Stryker/C-130 Pics

(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:

I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for
that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm.

I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are more
effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which
implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in other
words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.

Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing
large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2
weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of
vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably have
a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper (no
complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong). Its
main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun with
a limited traverse.

If you are going to develop a vehicle sthan can go head-to-head with a
tank, such as your TD, you are better off just developing a tank,
because that in the end is what it is going to be used as, and TD's
have a rather lousy record in that regard. A TD has usually been seen
as a defensive weapon, and most armies realize that offensive action
is usually required, even in the defense (i.e., the counterattack), to
secure victory. The Bundeswehr was the last western user of the TD,
and they even finally gave them up.

Brooks

On 25 Sep 2003 10:03:00 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:

I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for
that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm.

I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are more
effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which
implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in other
words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.

Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing
large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2
weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of
vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably have
a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper (no
complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong). Its
main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun with
a limited traverse.

If you are going to develop a vehicle sthan can go head-to-head with a
tank, such as your TD, you are better off just developing a tank,
because that in the end is what it is going to be used as,

That's a good point. No reason you can't have both, of course.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On 25 Sep 2003 10:03:00 -0700, Kevin Brooks
wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message
...
On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or
for
that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and
30mm.

I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are
more
effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which
implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in
other
words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.

Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing
large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2
weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of
vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably
have
a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper
(no
complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong).
Its
main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun
with
a limited traverse.

If you are going to develop a vehicle sthan can go head-to-head
with a
tank, such as your TD, you are better off just developing a tank,
because that in the end is what it is going to be used as,

That's a good point. No reason you can't have both, of course.

The only cost advantage that a Jagdpanzer would have over a
conventional tank would be the turret and training mechanism which in
a modern tank is relatively small beer. The propulsion, electronics
and gun would be the same. Tanks using the Rheinmettal gun are almost
always limited by sight line rather than ballistic performance for
lethality so I don't see a lot of advantage to up-gunning to say, a 14
0mm tube. Since a Jagdpanzer gives up a lot in anything but a
set-piece defensive engagement compared to a tank, I don't think
there's much advantage-now-.

During WWII, the deletion of the turret speeded up production because
that was a bottle-neck item in German production and up-gunning one
size was a real advantage.