DRDO to unveil catapult gun system built on Arjun MBT Mk-I chassis | GSQR trials in May

[Penguin]

and what does this historic lesson prove? That West eventually saw more benifits in smoothbores rather than rifled. Soviets were using 115 mm (t-62, early 64s) and later the 125mm D-81 smoothbores since T-64s, everyone knows this.

The original reason for the switch was the fact that HEAT (i.e. shaped charge) rounds lose much of their armor penetrating capability if the round is spinning when it hits the target. The first solution was to fin-stabilize HEAT rounds, until somone realized it's silly having a rifled gun impart a spin on the projectile if we're going to stop it
spinning as sono as it's left the barrel. In addition, smoothbore guns have a longer service life and are easier
(=cheaper) to manufacture.

"1976 smoothbore vs rifled gun trials, smoothbore defeated every rifled version from L7 to L11. This experiment proved the worth of smoothbores."
Pitting the venerale L7 (105mm) against a german 120mm smoothbore is not a good measure.
The L11, the Chieftain's gun, which differed from all previous tank gun in using a 2-piece ammunition with separate bagged propellant charges, was not even in the trilateral trials for the XM-1. Instead the Brits initially entered the EXP-19M7, also with 2-piece ammo. As this would make it incompatible with XM-1, the Brits entered EXP-19M13A, which was a redesigned M7 specifically to suit fitment to the XM1, and using a single-piece stub case ammunition.

"The Amreicans went for localized L7 in M-1 series but then switched M-256 (Rheinmetal) 120 smoothbores for better performance and chamber pressure provided by smoothbore guns due to advantages such as adding a better barrel life (in some cases, almost double to what a Rifled barrel provided) and metallurgy to name a few, the increased accuracy provided by rifled guns has been proved to be wrong as L44/ 55 provide perhaps the most accurate ammo delivery out there."
Obviously, the 105mm L7 was replace by the 120mm Rheinmetal, who wouldn't (altough under 3000m the differences are marginal)? Again, pitting the venerable L7 (105) against a german 120mm smoothbore and seeing the latter win, is not good proof of rifled gun's inferiority.
Also, 120L55 Barrel wear is tremendous.

"It is established that Rifled gun tech is obsolete tech for a modern main battle tank due to several resaons. "
Not really, since e.g. the EXP-19M13A's performance was quite close to that of the German gun (not bad despite 2 handicaps: hasty developed experimental gun, and a maker relatively new to apfds ammo).

"Your argument on more rifled guns are still fielded than smoothbores is weak"
I didn't refer to number of rifled guns. I referred to smoothbore tankguns being all greater than 100mm, possibly to accommodate a sufficiently powerfull HEAT warhead, for normal shells as well as gun-launched ATGWs

"L7s and L11s and later variants fielded due to, cost, availablility of ammo through either local facilities (POF in our case) but surely NOT as a technological advancement over smoothbores. "
I've not claimed smoothbores to be inferior either.

The Brits only gave up on development of new rifled guns after they finished development of the 120mm L30, and in the context of the future tank main armament, which resulted in e.g. 140mm smoothbores, being tested on LEO2 and M1. This is the period 1982-1988. However, by 1995, interest was lost in 140mms and attention returned to 120mm

I mentioned the t-64 and T-72. As well as the 100mm and 115mm smoothbores.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

This DRDO technology should be quite advanced...

...for WW2!

The Russians, oh no, the Soviets didn't have this technology until 1954.


DRDO is quite something!

Is that going to be on India's DEFEXP 2014 with secrity clearnace clearance?

Don't bother, you can

1. go to any Soviet-era military museum (without security clearance) and check out what is Soviet M46 (1954 version) with 130mm. Actually it is the same as DRDO's 2014 version.

or 2. go to any county-level Chinese military museum (without security clearance, with 1 Yuan entrance fee) and check out similar version of PLA with 122mm from 1959 technology, or more advanced 130mm with 1972 technology - DRDO are welcome to send a spy there.

acutally, my bad , 1 correction, China had the same technology in 1959, with 130mm on the chasis of an old tank. google it - Vietnam War.

You're an idiot.

The turret design straight from the catapult from decades ago. This is a limited order, stop gap.

 

[45'22']

You're an idiot.

The turret is straight from the catapult from decades ago. This is a limited order, stop gap.

he is a troll.....dont reply to him
today he was trolling lca thread

 

[cirr]

This is old news, say 30 years old, right?

 

[Penguin]

This is old news, say 30 years old, right?

