Thanks for the idea Austin! I think the community needs a bite at this apple!
Homework assignment.
What should a future Main Battle Tank look like?
I personally consider the MBT-70 the last attempt at developing a super tank. Consider these stats....
* 152mm cannon. Capable of obliterating anything on the battlefield even today...and without special shells.
* Secondary armament consisting of a 20mm cannon and a 7.62mm machinegun! No more wasting main gun rounds on APCs! Additionally you have a credible anti-air weapon.
* A 1500 horsepower engine.
* Hydro-pneumatic suspension.
* Advanced front spaced armor.
* Quick! Faster to accelerate than even the Leopard 1!
* Using it hydro-pneumatic suspension it could achieve a hull down position lower than a Challenger tank...
The list goes on but those are a few of the highlights. So tell me. What is missing and what should a future MBT look like.
I'm personally digging the 20mm cannon as secondary weapon. I really don't see what they can't be done with our current tanks. Additionally a cannon that large would make unrestricted city fighting a much easier task. Old skool warriors wouldn't be crying about the lack of a real Combat Engineer Vehicle with a demolition gun.
Does it need a mortar like the Israeli's? What about firing missiles like the Russians are so fond of? Weight is a factor...do we give up armor protection for even mobility (strategic, not tactical)?
Or do you think the tank as we know it is at an evolutionary dead end?
Homework assignment.
What should a future Main Battle Tank look like?
I personally consider the MBT-70 the last attempt at developing a super tank. Consider these stats....
* 152mm cannon. Capable of obliterating anything on the battlefield even today...and without special shells.
* Secondary armament consisting of a 20mm cannon and a 7.62mm machinegun! No more wasting main gun rounds on APCs! Additionally you have a credible anti-air weapon.
* A 1500 horsepower engine.
* Hydro-pneumatic suspension.
* Advanced front spaced armor.
* Quick! Faster to accelerate than even the Leopard 1!
* Using it hydro-pneumatic suspension it could achieve a hull down position lower than a Challenger tank...
The list goes on but those are a few of the highlights. So tell me. What is missing and what should a future MBT look like.
I'm personally digging the 20mm cannon as secondary weapon. I really don't see what they can't be done with our current tanks. Additionally a cannon that large would make unrestricted city fighting a much easier task. Old skool warriors wouldn't be crying about the lack of a real Combat Engineer Vehicle with a demolition gun.
Does it need a mortar like the Israeli's? What about firing missiles like the Russians are so fond of? Weight is a factor...do we give up armor protection for even mobility (strategic, not tactical)?
Or do you think the tank as we know it is at an evolutionary dead end?
Just as long as it is a diesel and not a logistics-hog turbine.It would be great to have an auto-loader as this reduces weight for the design but only if it allows for safe ammo storage.
ReplyDeletei agree with the diesel but wonder about the autoloader. it might save weight but it will add complexity.
DeleteFor all its many faults, I like the T-72. They just keep plugging along in Syria. That is what you want in an extended war. Well, except that catastrophic exploding thing when hit. Oh and having to be a tank crewman the height of that panzer guy in Kelly's Heroes. I don't care much about anti-tank ability. I just want something that can throw proper, low-cost, big, HE rounds at defensive positions. Infantry support.
Delete@Eric Palmer, i agree with that word you used.....Extended War. I am sure there were some if not many designers on the T-72 program who had some association with WW2 and hence truly know what extended war was.
DeleteEric the T72 is designed for a military that doesn't care about its soldiers.
DeleteThe tank keeps all of the ready fire ammo right under the crew in a big cassette.
The only reason Syria has so many is because they were given away by the Soviets.
Even then , they have lost hundreds of T72s.....
I preface this with the disclaimer that while I am a veteran, I was not a tanker. Most of my tank knowledge is from personal and work related research rather than hands on experience.
ReplyDeleteI'd propose a high low mix like the Air Force did with F-15s and F-16s. The high would be the next MBT you bring up above, and the low would be a medium tank along the lines of the Marder prototype, Anders, PL-01,and CV90120-T.
