Secondary Armament on MBTs

[sgtgunn]

Hi,

Just curious on people's thoughts regarding secondary armament on MBTs.

As a former US Army tank crewman (and gunner) I would have loved to have a heavier caliber coaxial MG than the 7.62mm M240. Something that would have allowed me to make better use of the tank's sights and FCS for long range shooting, and would have had the ability to defeat light armor and soft skin vehicles as well.

IMHO a co-axial .50cal would be ideal - either a Browning M3 (M2 with higher ROF) or a GAU-19/A GECAL 50. The .50cal SLAP-T round can defeat 34mm of armor at 500m which would make the weapon useful against light armored vehicles - no need to waste a 120mm main gun round. A .50cal coax with a high rate of fire would also be very useful in dealing with built up terrain - a GAU-19/A spitting out 2000 rpm could demolish most hard cover in short order. Plus the psychological effects of such a weapon would be substantial. As I understand it when the XM1 was being developed, one of the proposals for secondary armament (advanced by US Army tank crewman with combat experience in Vietnam) was TWO M2 .50 cal machineguns - one on either side of the main gun, which would fire simultaneously. Later it was changed to mounting a the Bushmaster M242 25mm chaingun on one side of the maingun, and the M240C 7.62mm MG on the other. This was deleted becuase of cost.

I'd also like to see the commanders M2 .50cal replaced by a remote (like on the M1A2 TUSK) weapon station with either a 40mm AGL with airburst capability or the new 25mm OICWS. Having MGs for air defense on MBTs these days seems a bit anachronistic - I think having an AGL to be able to rapidly supress ATGM or RPG teams would be better.

Any thoughts?

Adrian

[Gremlin29]

Since you have professional experience I will defer to your expert opinion. By the thread title the first thought I had was that the 7.62 seemed oddly inadequate for a modern MBT for the very reasons you pointed out. In fact, I never could understand why they didn't put Ma in their to begin with. As for the TC, I'd be shocked if they even considered anything that wasn't standard conventional ala the 50 cal. I always thought the TC was unbuttoned most of the time for better situational awarness, in which case the existing weapon seems to be appropriate however, this may be passe for many years, I honestly don't know. If that's not the case, a remote weapon makes sense but wouldn't it be more practical to stick with a 50 cal?

Also and again, I'm not a tread head but.... I wonder in relation to our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan if we aren't trying to taylor our forces a little too much for LIC which would be a huge mistake, in my opinion. We should be able to switch between LIC and HIC but we never seem to get the funds for both, it's always an either - or proposition.

[sgtgunn]

US tank commanders are (or were) trained to fight unbuttoned (or at least semi-unbuttoned with the TC hatch in the "open protected" position) but two things seem to be changing that. First is the FBCB2 & Blue Force Tracker battlefield information systems and the commander's independent thermal viewer which now potentially monopolize the TC's attention inside the turret. Secondly were the large numbers of TC's killed or wounded by snipers/small arms fire in Iraq. The older M1 & M1A1 Abrams had provisions for firing the .50 cal while buttoned up. The M1A2 eliminated that capability (to make room for the CITV I believe) and went back to the old school pintle mounted .50 cal that the TC had to be fully exposed to fire. The TUSK upgrade restored the ability to fire the .50 cal buttoned up by adding a remote weapons station similar to the one mounted on HMMWV and Strykers. The RSW can mount a M240, M2 .50 or MK19 AGL - but as far as I can tell, the .50 cal is what is typically mounted on the M1A2 TUSK (MK19 have fallen out of favor in Iraq due to close engagement ranges and collateral damage issues). Apparently TUSK can also include a 2nd .50 call mounted externally on top of the main gun barrel near the mantlet, electrically fired and bore sighted to gunner's primary sight - similar to what the Israelis have done in the past.

I like the idea of a MK19 or similar weapon for the TC as it gives the tank additional capabilities beyond what the other weapon systems provide. An AGL can cover dead space, reach out to 2200 meters, and would be highly effective in suppressing ATGM or RPG teams. Using a newer AGL, like the MK47 Mod 0 allows the firing of programmable air burst grenades with increased lethality. The M430A1 40x53mm HEDP grenade can penetrate 76mm of armor plate, giving the TC a good secondary light anti-armor capability. GD has developed the M1001 40x53mm Canister grenade which fires 115 17gr. flechettes out to 100m giving the TC excellent close in defense capability. There is potential for less-than lethal rounds as well, which could be useful in LIC. Ideally a 40mm AGL with dual feed capability could be developed, allowing the TC to select between 2 types of ammo. In cases where the AGL is inappropriate a .50cal or M240 could be substituted.

I share your concern about excessively tailoring our forces for LIC (or even for a specific theater). The MRAP program is a good example - hundreds of million dollars to purchase these vehicles, which were great for Iraq, but are proving to be too big and heavy for Afghanistan, and wouldn't last 30 seconds in a HIC environment. Politics has forced the US into an obsession with force protection, even to the detriment of combat capability and of cost.

The idea that no casualties are considered acceptable is patently ridiculous, and such a cautious attitude is bound to get us in trouble down the line.

Can you imagine, in this day and age with modern 24 hour media and political attitudes trying to carry out an operation like Overlord in WW2? From June 6th to the end of August the allies sustained 36,976 killed, 153,475 wounded and 19,221 missing. Can you even fathom any western government today surviving after losses like that? People would be rioting in the streets.

Adrian


Since you have professional experience I will defer to your expert opinion. By the thread title the first thought I had was that the 7.62 seemed oddly inadequate for a modern MBT for the very reasons you pointed out. In fact, I never could understand why they didn't put Ma in their to begin with. As for the TC, I'd be shocked if they even considered anything that wasn't standard conventional ala the 50 cal. I always thought the TC was unbuttoned most of the time for better situational awarness, in which case the existing weapon seems to be appropriate however, this may be passe for many years, I honestly don't know. If that's not the case, a remote weapon makes sense but wouldn't it be more practical to stick with a 50 cal?

Also and again, I'm not a tread head but.... I wonder in relation to our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan if we aren't trying to taylor our forces a little too much for LIC which would be a huge mistake, in my opinion. We should be able to switch between LIC and HIC but we never seem to get the funds for both, it's always an either - or proposition.

[Waylander]

I have to say that I like a 7.62mm as a coax.

