![]() ![]() In attack its use is very limited and it’s also very vulnerable. ![]() Fixed-gun TD is very much a vehicle for a one job, i.e. The most obvious disadvantages were there in WWII, and they are present today – only much more clearly. Experiences from other countries are similar. When Germany opted for more assault guns and tank destroyers in WWII, armoured command was very much against the practice, stating that field results show that at least two fixed-gun vehicles are needed to achieve the performance gained by every single rotating turret tank. It has very much disadvantages over conventional tanks, what was seen even before WWII and during it. Of course, the British/Americans had more than adequate anti-tank capabilities, but it is food for thought for future vehicles.įixed gun tank destroyer really isn’t as good solution as it might appear. For scenarios like GW2 such a vehicle would have easily outperformed the Abrams in anti-tank prowess. the anti-tank role and, given HE-FRAG ammunition, a limited assault gun role), but I think it would perform very much better in this role than IFVs, or dismounted infantry with ATGMs. Obviously the vehicle you end up with is going to be very narrowly specialised (i.e. It could still be stabilised, thus being able to fire on the move, but obviously you can't compare this ability with turreted vehicles.Ĭ) To get the same capability with a turreted MBT would not only require greater mechanical complexity but also greater weight and significantly greater costs. A (say) 60 calibre 152mm gun (with specialised ammunition) would dramatically outperform Rheinmetall Rh-120 series weapons, both in terms of range and penetration). A 152mm long-barreled gun wouldn't be inconceiveable. The recoil issues wouldn't be as acute, nor would the traverse. Western MBT, as it lacks the heavy turret machinery and (like I mentioned), the surface is smaller.ī) As the gun is mounted in the hull, it would be possible to use guns of bigger size/power. It would thus be possible for a 60 tonne vehicle to be much more effectively armoured than a current I say this for several reasons.Ī) Presenting a smaller target and lower sillouete than turreted vehicles, it would allow the vehicle's armour to be concentrated on the relatively small frontal section. I mean a modern version of the Jagdpanther. I think a better option for combating modern MBTs than ATGWs would be a tank destroyer. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |