Secondary Armament on MBTs
- Thread starter sgtgunn
- Start date
citizen578
New Member
Unless he's talking about some top-secret affair, the blue-blue in question was when a CR2 was engaged with two DU main gun rounds, the first of which was shrugged off, the second entering through the open commander's hatch.As far as I recall Waylander served on a Leopard II.
Can you give a source on that friendly fire casuality?
Thanks
As I recall it was due to one CR2 (from 2RTR) mistaking another (from QRL) for an enemy flanking maneouver, while using thermals.
I'm not aware of any Chally crewmemeber being killed by small arms, tank mounted or otherwise.
Its only from a newspaper reporting the "Official Army Board of Inquiry" not the full document but if you search for L94As far as I recall Waylander served on a Leopard II.
Can you give a source on that friendly fire casuality?
Thanks
British soldier forced by shortages to give body armour to others | Mail Online
also L94A1 chain gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They both mention that its a problem at less than 200m with the gun shooting left which makes sense because its on the left of the main gun.
All I can say is that I have watched this weapon fire thousands of times through the screen of the gunner or commander and it never hits in the cross hairs. Again I will tell you its not bore sighted with the rest of the system.
Strange.
On the Leo II if you get a good and accurate laser echo the MG3 is pretty accurate even with the first burst. Getting an accurate laser response from dismounts is the real trick as that is sometimes not that easy.
But I have to admit that we seldomely used the coax at these short distances.
BTW, the other friendly fire incident occured with HESH and not with DU.
On the Leo II if you get a good and accurate laser echo the MG3 is pretty accurate even with the first burst. Getting an accurate laser response from dismounts is the real trick as that is sometimes not that easy.
But I have to admit that we seldomely used the coax at these short distances.
BTW, the other friendly fire incident occured with HESH and not with DU.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #25
Well at least on the M1 platform, the coax is NOT a "spray and pray" affair. The M240C coupled with the M1 FCS is frighteningly accurate. At ranges between 600-800m I have knocked down troop targets, at night and on the move with the first burst. While I have never gunned an M1A2 SEP, I would imagine the new GPS/TIS with 50x magnification makes using the coax like a full-auto sniper rifle even easier.The AGL would not be interchangeable as a coax to the main armament with any MG because of the often low elevation limits. As mentioned in an earlier post the coax MG is for suppression and has a high rate of fire to compensate for the often poor accuracy, The FCC is only ever programmed for the various armament rounds. The coax is a spray pray and adjust affair. Major adjustments and calculations on the FCC would be needed and the wind information would go out of the window when firing a AGL round up in the air.
Adrian
We could in fact see a more dual purpose RCWS mounted on the M1 series in the near future with minimal modifications to the soft ware.True, it's more like one could consider starting to reduce secondary armament.
For example, one could replace all those secondary guns on the top of the turret with a single cupola - say a .50cal/7.62mm coax mount, stabilized, aiming software tied into tank FCS, perhaps a linkless feed system going to below armour.
They were not DU rounds, rounds fired in the fracticide incident were HESH.Unless he's talking about some top-secret affair, the blue-blue in question was when a CR2 was engaged with two DU main gun rounds, the first of which was shrugged off, the second entering through the open commander's hatch.
As I recall it was due to one CR2 (from 2RTR) mistaking another (from QRL) for an enemy flanking maneouver, while using thermals.
I'm not aware of any Chally crewmemeber being killed by small arms, tank mounted or otherwise.
This is interesting as I advocated here already a larger magnification on weapon sights after having had the pleasure of handling excellent(15x-45/20x-60x) spotting scopes. I also remember to have read that Norvegian units in Afghanistan used sandbagged and stablized MG3s handled by an experienced gunner coupled with spotters/rangefinders with good results against single targets at over 2 km. The more variables you take away the lesser the amount of bullets you have to spend when you shoot to kill.Well at least on the M1 platform, the coax is NOT a "spray and pray" affair. The M240C coupled with the M1 FCS is frighteningly accurate. At ranges between 600-800m I have knocked down troop targets, at night and on the move with the first burst. While I have never gunned an M1A2 SEP, I would imagine the new GPS/TIS with 50x magnification makes using the coax like a full-auto sniper rifle even easier.
Adrian
Overall it seems that many members of the opposing forces often greatly underestimate the distances from which the members of NATO can detect, identify and kill.
What the hell, i finally have some time to kill,
You guys do realize that the reason why the M1 series coax is so accurate to 800 meters is do in fact that we actually zero it out through the gunners GPS (gunners primary sight) at a range of 800 meters, again any thing beyond that is for suppressive fires due to tracer burn out at 900 meters.
You guys do realize that the reason why the M1 series coax is so accurate to 800 meters is do in fact that we actually zero it out through the gunners GPS (gunners primary sight) at a range of 800 meters, again any thing beyond that is for suppressive fires due to tracer burn out at 900 meters.
carman1877
New Member
I would think that a .50 might be a little to big for co-ax, don't know about inside a tank but like an Abrams I could imagine that its tight so it might not fit next to the gun, but if it did then I think that they would try it, but look at the TUSK some crews mounted a .50 on the outer barrel of the 120mm. By the way don't know if someone posted this but the original M1 Abrams had a remote controlled .50 but in the M1A2 they thought it was not needed becuase of the co-ax i guess, I think that was a mistake. I bet they had their reasons though. Could they mount a 20mm chain gun in the co-ax position in an Abrams? becuase the German Maus super tank of WW2 had a 150mm main (I think), and a 75mm co-ax.
Compared to the GPMGs and other coaxs used on MBTs such a minigun is huge.
Add to that the extraordinary hunger for ammo and one can see why such a weapon is not suitable as a coax for MBTs.
