Tank Gunnery
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
COMBAT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TEAM A-10/GAU-8 LOW ANGLE FIRINGS VERSUS INDIVIDUAL SOVIET TANKS (February - March 1978)
NPS56-79-005 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California COMBAT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TEAM A-10/GAU-8 LOW ANGLE FIRINGS VERSUS INDIVIDUAL SOVIET TANKS (February - March 1978) R.H.S. Stolfi J.E. Clemens R.R. McEachir August 1979 Approved for public release; distribution unlimited •7 Prepared for: A-10 System Program Office Wright Patterson Air Force Base Ohio 45433 FEDDOCS D 208.1 4/2:NPS-56-79-005 r NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California Rear Admiral Tyler F. - Dedman Jark R Rnrct1 nn Superintendent Borsting jjj^J' he r ed he rein P was supported by the A-10 System Program OfficI Wr?nht p fl r 9 ,T r F° r " BaSe Ohio ' The " ' reproduction of allai\ oror'oarpart of thisf"reportt' is authorized. UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whan Dili Bnlarad) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER t. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NPS56-79-005 S. TYPE OF REPORT ft PERIOD COVERED 4. TITLE (and Subtltlt) Special Report for Period Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 February - March 1978 Low Angle Firings Versus Individual Soviet 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER Tanks (February - March 1978) B. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERf*.) 7. AUTHOR^; R.H.S. Stolfi None J.E. Clemens R.R. McEachin 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS AREA ft WORK UNIT NUMBERS Naval Postgraduate School F 47615-78-5209 and Monterey, California 93940 FY 7621-78-90220 12. REPORT DATE II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS A-10 System Program Office January 1979 Wright Patterson Air Force Base 13. -
115 Mm, 120 Mm & 125 Mm Tank Guns
CHARACTERISATION OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS ANNEX D 115 MM, 120 MM & 125 MM TANK GUNS The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) is an expert organisation working to reduce the impact of mines, cluster munitions and other explosive hazards, in close partnership with states, the UN and other human security actors. Based at the Maison de la paix in Geneva, the GICHD employs around 55 staff from over 15 countries with unique expertise and knowledge. bhenkz2) Our work is made possible by core contributions, project funding and in-kind support from more than 20 governments and organisations. photobucket The research project was guided and advised by a group of 18 international experts dealing with credit: weapons-related research and practitioners who address the implications of explosive weapons in humanitarian, policy, advocacy and legal fields. This document contributes to the research of the (Photo characterisation of explosive weapons (CEW) project in 2015-2016. gun main its firing Characterisation of explosive weapons study, annex D – 115 m m, 120 mm & 125 mm tank guns GICHD, Geneva, February 2017 T-90MS-V ISBN: 978-2-940369-65-2 Tank Russian The content of this publication, its presentation and the designations employed do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) regarding the legal status of image: any country, territory or armed group, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. All content remains the sole responsibility of the GICHD. Cover CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 TANK GUNS 6 High Explosive Tank Gun Ammunition 8 TANK GUN CASE STUDIES 11 Brief Descriptions 11 CASE STUDIES 13 Case Study 1 13 Case Study 2 17 Case Study 3 21 Case Study 4 24 Case Study 5 26 Annex D Contents 3 INTRODUCTION This study examines the characteristics, use and effects of tank guns and tank projectiles. -
PDF Download M103 Heavy Tank, 1950-74 Ebook, Epub
M103 HEAVY TANK, 1950-74 PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Kenneth W. Estes,Richard Chasemore | 48 pages | 19 Mar 2013 | Bloomsbury Publishing PLC | 9781849089814 | English | United Kingdom M103 Heavy Tank, 1950-74 PDF Book Army tank engineering of the late s. About This Item. Best for. The heavy tank proved fairly popular with its crews, who above all respected the powerful armament it carried. M7 Priest mm Howitzer Motor Carriage. While the US Army deactivated its heavy armor units with the reception of the new M60 series main battle tanks in , the remaining Ms stayed within the US Marine Corps inventory until they began receiving the M60 series main battle tank. Post—World War II armies have shifted to the Main Battle Tank concept, in which a single model is expected to fulfill the breakthrough functions of a heavy tank while retaining the mobility of medium and light tanks. It may have been the unwanted 'ugly duckling' of the Army, which refrained from naming the M alone of all its postwar tanks. The M is a bit of a footnote in the history of US armour. Welcome to Wargaming. Standard US Army armor battalions at the time had three companies per battalion, each with three five-tank platoons, with 17 tanks per company two tanks were in headquarters platoon. The last Ms were withdrawn from service in Walmart Services. Flag as inappropriate. See all related content. Hannie leads a double life, one as a wife and mother in a Devon manor Range A, Camp Pendleton, California. Ask a question Ask a question If you would like to share feedback with us about pricing, delivery or other customer service issues, please contact customer service directly. -
