A 120mm L/44 can pretty much fire whatever the frick you want. Short barrelled guns of the interwar years and early WW2 were primarily designs of concession due to technological limitations and to an extent doctrine. Outside of special cases, like demolition mortars, they're relegated to the past. Unless we see some unprecedented leap in propellant or other such advancement that allows rounds to achieve high velocity out of short barrels.
I thought it was purely doctrine. Maybe this is just fudlore but I thought most tanks had guns specifically short enough to not hang over the tank itself in order to prevent it hitting off things, and this only changed during WWII when it became clear that guns with higher velocities were required.
it wasnt really doctrine, just an imperfect understanding of physics combined with tanks of the late 30s just not being large enough to accommodate a full-sized 75mm gun
initially, there was a trade-off between a large, short gun or a small, long gun for HE or AP
because a large, long gun would be too bulky to fit in a turret
and there was also a trade-off in size and muzzle velocity, a bigger bullet travels slower than a small one all else equal, and speed above all else beats armor
they hadnt yet hit the shatter limit, where a small shell at super speeds break apart instead of imparting energy into the target, which ended up being the limiting factor for non-tungsten, non-long rod rounds
they also hadnt hit the limit on how much powder you can cram into a small, narrow barrel before it turns into a bomb
thats why early tank gun developments were to increase the length and muzzle velocity of a small shell like the 5cm and 6-pdr
but once they were able to figure out how to shove a 75mm gun with a long barrel into a medium tank, they were forced to do it regardless of what they had to sacrifice to get there because armor was increasing by drastic amounts (panzer IV started with 30mm, increased to 50mm early in the war, ended with 80mm)
As an aside, you can totally fit a long barreled 75mm gun into a 1920s or 1930s tank, they just end up being really big. The Char 2C mounted a full length French 75, which was a capable field gun and antitank gun into WW2.
>specifically short enough to not hang over the tank itself in order to prevent it hitting off things,
Only the brits really cared about that which made some of their bad tank designs even worse.
a short barrel tank gun seems like would be perfect for IFV or light tank to reduce weight.
I was expecting the booker to use a short barrel instead of the 105mm again.
A case can be made for short barreled big bore guns that can also pull double-duty as launchers, though every attempt to pull it off has led to failure (looking at you, M551 Sheridan, BMP-1) - basically everywhere a turret couldn't accept the breech mechanism of a high velocity gun arms manufacturers opted to go with autocannons and ATGMs instead. A Smarter Anon could probably explain the specifics as to why the latter is the more efficient option.
I think a mortar-or-missile launcher would actually work. You could have Sturmpanzer-type vents around the barrel to reduce pressure when firing a missile, or even to finely adjust the firing angle of mortar rounds if the gas ports are adjustable.
It's too bad our engineering vehicles phased out the stubbie for stump clearing for an Abrams Bulldozer with only a Mah Deuce. Still in use by the Natty Guard. Also lookup Operation Paul Bunyan in the DMC Zone in North Korea.
Why not just use a regular autocannon and an external launcher instead of a combined gun-launcher? Everyone keeps trying it and going back to seperate ATGM and gun systems for a reason
A lot of them cant reload at all unless you leave the vehicle
The ones that can like the M2 brad can only do so by turning the turret to one side and lowering the launcher into the rear hatch
The launcher itself also is vulnerable to frag damage and rendered inoperable by light blasts
Gun-launcher lets you reload under safety and protects the missile by firing out of a robustly built gun barrel
Something like this should unironically make a comeback for clearing trenches and heavily fortified positions. Of course it should be more specialised and could fire all sorts of ammo for different purposes. As we see in Ukraine tanks are used mostly for medium/short range engagements against infantry in trenches and rarely for anything else. A tank like the Sturmtiger would delete entire treelines or set the ablaze. Reloading a gun this size would still be a b***h though even with modern technology.
