German Casemate Tanks

[Jemiba]

Sorry for reviving this old thread, but during our recent holidays, I visited the Tank Museum
Munster and took some photos of the "Doppelrohr-Kasemattpanzer" GVT 04, which I thought
could be still interesting.

 

[silkmonkey]

But it must be asked...why design a tank where the gun system can not turn and fire a full 360 degrees???

 

[Michel Van]

But it must be asked...why design a tank where the gun system can not turn and fire a full 360 degrees???

Sweden wend a step further and build that: the Stridsvagn 103
they eliminate the turret, to make the tank much lighter, simpler and low as possible.
to make the Stridsvagn 103 Tank a strictly defensive vehicle.

in WW II was the German "Jagdpanther" tank a unturreted tank destroyers.
they eliminate the turret because heavy armor and long-barreled 8.8 cm gun on obsoletely undercarriage
to build a strictly offensive vehicle.

 

[airman]

"Doppelrohr-Kasemattpanzer" GVT 04 was cool , the only tank with two cannon that i remember is in old game C&C : The Mammoth of Gdi !

 

[MihoshiK]

But it must be asked...why design a tank where the gun system can not turn and fire a full 360 degrees???

The German Kasemattpanzers were all tank hunters. And not in the traditional sense either. They were to be driven very agressively, with the two cannons providing a double strike against a target as the driver swung the tank across the target. IIRC the last prototypes had a 1500 hp engine, hydropneumatic suspension, and weighed in at 40 - 50 tons. Maneuvrability and speed would have been awesome. Think of these things not as Jagdpanzers, but as armored fighter jets, and you're closer in how they would have been used.

 

[Rickshaw]

But it must be asked...why design a tank where the gun system can not turn and fire a full 360 degrees???

The German Kasemattpanzers were all tank hunters. And not in the traditional sense either. They were to be driven very agressively, with the two cannons providing a double strike against a target as the driver swung the tank across the target. IIRC the last prototypes had a 1500 hp engine, hydropneumatic suspension, and weighed in at 40 - 50 tons. Maneuvrability and speed would have been awesome. Think of these things not as Jagdpanzers, but as armored fighter jets, and you're closer in how they would have been used.

That might be a nice romantic concept but in reality, unless you're on the steppes or in a nice flat desert, its not going to work very well in reality. Those things called obstacles will prevent you manoeuvring and the length of barrel projecting at the corners will make it even worse. Then of course, you have the problems of dispersion and aiming such widely divergent guns accurately while on the move.

 

[MihoshiK]

But it must be asked...why design a tank where the gun system can not turn and fire a full 360 degrees???

The German Kasemattpanzers were all tank hunters. And not in the traditional sense either. They were to be driven very agressively, with the two cannons providing a double strike against a target as the driver swung the tank across the target. IIRC the last prototypes had a 1500 hp engine, hydropneumatic suspension, and weighed in at 40 - 50 tons. Maneuvrability and speed would have been awesome. Think of these things not as Jagdpanzers, but as armored fighter jets, and you're closer in how they would have been used.

That might be a nice romantic concept but in reality, unless you're on the steppes or in a nice flat desert, its not going to work very well in reality. Those things called obstacles will prevent you manoeuvring and the length of barrel projecting at the corners will make it even worse. Then of course, you have the problems of dispersion and aiming such widely divergent guns accurately while on the move.

Well, apparently they did have a fairly complex sighting system to deal with the offset barrels, and I never did say it was a good idea...
You'll also note that the Germans aren't actually using Kasemattpanzers right now.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That might be a nice romantic concept but in reality, unless you're on the steppes or in a nice flat desert, its not going to work very well in reality. Those things called obstacles will prevent you manoeuvring and the length of barrel projecting at the corners will make it even worse. Then of course, you have the problems of dispersion and aiming such widely divergent guns accurately while on the move.

That's pretty bizarre. All tanks have a problem with barrel overhang and that doesn't stop them aggressively manoeuvring.

The casemate tank is one of the most maligned concepts in warfare. Mostly because of ignorant assessment of what it lacks. Until the M1 entered service around 1980 there was no tank that could accurately engage another point target on the move. The issue then was for mobile fire on the move how quickly you could come to a stop and engage. In this regard the S-Tank proved itself in Swedish service, British and American trails in being as good, if not better than pre M1 generation tanks at fire and movement, ie offensive tank warfare.

