why doesnt the abrams have a 20mm autocannon?

File: e011b50a9fe5d12d24b563852e17c4bd3d4fb6d516322e037b3579f4621c3941.jpg (22KB, 283x350px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 283x350px

>>34576585
Too big for good ammo count
Too small for killing armored vehicles

>>34576585

Several Abrams concepts had it mounting a 20-25mm autocannon on the side of the turret. I'll post them if anyone is interested.

File: image.jpg (38KB, 690x536px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 690x536px

>>34576637
Yes plz

>>34576585
Takes up too much space that would compete for the main gun ammo.

>>34576637
My dick demands it

If anything we should have taken the cannon from the mbt70

File: lk 10372 1.jpg (293KB, 1343x832px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1343x832px

>>34576659

File: lk 10372 2.jpg (99KB, 649x472px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 649x472px

>>34576729

File: lk 10372 3.jpg (282KB, 1426x929px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1426x929px

>>34576738

Probably because if it's too big for the .50 then the main gun will work, and if it's too small to justify using the main gun then the .50 or m240 will work

File: lk 10379.jpg (315KB, 1390x853px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1390x853px

>>34576747

File: lk 10382.jpg (302KB, 1443x896px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1443x896px

>>34576780

>>34576637
post all prototypes too if you have

Israeli experience in the Yom Kipper war showed having MG's to kill rpg/missile teams was more valuable than 20mm or 25mm autocannons.

Anecdotally the early Abrams designs with an autocannon are why the coaxial ammo box is fuckhuge.

>>34577265
autocannons could airburst though

Hell, need some low velocity airbursting ammo for the main gun too

>>34578249
Sub 30mm airburst are meh and airburst wasn't really a thing in the 70's.

>Hell, need some low velocity airbursting ammo for the main gun too

DM11, M329, M339, XM1147

>>34577265
>Anecdotally the early Abrams designs with an autocannon are why the coaxial ammo box is fuckhuge.
So that's why. Ah well, massive amounts of coax are the primary way of engaging enemy infantry anyways, it certainly not a bad idea!

Are multiple Abrams tanks called Abramses.

Asking for a friend.

>>34580868
abramhams

>>34580868
I've always heard it singularly plural

>>34576585
If there was enough space to put a 20x139mm HS on the little AMX30, it's possible on heavy modern MBTs.
My personal dream : a 20mm CTAS based on the CTA40, which is only taking the space of a 25mm. The 20mm version would probably fit where a M2 can go.
>>34576637
thx anon

>>34580916
>>34580940
Like moose?

Abramses sounds funnier though.

File: 1403452686830.png (485KB, 628x418px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 628x418px

>>34580947
>puny 20mm
>not superior stronk 23mm

>>34576585
evolution of helicopters making a 20mm AA gun less efficient.
Nonetheless, all french tankers I've spoken with miss the AMX 30 autocannon.

>>34576585
Because to that moment of development they scrapped evyrything to make the tank as cheap as possible.

SEPv3 TUSK II with 20mm autocannon turret mount when? Perfect for when you can't use the main gun because muh RoE but still want to kill everyone inside a certain building

>>34576585
driver in the turret. WTF

File: Chrysler early XM1.png (145KB, 527x266px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 527x266px

>>34576659
>>34576694
>>34576796

File: General Motors early XM1 concept from 1973.png (129KB, 413x300px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 413x300px

>>34584097

File: Kongsberg 30mm RWS.jpg (213KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1500x1125px

>>34576585
It was one of the parts of MBT70 which was overly complex, and was therefore cancelled from the XM1 as a cost cutting measure. Remember that the M1 entered service with the M68 cannon, because it was better than waiting for the M256 to be ready- the Army desperately needed a new tank that wouldn't be cancelled or overbudget.

Over the years there have been several attempts to increase secondary armament around the world- the French put 20mm AC in the AMX-30 and a .50 coax in the Leclerc, the Israelis externally mount coaxial fiddycals, and so on.
I personally suspect that a derivative of the m230 30mm gun on the Apache (firing 30x113B ADEN/DEFA) will ecentually replace the fiddycal in US service on stabilized mounts, as CROWS is completely over-the-top as a fiddycal mount, and HE capability will allow it to be used to suppress and destroy enemy ATGM teams.
There are a few concepts around for such a system, apparently it isn't much heavier but requires around twice the power.

>>34577265
>Israeli experience in the Yom Kipper war showed having MG's to kill rpg/missile teams was more valuable than 20mm or 25mm autocannons.
Got a source on that? To the best of my knowledge they didn't have any autocannon fielded in such a manner to pass such judgement.
What they DID have was M73 and M85 machine guns, which proved to be total shite and were promptly replaced with FN MAG and Browning derivatives.

>>34580868
I do.

