The m1 abrams cannon is 120mm.
The paladin has a 155mm cannon.
Is there anything that prevents this 155mm cannon from becoming an anti-tank weapon?
Any reason why they don't use this 155mm as anti-tank?
The m1 abrams cannon is 120mm.
The paladin has a 155mm cannon.
Is there anything that prevents this 155mm cannon from becoming an anti-tank weapon?
155 can't into "1.7 km/s darts"
No. Artillery crews are trained to use the guns for direct fire in case of emergency close contact with enemy forces
Bigger guns are just slower to load and don't allow you to carry as many rounds without making huge concessions in armour protection
If the USA was desperate they would. Such as fighting china which will be Vietnam + peer conflict
Won't happen chinkland is a paper tiger.
It's not too tough of an ask, there exists 155mm anti tank ammo and the gun is capable. What really prevents it is that you're talking about an artillery vehicle. Survivability, agility, and crew layout are suboptimal for the task, surveillance acquisition and targeting features aren't installed... With some modifications it does fine, but for the price it's pointless. Tons of 105 and 120 tanks exist and that ammo can already kill anything on the battlefield. Big bore antitank fell out of existence with ATGMs, but who knows? Panther might be adopted with larger caliber gun, and that might start another upgunning phase for AFVs.
Fun fact: The tracked version of the Koksan was designed to also function as a anti tank gun and was used to destroy entrenched Iraqi tanks that were thought to be beyond AT range.
Apparently uses a anti fortification round that is basicly capped delayed HESH, either it pens then detonates or it dents the target then the charge pancakes and blasts the cap into the target.
Because apparently 25mm is enough as demonstrate by the Bradley / T90M encounter, and I am not even trolling.
Lots of tanks are soft on the sides and back after all.
Oh ! You can't resist it can you warriorturd ? We know it's you. Why don't you show us your fan art ? I bet you draw pictures of "Chandley" with big anime eyes, don't you ? And when nurse isn't looking I bet you draw some with boobies as well so you can enjoy them after lights out. Post them. Post then now.
Hitting a tank in the side is not the design principle of a vehicle, anon. The fact they used the 25mm and the AT round is irrelevant when in a normal situation the Bradley would have used the TOW.
Bradleys only carry two TOWs
bradleys can carry extra tow missiles in the crew compartment if they're not carrying dismounts
Even the troop carrying versions have three reloads in the back. Five if they aren't carrying Javelins for the dismounts.
There's nothing a 155 can kill that a 120 couldn't
Ill do you better why dont we link up aa network s with arty and turn 155 tube artillery into AA with proxy rounds?
>Dual purpose 6 in guns make a comeback due to the rise of drones
>The USN builds a revived Atlanta class CL
>Atlanta class but with CIWS
>USS South Dakota out up so much anti-air the Japanese thought the smoke was onboard fires and reported it sink more than once
Now do it with CIWS
LONGER
that would be crazy
https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/hyper-velocity-projectile-hvp
General Atomics says their 155mm Long Range Maneuvering Projectile will be able to hit aircraft.
>For land and maritime targets, LRMP will glide to its designated area and then attack once the seeker acquires the target.
>But for air threats, according to General Atomics’ presentation, LRMP will be directed by a radar-based sensor and intercept the target by detonating ahead of it, creating a shrapnel cloud.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/10/general-atomics-long-range-maneuvering-projectile-update/
Jesus surprise-bonerChrist
effect vs. cost
how much ammo can you produce, carry with you and what is the effect on target compared to smaller calibre rounds
same reason there is the 130mm vs. 140mm debate for future Nato tank rounds
US/Germany leaning towards 130mm with the Koreans looking to follow and the French going 140mm because they're French
Yes. Its an artillery piece. They're not made for direct fire engagements (IIRC the Paladin has only optical sights for this), don't have any of the sensors, battlefield management systems or even crew positions that MBTs have to facilitate their role. They need to be stationary to fire. They're not stabilized. Their gun laying systems are made for NLOS engagements. Their ammunition types are wrong for the job. They're only armored against smallarms etc etc etc...
