# Armored vehicle preference



## tabernac (26 Apr 2004)

If it was the Army‘s choice for a tank/tank replacement, which should it be?


----------



## Old Cent Hand (26 Apr 2004)

A new Tank ? I would say the latest version of the Merkava , ( But I don‘t they will export it.) , the M1A2 HA , ( it has seen action , but how about a different engine?) , and or the Leopard 2A5(A6). But first we need " OUR OWN" ,heavy lift capabilities , to get these vehicles, overseas , without having to rely on anyone else. But then take a look at our Budget.


----------



## kruger (27 Apr 2004)

I believe we should aquire German Army surplus vehicles (Leopard 2A4‘s) and when funds become available upgrade them to 2A5 or 2A6 standard (composite armour, modified FCS and 120 mm L55 smoothbore cannon).


----------



## Armymedic (27 Apr 2004)

How many RPG hits would that low milage Abrams have? And would the Yanks clean the sand out of it before they give it to us?

This is a gay post... 

Take it to the Armour section for more imput from those who know something about it.


----------



## tabernac (27 Apr 2004)

Sorry to piss you off medic but it IS an EQUIPMENT topic as well as an Armoured topic.(I chose to post it here) I mean low milage Abrams as in "the Abrams the Australians" bought. I‘m defenitely sure that the Aussies knew exactly what they were doing when they bought the Abrams. What I was suggesting was that we should buy (if possible) the tanks from the same battalion/regiment/etc. as the the Aussies(depending on the state their in). No this post is not gay. So far only you have voiced that this topic is gay. I think that an M1A1 with RPG hits would be more effective than buying hundreads of 9 million dollar SUVs with tank guns on top.         :tank:


----------



## 30 for 30 (27 Apr 2004)

I‘d take the M8 Thunderbolt Armoured Gun System with bells and whistles...

120mm gun = increased firepower
RPG armour = sufficient protection
Band tracks = good on and off road mobility
Around half as heavy as a Leo = cheaper and easier to deploy

Plus room for troops in the back.


----------



## kruger (27 Apr 2004)

RNW I must contradict you, the vehicle is called the XM8 Buford (I‘ve also encountered the name Ridgeway) Armoured Gun System. It started out in 1983 as the CCVL intended to replace the air-droppable M551A1 Sheridan tank.
It is armed with a 105 mm low recoil, auto-loading cannon (M35) produced by Rheinmetall of Germany. The vehicle has two basic levels of protection that defeat splinters and AP 7,62 mm rounds. Level 3 provides protection from 30 mm cannon fire.
As you pointed out, it is tracked, and offers the same advantages as other tracked vehicles do. The M8 cannot accomodate any soldiers beyond it‘s own crew. The AGS was never successfully developed, as it did not provide the capabilities envisioned by the original concepts.
Although, I would prefer this vehicle over an SUV with a M2HB MG on top (Stryker).


----------



## 30 for 30 (27 Apr 2004)

The M8 Thunderbolt is the latest incarnation of the M8 Buford. I‘m not sure of its development/production status (I‘m pretty certain it is not in production at this point) but there are pics and details via Google. It‘s been up-gunned to 120mm and a few other improvements have been made, including the allocation of space for four troops in the back. Everything I have read states that successful RPG protection has been produced for the M8 series. Interestingly enough, the 82nd Airborne are deploying the four M8 Bufords that have been held in stock since the project was cancelled in ‘96. Hopefully there is a future for the system.


----------



## kruger (27 Apr 2004)

Can you please provide us with your sources on this matter, I find it hard to believe that it was upgunned to 120 mm, since a vehicle in this weight class would be seriously damaged by its own cannon fire due to large recoil forces.

Here is a post on the Warfare HQ Discussion Board that alleviates any doubts:  http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6129 

P.S. I stand corrected, it is in fact now called a Thunderbolt, but so far only 4 prototypes have been pushed into service with the 82nd.