>>34584276
>CROWS is completely over-the-top as a fiddycal mount

Advocacy fallacy.

>>34584306
The complete lack of coaxial autocannons after that war.

>>34584323
U wot m8
I was saying I suspect that the US Army is seeking capabilities from the commander's weapon that a .50 isn't the best gun to fill, and that they'll therefore move on to something bigger.
To support my suspicion, I present the CROWS: A highly capable system, IMO with capabilities greater than those of the weapon to which it is mated. As fielding such a system implies an interest in the capabilities it provides, I concluded that there is a possibility that they might choose to go for a weapon which can better utilize the full capabilities of the RWS.
In no place did I claim this is a fact.

Also, fallacy fallacy. Pointing out a fallacy is not an argument.

File: strv_2000_utlstrv_web.jpg (266KB, 1134x609px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1134x609px

>>34584368
Where? In places where there weren't any to begin with? The AMX-30s retained theirs until the end of service, and the AMX-40 was designed with one after the war.
Also, the Swedes (who cooperated fairly closely with the Israelis in armor design) had several concepts for the STRV 2000 with coax autocannon.

>>34584421
http://www.ointres.se/strv_2000.htm
In case anyone here wants to read more about the project

>>34584421
>In places where there weren't any to begin with?

No one adopting them and France dropping theirs in their next tank says everything.

>the Swedes (who cooperated fairly closely with the Israelis in armor design) had several concepts for the STRV 2000 with coax autocannon.

The STRV 2000 had a 40mm autocannon because the 140mm gun necessitated a backup weapon, it also never progressed past the mockup stage.

Several MBT designs had coaxial autocannons (Centurioon, AMX-30 etc.), but in the end it was found to be superfluous.

All you can do with a 20-40 mm autocannon can also be done with a 90-125 mm gun with 7.62 mm coax.

That's quite a thought regarding the utility of IFVs in light of HAPCs...

>>34584496
>No one adopting them and France dropping theirs in their next tank says everything.
The MBT70 project saw a need for one, the AMX-40 had one, the Leclerc currently has a .50 coaxial, the Frogs seem to have comcluded the opposite- 7.62 is insufficient as a coax.

>>34584380
You are claiming that CROWS is too much for a M2 despite how it greatly increases the effectiveness of an M2.

The only reason the LW30 is getting any attention from the army is to give recon JLTV's some extra teeth.

>>34584538
>tanks that never saw service had them

Gee I wonder why.

>>34584550
>despite how it greatly increases the effectiveness of an M2.
No. I'm saying that I think the Army will decide that they want to fully realize the potential of CROWS and put a bigger gun on top-because now that they've got CROWS, the jump to 30mm is minor relative to the performance gained.
Yes the .50 on CROWS is good, I think they'll want more- if they didn't, they'd have gone for a simpler RWS.
.50 W/O CROWS<<.50 with CROWS<<30mm W/CROWS.
>The only reason the LW30 is getting any attention from the army is to give recon JLTV's some extra teeth.
True, but I think you misunderstand me- I brought it up to demonstrate that the gun can be fitted in a compact RWS, and so could be fitted to CROWS without undue difficulty.

>>34584617
And thus the advocacy bias, you are only looking at the 'pros' of what you are advocating.

>>34584580
Goalpost shifting. They were mentioned to disprove the idea that the post-YKW tank design had discarded the idea of a 20mm autocannon as inferior to greater quantities of MGs.
Also, the Leclerc is in the list, and last time I checked it's still in service.

>>34584617
Can you elaborate on why you think CROWS is "over the top" for an M2?

Also keep in mind that a M153 CROWS cannot fit the LW30, >>34584276 is an enlarged RWS.

>>34584639
No one uses a post Yom Kipper tank with a coaxial autocannon. You are the only one trying to move goalposts.

File: money.jpg (52KB, 650x455px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 650x455px

>>34576585
It either cost less or someone greased the right hands. Potential reasons why:
>left over 50 cal guns that could be attached to early tanks made the standard
>large stockpiles of 50 cal ammo still in supply when tank was adopted
>50 cal simply costs less than 20mm
>somebody with interests in keeping it 50cal, made a donation to select key senators and/or representatives "campaign" fund

>>34584637
>advocacy bias
Bias isn't a fallacy, and the opposite side (they just keep .50s on the CROWS) is the default option, and so doesn't need to be repeated ad infinitum. I am trying to make a point, which is that I suspect the US Army might adopt the 30mm to increase CROWS effectiveness. If I was focusing on the negatives I'd be shooting myself in the foot, wouldn't I?
As to the disadvantages of the 30mm?
1. Introducing into the Armor another weapon system and ammo family. Which, considering it's in service with another branch and perhaps soon on JLTVs, isn't all that bad.
2. Larger profile; but as CROWS is already pretty huge, I doubt it'll be a particularly significant difference
3. Exposed HE ammo- the problems are obvious, but as it's all stowed externally on the mount, and with current IM standards, I don't think it'll be too much of a problem.
In short, I believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I am not ignoring them. If you consider that bias, so be it.
And again, in case it wasn't clear, this is all clearly presented as my opinion on what might happen.

