Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Tony Wilkinson <twilko@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

> They are also smaller than a tank have better frontal armour for the
same
> weight (leaving out the Jagtiger).
>
> Gotta remember that the gun can still swivel but no where near as much
as a
> tank.

I have a book from the late 80s/early 90s by Kenneth Macksey titled
_Tank Versus Tank_. He mentions a prototype "advanced" assault gun,
named the "Goliath". It was basically a small tank chassis with a gun
mounted into it/on top of it. The gun would descend for loading, then
pop up for firing. The idea was to remove the need for a turret (the
gun could rotate), while keeping the entire vehicle hull down, and
thus the crew reasonably safe. When hull down was not possible, it
still presented a smaller target than a tank.

Nothing seems to have come of it. I suspect there were technical
issues with accuracy, particularly if the gun had to pop up and down a
lot (which would hurt accuracy as well as (probably even more
importantly) time to fire. The rate of fire would be rotten compared
to a tank if the gun had to rotate forward, descend, and then rotate
to an angle every time the weapon fired at a target off to the left or
right. I imagine it would be fairly cramped, too, seeing as how you'd
have to fit a crew of three into the chassis part of the vehicle,
along with engine, fuel and ammunition.

It was an interesting idea, but I suspect it would never even be
considered today. Weapon accuracy makes the cannon too vulnerable when
it's raised to fire.

I always wanted a model of one, though.

-- 
Allan Goodall http://www.hyperbear.com
agoodall@hyperbear.com
awgoodall@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l