For those interested in tanks and armoured fighting vehicles

[Clive Mortimore]

2 minutes ago, Barry O said:

It may be but its now low on fire power than the M777.

 

Baz

Very true Baz, about 3 times the bang of a 105mm shell. But at a rate of 2 rounds a minute compared to 6 rounds a minute for the light gun which would have the most effect? Very little in the way of destruction but only having a break of 10 seconds between each boom how far are you going to get if the cover is 30 seconds away?

 

But saying that the Excalibur shell fired form the M777 do look a bit tasty. 

 

Other advantages of the 105 light gun in the infantry support role, it is a lot faster getting in and out of action (even when I was playing being a gunner), it is lighter so more portable by helicopter, smaller towing vehicle or lugged by the gun crew.

 

Lugged by the crew!!!!! Artillery Day 1979 as we drove on the the arena at Larkhill  the driver of our 1 tonne Landrover shouted "Oh (not an RMweb word) the throttle cable as broke" as we ground to a halt. The gun coverer suggested we pulled the gun on to the arena, to which the Number One agreed. It had been quite dry and it must have looked quite spectacular seeing the six of us appearing with A sub through the dust....we didn't think so. We still got our gun in action all be it without any ammo before the Commandos of 29 regiment behind us did. The ammo and sights soon appeared  in the back of the GPOs 1/4 ton along with my tool box. Half way through the display the GPO shouted across to us " A Sub the Brigadier is chuffed".  Thankfully Dom and Sergeant Jeff our vehicle mechanics had fixed the 1 tonner so it could be towed out at the close of play.

[Barry O]

@Clive Mortimore.. bit slow... CR2 had to fire 6 aimed rounds in under a minute..ot took48 seconds according to the video on YouTube...

 

Baz

[Clive Mortimore]

10 minutes ago, Barry O said:

@Clive Mortimore.. bit slow... CR2 had to fire 6 aimed rounds in under a minute..ot took48 seconds according to the video on YouTube...

 

Baz

Hi Baz.

 

Sustained rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute. More than double with a well trained crew. Remember the semi-auto breach mechanism and the (mechanical) rammer is called the Number Two and if he can open the breach as the moving parts return to battery and ram home the shell as the Number Four loads it was fast as he can then the rate of fire can be as high as 15 or 16 per minute for a short time. The 105 light gun being a very stable firing platform the Number Three had very little adjusting to do to re-aim on target.

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

We’ve got political amnesia and no clue we keep repeating mistakes. They’ve got longer memories and don’t forget so easily (despite the vodka).

 

Long-term memories perhaps. A big part of the problem is that Russia hasn't moved on. Once an enemy, always an enemy there it seems.

[KeithMacdonald]

9 hours ago, Reorte said:

They still boil down to ego and delusions of grandeur though, with a bit of paranoia thrown in.

 

That's a bit harsh. Biden must have some good qualities?

[exet1095]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Baz.

 

Sustained rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute. More than double with a well trained crew. Remember the semi-auto breach mechanism and the (mechanical) rammer is called the Number Two and if he can open the breach as the moving parts return to battery and ram home the shell as the Number Four loads it was fast as he can then the rate of fire can be as high as 15 or 16 per minute for a short time. The 105 light gun being a very stable firing platform the Number Three had very little adjusting to do to re-aim on target.

When we converted from an OP battery with 25 pdrs (as a training aid) to a Light Gun battery (in 1992) we went from being able to fire 100 round fire missions to, “one round, fire for effect!” I therefore have no idea what our short-term maximum rate of fire could be…

 

The ludicrous Department for Transport stipulation that the track of the gun couldn’t be wider than the one-tonner tractor, and the ensuing rigmarole of taking the wheel off to swing the gun around before going into action also slowed us down. (The Aussies added a spacer so they could simply swing theirs round.)  Going into action in a simulated ambush was much quicker when we just unhooked the 25pdr from the Bedford and pulled it onto the platform than faffing with the Light Gun.

 

Paul

[Clive Mortimore]

1 minute ago, exet1095 said:

When we converted from an OP battery with 25 pdrs (as a training aid) to a Light Gun battery (in 1992) we went from being able to fire 100 round fire missions to, “one round, fire for effect!” I therefore have no idea what our short-term maximum rate of fire could be…

 

The ludicrous Department for Transport stipulation that the track of the gun couldn’t be wider than the one-tonner tractor, and the ensuing rigmarole of taking the wheel off to swing the gun around before going into action also slowed us down. (The Aussies added a spacer so they could simply swing theirs round.)  Going into action in a simulated ambush was much quicker when we just unhooked the 25pdr from the Bedford and pulled it onto the platform than faffing with the Light Gun.

