Re: Elevation/Depression of AFV main arms

There already is two deployed type and a second that was in advanced
development
when it was canceled due to post-cold war budgets.  All were missile
systems.
Both the U.S. M901 ITV and Dutch YPR 765 use a two round TOW cherry
picker.  It
only lifts the missiles about meter (best guess) above the vehicle. 
This allows
the vehicle to be behind a hill and engage enemy tanks.  A very good
idea
considering that both are on APC (M113) and IFV (YPR 765 is an IFV
derived from
the M113) hulls.  More missile were carried in side the vehicles, but
the crew
had to open the top hatch to reload the cherry picker.	The German
Jaguar
RocketPanzers (three variant, one with SS-11 missiles, one with TOW
missiles, and
one with HOT missiles) have some ability to fire while behind cover. 
The missile
launcher is not as high above the hull as with the TOW Cherry picker,
but it had
the advantage of an automated reloading system.  I don't know of any
pictures of
actual vehicles on the web, but GHQ does have pictures of their
miniatures at
their site...
 http://www.ghqmodels.com/modern.html

The advanced prototype I referred two was based on a German Marder hull
and had a
cherry picker that could extend many meters up(good for shooting over
trees,
houses, hills, and I'm not joking...).	I know there was a 2 and 4 round
versions.  There are some other missile systems, but none deployed in
any number
that I know of.  There have been experiments with large caliber guns in
external
turrets, but none have been adopted.  I suspect due to problems with
reliable
automatic feeding.  One was based on the Marder hull.  There are turrets
with
autocannons in pods above the turret roof, such as the German Marder
(are we
seeing a trend here???).  You can park the vehicle behind cover with
just the gun
pod exposed.  There is variant of that turret with a 35mm autocannon,
but none
one deployed it.  The dutch use a one man version of the Marder turret
in their
M114 reconasance vehicles.

IAS

Ndege Diamond wrote:

> At 01:17 PM 3/22/00 -0500, Thomas.Barclay wrote:
> >As was pointed out, the range of elevation/depression angles for most
modern
> >AFVs is a product of the space in the vehicle and the weapon's shape
and
> >size (which serves to restrict the amount of elevation or depression
> >possible.
> >
> >Now, if one was using a casement turret (unmanned), one might have
more
> >capability in this regard. The crew could occupy the body of the tank
(safe
> >and sound behind a hill or wall if a fight erupts). This type of
design was
> >proposed in Twilight 2000 for the next generation US MBT. I believe
2300AD
> >had a hovertank with this type of remote turret. But a standard
> >gun-in-turret-with-crew style of tank has limitations based on tank
profile
> >(height mostly).
>
> I remember seeing concept designs for "cherry picker" (a telescoping
arm
> type deal that could elevate weapons quite a bit above the hull of the
> vehicle) mounts for weapons somewhere.  The benifit is you could park
the
> vehicle behind cover, then have the weapon pop up and fire, and you
could
> cover those dead zones.
>
> I don't know how feasable this would be with current tech, seems like
the
> whole thing would hinge on having very reliable sensors and some sort
of
> reload work-around for large caliber weapons.  It should go with out
saying
> that I could be talking out my ass here.
>
> In Dirt Side, where you have grav MBTs with lasers and fusion guns, I
> wouldn't let silly little things like that get in the way of using it
for
> some good old fashoned techno-babble about why you don't really have
to
> plot out dead zones.
>
> I'm waiting for the Future(TM) where our cloths will all be one-piece
> coveralls, doors will slide into the wall when you walk up to them,
and
> miniatures will have little laser pointers built into their weapons so
you
> can determine LOS on the fly.
>
> Ndege Diamond
> -
> Every dogma has its day.
> -
> Nezach(at)earthlink(dot)net