Nice pic Jemiba.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Hi banken, my second post was a photo from the book. Other photo that was mention relates to a low profile turret development of the Leopard 2 with a two man turret.

This was a new turret designed by Wegmann in 1978 that reduced turret height by 30% that was to be combined with the Euro Pak engine which cut the hull length by a road wheel (1m). These volume reductions enabled a new mark of Leopard 2 to be built with much increased armour thickness but staying under 60 tonnes combat weight. Main gun depression to -10 degrees was to be allowed by a rising flap on the turret roof.

Source: Battle Tanks for the Bundeswehr: Modern German Tank Development, 1956-2000 by Rolf Hilmes, ARMOR — January-February 2001

To me at least, this looks a lot like South Koreas latest tank.

 

[Rickshaw]

That might be a nice romantic concept but in reality, unless you're on the steppes or in a nice flat desert, its not going to work very well in reality. Those things called obstacles will prevent you manoeuvring and the length of barrel projecting at the corners will make it even worse. Then of course, you have the problems of dispersion and aiming such widely divergent guns accurately while on the move.

That's pretty bizarre. All tanks have a problem with barrel overhang and that doesn't stop them aggressively manoeuvring.

Most tanks (with few exceptions) have their barrels mounted in turrets which can be traversed so they can effectively manoauvre the gun tube around corners or even traverse them completely to the rear thereby shortening the vehicle. Casemented vehicles obviously cannot. Effectively, you have a vehicle with a massive overhang in this case, one which will increase its turning circle considerably. The Strv-103 had its gun well set to the rear and in the centre, with only a short overhang so it was considerably more manoeuvrable than the German one.

The casemate tank is one of the most maligned concepts in warfare. Mostly because of ignorant assessment of what it lacks. Until the M1 entered service around 1980 there was no tank that could accurately engage another point target on the move. The issue then was for mobile fire on the move how quickly you could come to a stop and engage. In this regard the S-Tank proved itself in Swedish service, British and American trails in being as good, if not better than pre M1 generation tanks at fire and movement, ie offensive tank warfare.

This would explain British training films I have seen of Centurions in the 1960s quite easily engaging targets while on the move. I've personally observed Leopard AS1s engaging targets while on the move and whats more, actually hitting them, 9 times out of 10. The M1 wasn't the first tank with stabilisation. Its just perhaps the one with the best PR.

I agree that casemented tanks are largely misunderstood by most casual observers. They have their strengths and their weaknesses. One shouldn't though, become so enamoured of their strengths as to ignore their weaknesses.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This would explain British training films I have seen of Centurions in the 1960s quite easily engaging targets while on the move. I've personally observed Leopard AS1s engaging targets while on the move and whats more, actually hitting them, 9 times out of 10. The M1 wasn't the first tank with stabilisation. Its just perhaps the one with the best PR.

No it wouldn't. The stabilisation system on the Centurion was expressly for use against area targets firing HE rounds only. This is very different to firing an anti tank round at another tank. For this kind of accuracy the Centurion had to stop to fire.

The Leopard AS1 were very late model Leopard 1s built in the late 1970s at the same time as the first M1 Abrams so fitted with similar fire control systems to the M1 Abrams: laster rangefinder and digital gunfire computer, etc.

 

[Rickshaw]

This would explain British training films I have seen of Centurions in the 1960s quite easily engaging targets while on the move. I've personally observed Leopard AS1s engaging targets while on the move and whats more, actually hitting them, 9 times out of 10. The M1 wasn't the first tank with stabilisation. Its just perhaps the one with the best PR.

No it wouldn't. The stabilisation system on the Centurion was expressly for use against area targets firing HE rounds only. This is very different to firing an anti tank round at another tank. For this kind of accuracy the Centurion had to stop to fire.

Interesting. And what is the difference between engaging a target with HE and one with AP whilst on the move? Indeed, I'd wonder why they would have installed stabilisation pure for HE...

The Leopard AS1 were very late model Leopard 1s built in the late 1970s at the same time as the first M1 Abrams so fitted with similar fire control systems to the M1 Abrams: laster rangefinder and digital gunfire computer, etc.

