Jump to content
Hedgehog

Cannons 20-40mm

Recommended Posts

Chaps,

I've been thinking. (Uh oh)

Why are there so many Auto Cannon round types?

We have:

20mm - Rheinmetall

25mm - Bushmaster

30mm - Rarden, Bushmaster 2

35mm - Bushmaster 2

40mm - Bofors

I'd have thought NATO Standardization would have focused on the 25mm? (As per the Americans insistence on 7.62mm and 5.56mm)

Is there any movement to standardize in the future?

And would this focus on the larger calibres given the gucchi ammo types for the 40mm.

Food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaps,

I've been thinking. (Uh oh)

Why are there so many Auto Cannon round types?

We have:

20mm - Rheinmetall

25mm - Bushmaster

30mm - Rarden, Bushmaster 2

35mm - Bushmaster 2

40mm - Bofors

I'd have thought NATO Standardization would have focused on the 25mm? (As per the Americans insistence on 7.62mm and 5.56mm)

Is there any movement to standardize in the future?

And would this focus on the larger calibres given the gucchi ammo types for the 40mm.

Food for thought.

The answer is, very briefly: NATO suuuuuuuucks at standardisation. For every success (7.62mm, 5.56mm, some radio systems etc.), there's a number of glaring failures (the supposed new submachine gun caliber that's split things between H&Ks 4.6mm for the MP7 and FN's 5.7mm for the P90).

Chuck in factors like the cost of new heavy weapons systems and historical reliance on others, and you have an atmosphere where any heavy weapons system is going to be quite difficult to standardise.

Take, for example, NATO 120mm rounds. Standardisation means that German L44s can fire American combustible cartridge rounds, same way American M256s can fire German rounds (the 120mm on the Leclerc is also compatible IIRC). And yet, the UK is still reliant on two-part ammo for its rifled 120mm. Why? In the 1980s, they wanted to keep the HESH round, in addition to the financial cost, re-training of troops and re-tooling of industry a switch from rifled to smoothbore would have cost.

Similarly, the Germans would have been reluctant to re-arm the Marder with a 25mm- and the Brits would have been reluctant to step down from the Rarden to a smaller caliber for doctrinal reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, the defence industry is always building a better mousetrap :-P

Look at the Bofors 40mm. Oerlikon took it, said: "We can build a better AA system", and voila. The 35mm KDA was born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Sweden picked the 40mm because we had surplus of them, we just flipped them upside down and installed them in the cv90. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Sweden picked the 40mm because we had surplus of them, we just flipped them upside down and installed them in the cv90. :)

Funny, with the new super AP ammo it now has enough punch to make a Tiger 1 think twice. :eek2:

Hmm I'm wondering why Denmark picked the 35mm and Finland the 30mm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel and other bulk supply is an important part where standartization works.Turkish F-54 is the same as UK or GE F-54.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, with the new super AP ammo it now has enough punch to make a Tiger 1 think twice. :eek2:

Technology marches on, eh? It illustrates pretty eloquently the power of pressure and density, when you consider the Bofors is kind of in the same league as a 2pdr :-P APFSDS harnesses muzzle energy extremely efficiently, compared to old solid shot anyway.

Hmm I'm wondering why Denmark picked the 35mm and Finland the 30mm?

I would wager that Denmark quite liked the prospect of tapping into 35mm ammunition being developed by Oerlikon/Rheinmetall for the Gepard and for naval air defence. AHEAD is quite a versatile round, if perhaps not as ideal for ground warfare as the Swedish P3 40mm. Having a common 35mm caliber for ground/naval forces is going to simplify logistics a lot. IIRC, Oerlikon also developed AHEAD ammo in 30mm, not sure if its compatible with the Finns Bushmaster. Which I'm fairly certain was a decision made with an eye on equipping with future US developed rounds for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (which is dead now) or the GCV (which looks like its dying).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Killjoy
And Sweden picked the 40mm because we had surplus of them, we just flipped them upside down and installed them in the cv90. :)

Now the Infantry have two reasons to wear Kevlar.

1. Incoming rounds.

2. Brass from their own Vehicles.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now the Infantry have two reasons to wear Kevlar.

1. Incoming rounds.

2. Brass from their own Vehicles.

:)

Well to be honest if your worried about brass from a CV90, you should think about moving left or right.

Also.

Reading this thread it looks like a sensible way to move forward would be to attempt to standardize the 35mm round given its multitude purposes and timed fuses.

Ground ADA.

Naval ADA.

Naval Light Gun.

Ground combat vehicles.

Fighter armament.

(Maybe, if the air force can adapt, but I doubt it weight restrictions on an aeroplane are vastly different to something that rolls/floats.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...