bullets.

Historical note - there was very serious consideration of having the co-ax weapon in the Abrams chambered for the same 25 mm round that the Bradley uses. The idea was to have both a crunchy killer and truck killer. The idea was shelved and the M240 is the current co-ax.

The Israelis also mounted a 60mm mortar on some of their tanks as a means of having organic illum or smoke.

Another invention that was pretty neat was their mounting a M2 on the barrel of some of their tanks. Gave the gunner another crunchy killer at very little cost. (the mount clamped on the barrel and held the M2 and ammo - firing was done via solenoid) Saved the main gun rounds for other tanks or bunkers.

Have fun!

Giz

------------------
"Hear the voices in my head, swear to God it sounds like
they're snoring." -Harvey Danger, "Flagpole Sitta"

George Hill
September 22, 1999, 01:16 AM
Gizmo - you lived up to your name... thanks...

------------------
"There is no limit to stupidity. Space itself is said to be bounded by its own curvature, but stupidity continues beyond infinity."
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
The Critic formerly known as Kodiac

HankL
September 22, 1999, 07:25 PM
George, Last time I went by my bro inlaws house he had something huge in his back yard covered by many tarps. He was asking directions to your house!
Yall play nice you hear!
Hank

Al Thompson
September 23, 1999, 11:47 AM
George, you might want to look at AP systems also. Nothing like a couple of Claymores hung off the fenders to keep the dismounts away.

Giz

------------------
"Hear the voices in my head, swear to God it sounds like
they're snoring." -Harvey Danger, "Flagpole Sitta"

Cheapo
September 23, 1999, 03:59 PM
Gizmo, is it possible to coordinate the use of active armor (HEas a countermeasure to HEAT rounds) with anti-boarding measures like the Claymore?

Seems like one going off would destroy or trigger the other...

It's been too long since I read up on this. How do they keep one section of active armor from blowing the rest of the sections? Or do they?

Al Thompson
September 23, 1999, 05:28 PM
Cheapo -

Reactive armor is essentially another shaped charge designed to disrupt the incoming warhead. Think numerous cake pans bolted on the side of your vehicle. One shot, one cake pan destroyed. (hopefully keeping the jet out of your vehicle) When it's time to do maintenance, simply replace the cake pan.

We used to figure that the 1 1/4 lbs of C-4 in a Claymore would tear the hell out of the fenders, but should pincushion a grunt trying to lob a grenade or toss satchel charge on us. Ideally, your wingman would use his co-ax to keep the bad guys off you. There were some instances of this happening in the Gulf War.

David Drake with his Hammer's Slammers series and Keith La (???)'s Bolo both had some sort of directional mines for dismounts.

I would imagine that a real system would have enough distance/barriers between the reactive armor and your mine that sympathetic explosions wouldn't be a problem.

The M1 series does not have reactive armor as the Chobham style they were designed with is VERY effective. It's also still very classified. The biggest problem I had with my cross-attached tankers was getting my welder a security clearance. If they had any kind of damage that exposed the insides of the armor, a patch had to be welded on and the tank evaced to a depot level for evaluation and a final patch.

Giz

------------------
"Hear the voices in my head, swear to God it sounds like
they're snoring." -Harvey Danger, "Flagpole Sitta"