There is nothing new about the Catapult per se. Obviously, the old chassis of the Vijayanta is unable to keep up with more modern tanks i.e. Arjun. Also, Vijayanta MBTs were phased out in 2008 and replaced by the upgraded T-72M. So, the logistical base for the original Catapult SPG is shrinking (bulk production run of the Vijayanta spares ended in 1989). Hence, It is a cost-effective measure to recycle the artillery of the Catapult onto a more modern chassis i.e. T-72, T-90 or Arjun. In the process, one may also modify the gun from 130mm to 155mm. Much in the same way India has already modified part of its 130mm M-46 Field Guns in to the 155mm M-46 Field Howitzer, leading to shared (ammunition) logistics with 155mm Bofors FH-77B. It would make a good (interim) first 155 SPG for the Indian army (at least untill such time as a modern turreted 155mm SPH is inducted). And the IA does need that to support its newest and biggest tank, the Arjun. Which explains why the Arjun chassis is used and not a T-72 or T-90 chassis.

 

[Penguin]

The turret design straight from the catapult from decades ago.

It is not a turret but rather a casemate. Some 170 Catapult self-propelled guns were built. It is a Vijayanta chassis with an additional roadwheel either side. The turret has been removed and the chassis fitted with a 130 mm M-46 field gun firing over the rear. The vehicle retains the driver's position in the hull, but the center of the vehicle has an open area for the gun and crew, with a frame that has a metal roof for [limited] overhead protection. The weapon has -2 to +45 degree elevation and limited traverse (12,5 degrees to either side). It carries about 30 projectiles and their associated charges.

 

[Dazzler]

The original reason for the switch was the fact that HEAT (i.e. shaped charge) rounds lose much of their armor penetrating capability if the round is spinning when it hits the target. The first solution was to fin-stabilize HEAT rounds, until somone realized it's silly having a rifled gun impart a spin on the projectile if we're going to stop it
spinning as sono as it's left the barrel. In addition, smoothbore guns have a longer service life and are easier
(=cheaper) to manufacture.

"1976 smoothbore vs rifled gun trials, smoothbore defeated every rifled version from L7 to L11. This experiment proved the worth of smoothbores."
Pitting the venerale L7 (105mm) against a german 120mm smoothbore is not a good measure.
The L11, the Chieftain's gun, which differed from all previous tank gun in using a 2-piece ammunition with separate bagged propellant charges, was not even in the trilateral trials for the XM-1. Instead the Brits initially entered the EXP-19M7, also with 2-piece ammo. As this would make it incompatible with XM-1, the Brits entered EXP-19M13A, which was a redesigned M7 specifically to suit fitment to the XM1, and using a single-piece stub case ammunition.

"The Amreicans went for localized L7 in M-1 series but then switched M-256 (Rheinmetal) 120 smoothbores for better performance and chamber pressure provided by smoothbore guns due to advantages such as adding a better barrel life (in some cases, almost double to what a Rifled barrel provided) and metallurgy to name a few, the increased accuracy provided by rifled guns has been proved to be wrong as L44/ 55 provide perhaps the most accurate ammo delivery out there."
Obviously, the 105mm L7 was replace by the 120mm Rheinmetal, who wouldn't (altough under 3000m the differences are marginal)? Again, pitting the venerable L7 (105) against a german 120mm smoothbore and seeing the latter win, is not good proof of rifled gun's inferiority.
Also, 120L55 Barrel wear is tremendous.

"It is established that Rifled gun tech is obsolete tech for a modern main battle tank due to several resaons. "
Not really, since e.g. the EXP-19M13A's performance was quite close to that of the German gun (not bad despite 2 handicaps: hasty developed experimental gun, and a maker relatively new to apfds ammo).

"Your argument on more rifled guns are still fielded than smoothbores is weak"
I didn't refer to number of rifled guns. I referred to smoothbore tankguns being all greater than 100mm, possibly to accommodate a sufficiently powerfull HEAT warhead, for normal shells as well as gun-launched ATGWs

"L7s and L11s and later variants fielded due to, cost, availablility of ammo through either local facilities (POF in our case) but surely NOT as a technological advancement over smoothbores. "
I've not claimed smoothbores to be inferior either.

The Brits only gave up on development of new rifled guns after they finished development of the 120mm L30, and in the context of the future tank main armament, which resulted in e.g. 140mm smoothbores, being tested on LEO2 and M1. This is the period 1982-1988. However, by 1995, interest was lost in 140mms and attention returned to 120mm

I mentioned the t-64 and T-72. As well as the 100mm and 115mm smoothbores.

i truly dont see where you are going with history lessons here, what are you trying to prove? Should i write my lessons to prove the irrelevance of a Rifled gun vis-a-vis a smoothbore? If so then lets start

 

[Capt.Popeye]

i truly dont see where you are going with history lessons here, what are you trying to prove? Should i write my lessons to prove the irrelevance of a Rifled gun vis-a-vis a smoothbore? If so then lets start

Better some History than some plain old Stories.........

You do not even seem to get the drift of what @Penguin has very painstakingly been trying to say.
First of all to consider Smooth-Bore vis-a-vis Rifled Bore on an Arty Guns thread is simply irrelevant.
Then @Penguin has already explained (validly as I may add) the context of Smooth-Bore/Rifled Bore wrt mfg. costs/simplicity and the various kinds of Ammo in use, and doctrinal applications.
As the saying very simply and correctly goes thus: "horses for courses"......

