M1A3 Abrams Upgrade?

[sgtgunn]

Yes we have tested unmanned turrets on Bradley platforms, do not expect us to place to much inregards to major upgrades, maybe, and this is a big maybe a bigger caliber auto cannon, secondary armor and FCS upgrades but that will be it. We are placing alot of emphasis on a new ground pounder taxi entirely. Whats scary is the fact that you may see this new platform with comparable weight as seen on a tank in full armor module mode, weight limit seems to not be a factor this time around.

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

 

[Waylander]

@Eckherl
Evaluation by the army is nearly completed and serial production should start this year. With the current rumours about cuts floating around it is questionable if we really get the full number of 405 ordered vehicles.

But my fingers are crossed...

@Sgtgunn
The Puma is not offered for the new GCV but a design derived from it. Nevertheless I also think that a possible use of the Puma in A-Stan will be closely watched by the US.

 

[IronsightSniper]

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

Heh, it seems everybody is doing that these days, with the Israeli Namer, Russian BMPT, and American Terminator? It would be cool to see an Abrams fitted with such a task.

 

[eckherl]

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

Look for the hull to take on a enlarged version of the FCS proto type, we are very interested in multiple area's as far as Puma goes, especially sub components of vehicle chassis, keep in mind that we were venturing down the initial road of electrical drive matched with rubber band type tracks for FCS but with new weight requirements this may not be feasible, where the weight will factor in will be all around protection ie: front, flank, top and rear. Puma has some other advancements that I cannot get into but will say that we are most interested in. So we have something in mind that should work. Please keep in mind also the inside hull dimensions of a M1 series versus a Merkava, Leopard series hull suffers with the same issues, no room even if we were to place engine pact to the front of vehicle.

 

[eckherl]

@Eckherl
Evaluation by the army is nearly completed and serial production should start this year. With the current rumours about cuts floating around it is questionable if we really get the full number of 405 ordered vehicles.

But my fingers are crossed...

@Sgtgunn
The Puma is not offered for the new GCV but a design derived from it. Nevertheless I also think that a possible use of the Puma in A-Stan will be closely watched by the US.

Have you heard of any feed back from the army soldiers that have actually tested it, It would be interesting to know what their perception is of the vehicle. If Puma makes it to Tallie Tubby land it will not be just the U.S watching but pretty much everyone who designs and manufactures armored vehicles, Puma has raised the bar for next generation armored fighting vehicles.

 

[Waylander]

With the added 6th roadwheel the ride is said to be smooth. It copes very well with terrain and has no problems keeping up with the Leo in every terrain, even with the added weight of the C protection kit.

Unfortunately I haven't heard of what they think of the turret/weapon layout other than that the mech inf loves the new generation TI/optics. The Eurospike is also very well liked by the guys who already could play with it. But no news about how they can cope with them no longer being able to stick out their heads although the squad in the back seems satisfied with the additional informations which get fed into the squad compartment.

I expect we need to wait for the first series vehicles to enter the mech inf bns before we get news about this.

 

[Alo Durry]

We are not talking about the same 140 mm that Germany, France and the U.S have tested, we have come a long ways in regards to composites and metallurgy.

I can see that, HOWEVER. We have tested 152 mm gun missile tubes in the past, and they have not proven succesful. On the M551 Sheridan, the ammo was too big. On the M60A2 starship Patton, not enough ammo room and the turret was too complicated. We're going to require a much larger turret on our tanks, and it would make it larger, heavier, and easier to shoot at. Not to mention months of costly research. Nay, the current one could hold ten less rounds in my guess. I think personally, that new ammo should be researched. The US and NATO shouldn't overreact to the type 99G by puting larger guns on our turrets.

Alo

 

[Alo Durry]

I can see that, HOWEVER. We have tested 152 mm gun missile tubes in the past, and they have not proven succesful. On the M551 Sheridan, the ammo was too big. On the M60A2 starship Patton, not enough ammo room and the turret was too complicated. We're going to require a much larger turret on our tanks, and it would make it larger, heavier, and easier to shoot at. Not to mention months of costly research. Nay, the current one could hold ten less rounds in my guess. I think personally, that new ammo should be researched. The US and NATO shouldn't overreact to the type 99G by puting larger guns on our turrets.

Alo

Not to mention, most guns on our tanks haven't changed nearly as much in the past 20 years.

