FSV vehicles are not designed for deep raids especially MRLS vehicles which are vulnerable to all sorts of low calibre direct fire. FSVs have even a higher profile than a contemporary tank. . Yes, a CATTB based form factor would have a higher profile, but as others pointed out, in this age of transparent battlefields low profiles accomplishes nothing. The reason for no revolution is, of course not about the technology it is about the cost & associated politics. Contractors want twice the $ and half the work, as usual.
I'm under the impression they just wanted to show off the double trunnion, which is really nice.
Smaller guns and thinner armor? The 120mm already peaked. You can't squeeze more penetration out of it.
Because that's the wrong tank, that's a Leopard 2A8, I said Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0
When you mean with "smaller" shorter than yes. The high velocity anti-tank guns are optimized for the exception, not the rule, which is engaging enemy armor. If you mean going down in caliber, I see little benefit in that. Because where a tank shines is in being versatile, like engaging dismounted infantry, lightly armored mechanized assaults consisting of APCs, IFVs and all sorts of below MBT sized AFVs, buildings, fortifications, entrenched positions.
You do actually need the long barrel for that mission, because you still need that high velocity. Not necessarily an L55 but still.
It's a technological demonstrator presented by KNDS, showcasing various technologies they're looking into (unmanned turret, APS, larger caliber RCWS, weight reduction, hull modifications, novel mounting mechanism for the main gun).
I wasn't advocating for the removal of anti-armor capabilities, as I clearly stated. I simply opined that rather than relying on extremely large, heavy, expensive high velocity and high caliber guns, the anti-armor aspect can be mostly addressed through the usage of high explosive anti tank rounds as well as gun launched or externally mounted ATGMs. That would still provide the necessary means to destroy enemy heavy armor, especially given how potent modern ATGMs are and that HEAT rounds are no joke either. Although both are arguably more susceptible to APS than kinetic penetrators (which could still be carried, they'd just be less effective than used by guns which achieve higher muzzle velocity). L/20 maybe too short, but L/44 and slightly below that more than adequate. I just don't see much reasoning in mounting ever larger and heavier, larger caliber behemoths on new MBTs when the main benefit is armor penetration, something that simply isn't the highest priority for a tank these days. And smaller calibers sacrifice performance, be it with regards to kinetic rounds or being able to launch explosive mass down range, compared to larger calibers.
I agree, except for this sentence. I still prefer the smaller ones.
As for how to optimize firepower with limited resources, your answer was already very thorough. I’d like to take the idea a step further: perhaps it would even be possible to integrate systems that are normally found not on tanks but on destroyers or armed helicopters, such as vertically launched missiles and loitering munitions, and medium-range drones.
I understand the goal you’re striving for, but I personally doubt that, when facing an adversary of comparable strength, tanks as a technological equipment can still support such ambitions，at least not as the most important piece of equipment for achieving them.
Did "ze Germans" kidnap a Polish armor designer again? That very strongly reminds me of the PL-01.
The point is overmatch as doctrine, fighting at "comparable strength" might well deter conflict altogether..if one is well w/ their own capitulation.
HEAT is to the APFSDS what the drone is to the ATGM.
Because you need it just in case. We build a lot of things just in case. Less attention is given to them than the more important stuff, but still.
If you're talking about HESH and HEAT then these are simply irrelevant against composite armor. They were great against homogenous cast steel armor.
Mechanically the standard 120mm to 140mm are ill suited for long range fire. You'd need a guidance system, and accept that you're regularly firing a full charge.
Nah, because the ARC is actually a genuine piece of kit, the "PL-01" was a CV90 dressed up in plywood.
Indeed, but that's where lighter, logistically more sustainable vehicles come in, think the current breed of 105mm armed AFVs like the ZTQ-15, as well as various lighter IFVs equipped with autocannons.
I'm familiar with the MGM-51 Shillelagh, but I also think it's not useful to judge the potential of a modern implementation of the idea based on a failed 1960s design.
That brings external "hard points" into play though.
