Jump to content


Photo

Modern towed anti-tank gun (post-WW2)


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#1 fanaPHIB

fanaPHIB

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France

Posted 06 June 2008 - 0513 AM

Hello,

I have found a lots of informations about the modern soviet towed anti-tank guns (D-85, AT-12 and so on), but nearly nothing about their scarse western counterparts.

I am searching informations and pics about modern towed anti-tank guns, specially :
- NORICUM ATG N-105 (Austrian), 105mm gun,
- MECAR light towed AT 90mm gun (Belgium),
- MECAR KEnerga 90/46 towed 90mm gun (Belgium, now known as Cockerill Mk8).

So, if anybody can help me...

fanaPHIB
  • 0

#2 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 June 2008 - 0637 AM

The Western Allies had some designs at about 10 cm calibre at the end of the war, but didn't produce them post-war iirc.
I remember an auxiliary propelled version of a 90mm gun, maybe the MECAR model.

The Western counterparts were mostly recoilless weapons, which were even better counterparts to weapons like SPG-9.

The 106mm M40 RL weapon is classic, the British had very large calibre RL guns and I believe Italians and Spanish had also some towed pieces.


The Western powers never fully appreciated the usefulness of AT guns in WW2 because they had no such good pieces like ZIS-3 for most of the time and opposed few enemy tanks while being extremely tank-rich themselves when they finally landed (an exception was the 1944 Ardennes Offensive, of course).

Edited by lastdingo, 06 June 2008 - 0641 AM.

  • 0

#3 Tomas Hoting

Tomas Hoting

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nuremberg, Germany
  • Interests:General Military
    History
    Politics

Posted 06 June 2008 - 0736 AM

- NORICUM ATG N-105 (Austrian), 105mm gun,
- MECAR light towed AT 90mm gun (Belgium),
- MECAR KEnerga 90/46 towed 90mm gun (Belgium, now known as Cockerill Mk8).


I never read that they offered the 90/46 in a towed variant, I was under the impression that this is a quite modern purely vehicle-mounted gun? Never heard about that NORICUM gun either, but it sounds interesting! Got any pics? :)

Anyway, I found some info on the 90 mm MECAR Field Mount:

http://img516.images...ldmount1cx2.jpg
http://img184.images...ldmount2sf6.jpg

The MECAR 90 mm Field Mount uses a light-weight, low recoil gun designed primarily for light armoured vehicles which was adapted for use as an anti-tank gun. Three outriggers allow for a quick 360° traverse

Manufacturer: MECAR
Calibre: 90 mm
Barrel Length: 2,89 m
ROF: 10/18 rds/min
Elevation: -10° to +12°
Azimuth: 360°
Length: 3,50 m
Width: 1,36 m
Height: 1,25 m
Weight: 880 kg
Crew: 3-4
Towing Vehicle: 3/4-ton truck

Rounds are fin-stablilized, casings are made from brass. Several types of ammunition an be used, including HE, HEAT, Canister, Smoke and Practise:

HEAT-CAN-90 has an effective range of 1000 m and penetrates 350 mm of armour or 1200 mm of concrete at 0°
HE-CAN-90 has a maximum range of 4200 m and creates roughly 2.600 splinters with an effective radius of 11 m
CNT-CAN-90 (Canister) has a maximum range of 300 m and contains 1.120 lead balls, which are dispersed at 4° and cover a 4x3,5 m area at 50 m distance

Switzerland also developed two types of 90 mm anti-tanks after WW2, the Pak 50 and the Pak 57, which fire HEAT rounds.

http://img187.images...7/pak571sa4.jpg
http://img515.images...5/pak572xn6.jpg

Overall weight: 641 kg or 716 kg
Weight of shell: 1.95 kg or 2.7 kg
Effective range: 300m
Maximum range: 600 m or 800 m
Muzzle velocity: 600 m/s
ROF: 8-10 rds/min

Hope that helps a little bit! :)
  • 0

#4 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 06 June 2008 - 0744 AM

Which countries and which units used the MECAR ATG on a larger scale? Seems to me as quite cute gun, kinda modern Austrian Böhler 47mm, ie relatively light gun with good AP performance for its time and able to provide valuable HE fire support, no?
  • 0

#5 Tomas Hoting

Tomas Hoting

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nuremberg, Germany
  • Interests:General Military
    History
    Politics

Posted 06 June 2008 - 0808 AM

Which countries and which units used the MECAR ATG on a larger scale? Seems to me as quite cute gun, kinda modern Austrian Böhler 47mm, ie relatively light gun with good AP performance for its time and able to provide valuable HE fire support, no?