Aren't those mostly used for mine clearing? What I had in mind was a medium range (1-3 km) high explosive shell vehicle that should mostly stay in the back and support an assault. What it needs to do is have explosive so big that it literally turns the trenches upside down, so you either kill the opponents outright or bury them alive. It should also be fast enough to shoot and pull back to reload, because depending on the design it could take minutes to reload it. Armour should not be the biggest priority, but it should be thick enough to stop most small drones and nearby artillery shrapnel. The vehicle and ammo should also be fairly cheap to make and maintain to maximise the effectiveness, since it would mostly be used on the company/regiment level.
You say that but the ukies have been using them in trench clearing. They are static objects, and that amount of HE does more then just rupture eardrums.
Experienced crews know how to aim the cable when wind conditions are ideal, and I can only imagine the look on a mobiks face when that fat, explosive snake lands right next to his feet, knowing he has about 20 seconds to move before he turns into pink mist.
If he is far from any deep dugouts, he's dead If he cannot climb out, he's dead. If he SOMEHOW manages to escape, well, he gets a chechen bullet in the middle of his bookshelf armor.
Your move, ruskies. Oh wait, you mined your own advances.
The TOS-1 is garbage because it fire many small projectiles instead of 1 big one. This would be more similar to a Stormshadow missile in payload (400-500 kg), but it would be times cheaper to make and use and could be used on the tactical level.
The TOS-1 is garbage because it fire many small projectiles instead of 1 big one. This would be more similar to a Stormshadow missile in payload (400-500 kg), but it would be times cheaper to make and use and could be used on the tactical level.
What? The TOS-1 has highly effective warheads. What makes it garbage is the extremely short range and poor accuracy of the missile and vulnerability of the launch platform, not poor effect on target.
A 120mm L/44 can pretty much fire whatever the frick you want. Short barrelled guns of the interwar years and early WW2 were primarily designs of concession due to technological limitations and to an extent doctrine. Outside of special cases, like demolition mortars, they're relegated to the past. Unless we see some unprecedented leap in propellant or other such advancement that allows rounds to achieve high velocity out of short barrels.
I thought it was purely doctrine. Maybe this is just fudlore but I thought most tanks had guns specifically short enough to not hang over the tank itself in order to prevent it hitting off things, and this only changed during WWII when it became clear that guns with higher velocities were required.
it wasnt really doctrine, just an imperfect understanding of physics combined with tanks of the late 30s just not being large enough to accommodate a full-sized 75mm gun
initially, there was a trade-off between a large, short gun or a small, long gun for HE or AP
because a large, long gun would be too bulky to fit in a turret
and there was also a trade-off in size and muzzle velocity, a bigger bullet travels slower than a small one all else equal, and speed above all else beats armor
they hadnt yet hit the shatter limit, where a small shell at super speeds break apart instead of imparting energy into the target, which ended up being the limiting factor for non-tungsten, non-long rod rounds
they also hadnt hit the limit on how much powder you can cram into a small, narrow barrel before it turns into a bomb
thats why early tank gun developments were to increase the length and muzzle velocity of a small shell like the 5cm and 6-pdr
but once they were able to figure out how to shove a 75mm gun with a long barrel into a medium tank, they were forced to do it regardless of what they had to sacrifice to get there because armor was increasing by drastic amounts (panzer IV started with 30mm, increased to 50mm early in the war, ended with 80mm)
As an aside, you can totally fit a long barreled 75mm gun into a 1920s or 1930s tank, they just end up being really big. The Char 2C mounted a full length French 75, which was a capable field gun and antitank gun into WW2.
The downside is it was fricking huge.
Or casemate it
>berry my dick
>specifically short enough to not hang over the tank itself in order to prevent it hitting off things,
Only the brits really cared about that which made some of their bad tank designs even worse.
a short barrel tank gun seems like would be perfect for IFV or light tank to reduce weight.
I was expecting the booker to use a short barrel instead of the 105mm again.
i feel like the issue with doing it in an IFV is that ammunition starts to take up too much space
A case can be made for short barreled big bore guns that can also pull double-duty as launchers, though every attempt to pull it off has led to failure (looking at you, M551 Sheridan, BMP-1) - basically everywhere a turret couldn't accept the breech mechanism of a high velocity gun arms manufacturers opted to go with autocannons and ATGMs instead. A Smarter Anon could probably explain the specifics as to why the latter is the more efficient option.