 

[eckherl]

I can see that, HOWEVER. We have tested 152 mm gun missile tubes in the past, and they have not proven succesful. On the M551 Sheridan, the ammo was too big. On the M60A2 starship Patton, not enough ammo room and the turret was too complicated. We're going to require a much larger turret on our tanks, and it would make it larger, heavier, and easier to shoot at. Not to mention months of costly research. Nay, the current one could hold ten less rounds in my guess. I think personally, that new ammo should be researched. The US and NATO shouldn't overreact to the type 99G by puting larger guns on our turrets.

Alo

No we are not going to be required to install a larger turret if we switch to a 140mm, you cannot compare late 1960's research and development to the standards and advancements that are set or accomplished for present times, also; the reasons why we got away from the 152mm system altogether had nothing to do with the size of the projectiles, complicated fcs was one of them, but also we just could not get enough rounds down range to tackle the Warsaw Pact Hordes that we envisioned would be crossing the FEBA, please remember the primary armor defeating round requirements for both tank model gun system/fcs, stay on target and track until impact, very time consuming when a precision direct fire projectile can be fired every 4 seconds give or take a second. Also due to new Army force structuring assisted in the demise of both platforms, M60A2 was phased out just a while prior to the introduction to M1 series, Sheridian was a Cavalry support vehicle, Bradley replaced it also a short while later along with M113 series up to ITV (hammer head).

As far as projectile debate, we have made great advancements in this area with both propellants and projectile designs so this is not a weight nor capacity issue to a point that we need to be overly concerned with. If we wanted to we could shoe horn in a auto loader matched to 140mm and still retain the fourth crewmember and you would not see a significant increase in vehicle size.

 

[Alo Durry]

No we are not going to be required to install a larger turret if we switch to a 140mm, you cannot compare late 1960's research and development to the standards and advancements that are set or accomplished for present times, also; the reasons why we got away from the 152mm system altogether had nothing to do with the size of the projectiles, complicated fcs was one of them, but also we just could not get enough rounds down range to tackle the Warsaw Pact Hordes that we envisioned would be crossing the FEBA, please remember the primary armor defeating round requirements for both tank model gun system/fcs, stay on target and track until impact, very time consuming when a precision direct fire projectile can be fired every 4 seconds give or take a second. Also due to new Army force structuring assisted in the demise of both platforms, M60A2 was phased out just a while prior to the introduction to M1 series, Sheridian was a Cavalry support vehicle, Bradley replaced it also a short while later along with M113 series up to ITV (hammer head).

As far as projectile debate, we have made great advancements in this area with both propellants and projectile designs so this is not a weight nor capacity issue to a point that we need to be overly concerned with. If we wanted to we could shoe horn in a auto loader matched to 140mm and still retain the fourth crewmember and you would not see a significant increase in vehicle size.

Yes we will if we want to have any significant battle survivability at all. Using the example of the M551 Sheridan, just the complete size of the 152 mm rounds destroyed the whole concept of the tank. Only about 20 rounds could be carried, and the tanks armor had to be lighter just so the thing could be airdropped, so it was completely susceptible to Vietcong mines in the Vietnam war, making it one of the worst tanks for uban or jungle combat at the time.

TheAbrams can only hold 40 rounds as it is, and I'm not complaining about the gun size at all, I'm mainly talking about the ammunition. What's more is by producing bigger ammunition we would probably have to get rid of 10-15 rounds to keep the turret, and just that would make the Abrams weaker on the battle field. Keep note, the Abrams is not an artillery peice either, it's role is as an MBT, not a self propelled howitzer like the M109 Paladin, which sometimes has to have it's own ammo carried seperatley.

Tell me, how is a round like the M829A2 meant to defeat Russian Kontakt 5 armor going to do against the better Kaktus armor? Certainly making it 20 mm bigger isn't going to help. The germans tried this, and it made their tanks bigger heavier and slower. Although we have icons a ways in guns, history tends to repeat itself, if we do not heed it's advice.

The funny thing is, nobody seems to figure out the enemy tank itself can be used for it's own demise. As corny as it sounds, researching better tandem rounds or double tiered explosive missiles like the javelin is a better idea than doing something stupid like increasing the gun size. There are about 30 or so rounds average in a modern tank. They all have gun powder and a lot of explosives in them. If we could figure out better ways to get an explosive inside a tank from a conventional round and explode once inside, your gauranteed to see a turret blown off in a few seconds.