>>34584714
Option C, >>34584511

>>34584740
Only acknowledging the pros of your advocacy is a bias.

>>34584740
>As to the disadvantages of the 30mm?

Lower rate of fire, significantly lower ammo count, less capable against infantry.

>>34584683
>Can you elaborate on why you think CROWS is "over the top" for an M2?
-20:+60x360 degree 2-axis stab, thermals with an identification range of 1.5km, and a detection range probably twice that; beyond the effective engagement range of the .50. Fire control including a ballistic computer, LRF, and target tracking to enable a 90%+ hit rate (within weapon effective range) against fast moving targets- it's basically sniping with a .50 BMG, which is a bit much for engaging area targets (such as suppressing infantry) with a machine gun. The value of such a system is greatly increased when you have relatively few high-value shots, which benefit significantly from the increased accuracy-such as a 40mm mk19, or a 30mm autocannon. In particular, the 30mm also has the effective range to benefit from the powerful optics on the CROWS.
>TLDR:
It sees much farther than the .50 reaches
Overly accurate for MG

>>34584804
>Lower rate of fire, significantly lower ammo count
True, forgot those. The mount compensates for that.
>less capable against infantry.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.

>>34584637
He's saying the mount is way fucking over overbuilt for a fiddy. If you are mounting a 7.62 gun to a surface you don't design the bracketry to withstand 20mm recoil unless you plan to stick one there later.

>>34584511
You're seeing it from the wrong point of view. The reason for a coax autocannon is so that you can have a larger (140mm generally) cannon. This meant sacrificing ammunition space, which is a problem solved by the autocannon. It is simply a way to conserve ammunition, even though it also gives the tank a broader role.

>>34584713
You are trying to claim the fact that no one uses coax AC is a RESULT of the YKW, and dismissing postwar designs which disprove this because they never entered service is shifting the goalposts from me needing to show that there were postwar designs intended for service with autocannons (which I did), to you demanding one which entered service.
I've done my work, your turn. Show a single POSITIVE piece of evidence to support the claim that the YKW demonstrated the relative inferiority of AC to MG, and was not merely irrelevant as no side had AC on their tanks.

>>34584771
Not of you recognize them and their existence, and they are so obvious to present company that it goes without saying. Such as the fact that 30mm is bigger and bulkier than .50 and therefore you'll carry less of them. So instead of wasting time on the bleeding obvious, you get to the point.
Also, for a guy who seems very interested in the proper form of arguments and their logical soundness, you have none yourself.

>>34584580
Hi. The AMX-30 had a coax autocannon and almost 4000 of them were built

>>34584932
It was designed and built pre-YKW so he doesn't accept it.

>>34584825
So your argument boils down to the LW30 having a longer effective range than an M2, when both have an effective range beyond the range CROWS can ID targets.

>>34584974
Of course, YKW showed coaxial MG's were far more valuable than coaxial autocannons in the age of RPG and ATGM teams, which lead to the 25mm Bushmaster being dropped from early Abrams designs.

File: C4qUP6PWAAE6Upn.jpg (45KB, 540x405px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 540x405px

>>34585038
>>34584924
This seems like a good case for bringing back the FN BRG-15 or something like it, a western equivalent to the KPV.

>>34585038
>LW30
Longer effective range and better on-target effects.
Also, optics ranges are generally given in Detection/Classification/Identification:
Detection- there's somethibg here
Classification- It's a tank/APC/civilian car
Identification- It's an M1/T-90/patrol/bunch of Hajjis/whatever.
The range of 1.5km on the CROWS is the Identification range-and usually that's at most half the detection range of the system. Therefore, the system can provide firing solutions to targets 3km out- and if you're in an evironment which permits firing on contacts like that, or you identify them with the gunner's sight, you're all set. And it's that range gap- up to around 3km- which I would expect the M230 to fill.
WRT target effects, the 30mm has a lethal radius of ~5m, the .50 has to hit to kill.
30mm HEDP can cut through ~50mm, more than .50 SLAP csn penetrate at these extended ranges.

>>34585074
>>34584886
Prove it.
Hell, the mere existence of a 25mm on an abrams prototype disproves your claim-if it was recognized as inferior it woyld never have been there in the first place.

>>34585128
If it was recognized as superior they would've kept it.

>>34585101
Only if you intend on using it to kill thin-skins with APDS ammo. For unarmored targets and infantry, you'd be better off with a GMG.