BTW, are PA's Arty Guns and PN's Warship Guns; rifled or smooth-bore?
And why?

 

[Dazzler]

Better some History than some plain old Stories.........

You do not even seem to get the drift of what @Penguin has very painstakingly been trying to say.
First of all to consider Smooth-Bore vis-a-vis Rifled Bore on an Arty Guns thread is simply irrelevant.
Then @Penguin has already explained (validly as I may add) the context of Smooth-Bore/Rifled Bore wrt mfg. costs/simplicity and the various kinds of Ammo in use, and doctrinal applications.
As the saying very simply and correctly goes thus: "horses for courses"......

BTW, are PA's Arty Guns and PN's Warship Guns; rifled or smooth-bore?
And why?

carry on folks

 

[Capt.Popeye]

carry on folks

Oh; We will for sure........
But do you have an answer to the question that I posed to you?

 

[Dazzler]

Oh; We will for sure........
But do you have an answer to the question that I posed to you?

Surey, later mate

 

[Penguin]

Which role anti troops???? because its [HESH} even ineffective against fortified positions...
.

Well ...

The major advantage of HESH lies in its usefulness as a multipurpose round. It is approximately 90% as effective as a conventional High Explosive (HE) round against unarmoured targets and considerably better than HE against bunkers and buildings. It has a devastating effect against lightly armoured targets and even if a kill is not obtained against a more heavily armoured target, the secondary effects will damage all the optics, antennae and any equipment mounted externally.

Army Guide - High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) or High Explosive Plastic (HEP) Round

To bring this back on the rails, I had a peek at the Wikipedia arcticle, and it give a good explanation. I will paste it here, in case some 13 year old ninja surfer edits the page:...
HESH ammunition has good general purpose use being effective against most targets, though the round is generally used at relatively lower velocities because high velocity excessively disperses the pat of explosive. While only effective against tanks without spaced armor or spall liners, the round is still highly favored for combat demolition purposes. The flattened high-velocity explosive pat is capable of destroying concrete constructions much faster than a HEAT round (which is designed for armor penetration), and without the dangerous fragmentation of a traditional high explosive (HE) fragmentation round.

HESH vs. HEAT (post 14)

HESH ammunition has good general purpose use being effective against most targets, though the round is generally used at relatively low velocities because high velocity excessively disperses the pat of explosive. While only effective against tanks without spaced armour or spall liners, the round is still highly favored for combat demolition purposes. The flattened high-velocity explosive pat is capable of destroying concrete constructions much faster than a HEAT round (which is designed for armor penetration), and without the dangerous fragmentation of a traditional high-explosive (HE) fragmentation round.

High-explosive squash head - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Well ...

Army Guide - High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) or High Explosive Plastic (HEP) Round

That is precisely the reason why the IA still keeps HESH rounds in its arsenal. Apart from the other stuff.

 

[Penguin]

Can Arjun fire canister round like smoothbore barrel gun ??

I don't see why not, considering flechette ammunition is currently available for 105mm L7 rifled guns as well as for 120mm smoothbore guns. The Israeli Defense Forces have used 105 and 120 mm flechettes during the occupation of southern Lebanon, and later in the conflict in Gaza Strip.
http://defense-update.com/products/digits/120m337.htm
17.04.08.graphic.flechette | guardian.co.uk | guardian.co.uk
Deadly Metal Rain: The Legality of Flechette Weapons in International Law: A ... - Google Boeken
Flechette Shells: an illegal weapon | B'Tselem

US round 1968

M546 APERS-T rounds are intended primarily for antipersonnel use at close range. The round comes fuzed and set for muzzle action; however, it can be set for up to 100 seconds. The round is loaded with 8,000 8-grain steel flechettes. The APERS-T round is devastatingly effective against exposed infantry.

M546 APERS-T 105-mm

Note US developed M1028 120mm Canister (General Dynamics) which contains tungsten balls that provide a "shotgun-like effect" from the muzzle of the tank out to several hundred meters and can be used to clear enemy dismounts, break up hasty ambush sites in urban areas, clear defiles, stop infantry attacks and counter-attacks, and support friendly infantry assaults by providing cover-by-fire.
120mm Tank Gun HE/MP Ammunition

• M336 canister

The 90 mm M377 canister anti-personnel round has a canister projectile filled with 1,281 spherical steel pellets [the M377 uses mall flechettes] for anti-personnel use at short ranges [some sources erroneously report this round as 105mm rather than 90mm]. It is stated to be particularly effective against personnel in dense foliage.The M48 Patton ws the last platform to use the M377 90-mm canister anti-personnel tank round.

M336 90-mm canister anti-personnel tank round