Alo

 

[Alo Durry]

As far as projectile debate, we have made great advancements in this area with both propellants and projectile designs so this is not a weight nor capacity issue to a point that we need to be overly concerned with. If we wanted to we could shoe horn in a auto loader matched to 140mm and still retain the fourth crewmember and you would not see a significant increase in vehicle size.

Not going to see a great increase in size while maintaing a fourth crewmember? Have you seen the size of the L44? Tank guns are big enough, but you're saying we should reduce crew comfortability as well? The last thing we need is loader or gunner fatigue, which rarely happens

Also, you said previousley that the M60A2 was phased out prior to the M1's arrival. NOW that's bad history, and barely a lick of it is true. It produced in 1974. Only about 2,000+where made in two years (ceased in 1975) During trials, many problems with the turret. Eventually it was scrapped but none because of the M1. The M551 may have been cavalry, but that didn't keep it from becoming a failure quickly. The only enviornment the thing was useful in was the Iraqi desert in 1991. There were no obstacles, but it would overall indefinately preform poorly in forest, jungle, mountain, urban, and field enviornments. Small IED's could blow it up according to tests. It was one of the US's tank failures in my opinion, and it was really only a good airdroppable tank. The Bradley is a much better suited vehicle for the role it was put in, considering even the armor on the Bradley was stronger.

And with all the problems from the result of putting a missile tube?! In a tank? Where talking about a conventional MBT gun here, those are even larger! I say we go much more slowly before putting that big of a gun on a tank. I favor the idea only for a bigger vehicle. God only knows how well the Type 99G preforms, the Chinese haven't even revealed much significant info on it. Overall, I don't want to be rude, I can see your side of putting a larger gun on. There are still few advantages, but not enough. I'd like to hear what you think a 140 mm gun could possibly advantage the abrams, or for that matter, any tank at.

Alo

 

[winnyfield]

Abrams rebuild and retrofit process - wiring etc

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i9WJMS3ppM[/nomedia]

 

[Alo Durry]

Also, no BS with round weight. Only some rounds are light, while most conventional are still very heavy. I'm not talking about only the weight, I'm also talking about the size.

 

[eckherl]

Yes we will if we want to have any significant battle survivability at all. Using the example of the M551 Sheridan, just the complete size of the 152 mm rounds destroyed the whole concept of the tank. Only about 20 rounds could be carried, and the tanks armor had to be lighter just so the thing could be airdropped, so it was completely susceptible to Vietcong mines in the Vietnam war, making it one of the worst tanks for uban or jungle combat at the time.

You need to have a full understanding on what a true cav scout platform was used for, they are designed to be the eyes and ears for larger formations,they are not designed to stand in position and slug it out with opposing forces, but in the event of detection they would have ample firepower to break contact and move out, the Sheridian was fast and mobile for this role. Also there were plenty of other tank models getting destroyed in Vietnam due to land mine usage, tankers who actually used the Sheridan in Vietnam actually liked it due to mobilization.

TheAbrams can only hold 40 rounds as it is, and I'm not complaining about the gun size at all, I'm mainly talking about the ammunition. What's more is by producing bigger ammunition we would probably have to get rid of 10-15 rounds to keep the turret, and just that would make the Abrams weaker on the battle field. Keep note, the Abrams is not an artillery peice either, it's role is as an MBT, not a self propelled howitzer like the M109 Paladin, which sometimes has to have it's own ammo carried seperatley.

No you would not lose that many rounds of ammunition.

Tell me, how is a round like the M829A2 meant to defeat Russian Kontakt 5 armor going to do against the better Kaktus armor? Certainly making it 20 mm bigger isn't going to help. The germans tried this, and it made their tanks bigger heavier and slower. Although we have icons a ways in guns, history tends to repeat itself, if we do not heed it's advice.

How do you know that a M829A2 will not penetrate K6 armor, also we are using A3 models currently at this time with A2's being phased out or sold.

The funny thing is, nobody seems to figure out the enemy tank itself can be used for it's own demise. As corny as it sounds, researching better tandem rounds or double tiered explosive missiles like the javelin is a better idea than doing something stupid like increasing the gun size. There are about 30 or so rounds average in a modern tank. They all have gun powder and a lot of explosives in them. If we could figure out better ways to get an explosive inside a tank from a conventional round and explode once inside, your gauranteed to see a turret blown off in a few seconds.

Well there is no justification at this point to go to a 140mm series gun platform, 120mm will do just fine with current model penetrators able to get the job done, but if we need the extra calibers we wil not have any issues described from your posts.

