YouTube

AbramsX and KF51 Panther Rambling.

Totally unresearched Op-Ed piece, due to popular demand. Why some of the new features aren't new, why some make sense, and why I think neither tank is going ...

Soe he argues that a tank should be as samll as possible, so 3 crew, unmanned turret and as much ammo as possible. @Schnuersi, I get his point. I am not sure that the big tank with secondary AC is the way to go. 

graylion said:

Soe he argues that a tank should be as samll as possible, so 3 crew, unmanned turret and as much ammo as possible. @Schnuersi, I get his point. I am not sure that the big tank with secondary AC is the way to go.

I have seen this video some time ago.
First of all I want to make it clear that I do not argue for big tanks. Quite the contrary. I have allways argued that 50t should be the max weight for a new MBT and it should be as small as possible. Which means three man crew, in hull, unmanned turret with autoloader.

I also do where The Chieftain comes from and why he argues the way he does. I don't think he is wrong. But he is missing some things or not thinking far ahead enough IMHO. He is also arguing specifically from an US Army armor perspective. Which is not universal.

My agrument for a powerfull secondary armament of MBTs is for two main reasons: endurance and flexibility.
Yes it would be preferable if enough main gun ammo could be carried and as a result the main gun can be used against allmost every target. IMHO this is unrealistic though. Especially if the tank is supposed to be small or even of reasonable size. Spare ammo storage, as handled in the past, is simply not feasible anymore. If a 40+ rds autoloader for a 130 or 140 mm main gun can be build and if its of reasonable size why not. But i really doubt that. With less than 40 rds carried the number of shots is simply to limited. In this case a secondary armament is needed. The argument that AC ammo storage space could be used for main gun ammo storage is flawed IMHO. The main gun ammo is stored in the turret bustle. Inside the autoloader. It can not simply be put anywhere. Not like in the past where ammo could be squeed into every spot and the loader would somehow get it out. But AC ammo is small and uses a different feed system. The space inside the turret, especially the basket could be far better untilised by putting AC ammo there.

My original idear of flexibility has been to be able to use the most apropiate weapon for a target. Besides conserving ammo it has less chance of endangering friendlies and civillians. There is a reason why the MPF is NOT equiped with a 120 mm gun.
Furthermore with the drone threat now being a thing an MBT IMHO needs a weapon that allows it to effectively defend itself. Not only against single drones but several or swarm attacks. Even with AB ammo the main gun can not do that.

The sensor packages a modern MBT would carry also gives new options. Something The Chieftain does not adress at all. The anti drone/ADS sensors can allow for engaging not only approaching drones but approaching ATGMs. Which becomes important if the next gen of ATGMs that can deal with ADS comes around. The stand off distance needs to grow. In additon to that would be an automatic egaging of the launcher (if in LOS and detected) with a burst of AB HE.
This would significantly enhance the capability of an MBT.
IMHO these capabilities are highly desirable even if 40+ rounds of main gun ammo can be carried.


 

In that case I think 30x113 might be a good compromise?

Have the tank have a main gun, a coax MG and an 30x113 RWS. 

Add SPAAG at company level to take care of drones that the 30x113 can't handle.

graylion said:

In that case I think 30x113 might be a good compromise?

Have the tank have a main gun, a coax MG and an 30x113 RWS.

Besides that i am not a supporter of 30x113 in general i think it would be an exeptionally poor choice for the role I described.
From my point of view 30x113 is a 40 mm GL on steroids. Their roles overlap with the main difference being the bigger range of the 30x113.

As secondary armament for a future MBT the weapon should be much more potent. In the 35 or 40 mm class. This means most non MBT targets can be effectively engaged at typical MBT combat ranges with high efficiency. Payload is good. Low time of flight. Shrapnel type ammo is an option (important for the anti drone/ATGM role). Can be used for accurate long range waring shots and "sniping" in LIC and COIN. The payload means most fire support missions and engagements with soft targets can be handled by the secondary armament.
Such a powerfull gun most likely would not be in an RWS but coax. I don't think a large and tall RWS is a good thing for an MBT though. Even an RWS for a GPMG should be retractable or foldable to keep a low silhouette most of the time.

graylion said:

Add SPAAG at company level to take care of drones that the 30x113 can't handle.

Of course it would be preferrable to have this capability. But even if the systems would be available it can not be guaranteed that they can cover every MBT all the time. This is why serious self defense capability is needed. This includes to detect, track and target drones at a distance where effective countermeasures and engagement is still possible.
Concidering the cost of full scale SPAA systems I doubt enough will become available in most militaries.

schnuersi said...

Concidering the cost of full scale SPAA systems I doubt enough will become available in most militaries.

What do you consider the features that define a full scale SPAA system?

Most modern IFV turrets seem to have most of what you need to swat drones.

schnuersi said...

I don't think a large and tall RWS is a good thing for an MBT though. Even an RWS for a GPMG should be retractable or foldable to keep a low silhouette most of the time.

Well said. I think the systems that have the weapon mounted on a scarf ring around the main sight are a pretty good idea.

schnuersi said:

As secondary armament for a future MBT the weapon should be much more potent. In the 35 or 40 mm class. This means most non MBT targets can be effectively engaged at typical MBT combat ranges with high efficiency. Payload is good. Low time of flight. Shrapnel type ammo is an option (important for the anti drone/ATGM role). Can be used for accurate long range waring shots and "sniping" in LIC and COIN. The payload means most fire support missions and engagements with soft targets can be handled by the secondary armament. Such a powerfull gun most likely would not be in an RWS but coax.

I find the idea of a 40mm coax appealing in principle, but I wonder how feasible it would be to provide a useful ammo capacity inside the turret.

schnuersi said:

As secondary armament for a future MBT the weapon should be much more potent. In the 35 or 40 mm class. This means most non MBT targets can be effectively engaged at typical MBT combat ranges with high efficiency.

I recall the Swedes experimented with this in their Strv 2000 trials, with a 140mm main gun (29 rounds) and a 40mm secondary gun (148 rounds).  (edit: This is the vehicle shown in Stan's post) They found that in simulated engagements, tank gunners usually didn't try to guess whether a target was a heavy AFV requiring the main gun or a lighter one they could dispatch with the 40mm.  Most everything that looked even vaguely like a tank (tracked with a turret) received main gun rounds, just in case.  

RovingPedant said:

What do you consider the features that define a full scale SPAA system?

Most modern IFV turrets seem to have most of what you need to swat drones.

Full scale SPAA does not only swat drones. That is bascially a byproduct by its ablility to establish a no fly zone in its area of influence. It can engage the full range of erial targets out to conciderable distance. A modern one also should be C-RAM capable.
This means sensor, FCS and weapons to do that. Which is far behond what modern IFVs can do.

stancrist said:

I find the idea of a 40mm coax appealing in principle, but I wonder how feasible it would be to provide a useful ammo capacity inside the turret.

Well the good old Bofors certainly is not the ideal choice.
THe 40 CTA on the other hand.
Instead of the magazine directly next to the weapon reaching into the turret how about an upward feeding with the ammo being stored low in the turret basket.

Depending on which gun an caliber exactly there are certainly serveral options.

schnuersi said:

THe 40 CTA on the other hand. Instead of the magazine directly next to the weapon reaching into the turret how about an upward feeding with the ammo being stored low in the turret basket.

concur on the 40 CTA. And also an unmanned turret would make the whole ammo thing easier one asssumes.

so, 130mm gun, 40 CTA and folding MG/Minigun?

edit: the problem that @taschoene describes remains though. Reminds me of the Royal Marines using Milan in the Falklands to clear trenches.