Why do some light armor or recce vehicles mount autocannons and others a larger cannon?

What’s the point when nearly everything besides an mbt is vulnerable to heat and even then 20mm auto cannons can shred shit like the bmp3 when striking anywhere but the front.

You wouldn't send an LAV to engage a tank.

So why put a big honking anti-armour gun on a LAV?

You answered your own question, you don't always have the luxury of dictating the engagement, neither in angle or distance from your target. Stormcannons (going from the german word, i have no idea what the go-to term is) definitively have their place in a conflict between two similarly sophisticated opponents.

If you do not have them, you need to supplement mbts for something that doesn't require an mbt, and your armoured operations will be thusly limited.

Defensive or used in conjunction with other anti armor forces. An LAV might be used to assist in destroying enemy tanks, but you'd never send an LAV to engage a tank.

The LAV-25 pictured can carry half a dozen guys in the back. The AMX-10RC cannot. That's the big difference. An autocannon is perfectly adequate, but a >105mm cannon is superior in the same role, that role being "shoot anything that isn't a modern main battle tank." But you're never going to be able to carry people one of those cannon-armed vehicles. The AMX-10RC is, for all intents and purposes, a light tank that happens to have wheels.

It's worth noting that the French are planning to replace those cannon-armed vehicles with a similar vehicle mounting a 40mm autocannon, which you can see as a tradeoff- more oomph than a 25mm, but a higher rate of fire than a 90mm or 105mm. It can also traverse upwards to fire at helicopters.

It isn't really an anti-armor gun, in actual use it's a "fuck that house over there" gun. They just issue armor-piercing rounds with it because why wouldn't you?

It was just the first light autocannon armed vehicle I could think of of the top my head

I could have substituted it with a Luchs or a Scimitar, just as I could replace the AMX-10 with a Scorpion or something

They should put 120mm+ gun-mortars on vehicles like that.

Autocannon? Automatic cannon?

Attached: 1303501361036.jpg (920x690, 82K)

>You wouldnt send an AFV to fight a tank

Well what happens when the AFV runs into a tank?

Sturmgeschutz translates as assault gun, same as sturmgewehr is assault rifle.

The Panhard AML-90's 90mm gun could pretty reliably one-shot a T-54/55 and that beats the hell out of running away and hoping for the best.

Attached: Panhard-AML-90-latrun-2.jpg (1171x835, 179K)

The French invented gun-mortars. They use 60mm versions on smaller Panhard AML armored cars, but they lack 120mms like the Soviets used.

Thought this would be relevent for the thread. It is a summary made by the US while analyzing armored warfare in the current conflict in Ukraine.

Attached: armor_on_the_battlefield_army_study_of_ukraine_conflict.jpg (1970x938, 490K)

It depends on the doctrine of the designer/deployer. Smaller caliber chain-guns would generally be used in a vehicle needs basic self defense and some infantry support capability. Larger guns like that on the AMX-10RC are on units that are used also for flanking and quick direct combat deployment. The French specifically like to use non-tank vehicles that have sufficient armament to engage MBTs as support for a main armor force or as a fast armored contingent in itself. They also can be used effectively as infantry support vehicles, whereas a dedicated ATGM platform may struggle to do so.

"Chain Gun" I believe is the specific term, being defined as an automatic weapon that uses and external power source to cycle as opposed to operating pressures.

>when hit, these vehicles tend to suffer catastrophic damage, killing or severely burning everyone on board
And suddenly bicycle troops don't sound so stupid.

Attached: Bicycle infantry.jpg (667x452, 89K)

An auto cannon is easier to gyro stabilise has a higher rate of Fire a higher rotation rate on The Turret will also allow for quicker target acquisition the range of elevation is also drastically increased by the massively reduced breach length

Large guns on Wheels vehicles tend to be lower velocity from an era when heavy armour was especially vulnerable to heat warheads in today's world Heavy Armour has layered defences ranging from e r a to composite armour which are incredibly effective which has returned main battle tank combat to simplistic kinetic penetrators.

