-- Posted by noahrei on 10:00 pm on Mar. 2, 2004 I don't have time to draw it at the moment but i have been thinking though my design. I will try to describe it for you. Basic layout:   Think of the MPS designs.   Now, make it more squat, remove the arms (for now) and change the cockpit profile to that of the A-10.   The design I have been thinking of has a heavy sheild perched on top with a slightly protruding radome. Cockpit/Turret:   The cockpit (shaped like the A-10 nose) is in fact a turrent. IT is designed to track the pilots gaze (like the Apache turret). Embedded in the cockpit is the GAU-8 under the nose, a Bushmaster III on either side of the nose and an optical array in the front of the nose and on the bottom facing rear. The cockpit fits into the main body, basically two turbine engines and two electrical generators squatted between the upper halves of the legs (legs are chicken walker type with upper legs coming from side of torso). Mounted under the torso are two folded arms, my idea behind this is that a Combat variant is not coimg to need its arms constantly, howvever when it needs them, it can stop and maybe build a protective barrier out of a burnt out tank, move debris from its path, b!tch slap an offensive aircraft. There are hardmounts on the top and side of the shield for rocket pods, missiles or artillery gun variants. It order to help fire larger weapons, the legs are equipped with fold down braces on the back. (Edited by noahrei at 6:34 am on Mar. 3, 2004) -- Posted by kaempfer on 8:08 am on Mar. 3, 2004 GAU-8 Avenger Specifications number of barrels 7 Feed: Linkless feed system calibre 30 mm Ammo types PGU-14/B API Armor Piercing Incendiary [DU] PGU-13/B HEI High Explosive Incendiary PGU-15/B TP Target Practice muzzle velocity 1067 meters/second Armor penetration 69mm at 500 meters 38mm at 1000 meters Maximum Rangeover 1,250 meters Accuracy 5mil, 80 percent 80% of rounds fired at 4,000ft hit within a 20ft radius cannon weight 281 kilograms cannon length 6.40 meters I think hellfire would be a better choice. General Characteristics Primary Function: Point target/anti-armor weapon, Semi-active laser seeker Three variants: AGM-114B/K/M Contractor: Boeing, Lockheed Martin Power Plant: solid propellant rocket Length: 5.33 feet (1.6246 meters) Launch Weight: 98 to 107 pounds (44.45 to 48.54 kilograms) Diameter: 7 inches (17.78 centimeters) Wing Span: 28 inches (0.71 meter) Speed: Subsonic Warhead: Shaped charge and blast fragmentation. Aircraft Platforms: Navy: SH-60B/HH-60H Seahawk Army: AH-64 Apache Marine: AH-1W Super Cobra -- Posted by noahrei on 9:32 am on Mar. 3, 2004 I haven't heard much about this so I am wondering, do hellfires have wide usage on ground vehicles? I would think that would considerably hamper their range. Also, there is the ability to carry more shels for the GAU that would allow you to attack more armor than if you had to mount hellfires some way. It can still carry them if it is useful though that would be the point of the hard points on the shell. -- Posted by noahrei on 10:20 am on Mar. 3, 2004 Trying to draw this but not having luck at the moment. -- Posted by Ajay on 12:58 pm on Mar. 3, 2004  First post of a mecha armmament thread and what do I see?  The infamous GAU-8.  Aaaaaahhh the pain! It hurts!  XD   The MK44 Bushmaster  is smaller and lighter, making it better suited for a turret mount. The leftover weight can be devoted to larger/more effective systems, or can allow it to carry more ammo.     It can also fire more types of ammunition that the GAU-8 doesn't like Saboted rounds and the Oerlikon30mm rounds.  It also has nearly 75% parts commonality with other bushmaster autocannons, which are among the most popular in service among ground forces.  This means it will be much cheaper to integrate into service and make it easier to maintain, repair, and keep supplied when in action.  the only system that uses the GAU-8 is the A-10 (although the LAV-AD, and some aircraft use the 25mm GAU).  It can also be more easily switched out to a 40mm firing version.   The only mechanical advantage the GAU-8 has is sheer rate of fire.  This is not very advantageous in a ground-to-ground engagement as much as it is in air-to-air, air-to-ground, or ground-to-air.  This is why fighters, ground attack aircraft, and air defense vehicles have multibarreled cannons, but most other vehicles do not.  When you or your target is whizzing by at hundreds of miles per hour, you want to throw as many rounds at them as possible in the short window of time you have.  ground vehicles don't worry about this, and make due with firing off single rounds, and at most, 3 round bursts.  At the speeds encountered in such combat, 500 rpm is more than enough.   The GAU-8 also has the potential for some psychological effect, since it is much louder than other autocannons when fired, but I would consider this of limited value compared to the Bushmaster's obvious benefits.   For a ground vehicle, the MK44 is the clear winner over the GAU-8.     -- Posted by Ajay on 1:09 pm on Mar. 3, 2004  HELLFIREs have been test fired succesfully from ground vehicles.  However, I haven't heard of any ground vehicles using them in the field.   Actually, now that I think of it, US ground vehicles do seem to be lacking a non-wire guided missile with range or firepower equal to the TOW (which is currently the anti-armor missile of choice).  The plan is for the Future Common Missile to replace both the HEllFIRE and TOW, so I suppose you could consider that on your mech design.  Javelins could be a possible supplementary weapon.    30mm+ autocannons are not anti-armor.  They are anti-vehicle.  They can take out APCs, most IFVs, and even cripple/destroy some older/inferior tanks, but are not to be considered anti-tank weapons.  If you want anti-armor capabilities, you want missiles or large bore guns (maybe mortars?).   You also seem to be lacking machineguns or any other kind of anti-infnatry weapon.  Don't tell me you're not expecting to ever have to engage infantry forces :) -- Posted by noahrei on 2:18 pm on Mar. 3, 2004 No, I expected it...and I was expecting them to run away when a 20 ft vehicle turned its 'head' which was so nicely adorned with two bushmasters and a GAU (Or four bushmasters). I know it is not a good reason but i found while playing on a tank simulator that it was really bothersome to have to use that damn coax machine gun. personally as a pilot I don't want to have to take the time to folow each individualy pocket of resistance...now if you want to talk shrapnel cannons...i'm listening. -- Posted by Ajay on 4:57 pm on Mar. 3, 2004 <>    No they won't run.  They'll "maneuver" and try to hit you from a weak spot.  Large arrays of anti-armor systems have never really given vehicles the edge in vehicle vs infantry engagements.  Also, both the guns you listed fire relatively high velocity rounds, which tend to travel very quickly and bury themselves deeply into obstacles before detonating.  