This is a discussion on M1A3 Abrams Upgrade? within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Cavalier1645
Hi,
Here's what I'd like to see....
M1A3:
New Main Gun - 140mm or 120mm L/55, ...
New Main Gun - 140mm or 120mm L/55, perhaps eventually an ET or EM gun. In addition to existing APFSDS-DU, HEAT-MP, canister and obsticle reducing rounds add a beyond LOS smart round and an airburtsing anti-personnel round (hi-tech version of old 105mm APERS).
I seriously doubt the US will adopt a 140mm or EM. The Germans experimented with a 140mm with their Leopard 2 KWS 3 project and found it slow and unnecessary. It unlikely any bigger gun will be introduce until the Chinese, Russian, any major nation etc, build something that requires a 140mm to penetrate it. And of course by then missile advocates will be justified on placing missiles on tanks (or making their gun missile capable).
Personally I am for a bigger gun. Missile despite their benefits will never replace a direct fire projectile. You cant jam essentially a huge bullet, and missile despite a wonderful improvements are never complete precise.
It is not justified to go to a bigger main gun, there is still plenty of life in the 120mm. ETC technology still has a few bugs that need to be worked out.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
Last edited by gf0012-aust; October 21st, 2011 at 06:50 PM.
Reason: layout fix
Because jets and big ships are sexy and generate more $ for congressional districts. Or maybe the USAF & USN just lobby better.
True
I also think it because some people in both DoD and the Administration has "bought" into the foolish notion that air power and naval power can exclusively win wars. In war you still have to hold ground, and ruling the sky and the sea is meaningless. The NVA and VC proved that to the US in Vietnam War and many low-tech insurgents are inflicting significant causalities on US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to this day. The DoD and administration need to learn from lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and improve the Us military overall, not in just one or two high profile branches.
In addition to existing APFSDS-DU, HEAT-MP, canister and obsticle reducing rounds add a beyond LOS smart round and an airburtsing anti-personnel round (hi-tech version of old 105mm APERS).
Better would be to combine the HEAT-MP and obstacle-reducing round into a single round with an added anti-air proximity fuse. The obstacle-reducing round was derived from the HEAT-MP. Then replace the canister and APERS into an AHEAD round. This reduces the number of different ammo types from 6 to 4, and makes it more likely you will have what you need on hand when you need it.
Not sure what you would want in a BLOS round GPS guidance? Laser? Millimeter radar?
Probably the first step would be to increase the maximum elevation of the gun to increase the range and allow the shell to drop behind obstacles like a proper artillery piece.
Quote:
New Main Gun - 140mm or 120mm L/55, perhaps eventually an ET or EM gun
I seriously doubt the US will adopt a 140mm or EM. The Germans experimented with a 140mm with their Leopard 2 KWS 3 project and found it slow and unnecessary. It unlikely any bigger gun will be introduce until the Chinese, Russian, any major nation etc, build something that requires a 140mm to penetrate it. And of course by then missile advocates will be justified on placing missiles on tanks (or making their gun missile capable).
Personally I am for a bigger gun. Missile despite their benefits will never replace a direct fire projectile. You cant jam essentially a huge bullet, and missile despite a wonderful improvements are never complete precise.
Bigger gun equals fewer rounds available.
The M-1 w/105mm carried 55 rounds.
The M-1A1 w/120mm carries 40 rounds
Install a 140mm and you are probably looking at about 27 rounds. Not much room for those specialty rounds you want.
By EM gun I assume you mean a railgun. Superb anti-armor capabilities with some form of APDS. Poor performance for everything else. I personal doubt they will ever get a round with HE for it, explosives and high power electric arcs and magnetic pulse just do not mix well. I understand they are trying to design an purely mechanical fuse and detonator as the first step in attempting to solve some of the problem. But the big problem is the erosion of the rails in the gun by the electric arc limits the barrel life to a few rounds.
Pure ETC has come and gone, but its descendants remain. My favorite is CAP (Combustion Assisted Plasma) where you give a propellant charge a shot of plasma energy, but considerably less than pure ETC. One big advantage is that you can use different and extremely stable propellants, because you have replaced the equivalent of a match to start it with an oxy-acetylene cutting torch! The propellants should also produce a better mix of propellant gases, with more H2 and CO, and less H2O and CO2. Wont be as fast as a railgun, but there will probably be a 15% to 40% performance improvement and you can still use all the conventional projectiles designs.
