The LAV-25 and Bradley get the M242 25mm chaingun that tops out around 500rpm.
Why do the aircraft get all the super high rate of fire weapons? Is there no strategic advantage to putting one of those guns on a ground vehicle? I know the Russians have that Tunguska, but they're hardly an example that should be followed.
Other urls found in this thread:
I want to answer this.
I'm just dumbfounded by your stupidity.
Aircraft need to saturate an area in a very small timeframe.
I guess planes traveling relatively fast, their strafing runs have small windows? Then I assume choppers need to hit hard and run?
Isn't that more or less the philosophy of the LAV-25? Hit and run?
user, what do the Shilka and the planes it's meant to be shooting at have in common?
The answer is incredibly small viable windows to fire at targets moving very aggressively relative to the weapons platform. So you saturate the general vicinity with fire. Same reason a CIWS is all about a shitload of rounds downrange while the offensive weapons on the same boat will be accurate cannons or guided missiles.
No..
Further consider, you don't want your IFV to be out of shells in 2 seconds...
The LAV-25 by doctrine is a reconnaissance vehicle. It’s supposed to screen for enemy armor and troop movements, and call for backup if they find anything. They’re not really supposed to be used for hit and run tactics.
That’s being said, that’s what they were used for during OIF/OEF. That and infantry fighting vehicles. But that’s not what they were designed to do.
No need to get so autistic about it.
What I mean is that recon by fire is still on the table, no? Fire some shots, asses enemy strength and gtfo.
But here's a question. LAR is fairly well armed, but not heavily manned. When they fall back to the main force, and provide security for the main force to engage and destroy the enemy, that main force is what exactly? MAGTF would include various forms of air support, but as far as ground forces go, the USMC doesn't have MRAPS or Bradleys. So what are ground forces engaging with? A fleet of HMMWV's with dismounts and maybe some tanks? At least on paper, their "invasion" force doesn't seem that impressive.
Ask a dumb question, get a dumb reply.
>planes
>short time windows and no need to linger for as long and can resupply at base
>IFVs
>longer time windows and has to stay away from resupply for a while
>and maybe some tanks
mostly tanks. A whole big line of tanks. And artillary. And yes, dismounted infantry. But also planes and cobras. It’s actaully a pretty impressive amount of firepower during a finnex.
You're just going out of your way to be a cunt.
Does the Marine Corps utilize tanks heavily? They don't have a whole lot of them.
Yea, they’re pretty important. Especially while invading somewhere.
Why do you think the USMC doesn’t have MRAPs? They have plenty. Also Amtraks.
Looks like OP's question has been reasonably answered. You nut bucket.
To add on the answers above, it's easy to have a gun with an aircooling system when you're flying at mach 1 over 1000ft. On a stationary IFV, not so much. So it's either heavier barrels or slower RoF.
As the barrels are already relatively heavy and as there's no significant downside to a "slow" RoF (10 shells a second, still) against ground targets, you use the second option.
Because an aircraft has a very small window to engage a target and a slower rate of fire generally means less issues with dirt and mud.
with an aircraft, your combat time is less than an hour before you go back to your airfield so you can burn up the ammo
in air craft gunnery a 10% hit rate is considered highly successful
armor on the other hand may be in the thick of it all day and it should be making every shot count
First day huh?
M163 vads
This
Meanwhile in yemen.
The trick with IFVs is that they don't need a big gun as long as they have artillery support.
What about the Mi-28 though, doesn’t that use the same autocannon from the BMP/BTR?
the main weapon of the LAV-25 is it's radio
t. LAV-25 VC
Aircraft need a ridiculously high rate of fire because they have a very small engagement window. You may have less than a second to hit a very small target very far away. In that context a super high RPM cannon essentially functions like a shotgun. And since aircraft don't need to put down suppressing fire or really use their cannons for anything other than a backup to their missiles, ammunition conservation isn't an issue for them.
Ground vehicles on the other hand need to operate for extended periods without resupply, have much more time to line up a shot, and may need to expend ammunition for reasons other than directly engaging a target. For that reason they need to conserve ammunition. An aircraft can expend its entire ammunition load in a couple of seconds. That's obviously not viable for a ground vehicle.
Where do you think you are?
>>>/reddit/
That reminds me
m.youtube.com
Helicopters have to be able to loiter for long periods, you don't need to worry about pulling up after 3 seconds when you hovering a mile away, so the fire density isn't necessary.