>>34585147
By that logic the M1 would have entered service with the 120mm and CITV. A lot of things were cut from the program to reduce costs, to prevent Congress from cancelling the entire program outright.

Instead of an autocannon, what about a mk19 or other automatic grenade launcher?

>>34585172
Abrams were made to accept both a 120mm gun an CITV at later dates, but not a coaxial autocannon.

>>34585114
>the 30mm has a lethal radius of ~5m

No it doesn't.

>>34585240
Too short ranged.

>>34585279
only 300m shorter than the M2.

>>34585263
My point is that you still have yet to provide any proof more than anecdotal to back up your claim here >>34577265 that the reason these things aren't common is Israeli experience in the YKW proving them inferior. So either post a reliable source (such as a relevant TRADOC, CIA report, or generally anything from DTIC) that POSITIVELY PROVES that connection, or admit that the YKW had no measurable effect, and was an unpopular idea both before and after, being intermittently tested but not adopted across the board.

>>34584771
Having a brain is a bias you stupid fuck. I can't believe an anon is wasting his time trying to lay actual discussion out for a muh fallacy spewing retard like you. What do you add to anything in this thread by telling a person that just admitted to pushing a point that they are presenting a bias? Do you like to tell people that the sky is blue?

>>34585273
So what is its lethal radius? 4m? 3m?
The AGS-17, for reference, fires a 275g projectile with a claimed radius of 7m, the 30x113B projos are usually around 220-240g.
http://russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_30mm.html

>>34585319
The Abrams dropping its autocannon after YKW isn't an anecdote. France dropping its coaxial autocannon for an MG isn't an anecdote.

>>34584771
>>34585350
I seriously thought I was on /his/ for second, with how fucking horrible this discussion is.

>>34585394
Yes they are. They are single cases, and the causal link is iffy at best.
Again, what part of POSITIVE PROOF was unclear? And where did you learn logic? An isolated case can be used to DISPROVE a statement (for example, the AMX-40 being designed with an autocannon after the YKW, and the AMX-30 never having the autocannon replaced by an MG disproves the notion that one of the conclusions from the war was that autocannon are inferior to MGs), but to PROVE it you need more: you need to firmly establish a causal relationship. And you have consistently avoided doing exactly that. If it is as you say, prove it by showing positive proof of said causal relationship, instead of simply ignoring evidence to the contrary and noting anecdotes which match your theory.
Proof will be accepted in the form of TRADOCs, CIA reports, engineering design manuals, fact-finding missions to Israel, official reports on the war, and in general anything that has found its way to DTIC or a similar repository.
Until you do so, I'm going to assume that you are either retarded or merely pretending.

>>34576585
It's called SLAP and it eats garbage like BMPs, BRDMs and BTRs for breakfast. You don't need anything else.

>>34585389
Note that you are comparing a 30mm grenade with a 30mm HEAT round, the are working on an airburst 30x113mm but it won't be in service for a while.

>>34585675
I understand that 5m might be optimistic, but even if the number is 3m the point still stands.

>>34585499
>the causal link is iffy at bes

YKW had a big effect on both NATO and Soviet tactics/strategy.

>>34585389

High velocy rounds like 30mm have thicker shell walls and less bursting charge to withstand their higher muzzle velocity

>>34585696
30mm HEAT has a very small kill radius, there are plenty of Apache gun cam videos where they effectively needed direct hits.

File: canon de 20 mm surpointage.png (158KB, 437x298px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 437x298px

>>34585696

Some changes in the specifications for the new tank
resulted from a study of the Israeli experience during the
October 1973 war in the Middle East. One change which
was applied to both of the validation phase prototypes was
the replacement of the Bushmaster weapon system with
a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun. The original intention had
been to utilize the Bushmaster against lightly armored vehicles
thus reducing the stowage requirement for the expensive
main gun rounds. However, battle experience showed
that the tank crews would invariably use the main gun
against these vehicles. Also, there was a need for a coaxial
machine gun for use against infantry and to suppress
antitank weapons. Elimination of the bulky Bushmaster
and its ammunition provided space to increase the number
of 105mm rounds to 55.

- R. P. Hunnicutt Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, Vol. 2 p 178-79

>>34585713
>YKW had a big effect on both NATO and Soviet tactics/strategy
Absolutely true. However, neither side had autocannons on their tanks, so to reach any sort of conclusion on their efficacy vice MGs is questionable. It would be like claiming the battle of Latakia influenced the development of the SM-2 or Sub-Harpoon.

File: Char Leclerc épiscopes chef de char.jpg (812KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 1280x853px

>>34584538
>the Leclerc currently has a .50 coaxial

There wasn't enough space to fit a 20 mm autocannon in the Leclerc's turret.

Its coaxial HMG is already difficult to access.

>>34585753
the thread is about the gun on top of the abrams not the coaxial you fucking retard. you can have a coaxial 7.62 and a CROWS 20mm instead of 50 cal. stop posting.

