European MGCS ( Main Ground Combat System)

[jsport]

Why is it an important distinction?

I'm listening.

tks need rds for defense & Offense via Gun boosted missiles.

So tanks should have 140mm guns instead of 120mm? I personally disagree but let's agree for the sake of the argument.
How does it make a missile more effective within the given tasks?

A gun fired missile needs max Fuel & explosive payload in a larger formfactor. Repeatly stated.

Alright so elaborate with either the LAHAT or Akeron 120mm or whatever other existing or notional design.

Gun boosted rds r the way of the future.. At least one other inc. beleives so.

 

[Big_Zukini]

A gun fired missile needs max Fuel & explosive payload in a larger formfactor. Repeatly stated.

Didn't you previously say that larger explosive payload is unnecessary and that "bigger boom" is just for video games?

 

[jsport]

Booms r great depending on the mission. Various warheads r often interchangeable on cruise missiles.

 

[kqcke for you]

An APS designed to defeat it will defeat it...am not proposing tanks be replaced by TOW vehicles. TOW vehicles are for stopping tanks. Tanks r for break thrus/breech etc.

No you where saying and i qoute: "Even the latest TOW goes HV @ terminal rendering current APS less useful if not obsolete." Which for one isn't even true because this TOW doesn't exist yet but also because there are current APS designed advertising being able to defeat sutch threats.

The goal is all engagements offboard , especailly via UGV. The tank & its conventional rds are primarily the defensive bodyguard for remote controllers.

Thats not answering my question but avoiding it....

Effects based means engaging the High Value Tgts (HVTs) & High Payoff Tgts (HPTs) which r usually unarmored but deep ie out of tank rng.

So in short you want to give tanks the role of the artillery because there important targets that can only be reached by artillery?

Gun boosted missiles r protected inside the tank but acheive missile+ rngs & therefore cost more. more is expected for the cost.

Or you know have a turret protecting those missiles....

Why not prempt an atk on ur vehicle. The Israelis had automation to even move the vehicle. Why not automate a premeptive defensive shot as well as manuever.

Isn't a premeptive strike offensive? My goal may be defensive in its intend but its definitely offensive in nature.

?

My bad my autocorrect made some gibberish out of it. My point was that explaining it again maybe even with greater detail helps more than saying i stated it already or it was explained xy. What also doesn't help is abbreviating everything.

Deeper, & valuable effects r worth the cost & volumn.. For instance, immediate tgting of opposing drone c2 nodes, logistics hubs, ammunition & fuel points. Armor & artillery meld as have argued many a time.

Or i know crazy idea but have a combined armed force that uses artillery vehicles for those targets out of reach of tank because there designed for it and allowing the tank to follow its role of being an armored support with heavy firepower for the lighter forces and no this doesn't mean you can't have UGVs or other unmanned systems within this force.

Edit:

Now i stop

 

[jsport]

No you where saying and i qoute: "Even the latest TOW goes HV @ terminal rendering current APS less useful if not obsolete." Which for one isn't even true because this TOW doesn'
Thats not answering my question but avoiding it....

You seemed earlier to agree the patent may well be a classifed capability. The real point is that every competeting country now realizes the importance of defeating the current APS and high energy is one option.

So in short you want to give tanks the role of the artillery because there important targets that can only be reached by artillery?

The importance of deep area effects can not be underestimated and must be a techonologic direction.

Or you know have a turret protecting those missiles....

The remote controler vehicle is best a tank w/ longer range gun

 

[shin_getter]

But designs shown above don't even try.
They are still by an large are preparing for Fulda bs, with a small rws signifying how drone mindful they are.
I like reenactment, but reenacting a war that didn't even happen is a bit overrated.

At present, yes.

All of which can be corrected in the next design.

Problems with design and engineering can be fixed, problems with semantics can not.

The problem with the "tank" is that if a vehicle does other things, it is no longer considered a "tank." If a vehicle can do AA, it is AA (even when it can still anti-tank, like ADATS), if a vehicle can do indirect, it is artillery. If a vehicle have more anti-structure firepower than dart throwing power, it is an "assault gun." If a vehicle packs missiles, or fast firing guns, or *whatever* it is no longer a "tank." A tank is defined by what it can't do more than what it can (since tons of "not tank" vehicles can do what tanks do, and more, for some generation of tank that may not be most modern).

