Future Armour

[Lance Wiebe]

Well, in June 2004, Finland ordered 45 CV9030 vehicles for a cost of EUR 120 million. This works out at EUR 2.67 million per vehicle.

Even if the cost was doubled, it seems to me to be quite the bargain.  Compared to say, something along the lines of the MGS, for example...........

 

[Kirkhill]

And if you are going to be moved by BHS as opposed to C-17 then what's the concern about weight and volume.  If the BHS is sufficiently big then you can haul the tank transporter and bowser as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/sep/uf-army_developing.htm

Interesting article on Tank Ammunition developments for Iraq

 

[1feral1]

Claymore type blast packages have a major drawback in the inability to reload the charge while under fire.

:

???

The inability to reload Claymore's while under fire?? Who would even think they were reloadable in the first place? Even bringing the topic up, and informing us that they are not, in the first place really baffles me. Reaction from claymores on certain armour? WTF have you been reading? Thats like having a reloadble frag grenade.

Have you ever used a M18A1 before or know its characteristics (aside that from a brief game card of course)? I am currently a valid instructor for the M18A1, and have used the HE version on numerous times, and even banked them before (with 4 HE at a go), so I am NOT talking out my arse.

Seriously now, may I be as polite enough to suggest you stick the the level of expertise you have without making yourself look as foolish as this quote from yet another bizarre and useless post.

Tell us, what is a classic machine gun? What do you know about MG's and AGL's? Mk19s have been mounted on vehicles for some time now (including Australian vehicles). Do you even realise who reads these threads?

Its almost as if you are reciting this verbatum from some form of fantasy literature which is too dry and sensless to be original yet alone have some percentage of truth/fact. Sure, a version the 7.92 Kurz MP43/44 assault rifle (not 'SMG') was designed to shoot around corners, primarily for MOUT/FIBUA, but NOT at 90 degree angles. Few were even produced as the war in Europe was closing at the time.

The blast from a Claymore is signifigant (as is any explosion), and from both ends at that. Its not like a movie (or computer game) when pers sit behind them 6 ft as they go off. A 16 metre prohibited zone is to the rear (with some kind of cover at that), and frankly I would want to be further away than that from the back of it, even in wartime.

BTW Brygun, Tankers and Squads are American terms, and being as knowledgeable as you are (or pretend to be), at least you could use the proper Canadian terminology of such, after all this is Canadian website and you are Canadian. Life in the military world is NOT a game, its BITTER reality.

I got nothing agaisnt wargamers, but I do have a problem with wargamers with attitudes, and who think they know it all, trying to inform the well informed already on topics/materiel which they have never handled, used, or took part in.

Wake up to yourself. and most importantly, do the right thing by taking Infanteer's advice before you find yourself in 'self-fornication' mode if it aint too late already.

 

[a_majoor]

In the same Armor article is a brief mnention of the "EGS" concept tank.  I saw a prototype of the tank at the Wegmann facility in Kassel.  A very intriguing concept, and one that we should be monitoring.  (By "we", I mean Canada)  Although I had my doubts about the workload involved in fighting a tank with a two man crew, the concept is very good, the size is better, and it has far more armour than any variant of the Leo 2.

I also like the idea of a Leo 2 A7, but by the time it has finished development and is ready for delivery, the next generation of tanks should be about ready.

To tell the truth, I really don't see a mad rush to create generation four tanks anywhere in the world, so we can sit back and really look at what we want out of an Armoured Fighting Vehicle. Even the most advanced tanks and prototypes, like the LeClerc or "Black Eagle" would really only qualify as "generation 3.5". The share the same basic characteristics as their older cousins, having a good balance of mobility, firepower and protection, but achieving this through the mechanical equivalent of juicing up on steroids with massive armour arrays, 1500 hp engines and so on. Since they are newer designs, they have much more advanced electronics and highly "tweaked" automotive components and autoloaders (the engine on the LeClerc actually uses a small gas turbine instead of a turbocharger for forced induction, the driver never has "turbo lag" since the compressor spins at a constant RPM regardless of the main engine speed).

To my mind, a true "generation four" tank would have the attributes of a generation three tank like the M-1 or Leopard 2 family in a package that is much smaller and lighter, as well as the ability to fight in a much more three dimensional environment. The EGS prototype was very nebulous in the Armor Magazine article, although the emphasis on protection and firepower (140mm cannon?) seems to make it more of a relative to the cancelled American "Block III" tank program designed to do a toe to toe slugfest in the Fulda gap than the nimble expeditionary tank I am talking about. Do you have any more details?

Right now everyone seems to be mesmerized by the idea of 20 tonne "FCS" vehicles that can drive off the ramp of a C-130 and have the fighting ability of an M-1. I think the built in "smarts" of the FCS concept and new organizational concepts are good ideas, but to really work a fairly proven platform (say a 40 tonne generation four tank) is needed to pull this off.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The EGS prototype I saw weighed about 40 metric tons, and its overall height was somewhere around 1.8 meters.  The idea of the time was to develop a tank that weighed less than the Leo 1 series, but offered at least 150% more protection than the Leo2A5.  It was armed with the L55 120mm cannon, with autoloader.  There was no turret per se.  I will most likely not describe the weapon system very well, but I'll try. The cannon was part of a system that raised itself slightly for firing over crests and so on.  Otherwise it rested in a cradle of sorts on the hull, for transportation purposes and so on.  The autoloader was not developed yet, but was supposed to allow for a rate of fire of around 8 rounds per minute, with 24 rounds available for immediate firing, 12 rounds in each of two bustles.