AFAIK Germany, Italy and Switzerland used it as a mountain gun. I don't know for how long, though. Germany for example adopted the 105mm OTO-Melara M56 pack howitzer in 1961 (?), so the MECAR's career in the Bundeswehr might have been only a short one.
  • 0

#6 fanaPHIB

fanaPHIB

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France

Posted 06 June 2008 - 0939 AM

The only pics I know of the NORICUM ATG N-105 is on this page : http://www.angelfire...hanter/atg.html
Basically it is a L7/M68 tank gun on a plit trail developed for testing new ammunitions in the beginning of the 80's. So the austrian company NORICUM discovered that a possible market will exist with the austrain army (the 1955 treaty forbid missiles to the austrian armed forces) and develop a towed ATG on this base.
The prototype was ready for production at the end of 1985.

About the MECAR KEnerga I have seen a pic of az towed version in a magazine of the mid 80's.
  • 0

#7 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,633 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 1016 AM

The British had the 120mm Wombat RR and the Warsaw pact seemed focused on the 100mm AT gun. The 100mm seemed to be a do and die gun. When setup it it would have been difficult to debug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MT-12

The 100mm was replaced with a 125mm AT gun fitted with it's own APU which allowed it to move on it's own for a short distance, not sure if it is still in service.
  • 0

#8 Tzefa

Tzefa

    If you can't do what you want, do what you can.

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,515 posts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 1039 AM

Apperently the russians still have T-12 and MT-12 in service.
  • 0

#9 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,633 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 1109 AM

Apperently the russians still have T-12 and MT-12 in service.


It wouldn't surprise if the giant Czar cannon was still listed as a service piece in Russia. The AT guns would be useful for covering areas constrainted by rivers, valleys and such to be used as a blocking force. I am just glad I won't be manning them in a war.
  • 0

#10 DanielStarseer

DanielStarseer

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 716 posts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 1408 PM

On the NORICUM ATG N105,
on of my more cheaply-acquired books is "Land Forces of the World" (Christopher Chant, 1990, Crescent Books/Crown Publishers/Brian Todd Publishing House Ltd, ISBN 0-517-69128-0),
and on page 146,
it details that it was a 56-caliber gun developed as a trials mount for NORICUM's long-recoil LRN 105 that was intended to use the L7/M68 ammunition.
The article describes an NP 105 A2 tungsten APFSDS round with a complete weight of 19.3kg (mid-1980s Jane's A & A suggests a penetrator length of 980mm and penetrator weight of 3.7kg Tungalloy T176FA) and a muzzle velocity of 1485m/sec, giving 150mm @ 60degrees @ 5800m performance (almost 6 inches at just over 3 & 1/2 miles).
Seems reasonable enough, considering what's been achieved with the L7/M68 series guns' ammo.
But at just shy of 8000 pounds (3600kg, but expected to be around 3000kg for a production model), it would've been a beast manhandling around without any sort of APU, and considerably vulnerable to counter-battery fire that would've been an everyday event in any theoretical WW3 European battlefield.
No suggestions of what indirect fire ranges could've been expected.

On the MECAR KEnerga 90/46,
Chant's book also offers a brief description on the same page (p146),
detailing a system weight (travelling/firing) of 1000kg even,
a 7-10rpm rate of fire (normal-max),
and its M603 APFSDS round (2.73kg projectile weight), from a 46-cal barrel, was described as offering 1430m/sec to penetrate "NATO standard target armor" at 2000m.

The MECAR Field Mount 90 (same page also) is described as a roughly 32-cal barrel with no mention of APFSDS use, but various types of HEAT, HE, and cannister are mentioned, and offered 10-18 rpm (normal-max), quite respectable.
(info concurs well with Tomas H's previous post)
It's safe to suggest then that this was a low-to-medium pressure gun, along the lines of the GIAT/DEFA 90mm guns used on various French 4x4 armored cars like the AML (and seeing as the French managed to use, and sell, lightweight 90mm-armed armored cars, they'd have had little use for static/towed variants of the same guns).

I'd wager that the reason there seems to less types of western (as compared to Warsaw Pact) AT guns might be because the western armies expected ATGMs, MBTs, and attack helos to be more than sufficient, and were possibly anticipated to be more offensive-oriented than defensive (such as towed AT guns in prepared positions)...?