We can look at the naval domain. Destroyers and cruisers have undergone technological revolutions with new systems and concept of operations and is just as relevant today. "Battleships" did not, not because powerful large surface combatants don't get built, but they don't get considered battleships since they lack large artillery and thick belt armor. The Project 1144 Kirov-class pack enough nuclear firepower to neutralize a small country but it is not a battleship~

And people will lock in the semantic concept of the MBT just as they do for battleships, because guns are just that lovely. 60 years after the end of WW2 people can still discuss bringing back the Iowa (navweaps/warships1 forums), justifying it using the argument "there could be machineguns on a beach, thus we need 16" artillery to beat it!" Certainly they come up with many ideas for adding VLS or Harriers to the Iowa, but never touch the front 16" turrets because "that is the real weapon" probably. Even in this thread, talking about 76mm autocannons, a gun size sufficient for just about all tanks of ww2, is considered laughable "but it is not 120mm, clearly not a tank and not a REAL combat vehicle."

One of the more schizo-part of this thread is at one point talking about how APFSDS darts can get disrupted by APS, and still demanding such weapons as primary. Well well, any autocannon can pepper APS to death (and a missile can then kill it) and with dart beating APS equipped, a Namer IFV would handily beat a Merkava. In any case armor pen means very little if one thinks about T-14 and M1TTB in hull down position, in that the front area is almost entirely the gun or sensors with very little armor area. An actual hit would generally hit the gun or sensor thus mission kill and the important part is to hit the damned (small) thing, dart pen does very little. The same problem of hitting some damned tiny thing quickly overlaps with hitting drones.

This also parallels naval combat. It is possible to heavily armor the hull of a ship, but the sensors can not be armored and a ship is neutralized and irrelevant without sensors. Still to many, tin cans are obviously not good for battle, it can't even take a hit~

 

[yeetmahboi]

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8119956B2/en
Multistage from TOW launcher. Did only a cursory search so probably more patents. This problem has been known for a long long time since the cancellation of CKEM, LOSAT.

That is for a representative LOSAT/KEM that can be launched from a TOW mount, not a TOW tube, so CKEM. Not TOW. This is a production missile thus would be legislated to be documented which it has not.

 

[Big_Zukini]

So let's summarize:
Artillery is better than tanks for artillery missions.
MGCS is not an artillery project.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Looping back to 120mm Vulcano: the 127mm ship loading is at about 270MPa. M830A1 MPAT operates at about 450MPa, L44 sabots run around 570-660MPa, and L55 high pressure sabot rounds run around 700-735MPa.

So the higher chamber pressure can easily make up for the lower powder volume in the combustible case. Though in US/Abrams usage range would suffer due to L44 barrels instead of L55s. If the L64 barrel is worth a 20% range gain, I'd guesstimate that the L44 tube would be worth a -20%. Only 80km for the GPS/inertial guided round, aboout 55km for the IR guided round.

That said, for maximum range you'd need ramps to increase the effective elevation of the tube, tanks are usually around +20deg elevation so would need a 30deg ramp or available microterrain.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Looping back to 120mm Vulcano: the 127mm ship loading is at about 270MPa. M830A1 MPAT operates at about 450MPa, L44 sabots run around 570-660MPa, and L55 high pressure sabot rounds run around 700-735MPa.

So the higher chamber pressure can easily make up for the lower powder volume in the combustible case. Though in US/Abrams usage range would suffer due to L44 barrels instead of L55s. If the L64 barrel is worth a 20% range gain, I'd guesstimate that the L44 tube would be worth a -20%. Only 80km for the GPS/inertial guided round, aboout 55km for the IR guided round.

That said, for maximum range you'd need ramps to increase the effective elevation of the tube, tanks are usually around +20deg elevation so would need a 30deg ramp or available microterrain.

Why would a 120mm Vulcano be used instead of a 155mm one?
And a ramp is pretty easy. Just construct an earthen one. Few minutes of work.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why would a 120mm Vulcano be used instead of a 155mm one?
And a ramp is pretty easy. Just construct an earthen one. Few minutes of work.

Because 155mm Vulcano isn't notably longer ranged than Excalibur.