This is a question to the Australian Army Defpros from a blue water type.
Does the OZ army hook into the US continuous thru life upgrades for our tanks or are they stuck in time?
This is a question to the Australian Army Defpros from a blue water type.
Does the OZ army hook into the US continuous thru life upgrades for our tanks or are they stuck in time?
Part of the agreement with Australia was that any upgrades to keep the vehicle operational or improve with performance would be offered when needed.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
Part of the agreement with Australia was that any upgrades to keep the vehicle operational or improve with performance would be offered when needed.
Its also one of the main reasons LAND 907 chose the M1 tank: access to the US upgrade path. We have already acquired some of the TUSK upgrade elements (improved side armour, new seas, etc).
Its also one of the main reasons LAND 907 chose the M1 tank: access to the US upgrade path. We have already acquired some of the TUSK upgrade elements (improved side armour, new seas, etc).
Thanks gents, I'm assuming we wont be going down the 140mm path.
Thanks gents, I'm assuming we wont be going down the 140mm path.
The 140mm gun was developed in the 80s and then pretty much dropped after the Soviet tank threat was shipped back to Russia to rust. Later efforts have looked at using exotic forms of propellants to achieve higher velocity father than just upping the calibre.
The M1A3 rebuild will likely see the M256 120mm gun replaced by the XM360 120mm gun that was developed for the FCS program. The M360 has the same performance but is about a tonne lighter (weight loss needed to offset new goodies) and is fully integrated for firing digital smart round ammunition.
Another firepower aspect likely to be fitted is the compact autoloader which will replace the current 40 round magazine with a 34 round magazine and automatically reload the gun at any elevation. This will enable the fourth crewman to spend most of their time assisting the tank commander. Additional rounds can be stored in the hull to the rear (right side) of the turret ring to restore the unit of fire to 40 rounds. This location was used for ammunition in the 105mm gun M1 and a magazine design for 120mm rounds with full blow out protection was developed for the M1A1 but not fitted to save weight and volume.
Its also one of the main reasons LAND 907 chose the M1 tank: access to the US upgrade path. We have already acquired some of the TUSK upgrade elements (improved side armour, new seas, etc).
I was informed that Australia was not too excited to go with the belly armor option, I really cannot blame them if they do not go with it.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
Is it restricting the general mobility of the track that much (weight, ground clearance)?
Otherwise such a belly plate is rather usefull for out of area operations. The US or Danes had to learn this the hard way in Iraq and A-stan while the Canadians were lucky to have one.
Is it restricting the general mobility of the track that much (weight, ground clearance)?
Otherwise such a belly plate is rather usefull for out of area operations. The US or Danes had to learn this the hard way in Iraq and A-stan while the Canadians were lucky to have one.
For extended operations the answer is yes, the current package does contribute to alot of wear and tear on suspension components, especially during high speed mobility. With advancements in newer composites I would speculate that we could go with under hull armor that is alot lighter than what is currently being offered and we should expect to see it some time soon.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
New upgrade. Wow. Might it be possible to add on a few Guided SAMs, like those small missile pads fitted on IFVs?
I don't think a full SAM platform would be the best choice. That would add more cost and basically take up space on the tank. What would be better would be a guided missile shot from the main gun such as with the Russian Refleks, that is also capable of hitting low flying aircraft. I believe that this missile would be the XM1111 but I don't know if it's still being developed.
Well survivability seems to be the name of the game these days with the US Army. I'm curious given the huge number of capabilities the US wants in a new IFV (and with little regard for weight) why we don't go the route of the Israeli Namer and build a heavy IFV/APC based of the M1 chassis. The Namer has MBT level of protection, good mobility, carries 12 dismounts, and can be upgraded with a 30mm remote turret with Spike LR ATGMs. I don't see why something similar couldn't be produced around the M1 - admittedly the Merkava with it's front engine configuration makes things easier, but I'd imagine that it would still be easier than designing a whole new vehicle.
Adrian
With the GCV the army wants a whole new platform for versatility. 1 platform to base multiple variants on. For instance medevac, unit commander, squad carrier, mobile mortar platform, front-line resupply, etc.