KV-IV in Bolt Action
KV-IV in Bolt action Points: Inexperienced (650 points) includes 15 crewmen and 1 commissar Damage Value: 10+ (Heavy Tank) Options • Spotter +10 points • Four man rocket reload crew + 28 points Weapons Hard point Weapons Range Shots Pen Special Rules Bow Bow MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, forward arc Forward turret Medium Anti Tank Gun 60” 1 +5 Team, Fixed, forward, right, left arcs, HE(1”) coax MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, forward, right, left arcs rear MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, right, left arcs Forward sub turret Vehicle flame throwers 12” D6+1 +3 Team, Fixed, Forward, right, left arcs, Flamethrower Pintel HMG 36” 3 1 Team, Fixed, Flak Deck MG turret Twin MMG 36” 10 - Team, Fixed, Right arc Deck MG turret Twin MMG 36” 10 - Team, Fixed, Left arc Midships turret Twin heavy Howitzer (36”-84”) 2 HE Team, Fixed, forward, Left, right arcs, 72” Howitzer HE(4”) Rear MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, Left Right arcs Pintel HMG 36” 3 1 Team, Fixed, Flak Midships sub Light Anti Tank gun 48” 1 +4 Team, Fixed, forward, right, left arcs, turret: HE(1”) Coax MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, Left Right arcs Rear MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, Left Right arcs Deck MG turret Twin MMG 36” 10 - Team, Fixed, Right arc Deck MG turret Twin MMG 36” 10 - Team, Fixed, Left arc Rear turret Medium Anti Tank Gun 60” 1 +5 Team, Fixed, rear, right, left arcs, HE(1”) coax MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, rear, right, left arcs rear MMG 36” 5 - Team, Fixed, left, right arcs Katyusha Multiple launcher (12”-72”) 1 HE Team, Fixed, rear, right, left arcs, HE(3”) Special Rules Slow: maximum move of 6 inches Poor turning circle: instead of pivoting 90 degrees the front of the tank can be moved up to 3 inches to the left or right when the tank pivots. -
Fighting Vehicle Technology
Fighting Vehicle Technology 41496_DSTA 60-77#150Q.indd 1 5/6/10 12:44 AM ABSTRACT Armoured vehicle technology has evolved ever since the first tanks appeared in World War One. The traditional Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) design focuses on lethality, survivability and mobility. However, with the growing reliance on communications and command (C2) systems, there is an increased need for the AFV design to be integrated with the vehicle electronics, or vetronics. Vetronics has become a key component of the AFV’s effectiveness on the battlefield. An overview of the technology advances in these areas will be explored. In addition, the impact on the human aspect as a result of these C2 considerations will be covered. Tan Chuan-Yean Mok Shao Hong Vince Yew 41496_DSTA 60-77#150Q.indd 2 5/6/10 12:44 AM Fighting Vehicle Technology 62 and more advanced sub-systems will raise the INTRODUCTION question of how the modern crew is able to process and use the information effectively. On the modern battlefield, armies are moving towards Network-Centric Warfare TECHNOLOGIES IN AN (NCW). Forces no longer fight as individual entities but as part of a larger system. Each AFV entity becomes a node in a network where information can be shared, and firepower can Firepower be called upon request. AFVs are usually equipped with weapon Key to this network fighting capability is the stations for self-protection and the communications and command (C2) system. engagement of targets. Depending on By enabling each force to be plugged into the threat, some are equipped with pintle the C2 system, information can be shared mount systems for light weapons (e.g. -
MS Owen-Smith. Armoured Fighting Vehicle Casualties
J R Army Med Corps: first published as 10.1136/jramc-123-02-03 on 1 January 1977. Downloaded from J. roy. Army med. Cps. 1977. 123,65-76 ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLE CASUALTIES * Lieutenant-Colonel M. S. OWEN-SMITH, M.S., F.R.C.S. Professor of Surgery, Royal Army Medical College THE war between the Arabs and Israelis in October 1973 resulted in the most extensive tank battles since World War n. Indeed in one area involved they were claimed to be the most extensive in Military history, exceeding the 1600 tanks deployed at El Alamein. In.association with these battles some 830 Israeli tanks and about 1400 Arab tanks were destroyed. The Israelis have recorded data on the wounded from this war in a number of articles and presentations. The most striking figure is that just under 10 per cent of all injured suffered burns. Virtually all these burns occurred in Armoured Fighting Vehicle (A.F.V.) crews. The problems I want to discuss are: a. Does the total incidence of burns from major tank battles create a definite departure from previous experiences and must we, therefore, include this figure in pre- planning for conflict in N.W. Europe? . guest. Protected by copyright. b. Does the present range of anti-tank weapons pose a greater threat to tanks and, crew than those of 30 years ago? c. Is there such an entity as " The Anti-Tank Missile Burn Syndrome"? d. What medical lessons can we learn from this war that would benefit the treatment of war wounded in general, and A.F.V. -