And 120mm gives your tanks some seriously long range shots either for targets of opportunity or during the approach.

Given current Abrams ammo load, I wouldn't expect more than maybe four of those 120mm Vulcano rounds on hand.

 

[kqcke for you]

Looping back to 120mm Vulcano: the 127mm ship loading is at about 270MPa. M830A1 MPAT operates at about 450MPa, L44 sabots run around 570-660MPa, and L55 high pressure sabot rounds run around 700-735MPa.
So the higher chamber pressure can easily make up for the lower powder volume in the combustible case.

This assumption only works if you can get that pressure which depends very mutch on your propellent and its amount which again is from the concept images less than that what M830A1 has. The next question would be if Vulcano in any guided form could even survive the very high end of thoses pressures.

Though in US/Abrams usage range would suffer due to L44 barrels instead of L55s. If the L64 barrel is worth a 20% range gain,

Which L64?

I'd guesstimate that the L44 tube would be worth a -20%. Only 80km for the GPS/inertial guided round, aboout 55km for the IR guided round.

Why the reduction for the IR guided round? They are virtually the same round from the outside or atleast that is the goal.

Because 155mm Vulcano isn't notably longer ranged than Excalibur.

If i remember everything right then Vulcano out reaches the Excalibur by around 20km in the same barrel length. I would argue thats nogably more.

 

[jsport]

That is for a representative LOSAT/KEM that can be launched from a TOW mount, not a TOW tube, so CKEM. Not TOW. This is a production missile thus would be legislated to be documented which it has not.

Must we suffer more nit node? ..am not sure whether this is the one first viewed or whether there r multiple other patents and not going to look. The point of the argument was whether defeating APS tech was being looked at. That's all. We r off way off topic. Crux remains, APS tech is still in the Model A phase & tanks need to fire guided gun boosted missiles which might need to go HV in terminal phase.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Because 155mm Vulcano isn't notably longer ranged than Excalibur.

And 120mm gives your tanks some seriously long range shots either for targets of opportunity or during the approach.

Given current Abrams ammo load, I wouldn't expect more than maybe four of those 120mm Vulcano rounds on hand.

But why would a tank need to make long range shots?

And if the opportunity presented to fit a cruise missile on a tank - would we take it?

 

[jsport]

But why would a tank need to make long range shots?

And if the opportunity presented to fit a cruise missile on a tank - would we take it?

The hyperbolic is shambolic.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Which L64?

127mm naval gun.

Why the reduction for the IR guided round? They are virtually the same round from the outside or atleast that is the goal.

NavWeaps says the unguided multipurpose and IR guided rounds have a range of 70km, while the GPS/IMU has a 100km range.

If i remember everything right then Vulcano out reaches the Excalibur by around 20km in the same barrel length. I would argue thats nogably more.

So, the 155mm Vulcano is listed as having a 70km range in the brochure, while an Excalibur out of a 58cal tube has the same range.

But why would a tank need to make long range shots?

Target of opportunity is what comes to mind. Maybe a drone control node.

And if the opportunity presented to fit a cruise missile on a tank - would we take it?

We've been talking about long-ranged drones for half this thread.

 

[kqcke for you]

NavWeaps says the unguided multipurpose and IR guided rounds have a range of 70km, while the GPS/IMU has a 100km range.

Well Leonardo says something else.

So, the 155mm Vulcano is listed as having a 70km range in the brochure, while an Excalibur out of a 58cal tube has the same range.

And now i pull out the L/60 and Vulcano does around 100km. You see how this doesn't make sense as a comparison because its apples vs oranges? Especially when the L58 was dropped if i got it right (but who does in the US army endless N109 replacement cyle).

Target of opportunity is what comes to mind. Maybe a drone control node.

Or supporting your own forces faster.

Side question but can anyone access the EDR Website? Because i can't and for example this post would be interresting for this discussion:
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/eurosatory-2026-leonardo-details-progresses-on-vulcano-land-ammunition

 

[Big_Zukini]

Target of opportunity is what comes to mind. Maybe a drone control node.

Sure, but 70-100km is division AOR.
In what scenario would div HQ issue a fire mission to a tank unit instead of artillery unit?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sure, but 70-100km is division AOR.
In what scenario would div HQ issue a fire mission to a tank unit instead of artillery unit?