For the MBT would:
Ditch the 152mm for either a the 120mm L55 (current Abrams M256 is a 120mm L44) as a first step and then 140mm as a second step if needed. 152mm is too big to have single piece ammo without an auto loader. I personally am against auto loaders as they are mechanical and have in the past have had reliability issues. I also prefer a pool of four people for watch duty rather than three, as the longer the watch shift is the less attentive you become.
For Coax I'd either go .50cal (tried and true M2) or .338 Norma Mag (Army prototype machine gun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Medium_Machine_Gun)
Secondary/Commander Armament I'd go all in with a 40mmCTA in a foldable/collapsible mount similar to the RCWS-30 on the Czech Pandur II with either a M2 or .338 coax. When not in use the RCWS would collapse onto the turrent or into a depression on the turret to reduce silhouette height. Also the RCWS would need to be re-loadable under armor.
Tertiary/Loader Armament: CROWS or similar with either Mk19, M2, or .338 depending on environment and expected opposition. Loader CROWS should be capable of single shot precision engagement while the tank is stationary.
All guns should be stabilized and capable of accurate area/suppressive fire while on the move.
Propulsion-wise diesel-electric hybrid - diesel generator powering electric motors connected to the sprockets. I have no idea about the Kw output but it start out generating 50 - 100% power needed by the initially fielded system. Also enough power storage to run on electric only for 30 minutes which could be used in "silent" ops like raiding, or escaping or longer for stationary silent overwatch/picket.
I'd add a Trophy-like APS, 360 degree day and thermal cameras, modular armor, and thermal camo like BAE Systems ADAPTIV camo.
Hopefully weight can be kept to around or below the current 70t "standard" but I'm not sure if it possible with today's technology
For the Medium tank, I think the PL-01 is heading down the right path. My specifics would be
120mm L44 main gun w/ .338 coax, Commander CROWS w/ M2 or Mk19, Loader CROWS with M2 or .338. Loader CROWS should be capable of single shot precision engagement while the tank is stationary. All guns should be stabilized and capable of accurate area/suppressive fire while on the move.
i like that. just wondering. why so much love for the 338? from what i understand it just doesn't give enough juice for the squeeze of switching over. if you're not going to go up to a cannon size then it makes sense in my mind to stick to the tried and true ma duece. question cause i don't know and will have to look up. will a 140mm gun give enough of a ballistics advantage over the 120mm currently installed to be worth the effort?
Deletetrophy? yeah i can see that. hybrid engine? check...if it works right! don't know that i believe BAE propaganda on the adaptiv camo system.
you do know that we're talking about a 80 plus ton tank though!
last question. do you think we could afford to build two lines of tanks? a heavy and a light...? i think we'd have to see the Chinese coming over the hill before that got approved.
For an 80 ton tank, you'll need more than a 1500hp engine. For an 80 ton tank with provision provison for a large caiber cannon 20mm and upwards, you will need an increased silhuette. Regardless of whether it folds/collapses inside turrent, even inside turret, you'll need free storage space for it. It will be so large and heavy that moving with it in a city will be more of a pain in the ass than before. And this is where Solomons 2 tank Idea will come. A uhmm...50 ton Light tank...yes a 50 ton light tank and an 80 ton monster. Its either that or...............we just wait for the next Arab Israeli full blown conflict and then do what the israelis do.
DeleteI like the .338 because it can reach out an touch someone at twice the range of 7.62 NATO and I think is a better anti-personnel round than the .50cal. Don't get me wrong, I love the M2 and the various .50cal anti material rifles an knowing that anything short of a "tank" is going down when you hit it, especially with APIs, but strictly speaking it's overkill if your target is a person. I put a wikipedia link for the gun in my post above, I think you'll like what you read. Also you can carry a hell of a lot more .338 than 12.7mm too.
DeleteI should also add my goal was not to replace the .50 with 338 but rather replace the M240 with the 338.
Deletewow. ok. i misread that part. replace the 7.63 with the .338? sounds good. especially in vehicle applications! i think you're onto something. sounds like a future blog post ....
DeleteInteresting Link for the .338. That and the succeding links for the PKT machine gun and Precision Rifle Competition in the main article.