Chinese Military Modernization and Force Development Main Report
+ Center for Strategic and International Studies Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy 1800 K Street, N.W. • Suite 400 • Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 1 (202) 775 -3270 • Fax: 1 (202) 457 -8746 Web: http://www.csis.org/burke • Email: [email protected] Chinese Military Modernization and Force Development Main Report Anthony H. Cordesman Martin Klei ber Burke Chair in Strategy Burke Chair Researcher Working Draft, Revised: September 7, 2006 Copyright CSIS, all rights reserved. Cordesman and Kleiber: Chinese Military Modernization 9/7/06 Page ii Table of Contents I. ASSESSING CHINA’S ARMED FORCES ................................ ................................ ............................ 1 CAPABILITIES AS AN INDI CATOR OF INTENTIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1 II. UNDERLYING RESOU RCES FOR CHINA’S SEC URITY CAPABILITIES ................................ 3 ECONOMIC TRENDS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 3 Figure 1: China’s annual GDP growth rates in % (1975 -2006) ................................ ................................ ........................ 4 Figure 2: GDP growth vs. national government revenue growth ................................ ................................ ...................... 5 DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... -
M551 SHERIDAN 1941–2001 Tanks US Airmobile
NVG153cover.qxd:Layout 1 27/11/08 10:16 Page 1 NEW VANGUARD • 153 The design, development, operation and history of the machinery of warfare through the ages NEW VANGUARD • 153 • VANGUARD NEW M551 SHERIDAN M551 SHERIDAN US Airmobile Tanks 1941–2001 US Airmobile Tanks 1941–2001 M551 Since the advent of airmobile warfare, there have been numerous SHERIDAN SHERIDAN attempts to support paratroopers with attached armored vehicles. This book tells the story of the US experience with airmobile tanks, starting with their efforts in World War II. However, full success was not achieved until the production of the M551 Sheridan. The history of this tank provides the focal point of this book, highlighting the difficulties of combining heavy firepower in a chassis light enough for airborne delivery. The book examines its controversial debut in Vietnam, and its subsequent combat history in Panama and Operation Desert Storm, before it rounds out the story by examining the failed attempts to replace the Sheridan with other armored vehicles. Full color artwork Illustrations Unrivaled detail Cutaway artwork US $17.95 / CAN $19.95 STEVEN J ZALOGA ISBN 978-1-84603-391-9 OSPREY 51795 PUBLISHING 9 781846 033919 O SPREY WWW.OSPREYPUBLISHING.COM STEVEN J ZALOGA ILLUSTRATED BY TONY BRYAN © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com NVG153title.qxd:Layout 1 26/11/08 11:39 Page 1 NEW VANGUARD • 153 M551 SHERIDAN US Airmobile Tanks 1941–2001 STEVEN J ZALOGA ILLUSTRATED BY TONY BRYAN © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com NVG153_PAGEScorrex2.qxd:NVG153 9/4/09 16:15 Page 2 First published in Great Britain in 2009 by Osprey Publishing, AUTHOR’S NOTE Midland House, West Way, Botley, Oxford, OX2 0PH, UK The author would especially like to thank Colonel Russ Vaughan (USAR – 443 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016, USA Ret’d) for his help with the photos for this book and for sharing his E-mail: [email protected] recollections of the Sheridan from his service with the 2nd Armored Cavalry and 82nd Airborne divisions. -
Table of Contents
CCrriittiiccaall TTeecchhnnooll ooggyy EEvveennttss iinn tthhee Development of the Abrams Tank Development of the Abrams Tank PPrroojjeecctt HHiinnddssiigghhtt RReevviissiitteedd Richard Chait, John Lyons, and Duncan Long Center for Technology and National Security Policy National Defense University December 2005 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. All information and sources for this paper were drawn from unclassified materials. Richard Chait is a Distinguished Research Professor at the Center for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP), National Defense University. He was previously Chief Scientist, Army Material Command, and Director, Army Research and Laboratory Management. Dr. Chait received his Ph.D in Solid State Science from Syracuse University and a B.S. degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. John W. Lyons is a Distinguished Research Professor at CTNSP. He was previously director of the Army Research Laboratory and director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Dr. Lyons received his Ph.D from Washington University. He holds a B.A. from Harvard. Duncan Long is a Research Associate at CTNSP. He holds a Master of International Affairs degree from the School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, and a B.A. from Stanford University. Acknowledgments. A project of this magnitude and scope could not have been conducted without the involvement of many people. Their cooperation and willingness to recount events that happened many years ago made this paper possible. The Army Science and Technology (S&T) Executive, Dr. -