----------



## 30 for 30 (28 Apr 2004)

Page 118 of this report has some good detail: 
  http://www.cochraneinstitute.com/Reports/preventdeaths43a.pdf 

Almost sounds too good to be true, and to be honest I‘m unsure if this latest incarnation has been comprehensively field tested with the 120mm. If it functions like they claim though I think it would be a pretty cool system. Unfortunately I think there‘s no stopping the MGS purchase, seeing as the vehicle will be produced in Canada.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2004)

Totally off the wall response: a modernized PT-76

This is a light amphibious tank used by the Soviet and many Warsaw Pact armies, and saw action in some of the India-Pakistan wars. It is fairly fast, amphibious with minimal preparation, quite large and roomy (so it can float), and has room on the back deck for almost a platoon worth of Infantry (getting across those water obstacles in a pinch) 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/pt-76.htm
http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyReco/CD_vente/CD_001/pt-76/page_01.htm
http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/mj01/3pt76-01.pdf

While the PT-76 is obsolete in its initial issue form, it could be up gunned to a 105mm, given new fire control and sight systems, engine and running gear upgrades (maybe an M-2 engine and suspension, for example), and modest armour upgrades like the RPG fence. 

This is a different take on Armour (the speed and shock effect would be more a result of showing up in unexpected places than blasting through the opposition at the head of a combat team), but it may be the way to go if affordability and logistics are the overriding considerations for the New Model Army.


----------



## 30 for 30 (25 Oct 2004)

While I like the Thunderbolt, as I detailed above, it occurs to me that a LAV battlegroup needs a vehicle that is as fast as a LAV to achieve effective direct fire support. Would this be as major a concern as I think it is? I would think a LAV would need to exploit its speed to survive, so slow tracked armour would theoretically not function well within a LAV-only formation, unless the LAVs move relatively slowly, making them easy, "unprotected" targets.
As MGS is burdened with serious shortcomings and problems, It seems to me that a platform like the Italian Centauro LAV would be a better choice: similar weight, speed, double the 105 ammo, add-on armour already developed and in use, considerable operational experience, superior situational awareness; essentially it is a tried and tested system used by both the Italians and the Spanish. The MGS LAV 111 parts-commonality, coupled with the fact that it is built locally are key factors in its favour, but my understanding is that an MGS only has 10-15% parts commonality with a LAV 111, so that argument in favour of MGS doesn't seem to hold much water. Any NDHQ Generals listening?


----------



## ArmyRick (25 Oct 2004)

I would also go with M8 Thunderbolt (II ?).. 
By the way if you go to the united defense web site the newest version of the M8 has 120mm gun, compressed engine and therefore crew space in the back for 4 troops (small ones mind you!) and an all rubber track.


----------



## ArmyRick (25 Oct 2004)

I tried to post a pic of the newest M8 however the file was too big. I was also going to show a pic of the rear interior, again same problem.. I will see if I can find the United Def. web site URL.. Cheeers..
Its called capability demonstration platform or something weird like that. No one has picked it up yet.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Nov 2004)

I'll throw out a couple of problems with a couple of the vehicles you all have suggested.  First off, the all rubber track or Band track is very dangerous on a vehicle the size of an AFV.  It may be okay on a skidoo, but not on a tank.  

Second:  Don't let the "speed" of the LAV fool you.  It may be fast on todays highways, but is not so fast going across open terrain and very slow to "stuck" in rough terrain.  How will it handle in Total War when the enemy blows bridges and craters roads?  How long do road networks remain in good condition during an armed conflict, when road crews are not able to maintain them?  Will the next war be fought on a paved parade square to accommodate this family of vehicles?

GW


----------



## pappy (5 Nov 2004)

Merkava's are pretty slow, the IDF doesn't have to travel far for trouble, Crew protection was the number one design feature.  Speed wasn't.

What Tank should Canada buy?  What will your allies use?  better to look like the friendlies....  easyier on the supply chain if the really big turd hits the fan....

Something mass-produced (as much as tanks can be) will help lower costs...

Challanger 2 or M1A2 would be my choice, proven designs.

Something light and fast, is a great idea, but once the RPG's start to fly, something with a tad thicker skin might be the better choice.

I did see some APC design a few years back that was kelar/plactics/carbon fiber that was pretty impressive for being strong and light weight with still lots of crew protection.

in any new design, crew protection should be key, much easyier to replace a vehical then the trained crew...

