Re: Assault guns
From: Paul J. Adam (news_at_jrwlynch.demon.co.uk)
Date: 03/14/05
- Next message: tim gueguen: "Re: StG44 in Iraq"
- Previous message: Raghar: "Re: Ever improving non-nuclear submarines."
- Maybe in reply to: Brian Bunin: "Re: Assault guns"
- Next in thread: Andy Dingley: "Re: Assault guns"
- Reply: Andy Dingley: "Re: Assault guns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:05:01 +0000
In message <L5sYd.23867$6g7.11607@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Paul F Austin
<pfaustin@bellsouth.net> writes
>The Sovs, during the fifites and sixties built a lot of assault guns in
>various calibres (up to 152mm, IIRC). With the gun installed in a casement
>with very limited traverse, what was the doctrinal justification for them?
It's a mobile artillery piece with at least splinter protection, meaning
it can keep pace with exploiting troops and get closer to the front:
close enough to engage bunkers with direct fire, for instance, while
withstanding the worst of said bunkers' defensive asset. In a time when
most spare chassis were not sized to take turrets with 122mm or 152mm
guns, it was a way to get heavy guns up to the front without impacting
too much on tank production.
As an antitank asset, it's also a way around "but this chassis can't
take a turret with an 85mm gun!" by saying "so bin the turret and put
the gun in the superstructure": cf. the British Archer conversion for a
UK version, or the assorted Jagdpanzers and Jagdtigers in Germany. Loses
you the versatility of a turret, but you get a mobile gun in an armoured
mount. When the chassis is limited by air transport, this gets you the
ASU-57 and ASU-85 (whose US equivalent might have been the Ontos)
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
- Next message: tim gueguen: "Re: StG44 in Iraq"
- Previous message: Raghar: "Re: Ever improving non-nuclear submarines."
- Maybe in reply to: Brian Bunin: "Re: Assault guns"
- Next in thread: Andy Dingley: "Re: Assault guns"
- Reply: Andy Dingley: "Re: Assault guns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|