Future Armour

[KevinB]

Slovakia is looking at possibly getting the CV90120 to go with the CV9035's they've ordered.


I'm curious about their thinking here. What roles do they see the CV90120's doing in comparison to their older tanks? Intimate DFS for their CV9035's with the T-72's and Leopard 2A4's in support? Do they think that the older tanks are still viable/survivable on the modern battlefield? Why CV90120's instead of the K2's or Leopard 2A8's? Do they think the modern MBT's still aren't survivable in a drone environment so not worth the extra cost over the CV90120's?

I suspect that they are thinking for a Defensive mission that a 120mm is a 120mm, and are not as concerned about protection by using fixed fitting run up positions (possibly with OHP) - and able to get more bang for their buck.

 

[FJAG]

I suspect that they are thinking for a Defensive mission that a 120mm is a 120mm, and are not as concerned about protection by using fixed fitting run up positions (possibly with OHP) - and able to get more bang for their buck.

I think that's basically the nub behind the MBT v "light" wheeled or tracked tank debate.

If you want a versatile AFV that serve equally well in all roles in both defensive and offensive tactics, then you need an MBT.

OTOH, if you are looking at what is essentially a tank destroyer to be used primarily in the defense or on very limited offensive support roles, then the "light" tank is a cost-effective option.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think that's basically the nub behind the MBT v "light" wheeled or tracked tank debate.

If you want a versatile AFV that serve equally well in all roles in both defensive and offensive tactics, then you need an MBT.

OTOH, if you are looking at what is essentially a tank destroyer to be used primarily in the defense or on very limited offensive support roles, then the "light" tank is a cost-effective option.

You mean a 'Chimera', right?

 

[FJAG]

You mean a 'Chimera', right?

"Chimera" was an apt name for that project.

I never quite understood it. The 105mm and early 120mm of the day was quite adequate against Russian armour in that terrain and the ATGM had pretty much supplanted the requirement for the 'gun in hull' Sturmgeschütz/Jagdpanzer anti-armour concept.

Mind you, the Kanonenjagdpanzer 90 and the Stridsvagn 103 were still a thing in those days. And the Brits were looking for some use for the older Chieftain hulls they had kicking around.

 

[suffolkowner]

one common chassis, cheaper, bought in greater numbers

 

[KevinB]

one common chassis, cheaper, bought in greater numbers

But not a tank. You cede certain capabilities at that point. Quite honestly, I don’t get the idea of putting a tank gun, on an IFV hull. Based on what it has been showing with the 25 mm cannon on the Bradley’s in Ukraine, the APFSDS-DU Round can reliably punch through any opposition main battle tank. If you put that round and scale it to 40 or 35 mm you get a multipurpose cannon they can deal with pretty much any threat than add in fire and forget any tank guided missiles and you’re all Set at least for the lighter than tank platform. I also question the longevity of any of those platforms with the 120 mm tank because I’ve seen Abrams firing and they still have platform rock at 72 ton that loan a vehicle half the way those recall forces just don’t disappear the turret, hull and suspension eat them.

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile, lets think about doing things the other way. This is about the Bradley replacement. But it is now, apparently a light tank.

Is the Army about to shake up its Bradley replacement, XM30? Sources see major signs. - Breaking Defense

Sources told Breaking Defense a new RFI may be a backdoor effort to speed up, or potentially revamp entirely, the Bradley replacement competition.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Retired AF Guy]

"Chimera" was an apt name for that project.

I never quite understood it. The 105mm and early 120mm of the day was quite adequate against Russian armour in that terrain and the ATGM had pretty much supplanted the requirement for the 'gun in hull' Sturmgeschütz/Jagdpanzer anti-armour concept.

Mind you, the Kanonenjagdpanzer 90 and the Stridsvagn 103 were still a thing in those days. And the Brits were looking for some use for the older Chieftain hulls they had kicking around.

Is this the Chimera that you are talking about?

STT Project 'Chimera' (1984) - Tank Encyclopedia

Chimera was a British STT design study to develop a casemate AFV that could make use of the outdated Chieftain tanks then still in service.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

 

[daftandbarmy]

Is this the Chimera that you are talking about?