But another factor you all are aware of is getting it to the battlefield, both the US and Canada will have to move thier AFV's overseas fast.  Planes are cool, but s new desgined fast surface ship for the navy that can deliever AFV's fast with little to no dock facilities on the recieveing end it key.  One C5A / one M1A2 just isn't a proper use or recorces.

If your going to go light infantry protection is key, as well as close air and arty and UAV's...... any old other old farts out there think we should bring back the Vietnam era Skyradiers, those where some fine close-air support planes, simple, cheap, and they could carry hugh loads, and best of all fly low and slow on the attack and stick around for hours, dropping ordance right where you need it.  Granted the A10's are great too so maybe just more of these.  F16's/F18's are cool, but too fast for Close air.  But in todays age of smart bombs.... 

But you gotta admit the B-52s in Afgainestian where some pretty interesting close air support, not bad for a place built in the 1950's.


If your gonna go light for a AFV, you'd better have better combined arms....


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2004)

I was pointed to the CV 90 family of vehicles in another thread (Future use of the Leopard as an APC) Idea Feasibility? http://army.ca/forums/threads/22005.0.html. This seems to have a good balance of protection, mobility and firepower, great flexibility (everything from an IFV to a 120mm gun tank), and is reasonably light for an AFV, although somewhat heavier than a LAV derivative.

As long as we recognize airlift is not a really feasible way to insert medium/heavy forces, at least not unless we want to really increase the size of the air force (estimated 25 C-17 "Chalks" to transport ONE combat team with all its men and supplies), then something like this may be the way to go. IF you want to air insert forces, recreate the Canadian Parachute Battalion (Airborn Regiment might be politically incorrect), and give them something like Hummers or German "Weasel" vehicles to provide platforms for ATGM's, mortars and 106mm recoilless rifles. They can drop in and secure a beach head/ rail head/road head for the medium/heavy forces to arrive.


----------



## Bomber (5 Nov 2004)

CV 90's look pretty fancy, the firepower of that M8 (CV90120), but lighter, faster, 70+kmh's, and the European community is expected to have over 2000 vehicles of different configurations (25mm upto dual 120mm mortars and everything in between) There is an AD version and a FOO/FCS version, a recovery and probably one that will sell ice cream with whistles, other than the hummer, I can't think of a more versatile unit, and the ones not armed with tank guns (105 and 120) carry 8 troops plus 3 crew.  But, a way to get them there?  BC Ferries perhaps?  Read more about these ships and you will see that they were developed by the same company that did the HMAS Jervis Bay (High Speed Catamaran) of East Timor fame and they have been working with the American's to make the HSX ferry? Or something like that?  Anyway, 1000 soldiers and 250 vehicles moving at almost 80 kmh across the Ocean is pretty impressive.  Just a thought.

www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc3.htm


----------



## 30 for 30 (5 Nov 2004)

GW:

Given the choice, I would take a tracked and well armoured Canadian Army over a wheeled one, or perhaps our current structure with one tracked and armoured, single-rotation, pure warfighting brigade for emergency use, as our LAV BGs are probably ideal for the majority of our current missions; I suppose my focus on a LAV army in my post above was more a case of dealing with what we have and what we are being given, and it that context I think at the very least we should take a better wheeled 105 platform over the MGS. I'm also curious if band track technology will eventually turn out succesful rubber tracked AFVs; I think there is a serious effort underway to make this happen. If I'm not mistaken I think I have read that the US FCS may employ some sort of future band track.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Nov 2004)

Bomber said:
			
		

> CV 90's look pretty fancy, the firepower of that M8 (CV90120), but lighter, faster, 70+kmh's, and the European community is expected to have over 2000 vehicles of different configurations (25mm upto dual 120mm mortars and everything in between) There is an AD version and a FOO/FCS version, a recovery and probably one that will sell ice cream with whistles, other than the hummer, I can't think of a more versatile unit, and the ones not armed with tank guns (105 and 120) carry 8 troops plus 3 crew.   But, a way to get them there?   BC Ferries perhaps?   Read more about these ships and you will see that they were developed by the same company that did the HMAS Jervis Bay (High Speed Catamaran) of East Timor fame and they have been working with the American's to make the HSX ferry? Or something like that?   Anyway, 1000 soldiers and 250 vehicles moving at almost 80 kmh across the Ocean is pretty impressive.   Just a thought.
> 
> www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc3.htm



The question I always have is:   80Km/h in what sea state?   0?   1? 2?   They won't be pounding through the North Atlantic or Pacific in December in anything like that speed (if at all)   is my guess.   And what is the range of the ship at that speed?   Fuel consumption usually rises exponentially as a ship's speed goes up.   Can it cross 5000Nm of ocean at 80km/h?