Delete"you do know that we're talking about a 80 plus ton tank though! "
DeleteAs I said may not be possible with today's current technology but as power generation and storage, APS, and armor technology progress I don't see why it couldn't stay in the 60-70t class. Especially since the APS will reduce the dependency on historically heavy "conventional" armor like DU, Chobham, etc. As far as traditional armor goes, I think it will get stronger and lighter due to advances in material science. Who knows, maybe one day tanks will be wrapped in black widow spider silk composite armor or something similar. Look at how we progressed from the Vietnam era nylon "bullet proof" vest to Kevlar to Spectra to whatever is next
"A uhmm...50 ton Light tank...yes a 50 ton light tank and an 80 ton monster. Its either that or...............we just wait for the next Arab Israeli full blown conflict and then do what the israelis do."
DeleteAll the light tanks I mentioned in my original reply weigh about 35t or half of a modern MBT. As far as cost goes, all four are based on proven chassis. Three are based on the CV90 chassis and one on the Marder chassis. If it were up to me I'd pick one of the CV90 based ones as then I could also use the CV90 in it's various forms to replace the Bradley and M-113. Yes it would be expensive up front and I know the US can't afford to do it, nor does it have the moral courage to make a decision like that thanks to almost certain Congressional (both House and Senate) interference and the "Buy American" creed (which I think is a pile of horseshit, instead it should be figure out the best solution and then if needed license it and build it, all of it, here in the States, but I digress......
@oggie Your Choise of the CV90 is a very interesting choice. But even more interesting is the reasons to be expounded by politicians and businessmen for NOT selecting it. Your Digression is completly justified.
DeleteOggie, that 50 ton light tank reference was regarding that new chinese light/middleweight tank that solomon posted here. I am sure that as we go forward the light tank weight will be more to the tune of 50 tons with all additional equipment etc. Then it wont be a light tank.............just a Lighter Tank.
DeletePerhaps a vehicle that resembles an M-113/577 as a command vehicle and four to six remote operated combat units all using vertical launch missile systems, fire and forget top attack. The only guns will be 20 or 25 mm chain gun for local self defense in direct fire fashion.
DeletePicture an M-113 with a remote chain gun mount that shoots javelin's or larger missiles and UAV's out the back top deck, no aim they seek targets and go after them.
Attach a Mech Squad as local infantry defense in their own transport, two man ATV's or smaller Fast attack dune buggies to each command vehicle.
Personnaly, I dont think governments of today are going to budge on developing a new tank to replace existing M1's, Leopard 2's, and Challengers. Especially with news media telling citizens how effective and kickass this generation of tanks is. With limited budgets, they will wait for electro magnetic pulse/rail gun technology, complimentary battery tech, heat absorbtion tech before they even think about a new tank. Imagine comming up with an ultra powerfull 152mm gun 80 ton tank just as your enemy comes up with a EMP cannon tank firing at Mach 9. To all my tanker friends out there, if you want insight on the next tank, dont look at the tank industry.....look to specialized research in ceramics, battery tech, your own Rail Gun Project etc. Then you will truly know what the next tank will be.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Tank-Lords-Baen-David-Drake/dp/0671877941
DeleteNuff said!!! :D
hahah.....you're like a picnic basket of links today.
DeleteBtw....Alois Hammer and the Hammer Slammers do sound a lot...i mean...a lot like those CIA trained Mujaheedin you sent to fight the soviets. Minus the tank, obviously.
DeleteI find it easier to use a link than repeat/rehash what someone else has said better than I could.
DeleteBut it is an interesting post here. I mean, even my mind is working overtime over the Next tank. This is a topic quite close to me. I come from 3 generations of Cavalry. From horses to armored cars, Shermans, Centurions and now T-90's. Its been a long journey, and i am looking forward to the future with this post.
DeleteBy no means complete but here is what I believe a modern-day MBT should look like:
ReplyDelete1.) Diesel-Electric Hybrid drive for quick take-off, fuel economy, and smoke screens.
