Smooth bore guns firing arrow type projectiles can have a muzzle velocity of 1600 m/s or even more, while rifled guns have 1000m/s or less. Firing at your helicopter will target have a higher hit probability with the smooth bore. Also the smooth bore will suffer less from wear.
New Chinese SPAAA?
- Thread starter MwRYum
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Smooth bore guns are also less accurate, especially at longer ranges.
The more accurate the gun, the greater the effective combat range. The 2A38M on the Tunguska and Pantsyr only has an effective combat range of 2km while the gun has a max slant range of 4km. The 2A38M is rifled, so I would expect a smooth bore to have a lower effective range still.
The Oerlikon 35 mm, on which the Type 90 35mm is based and which I think is the bases for the 35mm used here on the PGZ-07, has an effective range of 4km and slant range of 7km.
Now, for the Tunguska or Pantsyr, with their 2km engagement range and 960m/s muzzle velocity, time from firing till impact is normally less than 2 seconds and they are radar guided active systems, so they never really have the option of engaging a target without giving it prior warning and the range is so low that there is a good chance that the target will get hit no matter what kind of evasives it pulls. Since they never intend to engage passively, the Tunguska and Pantsyr looses nothing and only benefits from having missiles as well.
The PGZ-07, with its 4km effective range and 1175m/s muzzle velocity need to lead their targets by nearly 4 seconds when engaging at max range. That is effectively double the lead time for the Tunguska and Pantsyr, so the target will have a vastly greater chance to evade the shot if it was moving violently and unpredictable.
That is almost certainly one of the main reasons why there is a passive IR sensor on the PGZ-07, and may well be a reason for not installing missiles for fear that enemy MAWS would pick it up and spoil the shot the guns as a result.
The more accurate the gun, the greater the effective combat range. The 2A38M on the Tunguska and Pantsyr only has an effective combat range of 2km while the gun has a max slant range of 4km. The 2A38M is rifled, so I would expect a smooth bore to have a lower effective range still.
The Oerlikon 35 mm, on which the Type 90 35mm is based and which I think is the bases for the 35mm used here on the PGZ-07, has an effective range of 4km and slant range of 7km.
Now, for the Tunguska or Pantsyr, with their 2km engagement range and 960m/s muzzle velocity, time from firing till impact is normally less than 2 seconds and they are radar guided active systems, so they never really have the option of engaging a target without giving it prior warning and the range is so low that there is a good chance that the target will get hit no matter what kind of evasives it pulls. Since they never intend to engage passively, the Tunguska and Pantsyr looses nothing and only benefits from having missiles as well.
The PGZ-07, with its 4km effective range and 1175m/s muzzle velocity need to lead their targets by nearly 4 seconds when engaging at max range. That is effectively double the lead time for the Tunguska and Pantsyr, so the target will have a vastly greater chance to evade the shot if it was moving violently and unpredictable.
That is almost certainly one of the main reasons why there is a passive IR sensor on the PGZ-07, and may well be a reason for not installing missiles for fear that enemy MAWS would pick it up and spoil the shot the guns as a result.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Could be a matter of costs and choices.
China has displayed a multitude of light armored vehicle mounted MANPAD systems in recent years, and I cannot imagine they would be all that expensive since the missile would be the most expensive component of the system.
It would easily be that for the cost of adding missiles, the PLA could have just bought such a light missile system for only a fractional more, so they opted to buy another system instead of adding some missiles to this one.
Could the 35mm guns at least take out something like WW2 era tanks? I don't mean the super heavy ones like King Tiger but say a Sherman or T-34
SteelBird
Colonel
What's the mean to develop a weapon to take out the WWII tanks today?
It was just my curiosity.
Red___Sword
Junior Member
Yes, defiantly. WWII era tanks ("MBT" concepts comes later) were "pure steel blocks" in regards of their armor. And in regards of pure steel blocks' weight, you would be amazed to found out the WWII era tanks didn't actually have a very thick armor measure - modern 35mm SABOT rounds flys at 1100+m/s, can easily shot through KingTiger. Count the "engagement distance" - WWII era tanks engage each other mostly at 1000-m distance, shot 35mm SABOT rounds at 1005m distance (joke), surely get the job done.
In fact, M48, a post WWII tank, can not withstand 30mm SABOT rounds coming out from modern AFVs, Taiwan troops demostrated these when they demostrate their own 30mm autocannon.
Anyway, SPAAA do not pack SABOT rounds (not much, at least). I would call for 05 AFV which packs 105mm guns, if needed, to deal with non-tier-1 tank threat from some non-superpower military opponent.
Edit:
Deployed:
Last edited: