The Soviet M46 130mm gun
Anthony Lee
From ant...@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Could someone explain how the Soviet M46 130mm gun achieved its
range of 27000 metres ? Also what did American firebases used
to do to deal with them ?
--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: ant...@cs.uq.oz.au voice:+(61)-7-365-2697 FAX:+(61)-7-365-1999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, University of Qld,
St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
FSAC-SID
From "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erud...@pica.army.mil>
Anthony Lee writes:
#Could someone explain how the Soviet M46 130mm gun achieves its
#range of 27000 metres ? Also what did American firebases used
The old fashioned way: very streamlined projectile, large propelling charge,
and a long tube.
EJR/all disclaimers apply
Arno Hahma
From aha...@utu.fi (Arno Hahma)
In article <1992Jan14.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com> ant...@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:
>Could someone explain how the Soviet M46 130mm gun achieved its
>range of 27000 metres ?
They have simply well designed, top quality ammunition
and high quality high performance propellants (higher initial
velocity). The gun itself is also very likely designed to its limits.
For example, their 125 mm smoothbore tank gun is rated for only couple
of hundred rounds, after that it is dangerous to use. There is no
point to make it last longer, you are not going to get even that far in
a real situation anyway.
Russians really have impressive quality and level of technology with
their guns, their 152 mm gun shoots about 36000 meters with standard
ammo. Their standard 152 mm rounds have a 100 % kill probability on a
radius of 20 meters (in practice this means a round clears forest
completely to this radius).
>Also what did American firebases used
>to do to deal with them ?
Die, I guess ;-).
>Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
ArNO
2
Stefan
From sm...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
>Anthony Lee writes:
>#Could someone explain how the Soviet M46 130mm gun achieves its
>#range of 27000 metres ? Also what did American firebases used
>From Isby's 'Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army' (very good book, BTW):
The North Vietnamese fielded no more than few dozen M-46s during the later
stages of the Vietnam War, but used them to great effect. Those who were on the
receiving end of 130mm fire in the 1971-72 period consider the gun superior in
range, accuracy and shell destructive power to any weapon used by the US or
ARVN forces, including the big 175m M-107 SP gun. The M-46 played a major role
in the Laos invasion and the fighting in the northern I Corps area of South
Vietnam.
The M46s were surprisingly mobile. Towed by tracked vehicles, they could
traverse any terrain, even jungle trails, which made them difficult to locate.
Their flash was hard to spot in daylight, and North Vietnamese tactics were
based on frequent changes of positions to avoid counterbattery fire, althought
their long range protected them form most Allied artillery. Only air strikes
could deal with them. On May 7 1972, the USAF declared open season on M-46s
with combined teams of O-2s forward air controller aircraft and cannon-armed
AC-130s gunships assigned to seek out the M-46s. They were not successful, as
North Vietnamse protected them with SA-7 to keep the O-2s at high altitude.
Many airstrikes were devoted to indentifying and eliminating individual gun
positions, and even B-52s were used against them. Seldom in modern warfare
have so few guns been such a problem to so many.
yuq...@bvc.edu
From yuq...@bvc.edu
In article <1992Jan17.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com>, sm...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
|
| From sm...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
|
| Seldom in modern warfare have so few guns been such a problem to so many.
This reminds of a little story during the 1939 Soviet-Finnish War. One
little canon discarded by the Soviets were used by the Finns and caused
great confusion.
Anyone has the full story on that, just thought maybe entertaning.
Duke
BVC
birm...@fnalo.fnal.gov
From birm...@fnalo.fnal.gov
In article <1992Jan15.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com>, aha...@utu.fi (Arno Hahma) writes:
> For example, their 125 mm smoothbore tank gun is rated for only couple
> of hundred rounds, after that it is dangerous to use. There is no
> point to make it last longer, you are not going to get even that far in
> a real situation anyway.
Maybe not, but it *would* be nice to be able to train with it.
--
Phillip J. Birmingham
birm...@fnal.fnal.gov Branch offices at: bir...@vuhep.phy.vanderbilt.edu
Vanderbilt has my permission to disagree, if they really think that's wise.