You can just carry alot more 7.62mm ammo. Carrying 12.7mm or even something like a 20mm (The french tried that with their AMX-30 but got rid of it fairly early) would reduce your ammo under what I would consider necessary for a MBT.
In the end often enough one wants to put as meany metal into the air as possible and thus a GPMG is the better choice.
If one really wants to be able to touch a group of soldiers at a longer distance new ammunition is the way to go.
The US is awfully slow in adopting new 120mm ammunition especially when one thinks about how they are engaged in Iraq.
What do they have? For most of the time they just had a glorified HEAT (MPAT) and than the canister was added.
Not what I would call a well rounded ammo combination.
There are many many more 120mm smoothbore solutions out there which would enhance the ability of the Abrams to engage enemy crunchies.
We have a simple but working HE from Sweden.
France has their HE-T Mk.II with a more sophisticated fuse.
The Israeli APAM and the German DM-11 are the most sophisticated 120mm HEs out there with aeverything one wants from a HE (quick fuse, delay fuse, airburst).
Also PELE is available. A KE which generates alot of shrapnell after penetration and is ideal for attacking men in rooms without to much danger for civilians nearby.

IMO one should go on using a GPMG as the coax but as you said one should also add an independent weapons station which can be used by both loader and tc.
Most weapons sations these days are able to take either a GPMG, .50cal or a AGL so what one puts onto it is what one prefers.

And compared to many other weapons (LGBs, JDAMs, ATGMs,...) which are used to blow away mud compounds and houses these days a 120mm is still very cheap.

[Firn]

First of all I want to state that the ex-tankers here certainly know better than me in this area.

Nevertheless I collected a wealth of information in the thread about the 120mm mortar as indirect and direct firesupport on armored AFV. In one of those papers it was interesting that during the initial fights in urban areas of Iraq in the third Gulf war the .50 was reported to be potentially more prone to cause collateral damage than the 120mm HEAT because it was overpenetrating so much. The Heat annihilated pretty much everything in the targeted room but was more localized.

Said that I believe that a GPMG should probably be the standard companion of the 120mm, perhaps with the option to externally mount an coaxial .50 like sgtgunn mentioned. However first of all a wide array of ammunition should be available for the main gun. Waylander already gave a good insight into possible choices. Perhaps a HESH round could be another interesting option.

I like the idea of a MK19 or similar weapon for the TC as it gives the tank additional capabilities beyond what the other weapon systems provide. An AGL can cover dead space, reach out to 2200 meters, and would be highly effective in suppressing ATGM or RPG teams. Using a newer AGL, like the MK47 Mod 0 allows the firing of programmable air burst grenades with increased lethality. The M430A1 40x53mm HEDP grenade can penetrate 76mm of armor plate, giving the TC a good secondary light anti-armor capability. GD has developed the M1001 40x53mm Canister grenade which fires 115 17gr. flechettes out to 100m giving the TC excellent close in defense capability. There is potential for less-than lethal rounds as well, which could be useful in LIC. Ideally a 40mm AGL with dual feed capability could be developed, allowing the TC to select between 2 types of ammo. In cases where the AGL is inappropriate a .50cal or M240 could be substituted.

I fully agree. An dual feed AGL fitted on an RWS with high elevation and depression would be an amazing capability. Ideally the RWS should have beside the a heavy weapon station (HMG, AGL) alway an coaxial GMPG with a lot of ammunition. This should only be slightly more expansive than a single heavy WS on the RWS but allow the crew (TC, loader) to tailor the response to the thread and retain the ability to suppress the enemy far longer.

[Waylander]

I don't see huge benefits a HESH gives compared to a modern HE-FRAG with several different modes.
It's more the other way around.
A HESH is usefull if you want to have something that gives a good bang on impact but a modern HE is much more versatile.
The capability of getting an airburst or delay fuse is IMHO much better than a simple HESH.

[Chino]

double

[Chino]

I was a former rifleman conscript/reservist. Here's my 2 cents...

MBT should never be unsupported by other AFVs as well as mounted or dismounted infantry.

The other AFVs could be wheeled or tracked IFV etc and these would have the 20 - 30mm armament. Therefore it is unnecessary for the MBT, with such limited space for the weapon and its ammo, to mount such a weapon.

Regarding the 40mm AGL as TC/cupola mount: I again prefer the commonly found .5. Using SLAP, incendiary or ball, they can cover a great deal of roles they don't need the main gun for. The CIS50 is the best choice vs the obsolete M2HB as it can load two kinds of ammo at once, and switch between the 2 different types with a flick of the switch.

Also, for close in defence, an MG for the TC is still best. If there are enemy infantry within meters of the tank, the TC can spray them with his MG whether 7.62 or .5.

A 40mm round has a minimum arming distance of at least 20m, which means in the situation mentioned above, the TC cannot use the mounted 40mm and will have to fight them off with his personal weapon.

If you really need the tank to have arc-trajectory explosive weapon, you can simply give the TC a handheld GL, either a single shot or a revolver multi-shot. There's no rule to say that every weapon on a tank has to be mounted. And even a revolver GL is very compact. And handheld GLs are etremely easy to use and almost maintenance free.

The IDF, for example, has 60mm mortars mounted for the TC though I am not extremely certain what ammo they carry. (Could be just illum?)

In SAF several types of supporting IFV (including soft-skinned) already mount the 40mm, so again, no real need for the MBT to.

[Waylander]

Giving the TC a mounted weapon at all is kind of a question of philosophy.
In germany for example the TC has not mounted MG at all, only the loader has his GPMG.
The TC should concentrate on commanding the tank.
And the loader is also the one who is going to get a weapons station.
One has to remember that every additional weapon and system on the roof of a tank restricts the TC's ability to use his independent TI and also restricts the viewfield when buttoned up.

In the end I would propose the following.
For many tanks there are special urban ops kits available these days. Secondary armament can be just as modular.

If a tank is requested to go into an urban area to support the infantry there or to perform some kind of thunder run against low skill/tech opponents one can mount additional weaponry.
The modern weapons stations are already modular so if one puts a .50cal, a AGL or a GPMG onto them is up to what I think is usefull and what is available.
Give the TC the ability to mount a GPMG with a modern gunshield and put an additional .50cal onto the main gun like on the TUSK or some Israeli tanks.
Add to that the additional protection kit and one has a fine urban support tanks without much additional burden to your armed forces.

