tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post6686814377409709063..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: Assault guns - past and future?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-34671387550367854212023-07-30T08:35:41.598+02:002023-07-30T08:35:41.598+02:00The technical side of what modern assault guns sho...The technical side of what modern assault guns should be able to do is covered here:<br /><br />https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2023/04/a-compact-and-agile-exploitation-brigade.html<br /><br />https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2017/01/42-elevation-tank-turrets.htmlS Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-69498889141072020352023-07-30T05:55:28.746+02:002023-07-30T05:55:28.746+02:00Would be interested to see an update/longer form o...Would be interested to see an update/longer form of this post.Woodynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-3023446412281664382017-05-04T18:24:28.071+02:002017-05-04T18:24:28.071+02:00That's not so much incorrect as you rather ins...That's not so much incorrect as you rather insist on the direct HE fire support role at a paragraph where I was pivoting towards writing about the AT role.<br /><br />http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2013/10/revisiting-acra.html<br /><br />http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2008/11/wurfgert.htmlS Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-35106010235263711342017-05-04T18:10:19.430+02:002017-05-04T18:10:19.430+02:00I hesitate to comment a post this old, but the com...I hesitate to comment a post this old, but the comments on U.S. Army assault guns is incorrect.<br /><br />The U.S. Army put 105mm howitzers into M-4 Sherman tank turrets creating the M4A3(105) specifically for infantry support - there were other versions. If I recall correctly, the M4A3(105) appeared in platoon strength (6??) in the tank battalions.<br /><br />The USMC and USA also used 75mm howitzer equipped LVT(A)-4 in the Pacific. <br /><br />U.S. Army tank destroyers are more comparable to the Marder I, II, III and similar vehicles. The U.S. really did not field casemate tanks with heavy anti-tank guns like the various Jagdpanzers, or the Russian SU series.<br /><br />There seems little point in developing a modern assault gun unless it provides a capability that MBTs or IFVs do not: in my mind the only requirement would be to mount a short barreled 155mm howitzer for fighting in built up areas. I realize that this is an anathema for SO, but almost every Army in WWII resorted to using 15cm class howitzers in direct fire roles to deal with enemy strong points. Converting a handful of old tanks could be done cheaply from existing tank hulls and off the shelf howitzers - there is no need for gold plated fire controls.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-90159208414952755592012-05-10T19:14:03.589+02:002012-05-10T19:14:03.589+02:00All European armies copy the US Army. The US army ...All European armies copy the US Army. The US army is not a true military. It, like the entire US military establishment is a communist-politicized avoider of warfighting. The Clintonista generals prefer to be "nation building diplomats, " bribery bag men and competitors for juicy post service civilian jobs.Assymetricohttp://www.quikmaneuvers.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-91559854703055753612010-06-27T23:06:11.281+02:002010-06-27T23:06:11.281+02:00I don't get why a 100-125mm tank cannon would ...I don't get why a 100-125mm tank cannon would not suffice for both soft and hard targets. At worst (120mm) you would need a new HE-Frag round (that you'd need anyway) or (100-105mm) couldn't expect frontal penetrations.<br /><br />All these calibres are fine for infantry support, except for their poor maxium elevation.<br /><br />A super-expensive mortar turret such as AMOS or AMS would cost too much in comparison to the capability gain (and loss!).<br />The picture is entirely different if you would procure new vehicles for assault gun tactics; that would probably only make sense in a Third World budget army.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-54539159699578172122010-06-27T22:37:43.306+02:002010-06-27T22:37:43.306+02:00So a StuG is a different animal from a Jagdpanzer ...So a StuG is a different animal from a Jagdpanzer because it's raison d'être is rooted in infantry support weapons instead of a anti armour weapons. <br /><br />Using outdated MBT's as a basis would require a change of gun to something more appropriate for the job, like a 105 mm howitzer. <br /><br />Instead of using the CV90120 or 'S'tank and therefore starting with a vehicle is would seem wiser to start with a weapon system, like AMOS/NEMO. The modularity of these systems then offer a wide choise of motorisation.<br /><br />This will produce a good HE weapon for infantry support with even a (albeit limited) AT capacity, quite simular to the original StuG.flonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-9412097025106126162010-06-27T15:44:50.068+02:002010-06-27T15:44:50.068+02:00It's obsolete and was apparently more of a Jag...It's obsolete and was apparently more of a Jagdpanzer than Sturmgeschütz.