>>34585841
>demand proofs
>get thoroughly BTFO
>try to move goalposts while REEEEE'ing

>>34585753
>- R. P. Hunnicutt
Good source, I stand corrected.
Now I just have to figure out how they reached that conclusion when such systems weren't in use during the war.

>>34585935
He wasn't the guy requesting proofs. That was me, and as you see here >>34585985 I accept it.

>>34585935
you can have a coaxial 7.62 and a CROWS 20mm instead of 50 cal. stop posting.

>>34585995
>I accept it.
>still make the same argument denying it

>>34586079
No, I accept it as Hunnicutt knew his shit better than I could hope to. However, I am now confused, for what should be obvious reasons.

>>34586077
4chan is an 18+ website, take your own advice

>>34586097
You are confused because you believe a 25mm Bushmaster is a superior anti-infantry weapon?

>>34586102
try posting on topic instead of derailing threads with information worth less than dogshit faggot. all that work just to never admit that 20mm is superior to 50 cal all you want to talk about is israel and one anecdote.

>>34586126
No, because a conclusion was reached that an intermediate weapon is useless as a weapon to destroy medium vehicles as crews will inevitably use the main gun. This conclusion was reached from studying a war in which no tank had a secondary weapon of the type. There's probably some vital information I'm missing.

>>34586126
you are confused because you think a 7.62 needs to be mounted coaxially to kill infantry. what is the better set up? 20mm coaxial and 7.62 CROWS or 7.62 CROWS and 20mm coaxial?

>>34586131
>try posting on topic instead of derailing threads

Which is "why doesnt the abrams have a 20mm autocannon?". The answer to which is the Yom Kipper war.

Try to keep up.

>>34586182
all you proved was that 7.62 mg's are good for killing infantry. does this mean we dont need our 50 cals anymore? ill give you one more chance to try and comprehend the point.

>>34586182
>Which is "why doesnt the abrams have a 20mm autocannon?".

because they have a 50 mounted on top instead even though its inferior.

>>34586172
A MG coaxial and MG CROWS.

File: mfw.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>34586238
well i guess you had to say that after backing yourself into that corner

The one time when a HE spitting coax might have been helpful during my coworkers time in the Abrams during the Gulf war was when he shot down the Hind, or was clearing bunkers.

Now a days the Hind isn't a problem with modern proximity fusing for the HEAT and the bunkers they found out couldn't handle the weight of an M1A1 so they gave them an ultimatum, walk out, or get buried.

Drive the tank up top, the roof would collapse and off the tank would drive.

I even asked him once if he thought it would be worth it to have it or a .50 for a coax role. He said no, the .30 cal is perfectly fine.

File: itjustmightwork.jpg (47KB, 450x350px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 450x350px

Dumb question but if you mounted a 30mm coaxially could you not just light up the ERA blocks a second before firing the main gun? Would this destroy the ERA protection and give you a higher chance of kill? Can the 30mm even destroy ERA?

>>34586151
If studying the war showed, that tanks could kill vehicles fast enough with the main gun and suppress AT teams with a just a machine gun, you don't need to have actual experience with autocannons as secondary weapons. You just have to look at the reports and decide that "ok, with this combination we can deal with the targets well enough and we can fit in more ammo"

>>34586400
until your faggot ass is trying to shoot infantry at 2000 meters with a 7.62 on the russian steppes or even more hilariously wasting main gun rounds. but the military can keep pocketing that money they saved thats all that matters.

>>34586428
Yeah, engineering is all about compromises. Do we want to have added complexity and space taken by fitting in an autocannon, or do we drop some sort of niche from the capabilities of the vehicle? I'd think that engaging infantry at 2000 meters with tank is not the best use of a tank

>>34586197
>ask question
>get answer
>REEEEEEE THAT DOESN'T FIT MY PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS

>>34586428
Its funny because a 120/125mm gun is far superior at engaging an ATGM team at 2000+ meters than an autocannon, and not having the autocannon gives you room for more 120/125mm ammunition.

To say it another way

Conflict of missions. If it's too big to shoot with a MG you use your main gun. MG will suppress infantry and AT just as good as a 20mm and for way smaller ammo volume needs.
20mm needs a lot of volume for enough ammo to suppress infantry/AT teams.


>>34586390
a lot of the more recent reactive armors can resist kinetic energy penetrators up to 30 mm APFSDS. Once you are over 30mm you might as well go with the main gun.

>>34576585
because they had to cut corners to meet the budget
they already cut the autoloader with some retarded bullshit excuse, so they might as well just cut more stuff out

Just to add one aspect to the 30mm CROWS argument: The 7.62 coax covers about 80% of the .50's effective range. Why not go to something that has more effective range and is more likely to take down intermediate threats- such as ATGM teams at range.