Such a vehicle would have something like 2x GPMGs, 2x .50cal, 1x 120mm and the personal weaponry of the crew.
A reasonable all around protection againest handheld AT weapons and 3-4x TIs for the crew add alot combat capabilities, too.

If you are doing traditional field work one just strips the tank of some or all of the modular stuff.
I for one wouldn't want to replace the 7.62mm coax wit something else.
I don't know about the M240 of the Abrams but the MG3 coupled to the FCS of the Leo II is reasonably accurate at upt to 1 klick and with it's high rate of fire is also abe to surpress enemy dismounts at even longer range.
And I wouldn't call sending a 120mm airburst to an enemy squad some 3 klicks away a waste.
And I doubt that one can supress enemy ATGM teams very good at longer distances with a 40mm AGL. 120mm HE is the way to go then. And at closer range a 1200rpm GPMG brings alot of lead into the air to surpress enemy teams.

[Firn]

To come back to the AGL


I like the idea of a MK19 or similar weapon for the TC as it gives the tank additional capabilities beyond what the other weapon systems provide. An AGL can cover dead space, reach out to 2200 meters, and would be highly effective in suppressing ATGM or RPG teams. Using a newer AGL, like the MK47 Mod 0 allows the firing of programmable air burst grenades with increased lethality. The M430A1 40x53mm HEDP grenade can penetrate 76mm of armor plate, giving the TC a good secondary light anti-armor capability. GD has developed the M1001 40x53mm Canister grenade which fires 115 17gr. flechettes out to 100m giving the TC excellent close in defense capability. There is potential for less-than lethal rounds as well, which could be useful in LIC. Ideally a 40mm AGL with dual feed capability could be developed, allowing the TC to select between 2 types of ammo. In cases where the AGL is inappropriate a .50cal or M240 could be substituted.

With a high elevation and the relative low charge of the 40x53 grenades the AGL can function as a kind of small mortar. With a simple integrated FCS coupled with a laser range finder and good sights it should be easily able to fullfill a similar function with great speed and good accuracy. So it offers a unique set of capabilities. Once again a light coaxial should round the package off.

Giving the TC a mounted weapon at all is kind of a question of philosophy. In germany for example the TC has not mounted MG at all, only the loader has his GPMG. The TC should concentrate on commanding the tank.

And the loader is also the one who is going to get a weapons station.
One has to remember that every additional weapon and system on the roof of a tank restricts the TC's ability to use his independent TI and also restricts the viewfield when buttoned up.

Given that at least one RWS is now pretty much the standard on almost all new AFV I fancy that the "loader" remains a very important part of the team. The TC, the gunner and the driver are able to focus on his core competences with the loader given helping help not only during combat.

I don't see huge benefits a HESH gives compared to a modern HE-FRAG with several different modes.
It's more the other way around.

A HESH is usefull if you want to have something that gives a good bang on impact but a modern HE is much more versatile.
The capability of getting an airburst or delay fuse is IMHO much better than a simple HESH.

There is no doubt that overall a modern HE-FRAG has greater versatility. The HESH does some things best, but the amount of ammunition is of course limited.

[Vajt]

How about redesigning the smoke launchers a bit so that they can have limited movement (like a mini turret) to be able to also launch HE grenades and not just smoke. If you combine that with the Metalstorm concept (specially for the capability to line a row of rounds per tube) you could have a few tubes with smoke rounds and some with HE rounds.

-----JT-----

[kato]

It's cheaper to just mount something like SKWA (http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/puma16.jpg) for that purpose. Either a movable version like this one on the Puma, or a simple "turret ring" Rheinmetall also offers. In addition to the smoke grenade launchers that is.

[eckherl]

Geez,

Do we not have enough crew served weapons bristling on current U.S tanks. I have never been a big fan on going to a larger gunners coax mg, the M2 for a TC provides sufficient protection against a wide variety of secondary targets. A gunners coax mg`s primary duty is to not kill with pin point accuracy but to suppress the threat area, with this in mind it needs lots of ammo to perform that mission, more than what a 50 cal or larger weapons system could provide.

With all this said I would like the U.S to go back to the M85 due to a higher rate of fire over the M2, you can use the same TC`s mounting systems that are currently on all M1 series tanks, you can also use the M249 coax mg in the event of a emergency for those out there that was not aware of this fact.

TC 50 cal - secondary targets, area suppression be it air or ground.
Gun mount Tusk upgrade 50 cal - Sniping or suppression.
Gunners coax - area suppression, light skinned vehicles.
Loaders mg - area suppression, light skinned vehicles.
Big boom stick - cannister round and a variety of new Heat projectiles.

I think that the U.S has the secondary armament factor covered on their tanks.

[Vajt]

It's cheaper to just mount something like SKWA (http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/puma16.jpg) for that purpose. Either a movable version like this one on the Puma, or a simple "turret ring" Rheinmetall also offers. In addition to the smoke grenade launchers that is.

That also works!

-----JT-----

[kato]

I think that the U.S has the secondary armament factor covered on their tanks.
True, it's more like one could consider starting to reduce secondary armament.
For example, one could replace all those secondary guns on the top of the turret with a single cupola - say a .50cal/7.62mm coax mount, stabilized, aiming software tied into tank FCS, perhaps a linkless feed system going to below armour.

[Firn]

True, it's more like one could consider starting to reduce secondary armament.
For example, one could replace all those secondary guns on the top of the turret with a single cupola - say a .50cal/7.62mm coax mount, stabilized, aiming software tied into tank FCS, perhaps a linkless feed system going to below armour.

That is what I wrote or wanted to say in the posts above, with an AGL instead of the .50. But they are of course interchangable.

With good optics the loader and the gunner can thus focus on the observation of the environment, the TC on commanding and whatever he needs to do and the driver on driving.

[Lopex]

That is what I wrote or wanted to say in the posts above, with an AGL instead of the .50. But they are of course interchangable.

With good optics the loader and the gunner can thus focus on the observation of the environment, the TC on commanding and whatever he needs to do and the driver on driving.

The AGL would not be interchangeable as a coax to the main armament with any MG because of the often low elevation limits. As mentioned in an earlier post the coax MG is for suppression and has a high rate of fire to compensate for the often poor accuracy, The FCC is only ever programmed for the various armament rounds. The coax is a spray pray and adjust affair. Major adjustments and calculations on the FCC would be needed and the wind information would go out of the window when firing a AGL round up in the air.

