Is there any use of light guns on tanks/armored vehicles?

J

johnpjones1775

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
27 May 2023
Messages
1,218
Reaction score
658
Is there any use of a 37 or 40mm gun in a light tank?

As the guns of armored vehicles, particularly of tanks have gotten larger, is there really any point of a vehicle with a 37 or 40mm gun?
 
There are plenty of IFVs these days armed with autocannons in that calibre range. Weapons such as the CTA 40 (40mm), Bofors L/70 (40mm), and the Bushmaster III (35mm) see fairly common usage. As for single-shot, breech loaded weapons, I can't off the top of my head remember any designs below 60mm that have seen any success in recent decades. There are quite a lot of low pressure 75 - 105mm designs that can fit in a lighter turret due to their lower recoil and reduced recoil stroke, and these can be thought of as the successor to the 37mm/40mm guns of the 1930s and 1940s. as they're often mounted on modern light tanks. High explosive capacity is the goal of these weapons, and when anti armour capabilities are needed, they're well suited for HEAT rounds (or you can strap an AT missile on top to give it top-of-the-line AT performance).
 
A promising weapon of Russian armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles with a trajectory-guided projectile
57-mm
It will be possible to make a guided projectile of a smaller caliber, then smaller guns will appear
 

Attachments

  • 0_2a888_ffe0b3b4_XL.jpg
    0_2a888_ffe0b3b4_XL.jpg
    162.9 KB · Views: 54
johnpjones1775 said:
Is there any use of a 37 or 40mm gun in a light tank?

As the guns of armored vehicles, particularly of tanks have gotten larger, is there really any point of a vehicle with a 37 or 40mm gun?
Click to expand...
Automatic cannon in remote controlled mount over turret, and provided with proximity/programmable fuzes - yes, it may be quite efficient defense against light drones.
 
paralay said:
A promising weapon of Russian armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles with a trajectory-guided projectile
57-mm. It will be possible to make a guided projectile of a smaller caliber, then smaller guns will appear
Click to expand...

There is a Russian report somewhere that speculates one could get about 300mm of penetration from an 57×347mm using modern technologies.
 
The length of the "arrow" is 330 mm. estimated penetration - 183 mm

And why use penetration? Isn't it more rational to use performance?With the same parameters (only hardness - 300) under 60 - 275.8 mm in size.At right angles it will be about 236.2 mm
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
Prophet141 said:
There are plenty of IFVs these days armed with autocannons in that calibre range. Weapons such as the CTA 40 (40mm), Bofors L/70 (40mm), and the Bushmaster III (35mm) see fairly common usage. As for single-shot, breech loaded weapons, I can't off the top of my head remember any designs below 60mm that have seen any success in recent decades. There are quite a lot of low pressure 75 - 105mm designs that can fit in a lighter turret due to their lower recoil and reduced recoil stroke, and these can be thought of as the successor to the 37mm/40mm guns of the 1930s and 1940s. as they're often mounted on modern light tanks. High explosive capacity is the goal of these weapons, and when anti armour capabilities are needed, they're well suited for HEAT rounds (or you can strap an AT missile on top to give it top-of-the-line AT performance).
Click to expand...
An APC/IFV isn’t a tank
 
DWG said:
But there's a pretty continuous overlap from APC to IFV to Recce Vehicle to Light Tank
Click to expand...
Not really.
A recce vehicle can be literally anything from a dirtbike up to a Bradly.

A light tank and an IFV are not the same things.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Is there any use of a 37 or 40mm gun in a light tank?

As the guns of armored vehicles, particularly of tanks have gotten larger, is there really any point of a vehicle with a 37 or 40mm gun?
Click to expand...
What job do you have in mind for this "light tank"?

And also, do you mean single shot or autocannon?

If you mean single shot cannon for anything under 50mm? No. Not enough boom. Autocannon? Yes. The rate of fire can partly make up for the lack of boom per shot. Witness the method for a Bradley making a mousehole for infantry in a concrete building: blasting a spiral into the wall in a single 20-35rd burst.

Bluntly, look at what the MPF is armed with. Also the Stryker MGS. 105mm.

A big HE thrower.

I wouldn't expect a "light tank" to really have anything smaller than about a 90mm for HE, or a low-recoil 105mm.

An ICV (like a Stryker or M113) really needs a gun big enough to throw enough HE to deal with obstacles, not just a .50cal or Mk19. An IFV, we can argue between a smaller autocannon with ATGMs or a larger HE thrower like a 100 or 105 (I'm not sure which one would be preferable, to be honest)
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Not really.
A recce vehicle can be literally anything from a dirtbike up to a Bradly.

A light tank and an IFV are not the same things.
Click to expand...

APC - ASCOD without a turret
IFV - ASCOD with a turret
Recce - Ajax
Light Tank - Sabrah (ASCOD 105)

Continuous spectrum from APC to light tank within one family of vehicles, and I could equally have picked other vehicle families.
 