I think a mortar-or-missile launcher would actually work. You could have Sturmpanzer-type vents around the barrel to reduce pressure when firing a missile, or even to finely adjust the firing angle of mortar rounds if the gas ports are adjustable.
It ever left?
>last in service: early 1990s
ok dumbass
Maybe an automatic grenade launcher that fires programed airburst and antitank grenades. But that's going to be more like a Mk19 in a CROWS.
vehicles with mortar turrets have stubby barrels
That's hot.
There's an IFV with a mortar turret.
Which one?
cv90 variant
sure, create a munition that doesn't require rifling through a barrel to stabilize flight trajectory
Everybody point and laugh at this moron
Yes, we should.
HAHAHSHHAHA
Anon,
Most modern tanks have smoothbore barrels.
Only the challenger has a rifled main gun barrel iirc.
Guess his country of origin.
It's too bad our engineering vehicles phased out the stubbie for stump clearing for an Abrams Bulldozer with only a Mah Deuce. Still in use by the Natty Guard. Also lookup Operation Paul Bunyan in the DMC Zone in North Korea.
need bigger tanks with longer turrets
If you make a tank that fires missiles or drones yes.
no need for high pressure buildup in those cases.
Why not just use a regular autocannon and an external launcher instead of a combined gun-launcher? Everyone keeps trying it and going back to seperate ATGM and gun systems for a reason
External launcher is a one-time weapon in combat
A lot of them cant reload at all unless you leave the vehicle
The ones that can like the M2 brad can only do so by turning the turret to one side and lowering the launcher into the rear hatch
The launcher itself also is vulnerable to frag damage and rendered inoperable by light blasts
Gun-launcher lets you reload under safety and protects the missile by firing out of a robustly built gun barrel
Something like this should unironically make a comeback for clearing trenches and heavily fortified positions. Of course it should be more specialised and could fire all sorts of ammo for different purposes. As we see in Ukraine tanks are used mostly for medium/short range engagements against infantry in trenches and rarely for anything else. A tank like the Sturmtiger would delete entire treelines or set the ablaze. Reloading a gun this size would still be a b***h though even with modern technology.
Well, there's these things
Aren't those mostly used for mine clearing? What I had in mind was a medium range (1-3 km) high explosive shell vehicle that should mostly stay in the back and support an assault. What it needs to do is have explosive so big that it literally turns the trenches upside down, so you either kill the opponents outright or bury them alive. It should also be fast enough to shoot and pull back to reload, because depending on the design it could take minutes to reload it. Armour should not be the biggest priority, but it should be thick enough to stop most small drones and nearby artillery shrapnel. The vehicle and ammo should also be fairly cheap to make and maintain to maximise the effectiveness, since it would mostly be used on the company/regiment level.
You say that but the ukies have been using them in trench clearing. They are static objects, and that amount of HE does more then just rupture eardrums.
Experienced crews know how to aim the cable when wind conditions are ideal, and I can only imagine the look on a mobiks face when that fat, explosive snake lands right next to his feet, knowing he has about 20 seconds to move before he turns into pink mist.
If he is far from any deep dugouts, he's dead If he cannot climb out, he's dead. If he SOMEHOW manages to escape, well, he gets a chechen bullet in the middle of his bookshelf armor.
Your move, ruskies. Oh wait, you mined your own advances.
The TOS-1 has the same principle. But it's garbage.
The TOS-1 is garbage because it fire many small projectiles instead of 1 big one. This would be more similar to a Stormshadow missile in payload (400-500 kg), but it would be times cheaper to make and use and could be used on the tactical level.
What? The TOS-1 has highly effective warheads. What makes it garbage is the extremely short range and poor accuracy of the missile and vulnerability of the launch platform, not poor effect on target.
Scorpion is still in service all around the world.