Jump to content


Photo

Crv7 In Us Service


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 817 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trieste

Posted 15 October 2017 - 1452 PM

I have some difficulties in learning more about the operational career of this interesting rocket in US service, whenever it is USAF, USN or ANG; other than vague "operated by the US".

 

As I understand, while it was produced since 1973 and then amply operated by Canadians and British in particular, it seems it took quite some time for Americans to adopt it and it is not clear how widespread the use actually is (was it only limited to helicopters and not fast movers?). 

 

I run into an old journal article mentioning ANG evaluating the weapon in 1984, and that is likely the only relevant information I have on introduction timeline. I understand MK66 (HYDRA 70) rockets started quickly replacing MK44 since 1981, so delays with CRV-7 sounds reasonable. 



#2 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,840 posts

Posted 15 October 2017 - 1509 PM

Mk 66 came into the US inventory in the early (mid?) 1980's, replacing the older Mk 4/Mk 40 series. It's actually a somewhat longer and heavier motor than the earlier types.

 

To my knowlege the CRV7 is not used by any US forces, although it could be an "emergency war expedient" item.



#3 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 15 October 2017 - 1533 PM

Ages ago (1980s) I remember reading and article that the Canadians had brought CRV-7 to an air to surface gunnery competition in the States and the USAF were so impressed with it that its adoption had been pushed through virtually on the spot. That sounded unlikely at the time, but it stuck in my mind. Another thing was that the USAF were impressed that the solid warhead variant went straight through tank targets on the range due to its velocity - it was seen as an anti armour weapon at the time.



#4 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,840 posts

Posted 15 October 2017 - 1615 PM

From what I've read, it has more range and impact velocity than the Mk 66. For whatever reason, the Mk 66 continues to be the standard 70mm motor for US services.



#5 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,939 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 16 October 2017 - 1156 AM

From what I've read, it has more range and impact velocity than the Mk 66. For whatever reason, the Mk 66 continues to be the standard 70mm motor for US services.

 

inertia of the bureaucratic sloth.



#6 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 16 October 2017 - 1310 PM

From wiki no less:

 

The CRV7's kinetic energy was so high that testers were surprised to find that practice rounds (fitted with an 8-inch solid steel rod penetrator) were penetrating outdated Centurion tanks used for target practice. This resulted in the development of a dedicated antitank warhead that replaced the steel rod in the practice warhead with a tungsten rod. This new antitank warhead could penetrate a Soviet T-72 main battle tank armour from any attack angle. Further study into this effect led to the WDU-5002/B FAT warhead, Flechette Anti-Tank, containing five tungsten-reinforced steel flechettes that could penetrate a T-72's side and top armour at a distance of 10,000 feet (3,000 m). It was also found to be a useful warhead for use against medium and light armoured vehicles.[4][8] Further development led to the WDU-500X/B "General Purpose Flechette" which releases 80 tungsten flechettes that can penetrate 1.5 inches of roll-hardened armor[9] for use against personnel, some light armour, thin skin vehicles and helicopters.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRV7



#7 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 October 2017 - 0159 AM

From wiki no less:
 
The CRV7's kinetic energy was so high that testers were surprised to find that practice rounds (fitted with an 8-inch solid steel rod penetrator) were penetrating outdated Centurion tanks used for target practice. This resulted in the development of a dedicated antitank warhead that replaced the steel rod in the practice warhead with a tungsten rod. This new antitank warhead could penetrate a Soviet T-72 main battle tank armour from any attack angle. Further study into this effect led to the WDU-5002/B FAT warhead, Flechette Anti-Tank, containing five tungsten-reinforced steel flechettes that could penetrate a T-72's side and top armour at a distance of 10,000 feet (3,000 m). It was also found to be a useful warhead for use against medium and light armoured vehicles.[4][8] Further development led to the WDU-500X/B "General Purpose Flechette" which releases 80 tungsten flechettes that can penetrate 1.5 inches of roll-hardened armor[9] for use against personnel, some light armour, thin skin vehicles and helicopters.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRV7

That moment with T-72 "at any attack angle" was always hardly questionable for me. Front turret, eh?

#8 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 17 October 2017 - 1442 PM

I take your point Gargean. I have seen velocity claims in the order of 990 metres/second. That's fast for an air launched rocket, but substantially slower (around a third less) than a 120mm APFSDS projectile.



#9 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,773 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 17 October 2017 - 1640 PM

990m/s aint gonna penetrate 400mm of steel. Glacis would be very iffy even with reduced effectiveness due the angle of attack.


Edited by bojan, 17 October 2017 - 1641 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users