A burst of 30mm high velocity AP or HE rounds wouldn't scare me as much as a burst of low velocity 30mm HE grenades would.  maybe you could consider switching out the MK44s with M203s?    Still, a smaller weapon with a good field of fire, ample ammunition, and low collateral damage is what you need.  Sommething that can lay down suppressive fires, help cover the flanks of friendly units, and reserve your bulkier, more expensive, and less abaundant ammunition for higher priority targets.  Alot of vehicle based anti-infantry fire comes in the form of suppressive fire, where you supply a steady stream of fire directed towards the to keep him from exposing himself.  Smaller caliber weapons do this better than larger caliber ones do. << I know it is not a good reason but i found while playing on a tank simulator that it was really bothersome to have to use that damn coax machine gun.>>   The co-axial isn't the M1's only weapon for use against lighter targets.  The commander has his own 12.7mm and I believe the driver also has a 7.62mm.  They made alot of use of them in Iraq, despite the fact that their massive 120mm gun and nigh invincible armor protection (compared to anything else on the battelfield) did little to scare enenmy infnatry into submission.  Granted, they did have multiple crew members, which would simplify aiming.   However, I don't see why your design can't make it as easy as aiming those three 30mm cannons.  Infantry weapons can be slaved to head movement as well.   <.     One can't simply ignore threats on the battlefield because they dislike engaging them and as such, never  worry about them.  The vehicle's mission in combat is to support the infantry.  This often times ammounts to much more than just killing Tanks and IFVs.  Infantry are the most numerous threat on the battlefield, especially in the urban/jungle/mountainous terrain where a mech would expect to be travelling in, and as such, I would suggest they be equipped to handle that threat in an effctive manner.    If you're loking for area effect weapons, then there is there's always a pair of 12.7mm, a 40mm grenade launcher, or the popular 12.7mm/40mm combo.  The new 25mm OCSW rounds could be of use to you as well.   (Edited by Ajay at 4:13 pm on Mar. 3, 2004) -- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 6:09 pm on Mar. 3, 2004 Best to stick with efficiency. A rotary .50 cal and a pair of 40mm grenade Launchers for anti-infantry/ light vehicle work and a quartet of Hell-Fires for anti-armor work. The simple reasoning behind this is that a mech will probably be able to carry enough armor to stand up to 20mm and smaller guns, but not anything much more powerful. That and the fact that it is supposed to be used in terrain where heavy armor can not go is a further mitigating factor. So, in conclusion, keep weight and ammo capacity first on your list, with recoil and mainainability close behind. -- Posted by kaempfer on 6:19 pm on Mar. 3, 2004 Quote: from noahrei on 9:32 am on Mar. 3, 2004[brAlso, there is the ability to carry more shels for the GAU that would allow you to attack more armor than if you had to mount hellfires some way. It can still carry them if it is useful though that would be the point of the hard points on the shell. Where are you gonna fit that huge helical container?  That and the feeding system are like half the length of the gun! -- Posted by Fury9er on 7:55 pm on Mar. 3, 2004 Hmm, would a rotary weapon firing shotgun shells be any good? Surely it would make life tough for infantry. Or a veriation on the 35mm oerlikon anti-missile round, the one that leaves the barrel then shoots steel shot forward - like the LBX autocannon in battletech. With twin 35mm guns you could have one feeding AP rounds and one feeding the shotgun type. I like the idea of a guided mortar too. -- Posted by Caesar02 on 8:26 pm on Mar. 3, 2004 <> That would be fine, if you don't mind only engaging your enemies within 50-100 yards, and wasting about 30 times more ammo than you need to to get a single kill, if you can even pull that off. In other words, NO. As for a turret-mounted GAU-8: Perhaps you are forgetting that the damn thing is 30 feet long. The only way you could aim it is by moving the entire mech. THE GAU-8 IS NOT A GROUND WEAPON, STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT ONE. If you were going to use the semi-aircraft like design proposed at the start of the thread, this is what I would propose: two .50 cal machine guns under the nose, a 25mm bushmaster for anti-vehicle, and a mortar around the order of 90mm or so to fire either self-guiding anti-armor rounds, or large area-effect rounds. I personally think that a mortar round that detonates above a target area and releases  several bomblets- each one roughly equivalent to a hand grenade- could be used to great effect against infantry and light vehicle convoys. As for the proposal that a machine be equipped with 2-4 bushmasters: use your head for a minute here. First of all, the thing is designed to perform its role all by its lonesome. You dont need to quadruple it's firepower for any reason. Also, if you were going to carry four guns, remember that you also have to carry the AMMO for four guns. You don't need to increase the fire rate of a bushmaster, because it already fires at the rate it needs to fire at. You dont need to improve the firepower of a bushmaster, because it already has the firepower required for its role. -- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 8:48 pm on Mar. 3, 2004 Likely, this will be what ends up on the prototype Military Mech. Read it and internalize it. If this is not what is selected, then it will be the new light weight 20mm, a Bushmaster or Oerlikon. Anything larger than a 20mm or a 650rpm, low-velocity 30mm will not make the grade for the selection. Since I am likely going to be the one leading the weaponry integration effort, I will go for this gun, since it meets all the criteria that the gun system is supposed to meet. It is lightweight, has a selectable fire-rate, has readliy available ammo, will be able to allow for much greater ammo capacity on board, and can be used in an anti-aircraft role in a pinch. A GUA-8 WILL NOT BE USED. GAU-19/A From General Dynamics Corporation 12.7mm Externally Mounted Gatling Gun system The externally mounted version of the 12.7mm GAU-19/A three-barrel Gatling gun produced by General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products (GDATP) is effective in both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. The GAU-19/A is installed within a fixed-forward mount attached to standard 14-inch NATO stores racks. Specifications Gun Type Three-Barrel, 12.7mm, Externally Powered Gatling Gun System Weight 487 Pounds (221 kg) Rate of Fire 1,000/2,000 Shots Per Minute Dispersion Maximum of 5 Milliradians Diameter 80 Percent Circle Muzzle Velocity 2,910 Feet (887m) Per Second for M33 Ammunition Average Recoil Force 500 Pounds (2.2 kN) at 2,000 Shots Per Minute Ammunition All Common Inventory 12.7mm Rounds   Drive System Electric   Feed System Linked  © Copyright 2004 General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, All Rights Reserved. (Edited by ChrisDickerson at 6:57 pm on Mar. 3, 2004) -- Posted by Ajay on 8:52 pm on Mar. 3, 2004 << I will go for this gun, since it meets all the criteria that gun is supposed to meet.>>   What are the criteria? -- Posted by noahrei on 10:52 pm on Mar. 3, 2004 In this case, the Turret that is moving is the whole cockpit system. All of the weapons are fixed. I didn't realise the GAU-8 was 30 ft long. I assumed that the feeding systems and such could be arranged any way needed, th gun barrels themselves are only 8 ft long and that would fit nicely...perhaps I can design a similar lower RPM .50 Cal system? Or maybe they already have one? Anyways you are the guys with the experience. Althougy I didn't intend to start an armament row. How about the other systems, stowable arms, artillery, the turret, location of the radar dome? I really need to draw this out don't I? -- Posted by kaempfer on 11:05 pm on Mar. 3, 2004 I think a nice armament besides hellfire would be the machine guns used on IFVs like the Bradley and Stryker (do they use the same gun?) -- Posted by Ajay on 10:48 am on Mar. 4, 2004 <>   Bwaaahahahaha!  You failed! :D <>   They both use the 25mm Bushmaster. http://www.periscope1.com/demo/weapons/artguns/cmbtveh/w0003600.html    The marine's new AAAV (Advanced AMphibious Attack Vehicle) uses the new 30mm MK44 Bushmaster.  The 30mm and larger bushmaster models have also been test fired from the Bradley. http://www.atk.com/productsPrecision/descriptions/products/GunSys/mk44.htm  The new FCS vehicles are most likely going to be using the 25mm or 30mm bushmasters.  The 30mm can be converted into a 40mm by switching out a few parts (making 40mm a possibility), and there is a 50mm Bushmaster which could see service on future vehicles as well.    The European Oerlikon and Mauser companies also make similar autocannon systems that compete with the Bushmaster in foreign markets.    I like trying to think up armmaments for mecha from other countries.  Like Russian mecha carrying 14.5mm guns/30mm guns, 80mm rockets, and Kornet misisles ^_^ -- Posted by Caesar02 on 10:10 pm on Mar. 4, 2004 <> Here's the thing to remember: the GAU-8 is a rotary cannon, i.e. it has many barrels that fire alternately. This is part of what gives that type of gun such a high rate of fire. However, for the most part, such systems are not necessary for ground vehicles, since ground vehicles to not need such an insanely high rate of fire. That is why guns like the Bushmaster are single-barreled. What I'm getting at here is this: stop trying to arm the mech like an A-10, because a mech is not going to be filling an A-10's role. -- Posted by Ajay on 9:40 am on Mar. 5, 2004   The regular M2 has a cyclic firing rate of 550 rounds per minute (about 1/2-1-4 of the gattling).  Although it's rate of fire isn't the highest, it's long been pressed into use as an anti-aircraft weapon on many vehicles, and was once very common fighter and helicopter armmament (in the 60's at least).    There is a new lightweight 12.7mm weapon being fielded to replace the M2 as a man portable heavy machinegun.  This weapon is much lighter, but has a lower rate of fire and as such, isn't intended to be useful against ariel targets at all. http://www.gdarm.com/products/lethality/xm312/xm312.htm    ATK has come out with an electrically driven 12.7mm chaingun, which is alot like a mini Bushmaster.  Interestingly enough, the gun itself is LIGHTER than the regular M2 by a couple of pounds.  Firing rate is slightly lower than the M2.  I also notcied after looking at Chris's info, that this weapon has a much higher recoil.  Higher muzzle velocity perhaps? http://www.atk.com/productsPrecision/descriptions/products/GunSys/50-cal-bushmaster.htm -- Posted by Fury9er on 12:00 pm on Mar. 5, 2004 "That would be fine, if you don't mind only engaging your enemies within 50-100 yards, and wasting about 30 times more ammo than you need to to get a single kill, if you can even pull that off. In other words, NO." Well just say so, dont bite my head off.   -- Posted by Caesar02 on 12:29 pm on Mar. 5, 2004 <> If you dont want your head bitten off, think before you speak. -- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 1:57 pm on Mar. 5, 2004 Don't worry about it Fury, Caesar needs to show his ass from time to time. Actually, Fury had a valid point. If a rotary cannon can fire shot shells instead of strictly solid core rounds, it would be effective against infantry out to a range of 200-300 yards; 3-4 times what Caesar was willing to give. The argument on it using that much more ammo is also invalid, given the fact that shot spreads in a cone. FEWER rounds will be required. Now, if you add in a chain fired grenade launcher, like the MK19, then you have a serious combination for what those types of weapons are optimal for- killing enemy troops. If the rotary gun is also linked to another pair of mixed ammo drums, then you still retain your multi-mission useability. Before you bite someone's head off, Caesar, step back and look at what they are saying. They may have a valid point that further review will show to be exceptional. So follow your own advice. (Edited by ChrisDickerson at 12:00 pm on Mar. 5, 2004) -- Posted by noahrei on 2:47 pm on Mar. 5, 2004 There is no use for a rotary anit-armor gun? Are we sure because unless I am missing an idea of the sheer power of these single barreled autos, I feel that one would be ina piss poor shape when their quartet of hellfires ran out and the rest of the armor unit came around the bend...don't Abrams' come in six-packs? Yikes... -- Posted by kaempfer on 3:14 pm on Mar. 5, 2004 Quote: from Caesar02 on 7:10 pm on Mar. 4, 2004 <> Here's the thing to remember: the GAU-8 is a rotary cannon, i.e. it has many barrels that fire alternately. This is part of what gives that type of gun such a high rate of fire. However, for the most part, such systems are not necessary for ground vehicles, since ground vehicles to not need such an insanely high rate of fire. That is why guns like the Bushmaster are single-barreled. What I'm getting at here is this: stop trying to arm the mech like an A-10, because a mech is not going to be filling an A-10's role. Exactly, the A-10 needs the high rate of fire because it can't stop.  It flies by quickly and so it needs to destroy its target before it passes. -- Posted by Caesar02 on 4:52 pm on Mar. 5, 2004 << If a rotary cannon can fire shot shells instead of strictly solid core rounds, it would be effective against infantry out to a range of 200-300 yards; 3-4 times what Caesar was willing to give.