The FCS had two completely independent systems, for redundancy.  Had both thermal and MMW radar; both of which were enhanced using computer technology.  The MMW radar was supposed to be able to "sweep" the frontal arc in milliseconds, to assist in avoiding detection, and was also supposed to be capable of shifting frequencies.  I did not see this in action, and have no clue about its performance, or even its availability.

The crew stations were identical, and set low in the hull.  There were no hatches for the crew, they entered from the rear. (It being understood that hatches weakened armour, and top attack protection was one of the priorities of design)  The crew members had screens to their front, which could be programmed to suit whatever their requirements were.  For example, X1 for driving, X8 for firing, X20 for laser designation, and so on.  IIRC there were three screens.  There was also a battlefield management screen set in between the two crew members, which could be accessed by either one.

The FCS included a IFF system, that I think was linked to the MMW radar.  It also had automatic target detection and tracking, and the computer could take the thermal or MMW picture, and provide a target identification.  That was still in early development, as well.

They were, at the time, looking at developing a 25-30 ton "base vehicle", which would share all of the common components with IFV, tank, mortar carrier and so on, but the prototype I saw did not seem to have removable armour.

Remember, I saw the prototype, and talked to one of the developers, but the FCS was not fully functional, the autoloader did not exist, and I wasn't allowed to turn anything on.  A lot of it was "conceptual".  However, it was small, it had really thick armour, and a nice gun.  I was also told that the L55 was installed for trial purposes only, the vehicle was planned to have the 140mm.  And, also keep in mind that this was around 5 years ago.  I was highly impressed at the time!

 

[a_majoor]

Very illuminating Lance; this gives me a much better idea of what the EGS was supposed to be about. With the weight being 40 tonnes it actually gets into the "zone" of a generation four tank like the CV-90120 (Mod 1) or Leopard 2 A7 thought experiments I have been hashing on these boards. The advanced sensor and autoloader technology gives it excellent firepower capabilities (although a 140mm is serious overkill in this day and age). The only thing which seems to be lacking is the ability to fight in a three dimensional environment, since the gun "cradle" does not seem optimised for high angle fire (getting those annoying RPG gunners on the top floor), and the crew isn't able to go "hatches up" for close in SA by design. The line drawing in Armor magazine had no provisions for coax or remote MGs, but that is a simple matter to rectify. Maybe "we" should be giving this a much closer look.

As an aside, I found another conceptual design (also by Sweden) which seems closer to what an evolved CV 90120 "might" look like. Note the low profile "wegmann" turret; use of autoloader and engine in front design. The 40mm coax would provide protection against helicopters and a less expensive means of blasting improvised barracades or unhardened targets.  BTW, this design predates the CV 90, so take it for what it is worth: http://members.tripod.com/Strv102r/strv_2000.htm

 

[Brygun]

The cannon was part of a system that raised itself slightly for firing over crests and so on.   Otherwise it rested in a cradle of sorts on the hull, for transportation purposes and so on.   The autoloader was not developed yet, but was supposed to allow for a rate of fire of around 8 rounds per minute, with 24 rounds available for immediate firing, 12 rounds in each of two bustles.

It may have been the same vehicle and its name escapes me at the moment. It was Swedish IIRC, maybe Swiss... one of the small European powers. A tank with a fixed gun. The tracks had an unusual suspension system that allowed it to angle the whole vehicle, and thus the fixed gun. Lacking any turret at all it had a very small profile. The system you describe of the EGS of articulating the gun sounds more effecient since you arent moving all the tonnage of the vehicle.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103

This one? Swedish S-tank.  Discontinued - still in service I believe.  Essentially an armoured anti-tank gun.

 

[Brygun]

To address a few messages regarding the "claymore" style system that wouldn't work on a future armor there would, if it was used, been of course a mounting bracket or location for the charge. It is the bracket that could be reloaded by inserting a fresh charge. The affect on armor is as pointed out from the back blast, which has its own complicated design issues IF this approach was used. As mentioned their are different/better approaches to protection from infantry close assaults than this for future armor. I am glad the responses so far agree in general with my own statement that it would not work well.

 

[Brygun]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103

This one? Swedish S-tank.   Discontinued - still in service I believe.   Essentially an armoured anti-tank gun.

Yes. That's one. Well done finding it.

The articulation system is touched in on that webpate with:

"erge's design provided this ability through the use of a fully automated transmission and suspension system, which would turn and tilt the tank under gunner control. The gun itself would be fixed to the hull. This made it impossible to use a stabilized gun, making it possible to fire only while sitting still."

The rear facing driver is another unusual feature:

"One of the three left was the rear driver, who was facing the rear of the tank equipped with a complete setup for driving. This allowed the tank to be driven "backwards" at high speed,"
(from that same web page)

Not that I think this is the way for "future armor".