There are also APFSDS rounds that don't guarantee a straight up kill. Especially against modern MBTs that are stuff to the brim with composites, ERA, add-on armor packages and in some case hard-kill APS. But a tank that cannot sustain effective combat operations after a direct hit is essentially a non-factor until recovery and repair. The well known footage of a Bradley blasting a T-90 at close range is well known, the tank suffered only superficial damage as well as damage to subsystems like it's optics. That IFV had no hope of even coming close to penetrating the MBT from the position it engaged it, but the tank was effectively taken out of combat. Large caliber HE can achieve similar outcomes with a single shot rather than a salvo. Again, I'm not calling for stubby guns with zero penetrating power for kinetic rounds. I just don't look at the larger, faster, heavier direction favorably because it doesn't seem reflective of actual battlefield needs but rather spreadsheets and analysis of heavy armor that won't be met head on on the battlefield in 90% of cases.
That is why I specified the points of failure in regards to modern systems.
HE shells may sometimes do that. You get a lucky shot that blinds the crew or disables some drive mechanism. And sometimes they won't, because tanks are resilient like that. These are again more vulnerable shells (including to APS), lower velocity, no post-pen effect, and will require more shots per target.
130 - 140mm aren't assured. Evolved 120mm designs are also being looked at, and even without the Franco-German feud none's rushing to replace them. Certainly not on current gen tanks that cannot afford this extra space and weight with their current construction.
Why should anyone?
Remove a ship's belt armor and you've created a weakness where enemy can send a battleship to shoot at your AEGIS with guns, and it naturally will happen at some point.
The proliferation of anti-aircraft guns means you always need heavy artillery. Aircraft can be shot down by guns easily, but hitting a shell, oh that is difficult~ And we might not propose 20" next gen, maybe stay at 16". High velocity APHE have a lot more kinetic energy than aircraft ordinance and can penetrate more armor, nothing like aerial bombs that generally just damage the superstructure against ships with deck armor.
If breechloader guns was a viable alternative to sabre, everyone wouldn't be maintaining cavalry sword training. Experience between weak powers like Russia and Japan is not illustrative of what would happen when properly trained and equipped forces are used. Thousands of years since the bow and it is known that fires alone can not be decisive, cold steel is what determines who holds the field at the end.
The problem is, if you introduce a new tank that is not capable of taking hits from the existing stockpiles of 120/125mm, then Questions Will Be Asked In Parliament/Congress.
Tanks aren't some singular piece of weaponry that comes and goes and can be easily substituted.
I don't think any ship in existence will handle a 2,000lbs GP bomb well, let alone half a dozen of these.
Ok admittedly I lost you on the last one. I really have no idea what point you're making.
Exactly. This process isn't happening, so it's premature to talk about some radical changes to munition tech, which is stangant at the moment.
Iron Fist demonstrated an APFSDS defeat by tilting the rod, over 20 years ago.
Thank you BZ. Nothing worth pursuing is COTS.
If congress is not insane, you can tell him that old tanks can killed by hobbyshop drones as they have shown to die to in huge numbers.
In the world of munitions tech, missiles have superior performance to guns. Missiles have more warhead payload, higher maximum velocity, higher rate of fire (if needed), longer range, greater accuracy and more capability to fit complex systems for a given platform size.
So install APS on the old tanks, duh.
Agreed.
A vehicle with 100% resistance to drones and missiles and 100% KE resistance is going to roll over even heavier formations.
Just make stand-in faster and more effective then. It's that simple.
You really think the stand-off is immune to the stand-in?
I don't know what artillery formation you're familiar with, but I'm familiar with various UAS types organic to the artillery battalion.
The barntank sacrafices its entire combat mechanism to do that. It can't spot, it can't shoot. It can just drive forward knowing it's sheer luck from then on.
Then just deploy the tank with mostly HE rounds. Problem solved, no harm done.
So when are we replacing every grunt's rifle with a Javelin?
tanks-encyclopedia.com
So, an airplane, not a tank which isn't moving any faster without a different locomotion mechanism.
Fleets operate without ship rams and boarding bridges for stand-in combat. Airplanes don't ram each other and many don't even have guns now. Tanks also use guns and are not designed to ram each other, unlike the cavalry that it replaces that function at sword cut range.
The artillery involves a large number of systems and they deliver more fire power than tanks faster. The warheads are bigger, the rate of fire is comparable to faster.