[Firn]

The AGL would not be interchangeable as a coax to the main armament with any MG because of the often low elevation limits. As mentioned in an earlier post the coax MG is for suppression and has a high rate of fire to compensate for the often poor accuracy, The FCC is only ever programmed for the various armament rounds. The coax is a spray pray and adjust affair. Major adjustments and calculations on the FCC would be needed and the wind information would go out of the window when firing a AGL round up in the air.

I think you followed the discussion not too carefully. Kato talked about the secundary armament in top of the turret, in short of an RWS with two coaxial weapons, one heavy, one medium.;)

Other than I mostly agree.

[Waylander]

The coax is a spray and pray affair?
A GPMG coupled to the FCS of a modern MBT is much more accurate than any other GPMG out there be it employed on bi- or tripod.
A good gunner brings at least the second burst right onto the target at up to 1 klick and more and that within no time after lasing the target.

The rebells in A-stan had to find this out the hard way when they encountered Canadian and Danish Leos in the field.

Firn already mentioned the other thing.

[Lopex]

The coax is a spray and pray affair?
A GPMG coupled to the FCS of a modern MBT is much more accurate than any other GPMG out there be it employed on bi- or tripod.
A good gunner brings at least the second burst right onto the target at up to 1 klick and more and that within no time after lasing the target.

The rebells in A-stan had to find this out the hard way when they encountered Canadian and Danish Leos in the field.

Firn already mentioned the other thing.

I can only call it as I have seen it on the CR2. The coax was never even bore sighted. This was the reason a tank commander was killed by friendly in Iraq. The first shot can be so far off with the cross hair on the target its scary. Like you say a good gunner will correct but its its never bore sighted what chance do you have?

[Firn]

As far as I recall Waylander served on a Leopard II.

Can you give a source on that friendly fire casuality?

Thanks

[citizen578]

As far as I recall Waylander served on a Leopard II.

Can you give a source on that friendly fire casuality?

Thanks

Unless he's talking about some top-secret affair, the blue-blue in question was when a CR2 was engaged with two DU main gun rounds, the first of which was shrugged off, the second entering through the open commander's hatch.

As I recall it was due to one CR2 (from 2RTR) mistaking another (from QRL) for an enemy flanking maneouver, while using thermals.

I'm not aware of any Chally crewmemeber being killed by small arms, tank mounted or otherwise.

[Lopex]

As far as I recall Waylander served on a Leopard II.

Can you give a source on that friendly fire casuality?

Thanks

Its only from a newspaper reporting the "Official Army Board of Inquiry" not the full document but if you search for L94

British soldier forced by shortages to give body armour to others | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-398483/British-soldier-forced-shortages-body-armour-others.html)

also L94A1 chain gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L94A1)

They both mention that its a problem at less than 200m with the gun shooting left which makes sense because its on the left of the main gun.

All I can say is that I have watched this weapon fire thousands of times through the screen of the gunner or commander and it never hits in the cross hairs. Again I will tell you its not bore sighted with the rest of the system.

[Waylander]

Strange.
On the Leo II if you get a good and accurate laser echo the MG3 is pretty accurate even with the first burst. Getting an accurate laser response from dismounts is the real trick as that is sometimes not that easy.

But I have to admit that we seldomely used the coax at these short distances.

BTW, the other friendly fire incident occured with HESH and not with DU.

[sgtgunn]

The AGL would not be interchangeable as a coax to the main armament with any MG because of the often low elevation limits. As mentioned in an earlier post the coax MG is for suppression and has a high rate of fire to compensate for the often poor accuracy, The FCC is only ever programmed for the various armament rounds. The coax is a spray pray and adjust affair. Major adjustments and calculations on the FCC would be needed and the wind information would go out of the window when firing a AGL round up in the air.

Well at least on the M1 platform, the coax is NOT a "spray and pray" affair. The M240C coupled with the M1 FCS is frighteningly accurate. At ranges between 600-800m I have knocked down troop targets, at night and on the move with the first burst. While I have never gunned an M1A2 SEP, I would imagine the new GPS/TIS with 50x magnification makes using the coax like a full-auto sniper rifle even easier.

Adrian

[eckherl]

True, it's more like one could consider starting to reduce secondary armament.
For example, one could replace all those secondary guns on the top of the turret with a single cupola - say a .50cal/7.62mm coax mount, stabilized, aiming software tied into tank FCS, perhaps a linkless feed system going to below armour.

We could in fact see a more dual purpose RCWS mounted on the M1 series in the near future with minimal modifications to the soft ware.

[eckherl]

Unless he's talking about some top-secret affair, the blue-blue in question was when a CR2 was engaged with two DU main gun rounds, the first of which was shrugged off, the second entering through the open commander's hatch.

As I recall it was due to one CR2 (from 2RTR) mistaking another (from QRL) for an enemy flanking maneouver, while using thermals.

I'm not aware of any Chally crewmemeber being killed by small arms, tank mounted or otherwise.

They were not DU rounds, rounds fired in the fracticide incident were HESH.

[eckherl]

I have to agree with both Waylander and sgtgunn, the coaxal M240 on the M1 series is very accurate out to 800 meters, anything beyond that though you are the mercy of tracer and dirt kick up.

[Firn]

Well at least on the M1 platform, the coax is NOT a "spray and pray" affair. The M240C coupled with the M1 FCS is frighteningly accurate. At ranges between 600-800m I have knocked down troop targets, at night and on the move with the first burst. While I have never gunned an M1A2 SEP, I would imagine the new GPS/TIS with 50x magnification makes using the coax like a full-auto sniper rifle even easier.

Adrian

This is interesting as I advocated here already a larger magnification on weapon sights after having had the pleasure of handling excellent(15x-45/20x-60x) spotting scopes. I also remember to have read that Norvegian units in Afghanistan used sandbagged and stablized MG3s handled by an experienced gunner coupled with spotters/rangefinders with good results against single targets at over 2 km. The more variables you take away the lesser the amount of bullets you have to spend when you shoot to kill.

Overall it seems that many members of the opposing forces often greatly underestimate the distances from which the members of NATO can detect, identify and kill.