Still, the majority of battlefield vehicles that would've been encountered weren't all going to be MBTs, and any number of less-than-105mm-caliber medium-to-high velocity guns could've more than proven their worth against the hordes of Soviet light armored vehicles: a British towed 20-pdr AT gun (early Centurion armament) equipped with APFSDS would've more than likely out-penetrated (and out-ranged in indirect fire) any Russian 85mm guns, for example,
and improved models of American 90mm guns would still be quite effective even today (judging by what was achieved with the ARES 75 and the most recent 76mm KE developments).

But I still believe that western militaries frown on the towed AT guns principally out of fear of counter battery fire from distant, and possibly mobile, Russian artillery,
even though western militaries had little issue using towed 105- and 155mm artillery pieces, as well as the renewed interest in heavy towed 120mm mortars.
  • 0

#11 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,633 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 06 June 2008 - 1449 PM

Not to mention that in the West most of the potential battlegrounds were known and many covered by ex-tanks dug in to cover the approaches
  • 0

#12 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 June 2008 - 1925 PM

On the MECAR KEnerga 90/46,
Chant's book also offers a brief description on the same page (p146),
detailing a system weight (travelling/firing) of 1000kg even,
a 7-10rpm rate of fire (normal-max),
and its M603 APFSDS round (2.73kg projectile weight), from a 46-cal barrel, was described as offering 1430m/sec to penetrate "NATO standard target armor" at 2000m.


One ton weight can be considered as crew-movable. This sounds like a low-pressure design with efficient muzzle-brake. WW2 AT guns of that weight had 5-7.62cm calibre.
"NATO standard target armor" likely describes the standardized angled steel plate targets. The strongest one was something like 300-400mm RHAeq IIRC. I bet some others here remember it in detail.
The gun itself looks like being able to punch through many MBT's flanks, but through few contemporary MBT's front armor.

++++++++++++

Not "Western", but also post-war:

Chinese Type 73 and 86 AT guns.
http://www.sinodefen...ery/default.asp
70's and 80's designs respectively. That looks really, really backward.

Edited by lastdingo, 06 June 2008 - 1929 PM.

  • 0

#13 gewing

gewing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,299 posts
  • Interests:Military technology, History, Science Fiction, gaming, fantasy books,

Posted 06 June 2008 - 2028 PM

I keep thinking that the light Mecar 90mm with a mix of smoke, HE, and Cannister would probably be very useful in Iraq and Afghanistan.

IIRC they have one model that is so light and low recoil it could probably be mounted on a big truck, let alone an armored vehicle.
  • 0

#14 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 June 2008 - 2056 PM

[quote name='lastdingo' date='Sat 7 Jun 2008 0425' post='574877']
One ton weight can be considered as crew-movable.

Hehehe. Maybe to (s l o w l y) move the gun to a supplientary firing position. But that pace and distance is only good for a hundred meters or so and it has no tactical mobility.
  • 0

#15 Bearded-Dragon

Bearded-Dragon

    Crew

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 2,354 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downunder

Posted 07 June 2008 - 0036 AM

I keep thinking that the light Mecar 90mm with a mix of smoke, HE, and Cannister would probably be very useful in Iraq and Afghanistan.

IIRC they have one model that is so light and low recoil it could probably be mounted on a big truck, let alone an armored vehicle.


Why not simply use a recoilless rifle? Must be plenty of surplus 106-120mm RCLs around still.
  • 0

#16 DanielStarseer

DanielStarseer

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 716 posts

Posted 07 June 2008 - 0113 AM

One ton weight can be considered as crew-movable. This sounds like a low-pressure design with efficient muzzle-brake. WW2 AT guns of that weight had 5-7.62cm calibre.
"NATO standard target armor" likely describes the standardized angled steel plate targets. The strongest one was something like 300-400mm RHAeq IIRC. I bet some others here remember it in detail.
The gun itself looks like being able to punch through many MBT's flanks, but through few contemporary MBT's front armor.

++++++++++++


Dug out the old Jane's Armour and Artillery 1985-86 edition.
the MECAR KEnerga 90/46 is on pp773-774.

It's actually more a medium-to-high pressure gun when compared to the MECAR 90 Field Mount (which seems to be more an all-around general support gun, closer akin to the Cockerill Mk 3 as used in Scorpion 90's): the 90/46 there is described having an APFSDS-T round at a nominal 1400m/sec (doesn't specify which model, but most likely refers to the M603 round).
The target performance there is a little more specific:
"The APFSDS-T round will penetrate a NATO heavy tank target (150mm armour plate at 60 degrees) at a range of 1000m,
or a NATO medium tank target (130mm at 60 degrees) at a range of 2000m."