 

Paul

Hi Paul

 

The limitation on the width of the light gun was the RAF's Belfast transport aircraft's back door, at least that was what I was told when I done my familiarisation course in 1978.  I think the Belfast was out of service by the time the light gun came into service.

Another thing to fit in with the RAF was each gun had its own hoist, which would be erected to take the cradle, ordnance and recoil system off the carriage so the Wessex helicopter could carry the gun in two parts. I had to make sure it was serviceable for the annual Periodical REME Inspection if the crews could remember where they had hidden them.  The only helicopters I ever saw lift a light gun were the Puma and Chinook, both in one load.

[jjb1970]

7 hours ago, alastairq said:

As I see it, russian nationals who have built their lives in Ukraine, have a choice.

Exactly the same choice as a Scot who lives in Canada.  

 

They're not Russian nationals, they're Ukrainian. Or at least they were until Russia annexed parts of Ukraine in which case those living in the four areas are now considered by Russia to be Russian nationals. 

[jjb1970]

I have always been a bit surprised by the British Army not buying the M777. A British designed gun which has been very successful, demonstrated it's worth in action and which gives a massive increase in firepower over the old 105mm light gun. The old light gun is a classic or artillery design but it is badly outmatched by the sort of guns which are the basis of most artillery capabilities. When the alternative 155mm guns were big and heavy there was an obvious reason to stick with the older gun for the Royal Marines and the army air mobile units but the M777 was designed to provide an easily air transportable gun and seems to have met the requirement very well.

[Barry O]

5 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Baz.

 

Sustained rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute. More than double with a well trained crew. Remember the semi-auto breach mechanism and the (mechanical) rammer is called the Number Two and if he can open the breach as the moving parts return to battery and ram home the shell as the Number Four loads it was fast as he can then the rate of fire can be as high as 15 or 16 per minute for a short time. The 105 light gun being a very stable firing platform the Number Three had very little adjusting to do to re-aim on target.

These were 6 independent targets not 6 rounds into a target area.took longer to go through the fire orders...so that's 6 "kills in 48 seconds...

 

Baz

[jjb1970]

Shooting quickly isn't so impressive in itself, shooting quickly and accurately is impressive and a battle winner.

 

One of the mistakes made by the RN before WW1 was that attention focused on rate of fire, being able to shoot quickly was the metric of gunnery expertise. Unfortunately it doesn't count for much if those rapid shots don't hit anything. It also led to dreadful consequences as a result of short cuts in shell handling. RN battlecruisers had procedures and devices to protect shell handling compartments and magazines but it seems officers turned a blind eye to turret crews ignoring them in order to maximize rate of fire. 

[burgundy]

I seem to remember that one of the party pieces performed by a single Light Gun at firepower demonstrations was to put two shells on the same target simultaneously. The first was fired at something like maximum elevation; the second was fired directly at the target. It was just evident that there were two bangs. Very impressive to watch.

Best wishes 

Eric 

[exet1095]

8 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I have always been a bit surprised by the British Army not buying the M777. A British designed gun which has been very successful, demonstrated it's worth in action and which gives a massive increase in firepower over the old 105mm light gun. The old light gun is a classic or artillery design but it is badly outmatched by the sort of guns which are the basis of most artillery capabilities. When the alternative 155mm guns were big and heavy there was an obvious reason to stick with the older gun for the Royal Marines and the army air mobile units but the M777 was designed to provide an easily air transportable gun and seems to have met the requirement very well.

It’s not the gun that’s difficult to deploy; it’s the ammunition. 105 is man-portable. 155 is backbreakingly heavy, physically much larger, and not great for moving forward without lots of lorries and lots of people to handle it. 

[exet1095]

11 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Paul

 

The limitation on the width of the light gun was the RAF's Belfast transport aircraft's back door, at least that was what I was told when I done my familiarisation course in 1978.  I think the Belfast was out of service by the time the light gun came into service.

Another thing to fit in with the RAF was each gun had its own hoist, which would be erected to take the cradle, ordnance and recoil system off the carriage so the Wessex helicopter could carry the gun in two parts. I had to make sure it was serviceable for the annual Periodical REME Inspection if the crews could remember where they had hidden them.  The only helicopters I ever saw lift a light gun were the Puma and Chinook, both in one load.

Hi Clive, 

I am sure you were told that; I was told that it wasn’t allowed to be wider than the Rover. Probably, both are true. The wheels certainly bounced along the same ruts. Now they use Pinzgauers; again quite narrow. The Aussie ones we saw were much quicker into action without that faff with the wheel.

What fun a PRE could be!

Paul

[Reorte]

13 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

That's a bit harsh. Biden must have some good qualities?

Last time I looked he hadn't invaded Ukraine.

[KeithMacdonald]

52 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Last time I looked he hadn't invaded Ukraine.