Worldwide Equipment Guide
WORLDWIDE EQUIPMENT GUIDE TRADOC DCSINT Threat Support Directorate DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. Worldwide Equipment Guide Sep 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Page Memorandum, 24 Sep 2001 ...................................... *i V-150................................................................. 2-12 Introduction ............................................................ *vii VTT-323 ......................................................... 2-12.1 Table: Units of Measure........................................... ix WZ 551........................................................... 2-12.2 Errata Notes................................................................ x YW 531A/531C/Type 63 Vehicle Series........... 2-13 Supplement Page Changes.................................... *xiii YW 531H/Type 85 Vehicle Series ................... 2-14 1. INFANTRY WEAPONS ................................... 1-1 Infantry Fighting Vehicles AMX-10P IFV................................................... 2-15 Small Arms BMD-1 Airborne Fighting Vehicle.................... 2-17 AK-74 5.45-mm Assault Rifle ............................. 1-3 BMD-3 Airborne Fighting Vehicle.................... 2-19 RPK-74 5.45-mm Light Machinegun................... 1-4 BMP-1 IFV..................................................... 2-20.1 AK-47 7.62-mm Assault Rifle .......................... 1-4.1 BMP-1P IFV...................................................... 2-21 Sniper Rifles..................................................... -
AIRCRAFT PROFILE] F8F Bearcat
1 [REGISTER] [ACE OF THE MONTH] Lt.Gen. Vasily Fedorovich Golubev....................................... 3 [VEHICLE PROFILE] PzKpfw IV Ausf.C....................................................................... 6 Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. C with Prague writing on side, camouflage by JoKeR_BvB09 [AIR FORCES] Indonesian Air Force........................................................................ 10 Indonesian Air Force P-51, camouflage created by __StrafeMike__ [AIRCRAFT PROFILE] F8F Bearcat........................................................................... 13 F8F-1B from South Vietnam Air Forces, 1964; F8F-1 Bearcat of CV-37, USS Princeton. Camouflage created by ZeroZeroZeven [WEAPONS OF VICTORY] Dolgushin's La-7............................................................. 16 [HISTORICAL] The Heavy Tanks of the USA............................................................ 18 'M103 Old Wolf' camouflage by STALINGRAD34RUS [ACE TANKER] Johannes Kümmel.......................................................................... 22 Premium Pz.Kpfw. III Ausf. N in desert camouflage [VEHICLE PROFILE] M2A4 Light Tank..................................................................... 24 Premium M2A4 (1st Arm. Div.) [GROUND FORCES] 21. Panzerdivision (Africa Corps)............................................ 27 'Panzerkampfwagen II, German Africa Corps' camouflage by JoKeR_BvB09 [AIRCRAFT PROFILE] Mitsubishi J2M3 Raiden........................................................ 29 J2M3 Raiden, 352-37, 352 Flying Group, April 1945 camouflage -
The Bradley Fighting Vehicle
TOW anti-tank missiles for great distance and firing accura- The Bradley cy (up to 4km), in addition to ammunition for each piece of artillery. Bradleys can travel up to 40mph on ground, and 2.5mph in water via attached inflatable barrier. It takes up Fighting Vehicle to thirty minutes to be deployed as an amphibious vehicle. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV), commonly known as the “Bradley,” is a tracked armored vehicle for transporting A Success in Today’s Battlefield/ troops to critical battlefield points, providing fire coverage A Failure in Efficient Research and for dismounting troops, and delivering offensive attack ca- Development pability at enemy armored vehicles and troops. There are two models of the Bradley used for army ground opera- Although the Bradley destroyed many enemy tanks and tions: the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV), designed for experienced fairly low rates of casualty in the First Gulf troop transport, and the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV), War and the Iraq War, the vehicle’s recent battlefield per- deployed for reconnaissance missions and tank combat. Of formance was not acquired through efficient planning and the Bradleys that have been built through the mid-1990s, project management. The origins of the modern Bradley 4,671 are IFVs and 2,083 are CFVs. span decades of troubled development; the involvement of many stakeholders; inflexible and questionable require- Both models of the Bradley (M2/M3) carry an identical ments; a failure of contractors to make design tradeoffs three-man crew, comprised of a gunner and commander in for fear of losing capability; billions of dollars in R&D costs; the turret, and a driver seated under a hatch, in the front and numerous Congressional interventions, including hull.