M1A3 Abrams Upgrade?

[Waylander]

At what range is what happening?
Do you want to know at which ranges an APS is going to be effective? AMAP-ADS managed to stop 2 RPGs fired simultainously at the same point from 50 meters away. Pretty good reaction time against multiple threats from within close range.
Other APS will offer similar performance.

 

[eckherl]

I'm wondering why some people in the industry want to replace the M113 completly with the FCS program and new Bradley in 2018. It's a very useful vehicle, that could really use some armor updates and so on.

FCS program is shelved, some of the technology though will be used in future vehicle designs, M113 series and Bradley have been around for quite awhile now, more so with the M113, but as the modern battlefield changes so does the priorities, newer force structure dictates that a more robust infantry platform is needed to operate in any type of potential hostile environment, be it urbanized or cross country offensive movement, with Bradley and M113 you cannot get the armor protection, speed and mobility value needed to fight in either scenarios, compromise will be needed in either one of the values referenced, both vehicle designs simply have limitations, especially the M113, could it be done yes, but with a very high price tag that isn`t justified for these two dependable war horses especially when you more than likely can come out with a newer better designed vehicle that will in the long run be cheaper to operate and maintain due to manufacturing process, technology advancements and a clientel that is excited because you have brought something new to the table, some of these factors will offer you a lower priced vehicle in the long run.

With that said, we will have to waite and see if the U.S really makes a major effort to change out to a entirely new infantry vehicle and follow through with it, we have been down this road before. You just may see the Bradley lingering around for many decades just as the M113 series has.

 

[Baker]

Hybrid engine?

Here's what I'd like to see....

M1A3:

New hybrid diesel-electric powerplant (love that gas turbine accelaration, but hate the gas guzzling. The ability to dry out a wet sleeping bag in 30 seconds was nice though.....)

I'd like to see a hybrid engine. How possible is that though? The Abrams does already weigh 60 tons, and were only so far in hybrid tech to what I know.

 

[eckherl]

Ah, the space thing is still something I would worry about in any case. I think what I'm taking in my view is the recoil from the gun. A little uneducated on my part, but larger rounds could mean a further recoil. Besides that, I'm not attempting to excuse myself, but I never said the M60A2 didn't continue service. I think I was telling you why it wasn't phased out prior to service of the M1. The fact the tank's construction was shut down in 1975 shows it was a near failure of a tank. And also the results from trials on the M60 showed how complications of the turret could keep it from being combat effective (maintenance wise).

Besides that, I'm not saying it was a bad tank, but the complications in design itself show that it's a bad idea to up gun. Directly though, it was a somewhat roomy tank. I got to be in one many years ago at Ft. Lewis (when it was inactive) at it's a roomy tank. Also what part of Germany where you in?

I can see the advantage of a 140 mm range wise, but as you said a 120 mm would get the job done. Just to leave it off, I think it would be far more cheaper and give good effect to just put the L55 on the M1A3. The range could really be helped in that area. But if rheintmall can actually come up with as good as a 140 mm as you say. Let it be, that'll be the Abrams new gun. Also thank your for your service to this country. I'm only in the ROTC, but I wouldn't count that as service at all.

Alo

With advancements made in recoil mechanisms and projectile propellants recoil isn't a issue with bigger caliber guns.

Remember three important factors that go into a tank design, armor protection, firepower and vehicle mobility, all M60 series suffered in two these categories, also keep in mind when the M1 was at the design level, we also worked with the Germans on the MBT 70 project. Again the M60A2 did in fact have a expensive complicated fcs that could not keep pace with the ever changing battle scenario, I would of been scared to death to have to face the Russians in this tank simply because of time restraints placed on the crew when engaging massive armor formations, would you rather fire and track a round to a target or fire and forget when operating a tank in a target rich environment.

I served with the Gary Owens squadron, you may research this unit, this is your homework assignment.

Why rely on those crafty Germans for a maingun do we not have the ability to design our own, also our German friends have other reasons why they decided to go to a longer tube.

 

[Waylander]

Well the US have a healthy tradition of using gun designs from abroad.
Why stopping with such a nice tradition.

I always thought that such a gun missile combo like used in the M60A2 is too much of a compromise. Either you build a decent missile armed tank destroyer (And probably add an autocannon) or use a normal high pressure gun.

As you said, having to rely on tracking a target for some time while the 3rd Shock Army rolls onto your position is dubious at best.

 

[Baker]

With advancements made in recoil mechanisms and projectile propellants recoil isn't a issue with bigger caliber guns.