>>34586637
>The 7.62 coax covers about 80% of the .50's effective range.

More like 50%.

You are not going to outrange an ATGM team with an autocannon, and a .50 in a CROWS will outrange any other infantry weapon.

>>34586748
>More like 50%.
Effected range of a 240C is about 1800 meters for area targets. And you've got the FCS doing the ranging for you. Like I said, 80%.

But again, the issue is that a 240, like the m2, requires a hit to kill, and at the roughly 1.5km+ range, hitting a single man with an ATGM isn't going to reliably happen quickly with either weapon. And yes, this does matter. ATGM teams can and will commonly be within the 1.5-2.5 km range. That happens to be most modern handheld ATGM's effective range. Thus, you want a system that can go out and touch them. Hopefully it isn't just the main gun. The .50 is just in a position where it doesn't really add that much in the mix.

File: FML-100-2-1_page_80.png (285KB, 1157x651px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1157x651px

Also remember, that in a combined arms attack the tank is not the only weapon that is used. At least the Soviets thought that artillery is the main tool against AT weapons. They also deployed to attack formation at 1000 meters from the enemy position. That is, the enemy is supposed to be approached during an artillery barrage and preferably behind some cover.

>>34587032
>Effected range of a 240C is about 1800 meters for area targets.

And 800m for point targets, like an ATGM team.

>>34587197
Granted

Which, again, leaves us with a big gap for engagement mentioned in the rest of the post.

>>34576585
>legitimately advocating coaxial autocannons
I want nationstates to leave.
>>34576623
FPBP

>>34587032
>>34587573
Sounds like the main gun is the best answer to an ATGM team at range

>>34588332
The best? It's certainly a good tool. I just don't think the .50 on top is going really in a positive effect. It's not in a good place range wise for the commander's weapon. A 30mm up there could engage those targets as well as the main gun.

>>34589106
If it is too big for the M2, the main gun is a better choice than a RWS autocannon. If it is too far for the M2, the main gun is a better choice than a RWS autocannon.

>>34589739
And what place does the M2 even fit?

It's just there as the commander's weapon. Arguably, the rifle caliber coax and the main gun covers both range brackets you'd want. So obviously there's something desirable about a commander's gun. Namely, it can look and engage places that the gunner isn't looking. So if I'm in a tank, advancing, and I'm scanning for targets, do I want as the commander to wait and see an ATGM, but be unable to engage it myself in its entirety, and waste a second or more bringing the gunner on target? The ATGM could have already fired before your gunner does, and you'll be dead.

It honestly seems to me like you're doing everything you can to avoid actually addressing the argument. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the M2 compared to a larger gun for a commander's CROWS-type system?

mount an autocannon in CROWS and put an M2 as its coax. problem solved

>>34589858
>And what place does the M2 even fit?

An MG that can CSAMM.

>It honestly seems to me like you're doing everything you can to avoid actually addressing the argument.

Make an argument so I can address it.

>>34589858
>LW30 effective range

2000m

>M2 effective range

1800m

>M240 effective range

1800m area
800m point

>>34589931
>An MG that can CSAMM.
Don't rely on abbreviations you just googled, say it in your own words. Don't be shy.

>Make an argument so I can address it.
I've stated my argument. The .50 is in a poor position. The round provides nothing that other rounds don't do better. You want to shoot at an area target and general anti-infantry work? Fire 7.62 coax. You want to take out light vehicles? Larger calibers will do it faster. You want to take out a point target or a small group, especially at longer ranges? Larger calibers with explosive rounds do it better. So then, what precisely does the M2 add?

>>34585985
Not op, but presumably the crews in the aYom Kippur war were seen to instinctively prefer engaging light armor with the main gun?

>>34590784
>Don't rely on abbreviations you just googled, say it in your own words. Don't be shy.

You mean you didn't know what it was, had to google it, and still feel you have the knowledge to validate your opinion.

>I've stated my argument. The .50 is in a poor position. The round provides nothing that other rounds don't do better.

For the purposes of a tank RWS, the LW30 offers nothing to warrant its use over a M2. It is less effective against infantry (and still effectively requires direct hits), has a significantly lower ammunition count, has a significantly lower rate of fire, anything that cannot be 'easily killed' by a M2 is better off eating the main gun, and its increased range is negligible.

>You want to take out a point target or a small group, especially at longer ranges? Larger calibers with explosive rounds do it better.

You seem to have a big misconception of what 30x113 is compared to other autocannons rounds.

>>34590939
No wonder when the light armor in Yom Kippur war are almost all exclusively designed with resisting small arms fire with the front being the strongest with some resistance against 50cal fire is possible. Meaning that the coaxial machinegun would be rather ineffective compared to the main gun which would cleave right through the armor regardless of range or angle.