All arty being otherwise in use.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Side question but can anyone access the EDR Website? Because i can't and for example this post would be interresting for this discussion:
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/eurosatory-2026-leonardo-details-progresses-on-vulcano-land-ammunition

No, even the top level site gives me an "Error establishing a database connection" message.

 

[kqcke for you]

Shame because its same problem i have. Guess EDR is down again

 

[Titus K]

Nice footage of the uncrewed 140mm Ascalon gun firing on the move

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMPeqhybzvU

 

[Scott Kenny]

Shame because its same problem i have. Guess EDR is down again

It's back!

The other land member of the Vulcano family is the 120 mm round, which is being developed to provide a secondary indirect firing capability to main battle tanks (MBTs). Typically the maximum elevation of an MBT gun is around 20°, much less than that of an artillery howitzer, which is born for indirect fire missions, but sufficient to deal with targets at over 10 km distance, allowing a tank formation to hit a beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) target without the need to require the intervention of support units. The Vulcano 120 programme was made public in July 2025 and is still in the early development phase, a first product being foreseen in three-year time.

Hitting a BLOS objective is not only a matter of range and of overcoming obstacles between the firing platform and the objective, it also needs to guide the projectile on the target. The first iteration of the Vulcano 120 will be fitted with a SAL seeker, hence it needs an illuminator that tracks the target, and at Eurosatory the round mock-up was showcased together with a nominal ISR VTOL drone, a quadcopter, which payload is compatible with that of a miniaturised laser illuminator. The drone would fly well ahead of the tank, acquire the target, and loiter at a range of 2-4 km from the target, which dictates the illuminator range. As Leonardo is considering targets at ranges between 10 and 30 km, this means a flight time of around 20 to 60 seconds if we considering a flat trajectory, the average velocity of the Vulcano 120 being between 500 and 600 m/s. As said obstacles between the firing platform and the target might impede reaching the objective, due to the limited elevation of MBT guns; Leonardo engineers are therefore working on “uphill” trajectories, exploiting the projectile manoeuvrability since the beginning of the flight. Some 2 to 3 km after launch the manoeuvring capacity of the round comes into play, pulling up the projectile to allow it overcoming vertical obstacles. Trajectory shaping is also used in the final phase of the engagement, to hit the target at the most effective angle or to reach it even if it is hidden close to an obstacle.

Here too Leonardo engineers consider a 10 seconds target illuminating session, a time based on considerations about time of impact uncertainties, energy consumption, cooling and becoming easily detectable.

Tests with the Vulcano 120 have not yet been carried out, however Leonardo considers the activities done with the Vulcano GLD-SAL a risk-reduction factor. The company is currently defining system requirements without linking it to any specific drone or designator. Should line-of-sight engagements at long range (5-10 km) be required, Leonardo considers the Vulcano 120 could cope with this mission, with the aim of neutralising the threat disabling for example its optics rather than destroying it.

Emphasis mine.

Huh, was not expecting only a 10km range out of a system that can go a lot farther out of a Naval gun. Also wasn't expecting only 500-600m/s, that's way slow for a tank gun and really kills the range.

But we'll see how much range they can pull out of a pop-up and glide shaped trajectory.

A Vulcano 120 with an IIR seeker is also part of the development programme. Work on the IIR seeker is ongoing, EDR On-Line understood, which might also be adapted to the Vulcano 155 GLD-IIR to be used against land targets, however no more details were provided.

The article says that existing IIR seeker doesn't have the discrimination range (sensitivity?) to handle targets on land. The countries currently buying/talking about buying Vulcano 155 with IIR are talking about using it in a coastal artillery role where the IIR seeker works just fine versus naval targets against ocean temperatures.

 

[kqcke for you]

It's back!

Nice

Huh, was not expecting only a 10km range out of a system that can go a lot farther out of a Naval gun. Also wasn't expecting only 500-600m/s, that's way slow for a tank gun and really kills the range.

Well again its not a lot of propellent and you probaly can't use it even get that high of an pressure.

But we'll see how much range they can pull out of a pop-up and glide shaped trajectory.