>> He asked about a gun designed to fire "shotgun shells", as in the shells you would buy at wal-mart and put in your shotgun. I will concede that a round that fires a few large-gauge pellets intead of a single projectile could be used to great effect against infantry. However, as it stands, current machine gun rounds have no trouble dealing with infantry, and at the same time have many advantages over a spread-shot round. The standard bullet has greater range, greater accuracy (especially at longer ranges), and greater armor peircing capabilities, which is useful against infantry using personal body armor. Also, the standard machine gun round can be used to greater effect against vehicles than the spread-shot round could be. If you want a larger area of effect, use a grenade machine gun. This adds greatly to the area that the gun can engage, without so greatly diminishing it's range or accuracy. Grenade machineguns have the added benifit of being more effective against vehicles, instead of less effective like the spread shot would be. > I guess we weren't that clear on this point. The bushmaster is not used for an anti-tank role. It has the ability to knock out a few light tanks, but other than that, it isn't that great against tanks. Its primary use would be against light armored vehicles and infantry. If an anti-tank role is anticipated for a mech on a certain mission, I imagine that it would be loaded out with more than just four hellfires to do the job. I for one support the use of mortars for this role, though missiles could do just as well. -- Posted by noahrei on 10:01 pm on Mar. 5, 2004 Well, I would say that there would still be a use for a high caliber rotary If you can fit enough missles on a vehicle thats fine the problem is you have to stop to fire and have a good chance of hitting. Everytime I have seen footage of Apache Hellfire shots, they are in hover and pointing at the target. KAempher said that the A-10 uses the GAU-8 because it can't stop it has to fly by. Just let me ask. If you come accross a group of tanks and while you are stood facing a single tank the other five are getting gunnary locks on your legs are you going to feel comfortable? I personally would rather have something that could sling out a crp load of incendiary so I could keep moving and use a slaved turret to strafe the entire group. As long as I am moving the Tanks have a hard time getting a lock. If I can fling 100 .50cal shells rather than 20 into each tank in the same amount of time I'm going to have a much better chance of critically damaging these vehicles. I know I am pretty much beating a dead horse but I just thing there are things that missiles cannot do. -- Posted by Caesar02 on 10:20 pm on Mar. 5, 2004 <> That is true, missiles are not the be all end all of vehicle armament. That is why I also proposed using a mortar for an anti-tank role. A mortar can be fired while the vehicle is moving to great accuracy, in much the same way an M1 Abrams can still train its main gun on a target three miles away while moving. Also, keep in mind, I didnt say that a cannon was useless, just a rotary cannon. Rotary cannons are designed for use on an aircraft, while things like chain guns are designed for use on ground vehicles, for the reasons stated a dozen times above. -- Posted by noahrei on 10:46 pm on Mar. 5, 2004 Mortar: Claymore reshaped to be fired from a grenade launcher, metal beads replaced with penetrating rounds. Sound good? I'm not pushing anymore but I had a question. I thought that the rotary gun was designed so the barrels did not wear out or overheat as fast. Was the increased fire rate just a nifty added bonus or was it vice-versa? -- Posted by kaempfer on 1:12 am on Mar. 6, 2004 What about a rotary cannon for artillery shells?  Has that ever been tried? -- Posted by JB on 1:40 am on Mar. 6, 2004 Quote: from noahrei on 9:46 pm on Mar. 5, 2004 Mortar: Claymore reshaped to be fired from a grenade launcher, metal beads replaced with penetrating rounds. Sound good? I'm not pushing anymore but I had a question. I thought that the rotary gun was designed so the barrels did not wear out or overheat as fast. Was the increased fire rate just a nifty added bonus or was it vice-versa? I was under the impression it was vice versa. The fire rate was too high for a single barrel, os they added several and rotated. But then, I'm no expert. -- Posted by Fury9er on 10:05 am on Mar. 6, 2004 From what I remember reading about the development of the minigun the rate-of-fire was the overriding concern. The multiple spinning barrels were the best way of getting it. It is my opinion that rotary cannon would be of use on a mecha as a primary weapon. The point that mecha cannot stand up to an MBT had been done to death around here so anything to reduce contact time for the mecha when fighting tanks or similar vehicles makes sense, hence a high rate of fire. Chris, would it be impossible to modify a rotary weapon to select-fire between single shots or a burst of 5 shells as well as the full rate? The shot-minigun idea has been on my mind since I found out about the USAS-12. Yes it would be cripplingly short ranged. Caesar, I dont mind being corrected or being disagreed with but if, in the future, you feel you cannot respond to one of my posts in a reasonably polite and civil manner then don't bother.   -- Posted by Caesar02 on 1:24 pm on Mar. 6, 2004 <> Fury, I might be a little more polite if I didn't get the impression that you arent even reading the posts I'm putting up here. I have explained the same point over and over again since the start of the thread, and you havent brought anything new to the table in response. That being said... It is my understanding that multi-barreled weapons were designed becuase single barreled weapons had reached the highest rate of fire they could attain without damaging the barrel. Therefore, in order to allow for a higher rate of fire, several barrels were used in a rotary system, so that each barrel gets a break between firing, and they will not overheat, ect. This higher rate of fire is used primarily on aircraft, because they need to tear apart their enemy in a split second. However, it is not practical for ground forces, because it ends up being a waste of ammo. One thing to keep in mind is this: even though a chain gun such as the Bushmaster has a lower rate of fire than something like the GAU-8, it is by no means a slow gun. The time it takes to destroy a target is still very, very small. The only reason for the difference in rates of fire between the two guns is that they operate in two entirely different realms, and battles in these realms are two completely different beasts. It is true that a rotary cannon would lead to a smaller engagement time between you and your target, but the difference would be so small as to add no advantage. Additionally, you would probably end up shooting your target many more times than is necessary, hence the wasted ammo. This was the main weakness of the old Civil War gatling guns used against infantry: the gatlings ended up putting about thirty rounds into each soldier, when one or two is usually all that is required. Rotary cannons are horribly wasteful on the ground, and provide no real advantage. If you really want to reduce your exposure time to an enemy tank, then use a mortar. You could even design something like a nifty little