The Torres Strait (where the Aussies operate HMAS Jervis Bay) is a lot more benign than our stretch of ocean...


----------



## Bomber (6 Nov 2004)

Well, I guess it doesn't really matter anymore

http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIII/MMIIIMar25c.html

All three went for 13.5 million USD's.


----------



## RCnapalm (12 Dec 2004)

Getting back to vehicles and away from ferries
I like the Challenger 2
its a little slow, but packs a hell of a punch
Its Chobham armour is extremely effective, esspescially against RPG's
The Brits had some trouble with the engines, it was found that Middle Eastern sand was too fine 
for the engines that had been designed for North Africa, but that was solved with a new add-on to the treads
we have good trade relationships with the Brits and after Chicoutimi we might get a guilt sale.
obviously if you want an APC the Challenger is way too heavy,
for that I like the look of the CV 90.


----------



## Blue Max (30 Dec 2004)

Even though I am partial to the Leopard with its run on everything diesel, our neighbour that we support most of the time is the US. For an MBT the smart choice for Canada would be the M1A2, or one of its family. As for the much needed Airborne, they should be equiped with the Wiesel, a very nimble practicle AFV.

CND armoured forces could train with our own ABRAMS, and when the need arose (such as Gulf War 1) we could use prepositioned equipment that the US has stashed around the world, thus rendering mout the discussion of how Canada would get our tanks off shore.

This assumes that we are in a conflict that the US wants us to support. Of course if the US was not involved then the chance of Canada sending a heavy forces would be 0%.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (10 Jan 2005)

Blue Max 

I could not agree with you more.  We tend to forget who are allies are when it comes to buying our equipment and focus on the political game at home.

The M1A2 would be excellent for our armoured boys, they might not all agree but think of the training costs it would save if you just had to fly south with troops instead of taking tanks to train.

The MGS striker is a nightmare it was not goodenough what 5 yrs ago and now all of a sudden it is common how much did they have to pay to get that endorsement.

Buy for the troops not for the padded pocket


----------



## Steel Badger (15 Jan 2005)

How about the Rooikat??


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Jan 2005)

I prefer tracks over wheels any day.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## BernDawg (15 Jan 2005)

Track is the way to go.  They called us TOW platoon for more than one reason after the Grizzly was introduced in the 80's.  BTW we were in tracks (M113).  I pulled out a great deal of wheeled vehicles back then.
I saw a feature on discovery the other night where they said that the scorpion was the fastest tank(sic)  at about 50 mph.  Ive been told that the Abrams has been clocked by state troopers at 75 mph plus (on pavement like the Scorpion on the test).  Point being I don't think we need a wheeled veh to replace the Tank.  We need a beter MBT.


----------



## Steel Badger (16 Jan 2005)

I would agree with track over wheel....I think just about every post concludes the same....

Wether the M8 is selected (as the "through-deck cruiser" Brit approach to getting purchases past the wiles of the politically appointed "tank haters") or my personal preferrence of the leopard 2.....

I would argue that the Army still needs gun tanks...