Amazing, yet you claim that, "Until the M1 entered service around 1980 there was no tank that could accurately engage another point target on the move". So suddenly we have you now admitting other tanks could perform the same feat. :

Oh, and the AS1s weren't "very late model Leopard 1s built in the late 1970s". They were purchased in late 1974 and delivered by mid-1977, the first exercise with troops was January 1978 (which I was on as a young digger). If anything, they were modified 1a3s (roughly equivalent to the 1a4 in fact but acted as the prototypes for that subtype) and represent mid-range Leopards, not late ones.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And what is the difference between engaging a target with HE and one with AP whilst on the move? Indeed, I'd wonder why they would have installed stabilisation pure for HE...

The difference is the lethal radius of each shell. A 20 Pounder APDS round only has a lethal radius of 50-70mm but a HE shell should be throwing splinters out to a few hundred meters. The rough stabilisation provided in the Centurion enables you to suppress enemy positions and anti tank guns with HE and MG fire. The S-Tank also had a stabilised MG so could do similar. You do this so you can advance from one firing position to another while keeping the enemy infantry and their anti tank guns from hitting you.

Amazing, yet you claim that, "Until the M1 entered service around 1980 there was no tank that could accurately engage another point target on the move". So suddenly we have you now admitting other tanks could perform the same feat. :

Truly Amazing! You point is? We are talking about historical benchmarks here. I’m sorry for your benefit that I don’t spend four hours researching every post so as to provide a complete historical record for you.

Oh, and the AS1s weren't "very late model Leopard 1s built in the late 1970s". They were purchased in late 1974 and delivered by mid-1977, the first exercise with troops was January 1978 (which I was on as a young digger). If anything, they were modified 1a3s (roughly equivalent to the 1a4 in fact but acted as the prototypes for that subtype) and represent mid-range Leopards, not late ones.

Quibble away. The Leopard AS1 had a very advanced Belgian fire control system fitted and the advanced turret form. While they lacked the passive night vision of later German versions they were in many ways an ideal form of Leopard.

 

[Firefly 2]

Quibble away. The Leopard AS1 had a very advanced Belgian fire control system fitted and the advanced turret form. While they lacked the passive night vision of later German versions they were in many ways an ideal form of Leopard.

Manufactured by Sabca:

The Tank Fire Control System (TFCS), by the Sabca Company of Belgium comprises a laser rangefinder, seven ballistic sensors and a fire control computer. The laser range finder operates through an aperture on the right of the mantlet - there is no corresponding opening on the left. The sensors provide data to the computer on air temperature and pressure, charge temperature, barrel wear, cross wind and vehicle cant. The cross wind sensor is mounted on the forward part of the turret roof, surrounded by a round wire cage for protection.

source: http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/leopardph_1.htm

I wonder if this technology found its way to the Belgian Leopard 1's. I should research that a bit as I don't live very far from the main factory in Evere ( I actually used to pass it daily when I went to primary school).
Edit: it apparently did

All have minor modifications to suit local conditions, for example the Belgium Leopards had the MG3 machine guns replaced with the 7.62mm FN MAG machine gun and the SABCA Fire Control System (adopted by Australia and Canada too).

Back on topic:
Query: I assumed these Casement tanks where supposed to be more static in their roles, but they were actually supposed to do quick " hit and run" attacks? That's just amazing.

 

[Rickshaw]

Back on topic:
Query: I assumed these Casement tanks where supposed to be more static in their roles, but they were actually supposed to do quick " hit and run" attacks? That's just amazing.

You'd have to define what you mean by "quick 'hit and run' attacks".

The British found when they trialled the Strv-103 in the early 1970s, the casement mounting couldn't fire on the move and in the defensive, any prepared positions had to be considerably larger for the Strv-103 over a conventional tank to allow it to traverse the gun. Depressing the gun tended to expose the hull top, while elevating it tended to expose the lower glacis and attempting to fire cross-slope was difficult. However, if those limitations were understood and accepted, they saw no disadvantage to the concept.

The concept is IMO, better suited to the defence than the offence - primarily because of the difficulties of engaging off centreline targets quickly while advancing. That is one major benefit the turret confers. On the defence, the low silhouette confers considerable advantage.

 

[Rickshaw]

And what is the difference between engaging a target with HE and one with AP whilst on the move? Indeed, I'd wonder why they would have installed stabilisation pure for HE...