What kind of propellants are you tallking about? I don't know what this guys getting on with larger guns, it's unlikely all Abrams will be fitted with the 140 mm. We still have the 140 mm in early stages, so I wouldn't worry about it being a problem, the genius' in the defence industry will put good thought into it.

 

[eckherl]

Well the US have a healthy tradition of using gun designs from abroad.
Why stopping with such a nice tradition.

I always thought that such a gun missile combo like used in the M60A2 is too much of a compromise. Either you build a decent missile armed tank destroyer (And probably add an autocannon) or use a normal high pressure gun.

As you said, having to rely on tracking a target for some time while the 3rd Shock Army rolls onto your position is dubious at best.

Yep, we took British designs until they started getting ticked off with us then we decided to mooch off of your country, I think you guys are getting tired of us to thus the reason of being left with no choice but to come up with our own designs.

Now we are digging into your bag of tricks for infantry platforms, when will the madness stop.

What you touched on inregards to the missile/direct fire gun combo will more than likely be some of the reasons why the Russians have shelved the idea, I to cannot see the justification of putting this on your primary shock effect vehicle.

 

[eckherl]

What kind of propellants are you tallking about? I don't know what this guys getting on with larger guns, it's unlikely all Abrams will be fitted with the 140 mm. We still have the 140 mm in early stages, so I wouldn't worry about it being a problem, the genius' in the defence industry will put good thought into it.

We are constantly striving to have cleaner and consistant burning propellants that offer better muzzle velocities and less barrel erosion, also by reducing the amount of propellant in a maingun casing but still offers excellant performance will have its advantages especially with KE projectiles, we can make them longer if needed.

We already have a pretty good 120/140 universal gun mount that has been designed for future tank projects if needed.

 

[Waylander]

Every 3-4 somebody comes up with the idea of putting a AA autocannon onto tanks. What for? A tank doesn't have the radar to pick up enemy air targets. Against unaware or reckless helicopters the main gun is good enough and yes tankers do train to use it against helicopters. And as if a 20mm would help you against fast movers...
It is named combined arms for a reason. There are other units on and above the battlefield which are used against enemy fast and rotary air.

A tank is not meant to be a jack of all trades. I always get the feeling that people who propose such radical extensions of the weaponry get this out of video games...

BTW, your theory about larger ammunition not being more capable if designed right doesn't hold water. 120/125mm guns are not more capable than 105mm guns for no reason....

 

[eckherl]

why do we need a 140mm gun enyway. The 120mm does a more effective job. For example, the 140mm round would be heavier than the 120mm there for would require more energy to deliver the round to the target. It would have less penatration because the tip of the sabo will not
increase in size. Because if it does increase in size it would have a duller and less sharp point. There for would loss energy through desplaceing the wind, and would most likly change form from the heat obtained through travel. Also there would be more gun powder invalved which would add to the over all heat of the round through exit. In the end the round would be nothing but a slower 120mm round, plus the cost to develop a new round would be too expensive to get no where.( it goes from .50cal to .12g slug)

I will take my experience and knowledge in this field to only make this statement, get off of the happy smoke because you are starting to develop or experiance brain disfunction.

 

[eckherl]

Every 3-4 somebody comes up with the idea of putting a AA autocannon onto tanks. What for? A tank doesn't have the radar to pick up enemy air targets. Against unaware or reckless helicopters the main gun is good enough and yes tankers do train to use it against helicopters. And as if a 20mm would help you against fast movers...
It is named combined arms for a reason. There are other units on and above the battlefield which are used against enemy fast and rotary air.

A tank is not meant to be a jack of all trades. I always get the feeling that people who propose such radical extensions of the weaponry get this out of video games...

BTW, your theory about larger ammunition not being more capable if designed right doesn't hold water. 120/125mm guns are not more capable than 105mm guns for no reason....

He stunned me so bad with his first post that I really did not know what to say or respond with his second post.

 

[Waylander]

You have seen how a relatively modern SPAAG like a Tunguska looks like?
You want to add that to an Abrams turret? Welcome to fantasy island.

Sorry, but this is pure nonsense.
Reminds me a little bit of some supertank from Warhammer 40k...Maybe we should add a compartment for Space Marines, too. So we would carry our own superinfantry with us. This would defenitely be much cheaper than all these useless GI Joes riding in their Bradleys...

 

[Locarnus]

I d like to add the wings of the A-40, we can use it as a fighter/ground attack aircraft as well.

On Topic: I think thats possible, in some form.
Like a Merkava with air defense (since it already has main gun, small mortar, small mg, troop compartment).
The problem is the trade off, eg concerning weight/height/positioning aso.