2.) CVT transmission allowing same reverse speeds (T10 jap)
3.) Hydro-pneumatic suspension.
4.) Active Defence systems, to counter the serious ATGM threat (think MBT LAW).
5.) Advanced Sensor suite, including IED detection (ground penetrating radar?).
6.) Advanced Armour, utilizing improvements in material science and manufacturing.
7.) Reduced signature (IR, RADAR), and advanced ECM.
8.) Coaxial 20-35mm auto-cannon like the AMX30-32, for anti-material/vehicle usage.
9.) Possible, pivot capable mount points on sides for ATGMs/SAMs.
10.) Automated mount points on roof (including retention latches and charging) for two small drones.
I think the 120mm cannon calibre is a good size, a balance between power and munition payloads, I wouldn't go much higher than that, perhaps a round propelled by a greater charge, or with a rocket in it, or a hybrid ATGM. I don't think going heavier is feasible either, how will you get them off boats, or use them on soft ground? I think sticking with a similar or slightly lower weight, retaining the ability to bolt on more armour, and looking at using the current weight budget better, i.e. reducing overheads through better technology/manufacturing process, using better materials, is the best way to improve the MBT.
ECM and ground penetrating radar will make your tank break the bank.
DeleteAs for a coax, stick with a 7.62 or a .50 cal so it can be used to suppress infantry and has a large ammo reserve.
Instead, put an autocannon on the turret roof, in its own remote turret or in a commanders cupola, like the M60.
The armor should be modular like the Leclerc armor.
All other ideas are excellent.
What about unammned turret with autoloader, crew members in the hull.
ReplyDeleteMake the crew cabin all but impregnable.
Use a diesel engine to re-charge batteries that line the hull and drive an electric drive track system. Any round that penetrates would have to get past the active defenses, heavy ceramic/metallic armor, batteries and the engine. If one battery is compromised by a hit, the remaining could still power the electric drive until it could be replaced.
Good Idea.
DeleteI think unmanned turrets with the crew in the hull is a good idea, especially with pneumatic-suspension in a hull down configuration. And so is the battery idea, ideally I think that is how you would do it, and that way you could probably save some weight and space, although I wouldnt expect too much in terms of batter powered range.
DeleteEventually with improvements in material science they should be able to store electricity in the entire hull, and have sensors integrated into the armour, removing the need for batteries. Though that is probably a very long way away.
I also like the idea of a 'stealthy' tank. AT missiles and other tanks are so dangerous, it's best to not be seen at all.
DeleteBAe's Adaptiv system
Plus, some sort of optics detection that uses lasers to detect whether optics or lasers are being used to view/target the tank. Then have it slew to cue an appropriate weapon system: dazzler laser, missile, autocannon rounds, etc.
Unmanned turrets a good idea provided we achieve that level of engeneering perfection that mechanical/electrical failures are minimized in the unmanned and this cramped or no-immediate-access turret area. The last thing you need is a enemy round giving your vehicle such a shock that even if it doesnt penetrate, does knock of the carousel loader off alignment or messes up some random mechanical function.
DeleteThe like the Russian missle fire ability from a tank. It reminds of Roman Legionaries of old. Those legionaries always carried 3 light throwing javelins to be thrown before either a charge towards an enemy or to be thrown while maintainig a defencive line agaisnt an attacking enemy. Those armored legionary formations and cohorts have been replaced by tanks and accompanying IFV's as an army spearhead. This is where those missile firing mbt's come into being. Firing off a salvo or two before the main fight begins. With platforms like helocoptors with advanced radars and datalinks, tanks will have no problem to fire those missiles before hand and then closing in with conventional ammo.
ReplyDeleteFor me it's K.I.S.S - Keep It Simple Stupid. With missiles there is too much that can go wrong and cause a miss (jamming, spoofing, cut wires, loss of lock, etc). For me I love the "simplicity" of the DU KE penetrator. Please note simplicity is in quotes, I do know that the gun laying system is quite complex. for me the simplicity is in that once the trigger is pressed it's all physics and if you did the physics right, you hit the target, and the target goes boom.