This means in real terms the low velocity guns are relegated too quick response Fire support missions and rarely used against any form of armour, there is however a growing trend for applicae armour being added and making IFVs significantly more difficult to defeat frontally which is leading to 40 millimetre becoming a popular idea as a replacement for the current generation of 25 or 30mm cannons

If they're off the same rough generation the afv gets blown the f*** out

When you're dealing with Middle Eastern friends Bradley's wound up with a roughly 3 to 1 kill Tally in Iraq

Many current serving IFV's carry some ATGMs just in case that happens, like the Bradley does IIRC

likewise the us, for example, periodically flips between sneaking around for reconnaissance and fighting for info to the point of including tanks in dedicated recon units

Your first clue would be that an LAV-25 and an AMX-10RC perform completely different roles.

You wouldn't send an LAV-25, but you would send an LAV-AT.

Attached: 140319-M-MC000-002.jpg (2000x1500, 1.47M)

We have the new AT's in tricolor Carc?
I've only seen them in flat green

It's relevant as long as you put it into the context that BTR's have paper armor and the constrained conflict area made Ukrainian forces extremely vulnerable to cross border artillery fire.

> T-90 and T-72B3 smack old T-80s

Well, at least we know it works, but it begs the question

Can it Abrams?

Attached: patrick1.jpg (408x408, 97K)

>MacGregor was right all along

WHY DIDNT WE LISTEN

the "magical shield" sounds more like shtora

What a pretty boat.

>Can it Abrams?
I believe the B3 has the same gun and FCS of a T-90(125mm). I believe they can also fire ATGM's out of the cannon. Combine that with the fact, for the time being, Abrams don't have APS. It's gonna really suck to be an Abrams until they do.

As for just pure tank on tank fighting, at this point. Whoever sees who first and gets the first shot off first wins.

Gun launched missiles are a gimmick. A 125mm APFSDS is more dangerous than a 125mm ATGM.

Not disagreeing with that. But for whatever reason a T-72B3 or a T-90 decides to fire one at an Abrams. There is not much that Abrams can do.

Probably the Israeli Achzarit can take'em, don't quote me on this.

what did you guys think of that recent Philippines urban thing in marawi? They used wood armor for extra protection I guess on their light 4 wheeled armor vehicles.

Probably just ad hoc armor to try to pre detonate HEAT rounds. Kinda like how GI's put sandbags on Hellcats and shit in Korea.

ah okay thanks for the perspective.

Are you only saying that because the US couldnt get them to work?

The use of Wood as Applique armor was used as far back as WW2. It makes sense, it's a common material, can easily be made to a shape you want, and can be reasonably thick enough to effect the penetration of a shaped charge.

Attached: Finnish Stug III Ausf G with waffle pattern Zimmerit and concrete and log armour IMG_5964.jpg (800x533, 150K)

smells like crewman in this thread.

I'm pretty sure that returning fire would be the reaction.

>Are you only saying that because the US couldnt get them to work?

That's a weird way of saying the US got them to work first and then didn't bother making them for guns smaller than 152mm.

I suppose "Couldnt get them to work the way they wanted to" would have been a better way to say that. But frankly if we got them to work then why didnt we ever use them for anything other than target practice and a couple Iraqi bunkers?

>APFSDS is more dangerous than a 125mm ATGM.
You don't fire an ATGM if you're within APFSDS range, they're for extreme range shooting, where a SACLOS missile is a big help against a moving target.

>they're for extreme range shooting
they were for shooting NATO atgm-launchers at long range since the soviet-era fcs couldn't reliably guarantee hits.

>if we got them to work then why didnt we ever use them for anything other than target practice and a couple Iraqi bunkers?

Because besides the MBT-70 being cancelled, there wasn't a point in using them in the jungles of Vietnam and the next opportunity was Desert Storm.

You'll find that most newer armed combat vehicles are equipped with a 30mm autocannon now.

Gone are the days of a 20mm chain gun.

One thing to consider, the effect on morale knowing troops are no longer covered by the long, sustained bursts of 20mm chain guns. Now armed vehicles will need to conserve 30mm and go back to supporting with most likely the 7.62

Attached: 1527243564889.jpg (800x305, 59K)

Wood logs on the side of tanks like in your pic is often used to help get through mud, the idea they stop or in any way really affect HEAT is fudd law though I wouldn't put it past some clueless tank crews to believe it as well.

In reality, and with the way HEAT works, adding distance between the detonating HEAT warhead and the armor can actually increase penetration if the distance is insufficient.

Attached: qsvxnt.jpg (1599x1204, 61K)

Aren't HEAT warheads already set up to detonate at optimal distance? It'd be pretty fucking dumb for them not to be.

not 75 years ago, doktor von braun

2 words

direct fire support

that are actually 3 words

Is this a serious question?

