New Anti-Tank Weapon
Kosovian Yugoslavia
07-01-2005, 21:07
After seeing new tanks in the world. The Yugoslav Republic Army has decide to design a new anti-tank gun to combat these threats. More details will come after the project begins.
Kosovian Yugoslavia
07-01-2005, 21:34
OOC: How much damage to a tank, can a 155mm AT gun with DU rounds do.
Kroblexskij
07-01-2005, 21:38
heck of a lot at my guess
Bodastan
07-01-2005, 21:39
Army of Bodastan may be interested in those.
OOC: How much damage to a tank, can a 155mm AT gun with DU rounds do.
OOC: Making an AT type weapon? You can just buy my AT-16s if you want.
Kroblexskij
07-01-2005, 21:40
We in kroblexskij would also be interested in these new weapons, keep us informed
Kosovian Yugoslavia
07-01-2005, 21:50
The weapon will be a 155mm gun called the M-1947. It will be able to fire any anti-tank rounds types. Next step is the make 155mm anti-tank rounds for the new gun.
The M-1947
http://history.serw.com.pl/muzeum/img/152.jpg
Caliber: 155mm
Type: Anti-Tank Gun
Roman Republic
07-01-2005, 22:07
Even my Crusader Artillery and MLRS and do that job. My men use Laser Designation to do my work.
Doomingsland
07-01-2005, 22:20
Just stick with ATGMs for anti-tank, that's why no one uses AT guns anymore (except for poor countries).
Roman Republic
07-01-2005, 22:28
Just stick with ATGMs for anti-tank, that's why no one uses AT guns anymore (except for poor countries).
Watch what your saying. I come from a 3rd world contry, Zambia. That would be an insult even though I live in the US
Sileetris
07-01-2005, 22:58
Actually AT guns are still quite useful if they are powerful enough to knock out tanks because they can defend a stationary position with the same firepower as a tank minus the extra cost of being an entire vehicle, and they easy to conceal to boot. ATGMs are more useful in giving mobile forces like paratroopers a means of confronting heavy armor.
The most 'advanced' countries lack assault guns and other non-tank direct fire cannons and are actually somewhat stupid for doing so, because they still have viable roles that need fulfilling. Hell, ATGMs can't support infantry in supression roles. One of the reasons for this is their almost cocky attitude to the outright superiority of missiles(or their love of using expensive toys so officials can get kickbacks).
Crookfur
08-01-2005, 18:17
the only reason you don't see western antions using towed At guns is the fact that thier armed forces are all about mobolity so they stick the AT guns on vehicles with turrets and suddenly have tanks (or tank destroyers like the AMX13 or the chinese 120mm SP AT gun). if you don't require a huge degree of mobility then towed At guns work fine.
AT missiles are of most benfit to light forces who don't have the ability to shift heavy equipment
ONI Concordiat
08-01-2005, 18:40
The warheads for AT shells are less expensive than the ATGMs, never mind the entire missile/shell thing.
A solid DU slug does the same job with less money than a Chermical Energy Guided Missile Warhead.
And costs alot less. A missile, you can have, say, six tubes like the German Nebelwerfer from WWII, and it's towed anyways, but you get six shots. Or you can have a Light Anti-Armor Weapon, with one tube but expendable launcher that only shoots a certain type of CEAT warhead.
Or you can have an AT gun that can shoot almost any shell of the same caliber on the market, provided that you are smart enough not to buy a "magnum" round for a "not-magnum" gun.
Does this make sense?