Proper C-UAS and C-RAM isn't 5 shot APS without mutually supporting area coverage. One wants to dedicate most if not all the resources at it until the threat is utterly saturated and overwhelmed since that is what most enemy formations have in excess, which means large amounts of both long and short range interceptors for layered defense and mutual support.
Artillery has been too slow reacting to hit tanks, until recently with computerized network fires.
If a tool is too rarely useful, it can't decide wars and don't need to exist.
When you move up in gun size, the HE is overkill against normal targets and ammo count goes down to nothing.
The infantry long range kill chain is not completed with Javelin since they can only spot each other at sub 150m under normal conditions.
A tank can move faster with more effective envelope (C2, CAS, artillery) and more effective maneuver support elements (CEV, ARV, MED).
If you imagined that stand-in doesn't exist anymore, what's your problem with stand-in?
Your naval examples are negated by the reality that every carrier is part of a carrier strike group involving multiple escorting vessels each capable of only a stand-in battle.
You're kinda proving my point there.
Then why do you treat it like it is just the APS?
A 120mm gun is not optimized against infantry and fortifications? Ok buddy.
What's the issue with it being recent? FPV drones built in a shed are less than a decade old.
Wrong.
I've never heard of 120mm being overkill. To the contrary - I've heard complaints from soldiers who had to switch from more expensive HE-MP to HEAT due to shortages, that they often have to fire 2-3 shots at the same target.
Why do infantry get to keep their guns but longer range things don't?
If a VSHORAD vehicle is survivable enough to be within support range from a MBT, it is survivable enough to be deployed independently as a general purpose front line combat vehicle. It'd have all the features needed to defeat light forces if it is survivable enough to be in the front as light forces don't have heavy armor as to demand specialized offensive weapons.
A RPO is the same explosive filler but at far greater efficiency, and in a far smaller launcher package that you can hand out to infantry or load onto a very cheap ground drone (or a relatively expensive aerial one, or just make a bomb instead).
For targets that 120mm is overkill, people don't talk about it because there is no ammo and logistics shortage, however you do see that in vehicles with very tight ammo volume constraints like IFVs, they choose small autocannons instead of large guns while "light tanks" commonly choose 105mm. If most targets needs 120mm than most vehicles would fit them even if in low velocity form, instead of only the SABOT shooters getting them. The large ammo volumes and sheer propellent energy is what makes Russian tanks so vulnerable and tank protection in general a difficult problem.
Tanks can shoot farther out but they do in fact close in with the infantry and fight cooperatively. Because the job of tanks and infantry is to arrive at the objective, and fight at the objective.
Are they in the room with us?
You can be pedantic if you wish, but to your own detriment.
Yeah but why would anyone do that? That'd be stupid.
I assume you're referring to video games here, because IRL you cannot really "attach" a unit mid-combat. As in, teleport a unit into a combat zone the instant someone spooky appears. You have to send that unit in beforehand, to accompany the maneuvering unit along the way. And of course you scope out the area you assault to get a grasp of what you're going to face.
APS is actually dirt cheap. You should familiarize with the topic. Tanks without SHORAD can actually survive quite well, and we have recent wars to demonstrate that.
105mm is a popular choice for some light tanks because they're not meant to be used against mechanized forces, i.e. they won't see armor. And because there's a lot of 105mm ammo out there that's cheaper to leverage than opting for new production 120mm, even if it means giving up on a bit of lethality.
Ok on this one I agree. It's totally ok to hand out 40 Shmellies to a single platoon.
You do know that different shells have different amounts of propellant, right?
Not enough space. Not feasible.
You know 105mm APFSDS is still a thing, right?
Soviet design philosophy is what makes them vulnerable, not the volume or propellant energy.
Not very ideal when you're only carrying so much ammunition.
And soft targets, and light armored vehicles, and helicopters, and whatever else dares move in its LoS.
Trajectory is different between artillery and tanks. In fact, trajectory limitations are exactly why the workshare of artillery is decreasing.
Said literally none who has done combat ever.
Oh, absolutely.
CMV of the Heavy Force Modernization plan and then Grizzly with the M1 chassis. Both passed on. Now it’s the M1150 I guess.
As you are aware Bruno the Marine's ABV which the Army adopted is quite less a capability than Grizzly.
It’s crap!
