via CMI Press Release....
Demand for Medium Tanks is increasing. At IDEX 2013 CMI Defence and Doosan DST present a new 120/105mm Medium Tank concept. The system integrates the Cockerill XC-8 turret and the Doosan K21 IFV chassis. With a system weight of some 25 tonnes, the concept offers advanced 120mm or 105mm firepower with high operational flexibility and tactical mobility. The Cockerill XC-8 is a low-weight concept-turret that recognises divergent market requirements; specifically for the broad operational flexibility demanded by the medium-tank requirement, and for the narrower, more specialised anti- armour requirement. Thus one of two low-recoil force guns may be fitted in the XC-8.Somehow I missed the real thinking behind the US Army's Medium Gun System.
- The Cockerill 105mm high pressure gun provides commanders with a wide choice of ammunition to suit the tactical situation; it fires all NATO-standard 105mm types and the Cockerill Falarick 105 Gun Launched Anti Tank Guided Missile (GLATGM). Elevating to +42° this weapon delivers exceptional engagement capability in complex terrain, an indirect-fire HE capability to 10km range, and the GLATGM permits heavy armour to be enagaged at extended ranges.
Both guns are employed using a common high performance, digital, fully-stabilised, day/night weapon control system. Turret weight is kept low through the use of a bustle- mounted autoloader, which permits a two-person crew. The Cockerill XC-8 concept-turret draws on the proven modular technology of the Cockerill CT-CV 105HP turret and may be realised at low risk.
- The Cockerill 120mm high pressure gun provides a strengthened anti-armour capability. This weapon fires all NATO-standard 120mm smoothbore ammunition and the Cockerill Falarick 120 GLATGM, which permits the effective engagement and penetration of heavy armour to beyond 5km range.
The Doosan K21 IFV chassis represents the latest-generation of vehicle technology. In service with the Republic of Korea, the K21 offers outstanding tactical mobility through the use of hydro-pneumatic suspension, a 750HP powerpack and advanced running-gear design. Tactical mobility and flexibility is further enhanced by the vehicle’s ability to swim without assistance at full combat weight. A high- capacity digital data-infrastructure permits the functional integration of the Driver with the turret crew by using shared imagery and control. The same architecture permits straightforward through-life upgrade and low obsolesence risk.
The combination of the Cockerill XC-8 concept-turret with the Doosan K21 chassis promises a significant advance in terms of medium-weight direct-fire capability. The combination of highly effective and flexible lethality options with outstanding strategic and tactical mobility, opens up a new range of operational possibilities.
Same applies to the CV9030.
I thought of them as Infantry Support Vehicles (which they are) but a better name for them would be...Medium Battle Tanks!
CMI and Doosan nail it.
or what the US Army used to call Tank Destroyers.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the stats for an M36 from WWII:
29 tons; 26mph road speed, 90mm gun
Faster than the tanks for its time, it was supposed to race from one area to the next and take out enemy tanks.
(I also think the Leopard I at 40 tons was designed to be used as a medium tank/tank destroyer compared to the Chieftains and M48/M60s)
to bad a 70s era anti tank missile would carve this thing apart.
ReplyDeleteI believe the term 'glass canon" perfectly describes these vehicles.
The US Army tank destroyer doctrine of the Second World War was a complete failure. The doctrine being that tanks would support the infantry and conduct breakthrough maneuver while tank destroyers would fight other tanks. Reality was most fights were meeting engagements and tanks fought tanks all the time whatever the doctrine said.
ReplyDeleteThe tank destroyers thus often got used as tanks which they certainly were not. They had thin armor and were easily defeated by direct fire. Worse they heavily vulnerable to indirect fire having no roof. The many levels of HQ's the US Army created to manage it's tank destroyer battalions were a massive waste of manpower and were eventually done away with. The armor doctrine contributed to the M4 being considered adequate as a medium tank, because it was not supposed to engage enemy tanks, which resulted in little things like the US 3rd Armored division having a loss rate in tanks of 580% in a time span of 10 months (July 44 to April 45).
Specifically out of a TO&E of 232 M4 tanks the 3rd Arm lost 648 destroyed and another 700 knocked out and later repaired. At times the division was assigning personnel with no prior tank training whatsoever as replacement crews and also reducing the 5 man crew. All figures from "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper (maintenance officer in 3rd Arm during this time period).