"Here we are now, entertain us." Nirvana, "Smells Like Teen Spirit"
Bill Seurer
From Bill Seurer <seu...@rchland.ibm.com>
> > For example, their 125 mm smoothbore tank gun is rated for only couple
> > of hundred rounds, after that it is dangerous to use. There is no
> > point to make it last longer, you are not going to get even that far in
> > a real situation anyway.
> Maybe not, but it *would* be nice to be able to train with it.
My father-in-law was a tank driver during WW2 and he told me how shocking
it was the first time the main gun fired on his tank. It was during combat
in France!
Apparently ammunition was in such short supply that they used a .22 rifle
hooked into (or actually within?) the main gun during training in the US.
- Bill Seurer Language Strategy and Support IBM Rochester, MN
BillS...@vnet.ibm.com America On-Line: BillSeurer
Arno Hahma
From aha...@utu.fi (Arno Hahma)
In article <1992Jan23.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com> birm...@fnalo.fnal.gov writes:
>> of hundred rounds, after that it is dangerous to use. There is no
>> point to make it last longer, you are not going to get even that far in
> Maybe not, but it *would* be nice to be able to train with it.
Do you think combat rounds are fired in an exercise? No, the practice
round is only a bag of black powder or the like, the tube won't even
notice it ;-). Real ammo is used very seldom, otherwise you would have
to have several barrels. Besides, in training you only use a few
tanks, not the whole stock you have.
Cannons are not very durable anyway. A field gun also can't fire more
than about a thousand rounds. After that it is either worn out or
dangerous to use or both. If a tank gun is rated to about half of
the capability of a field gun, it isn't too bad at all.
> Phillip J. Birmingham
ArNO
2
eric remy
From edr...@leland.stanford.edu (eric remy)
In article <1992Jan25.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com> Bill Seurer <seu...@rchland.ibm.com> writes:
>
>From Bill Seurer <seu...@rchland.ibm.com>
>
...During WWII...
>
>Apparently <tank> ammunition was in such short supply that they used
>a .22 rifle hooked into (or actually within?) the main gun during
>training in the US.
>
Actually, this is still done. During training on turret "simulators"
(M60A3 turrets mounted on a indoor stand.) at Ft. Knox we hooked a M16
up to the side of the main gun and shot miniature targets from the gunners
station. Much more satisfying than simply running a snake board. (A board
with curvy markings on it- you try to move the reticle along the marks
as fast as possible.) Even more fun when we switched the M16 to auto... :^)
A recent article in Armor magazine detailed a more elaborate simulator which
mounts in the breech. It fires .50 cal ammo and is actually reloaded a round
at a time from the honeycombs, thus giving the loader something to do.
With practice main gun ammo running approx. $200 a round (last I heard)
and the enormous headaches involved in running a main gun range, the loss
in realism isn't too bad of a trade off IMAO.
--
Eric R. edr...@d31ha0.Stanford.EDU Department of Chemistry
-1/2\nabla^2\psi_T-72
Won-Soon Lau
From engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau)
In article <1992Jan29....@cbnews.cb.att.com>, edr...@leland.stanford.edu (eric remy) writes:
> In article <1992Jan25.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com> Bill Seurer <seu...@rchland.ibm.com> writes:
> >Apparently <tank> ammunition was in such short supply that they used
> >a .22 rifle hooked into (or actually within?) the main gun during
> >training in the US.
>
> Actually, this is still done. During training on turret "simulators"
> (M60A3 turrets mounted on a indoor stand.) at Ft. Knox we hooked a M16
> up to the side of the main gun and shot miniature targets from the gunners
> station. Much more satisfying than simply running a snake board.
I thought these methods are already very much out-dated although it is
still used in the 106mm Recoilless gun. As far as I know tanks use some
kind of laser target practice system these days and you can really have
a almost real two-sided tank (and infantry) battle.
> With practice main gun ammo running approx. $200 a round (last I heard)
> and the enormous headaches involved in running a main gun range, the loss
> in realism isn't too bad of a trade off IMAO.
This is cheap as compare to infantry antitank missiles such as MILAN
and TOW. The last I heard a MILAN practice sabot cost approx. US $15,000.
