NATO MBT armament up-gunning discussion thread

Blue Jay

Member
Suggested reading:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Files/tanks.140mm-gun.kruse.pdf

Problems Encountered with Higher Caliber Tank Guns (Nsdraftroom)

Note that these are a bit dated, but I'd still like to discuss the relevance of up gunning western MBTs in the present day.

For a while now there has been that idea of up-gunning NATO tanks like the German Leopard 2 with a 140mm gun, or a little more advanced Electrothermal-chemical 120mm gun, or even an exotic Electromagnetic gun such as a rail gun or coil gun. Of these weapons, however, only the 140mm gun is a viable option for the immediate present. Some tanks like the South Korean K2 Black Panther reportedly could convert to a 140mm cannon if needed. However, despite quite a few tests and experiments by a couple different nations, western MBTs retain their 120mm armaments.

Off the top of my head I can guess that advances in ammunition and also prohibitive expense are among the reasons for this. It may also be possible that guns such as the 120mm L44/55 are deemed sufficient to deal with Russian/Chinese Armor. Or are they?

Would it be prudent for NATO to standardize the 140mm gun for tanks? Or is the 120mm sufficient until techs like ETC become matured? Has Russian armor developed enough to consistently defeat current NATO MBT armament?
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Suggested reading:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Files/tanks.140mm-gun.kruse.pdf

Problems Encountered with Higher Caliber Tank Guns (Nsdraftroom)

Note that these are a bit dated, but I'd still like to discuss the relevance of up gunning western MBTs in the present day.

For a while now there has been that idea of up-gunning NATO tanks like the German Leopard 2 with a 140mm gun, or a little more advanced Electrothermal-chemical 120mm gun, or even an exotic Electromagnetic gun such as a rail gun or coil gun. Of these weapons, however, only the 140mm gun is a viable option for the immediate present. Some tanks like the South Korean K2 Black Panther reportedly could convert to a 140mm cannon if needed. However, despite quite a few tests and experiments by a couple different nations, western MBTs retain their 120mm armaments.

Off the top of my head I can guess that advances in ammunition and also prohibitive expense are among the reasons for this. It may also be possible that guns such as the 120mm L44/55 are deemed sufficient to deal with Russian/Chinese Armor. Or are they?

Would it be prudent for NATO to standardize the 140mm gun for tanks? Or is the 120mm sufficient until techs like ETC become matured? Has Russian armor developed enough to consistently defeat current NATO MBT armament?

Interesting read for sure, thank you.

My thoughts are that the current L44/55 gen remain capable against Russian armor and may be able to be upgraded with newer rounds.

My larger concern is the need for additional protection. I'm surpri, almost shocked the western MBTs haven't adopted a type of active protection system similar to Trophy
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
PLA up armories the T90

A PLA Type 99 main battle tank. (Internet photo)
A PLA Type 99 main battle tank. (Internet photo)

The People's Liberation Army may eventually equip its main battle tanks with electric reactive armor to prevent damage from anti-tank weapons, reports China's Global Times.

Electric reactive armor is usually made of two electrical plates separated by an insulator to make a high-power capacitor. When a tank using the armor is hit by an incoming object such as a rocket or missile, it will discharge electricity from the capacitor to vaporize the object. The discharge is claimed to be powerful to turn the incoming object into plasma, said the report.

From the Chinese perspective, the electric reactive armor is the best available defensive technology for tanks in the world and China is now capable of developing it, the report said.



http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20150916000089
 
Last edited:

bdique

Member
A PLA Type 99 main battle tank. (Internet photo)
A PLA Type 99 main battle tank. (Internet photo)

The People's Liberation Army may eventually equip its main battle tanks with electric reactive armor to prevent damage from anti-tank weapons, reports China's Global Times.

Electric reactive armor is usually made of two electrical plates separated by an insulator to make a high-power capacitor. When a tank using the armor is hit by an incoming object such as a rocket or missile, it will discharge electricity from the capacitor to vaporize the object. The discharge is claimed to be powerful to turn the incoming object into plasma, said the report.

From the Chinese perspective, the electric reactive armor is the best available defensive technology for tanks in the world and China is now capable of developing it, the report said.
Electric reactive armour turning projectiles into plasma? Puts a whole new meaning to vaporware...

I can think of a tonne of issues right off the bat. Vehicle crew safety? Can the plates be charged quickly enough within operational constraints? What about managing heat signature?

I wouldn't take this report too seriously for now.
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Great line!! It is likely at early stages but it is an interesting concept.
Agree with you both, my thoughts are that potential western aggressors are upgrade ding and in many cases adding active defense systems to MBTs. I'm at a loss to see why Western militaries, other than the IDF with Trophy, haven't done the same. The US tested Trophy but decided against it, perhaps for sequestered reasons.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Agree with you both, my thoughts are that potential western aggressors are upgrade ding and in many cases adding active defense systems to MBTs. I'm at a loss to see why Western militaries, other than the IDF with Trophy, haven't done the same. The US tested Trophy but decided against it, perhaps for sequestered reasons.

Yes, I think the reason is economics for all the Western militaries. Canada got by with cages in Afghanistan for our tanks and that was sufficient. A Tier 1 enemy with state of the art kit will likely require our tanks to be outfitted with something like Trophy prior to active deployment. Replacing MBTs would be much more expensive than buying Trophy.
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Yes, I think the reason is economics for all the Western militaries. Canada got by with cages in Afghanistan for our tanks and that was sufficient. A Tier 1 enemy with state of the art kit will likely require our tanks to be outfitted with something like Trophy prior to active deployment. Replacing MBTs would be much more expensive than buying Trophy.

Sounds like the west could buy Trophy off the shelf with a relatively quick (non Depot level) install if ever needed to meet an emerging threat.



Israel to Offer IDF's 'Trophy' Vehicle Active Defense System to U.S. (VIDEO) | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Top