 

[eckherl]

Not going to see a great increase in size while maintaing a fourth crewmember? Have you seen the size of the L44? Tank guns are big enough, but you're saying we should reduce crew comfortability as well? The last thing we need is loader or gunner fatigue, which rarely happens

Yes I have seen many a L-44/M256A1 series gun platform and few others to boot. The crew will not lose a large amount of space, period.

Also, you said previousley that the M60A2 was phased out prior to the M1's arrival. NOW that's bad history, and barely a lick of it is true. It produced in 1974. Only about 2,000+where made in two years (ceased in 1975) During trials, many problems with the turret. Eventually it was scrapped but none because of the M1. The M551 may have been cavalry, but that didn't keep it from becoming a failure quickly. The only enviornment the thing was useful in was the Iraqi desert in 1991. There were no obstacles, but it would overall indefinately preform poorly in forest, jungle, mountain, urban, and field enviornments. Small IED's could blow it up according to tests. It was one of the US's tank failures in my opinion, and it was really only a good airdroppable tank. The Bradley is a much better suited vehicle for the role it was put in, considering even the armor on the Bradley was stronger.

You should be careful when accusing someone of giving false information, are you sure on the phase out time period because I remember some of them still being around when I was tanker, I may of even trained on it. they were still around until the early eighties, M1 made its debut in Germany in 1981, I would know this because I was actually stationed there during this time frame.

And with all the problems from the result of putting a missile tube?! In a tank? Where talking about a conventional MBT gun here, those are even larger! I say we go much more slowly before putting that big of a gun on a tank. I favor the idea only for a bigger vehicle. God only knows how well the Type 99G preforms, the Chinese haven't even revealed much significant info on it. Overall, I don't want to be rude, I can see your side of putting a larger gun on. There are still few advantages, but not enough. I'd like to hear what you think a 140 mm gun could possibly advantage the abrams, or for that matter, any tank at.

Yes I have reviewed some information in regards to both Chinese and Russian 152mm gun systems, I highly doubt that you will see it anytime soon. In my opinion a 140mm gun affords you effective extended engagement ranges, again currently 120mm is enough to get the job done.

 

[eckherl]

Also, no BS with round weight. Only some rounds are light, while most conventional are still very heavy. I'm not talking about only the weight, I'm also talking about the size.

So projectiles can be heavy, and your point is, what is your proposal for tank designers to help assist in this area.

 

[Waylander]

@Alon Durry
Just to add something to Eckherl's very good posts.
Working on better tandem warheads and/or top attack missiles is far from being ready for the future.

Modern KEs are a much harder nut to crack for modern ERA tiles and the same applies to the multitude of APS which are going to hit the market in the near future. They may be game changers for ATGMs but won't affect KEs that much for some time to come.

And why is it so important to get an explosive charge into a tank. Shaped charges don't really do that and so far the only problem of KEs is overpenetration of lightly armoured targets. It's not like in recent conflicts KEs had problems with after armor effects when they managed to penetrate their targets.

 

[Alo Durry]

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.

 

[Alo Durry]

Yes I have seen many a L-44/M256A1 series gun platform and few others to boot. The crew will not lose a large amount of space, period.



You should be careful when accusing someone of giving false information, are you sure on the phase out time period because I remember some of them still being around when I was tanker, I may of even trained on it. they were still around until the early eighties, M1 made its debut in Germany in 1981, I would know this because I was actually stationed there during this time frame.



Yes I have reviewed some information in regards to both Chinese and Russian 152mm gun systems, I highly doubt that you will see it anytime soon. In my opinion a 140mm gun affords you effective extended engagement ranges, again currently 120mm is enough to get the job done.

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

 

[Alo Durry]

Also, no BS with round weight. Only some rounds are light, while most conventional are still very heavy. I'm not talking about only the weight, I'm also talking about the size.

@Alon Durry
Just to add something to Eckherl's very good posts.
Working on better tandem warheads and/or top attack missiles is far from being ready for the future.

Modern KEs are a much harder nut to crack for modern ERA tiles and the same applies to the multitude of APS which are going to hit the market in the near future. They may be game changers for ATGMs but won't affect KEs that much for some time to come.

And why is it so important to get an explosive charge into a tank. Shaped charges don't really do that and so far the only problem of KEs is overpenetration of lightly armoured targets. It's not like in recent conflicts KEs had problems with after armor effects when they managed to penetrate their targets.

But at what range is this happening at though?