DeleteI agree with the KISS system. But now that we have that kickass radar mount on the Apache, might as well use it. For me rather than use the main gun for missiles, i would prefer to have a navy ship type missile house mounted on the back/side of the turret. It will be cheap and detachable. Once the 2/3 javelins contained inside it are expended at beyond line of sight ranges of 8 Kilometers thereabouts, you press a button, the detachable missile housing just drops off the tank for a simpler silhoette. What you get with this manouevre is the ability to plant seeds of chaos and alarm at the advancing enemy. Even if damage is limited, the opposing chaps will have their morale down. This is especially true if you are taking on Arab/mullah armies. My grandfather used to tell me that most of the tanks we captured from the pakistanis were abandoned tanks rather than blown into pieces total write-offs.
DeleteWhich is what I suggested, you could probably easily have 3+ per side, and perhaps some vertically launched ones on the rear. To be fair with improvements in electronics, recently driven by smart phones, it shouldn't cost too much to integrate laser tracking, IR, Visual and radar sensors in the warhead, powered by some generic ARM processor. They could operate in tandem with micro-uavs based on the roof.
DeleteFirst see, First shoot, First kill.
The MBT 70. Imagine a driver sitting inside a rotating turret.
ReplyDeleteI read where after thirty minutes the driver was so disoriented he thought he was Batman.
DeleteYeah, i heard that as well. But there is stil some doubt about whether he was thinking Batman or Robin.
DeleteThe MBT70s turret design had a horrible driver position
DeleteI was looking though this and no one seems to suggest 127mm weapon the US already has and has decades of experience with. It has an auto-loader, available in 54 or 62 cal. The shells are 70 lbs for GP, and can fire 16 to 20 RPM. I like this detail: 8,000 rounds (barrel life) for the 54 cal. I think the shells can be made much lighter, and probably the barrel as well, if you sacrifice the 13 nmi effective range.
ReplyDeleteI like where this is heading.....the last time a navy gun went on a tank we called it the T-55 tank with the D-100 gun i think. And before that the Germans had that whole 380 mm or something navy depth charge launcher fixed on the tiger tank. Strumtiger.
Deletedual GAU-8s
ReplyDeletePlay Wargame: Red Dragon, the MBT-70 is a unit for the USA and West Germany.
ReplyDeleteWe will see how the MBT of the future looks like once the russians show theyre prototype: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-95
ReplyDeleteThe future armored fighting vehicle should have no turret at all, it's gun should lift from a space on the deck and look towards the target areas, that gun should be powerful enough to take on other fighting vehicles, aerial attackers and ground targets this gun should not be the main weapon.
ReplyDeleteThe future tank should be low to the ground with only enough height as is needed. The main battery should be a vertical launch system set in the hull that can shoot everything from surrender leaflets to tactical atom bombs. It should launch from multiple cells and be able to re-load by the crew under armor. It should be able to launch drones and recon devices. It should come a go equipped with three or four full size remote operated vehicles that resemble it mother ship style armed the same. It should operate as the Command vehicle for a five vehicle combat plt and be the only one manned.
Fast, armored like a battleship and agile able to dig in on it's own.
electric main drive run from diesel engines.
Have ECM and a self defense system.
My take is vertical launch armor with drones and remote vehicles operating as a unit with the main tank the CCC.
Time to start drooling, like I did back in the day: https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/4fcs97.pdf
ReplyDeleteOne more link, that helped me as a model maker: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/art3pr1.html
ReplyDeleteFrom some of the suggestions I’ve seen here it seems to me that some people want a tank version of the JSF, something that is supposed to be a jack of all trades and do everything well. Haven’t we learned our lesson by now, when you try to do everything well nothing is done well. Jack of all trades, master of none.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind a tank always has been and always will be a line of sight gun centric system and in my mind the main role of a tank is very similar to that of a Marine rifle squad, “to locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver” why else would they have big guns and heavy armor? It is the master of LOS ground combat out to between 3 and 4 km depending on the main gun that’s equipped.