Well it wouldn't be too mutch probaly if they run into the jamming problem again as ukraine did but maybe thats actualy the speed killer. Pulling up early means extending the canards early which increases the drag by a lot.

The article says that existing IIR seeker doesn't have the discrimination range (sensitivity?) to handle targets on land. The countries currently buying/talking about buying Vulcano 155 with IIR are talking about using it in a coastal artillery role where the IIR seeker works just fine versus naval targets against ocean temperatures.

Yes this was already said before in the older report. The Problem is the old one was designed only for Naval targets and your environment is simple. You got your ocean and that little "miniture sun" on it.

 

[jsport]

Nice footage of the uncrewed 140mm Ascalon gun firing on the move

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMPeqhybzvU

wow, never even considered the basement & multi-story overmatch effects.

 

[shin_getter]

Nice footage of the uncrewed 140mm Ascalon gun firing on the move

Try 155mm fire on the move on a 8x8..... 140mm fire on the move on a MBT chassis is zzz

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-CcnKhKGCM&t=2s

Frankly just need people to stop demanding frontal turret armor...

 

[jsport]

Slightly amused that Rheinmetall managed to make an uncrewed turret which appears larger than most crewed turrets. On brand.

Optionly manned turret may sound impractical but it may not be.
BTW: Understand the Germans R want a 130mm R gun while the Fren
ch want the KNDS As 140mm gun & r not getting along about this.
The MARTE is calling for 6km hull mounted ATGM. Why risk an external mounted missile which can be carried on a ugv escort. Use the main gun to toss a missile out to extra range.

 

[Scott Kenny]

BTW: Understand the Germans R want a 130mm R gun while the French want the KNDS As 140mm gun & r not getting along about this.
The MARTE is calling for 6km hull mounted ATGM. Why risk an external mounted missile which can be carried on a ugv escort. Use the main gun to toss a missile out to extra range.

But you can get a 6+km range missile out of a 120mm... XM1111 Mid Range Munition was 12km, (the Soviet-era AT-8/10/11/12 were 5km weapons), Israeli LAHAT is a 6-8km weapon, KSTAM-1 is ~5km but KSTAM-2 is 8km, FALARICK is 8+km, IIRC the XM943 STAFF was an 8-10km weapon...

No reason to reach for 130 or 140mm rounds just yet, solely in order to have CLGPs with enough range. Also, I believe that the 120mm/L55 with the M829A3 or A4 would be more than adequate until the development and widespread deployment of long-rod-capable APS. So you don't necessarily need the longer rods capable of fitting in the 130mm or 140mm, either. Barring exotic developments in passive armor, I don't think you're going to need much more performance than current 120mm on the grounds that current frontal armor is so heavy that further up-armored tanks will be too heavy to be viable.

 

[jsport]

But you can get a 6+km range missile out of a 120mm... XM1111 Mid Range Munition was 12km, (the Soviet-era AT-8/10/11/12 were 5km weapons), Israeli LAHAT is a 6-8km weapon, KSTAM-1 is ~5km but KSTAM-2 is 8km, FALARICK is 8+km, IIRC the XM943 STAFF was an 8-10km weapon..

..would not argue against the Korean, et al rds however as stated earlier higher internal volume is the reason for larger rds. Since STAFF, & MRM didn't happen & the USArmy says they want 8km then a 120mm is necessary for the current M1 series. Any future NATO standard, however should be 140mm w an indirect fire focus. Direct fire being largely the preview of RCVs.

No reason to reach for 130 or 140mm rounds just yet, solely in order to have CLGPs with enough range.

Of course there is every reason as development takes time and requirement is way overdue. Range is like high ground That is obvious.

Also, I believe that the 120mm/L55 with the M829A3 or A4 would be more than adequate until the development and widespread deployment of long-rod-capable APS.

Proprietary & government secrecy would argue that rod length is not an issue. Disrupting a rod is difficult enough but if you can do it. You got it. How does length matter?

So you don't necessarily need the longer rods capable of fitting in the 130mm or 140mm, either.

Even contemplating direct fire is passe. If you have to get into a fist fight you are already losing. You want a punch from out of the sky. Much more ungentlemanly.

Direct fire is necessary for vehicle defense. Tanks are for offense, DF is for survivability only.