The difference is the lethal radius of each shell. A 20 Pounder APDS round only has a lethal radius of 50-70mm but a HE shell should be throwing splinters out to a few hundred meters. The rough stabilisation provided in the Centurion enables you to suppress enemy positions and anti tank guns with HE and MG fire. The S-Tank also had a stabilised MG so could do similar. You do this so you can advance from one firing position to another while keeping the enemy infantry and their anti tank guns from hitting you.

Nothing "rough" about the stabilisation on the Centurion. The reality is that if British gunners were able to engage point targets while on the move with the stabilisation that the Centurion had in the 1960s, it certainly predates the introduction of the M1 20 years later which you claim was the first MBT to enter service that could engage point targets on the move accuracy.

Amazing, yet you claim that, "Until the M1 entered service around 1980 there was no tank that could accurately engage another point target on the move". So suddenly we have you now admitting other tanks could perform the same feat. :

Truly Amazing! You point is? We are talking about historical benchmarks here. I’m sorry for your benefit that I don’t spend four hours researching every post so as to provide a complete historical record for you.

The point is that you directly contradict yourself with that statement. That you appear unable to detect that contradiction suggests what about yourself? :

Oh, and the AS1s weren't "very late model Leopard 1s built in the late 1970s". They were purchased in late 1974 and delivered by mid-1977, the first exercise with troops was January 1978 (which I was on as a young digger). If anything, they were modified 1a3s (roughly equivalent to the 1a4 in fact but acted as the prototypes for that subtype) and represent mid-range Leopards, not late ones.

Quibble away. The Leopard AS1 had a very advanced Belgian fire control system fitted and the advanced turret form. While they lacked the passive night vision of later German versions they were in many ways an ideal form of Leopard.

Another attempt to explain away a contradictory claim of yours. Why am I not overly surprised? It appears to be SOP.

 

[Firefly 2]

Back on topic:
Query: I assumed these Casement tanks where supposed to be more static in their roles, but they were actually supposed to do quick " hit and run" attacks? That's just amazing.

You'd have to define what you mean by "quick 'hit and run' attacks".

The British found when they trialled the Strv-103 in the early 1970s, the casement mounting couldn't fire on the move and in the defensive, any prepared positions had to be considerably larger for the Strv-103 over a conventional tank to allow it to traverse the gun. Depressing the gun tended to expose the hull top, while elevating it tended to expose the lower glacis and attempting to fire cross-slope was difficult. However, if those limitations were understood and accepted, they saw no disadvantage to the concept.

The concept is IMO, better suited to the defence than the offence - primarily because of the difficulties of engaging off centreline targets quickly while advancing. That is one major benefit the turret confers. On the defence, the low silhouette confers considerable advantage.

I was referring to this statement earlier on in the thread:

The German Kasemattpanzers were all tank hunters. And not in the traditional sense either. They were to be driven very agressively, with the two cannons providing a double strike against a target as the driver swung the tank across the target. IIRC the last prototypes had a 1500 hp engine, hydropneumatic suspension, and weighed in at 40 - 50 tons. Maneuvrability and speed would have been awesome. Think of these things not as Jagdpanzers, but as armored fighter jets, and you're closer in how they would have been used.

As I see it, these Casement tanks are great in the defensive role, in that role this concept has been proven through and through IMO. When using a casement tank offensively, it seems logical that these tanks would rely on surprise as an added factor to a successful attack. Move in as undetected as possible - hit - retreat. It seems unlikely to me that a casement tank would be used in a prolonged engagement and would retreat from the battlefield once an attack run is completed.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Nothing "rough" about the stabilisation on the Centurion. The reality is that if British gunners were able to engage point targets while on the move with the stabilisation that the Centurion had in the 1960s, it certainly predates the introduction of the M1 20 years later which you claim was the first MBT to enter service that could engage point targets on the move accuracy.

The stabilisation system on the Centurion was not accurate enough to engage a point target on the move. By point target that is generally assumed to mean a precise hit on a turret face or directly onto a field gun.