Several people have put forth the idea of adding missiles to an MBT to give it range and “punch”. Missiles take up more space and, for the most part, are heavier than the latest M829A3 Silver Bullet. Looking at TOW, Spike-ER and SPIKE-NLOS as examples, the weights range from 65 to 140 lbs, diameters from 152mm to 170mm, and lengths from 1.1 to 1.7m compared to the Silver Bullet’s weight of 50lbs,120mm diameter, and length of 0.9m.
What serious practical advantages are there to adding missile to a tank? You don’t add that much of a range advantage, unless you use the Spike ER (8km) or NLOS (25km), to justify adding the extra weight of the missiles and associated launchers. Also the typical ATGW travels at 240 - 420 m/s compared to the Silver Bullet’s 1,500 m/s. At a 4000m engagement the target will only have a bit over 2 seconds to react to / avoid the Silver Bullet compared to 10 to 20 seconds for an ATGW. I’m not sure about you but I’d want to give my target as little time to react as possible.
For those of you who want a BLOS (Beyond Line Of Sight) or NLOS (Non Line Of Sight) missile, if you are in a BLOS or NLOS engagement you are no longer in a tank battle and there are better weapon systems to use in BLOS engagements, they are called howitzers and MLRS. Leave the the missiles to arty, helos and other systems like defunct XM501 NLOS-LS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM501_Non-Line-of-Sight_Launch_System) which was a good idea, just bad execution.
A JSF tank?.....hope they dont make a STOVL version of it. Put a big vertical jet nozzle where the turret is supposed to go.
DeleteOggie, the reason I wanted a external detachable Missile housing on a tank was because even in the relative flatlands of Indian Punjab and the Thar Desert, our tank engangments on an average happen at 2000 meters and lower. There is always some geographical feature, human settlement, sand dune, plantation that keeps getting in your line of sight. When an army has soooo many aviation assets with ever improving radars, its only logical that we use existing platforms to the max. Even if you start engaging enemy armor at 8 kilometers, that is a quantum huge leap for an armored corps chap. In the battle of Ballistics, every meter let alone kilometer counts. Every angle of contact counts. Top attack missiles, though heavy and bulky are still every tanker's dream, the ability to hit the top of a tank from any angle at range.
DeleteAn cavalry unit of 55 tanks (indian figure) advances on an enemy. Opening salvo has 55 missiles fired. Those are 55 missiles in the air fired from platforms 6-8 kilometers from enemy. A second salvo also fired, another 55 missiles for a total of 110 missiles. The Radar on top of an Apache can simultaneously keep track of 140 targets or near about.( Any Apache Pilots out there..i would like your opinion on that Apache radar). Even if 20%(very conservative figure) of those missiles hit targets....those are 20 plus missiles or 20 plus enemy tanks either destroyed or damaged. Mind you....those 20 tanks belong to the Lead Element or the best equipped fighters of the enemy. Thats the kind of message you send to an enemy from 6-8 kilometers. Now you go knocking their door with actual cannons.
DeleteThats just offensively. Now think Defensively from a Tank man's perspective. Think of all the havoc a platoon of just 3 tanks dispatched hurridly to plug an enemy breakout will do with the additional firepower of those missiles and a helicoptor or ariel asset with radar. The enemy will think he is not facing a platoon but a full squadron. His force calculations will then go out of the window.
DeleteEconomically, this is very cheap to have that much ability for a low price. I think that on an existing T-90 tank, to fit a 2/3 missile laincher externally will take not more that 650,000 dollars per tank (Indian rupee converted calculation). For a force of 4000-5000 tanks to have that much ability, 300 million dollars are a small price to pay. Especially if we are using existing technology with no research lag.
DeleteSavbir, most Pakistani tank are horrific T55 knockoffs.
DeleteThey have less than 1000 modern tanks.
David McSpadden, If you think Pakistani tanks are horrific, take a look at some of what we have. The only area where we are better than them are spare parts and maintenance scheduling. And the fact that we removed the T-55 from servise a while back. There is a little voice in my head which actually wants Russia to take over all of Ukraine so that those T-80 shipments to Pakistan stop.