----------



## Q 1 (18 Jan 2005)

Why not upgrade leopard c2 with 120mm, north American powerplant, modern electronics and thermal, etc. plus we could easily acquire more from European countries who are unloading their leopard 1's.
  Another option could be to buy surplus Leopard 2's in the a3/a4 range that are NATO partners might not be willing to upgrade but might be willing to offload cheaply.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (18 Jan 2005)

Q1,

Our Leopard C2 actually has relatively modern electronics and an excellent thermal sight and I wouldn't do anything to the powerpack.  I'm not sure about the feasibility of putting a 120mm on the Leopard 1 (others here might be able elaborate).  The 105mm is very accurate and is hard hitting (if not to the extent of the 120mm).  I think that our allies have the tanks that the 105mm cannot penetrate.  In terms of firepower and mobility the Leopard C2 is a good tank.  The biggest liability on the battlefield with the C2 is protection.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Wizard of OZ (18 Jan 2005)

I hate to sound like a nag but do you see what we have come to. Why do we settle for stuff the other guys don't want. :rage:  I think the government should get off its ass and get something we need,  New equipment, its not like they won't make us keep it for 30 yrs.  It just annoys me that we all seem to settle on used or abandoned equipment to make due.

MOO


----------



## Cpl.Banks (8 Mar 2005)

Why cant we do liek the Aussies? they got how many M1'sAbrahms? for 500 mil was it? Our MGS is costing 600mil!!! I liek the challenger, it packs a hell of a punch and its armour is pretty bad as* > lol I think we should get MBT's that our allies use, they have them for a reason unlike us they think twice about buy equipment *cough seaking cough*
UBIQUE


----------



## Love793 (8 Mar 2005)

Cpl.Banks(Cdt.) said:
			
		

> Why cant we do liek the Aussies? they got how many M1'sAbrahms? for 500 mil was it? Our MGS is costing 600mil!!! I liek the challenger, it packs a heck of a punch and its armour is pretty bad as* > lol I think we should get MBT's that our allies use, they have them for a reason unlike us they think twice about buy equipment *cough seaking cough*
> UBIQUE



Could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Aussie's are using Leo 1s (our old turrets to be exact).  I really think the Abrams is over rated.  Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be broad side to one (or for that matter, in a hull or turret down with one coming at me either).  But it does have serious problems do to the type of engine and the location of it's air intakes (not good for fording or amphibious operations).  I think we'd be better off with the Leo 2.  It is modern, cheaper than the Abrams, similar defensive capabilities, similar top end speed and cross country capability and has the same gun as the Abrams.  It also has the quick disconnects on the power pack, so it can be changed quickly.  Pretty dead point though, as I highly doubt we'll ever see a maple of the side of another tank. :'(


----------



## TCBF (8 Mar 2005)

Hate to bust a lot of bubbles, but the Aussies will pay less for their  Abrams  than we will for the MGS.

Tom


----------



## Love793 (8 Mar 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Hate to bust a lot of bubbles, but the Aussies will pay less for their   Abrams   than we will for the MGS.
> 
> Tom



So true.


----------



## Cpl.Banks (9 Mar 2005)

Thats exactly what I said, and the Aussies are ordering some low millage M'1's from the US for much cheaper than we are getting the MGS! Does anybody listen? And a Leo 2 is a pretty good tank, cheaper like you said but with 600mil how many could we get new M1's? would be able to get the same deal as the Aussies? or Better? what about a challenger? tried and true! anyways doesnt matter we are stcking with the MGS... 
UBIQUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

Don't forget that the M1 Abrams' Allison Gas Turbine engine is retardedly maintenance-intensive. the US army spends more maintaining the M1 fleet than our ENTIRE defence budget.  the Challenger 2 is an interesting tank, but its main weakness lies in the fact that its gun is rifled and not smoothbore. this means that it cannot use HEAT ammunition, and therefore relies on the largely outdated HESH rounds. 120mm smoothbores are the current NATO standard.. sadly, we're sticking to our 105mm L7A1 guns for the MGS....


----------



## McG (10 Mar 2005)

LordOsborne said:
			
		

> Don't forget that the M1 Abrams' Allison Gas Turbine engine is retardedly maintenance-intensive. the US army spends more maintaining the M1 fleet than our ENTIRE defence budget. the Challenger 2 is an interesting tank, but its main weakness lies in the fact that its gun is rifled and not smoothbore. this means that it cannot use HEAT ammunition, and therefore relies on the largely outdated HESH rounds. 120mm smoothbores are the current NATO standard.. sadly, we're sticking to our 105mm L7A1 guns for the MGS....



Mr 18yr old Defence Analyst,
Me thinks you've stepped out of your lane.