“The Centurion was one of the first tanks with an efficient gun stabilisation system to allow it to fire on the move. In combination with a well-trained gunner, the Metrovick FVGCE No 1 was highly effective against area targets when engaging with HE or defensive machine gun fire. It also allowed the gunner to track a pinpoint target while on the move and then stop to engage it quickly at the 'short halt’ before moving off rapidly to avoid retaliatory fire.” – Simon Dunstan in ‘The Centurion Universal Tank 1943-2003’

The point is that you directly contradict yourself with that statement. That you appear unable to detect that contradiction suggests what about yourself? :

Far from it. You may have noticed I actually acknowledged my original statement wasn’t fully complete. But the point is: so what? The entire conversation is about different levels of gun turret stabilisation systems. The technology that came about in the 1970s and is best known on the M1 Abrams but of course is on similar tanks accessing the same developments is very different to what was available before hand and changes the dynamic. If you were participating in this conversation as more than just a foolish spoiler insistent on some half understood factoid then you would recognise it is unimportant.

The facts are simple:

Tank stabilisation before the 1970s was unable to support fire on the move against other tanks.
Until this generation of tanks the important issue for tank offensive tactics was the speed of engagement on the short halt.
In this regard a casemate tank like the S-Tank was not at a serious disadvantage to turreted tanks.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Tank stabilisation before the 1970s was unable to support fire on the move against other tanks.

Errrr... correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the gyro stabilization on the Sherman permit firing on the move? I seem to recall hearing about tank battles between motionless Panzers and romping Shermans.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Errrr... correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the gyro stabilization on the Sherman permit firing on the move? I seem to recall hearing about tank battles between motionless Panzers and romping Shermans.

The Sherman had a single axis gyro stabiliser working on the gun’s elevation only. Also the hydraulic turret traverse (almost unique at the time) was only operable by the commander. So any Sherman hits on other tanks while moving would have to be at very close range and by exceptional tank crews. It was hardly a standard capability available across the full range of weapon engagement.

The M1 Abrams is so significant in this story because it was the first tank in unit service to demonstrate just how significant a full performance, three axis stabilisation system can be. In Reforger 82 the M1 achieved unparalleled speed of advance and concentration against legacy tanks thanks to this capability. Later in Operation Desert Storm it was proved with live ammo.

 

[Rickshaw]

Nothing "rough" about the stabilisation on the Centurion. The reality is that if British gunners were able to engage point targets while on the move with the stabilisation that the Centurion had in the 1960s, it certainly predates the introduction of the M1 20 years later which you claim was the first MBT to enter service that could engage point targets on the move accuracy.

The stabilisation system on the Centurion was not accurate enough to engage a point target on the move. By point target that is generally assumed to mean a precise hit on a turret face or directly onto a field gun.

“The Centurion was one of the first tanks with an efficient gun stabilisation system to allow it to fire on the move. In combination with a well-trained gunner, the Metrovick FVGCE No 1 was highly effective against area targets when engaging with HE or defensive machine gun fire. It also allowed the gunner to track a pinpoint target while on the move and then stop to engage it quickly at the 'short halt’ before moving off rapidly to avoid retaliatory fire.” – Simon Dunstan in ‘The Centurion Universal Tank 1943-2003’

Here my lad is where we see the difference between book learnin' and real life. Dunstan may make that claim, I have seen (indirectly, I admit via training films) British Army Centurions engaging tank targets whilst on the move. So, now you can believe that Mr. Dunstan claims - which undoubtedly may be what the manufacture claimed was possible or you can believe myself on the basis of what was demonstrated in real life and filmed. Personally, I'll take the evidence of my own eyes.

The point is that you directly contradict yourself with that statement. That you appear unable to detect that contradiction suggests what about yourself? :

Far from it. You may have noticed I actually acknowledged my original statement wasn’t fully complete.

Did you, where? You started back peddling and changing it. I fail to see any actual admission that you were in error. Until I see such a direct admission, I will continue to see your original statement as being contradicted.

But the point is: so what?

The point? It merely proves that you are not the font of all wisdom that your pontification claims.

The entire conversation is about different levels of gun turret stabilisation systems. The technology that came about in the 1970s and is best known on the M1 Abrams but of course is on similar tanks accessing the same developments is very different to what was available before hand and changes the dynamic. If you were participating in this conversation as more than just a foolish spoiler insistent on some half understood factoid then you would recognise it is unimportant.

The only "half-understood factoid" I have see being put out is your own. A "factoid" which you admit is just that, a "factoid". Other tanks predated the M1 and were able to engage enemy tanks while on the move.

The facts are simple:

Tank stabilisation before the 1970s was unable to support fire on the move against other tanks.
Until this generation of tanks the important issue for tank offensive tactics was the speed of engagement on the short halt.

The reality is different. Again I note that you have contradicted your original statement. Should I therefore take that this is an acknowledgement that your original statement was in fact wrong?

In this regard a casemate tank like the S-Tank was not at a serious disadvantage to turreted tanks.

Except for the points that the British Army noted, I would agree with you. Points, I note you appear to believe inconsequential but which were such that the British Army decided against adopting a casemented tank of their own.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Here my lad is where we see the difference between book learnin' and real life. Dunstan may make that claim, I have seen (indirectly, I admit via training films) British Army Centurions engaging tank targets whilst on the move

OMG ROFLOL!

Having more than a passing familiarity with stabilisation systems in the real world – not half remembered training films from the 1970s – let me explain a basic element. A stabilisation system is not limited to a particular type of target engagement by some intrinsic factor. Its limitation is based on its capacity to adjust for angular variation between the shooter and the target. So if you adjust downwards one or two variables like range and the movement of the shooter you can achieve a higher degree of accuracy. So you can shoot a point target while appearing to move and convince an uneducated audience of trainee pogues watching the film. However you would lack the capability to repeat the performance in a typical combat situation: such as shooting at combat ranges while moving over typical field terrain at combat speeds.

As to the other question of trusting the opinion of Simon Dunstan or that of random ex pogue, model making nutcase with a huge ego on the internet who saw a film 30 years ago I will go with the ‘book learnin’ anyday of the week. You can keep your ‘real life’ to yourself.

 

[Rickshaw]

Here my lad is where we see the difference between book learnin' and real life. Dunstan may make that claim, I have seen (indirectly, I admit via training films) British Army Centurions engaging tank targets whilst on the move

OMG ROFLOL!

Having more than a passing familiarity with stabilisation systems in the real world – not half remembered training films from the 1970s – let me explain a basic element.

Boyo, when I need you to "explain" something to me, is the day Lucifer will be complaining that the heating needs turning up. I do not "half-remember" anything. Again, it appears that you are disputing my account of what I observed in those training films. As the projectionist I watched them multiple times, not once. If you were more mature, you'd admit that you've contradicted your initial statement.

Oh, and as to the cheap shot at my service record, I'll treat that with the utter contempt it deserves.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

As the projectionist I watched them multiple times, not once.

Now that we’ve established your skill base in this area perhaps you would like to re-write the history of the world? If the Centurion had the capability to fire anti tank rounds at other tanks on the move in combat conditions then I’m sure the Indian and Israeli Armies would have used such in their heavy use of these tanks 1965-73? Thanks to Rickshaw’s memories of training films they can now re-fight their historical tank battles on the move rather than from the short halt. How many brave Israeli and Indian tankers now don’t have to die thanks to this astounding historical breakthrough.

If you were more mature, you'd admit that you've contradicted your initial statement.

Only in a purely antagonistic legalistic reading of it. That I summarised and didn’t provide a full and explained history of the tank stabiliser in an original post is hardly grounds for censor. That you dwell upon it rather than concede the barrage of supporting logic and facts I have provided is not my problem.

Oh, and as to the cheap shot at my service record, I'll treat that with the utter contempt it deserves.

A Rickshaw is just a Rickshaw*. Of course someone has to be there to file the paperwork and stock the warehouse and operate the projector. But don’t get carried away that since you’re not a Ironsides or Shelldrake that your service record will give you any real insight into the use or tanks and gunnery.

* For any interested observer Rickshaw is an Australian Army radio code for Ordnance Corps who are the admin and quartermaster corps of same.

 

[Rickshaw]

As the projectionist I watched them multiple times, not once.

Now that we’ve established your skill base in this area perhaps you would like to re-write the history of the world?

Unnecessary. You're doing such a wonderful job in every post. I have merely recounted what I saw. Now, isn't that at least one step closer that you?

If you were more mature, you'd admit that you've contradicted your initial statement.

Only in a purely antagonistic legalistic reading of it. That I summarised and didn’t provide a full and explained history of the tank stabiliser in an original post is hardly grounds for censor. That you dwell upon it rather than concede the barrage of supporting logic and facts I have provided is not my problem.