DeleteTerrorism and the anti terrorism fight has a very direct and bad effect on mechanized forces. They divert their mind to the anti-terror/insurgency matters and always forget to see the bigger picture of overall force growth. Also, and this is true in India, anti-terror/insurgency operations have a funny way of buffing up CV's of infantry and SF officers so that whenever promotion boards sit down to clear names for the next rank, these people get the bulk of promotions and even when promoted..they get the best posts. What you then have is an insurgency/terror based top leadership. Not a balanced leadership. This also impacts mechanized forces readyness. I dont know how true this is for the rest of the world but it is especially true for India.
DeleteLong range missile attacks on tanks? What happens then your enemy has a mobil system like Skyguard or MANTIS? Russia already has a system to kill HARM missiles to protect their radar systems.
DeleteThere is something far cheaper and with more range than missiles:
A PzH 2000 with Vulcano ammunition (INS/GPS/Laser). Range 100 km.
The SMArt 155 round is already in use. Range 27.5 km with two submunitions
One PzH 2000 can fire 10 rounds per minute. One of these howitzer can carry about 50 rounds.
if you are in a BLOS or NLOS engagement (( you are no longer in a tank battle)) and there are better weapon systems to use in BLOS engagements, they are called howitzers and MLRS. Leave the the missiles to arty, helos and other systems like defunct XM501 NLOS-LS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM501_Non-Line-of-Sight_Launch_System) which was a good idea, just bad execution.
Delete----------------------------
"Well said!"
MHalblaub: Same thing that happens to a Carrier and it's screen in a full on gut busting naval battle, swarm attacks with several waves of missiles containing decoys and nukes.
DeleteSwamp the system and some get through and if it has a tactical nuke, it's curtains.
It seems that Israel is planning to introduce a fast, highly manouverable lightly armored wheeled manouvering infantry carrier for fast mobile operations. This was revealed at the May 19-21 Fire Conference in Israel. It is being developed by the Israel Military Industries and is called Bodyguard.. Will carry 6-10 soldiers and is protected from 7.65mm and RPG; will have a APS and carry a UAV and a remote controlled weapon station. It will be exhibited at the Eurosatory in Paris (June 16-20). This may portain a radical new tactics for armour warfare - like the mongol cavalry of ancient times, which dominated the battles in its heyday.
ReplyDeleteNow that does look like an interesting vehicle to look out for. Though i wonder why Israel would like to add to this already overcrowded Wheeled Fighting Vehicle market with its own product. I havnt seen their technical details or market presentations but i would not be surprised if it comes out to be a Modification job of an already existing product. Any Israelis out there ?
DeletePerhaps the old WW1 Multi turret tanks are an answer.
ReplyDeleteThink Modern Russian T-35.
Then again it was a complete bust wasn't it?
Next thing you know, it will be one of those gigantic death machine tanks right out of japanese cartoons.
DeleteThere is an article in the Hebrew daily papers on the new armored infantry carrier manufactured by the Israel Military Industries, with a short film in Hebrew,showing the vehicle. It will be exhibited in Satory in two weeks.
DeleteThe specs given are: 4-wheel drive, 4-gear automatic transmission, Cummings diesel engine of 300HP, 70 cm ground clearance, 8 tons weight, 6 infantry (8 in the future), remote turret in roof with mg and what looks like 2 Spike missiles, Automatic Protection System against RPG and ATMs, light armor against mg fire and IEDs and Artillery splinters. It has very high rough terrain manouverability, speed of up to 120 km/hr in terrain and up to 150 km/hr on roads and 600 km range. Able to negotiate 90 degree slope (?).
Price is said to be reasonable and most components are from Military Assistance Budget from the US from commercial sources - I don't know how that will translate into export potential, but it seems that other commercial components could be adapted - so the price will be accordingly reasonable. That is certainly a new approach to new armor design... cheap?
The tactical advantage of a fast moving light armoured vehicle compared to a very heavy and lumbering heavy tank could have strategic surprise - it could be in the rear areas before the defender realised the attack occured in force. Hopefully not the Charge of the Light Brigade.....here is the Hebrew language article URL with the embedded video, which is pretty self explanatory : http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4526362,00.html