The distance the copper cone liner needs to fully form the jet is 5 to 6 times the diameter of the warhead. At 8 warhead diameters or more, the jet starts to break up again.

pic related: aim for the logs

Attached: Capture.jpg (1386x285, 89K)

>Well, at least we know it works, but it begs the question
>Can it Abrams?
Abrams can't probably survive a hit on the front of the turret and lower front plate but no where else. Abrams can penetrate almost anywhere on T-72 and T-90 unless the heavy ERA turns out to be very effective. Both the T-72B3 and T-90A have huge weakspots on the front however.

apc’s with a smaller autocannon is expected to engage lightly armoured and armed jihadis In rural and sometime urban landscapes.

It doesn’t

That is*

>Why is the US military making everything generalist?
Moneys

The ones with the big guns are for fire support, especially when you're own tanks are unavailable. Simple.

would sandbags work adjunct to current ERA vs Heat and tandem warheads?

>LAR doesn't engage tanks. There, question answered.

While this does NOT answer OP's question, it DOES tell us whether you're a faggot. (Spoiler warning:

> T-90 and T-72B3 smack old T-80s
>Well, at least we know it works
Pics or vids?

>Stormcannons

The StuG is typically called an "Assault Gun" in English.

Considering that the PLA's EFV copy, the ZBD-05, is only frontally protected from .50 BMG at best, did the JGSDF make a good call arming the Type 16 MCV with a 105mm gun instead of a faster-firing autocannon that would much easier deal with the hordes coming to their shores?

Attached: 1200px-Maneuver_Combat_Vehicle_07.jpg (1200x900, 209K)

>arm your vehicle based on static 1v1’s just like my video games

There were still a lot of T-55s around when the AMX 10RC was introduced, and most western tank only sported 105mm guns at the time.

There's the AMOS.

the video game junkie would choose the 105. the nips already standardized on the oerlikon 35--they'd have more "stored kills" using that against both IFVs and infantry than with the 105mm cannon. They're not going to be killing Chink heavy armor with that anyway.

You must be having a hard time figuring out why your square peg won’t go in the round hole.

>implying there are any holes to fill
How would you go about it son? The Type 16 MCV doesn't cover any gaps in the JGSDF's doctrine. It's a solution looking for a problem. Or more to the point, a welfare program for their arms industry.

Consider the topology and road network of Japan.
Then support AFVs make sense.

The decision to go for wheels over tracked was a decision between tactical mobility over operational mobility. The Type 16 being wheeled was to make it easier to be airlifted to AOs as needed, instead of just prepositioning assets. Topology-wise, tracks still provide better negotiation of terrain than wheeled vehicles.

You are going out of your way to avoid thinking about why Japan would arm it with a 105mm gun.

Please, clue me in. The Type 16 is being assigned to the 8th Division, where they'll be mixed with Type 74s and Type 10s.

>the PLA's EFV copy, the ZBD-05
Even if that were somehow the only target the MCV was going to engage, which is a pretty dumb way of looking at things, the light tank version of that same vehicle carries a high-velocity 105mm gun. So a vehicle packing an autocannon would be outranged.

They do have light tanks as well. It's just that their mix of light assests makes more sense than a full force of MBTs.

Seems like mixing auto cannon armed vehicles with big gun ones would be a good mixture of capabilities

>BMP 3

I think he meant separately. Also the cannon on the BMP-3 is a low pressure gun, it's not quite comparable to a proper high-velocity tank gun like you see on some of these other vehicles.

Not really an issue as it has gun launched ATGMs, tho.

>There's the AMOS.
There could have been, but the AMOS isn't.

And I'm thinking a gun designed from the ground up as a gun mortar would be more practical. Maybe with only one non-variable charge, but variable gas venting around the barrel (think Sturmtiger) to allow short distance indirect fire.

Attached: strv_2000_koncept_o3-40-web.jpg (1134x710, 677K)

Autocannon-armed IFVs carry ATGMs, also. The only difference with the BMP-3 is the ability to fire low-velocity HE shells from the gun, which definitely isn't anything to sneeze at, but it's not the same as a proper high-velocity gun. The closest Russian equivalent to those vehicles is the Sprut-SD.

I wonder if you could make a rocket or RR equivalent to an APFSDS.

Starstreak missiles are something like that.