Never have I crossed anything that suggested HEAT could not be fired through a rifled barrel.  In fact, I've fired it through a rifled CarlG barrel.  A quick check tells me that Jane's lists several tanks with 105 mm rifled barrels that fire HEAT rounds.

Lastly, HEAT and HESH each defeat armour in a different way and so have differing strengths & weaknesses.  However, HESH is still a relevant ammunition on the modern battle field.


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

it's far less common for a tank with a rifled gun to fire HEAT, since the ammunition has to be specially designed not to spin. sure, there are ways of stabilizing the ammunition, like using a ball-bearing lined round, for example. my main pont was that the challenger does not fire HEAT rounds, and relies on HESH instead. after the advent of split armour and ERA panels, HESH lost its potency against tanks and is less lethal than HEAT in the anti-armour role. of course it's still viable and potent as an ammunition type. it's particularily well-suited for bunker busting and attacking thin-skinned vehicles and infantry. 

let's place a Challenger 2 in a situation where it's facing a hypothetical MICV with ERA panels. the Challenger gunner can decide to fire an APFSDS-T round at the target, but this isn't the best fit for the target, since the thin skin of an MICV won't pose much resistance to such a powerful round. the result is a clean through-and-through. if the gunner chooses HESH, the explosion is almost completely defeated by the ERA panels and the gunner is back to square one. a modern Tandem-warhead HEAT round would have been the perfect solution, since the rear charge defeats the ERA, and the primary pierces the armour and ignites the fuel and ammunition within.


----------



## McG (10 Mar 2005)

As someone qualified to conduct conventional munition disposal, I'm going to say your talking out your arse.

Ref Conduct Guidelines - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937/post-81391.html#msg81391

Qualify that information.


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

My original source on armour piercing ammunition's website was shut down. it had some very simple but understandable diagrams and a detailed description of each. Wikpedia gives some answers on HESH ammunition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_squash_head

As to Challenger armament, i refer to the Encyclopedia of Armoured Fighting Vehicles, 2002 edition, page 113: 

"Challenger 2 is armed with a Royal Ordnance L30A1 120mm rifled gun with a chrome lined barrel to reduce wear. Ammunition types are as follows: APDS-T (L15A4), DS-T (L20A1), HESH (L31), HESH Practice (L32A5), Smoke WP (L34), and APFSDS-T (L23A1)."

as to the effectiveness of ERA panels:

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/era.html


----------



## McG (10 Mar 2005)

. . . and what about the HEAT being unable to spin?


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

My original source was a former Swedish Army tanker whose website has since been shut down. i did find another webpage that details the problems with spin and HEAT:

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust1.htm


----------



## Infanteer (10 Mar 2005)

Sources are all gone.

Isn't that convienent....


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (10 Mar 2005)

The ability to fire HESH is, in my opinion, an advantage.  HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) has better effects against non-armoured targets than HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank).  If you are trying to suppress infantry in positions or buildings then HESH is the round of choice between the two.  In urban operations HESH is an ideal round as it makes an entry point and can destroy bunkers/strongpoints.

ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) is designed to counter the explosive jet from a HEAT round.  It may well degrade a HESH round but spaced armour is the real counter to HESH.  Your hypothetical MICV with ERA that is hit by a 120mm HESH round is in for a very bad day.

Going to "sabot", an APC hit by one will have to be very lucky to survive.  If the vehicle is hit from the front the dart will probably go the length of the vehicle, doing quite nasty things along the way.  This might drive the gunnery gods mad, but I would use sabot against a BMP, particularily if the target or I was moving.

I have read that HEAT rounds work best when not "spinning", but the US fired HEAT rounds of their rifled 105mm guns for years.  Bear in mind thatI'm like Oddball and I don't know how the things work, I just ride them.  The HEAT vs HESH argument for tanks is a minor one, since tanks also carry sabot rounds of various descriptions.  Again, the advantage of HESH is that it is more versatile.  