For helicopters it might be usefull as it puts alot of rounds onto the target area which improves the chance of hitting something from such a difficult firing platform.
The coax of a MBT is coupled to the FCS and doesn't need this help.
For anti-helicopter work a modern MBT uses it's main gun.
Add to that the extraordinary hunger for ammo and one can see why such a weapon is not suitable as a coax for MBTs.
For helicopters it might be usefull as it puts alot of rounds onto the target area which improves the chance of hitting something from such a difficult firing platform.
The coax of a MBT is coupled to the FCS and doesn't need this help.
For anti-helicopter work a modern MBT uses it's main gun.
One of the main reasons that the co-ax is a 5.56mm on the CR2 is that is can be used to hose down friendly armored vehicles that are being attacked by enemy dismounted infantry.
The sights and tracks can take the hits from the 5.56mm but would be ripped apart by a BMG or even a 7.62mm.
This is the reason in the British army that the co-ax on all the armored vehicle is a 5.56mm. I cannot comment on other armies but the idea dates back to WW1 and the dawn of tank warfare.
The sights and tracks can take the hits from the 5.56mm but would be ripped apart by a BMG or even a 7.62mm.
This is the reason in the British army that the co-ax on all the armored vehicle is a 5.56mm. I cannot comment on other armies but the idea dates back to WW1 and the dawn of tank warfare.
Sorry, but Challenger 1 & 2, Warrior, Scorpion and FV430 all carry only 7,62mm machine guns be it as a coax or in a pintle mount.
And tracks aren't going to be impressed by either 5,56mm or 7,62mm while optics are going to have problems with both calibres.
Many optics aren't featuring very thick bullet proof glass and even when they aren't destroyed completely some non-penetrating hits are going to ruin them anyway.
And tracks aren't going to be impressed by either 5,56mm or 7,62mm while optics are going to have problems with both calibres.
Many optics aren't featuring very thick bullet proof glass and even when they aren't destroyed completely some non-penetrating hits are going to ruin them anyway.
France pushed the Big Coax idea to the max for modern tanks - with that 20mm on the AMX-30 replacing the 12.7mm HMG in the same position in earlier versions. However, much like in other similarly "dual armed" AFVs *cough*BMP-3*cough*, this gun isn't a mere coaxial weapon any more - it features an independent far higher angle of elevation, and is intended for limited anti-aircraft duty.
How much worth the French put in the concept can be seen from the fact that the Leclerc only uses a .50cal HMG as coaxial weapon, and it's only a point-main-gun-and-spray weapon any more.
How much worth the French put in the concept can be seen from the fact that the Leclerc only uses a .50cal HMG as coaxial weapon, and it's only a point-main-gun-and-spray weapon any more.
We always have had the capability to mount a 50 cal on the maingun mantlet on a M1 series or M-60 series tank, this setup was actually used as a sub caliber device for gunnery firing tables, also to explode the myth that we took this idea from the IDF, it is actually the IDF who got it from us, they just started using it first as a long range sniper.I would think that a .50 might be a little to big for co-ax, don't know about inside a tank but like an Abrams I could imagine that its tight so it might not fit next to the gun, but if it did then I think that they would try it, but look at the TUSK some crews mounted a .50 on the outer barrel of the 120mm. By the way don't know if someone posted this but the original M1 Abrams had a remote controlled .50 but in the M1A2 they thought it was not needed becuase of the co-ax i guess, I think that was a mistake. I bet they had their reasons though. Could they mount a 20mm chain gun in the co-ax position in an Abrams? becuase the German Maus super tank of WW2 had a 150mm main (I think), and a 75mm co-ax.
Think about your coax purpose overall, what will be its primary duties, 8 out of 10 times it will be used for infantry support, would you rather carry approx amount of:
20 mm at 140 projectiles
50 cal at 1100 projectiles
7.62 mm at over 4500 projectiles
I think that you will find with ease in fixing stoppages, reloading tasks and sustained fire that the 7.62mm is the way to go.
Right, the B2 series loses 3 rounds due to new sabot projectiles that caused reconfiguration of the ammo bins. But also I believe that they lost the capability to have all 480 20mm rounds linked together and settled for around 140 rounds at the *ready* due to space issues caused by turret FCS and other vehicle improvements over plain jane AMX-30. This vehicle had to be very cramped especially the newer series, main gun projectiles in the turret bustle, front hull and 20mm beside you and underneath you. I would hate to have a stoppage with such a large caliber, I only know too well what it was like when this occured with a M2, or even changing out a hot barrel, time consuming and you need some wiggle room, this would bite big time having to perform these tasks while inside of a tank turret.The French somehow did manage to squeeze 50 x 105mm, 470x 20mm and 2050x 7.62mm into the AMX-30 - and then 47x 105mm, 1050x 20mm and 2050x 7.62mm in the AMX-30B2... though i have no idea how tight it is in there.
hey quick question i know how the bigger the vehicle the stronger the motor must be and the greater the armor must be but cant we make an engine big enough and an armor thick enough to hold a crew of 6 and have either a stationary for artilery or mobile for movement tank turret and still have moving space and granted it would be mammoth size but couldnt it help a lil or am i just thinking of an idiotic ideaRight, the B2 series loses 3 rounds due to new sabot projectiles that caused reconfiguration of the ammo bins. But also I believe that they lost the capability to have all 480 20mm rounds linked together and settled for around 140 rounds at the *ready* due to space issues caused by turret FCS and other vehicle improvements over plain jane AMX-30. This vehicle had to be very cramped especially the newer series, main gun projectiles in the turret bustle, front hull and 20mm beside you and underneath you. I would hate to have a stoppage with such a large caliber, I only know too well what it was like when this occured with a M2, or even changing out a hot barrel, time consuming and you need some wiggle room, this would bite big time having to perform these tasks while inside of a tank turret.