The vehicle is meant for a completely different purpose and would need to be completely rebuilt from the ground-up to engage MBTs in direct fire mode in anything but the most emergency of circumstances.
>why they don't use 155mm for anti armor
think before you hit post next time
from the thumbnail I thought I was looking at a funeral casket lol
>(F90112) Cannon-Delivered Area Effects Munitions (C-DAEM) Armor is one of two 155mm projectiles identified to replace the current Department of Defense (DoD) unexploded ordnance (UXO) policy noncompliant
stockpile of 155mm Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munition (DPICM) projectiles. It is a 155mm cannon munition designed to address the cannon artillery area targets, from light to heavy armor,
whether precisely or imprecisely located, moving or moved. C-DAEM Armor will provide U.S. ground forces with a capability to effectively engage, destroy, neutralize, and/or suppress threat formations. The
projectile provides a hit-to-kill capability, enabling it to effectively engage area and point armored/mechanized targets at extended ranges. The projectile also includes a seeker, shape charged warhead, and
M-Code GPS to provide an anti-armor capability out to 70km from the ERCA platform while maintaining compatibility with the existing inventory of 155mm platforms. This program has a long-term strategy for
integrating increased capability, such as a datalink for round-to-round communications and inflight targeting updates and increased range.
>(F90112) PROJ, ARTY, 155mm C-DAEM ARMOR
This is a war reserve item used in combat. The FY 2024 request builds Early Operational Capability (EOC) quantities of the selected C-DAEM Armor solution in FY 2022. FY 2024 Base Procurement dollars in
the amount of $57.488 million supports the procurement of 250 projectiles.
TYPE CLASSIFICATION DATE: Planned FY 2026
they do use them against tanks but at distance
155mm SPHs usually don’t have
>stabilizers
>thermals
>proper direct fire FCSs
plus they don’t have the armour to withstand AT engagements
Usually its a disaster to deploy weapon used in higher level to improve the firepower of lower level, most of them are too heavy, tall, and wieldy for frontline and be surppressed, closed in and killed.
Any reason why they don't use the LGM-30 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile as anti-tank?
The m1 Abrams cannon is 120mm.
The LGM-30 Minuteman III has a W87 nuclear warhead.
Is there anything that prevents this 475 kt warhead from becoming an anti-tank weapon?
as anti-tank artillery? course they do
as anti-tank DIRECT FIRE? the whole problem is its lack of armour
why use big thing when little thing do the trick
when I general they know
Circular error probable
Is there anything that prevents them from using this naval 57mm bofors cannon on top of a tank chassi?
they'd have to totally redesign the feed for starters, but the US Army is at least considering the 50-57mm range, yes
the Russians have a prototyped 57mm support vehicle, so it's not totally out of the question
It's already been done, but nobody wanted it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begleitpanzer_57_AIFSV
Artillery is great at serving in an anti-tank role. Shell fragments will damage the tracks, gun, optics, and engine deck of tanks and armored vehicles.
The USA and Germany made a tank with a 152mm cannon called the MBT-70 in the 1960s, among other issues with the project they quickly realized that using that large of a caliber sucks. Smaller calibers are better for anti tank roles. 155mm is better for artillery support than an anti tank role.
Of course, you can still use 155mm shells for anti tank purposes. Not many things will survive a hit from something of that size to the roof. But there are much more reliable munitions for those purposes.
the MBT70's gun was the size that it was because it was meant to fire missiles in addition to cannon rounds. the larger diameter you make a HEAT warhead, the more powerful it is, so they made the gun tube extra big for extra big missiles
Yep, and the missiles weren't really effective at all. Other countries have mastered making effective gun launched ATGMs launched from regular sized calibers now anyway so I wonder if the US would be willing to take another shot at it.
Are you competing against the "Why don't we just issues SMGs to every soldier" thread OP for being the most inanely moronic dipshit of the day?
Because 25 mm is enough.
>155mm
Pathetic.
Muzzle velocity, mostly.
Rh-120 120mm: 5400 ft/s
M114 155mm: 1800 ft/s
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be in a tank getting rocked by 155mm but the APFSDS the 120mm uses needs muzzle velocity.