Will we see future tank projects such as the Leopard 3 emerging?

[Firn]

The German Wiki has quite a detailed description of the PzH2000

Optische Zieleinrichtungen

Beim Ausfall der Waffenrichtanlage kann der Richtkanonier auf das Rundblickperiskop PERI-R19 mod zum indirekten Richten zurückgreifen. Damit erfolgt die Festlegung auf die Grundrichtung und das Einrichten beziehungsweise Einstellen auf das Ziel in Strich. Die auf der Turmoberseite neben der Waffenwiege angebrachte Optik verfügt über eine vierfache Vergrößerung. Bei der Zielbekämpfung im direkten Richten wird das etwas weiter nach unten versetzte Panzerzielfernrohr TN 80 mit achtfacher Vergrößerung genutzt. Die Sichtlinie des fest eingebauten Zielfernrohrs entspricht dem der Hauptwaffe; das Zielfernrohr verfügt über einen Restlichtverstärker für den Nachteinsatz.

Für den Kommandanten steht das Rundblickperiskop PERI-RTNL 80 zur Verfügung. Die nichtstabilisierte Optik dient zur Gefechtsfeldbeobachtung und beim direkten Richten durch den integrierten Gallium-Arsenid-Laser zur Entfernungsmessung. Das von Carl Zeiss Optronics – aufgrund des knappen Etats des Auftraggebers – als kostengünstige Variante[12] entwickelte PERI verfügt über einen zwei- und achtfacher Vergrößerung für Tag- und Nachtsicht mit monokularem Einblick oder über einen 1,2- und 4,8-facher Vergrößerung in der Nachtsicht bei Verwendung des binokularen Aufsatzes. Die nutzbare Reichweite des Lasers beträgt 2800 m.

So basically the crew of the German SPG has two optics for directly laying the gun.

1) The 8x TN80 day sight with NVD, close to the boresight of the gun, operated by the layer
2) The PER-RTNL 80 non-stabilzed periscope with 2x and 8x monocular day- and nightsight and laser range finder. If fitted with a binocular set it has 1,2x and 4,8x magnification. Operated by the commander.

So no Thermal Sight or stabilized commander optic. The Archer Artillery System uses the remote weapon system (TI, LRF, magn. optic) to lay the gun directly, a method which might become more common with the increasing use of such systems.

----

The Ground Combat Vehicle is certainly the biggest current program to create a modern modular platform suitable for a wide range of vehicles. Die Neue Gepanzerte Plattform and AFV part of the Future Combat system were not successfull in this regard, due to a numbers of reasons.

On the other hand an IFV like the CV90 has been branched out considerably, although so far the 'tank' or the 'mortar' variants have not found a buyer. The Israelis went with the Namer the other way around, using an MBT to create and APC and toyed with and SPG. The GCV might also include variants with a tank gun and a howitzer. The NGP wanted to creat a common chassis for a new generation MBT, an IFV/APC and an SPAA, but wanted different positions for the engine depending on the use. Overall the Puma could be branched out like the CV90, however it depends of course on a lot of factors.

[FirstSpear]

Originally Posted by RobWilliams

Ah, i was thinking of "fire on the move" not "DIRECT fire on the move" as while i was reading I didn't come across the term "direct", it's just been called "fire on the move", my mistake.

Just to clarify: are you sure you don't mean shoot and scoot which involves a very rapid drill for setting up a fire solution as you stop briefly to fire and then a quick stow and safety drill for ammo and gun to get on the move asap to avoid being on the same spot too long, in the case of Slammer, PZH2000, Giat AUF1 and I think AS90, even as the rounds are still in the air.

I have not seen anyone suggest a fire while moving Artillery piece before. Even the truck mounted platforms require stabilization of the platform before the fire procedure begins.

[FirstSpear]

Originally Posted by Waylander

I am not sure if the M113s replacement really needs to be tracked. IMO using some modern IFVs to support the MBTs in the MechInf role while the rest of the (light) infantry gets modern wheeled APCs (Piranha family, Panard, Boxer,...) would be more sensible.

For combined arms battlegroups an IFV is IMO a must have but the rest of the infantry may very well be better served with a wheeled APC and their increased dismount numbers, lower operating costs, better street march/patrol capabilities, and lower weight.

But you are right, the M113 is a dog and everything is bettter than driving this brick on tracks. I just think that a smaller number of modern tracked IFVs and a bigger number of wheeled APCs gives you more bang for the bug.

Extensive upgrade programs tend to become just as expensive as new procurements (ask the Australians and their M113 saga...) and the Marders would need to get completely rebuild as well as extensive upgrades to become usefull again. The best remaining ones we have got upgraded to A5 standard and get knockered down in A-stan (and Kosovo before it).