DWG said:
APC - ASCOD without a turret
IFV - ASCOD with a turret
Recce - Ajax
Light Tank - Sabrah (ASCOD 105)

Continuous spectrum from APC to light tank within one family of vehicles, and I could equally have picked other vehicle families.
Click to expand...
Ajax is an IFV…
 
johnpjones1775 said:
What makes it a scout/recon vehicle exactly?

it’s an IFV for Cav-scouts…
Click to expand...
The fact that its equiped with Recce Equipment, its designed as sutch (i mean the name it had before says it all with Scout SV = Specialist Vehicle. It has an special electronic suite with 6 TB of storage for sensors.
 
kqcke for you said:
The fact that its equiped with Recce Equipment, its designed as sutch (i mean the name it had before says it all with Scout SV = Specialist Vehicle. It has an special electronic suite with 6 TB of storage for sensors.
Click to expand...
Im not saying that it doesn't have IFV features / it can't be used like that but AJAX as it is is coming as Recce where they replace CVR(T) not Warrior
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Ajax is an IFV…
Click to expand...
First there was Future Cavalry Scout Vehicle and TRACER as the linked US/UK replacements for M3 Bradley and the Scorpion family respectively, then that went away and the UK rebooted TRACER as part of the Future Rapid Effects System, within which was the Scout Specialist Vehicle, for which Ajax was the winning competitor.

TLDR: Ajax is a scout vehicle, not an IFV.

(Boxer is our future dismount carrier)
 
DWG said:
First there was Future Cavalry Scout Vehicle and TRACER as the linked US/UK replacements for M3 Bradley and the Scorpion family respectively, then that went away and the UK rebooted TRACER as part of the Future Rapid Effects System, within which was the Scout Specialist Vehicle, for which Ajax was the winning competitor.

TLDR: Ajax is a scout vehicle, not an IFV.

(Boxer is our future dismount carrier)
Click to expand...
A return of the US/UK Future Cavalry Scout Vehicle combining AJAX/Griffin III might deserve a look. Australia, New Zealand & Canada might be included.
 
jsport said:
A return of the US/UK Future Cavalry Scout Vehicle combining AJAX/Griffin III might deserve a look. Australia, New Zealand & Canada might be included.
Click to expand...
Depends whether the US selects Griffin or Lynx as the XM30 (and whether GD can build hulls with all the sides parallel yet). Meanwhile Australia already bought 200+ Boxer Combat Recce Vehicles and Canada is buying the LAV 6.0 Recce. Any New Zealand buy would be tiny as their entire armoured vehicle fleet is under 100 vehicles, and LAV would probably be the favourite as an upgrade of the NZLAV.
 
DWG said:
Depends whether the US selects Griffin or Lynx as the XM30 (and whether GD can build hulls with all the sides parallel yet). Meanwhile Australia already bought 200+ Boxer Combat Recce Vehicles and Canada is buying the LAV 6.0 Recce. Any New Zealand buy would be tiny as their entire armoured vehicle fleet is under 100 vehicles, and LAV would probably be the favourite as an upgrade of the NZLAV.
Click to expand...
The payload capacity necessary for powerplants required power elevated sensor masts operating for long periods would seem to argue for abiding tracked FSCV requirement. Evolving 'all seeing, all the time' air & ground sensors affords the local cdr their own transparent battlefield w/o any other networks.
 
DWG said:
But there's a pretty continuous overlap from APC to IFV to Recce Vehicle to Light Tank
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree.

The distinction is fundamentally doctrinal - APCs carry infantry in an armoured platform (sometimes with armament), IFV carry some infantry with a heavier armament, MBTs don't carry infantry but carry a very heavy armament capable of engaging opposing tanks. But ultimately they are all tanks (following the original definition) when not carrying infantry.
 
paralay said:
The length of the "arrow" is 330 mm. estimated penetration - 183 mm
Click to expand...

That makes sense. I seem to recall someone posting a study (in Russian) that indicated a theoretical upper limit of 300mm for a 57mm projectile... I gather it was a purely paper (i.e. theoretical) study of the maximum limits, rather than anything connected to a real world projectile.
 
jsport said:
A return of the US/UK Future Cavalry Scout Vehicle combining AJAX/Griffin III might deserve a look. Australia, New Zealand & Canada might be included.
Click to expand...
XM-30 GDLS Griffin III even resembles old FSCV concepts 1763770059235.png
 
The CV-90 is a good vehicle but Ajax is important to the future of NATO vehicles and not sure if there aren't nefarious forces beyond the pervasive incompetence. the UK should bite the time & money bullet to ride Ajax. Prepare to collect from the contractor on the back end.
Ajax certainly needs APS against drones in addition others The weight will not reduce but the CTA ammo/gun & batteries .armor et al are needed.
It is shameful the crew problems were not managed before troops were introduced. Bad engineering was allowed.
Augmented reality can deal the training maintenance.
The data that needs to be dealt is what it is, better than not having it at ur fingertips
 
A 30-40mm cannon doesn't take up much space on an AFV. It's contained in an overhead turret so the hull is pretty much empty. Very inefficient.
 