*_YAWN_*. I am taking you at your written word. Anytime you want to come out and admit that you were mistaken, you are welcome to. That you've back-peddled everytime you've been shown to be wrong just makes this whole exercise the more amusing.

Oh, and as to the cheap shot at my service record, I'll treat that with the utter contempt it deserves.

A Rickshaw is just a Rickshaw*. Of course someone has to be there to file the paperwork and stock the warehouse and operate the projector. But don’t get carried away that since you’re not a Ironsides or Shelldrake that your service record will give you any real insight into the use or tanks and gunnery.

* For any interested observer Rickshaw is an Australian Army radio code for Ordnance Corps who are the admin and quartermaster corps of same.

*_YAWN_*, I am not ashamed to have been a member of a proud corps - the corps that professional soldiers rely upon when planning strategy - remember the old cliche, "professionals talk logistics, amateurs discuss strategy"? Stop displaying your puerile amateurishness by attempting personal attacks on my service.

 

[nuedel]

Here is another Casement Tank on the cassis of the Leopard 2 Tank.
The Taifun was a Swiss project in the early 1980's. The Tank was armed with
a 105mm or 120mm smoothbore Gun. Only one prototype was build by MOWAG. The Project was cancelled.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Nice. You wouldn't happen to have any information on the "Ferrari" the Swiss concept for a new MBT in the 1980s they cancelled to build the Pz 87 (Leopard II).

 

[moin1900]

Hi everybody
Some info about the VTs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT_tank
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT1_(Panzer)
http://www.whq-forum.de/cms/405.0.html

Offtopic but here some info about the Mowag Taifun (Post 2) Taifun-1.jpg and Taifun-2.jpg
http://www.whq-forum.de/invisionboard/index.php?showtopic=24694&st=1710
Many greetings

 

[moin1900]

Hi everybody

www.thirdwave.de with a lot of PDFs
Bundeswehr MBT 1956-2000 (english)

Direct Link
Modern German Tank Development 1956-2000
www.thirdwave.de/3w/tech/weapon/bundeswehr.pdf
With another picture of the VT-1-2
Many greetings

 

[Avimimus]

I sure hope the domain name isn't refering to what I think it is.

 

[Panzerknacker]

Amazing that still some people insist with the double gun concept, it remembers me a soviet KV projekt of the 1930s.

 

[DanielStarseer]

WRT double guns,
like these?


AMOS. http://www.patriahagglunds.fi/amos.html

Koalitsiya-SV http://btvt.narod.ru/3/koalition_sv/koalition_sv.htm

I don't know where the status is on the Russian kit,
but AIUI, AMOS has been approved for production (I just don't if there are many customers lined up, especially now with the lighter single-barrel NEMO system being on offer as well).

 

[Nik]

Google didn't do a particularly good job of translating the latter design's write-up, but it did make clear that this was primarily mobile artillery rather than a 'tank'. I suppose they might have a couple of anti-tank rounds in the carousel, but their support forces would have to be well chewed if they must resort to direct fire...

Uh, I've seen quad AAA mounts, and side-by-side twins, but I don't recall any over & under designs...

The autoloader description was, uh, obscure.

FWIW, would such a twin arrangement suit maritime applications ? It seems to have a lower cg than a side-by-side turret...

 

[DanielStarseer]

.......
Uh, I've seen quad AAA mounts, and side-by-side twins, but I don't recall any over & under designs...

The autoloader description was, uh, obscure.

FWIW, would such a twin arrangement suit maritime applications ? It seems to have a lower cg than a side-by-side turret...

I have a couple sets of encyclopedias around the house,..
One series in particular, the Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare,
(pardon the sales pitch, but some of the covers can be seen here in this Amazon offering....
http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Encyclopedia-Century-Weapons-Warfare/dp/B000RUOW6Q/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290544251&sr=1-2

....actually lists several ship types (post WW2) of Soviet/Warsaw Pact and even Italian design featuring over-under twin barrel gun mountings:
in Soviet/Warsaw Pact service, there were various 37mm o/u mounts, and maybe a 23mm or two, I'll have to go digging,
that were featured on some light surface combatant types (FACs, corvettes, etc).
In the Italian case, it was over/under 76mm mounting pre-dating the now-popular OTO Melara single 76/62, used again in light vessels.
Cannot exactly recall its name/designation, but one in particular that stuck out was a frigate-sized vessel sporting, depending on production block, three of these twin over/under mounts...think it was one forward and 2 aft.

