Return of Tank Destroyers
- Thread starter fylr71
- Start date
You are wrong, it's Swiss CTG Gun made by RUAG.
http://www.ruag.com/ruag/juice?pageID=87682
http://www.ruag.com/ruag/binary?media=87052&open=true
About Light Brigades using 8x8 vehicles. I think that taking under consideration smaller number of armies units in most NATO and Post Warsaw Pact, it can be very useful in regular war while being used as a light cavalry style, attacking communication lines, HQ and so on. With top speeds of 110-120 km/h and good road network this kinds of units can move very fast. For 8x8 vehicles its no problem to keep this top speed for hours. Witch tracked vehicle can keep its top speed for hours non stop? So AT Vehicle (along with AD and other cars) is a resonable choice. Sure it won't replace heavy units in nearest future.
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Don't think the Leo 2 has seen battle...
This July Denmark was pretty close at sending a squadron of Leo 2A5's to Afghanistan. The unit reported to be ready, but there was no airlift available. So they stayed at home. Besides circumstances changed.
Yes I know it, but thanks to C4I systems, UAVs, battlefield radars and so on, units will be used more rapidly in maneuver.
I searched and found almost nothing... FMV(swedish defence material administration) say Strv122 has twice the front and top armor compared to the Strv121(Leo2A4).I really have no idea what level of protection the improved top armor of the Strv122/Leo IIA6EX has.
Maybe some Swedes here?
You can all rest assured that if your tank gets pounced by an A-10 or a Russian Frogfoot you are going to be in a world of hurt. Where are these aircraft designed to attack a tank from, the rear where the thinnest armor is. The Swedish Leo 2 is a good tank but not that good, a tank is designed to have the most armor protection at the front of the vehicle ie: it is what we call the 60 degree frontal, we have to comphensate for this by pretty much thinning out what is on top and at the rear of the vehicle. yes you can protect against some top attack weapons but these are pretty much shaped charged style warheads. I have a big issue with the claims by Russia and Isreal and some of the other countries out there that state that they can just bolt some extra plates of lamanate style panels on their tanks and all KE penetrators are null and void, I know from experience that this is not the case. A tank destroyer is making a resurrection back out on the markets due to fact that alot of countries are implementing quick reactionary style units to face some of the present conflicts, plus NATO obligations. These tank destroyers are not designed to go head to head with tanks, also they are a lot cheaper to build and that appeals to some of the third world countries.
Ur mistake... Indeed it is 30mm GSh-30 Twin-Barrel Aircraft Cannon http://www.shipunov.com/eng/str/cannons/gsh30.htm
Most brobably, you mess it with 23mm GSh-23L Aircraft Cannon installed on MiG-23 and Mi-24: http://www.shipunov.com/eng/str/cannons/gsh23L.htm
That may be true for existing vehicles but may not necessarily hold true for future designs; especially with regard to the GSh-30 gun.
You can all rest assured that if your tank gets pounced by an A-10 or a Russian Frogfoot you are going to be in a world of hurt.
The key weakness of the GSh-30 is its low velocity which doesn't even achieve hydrodynamic penetration characteristics and that allows for all sorts of options in defeating the penetrator.
Anyway, the point is mute with regard to the US Army, as combined arms operations executed correctly, will ensure that no Frogfoot ever gets the opportunity to take a potshot at US troops (or so I am told
)Confident fellows, eh? But that is the philosophy that makes development of such an armor redundant.
cheers
W
Is the velocity from 30mm gattling gun low, with these guns firing DU style rounds they will rip the turret tops and engine back decks open for some time to come. It doesn`t matter about how much re active armor is on top, plus you cannot place re active armor on a engine deck because of the heat generating off of it.That may be true for existing vehicles but may not necessarily hold true for future designs; especially with regard to the GSh-30 gun.
The key weakness of the GSh-30 is its low velocity which doesn't even achieve hydrodynamic penetration characteristics and that allows for all sorts of options in defeating the penetrator.
Anyway, the point is mute with regard to the US Army, as combined arms operations executed correctly, will ensure that no Frogfoot ever gets the opportunity to take a potshot at US troops (or so I am told
Confident fellows, eh? But that is the philosophy that makes development of such an armor redundant.
cheers
W
You mean "If", right?Is the velocity from 30mm gattling gun low, with these guns firing DU style rounds they will rip the turret tops and engine back decks open for some time to come. It doesn`t matter about how much re active armor is on top, plus you cannot place re active armor on a engine deck because of the heat generating off of it.
: What I have written is what I have written and still holds true, so long as the claims on extern's http://www.shipunov.com/eng/str/cannons/gsh30.htm are correct.
cheers
w
What I am stating is the GAU-8 that is carried on the A-10. An A-10 was designed specifically to kill tanks, and that has been proven on the battle fieldYou mean "If", right?
What I have written is what I have written and still holds true, so long as the claims on extern's http://www.shipunov.com/eng/str/cannons/gsh30.htm are correct.
cheers
w
No one is disputing that, at least I'm not.
I think there is a bit of a mismatch in dialogue here, as I never talked about the GAU-8, only the Russian weapon and that the possibility of stopping the Russian weapon is achievable, because of its low velocity.
Further, why, would you need to design to a GAU-8 threat, when there is no such threat to US forces, apart from friendly fire?
Lastly, and this gets back to my original point, the issue is mute because there are only very rare circumstances where you will find a US vehicle outside US air cover. Therefore the likelyhood of a (foreseeable) enemy ground attack aircraft successfully executing an attack on US assets is very low so as to not warrant the money, time and effort to make said armor.
Thats all
Cheers
W
You have your view point and I can respect that.
I'm sorry, what is that supposed to mean? You actually respect my opinion or the fact that I can form one?You have your view point and I can respect that.
cheers
w