Regarding the effectiveness of a light gun on light armored vehicles, we could watch this two videos:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es-yxUtbGmU


https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1b4085z/video_shows_russian_btr_dropping_off_troops_and
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1b4085z/video_shows_russian_btr_dropping_off_troops_and/


An autocannon in the 25-40mm range is very effective for suppressing and destroying troops even under cover, other APC/IFV and to some extent even against modern tanks. An older T-55/T-62 tank would be penetrated by armor piercing rounds shot to the sides and the rear.

The same vehicle could be a battle taxi that delivers troops close to the target and then assists the assault with fire or armed with antitank missiles supplementary to the autocannon can be a recce vehicle or a tank destroyer. It is a very versatile armored fighting vehicle.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Why would having an empty hull be efficient, or at least more efficient than putting troops in that space?
Click to expand...
Ajax is designed for recce troops carriage, assumed everyone knew that.
 
Wotan said:
Regarding the effectiveness of a light gun on light armored vehicles, we could watch this two videos:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es-yxUtbGmU


https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1b4085z/video_shows_russian_btr_dropping_off_troops_and
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1b4085z/video_shows_russian_btr_dropping_off_troops_and/


An autocannon in the 25-40mm range is very effective for suppressing and destroying troops even under cover, other APC/IFV and to some extent even against modern tanks. An older T-55/T-62 tank would be penetrated by armor piercing rounds shot to the sides and the rear.

The same vehicle could be a battle taxi that delivers troops close to the target and then assists the assault with fire or armed with antitank missiles supplementary to the autocannon can be a recce vehicle or a tank destroyer. It is a very versatile armored fighting vehicle.
Click to expand...
The Ajax's compact unmanned CTA turret still makes senses, leaving as much room in the hull as possible.
 
..was proclaiming why Ajax would stay. An unmanned turret which the cv90 does not have leaves the unmanned powerful CTA cannon on the Ajax a preference. Additionally, the turret leaves more room troops.
 
jsport said:
..was proclaiming why Ajax would stay. An unmanned turret which the cv90 does not have leaves the unmanned powerful CTA cannon on the Ajax a preference. Additionally, the turret leaves more room troops.
Click to expand...
Fairly easy to slap the Ajax turret on CV90, which already has at least half a dozen different turrets in service. More difficult to transplant the recce system, but not impossible. (You could also just put CTA into one of the existing CV90 turrets, but the Ajax turret is likely firmly integrated into the recce system).

This would have been my preferred solution to Ajax five years ago, transplant the weapons, vectronics and sensors into a platform that doesn't have Ajax's problems. Didn't have to be CV-90, Puma would probably have worked just as well. Now might be a bit late to go that route.
 
Last edited:
jsport said:
Ajax is designed for recce troops carriage, assumed everyone knew that.
Click to expand...
Not really, Ajax is a pure recce vehicle, dismounts are carried by Ares.

Ajax replaces Scorpion/Scimitar/Sabre, Ares replaces Spartan (and Striker to a degree), Athena replaces Sultan, Atlas and Apollo replace Samson, and Argus is a specialist engineer/engineer recce vehicle that didn't have a CVR(T) equivalent. I don't think there's currently a replacement for Samaritan.

See https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/equipment/combat-vehicles/ajax/
 
DWG said:
Not really, Ajax is a pure recce vehicle, dismounts are carried by Ares.

Ajax replaces Scorpion/Scimitar/Sabre, Ares replaces Spartan (and Striker to a degree), Athena replaces Sultan, Atlas and Apollo replace Samson, and Argus is a specialist engineer/engineer recce vehicle that didn't have a CVR(T) equivalent. I don't think there's currently a replacement for Samaritan.

See https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/equipment/combat-vehicles/ajax/
Click to expand...
Then why endless press that Ajax is causing discounts. to be sick. Maybe I missed that the "troops" were in fact crew. Alot of poor uk press reporting, much fan fare was assuring hull hardeneding. Again assume that was for crew not crew & some dismouts if all that issue. Given all you said maybe it is engineering money pot and needs jettisioning.
 
3 people sitting in the back so it's not just the base crew. In that case the hull is full of equipment and personnel and is a good use of space.
https://twitter.com/x/status/954834550332559360

And what I said is that simply attaching a 30-50mm turret to a hull, with 2-3 crew and nothing and none else in the remaining hull space - is a waste of space and is inefficient. So again I have no idea how someone could think I was referring to Ajax.
 
jsport said:
Then why endless press that Ajax is causing discounts. to be sick. Maybe I missed that the "troops" were in fact crew.
Click to expand...
The press aren't distinguishing between Ajax the programme, and all the other different vehicles within the programme/formation reconnaissance regiment that aren't the Ajax recce vehicle. Ares' whole job is ferrying small dismounted weapons teams around the battlefield, and that's likely the specific source of the dismounts getting sick stories.

It's a bit like SA80 actually meaning both the L85 rifle and the L86 ISW, but everyone who doesn't understand that using SA80 when they mean the rifle. (Once had an exchange with a US officer who refused to accept the correct name of the L85 was L85, not SA80).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom