During the battle of 73 Eastings, supposedly an Iraqi ZSU-57 engaged an Abrams Main Battle Tank. The ZSU fired what appeared to be its entire load of ammo at the tank and failed to even damage it. Word has it that the paint wasn't even scratched after the ZSU subjected it to sustained heavy cannon fire. NOTE: The story always drifts between a '57 and a ZSU-23. Either way the results would be the same and the Iraqi's were brave but crazy---no way a traditional anti-air vehicle could hope to win against a MBT.
What if that wasn't the case anymore? What if the Canadians were in a way right with the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle but aimed too high.
 |
| General Electrics DIVAD proposal |
During the early 80's the US Army was seeking to regain mobile air defense. The thinking was that the US and Soviet Union would be racing across the Middle East trying to control oil fields, the air war would be in the balance and that armored formations would have to provide their own protection against SU-25's seeking to swoop in and kill them.
General Electric proposed every skool boys dream. The GAU-8 cannon (the A-10 monster killer) inside the body of a main battle tank. The limited research that I've done indicate that its fire control and radar system cost them the win. But in an updated form, based on an Abrams should prove to be devastating. Imagine a Gatling gun equipped tank able to fire depleted uranium at ranges equal to a main gun, and yet versatile enough (and cost effective enough) to engage every other vehicle on the battlefield.
One thing is certain. With the proliferation of UAV's, stand off strike weapons, and with stealth becoming wide spread and threatening our ability to maintain Air Dominance (much less supremacy) its going to fall back on Air Defense Artillery to protect armored formations in the attack. The real problem is two fold. Commanders lack of knowledge on how to use them and ADA not providing a capability if air supremacy IS achieved. The future belongs to vehicles like the one shown above via the Brislin Presentation or with hybrid vehicles equipped with guns, anti-air missiles and DAGRs.
NOTE: Marine 83 brought another issue up that's rather disturbing. The clearance to fire is going to be an issue. If you're even a second late and you're able to kill the launch vehicle--- if the missiles are zooming toward your forces then its all for naught.
It might be time for the Army/Marines to start conducting anti-air drills again.
You are forgetting,
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otomatic
I have thought about the Bofors 57mm too fitted onto an MBT chassis.
Surely systems like the UK's upcoming Common Anti-Air Modular Missile will be the end for guns in the AAA role?
That Canadian system is awesome BTW.
yeah i remember those but maybe i'm too loopy to actually get my thoughts across on the subject but the point is that ADA will never get used in armored formations until it can prove that it can kill something other than aircraft. the German system is nice but its vulnerable to anything with a gun bigger than 50 calibers on the battlefield. that's why the General Electric offering for DIVADS is so intriguing. it could kill anything on the chess board. from MBT' to IFV and lower. normal SPAAG's can't say that. i don't know a thing about the commonn anti-air modular missile. time to Google.
DeleteThe fact that most air-launched anti-tank missile have a range in excess of 8km and most AA guns have a range circa 4-6km is what makes AA guns ineffective in the AA role.
DeleteHelicopters have stand-off distance with LR AT missiles and can snipe tanks safely.
Mount two/four 40mm CTA and the flakpanzer C&C system on a tank hull.
ReplyDeleteA tank troop could be three gun tanks and a cannon/command tank.
The 40mm CTA can threaten anything but an MBT, and I would be amazed if one was overly functional after several dozen hits damaged sights, radios and the like.
well i know for a fact that the GAU-8 is a tank killer. what i don't know is what the weight/power/ammo penalties/carriage is. it might not be practical but it should work.
Deletei'm going to have to get a real deal 100% no bullshit story on the anti-air gun engaging the M1. that's a lesson learned that i need to know more about.
Sol, the A-10 attack profile, more often than not, hits the sides, rear and top of tanks with its GAU-8. It wouldn't penetrate frontal armor any better than other auto cannon rounds. Worse in fact because it doesn't use higher velocity APFSDS rounds. Of course the volume of fire would damage optics and other external components.
DeleteIsnt that what the BMP-T does albeit without dedicated anti-aircraft radar fire control system.
DeleteBMPT is made to accompany armored formations as an anti-infantry system to take out panzerjaeger teams and provide suppressing fire for assaults.
DeleteThe ground based sea wiz with the extended barrel range is effective. It is proven to kill everything air from low flying fighters, helicopters, UAV, cruise missiles, rockets and even artillery/mortars. Taking the system from a multi-trailer base protection unit into a mobile cavalry protection unit maybe problematic? A bonus may also be that I bet with some software adjustments you could give could targeting on most anti-armor weapons like the kornet. Air defense should be mainly for air defense with maybe some added use maybe for self-defense or infantry support.
ReplyDeleteThe threat is real processor power is increasing while cost and size shrink. Our enemies may not get the ability to break our air cover and counter battery dominance, but their ability to make pop up harassing fire with rockets, cruise missiles, and mortars have deadly potential with smart weapon proliferation. Something like the LAM concept http://defense-update.com/products/l/lam.htm in the hands of a gorilla force could be brutal. Or in a rear harassing role by a conventional force as it falls back ceding ground laced with insurgents hiding a missile in their toyota or chicken coop. What do we currently have to stop such a missile fired over the horizon at a convoy cued from a kid with a cell phone along the route?
GAU-8 is deadly but I wonder what the ability of it to slew onto a target fast enough would be.
These articles might interest you (esp regarding MEMV):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/ASU.html
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/venn.html
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/starstreak.html
While this is something you'd expect to see in a Command and Conquer game or something similar, I think there are several technological issues that any designed would need to confront:
ReplyDeleteFire-control system: how do you acquire various targets - ground, air, fast-movers, infantry, armored.
What weapon system do you use? there are AA missiles, AT missiles, rockets, cannon, etc., but how do you carry enough ammo of each? There aren't any common platforms for AT/AA missiles that do double-duty except Spike. Are they taking out helicopters? Tanks?
Target acquisition: Millimeter wave radar? IR? Thermal? Radar? Optics? Laser?
integrating all those systems and carrying enough ammo for them all is going to be the biggest hurdles for the designer.
What I could see is a common platform that differentiates in terms of modularity. Do you need AA? Keep the radar and missiles for an AA mission.
Do you need anti-armor? switch out to MWV radar, AT missiles and auto-cannon.
Anti-infantry? auto-cannon, mini-gun, automatic Grenade launchers, APKWS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Anti-Tank_System
ReplyDeletereplacing a side by a time fused 40mm gun is not a big deal i bet (or the gatling gun for fans of something)
merging existing tecnology with MBT is just matter of money and politic
noday predominance of rpg & ied urban threat will increase the need of armors