They may have a 50cal for the commander but few tanks had the ability to fire it under armor protection. The pattons the israeli had were not always in their original configurations. Some were upgraded with the low profile commander cupola which essentially removed the ability to fire the 50cal under armor protection or did not simply have the 50cal anymore.

So it makes sense that the main gun was used the most when it came to enemy light armor since no other reliable option existed. Except the few pattons that had a 50cal mounted over the main gun for the gunner.

>>34591419
The hand wringing is getting hilarious.

>>34591419
Almost all Arab light armor in YKW was vulnerable to HMG fire.

>>34591321
>You mean you didn't know what it was, had to google it, and still feel you have the knowledge to validate your opinion.
I've noticed you still haven't said anything. It's almost like you've got no clue.

>the LW30 offers nothing to warrant its use over a M2.
It's better against infantry and from longer range. And yes, having the round only impact within 5 feet to wound the guy is more capable than having to hit the guy directly. The reason you see Apache pilots going for direct hits all the time is because they have no way of telling if the guy is dead or alive because they're sitting well over three kilometers away. They can't tell if they even hit the guy. And so, if they have rounds to spare, they try to make sure the bodies are in several pieces. You'll sometimes hear one of the two crew asking to put another burst into an already downed man for that reasoning. And surely you can agree that a 30mm round does more damage to a human being than a .50 does. Speaking of which, the Army certainly considers this an upgrade in lethality from the M2. As for a slightly lesser rate of fire, I'm sure you'll agree that end effects more than make up for it. Not to mention you'll use fewer rounds for the same effect. That point also applies to ammunition count, but ammunition count is still the primary drawback of the gun.

>anything that cannot be 'easily killed' by a M2 is better off eating the main gun
See, I'm going to disagree with you here. There's a huge swathe of lightly armored targets that probably aren't worth a main gun round, but are armored to resist .50 AP. Not to mention that increased effective ranges, as expected out of the XM914, would allow the commander to engage most easily carried ATGMs in existence from the entirety of their range.

>You seem to have a big misconception of what 30x113 is compared to other autocannons rounds.
I think you vastly overestimate the effectiveness of the M2.

>>34591622
>I've noticed you still haven't said anything. It's almost like you've got no clue.

There is nothing to say when you didn't know what CSAMM was before this thread.

>It's better against infantry

It's not.

>and from longer range.

200m on paper.

>And yes, having the round only impact within 5 feet to wound the guy is more capable than having to hit the guy directly.

Both require direct hits.

>The reason you see Apache pilots going for direct hits all the time is because they have no way of telling if the guy is dead or alive because they're sitting well over three kilometers away.

The reason you see Apache pilots going for direct hits is because those near misses do not drop the guys being shot at.

>And surely you can agree that a 30mm round does more damage to a human being than a .50 does.

A 30mm "doing more damage" is irrelevant when both are one hit kill weapons.

>Speaking of which, the Army certainly considers this an upgrade in lethality from the M2.

For small vehicles like the JLTV that cannot carry a proper autocannon.

>There's a huge swathe of lightly armored targets that probably aren't worth a main gun round, but are armored to resist .50 AP.

If it is too big for .50 SLAP then it is worth a main gun round, and at a distance far exceeding either smaller guns range.

>Not to mention that increased effective ranges, as expected out of the XM914, would allow the commander to engage most easily carried ATGMs in existence from the entirety of their range.

2000m is well short of ATGM range.

>I think you vastly overestimate the effectiveness of the M2.

I base the effectiveness of the M2 on its actual use.

>>34591435
But it is true.

>>34591480
But how many tanks had 50cals mounted on them to begin with? There are plenty of photos of tanks having 30cals instead of 50 cals with most of them having the commander expose himself to fire to operate it. Only the pattons give the commander protection assuming it had not been modified with different cupola or had the 50cal removed for whatever reason.
>Almost all Arab light armor in YKW was vulnerable to HMG fire.
Yes, but not naked. Especially on the frontal arch.

Why expose your commander who have been trained to fight with hatch closed due to experience from 1967 when you can just blast it with a 105mm round before getting hit by a sagger missile?

But I guess using the 50cal more would be more economical since you would save your main gun rounds for more dangerous targets like a tank or BMP-1 and have the commander notice the sagger missile team.

>>34591816
>There is nothing to say when you didn't know what CSAMM was before this thread.
When I'm questioning you as to what you see the use of something is and you fall into a rote response you just googled, and refuse to elaborate, I tend to think you don't know what it actually means. So come now, anon. Surely you're not retarded. You've got a bit of critical thinking somewhere in that head of yours, so use it, else I"ll consider the point forfeited. This forms the basis of our discussion.

>It's not.
Why does the Apache even use it then? Why does the Army think it's a massive increase in firepower?

>200m on paper.
Anon...