[eckherl]

What the hell, i finally have some time to kill,

You guys do realize that the reason why the M1 series coax is so accurate to 800 meters is do in fact that we actually zero it out through the gunners GPS (gunners primary sight) at a range of 800 meters, again any thing beyond that is for suppressive fires due to tracer burn out at 900 meters.

[carman1877]

I would think that a .50 might be a little to big for co-ax, don't know about inside a tank but like an Abrams I could imagine that its tight so it might not fit next to the gun, but if it did then I think that they would try it, but look at the TUSK some crews mounted a .50 on the outer barrel of the 120mm. By the way don't know if someone posted this but the original M1 Abrams had a remote controlled .50 but in the M1A2 they thought it was not needed becuase of the co-ax i guess, I think that was a mistake. I bet they had their reasons though. Could they mount a 20mm chain gun in the co-ax position in an Abrams? becuase the German Maus super tank of WW2 had a 150mm main (I think), and a 75mm co-ax.

[kay_man]

how about the a .30 minigun
it can shred anything from infantry to helicopters!!!!
if it can fit in a black hawk why not on a tank.

[Waylander]

Compared to the GPMGs and other coaxs used on MBTs such a minigun is huge.
Add to that the extraordinary hunger for ammo and one can see why such a weapon is not suitable as a coax for MBTs.

For helicopters it might be usefull as it puts alot of rounds onto the target area which improves the chance of hitting something from such a difficult firing platform.
The coax of a MBT is coupled to the FCS and doesn't need this help.

For anti-helicopter work a modern MBT uses it's main gun.

[Lopex]

One of the main reasons that the co-ax is a 5.56mm on the CR2 is that is can be used to hose down friendly armored vehicles that are being attacked by enemy dismounted infantry.
The sights and tracks can take the hits from the 5.56mm but would be ripped apart by a BMG or even a 7.62mm.
This is the reason in the British army that the co-ax on all the armored vehicle is a 5.56mm. I cannot comment on other armies but the idea dates back to WW1 and the dawn of tank warfare.

[Waylander]

Sorry, but Challenger 1 & 2, Warrior, Scorpion and FV430 all carry only 7,62mm machine guns be it as a coax or in a pintle mount.

And tracks aren't going to be impressed by either 5,56mm or 7,62mm while optics are going to have problems with both calibres.
Many optics aren't featuring very thick bullet proof glass and even when they aren't destroyed completely some non-penetrating hits are going to ruin them anyway.

[kato]

France pushed the Big Coax idea to the max for modern tanks - with that 20mm on the AMX-30 replacing the 12.7mm HMG in the same position in earlier versions. However, much like in other similarly "dual armed" AFVs *cough*BMP-3*cough*, this gun isn't a mere coaxial weapon any more - it features an independent far higher angle of elevation, and is intended for limited anti-aircraft duty.

How much worth the French put in the concept can be seen from the fact that the Leclerc only uses a .50cal HMG as coaxial weapon, and it's only a point-main-gun-and-spray weapon any more.

[eckherl]

I would think that a .50 might be a little to big for co-ax, don't know about inside a tank but like an Abrams I could imagine that its tight so it might not fit next to the gun, but if it did then I think that they would try it, but look at the TUSK some crews mounted a .50 on the outer barrel of the 120mm. By the way don't know if someone posted this but the original M1 Abrams had a remote controlled .50 but in the M1A2 they thought it was not needed becuase of the co-ax i guess, I think that was a mistake. I bet they had their reasons though. Could they mount a 20mm chain gun in the co-ax position in an Abrams? becuase the German Maus super tank of WW2 had a 150mm main (I think), and a 75mm co-ax.

We always have had the capability to mount a 50 cal on the maingun mantlet on a M1 series or M-60 series tank, this setup was actually used as a sub caliber device for gunnery firing tables, also to explode the myth that we took this idea from the IDF, it is actually the IDF who got it from us, they just started using it first as a long range sniper.

Think about your coax purpose overall, what will be its primary duties, 8 out of 10 times it will be used for infantry support, would you rather carry approx amount of:

20 mm at 140 projectiles
50 cal at 1100 projectiles
7.62 mm at over 4500 projectiles

I think that you will find with ease in fixing stoppages, reloading tasks and sustained fire that the 7.62mm is the way to go.

[kato]

The French somehow did manage to squeeze 50 x 105mm, 470x 20mm and 2050x 7.62mm into the AMX-30 - and then 47x 105mm, 1050x 20mm and 2050x 7.62mm in the AMX-30B2... though i have no idea how tight it is in there.

[eckherl]

The French somehow did manage to squeeze 50 x 105mm, 470x 20mm and 2050x 7.62mm into the AMX-30 - and then 47x 105mm, 1050x 20mm and 2050x 7.62mm in the AMX-30B2... though i have no idea how tight it is in there.

Right, the B2 series loses 3 rounds due to new sabot projectiles that caused reconfiguration of the ammo bins. But also I believe that they lost the capability to have all 480 20mm rounds linked together and settled for around 140 rounds at the *ready* due to space issues caused by turret FCS and other vehicle improvements over plain jane AMX-30. This vehicle had to be very cramped especially the newer series, main gun projectiles in the turret bustle, front hull and 20mm beside you and underneath you. I would hate to have a stoppage with such a large caliber, I only know too well what it was like when this occured with a M2, or even changing out a hot barrel, time consuming and you need some wiggle room, this would bite big time having to perform these tasks while inside of a tank turret.

[joeroot]

Right, the B2 series loses 3 rounds due to new sabot projectiles that caused reconfiguration of the ammo bins. But also I believe that they lost the capability to have all 480 20mm rounds linked together and settled for around 140 rounds at the *ready* due to space issues caused by turret FCS and other vehicle improvements over plain jane AMX-30. This vehicle had to be very cramped especially the newer series, main gun projectiles in the turret bustle, front hull and 20mm beside you and underneath you. I would hate to have a stoppage with such a large caliber, I only know too well what it was like when this occured with a M2, or even changing out a hot barrel, time consuming and you need some wiggle room, this would bite big time having to perform these tasks while inside of a tank turret.

hey quick question i know how the bigger the vehicle the stronger the motor must be and the greater the armor must be but cant we make an engine big enough and an armor thick enough to hold a crew of 6 and have either a stationary for artilery or mobile for movement tank turret and still have moving space and granted it would be mammoth size but couldnt it help a lil or am i just thinking of an idiotic idea

[Waylander]

Huh?
Do I get it right and you want to combine a tank turret and the turret of a self propelled howitzer in one chassis?
That's not going to be big monstrous.
And what would you gain from it?
What makes the MBT an effective weapon system is it's combination of firepower, protection and MOBILITY.
Such a vehicle would be big (easier to hit), less armored and slower.