I think we need to go back to the mission capabilities of the m1a3, and thats being an element in a combined arms force.

 

[Waylander]

I give you the mortar which is an interesting weapon for an MBT and seems to work fine for the Iarelis.

But the troop compartment is one of these half-myths that keeps looking like it would enable the Merkava to carry it's own mech infantry .

One may very well carry a couple of soldiers in certain situations but this significantly reduces the ammo carried by a Merk. Other situations were this is usefull are for example ammo replenishment in fighting positions without the need to expose the crew and evacuation of casualties under heavy fire.

Nevertheless the compartment and backdoor of the Merkavas adds to their versatility but is far from making them a jack of all trades as every different usage of this capability comes with important trade-offs.

 

[Locarnus]

I always wondered if the rear storage has an adverse effect on the reloading times as a trade off to the versatility/resupply times.

Apropos Merkava, whats the US/NATO opinion on the general layout of the Merkava? Especially with respect to human survivability and versatility.
I know that a new tank design from NATO countries has a low priority, but since the US defence industry gets paid for "interesting" studies anyway once a decade or so I wonder whether this came up at some point for a new MBT.

 

[Locarnus]

Within the last 20 years or so the US was mainly fighting in theatres the Merkava was specifically designed for, whereas these theatres were only one of many possible ones for the Abrams, resulting in trade offs for the latter.

What about keeping the M1A2 as the standard tank (since it is not contested by opponents due to lack of high tech opponents), and replacing a small number of them with tanks designed for the conflicts for which the US actually deploys and uses tanks.
Somehow reminds me of the possible doctrine shift from F22 to cost efficient, prop engined ground attack aircraft, though not as extreme.

EDIT:
@ Waylander: Sure its a trade off, but as you said, its versatility. You could do eg a 34 ammo + 4 troops combo or a very crowded 46 + 4 combo, and occasionally its done. My favorite is the 10 + 10 combo in the desert, that sounds like fun.

 

[THE INVENTER]

View attachment 4245 would this work.
looks like a good idea to me. Its what Ive been talking about this whole time. Not exactly what I mean but its the best I could find.

 

[OPSSG]

Edit: Thread reopened after Mod discussion - the source of thread pollution has been banned for 3 months.

 

[My2Cents]

I give you the mortar which is an interesting weapon for an MBT and seems to work fine for the Iarelis.

But the troop compartment is one of these half-myths that keeps looking like it would enable the Merkava to carry its own mech infantry .

One may very well carry a couple of soldiers in certain situations but this significantly reduces the ammo carried by a Merk. Other situations were this is usefull are for example ammo replenishment in fighting positions without the need to expose the crew and evacuation of casualties under heavy fire.

Nevertheless the compartment and backdoor of the Merkavas adds to their versatility but is far from making them a jack of all trades as every different usage of this capability comes with important trade-offs.

As far as I can tell based on the literature and some common sense smell testing, the reasons for the Merkava’s back door are:
1. It permits the crew to board the tank without having exposing themselves to small arms and artillery fire by climbing on the tank to enter through the turret.
2. Easier to replenish ammunition than handing up to the turret and through the hatch. Also safer when under fire.
3. By discarding or expending part of the main gun ammunition load enough space can be freed up to permit the crew of another knocked out tank to be rescued and shelter on board while the tank withdraws to a safe area to unload them. There is some question as to how restricted the Merkava’s combat capabilities are this ‘pregnant’ condition.

The mortar is another piece that may have an interesting rational. Some sources claim that the principle use is for clear upper story rooms during combat in built up areas where the main gun cannot elevate enough to be used. I would bet that they have, or are developing, a round for clearing rooftops too.

 

[Waylander]

@Locarnus
That wouldn't make sense to me. The Abrams are already paid for. They are perfectly able to perform all the tasks one expects of them. A Merkava for example wouldn't have faired any better in Iraq.

What is needed are urban combat packages and new ammunition.

Tue upgrades were adressed by the TUSK I&II packages. Such packages are a cheap and fast way to add more urban combat capabilities. And one can use the tanks which may already be in theater and have fought the conventional phase of the war.

What puzzles me is the neglect of modern ammunition by the US. Billions of Dollars went into ways of enhancing the USA's unconventional warfare capabilities.
But the only new 120mm ammo they came up with is the canister. Although this is a good round a modern, programmable HE is a must. Defenitely much better than the glorified HEAT they use now (MPAT). There are several good rounds available. APAM from Israel or DM12 from Germany for example. PELE is also interesting for minimizing collateral damage. The Danes seem to like it in A-stan.

The ammo situation is one of the big misterys of US procurement...