They could do I'm sure - but the then chuck a load of leaves and twigs on top, drive it through a muddy river, do some cross country, well, I think you'd have a very brown view of the world.With modern day tech it would be possible to have a high resolution cameras dotted all over the vehicle. One in virtually every nook, cranny, joint on the vehicle. Full 360deg coverage with images blended and enhanced by software.
If they can do it on a new Landrover they can do it on a multi million dollar armoured fighting vehicle. Supplement the big expensive optronic sensors with multiple small robust ones distributed over the vehicle.
It's always a multi-front technological race. You strive to get better real time intel, and simultaneously to get your guns to fire farther, more accurately, and more quickly.Not sure if this article from 2019 was previously discussed here. It notes that the British army - artillery wise - is seriously outgunned by the Russsian army and that the Light Gun'' is outranged by all adversary artillery systems, difficult to protect on a fragmented battlefield and with a large logistical tail, should either be mounted on a vehicle, or if this cannot be achieved within weight restrictions imposed by airlift, replaced by self-propelled 120-mm mortars''. The article also mentions a Russian motor rifle brigade having an organic inventory of '81 artillery pieces, ranging from 152-mm and 203-mm self-propelled howitzers to 300-mm, multiple-launch rocket systems'.
I'm curious as to why the Light Gun was even mentioned as mentioned as it's only used by the Para Regiment and Royal Marines. Also, would I be correct in saying that although a 120mm mortar could provide some of the capabilities of a 105mm gun; it can't totally replace it? As for the British army at brigade and divisional level being outgunned by the Russians in artillery; wouldn't ISR and network centric abilities; as well capabilities offered by allied nations offset to a large degree whatever advantages the Russians have?
Agreed but my question remains : would a side which is heavily outgunned by a potential adversary; be able to mitigate things to some extent if it enjoyed an edge in ISR and network centric capabilities? To me the answer would be yes but to what extent and would it ultimately make a difference?Having an ISR advantage is no excuse for a deficiency in any parameter.
I read that article as definitely an upgrade of existing TanksAnglo-German armored vehicle-maker Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land has signed a deal with the British Defence Ministry to upgrade Challenger 2 main battle tanks.www.defensenews.com
It appears the British tradition of rifled tank guns is being put to rest with the Challenger 3 upgrade, with them adopting the smoothbore L55A1 from Rheinmetall.
Does anyone know whether they will be newly build tanks, or if it is going to the current chassis of the Challenger that will get some rust removal, new wiring and refitted with the new modifications?
Can you please explain the pros and cons of smooth bore v rifling?I read that article as definitely an upgrade of existing Tanks
Sorry can’t help you with that one, have no real idea myself. Tanks tend to fight at much shorter ranges then Warships maybe its been proven to be more accurate at short range? Or modern advanced AP rounds work better when not spun? But that is pure guesswork.Can you please explain the pros and cons of smooth bore v rifling?
Being engrossed in the heavenly art of ASW during my service and only being exposed to rifled naval guns when they interrupted my sonars I’ve never really understood why modern MBTs changed to smooth bore.
Pretty much spot on.Sorry can’t help you with that one, have no real idea myself. Tanks tend to fight at much shorter ranges then Warships maybe its been proven to be more accurate at short range? Or modern advanced AP rounds work better when not spun? But that is pure guesswork.
I also want to mention two things:
1)Segmented ammo is not an issue per se. 140mm experimental guns used multi-piece ammo because of the sheer size of the round. It's just that at 120mm, and even the new 130mm, it's seemingly impossible to maximize the performance of APFSDS when you split the ammo.
But we can see a resurgence of 140mm, primarily via France in the MGCS. If that happens, we will almost definitely see a shift to segmented ammo.
2)Perhaps equally important as the APFSDS, the HE-MP is a programmable munition. It requires a smoothbore gun to be fired properly.
Ammo that uses even more sensitive electronics is missiles. Those are used primarily by eastern nations. They can be fired from rifled guns with slip rings, but there is still some spin left, and it's very bad for the missile. You could harden its electronics, but it makes it significantly more expensive.
AFAIK, HEAT shells also perform better when fin stabilized but I cannot find a proper explanation why.