Sorry for the slide a bit off topic but not too far, hopefully:

Question for you: Considering the large German inventory of pre-A5 leos in storage due to one draw down after another, I know the country has shown some largess with certain EU members offering used Leo A4s and so on. Has any project ever been evaluated to retrofit a Leo A4 as a HAPC or HIFV. After all, the Israelis rather inexpensively modified the T54/T55 into the Achzarit and the T62s into very useful other variants by taking the old engine out and placing a lighter yet more powerful engine in the front of the vehicle. You'd still need active protection to protect the crew from the most dangerous threats but you'd have a formidable escort for the Leo A5/A6/A7 when they're in integrated battle groups.

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by Waylander

We will not be competitive? Looking at the export numbers from 2006-2010 the biggest weapons exporters are:
1. USA 30%
2. Russia 23%
3. Germany 11%
4. France 7%
5. UK 4%

In 2010 the USA exported 6.9 Billion $ worth of weapons, Russia 4.4 and Germany 3.1.

If this is not competitive then I don't know what is. Let's for example take ground equipment (vehicles). Companies in Germany can right now offer the full range of ground vehicles (combat and support) to a customer with all of them being top notch and at the height of technological development. Something not even the US can at the moment.

I agree that some large future projects might be better done in a european cooperation but I am no fan of merging all the defense industry in europe for this. This kills competition and leads to us being reliant on one supplier.

The example of EADS is a warning of what to come when this happens as they are not very keen on keeping prices down and finishing projects in time and on budget...
I see a

Those numbers don't look right. I know Russia sold ~10 billion in arms in 2011, and 8.7 billion in 2010. Now you might be talking about deliveries, vs. contracts signed (my numbers). But I'm still doubting 4.4 billion.

[Firn]

Originally Posted by FirstSpear

Sorry for the slide a bit off topic but not too far, hopefully:

Question for you: Considering the large German inventory of pre-A5 leos in storage due to one draw down after another, I know the country has shown some largess with certain EU members offering used Leo A4s and so on. Has any project ever been evaluated to retrofit a Leo A4 as a HAPC or HIFV. After all, the Israelis rather inexpensively modified the T54/T55 into the Achzarit and the T62s into very useful other variants by taking the old engine out and placing a lighter yet more powerful engine in the front of the vehicle. You'd still need active protection to protect the crew from the most dangerous threats but you'd have a formidable escort for the Leo A5/A6/A7 when they're in integrated battle groups.

I'm no waylander, but it is an interesting question.

First of all was the modification of the T54/55 relatively cheap? It was a rather extensive one, even if it made some use of the FMS, for example regaring the drive train.

Achzarit HAPC - YouTube
I think the army culture plays in this context an important role and Israel had to improvise a lot in times of far fewer ressources. It has yet to field an IFV and seems to be quite happy with this (ld) MBT-HAPC conversion strategy. However such an approach has of course clear limitations, and the age of some components will strain the existing pool of spares and cannibalized vehicles.

So the Namer is a very significant step and follows the basic design philosophy but uses the most modern heavy platform/chassis in the IDF, the Merkava IV.

Lessons learned in the battles of the 2006 Lebanon War also largely verified this program. Consequently, in 2007 it was reported[9] that the first fifteen Namers would be delivered in 2008, and over a hundred more will finally equip two combat brigades. However, conversion plans were abandoned in favor to newly built Merkava Mark IV chassis.

On 1 March 2008, an operational, started from scratch and fully developed Namer IFV based on Merkava Mark IV chassis was officially presented by the IDF.[10] Reportedly, the construction was urged on May 2008 by importing parts from the US.[11] On September 15, 2008, the Namer was unveiled to the general public at an exhibition in Rishon LeZion.

On 25 October 2010, it was announced that General Dynamics Land Systems had been chosen to negotiate a contract to manufacture and integrate an unspecified number of vehicle hulls at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio.[12]

It is clear that manufacture in the US with the resulting cost reduction for Israel is a key factor to follow this new approach.

-------------

The big European countries like Germany, France, Italy and GB are strongly comitted to the traditional approach of an MBT with family (bridgelayers, recovery etc) and IFV and APC on different platforms. Beside military reasons support of the defense industry plays of course also an important role and in the Cold War the sheer number of vehicles produced, especially in West Germany did still result in very considerable economics of scale.