So its performance is then more on par with the Cockerill Mk8 gun (app 48-cal, also ~1400m/sec) and the French (GIAT?) long-tubed 90mm guns ( ~52-cal, around 1275-1300m/sec) seen on various AMX-13 variants, some ERC-90 6x6's, and others.

An interesting note is that CMI Defence (Cockerill's newest incarnation) lists their LCTS 90 (Mk8 gun) as firing an APFSDS-T at 1345m/sec to achieve RHA penetration of 150mm at 60 degrees at 2000m.
LCTS 90 pdf

Back in the late 1980s (early 1990s?) there was Brazil's MB-3 Tamoio MBT development, which initially was armed with a 90mm gun also used in their improved M41C's. Supposedly, the gun was developed by re-boring the M41's 76mm M32 series guns (called BR2 or something; I'd really have to dig thru the library to find it exactly).
One of numerous articles suggested European-designed APFSDS ammo could reach 1475m/sec. I believe that's feasible, because AAI once offered a 76mm APFSDS for the M32 series gun that mustered a respectable 1433m/sec.

Consider also that the Italian and Israeli 60mm guns could both eek out around 1600m/sec.
  • 0

#17 gewing

gewing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,299 posts
  • Interests:Military technology, History, Science Fiction, gaming, fantasy books,

Posted 07 June 2008 - 0221 AM

Why not simply use a recoilless rifle? Must be plenty of surplus 106-120mm RCLs around still.




because some people compare me to Sparky when I propose that. ;)


I am almost in love with the 60s autoloading 106 and 120mm RR designs. I wish I could get more info on them.
  • 0

#18 Tomas Hoting

Tomas Hoting

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nuremberg, Germany
  • Interests:General Military
    History
    Politics

Posted 07 June 2008 - 0431 AM

Back in the late 1980s (early 1990s?) there was Brazil's MB-3 Tamoio MBT development, which initially was armed with a 90mm gun also used in their improved M41C's. Supposedly, the gun was developed by re-boring the M41's 76mm M32 series guns (called BR2 or something; I'd really have to dig thru the library to find it exactly).


Apparently there were three different Brazilian 90mm guns (it would still be great if you could check this out):

M32 BR1:
This was the M41 Walker Bulldog's 76mm M32 gun bored out to 90mm to fire the same ammunition as the Cockerill 90 mm Mk III used on the ENGESA EE-9 Cascaval armoured cars in the Brazilian army. The barrel was shortened and had a counterbalance at the forward end giving the impression of being a bore evacuator. The original muzzle brake was retained and a torsion bar compensator was fitted at the breech.

M32 BR2:
This gun retained the basic length of the M32, had a bore evacuator and still the same muzzle brake, and seems to have recieved a thermal sleeve.

It seems the re-boring to 90mm wasn't a big success at all, with fumes leaking into the fighting compartment.

M32 BR3 dr/90:
This gun was offered with the Bernardini Tamoyo II, and looked quite similar to the BR2 except for the fact that it used a muzzle brake quite similar to the French 90mm GIAT F4 which was used on the ERC armoured cars (probably to enable it to fire APFSDS). The Tamoyo III had a 105mm L7 gun.
  • 0

#19 Tomas Hoting

Tomas Hoting

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nuremberg, Germany
  • Interests:General Military
    History
    Politics

Posted 07 June 2008 - 0458 AM

Why not simply use a recoilless rifle? Must be plenty of surplus 106-120mm RCLs around still.


Backblast is a serious problem, which prevents the weapon from being fired at high angles of elevation and therefore reduces the range drastically. RCLs like the US M40 also don't have the necessary sights for indirect firing.
  • 0

#20 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 June 2008 - 1127 AM


One ton weight can be considered as crew-movable.



Hehehe. Maybe to (s l o w l y) move the gun to a supplientary firing position. But that pace and distance is only good for a hundred meters or so and it has no tactical mobility.


Sure, movement into and out of the firing position. German 5cm AT guns of WW2 (very close to 1,000 kg) and 76mm ZIS-3 guns (about 1,150 kg IIRC) were handled like that, the 75mm AT guns (about 1,450 kg) were too heavy.

Late wartime and early post-war 100mm high velocity guns weighed more than 3,000 kg, so 1,000 kg for this model is quite an achievement, comparable to late wartime high-low pressure guns.

Edited by lastdingo, 07 June 2008 - 1155 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users