Barring exotic developments in passive armor, I don't think you're going to need much more performance than current 120mm on the grounds that current frontal armor is so heavy that further up-armored tanks will be too heavy to be viable.

The arc of history is headed towards top atack so any country not focused on better & better APS will be left wanting. APS is not an after thought, it should be a for thought. That and fuel space on one's missile munitions

 

[Big_Zukini]

Any future NATO standard, however should be 140mm w an indirect fire focus.

The 140mm is highly optimized for direct fire. If you want an indirect fire focus there are more suitable options:
81mm mortar, 120mm mortar, 105mm howitzer, 155mm howitzer.

Proprietary & government secrecy would argue that rod length is not an issue. Disrupting a rod is difficult enough but if you can do it. You got it. How does length matter?

Long rod penetrator is just one name for an APFSDS. The A3 and A4 are not exceptionally long.

Even contemplating direct fire is passe. If you have to get into a fist fight you are already losing. You want a punch from out of the sky. Much more ungentlemanly.

Direct fire is necessary for vehicle defense. Tanks are for offense, DF is for survivability only.

Do you believe self defense is unimportant?

 

[jsport]

The 140mm is highly optimized for direct fire. If you want an indirect fire focus there are more suitable options:
81mm mortar, 120mm mortar, 105mm howitzer, 155mm howitzer.t

Understand some Merks have 60mm mortars for various purposes almost like the pre-emptive APS I suggested. Discussion of mortars & SPHs seems like an atempt to change the subject. Artillery & mortars are not in need of replacement anytime soon.

Long rod penetrator is just one name for an APFSDS. The A3 and A4 are not exceptionally long.

Yes, as stated one's APS either defeats APFSDS or it doesn't.

Do you believe self defense is unimportant?

What sort of prejudicial comment is that?

 

[Big_Zukini]

Understand some Merks have 60mm mortars for various purposes almost like the pre-emptive APS I suggested.

A rarely used relic of British philosophy. Used primarily for smoke, marking, and illumination.

Discussion of mortars & SPHs seems like an atempt to change the subject. Artillery & mortars are not in need of replacement anytime soon.

No.
For indirect fire they are superior. I'm not talking about a howitzer or mortar vehicle. But the gun itself. Its characteristics are optimized for indirect fire. And the smoothbore 120mm to 140mm tank guns are optimized for direct fire.
The main difference is in the trajectory. A typical tank gun has a preset charge, while a howitzer accepts bag and modular charges, which allow to change the pressure and in turn the trajectory of the round.

What sort of prejudicial comment is that?

Well?

 

[jsport]

A rarely used relic of British philosophy. Used primarily for smoke, marking, and illumination.

No.
For indirect fire they are superior. I'm not talking about a howitzer or mortar vehicle. But the gun itself. Its characteristics are optimized for indirect fire. And the smoothbore 120mm to 140mm tank guns are optimized for direct fire.

Yes, of course that is why a missile/muntion. The smooth barrel allows boost to ,for instance, reach apogy before the missile motor is even ignited. .I dont pretend to know what optimization looks like but rng is king. If ur trying to slug it out in DF ur already .5 losing especially on the transparent battlefield.

The main difference is in the trajectory. A typical tank gun has a preset charge, while a howitzer accepts bag and modular charges, which allow to change the pressure and in turn the trajectory of the round.

Again, everyone understands the difference in guns. Ive put powder bags in hot howizter and pulled the lanyard. Noone wants powder bags in a tank that is why artillery is out of the discussion. Some carried offensive rds should have a boost charge & then a missile propellent for the guided portion. Seems simple.

I would always argue for unfinished RGLP gun developent to continue especially given advances in safe, binary, explosive liquids, but that is not part of this current discussion. Much in other threads, especially what Crusader could have been after much testing. Not seeking to repeat. RGLP would genuinly argue for a single SPH & tank

 

[Big_Zukini]

Yes, of course that is why a missile/muntion. The smooth barrel allows boost to ,for instance, reach apogy before the missile motor is even ignited. .I dont pretend to know what optimization looks like but rng is king. If ur trying to slug it out in DF ur already .5 losing especially on the transparent battlefield.