I would glady take an M1A2, Challenger II or Leopard II.  Both the M1 and Challenger II are battle-proven.  I've trained in the M1A1 so my preference is there.  The Challenger II is an excellent tank, but I'd rather not have multiple piece ammunition.  This is all a moot point.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

2Bravo, when you said "spaced" armour, were you referring to the Chobham-style armour plate found on the Challenger series (and others)? if you were, you're quite right, the varying compositions of such armour do indeed provide excellent protection to HESH. i've had a debate with a friend on the name of it though. apparently "spaced" armour means having armour layers separaded by air in between (like the 'bazooka plates' on the sides of a Leo). a good example of this that i use a lot is the Panzer IV G from the second world war, which had a band of thin steel wrapped like a horseshoe around the turret to defend against shaped-charge warheads. 

apparently the correct term for chobham-style armour is "split" armour


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (10 Mar 2005)

Osborne,

Actually, spaced armour and composite armour (Chobham) are somewhat different concepts.  Composite armour is designed primarily to defeat the jet from a HEAT warhead and can also affect sabot penetrators.   ATGMs are pretty much universally equipped with HEAT warheads and it was the Israeli experience in the '73 war spurred development of armour that could defeat HEAT projectiles.  The UK approach was composite armour while reactive armour was pursued elsewhere.  Composite armour may well be able to dissipate the HESH shockwave.  

Spaced armour is indeed just that.  It involves spaces in the armour where the spalling induced by the HESH shockwave bounces around instead of inside the crew compartment.  A tank can have both spaced and composite armour (by having spaces in the composite armour, and all composite armour may well be this way), but some older tanks have only spaced armour.  Spaced armour on its own might have some ability to dissipate the HEAT jet but I wouldn't count on it.   

Armour protection is rarely "open source" and even the crews are usually in the dark about what is in the armour (since the crew don't need to "operate" the armour).  There are some board members here who now much more about the inner workings (I'm a tanker, not an engineer).

Cheers,

2B


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

I can see where spaced armour can protect a tank against HESH rounds, but spaced armour like i mentioned regarding the Panzer IV was developed to protect against HEAT warheads. how it does this is beautifully simple: a HEAT charge needs to be detonated a certain distance away from the armour plate in order for the explosion to form a focused jet of molten gas (known as the Monroe effect). the gasesous jet imparts burning and melting stress on the metal as well as about 20 tons of pressure per square inch. the jet is only able to sustain its shape for a short length. the spacing plates don't necessarily have to be thick; in previous conflicts the spacing element could be anything from sheet aluminium to chain link fence or chicken wire (like in Vietnam). the extra space between the detonation point and the armour itself was what killed the jet stream. just another part of the gun / armour race... (see Tank vs. Tank, Macksey, 1991)


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (10 Mar 2005)

Osborne,

Side skirts and "bazooka plates" were indeed put WW II and subsequent tanks in an attempt to deal with shaped charges (HEAT).  I've seen pictures of metal mattress frames welded onto T-34s at the close of WW II which are perhaps the ancestors of the cage armour being used in Iraq.  

As for the effectiveness of "spaced" armour (ie, built into the design of the armour and not an add-on screen) against HEAT rounds I guess the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.  I've seen this one argued around a table in the mess, but again, I'm a tanker and not an engineer.  My gut feel is that I would rather have true composite armour as found on M1s, Leo IIs and Chally IIs to protect against HEAT rounds than rely on spaced armour alone.  Before Chobham, several tanks were being designed on the premise that you couldn't really stop HEAT rounds and therefore focused on firepower and speed (Leopard 1 and AMX-30 for example).  As an aside, reactive armour and active armour look a little too prone to failure or subject to counter-measures.

Going back to your prior point about HESH as a disadvantage, large calibre HESH can mess up a target even if it does not penetrate or cause spalling.  For a tank ammo load, I would prefer having sabot and HESH over sabot and HEAT.  This makes the tank much more versatile in terms of target selection and fire support tasks.  Tanks with only sabot and HEAT can give limited fire support with their main guns against anything other than vehicles.  HESH is an excellent round for firebases and urban operations and I hope that it is included in the MGS.

2B


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

i see your point, 2Bravo. I'm sure they'll think about giving the MGS HESH rounds, since its main function (according to CASR) is to provide DF support for the infantry.. but with such a small magazine, i don't think they'll last too long


----------