I also don't even remotely understand why you want to combine a MBT and a SPH in one chassis.
Both have very different missions and can only fullfill them if they are seperated. Or how do you give fire support with the howitzer while you are engaged in mechanized combat?

Where do you get these ideas from? :confused: ;)

[Firn]

Where do you get these ideas from? :confused: ;)

Perhaps by reading in my little thread where I point out that a MMBT (Main Mortar Battle Tank) might be an useful fire support asset for armored and mechanized formations ;)

One should also keep in mind that during the Korean war (IRRC) and the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan MBTs were used in the indirect fire role, sometimes shooting from specially prepared ramparts. But of course Waylander is overall quite right.

[Waylander]

There is a "little" difference between an AMOS like self propelled mortar on a MBT/IFV chassis and a 120 ton beast with the turret of a Leopard II and a PzH2000. ;)

The Sovjets also emphasized the direct fire support role of artillery. Their doctrine at least included the iea of self propelled artillery giving direct fire support during some situations while the west usually refers to direct fire as a mere way of self protection even though it might happen.

IIRC a battery of M109s destroyed a couple of Iraqi AFVs with direct fire during OIF when they accidently stumbled upon them en route to a new firing position.

Note that I really like the concept of modern self propelled mortars and IMO only the price tag keeps them from a wider instruction in several armies.

[Firn]

IIRC the Israelis started to greatly enhance the training time for rapid direct fire against moving and static targets after the Yon Kippur war, where the Syrian assault swept also over part of their in-duty M109. It seems to have payed of in the 82' Lebanon campaign, but of course the situation was a bit different. I posted the article somewhere here...

It seems that the Soviet way was both a result from lessons learned in WWII and a cumbersome but highly efficient way of organizing artillery support. The organic and responsive direct fire mitigated (or should have) the downsides of their system of the indirect fire support.

Personally I think doctrine is very right to state that self-propelled howitzer should usually operate 10-15km behind the frontline, but as war is chaotic one can never know what might happen. But there is no place for a PzH Leopard II. ;)

[tatra]

Hi,

Just curious on people's thoughts regarding secondary armament on MBTs.

As a former US Army tank crewman (and gunner) I would have loved to have a heavier caliber coaxial MG than the 7.62mm M240. Something that would have allowed me to make better use of the tank's sights and FCS for long range shooting, and would have had the ability to defeat light armor and soft skin vehicles as well.

IMHO a co-axial .50cal would be ideal - either a Browning M3 (M2 with higher ROF) or a GAU-19/A GECAL 50. The .50cal SLAP-T round can defeat 34mm of armor at 500m which would make the weapon useful against light armored vehicles - no need to waste a 120mm main gun round. A .50cal coax with a high rate of fire would also be very useful in dealing with built up terrain - a GAU-19/A spitting out 2000 rpm could demolish most hard cover in short order. Plus the psychological effects of such a weapon would be substantial. As I understand it when the XM1 was being developed, one of the proposals for secondary armament (advanced by US Army tank crewman with combat experience in Vietnam) was TWO M2 .50 cal machineguns - one on either side of the main gun, which would fire simultaneously. Later it was changed to mounting a the Bushmaster M242 25mm chaingun on one side of the maingun, and the M240C 7.62mm MG on the other. This was deleted becuase of cost.

I'd also like to see the commanders M2 .50cal replaced by a remote (like on the M1A2 TUSK) weapon station with either a 40mm AGL with airburst capability or the new 25mm OICWS. Having MGs for air defense on MBTs these days seems a bit anachronistic - I think having an AGL to be able to rapidly supress ATGM or RPG teams would be better.

Any thoughts?

Adrian

I'ld like to see a coaxial cannon. Original Britich Centurion has a coaxial 20mm Polsten cannonSwiss Pz61 and early Pz68 had a coaxial 20mm cannon, as did French AMX-30, AMX-32 and AMX-40. Leopard 2 prototype 11 had a remote controlled 20mm cannon on the turret roof. Czech firm offers a T-72 modernization package (Moderna), including either two Oerlikon Contraves 20 mm KAA-001 cannon mounted externally one either side of the turret or a 30 mm 2A42' cannon on right side of turret only.

On the turret roof perhaps something like a 30mm ASP instead of a Browning .50? And what about the 60mm mortar adopted by Israelis for Merkava and M-60 upgrades? That can have many use, from suppression to illumination to smokelaying.

[kato]

Leopard 2 prototype 11 had a remote controlled 20mm cannon on the turret roof.
It was turret 11, not prototype 11. And the system was so cumbersome and problematic that it didn't make it into any of the other 20 prototype turrets. Turret 14 was the first one implementing lessons from the Yom Kippur war btw. All 16 pre-AV prototype turrets also fielded a crew-operated single-shot grenade launcher similar to the 60mm mortar on the Merkava that didn't make it into the final model as well (wasn't mounted on the AV turrets 18-21).

30mm ASP? Why would you want to use a cannon whose HE performance is pretty much the same as a 40mm Mk19, and shows at best equal penetration performance against cover as a .50 HMG ... except at twice the weight and size of either, well over twice the recoil forces, and a bit over half the cadence of even the AGL? And that's apart from the fact that ASP itself is dead - they're trying to revive it as M230-LF now...

[eckherl]

It is official,

M1A2SEP will be getting CROWS 2 as a future upgrade, 50 cal will stay with system. General Dynamics is responsible for this project and there is a good chance that this system will also be mounted on Saudi M1A2s.

[Waylander]

I am not sure that I understand this.
Does the M1A2SEP gets CROWS 2 while the TC's .50 cal remaisn on the turret, too?
Or do they remove the TC's .50cal completely while a .50cal is going to be carried by the CROWS 2?

[eckherl]

I am not sure that I understand this.
Does the M1A2SEP gets CROWS 2 while the TC's .50 cal remaisn on the turret, too?
Or do they remove the TC's .50cal completely while a .50cal is going to be carried by the CROWS 2?