The small numbers of procured vehicles does beside inflation and technological develpoment raise considerably the costs of a single unit. Italy has developed in the last thirty years a MBT (Ariete), a wheeled tank destroyer (Centauro), a tracked IFV (Dardo) and a wheeled IFV (Freccia). The Freccia is derived to a reasonable degree from the Centauro and has a turret based on the Dardo but especially the numbers financed so far have been really low for the last two vehicles. The Ariete and the Centauro came out just too late for the Cold War and the former was just produced in low numbers with the latter being a bit more numerous and having even a limited export success. Overall ratio fixed costs vs variable ones must have been very high compared to such projects as the Leopard 1 or the M113. Any future national project of an European country faces the same danger, thus in the short term I see a hard time for a 'Leopard 3', especially since the large numbers of still very competitive Leopard 2 around the world make for a good upgrade market.

[Waylander]

I took the SIPRI numbers out of Wiki. I havent't double checked with the original source but SIPRI lists delivered quantities.

------------------

As for a conversion of Leopard IIA4s into HAPCs. It would be a waste of perfectly usable tanks. All of these tanks would make for a good upgrade for alot of countries out there and with upgrades play in the upper league. At least converting them to special vehicles (ARV, bridge layer, engineer,...) would be more usefull.

Apart from several drawbacks compared to a specially designed vehicle, the question is, who actually wants a HAPC? Many countries out there accompany their tanks with IFVs. Not many countries agree with the Israelis that the tanks are the sole direct fire platforms while the (H)APCs act as passive battlefield taxis (and IMHO that idea is questionable after Lebanon '06).

For most countries IFVs fit better into their doctrine, a role a HAPC cannot fill.

[kato]

Originally Posted by FirstSpear

Considering the large German inventory of pre-A5 leos in storage due to one draw down after another, I know the country has shown some largess with certain EU members offering used Leo A4s and so on.

What large inventory? We only have about 600 A4 left (plus 350 Leo 1A5).

[RobWilliams]

Originally Posted by FirstSpear

Just to clarify: are you sure you don't mean shoot and scoot which involves a very rapid drill for setting up a fire solution as you stop briefly to fire and then a quick stow and safety drill for ammo and gun to get on the move asap to avoid being on the same spot too long, in the case of Slammer, PZH2000, Giat AUF1 and I think AS90, even as the rounds are still in the air.

First thing, I had already understood my angle well enough to understand why i was wrong. I don't see why clarification is needed as shoot and scoot doesn't constitute "fire on the move" as they set up in order to fire ergo not firing on the move, so no, i didn't.

Originally Posted by FirstSpear

I have not seen anyone suggest a fire while moving Artillery piece before. Even the truck mounted platforms require stabilization of the platform before the fire procedure begins.

Waylander - "The PzH2000's commanders optic has a langer range finder for enhancing the self defence capabilities. But I am secptical if fire on the move is really needed"

Firn - "The implementation of fire on the move might be more complicated, depending on the design of the SPG"

Well, as silly as it sounds i took the term "fire on the move" to mean that the system fired while it was moving, and the fact the conversation was about self-propelled guns - and mentioned the PzH2000 specifically - I assumed it would be in their main artillery role. A point which I clearly explained i misunderstood in my original explanation by emphasising I made a mistake about the direct component. (NOTE: I do understand my interpretations of the comments was wrong before anyone starts thinking I'm twisting peoples words, i'm showing the phrases that lead me to the wrong conclusions)

I should pick up on the "I have not seen anyone suggest a fire while moving Artillery piece before" comment. Both of those examples (and the rest of the conversation) relate to a direct fire on the move capability for SPGs which generally relates to artillery pieces in this day and age, so can you not understand why I made the mistake in thinking a self propelled gun with a fire on the move capability would operate in its primary function?

To be honest, I don't even see why clarification is neccesary as in my opinion i thought the emphasis of the "direct" part in my correction showed I understood that it was not acting as an artillery piece (which is what I thought) but rather more of an "assault gun" (which was the REAL topic).

I don't pretend to know every single development out there and technologies I never thought existed come up all the time.

I rarely get riled up on this forum but this whole thing rubbed me up the wrong way.

[Firn]

Originally Posted by RobWilliams

I should pick up on the "I have not seen anyone suggest a fire while moving Artillery piece before" comment. Both of those examples (and the rest of the conversation) relate to a direct fire on the move capability for SPGs which generally relates to artillery pieces in this day and age, so can you not understand why I made the mistake in thinking a self propelled gun with a fire on the move capability would operate in its primary function?

No problem, mate.

Anyway Artillerie im Gefecht Teil 2 2/2 - YouTube shows why SPGs have optics for direct laying. (Starts around 8:30, armored rec. units arrive in the vicinity of the SPG, gets spotted by the close OP, phones the guns with the direction of travel and distance. A crew member shouts "Sh**".