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks. 

Pretty sure it is NOT the same vehicle that Lance and a_majoor are discussing.  

Lance: What you are describing in terms of the cannon sounds similar to the Teledyne overhead mount that is much like that on the MGS.  Is that right?  I seem to recall seeing AGS competitors about 10-15 years ago in the 20 to 25 tonne range.  One was the Stingray, with a conventional 105mm turret and tracks, and the other had a conventional tracked hull but the gun mount was, for all intents and purposes the LAV-MGS mount.

The track advantage versus LAV,  were of course, mobility, but also lower centre of gravity, wider stance, lower hull height.  I would think it was easier to find cover and fire on the move.

http://www.mainbattletanks.czweb.org/Tanky/dfsv.htm  (here's a picture and specs)  It was Teledyne's entry into the XM-4/M-8 Light Tank/AGS competition.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/art3pr1.html  (just stumbled across this article)
The only problem left over would be one that you, 2B, Franko and George have all commented on and that would be the positioning of the CC's hatch and situational awareness, I think.

 

[1feral1]

To address a few messages regarding the "claymore" style system that wouldn't work on a future armor there would, if it was used, been of course a mounting bracket or location for the charge. It is the bracket that could be reloaded by inserting a fresh charge. The affect on armor is as pointed out from the back blast, which has its own complicated design issues IF this approach was used. As mentioned their are different/better approaches to protection from infantry close assaults than this for future armor. I am glad the responses so far agree in general with my own statement that it would not work well.

Mounting brackets? Brackets and fresh charges? Black blast having complicated design issues? I guess you are not taking Infanteer's advice after all.

 

[a_majoor]

Back to our regular programming:

Several ideas for a generation four tank have been floated, evolutions of the CV-90120 or Strv 2000 concept, conceptual improvements on existing MBTs (Leopard 2A7), and the German EGS prototype.

If we seem to be in agreement that a generation four tank should be in the 30-40 tonne range, have excellent protection, situational awareness and the ability to operate in the 3D environment (i.e. have a high angle gun mount), then the next question should be supporting arms. What should their vehicles be like, and should they be used differently from the present combined arms/combat team concept?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

OK, I'll start.

In my own opinion, several countries have design teams that are governed more by budget than by requirement.

Not one of the new designs out there make a really good family of vehicles, including the CV-90 family of vehicles.  No vehicle designed to be an APC can also be a tank, simply by swapping the turret.  While I agree that the Swedes have done a good job within their restrictions, it is still not the ideal.  Just as we found that the Cougar was not an ideal vehicle compared with the original Scimitar, but it worked based on the LAV chassis, and was cheaper.  I doubt many would argue with the fact that the Scimitar was far superior to the Cougar in almost all aspects.

Oops, I got sidetracked.

The Germans had the right idea with the original Leo 1 family of vehicles.  Instead of one chassis/running gear, they went for maximum commonality within reason.  They ended up with the Badger, Biber, Gepard, Bergepanzer et al with common suspension, power train and drivers compartment.  Further, the engine used in the Leo 1 family also shared components such as cylinder head and injectors with the engines used in the tank transporter and the Marder.  (each cylinder has its own head).  This greatly reduced the logistical, maintenance and training requirements. 

I use the Leo 1 family as what is most likely the most successful family of vehicles ever produced, each vehicle standing on its own being world class. 

Since then, the world has gotten carried away with 70 tonne mega-tanks, which made a family of vehicles a total non-starter, due to cost primarily.  Now that sanity and reduced budgets are back, it is time once again to design a family of vehicles that meet all of our requirements.  Not necessarily the same chassis (please), but let's concentrate on building a family of vehicles using common sense instead of budget for our ideas.

Canada has shown the world the way how NOT to build a family of vehicles.  There is little parts commonality in any of our existing vehicles, and little appears to be on the horizon.  I'm sure we have the smarts and the capability, if only we could find someone to point our industry in the correct direction.

 

[George Wallace]

Don't forget that the Brits were doing the same, but with a smaller sized family of vehicles.   The Alvis series that included the Scorpion, Scimitar, Samaratin, Spartan, Striker, Stormer, etc.   Then they began to go bigger with the Warrior.

Their family of tanks also seem to follow a natural progression from the Cent through the Chieftan, now onto the Challenger.

 

[DG-41]

Didn't their tanks get smaller though, or at least more compact?

Centurion wasn't exactly a small vehicle....

DG

 

[George Wallace]

The Centurion (50 Tons) is smaller than the Chieftan (55 Tons).  The Challenger 2 weights in at 68.8 Tons.

 

[DG-41]

I'm not talking weight, but rather physical size. Length/width/height.

Newer armour is more dense, so it's heavier per unit size, so it's not suprising that tanks get heavier with time. But my impression with the Brit stuff (and even with the Yanks) is that the extenal dimesions are getting smaller. The M60 wasn't exacly low and squat either.

Do that stats back that claim up? My copy of Jane's isn't handy to check.

DG

 

[George Wallace]

I suppose you could do a Google search and find out the dimensions is you so wished.