the 60 mike mike (and why a 40 is good)
Since Wooki bowed out, does anyone else have penetration figures for the OTO 60mm? My recollection is it's similar to the IMI 60mm which, according to this,
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bob_mackenzie/ArmourPenetration.htm
penetrates 120mms of RHAe @ 0 degrees @ 2km.
Most T-55 references I've seen say they have at least 180mm of armor up front.
Now a 60mm might get lucky, but i wouldn't want to count on it.
There's a reason why it hasn't been adopted very widely. It's just not enough gun for tank killing or bunker busting, and too much gun for light anti-armor work.
"My last post" LOL. Perhaps I should have said "I will bow out until the quality of posts improved." But seeing as it has;
Are the figures quoted in your link V50 figures Smitty? They smell like they are, so an IMI 60mm will punch through 120mm RHA 50% of the time, eh?
So if you believe Jane's (which I personally suspend that belief when talking about Israeli weapons, especially this IMI OTO Melara based weapon developed in '83) then either way you cut it, you are in trouble if you come up against it in your T-55. It is a threat. It can kill you, if you don't take it out.
Besides all that, If you used an odermatt eqn and assumed an impact velocity of, I dunno, say 1560 m/sec at arange of 2000m with a 30:1 L/D 12.7mm Hvy Weight Penetrator, (which the new T 60/70 just maybe, might be able to do
) then your penetration figures look V impressive against zeroed RHA... 333mm in fact.
Thats all kind of academic. The real issue is why would you look at the 60mm caliber as opposed to the favored ATGM option? The reason is weight and specifically weight to get within the bounds of helo transportation. Two ATGMs and the associated FCS add too much weight to a turret.
last point (that is a major consideration for me) is that 60mm will allow some guidance electronics and mechanisms to give you that "one shot, one kill" possibility. You can do it with (and it has been done) 40mm if you really wanted to, but 60 makes it easier to develop with 120 (of course) being the more appropriate option for that particular tech development stream.
...A 30mm weapon is useful in almost as many situations and you get the benefit of far greater ammunition storage and a far greater rate of fire.
A rifle will blow windows out too. A 60mm weapon is a waste IMHO. They offer little enhancement over modern rapid fire 25-40mm cannons. They cannot (to the best of my knowledge) be mounted on an RWS and this seems to be the way most modern AFV's are going, in a effort to maximise internal space and provide the greatest amount of protection for the crew.
What is the point of a slightly bigger hole in an armoured vehicle? IF a 30mm weapon is sufficient, why would a 60mm weapon be needed? The additional cost of the weapon and ammunition, the reduced rate of fire and reduced ammunition stowage are all good reasons not to bother with it. The fact that very few Countries operate FSV's with anything less than a 90-105mm weapon these days, tends to reinforce my opinion on this...
The ideal caliber, or caliber that gets "most bang for its buck" if we are talking HE on target, is the 40mm. The difference between 30 and 40 is about double the blast effect for a 10mm increase in bore size. Its great, allowing you to basically "swap out the barrel" and you still get to to stow a lot of ammo. I am not sure if there is the same dramatic and advantageous increase in performance with any of the other medium caliber weapons (including the 60mm) but the 30 to 40, yields big results, for very little cost and/or alteration to design, logistics, operations and just the way you go about doing stuff.
Just My opinon Dig', but there you go.
... or a 25/30mm more effectively than a 60.....
Physics at work......
Who's been working too hard on bio juice?
Three shots from a 40 is going to do more than any 25 or 30 on rapid fire will ever do and the 60 is going to be better then the 40, but by what margin? It (the 60) would most definitely ROCK if OTO could get the ROF back up to 120/minute.
Anyway, like I said The 40mm is my favorite for the factors listed above. I do constantly go back to the 60, though, for reasons also listed above. Kick it around, reject it, pick it up again.
conclusion:
The dynamics have changed over the last 10 years. You can't just blow the T 60/70 or similar caliber off because it is used by the Chileans. If we did pick it up, we would do it for different reasons, such as cost, versatility (smart munitions) and weight. (Rem: smart munitions for a 60 are cheaper then smart munitions for a 40.)
And thats the last time I will say "this is my last post on this"
.... promise
cheers
w