Tank Commanders 50 cal will go bye bye. Two versions may be going thru testing, one with TC 50 cal replacement and another with two weapons systems, 50 cal and 7.62, the latter may be seen on a future block version when auto loader is installed.

[Waylander]

Thanks for the info. :)

[joeroot]

Huh?
Do I get it right and you want to combine a tank turret and the turret of a self propelled howitzer in one chassis?
That's not going to be big monstrous.
And what would you gain from it?
What makes the MBT an effective weapon system is it's combination of firepower, protection and MOBILITY.
Such a vehicle would be big (easier to hit), less armored and slower.

I also don't even remotely understand why you want to combine a MBT and a SPH in one chassis.
Both have very different missions and can only fullfill them if they are seperated. Or how do you give fire support with the howitzer while you are engaged in mechanized combat?

Where do you get these ideas from? :confused: ;)

no i want to put a command vehicle with a crew of 6 put tracks on it and thicken the armore and mount a 7mm cannon on top for defence purposes or instead of the turret being a cannon but a mortat turret

[Firn]

Tank Commanders 50 cal will go bye bye. Two versions may be going thru testing, one with TC 50 cal replacement and another with two weapons systems, 50 cal and 7.62, the latter may be seen on a future block version when auto loader is installed.

I'm quite intrigued by the two weapon system, as I advocated it before. A small arm with lots of ammunition widens the options for the TC and should allow for more enduring suppressive fire. I wonder if a 40 mm GMG can be mounted instead of the .50 cal. It should complement it well when used on one part of the platoon's MBTs.

[Firn]

no i want to put a command vehicle with a crew of 6 put tracks on it and thicken the armore and mount a 7mm cannon on top for defence purposes or instead of the turret being a cannon but a mortat turret

Well the MBT has already tracks and thanks to the heavy armor it weights already 70+ tons. Switching the 120mm gun for a mortar won't lighten it much, as I guess that part of the turret must be adjusted to allow for the high elevation. A 70? mm cannon - if it exists - won't do any good as it won't be able to defeat MBTs and adds considerable bulk and trouble. For lesser vehicles direct HE/HEAT fire from a 120mm mortar should be threat enough.

A secundary armament like the Crow 2 with two weapon stations seems to me equally well suited for such a vehicle. The new Terrex APC of the army of Singapore has a very similar system.

[eckherl]

I'm quite intrigued by the two weapon system, as I advocated it before. A small arm with lots of ammunition widens the options for the TC and should allow for more enduring suppressive fire. I wonder a 40 GMG can be mounted instead of the .50 cal. It should complement it well when used on one part of the platoon's MBTs.

You may think that I am crazy for stating this, but if and when we decide to go the robotics route then I can see this as being a possibility.

[tatra]

It was turret 11, not prototype 11.
So what. Totally irrelevant.

And the system was so cumbersome and problematic that it didn't make it into any of the other 20 prototype turrets.
Did I suggest to use that particular implementation? I think the point is more what are possible locations for heavier secundary armaments.

Turret 14 was the first one implementing lessons from the Yom Kippur war btw. All 16 pre-AV prototype turrets also fielded a crew-operated single-shot grenade launcher similar to the 60mm mortar on the Merkava that didn't make it into the final model as well (wasn't mounted on the AV turrets 18-21).
Of course, this was before the advent of the Merkava and it demonstrating in combat the usefullness of the 60mm turret mortar.

30mm ASP? Why would you want to use a cannon whose HE performance is pretty much the same as a 40mm Mk19, and shows at best equal penetration performance against cover as a .50 HMG ... except at twice the weight and size of either, well over twice the recoil forces, and a bit over half the cadence of even the AGL? And that's apart from the fact that ASP itself is dead - they're trying to revive it as M230-LF now...
Oh, I don't know, just for the heck of it? Maybe because of the very combination of characteristics your mention Meanwhile, if it is so dead, how come it is being attempted to revive it? Incidentally, how correct is that statement?

"Development of the 30 mm M230LF (Linked Feed) cannon began in October 1994. It is a derivative of the M230 Chain Gun usually encountered on AH-64 Apache ... There are two versions of the M230LF. Both feature a longer barrel than the original M230 (152 cm, rather than 107 cm), with a higher muzzle velocity (838 m/s rather than 800 m/s). The LF-1 is intended for use in heavy applications, such as armament for an Infantry Combat Vehicle (ICV). The LF-2 has hydraulic recoil dampers which, together with a longer recoil stroke, cut the peak recoil load from 1,360 kg to 750 kg to enable it to be fitted to light vehicles and small boats."
ATK M230LF 30 mm cannon (United States) - Jane's Infantry Weapons (http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Infantry-Weapons/ATK-M230LF-30-mm-cannon-United-States.html)

The ASP-30 with M789 hepd ammo penetrates light armor (http://www.geocities.com/STRATEGICMANEUVER/sld031n.htm)(50-60mm armor steel (http://www.geocities.com/STRATEGICMANEUVER/sld031o.htm), e.g. BMP 1/2) out to 4km and has far greater effects (http://www.geocities.com/STRATEGICMANEUVER/sld031p.htm)than .50.

[kato]

50-60mm RHA is the exact same performance as a 40x53 HEDP grenade - of course, since both contain virtually the same amount of explosives.

4 km out of a 838m/s projectile? Ballistic trajectory, sure. I can claim that a PzF3 has a range of 3.5 km too ;)

[tatra]

50-60mm RHA is the exact same performance as a 40x53 HEDP grenade - of course, since both contain virtually the same amount of explosives.

4 km out of a 838m/s projectile? Ballistic trajectory, sure. I can claim that a PzF3 has a range of 3.5 km too ;)

You said "a cannon whose HE performance is pretty much the same as a 40mm Mk19, and shows at best equal penetration performance against cover as a .50 HMG "

Lets - for the sake of argument - assume range is just 2.2km. Then the 30mm round still punches much harder than ma deuce i.e. a bigger hole and behind armor effect (you did see the images in that presentation, didn't you?).