unmanned aerial vehicle into the mech for it to deploy and use as a forward observer, so it can hide behind a hill or something a lob mortar rounds at enemy targets. Not only is this much more effecient in terms of the amount of ammuntion used, but it also reduces the risk to the actual mech down to almost zero. -- Posted by Shadow on 3:41 pm on Mar. 6, 2004 Are we assuming that the cannons are firing at pin-point accuracy to the distance it needs to effectively eliminate a target? Why does it matter if the firepower is greater? As long as the target is effectively destroyed, there's no need for extremely strong weapons mentioned, right? Just get a double barrel, weapon (whichever weapon that is effective at its role) attached to the top and the bottomm of the mech, the top being used for anti-tank rounds/AA rounds, while the bottom is just used for any infantries that is lurking around to the sides or the back of the mech. Making it simple is always the best, in my opinion. If somebody has a better idea, I'm listening. -- Posted by Ajay on 7:06 pm on Mar. 6, 2004 <>    Keep in mind that you will also be deployed with a group of vehicles as well.  Seeing as we're engaging a tank platoon, I'll imagine that the terrain is fairly easy for vehicles to navigate, meaning you should also have allied tracked/wheeled vehicles assisiting you as well.  DOn't forget the obligatory infantry support as well.   In any case, the tanks won't be targeting your moving legs.  They'll be aiming for your torso, or the center portion of your silloheute. .........................................................  It should also be noted that the GAU-8's barrels are not designed to make use of APDS ammunition, which is more effective against armor then the API it currently fires.   <>   Autocannons can carry different types of ammunition on both sides of the weapon and can switch to either kind according to the situation at hand.  When they see enenmy vehicles they fire armor piercing rounds, and switch to explosive ones when more fragile targets are to be engaged.   As far as I know, no rotary cannon is incapable of doing this, do they have their ammo already mixed so that every 3 rounds of AP has an HE round and so on.   I'm not sure exactly how you'd get a dual ammo feed system on a gun that is loaded with box magazines. <>   I don't believe so.  I think recoil and ballistic accuracy would be a serious concern. -- Posted by Caesar02 on 9:28 pm on Mar. 6, 2004 <> One thing to keep in mind is that you never have a single artillery gun firing at a group of targets; they always work in groups. To acheive a higher rate of fire, you would just use more cannons. -- Posted by Fury9er on 5:08 am on Mar. 7, 2004 Okay Caesar sorry I gave you that impression. I did contribute the use of anti-missile shells and of using a rotary for low rate firing. The only minor advantage of that could be longer firing times but I concede that there are many single barrel guns that could do the job. Another disadvantage to rotary guns I did not consider would be the spin-up time. What is the fastest fire rate for a single barrel cannon now? I read that the Oerlikon 35x90mm used on the old Flakpanzer Gepard used to be the fastest.     -- Posted by Shadow on 6:35 pm on Mar. 7, 2004 Is there any known type of cannon shells that drops cluster bombs? -- Posted by kaempfer on 7:51 pm on Mar. 7, 2004 Quote: from Shadow on 6:35 pm on Mar. 7, 2004 Is there any known type of cannon shells that drops cluster bombs? The shock from the detonation would likely damage the bombs too much. And perhaps something that would disperse a gas or metal shards would be good for anti-infantry around the legs.   For tanks, you could use TOW, Hellfire, or maybe even the projectile used in the SMAWs... -- Posted by noahrei on 10:14 pm on Mar. 7, 2004 Well, not very well thought out but here goes anyway. I have been thinking through a system that would handle most situations while limiting the number of individual weapons a mech would have to carry. We have already pretty much stated that we need:    1. A heavy caliber weapon for armour work.    2. A shotgun style weapon for close in infantry and        light vehicle work (w/in 100-150 yds).    3. A grenade/gas canister launcher.    4. A mortar Launcher    5. A minigun.    Obviously the space isn't available to support these weapons. So, I have thought about using a rotary system involving each specialized barrel, its breech and loading system, to combine these weapons into one or two units.    I realised that a problem tanks have is how well they can change rounds in the cannon. Even with the most sophisticated tanks, if you have a shell loaded you have to fire that shell first. This costs time and munitions. With my system, you can have all five weapons listed above loaded at the same time and select any of them with the flip of a selector.    The system works like a regular rotary cannon only there is a firing pin for each incorporated weapon. Each weapon loads at a point just prior to its own firing pin. When the selector switch is flipped to a weapon, all other firing pins retract. With this done, the selected pin (lets say the grenade launcher) is the only one that will lift on a pass. With grenade selected, the RPM's are lowered to around 10 (one grenade fired every 6 seconds assuming the trigger is depressed the entire time. As the barrel passes the loading chute, a grenade is pushed into the chamber as the firing pin is picked up by a groove, the pin slips out of the groove and the weapon is fired, it then comes around again to start over.   I think I can get this to work, especially if I set the pins at different radii from the axis. My main concern so far is balancing the rotating assembly, otherwise we would shake the mechas arm off.   -- Posted by Ajay on 11:49 pm on Mar. 7, 2004   The grenade launcher could also fill the "shotgun" slot.  An infantry portable automatic grenade launcher can fire HE and frag rounds that can take out targets within a 10+ meter radius.  Plus, they can be used to engage targets over a kilometer away.   Don't know where exactly miniguns were brought up.  You also forgot to add the rocket/missile launcher.  Other than that, it sounds about right.   <>   Yes. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/155.htm -- Posted by noahrei on 7:14 am on Mar. 8, 2004 I think someone said that a minigun would need to be built into the mech as a basic weapon. Also, a missle launcher would be a bit bulky to be a rotary weapon I think. -- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 7:56 am on Mar. 8, 2004 A low RPM, electrically driven rotary can be modified to fire single rounds, yes, but it is extremely stressful on the system and not considered worth the trouble. The reasoning is that in a rotary cannon you have more than just the gun being driven. Sometimes there is a drive motor for the ammo on both ends as well. The inertia of the system will cause excessive wear and tear if you fire less than a 20-50 rounds per trigger pull. -- Posted by noahrei on 10:05 am on Mar. 8, 2004 Seriously? I would have thought there would be more wear and tear on a high RPM system. Maybe there is a way to keep it high RPM and use an interrupting system on the firing pins so I can still achieve a low rate of fire...20-50 grenades per min seems excessive :). -- Posted by Fury9er on 10:56 am on Mar. 8, 2004 Chris suggested using a GAU-19, its a 3 barrel .50 cal rotary gun. It could be slaved to the sensor system as in many attack helicopters. That would give good capablity against personell and light vehicles including aircraft if it had enough elevation. A 35mm select-fire single barrel cannon could take on armour when rapid-firing AP ammo and could be used against troops when loaded with Cannister and HE rounds and used on semi-automatic. That fills the slot for the mortar, shot gun and grenade launcher. Then there could be mount for carrying different types of missiles for anti tank and anti aircraft use. That should be enough capability to fill several different roles but not over complicate things for the pilot(s). -- Posted by Ajay on 11:13 am on Mar. 8, 2004 <>   Doesn't cover the mortar.  Mortars are for high trajectory indirect fire.  Their role cannot be adequately filled by an autocannon.  Actually, some mortars can be used in a direct fire role (like a larger caliber gun), and a design that allows a vehicle to aim them in this way can be quite adaptable.      Tube launched rockets (like the Hydra) can/have been used for indirect fires.   I'd also think that the bulkiness of a mortar and ammuntion reloading system would suggest that a vehicle carrying a decent payload of mortars won't be carrying a full compliment of missiles or other ordinance mounted on the back.    There's not a whole lot wrong with having a legged vehicle carrying only anti-armor missiles/rockets/a mortar, so long as its mission suggests that this is what it should bring along.  legged vehicles, especially humanoid ones should be working groups of at least 2 or more anyways to be trully functional.  This means that each operater can be given a more focused payload, so they have to focus on even fewer weapons.    I'm also still partial to the 12.7mm/40mm or OCSW option, but I suppose that's just me. <>   Many missile systems in development imply that they will have potential against both ground and air targets.  The Javelin, already in service is supposed to be able to engage low flying helicopters, and the new Hypervelocity missiles and the more conventional Future Common Missile now in development are supposed to be able to engage air targets from the ground as well (in addition to defeating all modern and near future armored vehicles).  Even 70mm rockets have capabilities against low flying aircraft.  Unless you mean a more dedicated ground-to-air missile for use against relatively faster fixed wing aircraft (like stinger or such). -- Posted by Fury9er on 4:37 pm on Mar. 8, 2004 "Doesn't cover the mortar.  Mortars are for high trajectory indirect fire." Yep you're right, i didnt think about indirect fire aspect. The combined mortar is an excellent idea and might help to offset the weight of the cannon if - as Noahrei stated - the main weapons are to be mounted either side of the crew compartment. I hope you get to draw it soon Noah, it sounds like a nice design. -- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 6:26 pm on Mar. 8, 2004 I'm thinking that the GAU-19/A will be mounted in such a way as to maximize ground use. In order to engage aircraft, the pilot will have to tilt the torso back a few degrees to allow for better field of fire. The gun will be able to elevate up to 20 degrees above horizontal without the torso tilting, but with the tilt could gain as much as another 25 degrees of elevation. For an idea of how this will look, see this link.. http://www.helispot.com/photos/03224.html This is the Marine Super Cobra. The spacing is about right for the turret to nose/chest of the mech. -- Posted by kaempfer on 7:05 pm on Mar. 8, 2004 Quote: from noahrei on 10:14 pm on Mar. 7, 2004 really long post Well, if you want all of that in a single gun battery, just use metal storm.  It has the capability to hold any type of ammo you can think of. [/metal storm plug] -- Posted by Caesar02 on 8:41 pm on Mar. 8, 2004 Alright, I propose a new alternative that could potentially fill all roles proposed here: Imagine a hybrid between a cannon, a mortar, a rocket, and the Metal Storm system. It goes as follows: A self-contained round (no shell) that can be used in either a direct or indirect fire roll, that also contains a secondary means of propulsion- a rocket motor. The rounds are loaded into 3-6 Metal Storm style tubes that can rotate to the barrel like a revolver. These tubes could each contain a different type of ammo, and the revolving would be computer controlled to the gunner could select ammo type. The rounds could be fired singly, in bursts, or in full auto. Using the same basic round setup, you could acheive several different varying effects. These are the few I've come up with: - A direct fire round that shoots towards the enemy, then kicks in the rocket motor for a kinetic energy kill or added range - A indirect fire round with a similar setup- rocket motor kicks in during the climb for added range, or kicks in after the fall has begun to get a top-attack KE kill - An indirect firing round that explodes over the target area and releases several area-effect bomblets- for use against soft targets. Would be extremely potent if fired in bursts Those are just a few of the possibilities for a round fired from such a gun. And as long as you keep the sizes universal, it could be a very adaptable weapon system. Another though I had was the addition of fins and a guidance system, perhaps not for major corrections, but to keep an indirect fire shot trained on a moving target. -- Posted by noahrei on 10:57 pm on Mar. 8, 2004 Besides the combined munitions, we are basically preaching the same sermon Caesar. I think I have a general idea of what this would look like and I'm wondering on how you planned to feed munitions? I have probably got the entire concept pictured wrong but anyways. -- Posted by DizzyDroid on 12:39 pm on Mar. 9, 2004 Granted, there are some military vehicles that carry quite a compliment of weaponry, but none that have it all.  Soldiers have quite a range of weapons as well, but not everything.  Perhaps, a mech-squad, could be configured like a normal group of soldiers.  Every mech could be equipped with a standard weapon and perhaps one or two specialiezed pieces.  I think it would not be practical for one unit to take on so many combat roles at once.  That may seriously hamper the pilot's ability to make effective decisions.  