Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner
View Post
However there are some reasons why they are not as numerous as by the Russians etc. This has to do with the fact to be effective in a modern battlefield they have to be controlled by an all-weather control system. This is what makes up the vast majority of the system cost. Then comes the range issue; the main threat was seen as Soviet attack helicopters and when they began to get armed with longer range air-to-surface missiles it was clear that the effective range of 35-40mm guns was no longer effective. Any gun position could be knocked out before the target came into range. Lastly was logistics, the often overlooked factor in war. A modern gun system such as the twin barrel GDF 35mm cannon has a fire rate combined of 1100 rds/min. Even with short bursts this required vast quantities of ammo to keep it in the fight.
However as warfighting is always evolving there is a come back to some extent for guns. The first is the new ammunition like AHEAD or DART which combine programmable fuses with sub-munitions to greatly increase the effectiveness. Then there is the emerging drone threat where small cheap targets need to be engaged. Here high rate of fire guns have a part to play although they do not have the field to themselves as laser and electronic weapons come online.
Comment