While grenades fired from the Mk 19 AGL reach 2200 metres. In practical terms, however, this maximum range matters little for AGLs are usually tactically employed only up to about 1500 metres. Attempting to utilise the maximum possible ranges usually results in poor accuracy (or until recently at least) due to the still relatively low muzzle velocities involved. The case for high velocity, belt-fed grenades is 53 mm long (40 x 53 mm), containing more propellant and so producing a much higher muzzle velocity (from 240 to 242 m/s at the muzzle) to ensure the maximum range can be as much as 2200 metres.
Army Guide - Mk47 MOD 0 Striker40, Automatic grenade launcher (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3357.html)

-----------[edit]----------
ASP-30
Application. A multi-purpose combat support weapon system, designed to replace the 12.7x99mm (.50 caliber) M2HB heavy machine gun and the 40mm Mark 19 automatic grenade launcher on ground tactical vehicles.

The ASP-30 fires NATO-standard 30x113mm ADEN/DEFA ammunition, in all types.

Rate of fire: 400-450 rounds per minute
Effective range: 2,000 meters

Firing the M789 High Explosive Dual Purpose ammunition, the ASP-30 can effectively deal with BMP threat-level targets out to 2,000 meters (2,187.2 yards).

http://www.forecastinternational.com/Archive/or/vo0014.htm


.50" Browning, GAU-19/A, Barrett .5" etc
12.7 x 99 mm cartridge
20.3mm rim
API / 43 gram projectile
890 m/s velocity

Modern high-velocity automatic grenade
40 x 53SR mm cartridge
43.6mm rim
HE / 245 gram projectile
240 m/s velocity

Aden Mk 4, DEFA 30M550, M230 a/c
30 x 113B mm cartridge
33.3mm rim
HE / 270 gram projectile
800+ m/s velocity

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ammotables.htm

[Marc 1]

no i want to put a command vehicle with a crew of 6 put tracks on it and thicken the armore and mount a 7mm cannon on top for defence purposes or instead of the turret being a cannon but a mortat turret


Why? If it's a command vehicle, then surely it would have all the necessary gear to order an artillery bombardment if need be from a regiment/battery/section or platoon of guns/mortars/air support. If we are talking a true command vehicle for say a Brigadier, why would it need a 70mm gun for self protection? Surely it should be far enough forward to ensure the boss can be in control of the battle, without being INVOLVED in the battle. That's not a Brigadier's job.
There is a reason this mythical beast doesn't exist - it's not required.

[joeroot]

Why? If it's a command vehicle, then surely it would have all the necessary gear to order an artillery bombardment if need be from a regiment/battery/section or platoon of guns/mortars/air support. If we are talking a true command vehicle for say a Brigadier, why would it need a 70mm gun for self protection? Surely it should be far enough forward to ensure the boss can be in control of the battle, without being INVOLVED in the battle. That's not a Brigadier's job.
There is a reason this mythical beast doesn't exist - it's not required.

well it wasnt for a command vehicle but they made somthing similar to what i was talking about
the new warthog that the british have is true a transport vehicle but at the same time if you take some of the inside out and lengthen both the tracks and the body of the vehicle and put command tactical gear in it then it is almost but not quite what i was talking about

[Waylander]

Huh?
A Warthog is not even remotely comparable to what you described.

You talked about an enlarged MBT chassis with a 6 men crew and direct fire weapons as well as artillery capabilities.

A warthog on the other hand is a lightly armed and armored, tracked vehicle for heavy and difficult terrain.

That's as far away from each other as it gets...

[kato]

The Swedish UDES-XX-20 prototype tank destroyer was what he described in the last post. Except for the 6-man crew of course, as it had a rather complex autoloader (for 10 rpm firing) and a 3-man crew.

[OPSSG]

well it wasnt for a command vehicle but they made somthing similar to what i was talking about
the new warthog that the british have is true a transport vehicle but at the same time if you take some of the inside out and lengthen both the tracks and the body of the vehicle and put command tactical gear in it then it is almost but not quite what i was talking about

Huh?
A Warthog is not even remotely comparable to what you described.

You talked about an enlarged MBT chassis with a 6 men crew and direct fire weapons as well as artillery capabilities.

A warthog on the other hand is a lightly armed and armored, tracked vehicle for heavy and difficult terrain.

That's as far away from each other as it gets...

Joe, are you talking at cross purposes?

Waylander is very, very seldom wrong. I agree with him that compared to a MBT, the Warthog is a lightly armed and armored. BTW, the Warthog has a Gross Vehicle Weight of 19 tonnes. Singapore calls our version of the Warthog, 'Bronco' and we have quite a few variants in service.

Click here for the relevant DT pix thread (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-photos-videos/us-chief-army-gen-george-w-casey-jr-visits-singapore-9471/) (see post #11) for latest Warthog pix (The official ST Kinetics press release on the Warthog is here (http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=1446) and a UK News report here (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/warthog-tank-unveiled-in-bid-to-cut-afghanistan-deaths-1794950.html)). This vehicle was also discussed in the thread 'Made in Singapore Equipment (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/made-singapore-equipment-9285-3/)' (see posts #20 & #31) and in an older thread here (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/singapore-supply-armored-vehicles-u-k-andrew-chuter-defencenews-8459/).

The Warthog in British service will come in four variants - Troop Carrier, Ambulance, Command, and Repair & Recovery. The Command variant of the Warthog (has more communications gear and computers) is usually used by a lower level command. For example, I would expect that the battalion command level, the CO (usually a LTC) and his principal staff officers would use Warthog Command variants.

As Marc 1 said, a British Brigadier would not be usually be in the 'front' fighting and his HQ support staff will be much larger than at battalion level.

[bulan]

I like the idea of a light cannon, particularly the M230LF lw30mm, as secondary tank armament. Probably not as a coax but as remote weapon station atop the turret.

The M230LF has enough advantages compared to the .50cal (HE vs solid projectiles) and the AGL (>3X the muzzle velocity) to make it worthwhile. Recent RWS using the M230LF show it’s not too big that it would require much more than what's needed to mount a .50cal or AGL.

While it won’t be so easy reload the thing, the M230LF’s ammo box does carry 180 rounds. Compared to an AGL typically with 32-round belts, that would still be a lot less reloading. Something to add would probably be its own coax 7.62 MG (like Nexter’s ARX-20 RWS with both 20mm and 7.62) – which could be another reason to just keep the 7.62 coax to the main gun.

Light vehicles or APCs with an HMG or AGL RWS could probably also be up-gunned with such an M230LF + 7.62 RWS.