However, there is a very realistic simulator for the MILAN and that cut
the trainning cost down by a lot. But then, that simulator costed a
bomb and needs to be service regularly. I found it really no different
between a simulated shoot or a real shoot as the only different is you
get a loud "boom" when you launched the missile.
INTERNET: engp...@nuscc.nus.sg -x-|---|-x-
BITNET: ENGP1186@NUSVM | | | |
MA' BELL: (+65) 772 6319 --+-x-+--
SNAIL-MAIL: VLSI DESIGN & CAD LABORATORY | | |
eric remy
From edr...@leland.stanford.edu (eric remy)
In article <1992Jan30.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com> engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) writes:
>
>From engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau)
>
>In article <1992Jan29....@cbnews.cb.att.com>, edr...@leland.stanford.edu (eric remy) writes:
>>
>> Actually, this is still done. During training on turret "simulators"
>> (M60A3 turrets mounted on a indoor stand.) at Ft. Knox we hooked a M16
>> up to the side of the main gun and shot miniature targets from the gunners
>> station. Much more satisfying than simply running a snake board.
>
> I thought these methods are already very much out-dated although it is
>still used in the 106mm Recoilless gun. As far as I know tanks use some
>kind of laser target practice system these days and you can really have
>a almost real two-sided tank (and infantry) battle.
Different system: You're thinking of the MILES laser engagement system:
you hook up a laser to the gun and put sensors on anything that's in the
battle. A computer in some of the systems decides if the weapon fired
at the target is capable to killing it: ie. my 105mm main gun will kill
an infantryman, but his M-16 does nothing to my tank. Not completely
realistic: smoke and bushes stop laser beams, (And have earned the title
"MILES cover") but not 105 rounds. Still, a lot better than nothing.
The device I was talking about (I believe it's called Telfaire.)
is used for very basic gunnery training- "push this button now..."
Once you understand the switchology, you move on to COFT computer
gunnery training and main gun firing.
>
>> With practice main gun ammo running approx. $200 a round (last I heard)
>> and the enormous headaches involved in running a main gun range, the loss
>> in realism isn't too bad of a trade off IMAO.
>
> This is cheap as compare to infantry antitank missiles such as MILAN
>and TOW. The last I heard a MILAN practice sabot cost approx. US $15,000.
>However, there is a very realistic simulator for the MILAN and that cut
>the trainning cost down by a lot. But then, that simulator costed a
>bomb and needs to be service regularly. I found it really no different
>between a simulated shoot or a real shoot as the only different is you
>get a loud "boom" when you launched the missile.
Simulators seem to be the way to go: Tanks use them a great deal, and for
the air defense people it's the only way many will ever "fire" a round.
MILES is also useful for TOW training: my unit was called up two years
ago basically to give the 7th Inf. live targets to shoot with their TOWs.
Good training on both sides: they found it was much more difficult to
track and hit us than they thought, and we got a lesson in infantry
mobility, i.e., how to fight the 360 degree battle :^)
@
From bellcore!dasher.cc.bellcore.com!patter (@)
Eric Remy writes -
>
> Different system: You're thinking of the MILES laser engagement system:
> you hook up a laser to the gun and put sensors on anything that's in the
> battle. A computer in some of the systems decides if the weapon fired
> at the target is capable to killing it: ie. my 105mm main gun will kill
> an infantryman, but his M-16 does nothing to my tank. Not completely
> realistic: smoke and bushes stop laser beams, (And have earned the title
> "MILES cover") but not 105 rounds. Still, a lot better than nothing.
This system is also used by at least two companies to allow civilians
to play aerial dogfighting. One firm is based near Atlanta and another
near Los Angeles. One uses Beechcraft ex-military trainers and the
other uses Sia Marchetti (spelling?) aircraft as imitation fighters.
For a price, you and a buddy can go up, square off, and have at it. If
your "guns" hit the other plane's sensors, a smoke generator comes on.
Both outfits use dual controlled aircraft and have ex-military pilots
who go along. These guys do demos, warn you if you're getting too low,
and so on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| The reason that cliches become cliches is that
George Patterson - | they are the hammers and screwdrivers in the
| toolbox of communication.
| Terry Pratchett
-----------------------------------------------------------------------