The Definition of Firepower ?

This is the big one.

The firepower of a tank is in my present opinion the sum of the gun/ammunition and the fire control system.

Peter Gudgin summarize in his book "Armoured Firepower" the fire control system of a tank by the following factors : Crew vision, crew intercommunication, range estimation, sights, turret traverse systems, gun elevation systems and gun firing systems.

 

Skua, it seems like we are trying to combine several concepts into one. We need to separate firepower from fire-control and combat communication systems.
Firepower in plain English should be the sole destructive power of a weapon when hitting its intended target. So yes it involves the gun velocity, range, rate of fire, type of ammo, penetration power, the amount of explosives in warhead...etc
The debate of who has a better laser or optical range finder or GPS global positioning system or communication systems warrants another threat perhaps.

 

Not really, Liang! If you put 5 recruits into a Tiger II, then that nice gun is virtually useless.

Put 5 veterans in a Mk IVH, and they're going to do some damage. Firepower is only meaningful when you can put steel on target.

It's just like my military and civilian close combat shooting. A .22 on target is more worthwhile than a .44 magnum that misses!

 

Again, I rest my case. What does the tank crew has to do with "fire" and "power"??

 

Firepower is meaningless, unless your people have enough skill and teamwork to put the round into the target. First.

 

Firepower is the net result of :
1. Armament - penetration, ammo load out
2. Command and control - target aquisition and coordinated fire.
3. Rate of fire - crew training and breech efficiency


a vehicle as a stand alone measure of firepower is seperate from unit firepower.
any combat between vehicles one on one is going to be decided by crew capability, and the ability to acquire the target and penetrate.

a crew that can put down 2 shots to an enemies 1 shot, accurately and with adequate penetration will win a single engagement regardless of the calibre of the enemy weapon.

range is a huge factor and that brings optics into play. a trained crew with superior optics can engage at longer range.
penetration becomes an issue at range. a superior crew with advanced optics, higher rate of fire will lose a fight if the enemy has better penetration at longer range.

 

However, pure 'firepower' is simply the gun.

Yes, being able to hit helps, but how does hitting or missing the target change the fact that your gun is Xmm caliber, firing a shell of Xkg weight?

I would say that, to have a better firepower, you need a fast reload, so we can include that. ie: total weight of fire in a minute.

I would further agree that 'effective' firepower needs to hit the target...

 

you are describing "penetration" thats a "calibre " vs "calibre " slamfest
ya cant confuse firepower with brute strength...

If ya want to discuss penetration - then ya got a solid case.

A single barreled 20 gauge single shot shotgun
would not have the same firepower as a 12 gauge pump or semi auto

bullets bigger an it makes a bigger hole...
but 2 12 gauge rounds make a 24 gauge hole =) vs 1 20 = LESS firepower larger calibre

 

Erm, that shotgun-thingy is invalid from beginning. Because smaller gaugenumber means bigger bore. That gaugenumber tells you how many leadballs (which diameter is that borediameter) can be made out of one pound of lead. For instance, from one pound of lead you can form 12 leadballs which diameter is same as 12 gauge shotgun bore diameter.
Only exception here (to my knowledge) is .410 shotgun where that .410 tells borediameter in inches.

Edit: In likely case no-one managed to understand what I was saying, here is link about shotgun gauges.

 

my point was made.... big single shot has less whack than little multi - shot. dont mind being being corrected my friend , but if yer gonna jump me in a thread and try to nitpick me.. at least attempt to say something relevant to the topic.

 

Gothard - I am not discussing penetration. I agree that 2x75mm guns = more firepower than 1x88mm gun, unless the 88mm reload time is significantly faster than that of the 75mm.
Firepower is all about the amount/weight of ammo you can pump out.

Which was what I was arguing.
I was against the idea that the overall 'firepower' changes if you add or remove aiming systems. The effectiveness of your firepower changes, but your firepower does not.

Sorry if I was unclear.

(Edits were silly typos over how to spell 'weight'... )

 

that brings us back to the same point - define firepower.


according to the dictionary:

Main Entry: fire·pow·er
Pronunciation: -"pau(-&)r
Function: noun
1 a : the capacity (as of a military unit) to deliver effective fire on a target b : effective fire


yer saying that a gun has an inherent firepower regardless of optics or firecontrol.
my point is that the calibre and the weight of the shell etc.. i.e. the gun itself has a "penetration" rating.

but it has no innate firepower.
firepower being a combination of other factors to ensure that the penetration is applied at the right spot and in a timely fashion.

 

Gothard - I cannot fight the dictionary!

However, I shoud like to defend my sinking ship by pointing out that I am not using penetration as my yardstick.
2 Sherman 75s have more firepower than 1 Tiger 2, even though the Tiger 2 has a gun with greater penetration.

Firepower, as I always thought of it, is the amount of ammo you can pump out.

Use HE shells for the example.

2 Sherman 75s can pump out more HE per minute than 1 Tiger 2 can.
Ergo, they have more firepower.

In terms of infantry, a company of grunts with 2 machineguns and rifles has more firepower than a company of grunts with one mg and rifles.
a company with semi-autos/submachineguns/assault rifles has greater firepower still.

If this firepower hits the target, that is a definate plus, but whether you hit or not, you still have greater firepower.

That was my reasoning, and I still don't quite see how USS Iowa has less firepower than an MGB simply because it fires a full broadside and misses, and the MGB hits USS Iowa with a burst of .303 bullets from a lewis gun.

Maybe I am on about potential firepower. I dunno.

 

What was the original question again????


The problem with this topic is it is big on intangibles.

If we talking raw firepower then it has to be the tank with the biggest gun.

But what about factors you can't find on any table. As has been pointed out a whoop ass gun is no use unless the crew know what their doing. A crew of veterans will almost always beat rank amateurs. So on the whole I don't think this topic will be going anywhere.

But that's just my opinion.

 

Potential firepower vs Effective firepower.

I was describing the former, and Gothard (and probably Skua) were describing the latter.
I think.

I am happy to go with 'effective firepower', I was just being obstinate & stating my case...
:roll:

 

Thats half the fun of being on forum =), no one agrees.

theres 2 types of firepower...

tank on tank is a one on one contest. assuming both crews are equally trained.

which tank has more firepower ?
which has the most penetration when it arrives on target?
which has the best optics and fire control to assure the shell arrives on target ?
which has the greatest rate of fire?

so if 2 equal giants were to fight it out point blank.. what factors determine which has the greatest firepower beyond the way that the crew delivers its projectiles?


UNIT FIREPOWER is a very complex issue involving tactics,communication,leadership etc...



If we stick to Just single tank vs single tank I think we can bull through with this topic.. but Unit firepower is a very interesting subject i would much rather address individually.

 

i think im using the wrong terms myself - i use "penetratration" to refer to capacity or "potential" firepower

and "firepower" to refer to delivery or "effective" firepower.

for instance would a tank with 10 75mm shells have more "potential" firepower than a tank with 10 50mm shells ?

assuming both tanks have armor of 80mm and the 75mm shells have a penetration of 75mm and the 50mm shells have a penetration of 90mm

 

That would be killing power.

Fir power is potential power.

A tiger has the same potential power with a good crew, a bad crew and no crew.

The killing power or ability differs with the skill of the crew.

 

so "killing" = effective firepower ?

 

Yes