STT Project 'Chimera' (1984) - Tank Encyclopedia

Chimera was a British STT design study to develop a casemate AFV that could make use of the outdated Chieftain tanks then still in service.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

Yes.

Aka: The point at which, on hearing people talk about like it was a real thing, I lost hope that someone ‘up there’ knew what TF they were doing

 

[Furniture]

But not a tank. You cede certain capabilities at that point. Quite honestly, I don’t get the idea of putting a tank gun, on an IFV hull. Based on what it has been showing with the 25 mm cannon on the Bradley’s in Ukraine, the APFSDS-DU Round can reliably punch through any opposition main battle tank. If you put that round and scale it to 40 or 35 mm you get a multipurpose cannon they can deal with pretty much any threat than add in fire and forget any tank guided missiles and you’re all Set at least for the lighter than tank platform. I also question the longevity of any of those platforms with the 120 mm tank because I’ve seen Abrams firing and they still have platform rock at 72 ton that loan a vehicle half the way those recall forces just don’t disappear the turret, hull and suspension eat them.

I'm not a Tanker, but I think the Bradley 25mm cutting through MBT armour makes the tank debate like the battleship debate.

You can add more armour, and try to make the ship more survivable, or you can go to active defense systems and make more ships that use missiles and surprise as their advantage.

In the case of a CV90120, they are cheaper to make, and cheaper to run, so you can have more of them than M1A2s. In the same way an AB is cheaper to build and run than a battleship, so you can have a lot of them, and absorb some losses caused by a lack of armour.

 

[PrairieFella]

I'm not a Tanker, but I think the Bradley 25mm cutting through MBT armour makes the tank debate like the battleship debate.

You can add more armour, and try to make the ship more survivable, or you can go to active defense systems and make more ships that use missiles and surprise as their advantage.

In the case of a CV90120, they are cheaper to make, and cheaper to run, so you can have more of them than M1A2s. In the same way an AB is cheaper to build and run than a battleship, so you can have a lot of them, and absorb some losses caused by a lack of armour.

The armour of a modern Western MBT is very different than the armour of a 50 year old T72. The very fact a tank was alone without a fireteam partner and no intimate support in an urban area is what killed that tank, not the 25mm per se. In our doctrine that Bradley would have bern dead by round 3 or 4 due to cover by fire by the static fireteam.

 

[GR66]

I'm not a Tanker, but I think the Bradley 25mm cutting through MBT armour makes the tank debate like the battleship debate.

I'd take the highlighted portion with a grain of salt. @KevinB may have seen reports that aren't in the public domain but I haven't seen it reported anywhere that even 25mm DU rounds have penetrated the frontal armour (or side armour?) of modern MBT's like the T-90's. They have had mission kills by exploding the ERA blocks, damaging vision blocks, sensors, turret ring controls as well as mobility kills by hitting the tracks, etc.

I'm by no means downplaying the effect that smaller than full 120mm tank rounds can have on MBT's (or @KevinB's comments on the wear effects of a large gun on a light chassis), but describing them as "cutting through MBT armour" might lead people to jump to the wrong conclusions.

 

[McG]

Why CV90120's instead of the K2's or Leopard 2A8's?

I could understand CV90-120 to support CV90-35 or CV90-40, because that can integrate as a common fleet at the unit or sub-unit level (which is a win for sustainment at that level of echelon). But why would a country (Canada) that has no other CV90 type vehicle want to pursue a pseudo-tank instead of a larger fleet of real MBTs?

 

[suffolkowner]

I could understand CV90-120 to support CV90-35 or CV90-40, because that can integrate as a common fleet at the unit or sub-unit level (which is a win for sustainment at that level of echelon). But why would a country (Canada) that has no other CV90 type vehicle want to pursue a pseudo-tank instead of a larger fleet of real MBTs?

Maybe different if we add a tracked IFV? MEDCAV?

 

[FJAG]

I could understand CV90-120 to support CV90-35 or CV90-40, because that can integrate as a common fleet at the unit or sub-unit level (which is a win for sustainment at that level of echelon). But why would a country (Canada) that has no other CV90 type vehicle want to pursue a pseudo-tank instead of a larger fleet of real MBTs?

IMHO, the aim should be to build a heavy fleet based on CV90-type vehicle (and by fleet, I mean several heavy/armoured brigades in one division) for NATO.