 

😀

 

 

[jjb1970]

1 hour ago, exet1095 said:

It’s not the gun that’s difficult to deploy; it’s the ammunition. 105 is man-portable. 155 is backbreakingly heavy, physically much larger, and not great for moving forward without lots of lorries and lots of people to handle it. 

 

I can see that'd be more difficult, but looking at other users it seems to be manageable. And the pay back is a gun which is much more capable and not outgunned in the way the light gun would most likely be in engagements other than against irregular troops/insurgents.

[Clive Mortimore]

3 hours ago, burgundy said:

I seem to remember that one of the party pieces performed by a single Light Gun at firepower demonstrations was to put two shells on the same target simultaneously. The first was fired at something like maximum elevation; the second was fired directly at the target. It was just evident that there were two bangs. Very impressive to watch.

Best wishes 

Eric 

We done that at on Artillery Day, all six guns of the battery.

[Clive Mortimore]

9 hours ago, Barry O said:

These were 6 independent targets not 6 rounds into a target area.took longer to go through the fire orders...so that's 6 "kills in 48 seconds...

 

Baz

That is what a tank is supposed to do. Very impressive.

 

6 rounds per minute sustained area fire is what the gunners are supposed to do.

[alastairq]

10 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

They're not Russian nationals, they're Ukrainian. Or at least they were until Russia annexed parts of Ukraine in which case those living in the four areas are now considered by Russia to be Russian nationals. 

My mistake....I should have posted ''ethnic russians''....which is what I meant.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, exet1095 said:

Hi Clive, 

I am sure you were told that; I was told that it wasn’t allowed to be wider than the Rover. Probably, both are true. The wheels certainly bounced along the same ruts. Now they use Pinzgauers; again quite narrow. The Aussie ones we saw were much quicker into action without that faff with the wheel.

What fun a PRE could be!

Paul

Hi Paul

 

Was the Rover also limited by the Belfast?

The removal of the wheel was a pain, but for me it was the knock the wheel would develop. I found if the crews kept the facing plates of the wheel and hub clean the knock would either be eliminated or much quieter. We had some boffins from Woolwich and the RoF visit us and I told them my findings to which the poo pooed my idea of keeping the wheel facing plates clean. After I left the army one the blokes I worked with was a Battery Sergent Major with a TA regiment that had just received the light gun and he was moaning about the wheel knock to me. I suggested keeping the wheel faces clean. He went off on exercise and when he came back he thanked me for my advice.

 

Back to the boffins visit, they were impressed at my tool for measuring the distance from towing eye end to the override brake. A 6inch length of 7/8th diameter rod.

 

PREs were great, when I was with 10 Field Workshops our weapons AQMS "Ben"Gunn would have me accompany him to do the PRE on different units.

[exet1095]

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Paul

 

Was the Rover also limited by the Belfast?

The removal of the wheel was a pain, but for me it was the knock the wheel would develop. I found if the crews kept the facing plates of the wheel and hub clean the knock would either be eliminated or much quieter. We had some boffins from Woolwich and the RoF visit us and I told them my findings to which the poo pooed my idea of keeping the wheel facing plates clean. After I left the army one the blokes I worked with was a Battery Sergent Major with a TA regiment that had just received the light gun and he was moaning about the wheel knock to me. I suggested keeping the wheel faces clean. He went off on exercise and when he came back he thanked me for my advice.

 

Back to the boffins visit, they were impressed at my tool for measuring the distance from towing eye end to the override brake. A 6inch length of 7/8th diameter rod.

 

PREs were great, when I was with 10 Field Workshops our weapons AQMS "Ben"Gunn would have me accompany him to do the PRE on different units.

The Lightweight Land Rover was limited by the Beverley - hence the flat wheel hubs so you could get two in side by side. No idea about the Belfast and the One-Tonner.

 

I enjoy your posts Clive, and it’s good to be on topic too!

[exet1095]

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

I can see that'd be more difficult, but looking at other users it seems to be manageable. And the pay back is a gun which is much more capable and not outgunned in the way the light gun would most likely be in engagements other than against irregular troops/insurgents.

The Light Gun is there to be used by light forces, dealing with contingencies, not trying to smash today’s equivalent of Third Shock Army. Minimal heavy kit and manoeuvre… 

 

Anyway, it’s neither an AFV nor a tank, so OT for this thread!

[jjb1970]

Returning to tanks, there's quite a nice video of the current Chinese MBT here. There's still a lot of chat about a new Chinese tank with a two man crew and remote controlled unmanned turret being in the works, though how true the rumours are who knows. 

 

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-07-29/China-s-99-A-main-battle-tank-in-90-seconds-12ibZKrhOxi/index.html

 

[jjb1970]

On China, they have also kept the light tank idea, and developed a new Type 15:

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/type-15.htm

 

This seems to be pretty much what the US Army is developing with their MPF program.