[kato]

On a completely unrelated note it's rather sad to note just how many concepts used in that video about 35 years ago are no longer doable nowadays. Artillerieverlegte Minenwurfsperren, anyone?

[STURM]

Originally Posted by Waylander

Apart from several drawbacks compared to a specially designed vehicle, the question is, who actually wants a HAPC?

Would it be accurate to say that the only or the main advantage HAPCs like Namer and Achzarit, when they were introduced, provided over IFVs are that they are much more heavily protected?

In your opinion what are the main disadvantages in operating HAPCs over IFVs or in operating HAPC alongside MBTs, like you would with IFVs?

Originally Posted by Waylander

Not many countries agree with the Israelis that the tanks are the sole direct fire platforms while the (H)APCs act as passive battlefield taxis (and IMHO that idea is questionable after Lebanon '06)..

Apologies, I'm a bit lost here. Is this why Namer and Achzarit are armed only with an MG fitted to an OWS and nothing heavier? Wouldn't this be a bit risky if both types of vehicles found themselves in a position where they were faced with other IFVs that could not be penetrated by their on board MGs, and they did not have MBTs to support them?

[RobWilliams]

Originally Posted by Firn

No problem, mate.

Anyway Artillerie im Gefecht Teil 2 2/2 - YouTube shows why SPGs have optics for direct laying. (Starts around 8:30, armored rec. units arrive in the vicinity of the SPG, gets spotted by the close OP, phones the guns with the direction of travel and distance. A crew member shouts "Sh**".

IIRC didnt the WW2 QF 25lber field gun have a direct fire AT capability?

Here's a video of an AS90 doing some direct fire missions (although I have to say, for me there seems like too much of a time delay between firing/visual impact on some occasions, at least too me it seems pretty long when looking at the distance - or my depth perception could just be 'naff)

AS90 - YouTube
Seems like a pretty handy ace up the sleeve for any SPGs caught unaware.

[Armoured Recce]

Nice footage...

Looks alot like BATUS ( British Army Training Unit Suffield) located in Alberta Canada....

The Brits keep a decent amount of armour and equipment here all the time ...they rotate units in as "Home Unit" as well as rotating units for training.

Cheers for sharing....

[Waylander]

Originally Posted by STURM

Would it be accurate to say that the only or the main advantage HAPCs like Namer and Achzarit, when they were introduced, provided over IFVs are that they are much more heavily protected?

In your opinion what are the main disadvantages in operating HAPCs over IFVs or in operating HAPC alongside MBTs, like you would with IFVs?



Apologies, I'm a bit lost here. Is this why Namer and Achzarit are armed only with an MG fitted to an OWS and nothing heavier? Wouldn't this be a bit risky if both types of vehicles found themselves in a position where they were faced with other IFVs that could not be penetrated by their on board MGs, and they did not have MBTs to support them?

Several things made the idea of converting tanks into HAPCs a viable idea for the Israelis. The tanks used were models which the IDF didn't want to integrate into their armoured corps, converting them did cost less than designing a new vehicle or ordering one abroad.

As for the Israeli ideas behind HAPCs. The IDF sees the MBT as the main delivery plattform for direct fire. The HAPC needs to bring the infantry to their dismount point and while doing so protect them as much as possible.

The problem I have with this is that during the mobile mounted combat phase the MechInf is largely passive. To add their firepower to the battle the infantry needs to dismount and disperse which costs time and slows down the whole combined arms group. An advantage is that a HAPC usually carries more dismounts.

My problem is the lack of firepower while being on the move as well as the lack of general firepower compared to a mechinf unit equipped with IFVs. The two Iraq wars are good examples of how the firepower of IFVs was important for the success of several combined arms units.

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by Waylander

Several things made the idea of converting tanks into HAPCs a viable idea for the Israelis. The tanks used were models which the IDF didn't want to integrate into their armoured corps, converting them did cost less than designing a new vehicle or ordering one abroad.

As for the Israeli ideas behind HAPCs. The IDF sees the MBT as the main delivery plattform for direct fire. The HAPC needs to bring the infantry to their dismount point and while doing so protect them as much as possible.

The problem I have with this is that during the mobile mounted combat phase the MechInf is largely passive. To add their firepower to the battle the infantry needs to dismount and disperse which costs time and slows down the whole combined arms group. An advantage is that a HAPC usually carries more dismounts.

My problem is the lack of firepower while being on the move as well as the lack of general firepower compared to a mechinf unit equipped with IFVs. The two Iraq wars are good examples of how the firepower of IFVs was important for the success of several combined arms units.

A Heavy IFV would resolve that problem, wouldn't it? Russia is currently developing one on the Armata platform. It would have the necessary mobile fire support, while still delivering dismounts.