We can also retain the current fleet of LAVs in two or three separate medium brigades which are tasked for roles other than Latvia.

 

[PrairieFella]

As a crewman I still dont see where CV90120 fits. Ive thought about our Second World War Reconnaissance Regiment and I guess they can fit in a similar role as the 6 pounders then (regimental DFS) but I dont know if the juice is really worth the squeeze. Autocannons and missiles would be plenty for the F ech of any medium cavalry regiment.

For reference, here's the structure of the Recce Regiment. They were pretty lethal formations in places like Italy.

• Regimental Headquarters
  • Headquarters Squadron
  • 1 Humber Armoured Car
  • 9 Universal Carriers
  • 8 6-pounder Anti-Tank Guns
  • 6 3-inch Mortars
• Reconnaissance Squadron
  • Squadron Headquarters (1 Humber armoured car, 1 Reconnaissance Car)
  • Signal Troop
  • Light Aid Detachment, RCEME
  • Assault Troop (4 halftracks)
  • 1st Scout Troop
    • 6 Universal Carriers
    • 2 Humber Armoured Cars
    • 2 Humber Scout Cars
  • Scout Troop (as above)
  • Scout Trop (as above)
• Reconnaissance Squadron (as above)
• Reconnaissance Squadron (as above)

 

[KevinB]

I'd take the highlighted portion with a grain of salt. @KevinB may have seen reports that aren't in the public domain but I haven't seen it reported anywhere that even 25mm DU rounds have penetrated the frontal armour (or side armour?) of modern MBT's like the T-90's. They have had mission kills by exploding the ERA blocks, damaging vision blocks, sensors, turret ring controls as well as mobility kills by hitting the tracks, etc.

I'm by no means downplaying the effect that smaller than full 120mm tank rounds can have on MBT's (or @KevinB's comments on the wear effects of a large gun on a light chassis), but describing them as "cutting through MBT armour" might lead people to jump to the wrong conclusions.

I said Russian armor for a reason.
25mm TP-T cut up the Leo turrets and hulls on the ranges in Wx, and non DU APSDFS cut up T-72 hulls in ranges in Afghanistan.

I wouldn’t recommend 25mm APFSDS-DU as a primary anti-tank round, but in-extremis it’s going to give a Russian tank a bad day — it may take several rounds - the first burst will wreck the ERA, and cut the turret / that is OS verifiable by watching a few UKR videos, and some of the after action stills.

The 35x228mm Bushmaster II cannon offers significant more penetration capabilities than the 25mm, and also offers larger payloads of HEI as well as AHEAD and other C-UAS and LLAD rounds. The 40mm CTA round has slightly better performance than the 35mm, and due to ammo storage and general system operations would be my preferred option.

Still same caveat applies / not a primary AT system the Javelin etc would be the primary for those.

 

[Kirkhill]

As a crewman I still dont see where CV90120 fits. Ive thought about our Second World War Reconnaissance Regiment and I guess they can fit in a similar role as the 6 pounders then (regimental DFS) but I dont know if the juice is really worth the squeeze. Autocannons and missiles would be plenty for the F ech of any medium cavalry regiment.

For reference, here's the structure of the Recce Regiment. They were pretty lethal formations in places like Italy.

• Regimental Headquarters
  • Headquarters Squadron
  • 1 Humber Armoured Car
  • 9 Universal Carriers
  • 8 6-pounder Anti-Tank Guns
  • 6 3-inch Mortars
• Reconnaissance Squadron
  • Squadron Headquarters (1 Humber armoured car, 1 Reconnaissance Car)
  • Signal Troop
  • Light Aid Detachment, RCEME
  • Assault Troop (4 halftracks)
  • 1st Scout Troop
    • 6 Universal Carriers
    • 2 Humber Armoured Cars
    • 2 Humber Scout Cars
  • Scout Troop (as above)
  • Scout Trop (as above)
• Reconnaissance Squadron (as above)
• Reconnaissance Squadron (as above)

I think the 6 pdr Troop is exactly the right place for a 105/120 gun. Not so much for knocking out tanks, as you saw autocannons, ATGMs and LAM/OWUASs have probably got that covered. But a few larger guns for demolishing obstacles from a distance might come in handy. No?