GAU-8 on M1 Abrams

Is this practical in any way?

Could we use this to have the same affect of an A-10?

Attached: latest.jpg (700x268, 41K)

Other urls found in this thread:

tanknutdave.com/the-us-lav-25/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Dumb idea

>Is this practical in any way?

why would you?

>Could we use this to have the same affect of an A-10?

you mean none whatsoever?

Can make Napoleon using canons on people look like a joke

>gau canon on tank
>in desert
>no friction
at least they wouldnt need a backwards gear

Would be better on a LAV-25 or a Striker, would be great for COIN/SPAAG.

what real advantage is it going to have over a 25mm or a 205?

Attach spikes to dig into the ground to hold it in place.

Not sure, but I think without aircraft levels of cooling, this thing would just melt itself and its crew.

I hope they make reloading the magazine quick and easy, as they would have to do that after every half second of firing.

I don't even know what this means.

that should read 105.

Napoleon used cannons on rioters once.

pretty impractical even if they were on the tracks user

who fucking cares. the us used 120mm on hajis all the damned time. so does israel.

which one do you think is more powerful.

The greatest anti air tank.

No if you use it in the antitank role yes if you use it for infantry support or for destroying lightly armoured targets but then again I wouldn’t mount it on a tank Hull and also I'll use a 30 mm autocannon instead of the one from the a-10 simply for logistic and cost of ammo.

we already have vehicles that do that, so really the only point of difference is the abrams hull. so the question is, should the us build an infantry support vehicle based on an abrams hull? maybe.

No, vulcan type auto-cannons are used on aircraft because their high RoF helps offset the low probability that an individual round fired by one violently maneuvering plane traveling hundreds of kmph will hit another violently maneuvering plane traveling hundreds of kmph. This comes at the cost of only carrying a few seconds worth of ammo. Land-based engagements have better hit-probabilities and such a high RoF is in fact counter-productive due to the potential for extreme overkill and wasted ammo.

flechet and dual-purpose HEAT, which are intended for one target.

what are you talking about

>GAU-8 on M1 Abrams
>picture is a Leopard 2 hull

Abrams does not like to be shaken like that. Constant vibrations are worse for vehicles than sudden shocks. Go ahead and punch a tempered shower door, it probably wont break. Now take an electric clipper, hold it lightly against the door. now just hold it against the door on full blast for a little bit.

part of it is all the focus on metal points, the other issue is repeated vibrations over time stack up really fast.

Gatling Tank, ready for action!

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 26K)

Not practical in the slightest. Though, it would be really fucking cool. Let's do it.

Perhaps you could make it a dual purpose. Have a separate vehicle with tracking systems, or minaturize it enough to be on the same vehicle.

Theoretically, you cold use it as a ciws to defend assembly areas or logistic bases against rocket attack. It would require the ability to move a 20 foot turret weighing 5 or 6 tons in less than a second, so maybe downgrade it to a gau-6?

Attached: ad_spaag_m163_o1[1].jpg (800x361, 67K)

It's called Tunguska and Shilka, and yes they are indeed to some extent used in that respect.

Attached: 2a6 zsu-23-4 shilka firing.jpg (1200x900, 93K)

Absolutely not, less effective weapon then a 120mm cannon.

Already done. 25mm, negligible difference given the fire control system limitations
tanknutdave.com/the-us-lav-25/

Barely. ROE turned most tanks into moving pill boxes and nothing more.