>The reason you see Apache pilots going for direct hits is because those near misses do not drop the guys being shot at.
It's because when they do drop, they can't be sure they're dead, so they blow the entire body up if they can.

>A 30mm "doing more damage" is irrelevant when both are one hit kill weapons.
There's no such thing as a "one hit kill" weapon. 30mm is more likely to kill someone than .50 BMG is. Sure, .50 BMG though the torso will likely kill someone dead. That's if it hits through the torso.

>For small vehicles like the JLTV that cannot carry a proper autocannon.
They consider it an upgrade in lethality over the M2. That's it. Final. EndEx. You can go home. The Army explicitly contradicts you.

>If it is too big for .50 SLAP then it is worth a main gun round, and at a distance far exceeding either smaller guns range.
So you think something akin to an MRAP or even most BTRs in existence is worth a tank round? Seems more economical to hit it with the 30. You might be able to lance some of them with SLAP at closer ranges. Still need to wait for them to close.

>2000m is well short of ATGM range.
Range figures for the XM914 have not been released.

>I base the effectiveness of the M2 on its actual use.
So do I. You vastly overestimate how good it is.

>>34580982
>meese

>>34576585
>Why no autocannon on tank?
If you are going to shoot ATGM teams a 7.62 round is just as effective, and you can carry vastly more ammunition for it and also carry more rounds for the main gun while doing so.
The only reason to carry a 20mm or such as a coax is because you want to use that to take out enemy light armour. But by that time Soviet armour was becoming 20mm immune. Which is why the French dropped the coax autocannon. And well going bigger for the autocannon would come at the sacrifice of main gun rounds.

Incidentally, tanks use their machine guns much more than their main gun. So carrying thousands of rounds for it is actually a serious requirement.

File: 1356338475_t-72-moderna-3[1].jpg (178KB, 1024x551px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1024x551px

I'm surprised no one has talked about the T-72 Moderna with a RC 30mm or twin 20mm on the sides.
(that were both made after the Yom Kippur war)

There's also the swiss Panzer 61, the BMP-3 and BMD-4

>>34585811
And on the AMX 30 the ammo box for the 20mm is outside the tank because of the lack of space inside.

>>34592835
Wasnt the T72M2 Moderna just a one-of tech demo that nobody bought?

Id want to have a 20 or 30mm in asymmetric conflicts like in the Middle East where fighters hide in fortified concrete buildings. Say you carry 500 rounds of 30mm. That's 500 different potential enemy positions you can put a hole through where the 7.62 or 50 may not be able to. And you wouldnt use main gun rounds for this type of firing.

>>34592696
Except if you had an autocannon, you could actually kill the targets you were shooting at, rather than firing thousands of rounds of 7.62 in an effort to "suppress"

>>34593217
>shooting means seeing what you shoot at

t. civilian

>>34593173
>you wouldnt use main gun rounds for this type of firing.

That's exactly what HE-frag is for anon. Known enemy in a building? HEAT through the door.

>>34593232
In a tank shooting at infantry it does

Firing main gun rounds at nothing in particular is far more wasteful than an autocannon.

Russian stronk T14 has plans for 30mm cannon. How will yum kiper kikes ever recover?

>>34580947
Is that 20x139 a development from 20x138b or the swiss 20x139 ?

In my retarded opinion, 308 & 510 both suck ass. 308 could be improved with 180 grain boat tail bullets and higher velocity, perhaps 2800 fps. But it would be better to throw the m240 away and replace it with an optimized medium machine gun. I mean, m240 is a light mg, with stock and grips and quick change barrels and such. Since it is mounted in a tank turret, why isn't it press fit into the mantlet to sink heat, rather than air cooled? Also, I think a 338 coaxial makes better use of the fire control system, doesn't 338 have 1500+m effective range?
510 is suboptimal compared to the higher velocities and sectional densities possible with a less-than-100-years-old 355 to 400 caliber bullet designs, which would also take up half as much volume.
I suppose I'm suggesting, what if the m240 & m2 were replaced with a magnum machine gun?

>>34594473
>less-than-100-years-old 355 to 400 caliber bullet designs
Mind listing those cartridges?

>>34594498
>implying safari bullets
I meant to suggest m2 hmgs and their ammunition are antique designs. Maybe one of Cheyenne Tactical's cartridges with a steel capped bullet like m855 will outrange and out penetrate current 50 cal.

>>34593173
I don't think you realize how much room 500 rounds of 30mm takes.

>>34595225
Store em outside the tank

File: optical-and-ir-equipment-of-the-amx-30-page-3-e1428293911735.jpg (2MB, 2664x3424px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2664x3424px

>>34592835
>And on the AMX 30 the ammo box for the 20mm is outside the tank because of the lack of space inside.

>2017
>confusing the search light with an ammo box...