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-91867369692009849062010-06-27T15:27:55.198+02:002010-06-27T15:27:55.198+02:00Surprised you didn't mention the Swedish "...Surprised you didn't mention the Swedish "S"-tank. Had some really interesting functions and tactics to it.Upandawaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-87453120795179221132010-06-25T22:31:37.424+02:002010-06-25T22:31:37.424+02:00Agree with Wilf. Assault guns and AT guns were alw...Agree with Wilf. Assault guns and AT guns were always intended to be quite different animals, although they both are a resource to be used for many things when other tools are in short supply. <br /><br />The Red Army loved their AGs (based on WW II performance) and kept six in all Warsaw Pact Motor Rifle Regiments, with three more hidden in storage, for a total of 9. They were called a battery and we often confused them for artillery units. Type of AG was usually based on industrial output. Turretless AGs were preferred for simplicity training, greater armor at less weight and ease of manufacture. <br /><br />Soviet Bn/Co sized MR formations would rarely see tanks or artillery in support of their operations. They were largely tasked with finding "gaps and seams" in the attack and were expected to rely on organic mortars and AGs for support. It seems as if Wehrmacht infantry formations were better at using AGs then the Reds, but this could be more related to the Soviets doctrine and a lack of Wehrmacht armor?<br /><br />AT units in Soviet army formations differed from location to need. In Warsaw pact units one Bn was located in each MR division, but usually this bn was an army formation (a Soviet Warsaw Pact army was usually three divisions, although nothing seems carved in stone) to be used only for stopping deep armor penetrations. The only other acceptable use for AT bns was as flank security during deep Soviet penetrations. However, several division commanders were shot for using their AT bns in this role which made them unavailable to repulse German attacks. Soviet generals seemed to prefer towed AT guns to tracked for the simple reason that the crews would be forced to die at their guns to stop and attack rather than flee. <br /><br />American AT destroyer doctrine was never used correctly during WW II. We never really understood how or where to deploy these units and it was decided (incorrectly in my view) that it was better to have a tank then an AT gun. <br /><br />Good stuff Sven!ENhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12193563623321560413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-4224894924489487942010-06-25T15:51:20.470+02:002010-06-25T15:51:20.470+02:00It would probably be good to change out the weapon...It would probably be good to change out the weapon on the tank if its going to be used as an assault gun. Especially if you plan on using them in situations where other tanks are not the target. The countries that used infantry support guns usually gave them either howitzers or medium velocity guns. <br /><br />The high velocity gun of a modern tank is designed to defeat other tanks not support the infantry. A howitzer or medium velocity gun usually has more explosive charge then the tank gun plus the ability to use shrapnel and other shells more suitable for infantry support. It’s ammo is also shorter and takes up less space so that more ammo can be carried. The howitzer or medium velocity gun also has less blast which is good if the vehicle works in close proximity to infantry. The barrel is much shorter which allows the assault tank to work in more confined areas like cities where infantry support is needed. The less powerful gun can also probably be put in a higher elevation mounting which would allow firing at building and hill tops. Also the less powerful gun might be installed in a triple mount with a 105 howitzer, 30mm gun and 30 cal machine gun so that it can provide various support to the infantry as needed<br /><br />Changing out the gun and mounting will cost money but any older tank will probably be stripped down and rebuilt so that it will be reliable for service and the work installing a new gun/mount can be done at the same time<br /><br />DJFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-17480745332819154312010-06-25T07:20:14.852+02:002010-06-25T07:20:14.852+02:00The historic development of "assault guns&quo...The historic development of "assault guns" really comes from the need to give the infantry large calibre direct fire weapons in close support. The SU-152 being a very good example, as was the Stug-3.<br />I submit that this a different role from a "tank destroyer" which is really just a mobile AT-gun. Done very well this was the Jagd-Panzer. Done very badly, it was the M-10/18/36. - and most US Tank destroyers ended up being used as direct fire artillery for the US infantry - and then disappeared as soon as the War ended. <br /><br />IMO, CV90120 is actually fascinating vehicle, and could be a de-facto tank alternative if used properly.William F. Owennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-30130888233110358212010-06-24T23:45:35.294+02:002010-06-24T23:45:35.294+02:00The CV90120 is a bit in the tradition of light tan...The CV90120 is a bit in the tradition of light tanks and a lesser bit in the tradition of U.S. tank destroyers; no assault gun at all. It's difficult to really follow the example of U.S. tank destroyers today because even heavy main battle tanks are very fast nowadays.<br /><br />The 2S25 is an airborne tank destroyer; the Russians had two earlier ones that were also used with assault gun tactics (ASU-57, ASU-85). I'd characterize the 2S25 as an airborne light tank / tank destroyer.<br /><br />An interesting design was the assault howitzer "FSCV" (on basis of the M113).<br />It was a great idea for Third World armies (if you think that they should spend money on heavy weapons at all).<br />http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/xy_fscv.htmS Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-17313145717827607832010-06-24T23:37:09.107+02:002010-06-24T23:37:09.107+02:00What do you think about the russian SPRUT-SD and ...What do you think about the russian SPRUT-SD and the swedish CV90120?Is the role defined by the arnament or the context where they are used in?<br /><br />Keep up the good work!<br /><br />/KoskelaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com