I think the mechs would have to rely on support units just like everyone else or have the pieces they need in thier own squad. Just my opinion. -- Posted by Ajay on 12:52 pm on Mar. 9, 2004   You rock Dizz-type person ^_^ -- Posted by kaempfer on 4:29 pm on Mar. 9, 2004 Again, I'm thinking AT mechs that have hellfire (or its replacement) and/or TOW, and IFVs with 90mm rockets and that Bushmaster thing. -- Posted by Ajay on 10:04 am on Mar. 10, 2004   If you're primary mission involves being inserted into terrain where tanks and other heavier AFVs cannot operate, concentrating almost totally on your ability to kill such targets is NOT A GOOD IDEA.   Just for some juxtoposition- Ideal mecha armmament :D 1x M203 30mm chaingun (like the Apache's) strapped to one arm.  HEDP can take out anything less than a T-72, and can even cripple/destroy them with proper hits. There's supposed to be a new version of the gun being developed for use on ground vehicles. 2x 19 tube 70-81mm guided rockets on the shoulders.  Useful for direct fire or indirect fire.  Shaped charge rounds can kill most stuff lower than a T-72 (like BMPs, BRTs, wheeled combat vehicles, other mechs) and have more capability against tanks than the 30mm gun does.  They can either be unguided like modern helicopter rockets, or guided into the target if the situation allows/calls for it. 2x OCSW or a combo of 12.7mm machinegun and 40mm striker grenade launcher mounted on remotely operated mounts on either side of the torso.  Easily takes out infantry and lighter vehicles like trucks. 1x Twin tube Javelin, JAWs, or possibly Hypervelocity missile launcher strapped to the other arm. For blowing up enenmy vehicles while staying out of their gun/missile range, or for taking out reinforced machinegun nests/buildings/etc or for engaging low flying aircraft (like helicopters).  Also provides that assured capability of engaging and destroying heavily armored tanks that everyone can't seem to get enough of. ALternate weapons...... 1x 30x170-173 Bushmaster or Oerlikon cannon on some specifically anti-vehicle (not necesarrily anti-tank) models to replace the M230.  That is if future vehicles in the 10-30 ton weight class build up a healthy immunity to the 30x113 ammunition. 1 or 2x 81mm-120mm autmoatic mortar launchers replacing the rockets.  For artillery work with more range than the rockets.  If you can make into a gun-mortar, it could also be used for lower trajectory direct fires against reinforced enenmy positions and hardend structures. 1x A Twin or 4 tube JAWS/Hypervelocity missile launcher on one of the shoulders, replacing one of the rockets.  More for attacking fortified enenmy positions where they're likely to have more built up defenses, and may potentially have armored vehicles. 2x 2-4 tube launchers totally replacing the rockets.  Now you have 6-10 missiles for engaging tanks, low flying aircraft, and high priority targets. ..........................................................    There.  A 4 mech team carrying the above mentioned armmament has the potential to effectively take out 2 tank platoons (8 tanks) if they come across them while patrolling a mountain side or trudging through a swampy jungle.  They can easily engage most lighter vehicles (like SPG, APC, IFVs, and the like), and suffer from no lack of anti-infantry firepower.    The horse isn't dead enough!  Keep kicking I say! (Edited by Ajay at 4:34 pm on Mar. 11, 2004) (Edited by Ajay at 11:58 am on Mar. 12, 2004) -- Posted by kaempfer on 5:38 pm on Mar. 11, 2004 I wonder...since we have the M163 Anti-Air vehicle, could a mech with an M-168 gun mounted on it be used for anti-air?  It could do something such as crouching down in water, and when an aircraft is detected, it can pop out and blast the bajeezus out of it. -- Posted by Ajay on 6:27 pm on Mar. 11, 2004   Just about anything can be come an air defense unit if you strap on targeting systems (radar and IR sensors for tracking aircraft), some high ROF guns like vulcans or the equaliser, and a couple of anti-aricraft missiles. -- Posted by noahrei on 9:36 pm on Mar. 11, 2004 The ultimate anti-air mech...a heavily armored Phalanx and Radar Platform. That would be a job for a crawler. -- Posted by JB on 2:38 am on Mar. 12, 2004 Quote: from noahrei on 8:36 pm on Mar. 11, 2004 The ultimate anti-air mech...a heavily armored Phalanx and Radar Platform. That would be a job for a crawler. Wouldn't the ultimate anti-air mech have  ajetpack and a lightsaber? :) -- Posted by noahrei on 6:29 pm on Mar. 12, 2004 Curse the fowl stench of Gundamism you have unleashed upon this thread. -- Posted by JB on 1:31 am on Mar. 13, 2004 Quote: from noahrei on 5:29 pm on Mar. 12, 2004 Curse the fowl stench of Gundamism you have unleashed upon this thread. MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! -- Posted by kaempfer on 10:31 am on Mar. 13, 2004 Quote: from noahrei on 9:36 pm on Mar. 11, 2004 The ultimate anti-air mech...a heavily armored Phalanx and Radar Platform. That would be a job for a crawler. No, the ultimate anti-air would be an indestructible mech with an infinite supply of mach 20+ waverider missiles. Of course, none of that will happen anytime soon. -- Posted by Chrome Dragon on 9:17 pm on Mar. 19, 2004 [2x 19 tube 70-81mm guided rockets on the shoulders.  Useful for direct fire or indirect fire.  Shaped charge rounds can kill most stuff lower than a T-72 (like BMPs, BRTs, wheeled combat vehicles, other mechs) and have more capability against tanks than the 30mm gun does.  They can either be unguided like modern helicopter rockets, or guided into the target if the situation allows/calls for it. ] Are you referring to the modified Hyrda-70 rockets with the laser guidance-heads?   http://www.ids.na.baesystems.com/MADS/Products/lcpk/LCPK_1.htm Dumbfire Hydras could also fulfill the indirect fire role, and the role of those grenade launchers against massed infantry.  Also, with the M255 A1 and E1 flechette warheads, they make nice shotguns. In addition, courtesy of fas.org, "The M151 HE Warhead is the 10-pound anti-personnel warhead ... The bursting radius is 10 meters; however, high velocity fragments can produce a lethality radius in excess of 50 meters." And "The M229 HE Warhead is an elongated version of the M151 Warhead and is commonly referred to as the "17 Pounder" warhead."  What we have here should fulfill the artillery requirement quite nicely. I also like the idea of two brackets for shoulder (one "up" and one "out") that can carry a wide variety of missiles depending on the expected target, each one capable of carrying a fully loaded 19 round Hydra rack, however I suspect that space, weight, and balance issues will require compromise on the "up" launcher's capacity, since it would be harder to balance than the "out" launchers. Also, I never considered different weapons systems on each arm, though I suppose that the autocannon on the right and the minigun on the left would work, but that would imbalance the load - if the minigun does double duty as a phalanx, it needs to be turreted, preferably on the head.  Putting a 40mm grenade launcher on the left instead would give the 'mech a decided disadvantage if an APC appeared on the left.  (however, with the advent of the XM8, it's support for extra-long grenades, and integral laser designater, I suppose it'd be possible to create 40mm RPG rounds for that such stuff) I suppose what I'm looking for is a good load to balance the chain gun. -- Posted by Ajay on 1:04 am on Mar. 20, 2004 <>    Guided rockets in general.  Many European nations use 69mm, and 81mm rockets.  The Commanche was supposed to cary 81mm rockets too.  Don't know if any of those were guided though, but if you can make a guidance package for the 70mm ones, I don't see what's holding back development of the others (tech wise).  Russia already had laser based guidance systems for all their tube launched rockets. <>     They have too much range and are a bit to scarce (ammo-wise) to be used for point defense and suppressive fire against infantry as automatic grenade launchers or machineguns are.   <   I figured active balancing systems would all take care of that.  I was figuring on putting machineguns/lower caliber systems in the torso, which would most likely make them the only fixed weapon on the vehicle.   Phalanx style systems are far to ammunition intensive for practical use on individual vehicles.  However, there are new active missile defense systems involving fragmentary projectiles.  The upper arms, shoulders, or top of the torso (depening on where the "head" is) are other places for such a system to be mounted.  Either would require some sort of radar based tracking/targeting system and would be pretty much automatic. -- Posted by ChrisDickerson on 11:03 am on Mar. 20, 2004 To fit 1800 20mm rounds in the mech, you have to have a drum roughly the size of one and a half 55gal drums welded end to end. That is, if you went the Air Force way and used that system (was used on the F-111, and is now standard for reloading fighter gun systems). I would much rather use a flat pack style, like the Apache used. It was about 20 inches thick and about as big as a folding table you can buy at Wal-Mart. Its only real draw-back was that it had a lot of mechanical linkages inside, where the AirForce's drum only has a spiral helix inside. The Apache used 30mm rounds and had a max capacity of 1200. I'm thinking that there has to be a way to put more ammo in that same space. -- Posted by Ajay on 2:22 pm on Mar. 29, 2004   Just doing some random surfing where I was looking at the idea of modular tools and other systems a vehicle could carry.  Here's something I think alot of mecha anti-armor teams would like. http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/combatvision/SNAKE_EYES/product-SNAKE_EYES.html   That's pretty compact compared to alot of forward observer systems I'v seen (usually mounted on helicopters).  It also seems to look pretty self contained.  If properly adapted, this thing, or something alot like it can be plugged into one of the shoulder/back hardpoints in place of a weapon to give even better target designation capabilities.     a 4-5 man team can have one vehicle carrying one of these moving up ahead to locate and deignate targets for the guided munitions they fire from a much safer position.   BTW, do they still make much use special rockets or mortars warhead/rounds for marking or obscuring targets? -- Posted by tomexe on 5:49 pm on Mar. 29, 2004 I had thought that a target designation unit would be virtually standard on all mechs in US Army Service. Something like it was supposed to be in Land Warrior, they found the technology wasn't there yet, but its still part of the Future Warrior system. But it wouldnt be quite like the FLIR ball on the OH-58D or the GLADD designator system we use on the ground. But more like the system the M1A2SED and M2/3A3 Bradleys have integrated with with the IVIS wireless battlefield network. Any target detected would be passed immediately to the other vheicles in the unit, and on up the chain of command as well. The laser, sensors on the laser mount for bearing and elevation, GPS and a gyrocompass would allow the mech to pass a targets position to other mechs, aircraft, or artillery in 3 dimensions with a CEP of about 2m or less. Thus it would not have to illuminate the target, fire and forget and ungiuded weapons can just be fired at the point or along predicted track generated by watching for a period of time. Now it would have the option of lasing a target, laser guided weapons are cheeper than FLIR/radar weapons and more accurate than satellite only guided bombs. They can also engage targets that are indistinct to radar and IR like bunkers, which dont have a strong enough signature to be attractive to lock on after launch weapons. This would give the Mecha pilot almost god-like power. All he has to do is range a few targets and transmit it to a B-2 and a JDAM will zap it. If they ever get around to combining the JDAM tail with a Paveway III nose that would be a devistating combination. Ever see the original Bubblegum Crisis? After the bad guy Mason had himself turned into a cyborg and he could control the ABM lasers in orbit and direct them on whatever he looked at? It would be close to that kind of power. (Edited by tomexe at 2:50 pm on Mar. 29, 2004) -- Posted by noahrei on 10:08 pm on Mar. 29, 2004 I don't think the Paveway is compatible with JDAM. Got a half-interested answer from my dad stating that they use a different system. Paveways are awesome though. You ever see the bunker busting version, long thin paveway. I need to post the videos the AMMO guys made. -- Posted by tomexe on 1:52 am on Mar. 30, 2004 I had a feeling if the two were directly compatable we would have seen the combination already. But if they could combine GPS with laser terminal guidence. JDAM isn't quite as precise as Paveway. And it only has a little to do with the seeker. Mos of the difference has to to with the JDAMs tiny little tail fins vs the Paveways bigger tailfins AND front canards. Its more tolerant of weather and slight errors in launching. Even at its worse though it is more than accurate enough to where the bomb could pick up the laser even very late in its trajectory as well as increasing the chance for damage or destruction if the laser is lost at the last minute. -- Posted by Ajay on 12:44 pm on Mar. 30, 2004   Although I was under the impression that each vehicle would have decent sensor and communications capabilities, I concluded that the price, complexity, and space involved would mean that not EVERY vehicle is an exceptional scout/target designation platform.   I was also thinking that having one sysytem concentrating more on the information gathering and processing aspect (and given higher end systems to accomplish that task more efectively) would help pull some of the strain off of other systems in the group.  I'm pretty sure standard FCS sensor capabilities will be comprable to, if not superior to modern and near future Abrams and Bradleys.  However, they still seem to be interested in the idea of a more specialised scout/forward observer vehicle with a mast mounted sensor, and vehicles for the role of information collecting/processing. <>   Thanks for adressing that concern of mine.