I browsed thru the NavalWeapons site,
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm
but found no info on any Soviet/WP/Russian, or Italian, guns of this nature (over/under barrels).

Now it's got me buggin'... Have to dig out those books when I get home for holiday weekend...

As those books were copyrighted last time in ~1977 if I'm not mistaken, and that branch of Columbia House Publishing no longer being around to badger me about permissions (sorry I don't have a scanner for pics),
I'll try getting up all the info I can on the guns (ship classes used on, rates of fire, calibers, etc).

The series is a fine addition to any collection if it can be found for a decent price.

 

[red admiral]

I browsed thru the NavalWeapons site,
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm
but found no info on any Soviet/WP/Russian, or Italian, guns of this nature (over/under barrels).

The Italian 76/62 duple was trialled on F554 Centauro. I found mention of a possible follow-on quadruple turret somewhere as well, but with the failure of the duple, this was scrapped.

http://www.marina.difesa.it/storia/almanacco/parte08/navi0844.asp

 

[gollevainen]

I browsed thru the NavalWeapons site,
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm
but found no info on any Soviet/WP/Russian, or Italian, guns of this nature (over/under barrels).

you just didn't look hard enough
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_25mm-79_2m-3.htm

 

[DanielStarseer]

I browsed thru the NavalWeapons site,
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm
but found no info on any Soviet/WP/Russian, or Italian, guns of this nature (over/under barrels).

you just didn't look hard enough
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_25mm-79_2m-3.htm

Ah,
that could be what threw me then: I wasn't used to seeing 25mm as a "modern" Russian caliber...probably because it wasn't listed as 23 or 37mm, I just skipped over it...

 

[DanielStarseer]

What I found thru the weekend was,
the "twin" over/under Italian 76mm was mounted on the mid/late 1950s Centauro class frigates,
called 76/62mm SMP3 Sovrapposto over at the Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76/62mm_Allargato
(absolutely watch out for that 3rd External Link at the bottom of the Wiki page: totally jacked up/bad link.)

On the Russian weapon,
what I found was a single pic of a ship launching depth charges, with the caption stating something like a "twin" 37mm,...
but when compared to the picture beside it of the quad 45mm AA system (1950s?),
the size of the barrels in relation to crewmen nearby suggests the "twin 37mm" more than likely was mis-indentified.
By scale to crew, the smaller gun certainly could've been the 25mm system instead.
(Still find it odd that the Russians/Soviet naval forces used a 25mm caliber post-WW2, rather than their more common 23mm types...)

Either or, such a small caliber would be little more than nuisance value in a surface/land attack role.
The 76mm would fare better, but the encyc. in question, and the Wiki entry, mention the over-under guns proved less than reliable, and were sufficiently replaced by more reliable (less mechanically complex?) single barrel 76mm mounts.

As for ship guns, side-by-side is the tried-and-true preferred method of mounting multiple guns in single turrets.
The current, modern, impressive one being the twin Russian 130mm type....I've seen it discussed that the Russian twin over/under 152 could possibly have been a consideration for improving naval ship gunnery in the surface bombardment role (especially considering the ongoing development of tube-fired PGMs,...but Russian types like the Krasnopol haven't enjoyed the best success and reliability rates, as Indian experience some years ago in the mountains against Pakistani forces attests to).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Over and under gun arrangements are more accurate and reliable than side by side as they reduce the disparate shock loading on the elevation trunnions of a gun mount. Also from a design perspective they add height to the gun mount not width which is often more freely available in a vehicle design. However they tend to require more complex feed systems to reload them than side by side. The later being more than enough to counter their wide proliferation.

 

[moin1900]

Hi everybody

To JAZZ
Could you please tell us the source of the pictures from the first page (GER- Casement Tank Kpz-3_001.jpg etc.) ? Thanks a lot for every answer.

More info
http://www.militarybox.cz/news/zapomenute-selmy-nerealizovane-tankove-projekty/
http://btvt.narod.ru/3/leo3.htm with drawing
http://btvt.narod.ru/4/germany_after_war.htm
Many greetings