For the number of targets, and given how even going down to 20 stowed main rounds is considered a too big compromise, a missile is not going to be the main munition. So indirect fire will have to be conducted mostly with unguided shells.

would always argue for unfinished RGLP gun developent to continue especially given advances in safe, binary, explosive liquids, but that is not part of this current discussion. Much in other threads, especially what Crusader could have been after much testing. Not seeking to repeat. RGLP would genuinly argue for a single SPH & tank

Conceptually how do you think an interim solution of M109s as MBTs and M1A2 as SPH would work out?

 

[jsport]

For the number of targets, and given how even going down to 20 stowed main rounds is considered a too big compromise, a missile is not going to be the main munition. So indirect fire will have to be conducted mostly with unguided shells.

couldnt disagree more. That is ur wrong opinion. tanks are not going to be involved in long fights. Tanks are for breakthroughs to be exploited by other follow ons primarily IFVs. Even w/ advanced APS tanks will spend most of their time hiding, w/ intermittent running either to or from firing points. Ukraine is the example. Stay too long, do much more than hide or run & ur dead. ATGMS are for opposing tanks. RCVs do most of the fighting. Like repeatedly stated, the tank is the armored manned remote control station. RCVs are not ready for 140mm guns firing in arcs as would argue automated gunnery is great till there is problem then a manned crew must attempt to remedy & carry on or bail.

Conceptually how do you think an interim solution of M109s as MBTs and M1A2 as SPH would work out?

Never, Crusader was approaching more protection w/ the proposed RGLP hvy MG able to successfully engage AFVs but not tanks. Speed is life and the Boxer or Piranha/Stryker based RCH 155s indirect fire from the move is great but not enough to be used for breakthroughs where tank armor is necessary.

 

[Big_Zukini]

couldnt disagree more. That is ur wrong opinion. tanks are not going to be involved in long fights.

Given that they currently are, what is the basis to "ur" (your) assumption that they won't in the future?

Ukraine is the example. Stay too long, do much more than hide or run & ur dead. ATGMS are for opposing tanks. RCVs do most of the fighting.

If Ukraine is the example, can you provide the statistics on usage of RCVs (UGVs) in the capacity of an MBT or alternatively as a main combat element?
No need for army-wide. Just one at least regiment sized unit would suffice.

Like repeatedly stated, the tank is the armored manned remote control station. RCVs are not ready for 140mm guns firing in arcs as would argue automated gunnery is great till there is problem then a manned crew must attempt to remedy & carry on or bail.

So 140mm is out of the question for the future armored battle group?

 

[jsport]

Given that they currently are, what is the basis to "ur" (your) assumption that they won't in the future?

The dispersed.transparent nature of future battles.

If Ukraine is the example, can you provide the statistics on usage of RCVs (UGVs) in the capacity of an MBT or alternatively as a main combat element?
No need for army-wide. Just one at least regiment sized unit would suffice.

A bizarre baiting question. Future ops characterized above.

So 140mm is out of the question for the future armored battle group?

No idea what ur talking about.

 

[Big_Zukini]

The dispersed.transparent nature of future battles.

What about the existence of past MBTs in past "dispersed and transparent" battles?

A bizarre baiting question. Future ops characterized above.

Is a request for evidence a "bait"?
That is a fishy mindset.

No idea what ur talking about.

You implied a 140mm gun will not be used. I asked you to clarify.

 

[jsport]

What about the existence of past MBTs in past "dispersed and transparent" battles?

120mm missile/munition seems to be moving along. US Army wants 8km for Abrams gun, as a start
APS is the real problem. Abrams has been in storage for sometime now in Ukr.

Is a request for evidence a "bait"?
That is a fishy mindset.

..monitor daily if you want more that costs money/time as is pointless. U either follow this or you don't. The conversation became pointless sometime ago. Trolling. Cliche.

You implied a 140mm gun will not be used. I asked you to clarify.

Clarify what. KNDs French want 140mm. Rheinmetal German want 130mm as stated way back. The US needs to begin a discussion about larger than 120mm. Again all the rest of this conversation is more BS. Trying to bait me.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Clarify what. KNDs French want 140mm. Rheinmetal German want 130mm as stated way back. The US needs to begin a discussion about larger than 120mm.

The US is still using an L44. How does M829A4 perform out of an L55?