MBT's

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This just couldn't wait and the admission made quite frankly under the current political situation surprises me. This might revive Rheinmetall Group 120mm L55 SB gun if that hint helps anyone identify the MBT in question to this point.
http://www.janes.com/article/54672/d...ussia-s-armata

I think what will happen here is MOD will do the weapons upgrade they have two main options I see... 1) The above German MG with the advantage of being able to use NATO rounds, or 2) Look to India's ARJUN 120mm RB (New) MG. Don't laugh this is probably one of the best 120mm guns out there right now with India using fin-stabilized rounds which greatly increases the effectiveness of the MG. This would allow the UK too not have to retool their MBT munitions facility(s). Remember as I noted when submitting this tank where they got got a lot of there development help from...Germany (Rheinmetall Group), Israel (ELBIT/RAFEAL), France (NEXTAR) and some think we might've provided help as well.

With that comes possibly a new FCS, however the current FCS has plenty of room to grow and support the new gun. Armor should be fine against the ARMATA as the CHALLENGER 2 is considered one of the safest tanks out there already. If they would've mounted the 152mm a lot tanks might be in trouble though, Russia is considering integrating or standing up separate "tank killer" units with the 152mm.

We'll probably see a push in the NATO countries to hurry along the APS and other similar systems within the next 2-3 years.

And finally I can see tank launched ATGW's (LAHAT) coming to NATO as well for extended range kills. As far as I can confirm right now only the U.S., Germany and Israel have a standard 120mm round with confirmed kills out to and beyond 4500m with unassisted rounds in case I have to be more concise.

My thoughts and only time will tell but, rest assured I'll be TRACKING this all. After all isn't that what I do?

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

It's rather amusing watching the main guns on western tanks get progressively larger and larger.

37 > 75 > 90 > 105 > 120 > ?

The question is when do we hit the point where armor-mobility-internal ammo supply dictate "stop".

[Paulus_PAK]

Technicalities are uncertain, but new NATO tank could be named Chaleoclerc.
;-)

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

It's rather amusing watching the main guns on western tanks get progressively larger and larger.

37 > 75 > 90 > 105 > 120 > ?

The question is when do we hit the point where armor-mobility-internal ammo supply dictate "stop".

I think we are there now, going larger has to be a last resort.
150mm would drastically cut ammo loads & would require an autoloader due to the weight unless another workaround was found.

[cbo]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

It's rather amusing watching the main guns on western tanks get progressively larger and larger.

37 > 75 > 90 > 105 > 120 > ?

The question is when do we hit the point where armor-mobility-internal ammo supply dictate "stop".

You forgot the 50mm range (German 5cm guns, British 6-pdr)

It could be argued, that in terms of caliber, not much have happened since the 1950ies. After all, British, German and US tanks all had guns in the 90mm range in 1945 (84mm, 88mm, 90mm) and the Germans were toying with the idea of a 105mm tank gun in 1944/45. IIRC first US projects involving a 105mm tank gun was in 1950, the British about the same time and both the US M103 and the British Conqueror sported 120mm guns in the early 1950ies.

So it could be said that in terms of firepower, the West have just been fiddling for the last 60 years

The Russians have probably shown the way forward, if you want a bigger gun - you need to use the entire turret for gun and ammo and use an autoloader. Which again moves us back 60 years to some of the 1950ies diesel-punk designs sporting unmanned turrets and autoloaders

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by cbo

You forgot the 50mm range (German 5cm guns, British 6-pdr)

Good point on the 57mm/6-pdr, tho I think only the Brits ever mounted it on a tank.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I offer the below site as many defense websites some of which I use describe it as the best website for data in particular on the LEOPARD but, overall considered very thorough in it's research. It makes my next point for me under the "firepower" section of each tank they list in progression of development. You can't just talk about the gun size without the discussion being married to the ammunition the gun is using. Simply put the difference between the Rheinmetall 120mm L44 and 120mm L55 is about 200-300m/s this equates very simply to penetration on the target. But as tank ammo has progressed beside the advantage of urban combat use, is the reason the L44 is still competitive to the L55. The progression of the gun and end of the Cold War is why Germany and Sweden dropped their 140mm LEOPARD gun programs. The ammo just has not caught up in technology for the bigger caliber guns as it has for the 120mm types. This is not to say development is stagnant in this area it's just not a priority is all. We still maintain a 140mm gun option for the ABRAMS (Guess who makes that gun?) but it's on the "back burner" at best. If you read carefully about the ARMATA it fields the same gun as the T-90MS as I submitted about three years ago, this was the operational test bed for the ARMATA. The concern about the ARMATA is that it will suppositely carry a new as yet unidentified tank round. This is the issue concerning the West. But I again would suggest that you pick a tank you like and follow it's development and focus on the "firepower" section at each stage of your tanks progression.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/main.html

This I hope will offer some perspective to this discussion and he uses very reliable sources for his research.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

A continuation of my last last and yes I did read the whole thing if you will for both a "reality" and "relevance" check against what's currently going on. Some of this is already in the field now with the USN already operationally mounting a laser on a ship and advanced development of a "rail" gun. Why bring up the NAVY? If the NAVY is doing it what do you think DARPA is doing for the ARMY? So about ARMOR magazine, well it's focus is to keep the USA Armored forces informed on various topics related to armor as PROCEEDINGS keeps the USN community informed on Naval issues. Again considering it's almost twenty years old they were pretty much on the mark and should give you an idea how long these things take from the thought, R&D, testing, procurement, low rate production, op eval, acceptance, full rate production to fielding. I think that pretty much covers what's involved. Here's your article...
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/5fcs97.pdf

Where we're at now...
http://www.army.mil/article/98946/Ar...MP_tank_round/
http://www.army.mil/mobile/article/?p=124313

If you go to where I submitted the M1A2 SEP V2 in the Fastboat Patch Page or this Thread one of the refs has more details in it about this round and one other I believe. I believe the source was the Picatiney Arsenal in PDF format.


Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

I suspect one of the main reasons the USN gets to play with lasers and mass drivers is ships have lots of space and power available.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Not as big as you would think nor as power hungry at 30kw, though more efficient than most lasers at 35% you can see we have a way to go to reach 100% potential but it's coming next year in making strides to get there. About midway down of the picture shown "bow on" (For any Navy folks out here having been a Contact Coordinator-I'll call it about a 35 degree Port Angle on the Bow.) center-line just above the bridge and not much larger then the PHALANX system just below and to the right (Port Side.) as you look at the picture.
http://news.usni.org/2014/12/10/u-s-...-laser-defense

But this is the MBT Thread so let me give something along those lines...

Well we're slowly bringing back some heavy armor to Europe.
http://www.defence24.com/246262,us-a...an-aggression#
http://www.defence24.com/249301,poli...and-next-year#

Taiwan feels the time is right to formally request the purchase of 120 M1A1 tanks after years of sitting on this request. A stronger Taiwan would now be more in the interests of the U.S. and our Asian allies especially in the South China Sea area where China is building islands to claim them as territories and the legal issues that come with that and plus the military expansionism associated with those islands.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2..._13005152.html

Regards,
Pat