Future Armour

[McG]

Europe seems to be favouring 40 mm for its future mid caliber cannon. The US Army seems more interested in 50 mm to 75 mm which is getting outside the autocannon sizes.

 

[Kirkhill]

Europe seems to be favouring 40 mm for its future mid caliber cannon. The US Army seems more interested in 50 mm to 75 mm which is getting outside the autocannon sizes.

75mm is a Sherman with an autoloader.

 

[Maxman1]

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?

Or maybe put a demolition gun on an engineer vehicle, like the L9 on the Churchill and Centurion AVRE.

 

[KevinB]

Europe seems to be favouring 40 mm for its future mid caliber cannon. The US Army seems more interested in 50 mm to 75 mm which is getting outside the autocannon sizes.

US Army wanted 50-65mm, (the MICV requirement document had that range), in which they still believe is an autocannon in a 45-50t vehicle. The entire theory in that is multiple rounds in short succession to defeat a MBT, and a large enough payload for HE/HEI on dismounted troops.


I think Europe is on the right track. As while one can get a significant payload increase in a 50-65mm, you are dealing with a vastly larger cartridge, less ammo, and more platform rock - all of which are counter to the mutiple round bursts in quick succession.

Now there is a rumor that MICV will look at 40-60mm now (I suspect the GDLS 50mm didn’t perform to expectations, and RM is offering the contrast in their 40mm they have v the 65mm on their prototype). The PM shop is being fairly tight lipped, so it will be interesting to see.

Frankly I think it’s a failure in NATO not to standardize a 40mm CTA cannon. But again we (US) don’t have a great track record for going with the flow and just pressure others to adopt what we want. I don’t think anyone is going to buy that argument anymore.

 

[Kirkhill]

US Army wanted 50-65mm, (the MICV requirement document had that range), in which they still believe is an autocannon in a 45-50t vehicle. The entire theory in that is multiple rounds in short succession to defeat a MBT, and a large enough payload for HE/HEI on dismounted troops.


I think Europe is on the right track. As while one can get a significant payload increase in a 50-65mm, you are dealing with a vastly larger cartridge, less ammo, and more platform rock - all of which are counter to the mutiple round bursts in quick succession.

Now there is a rumor that MICV will look at 40-60mm now (I suspect the GDLS 50mm didn’t perform to expectations, and RM is offering the contrast in their 40mm they have v the 65mm on their prototype). The PM shop is being fairly tight lipped, so it will be interesting to see.

Frankly I think it’s a failure in NATO not to standardize a 40mm CTA cannon. But again we (US) don’t have a great track record for going with the flow and just pressure others to adopt what we want. I don’t think anyone is going to buy that argument anymore.

And Europe has a perfectly viable 40mm family with a 90 year history of multi-domain kills if they want to go that route.

They seem happy with the Bushmaster 35 as a compromise knowing what they know now.

 

[Brad Sallows]

one common chassis, cheaper, bought in greater numbers

Yes, cost, but not necessarily in large numbers. The idea of the TD was mainly (since inception) a corps-level unit or formation for blocking large armoured forces (stiffen a defence, counter-penetration, guard, etc). There would never have been many.

Repeating what I've written before:

"TD" as a doctrine should apply to any system which will serve (tanks, anti-tank guns, anti-armour missiles, attack helicopters, etc), which means it is really just a part of each of the doctrines of forces employing each of those. "TD" as a weapon is a bit too bespoke unless a nation is on the strategic defensive against massive mechanized forces (or expects to be) and is pressed for resources. "Can't get a heavy enough gun into a turret" is no longer really a problem that requires another solution.

Tanks and helicopters are more versatile; towed guns are nigh-obsolete (survivability and impractical size); missiles have the advantages of isolation of launcher from controller and guidance (thus NLOS capability).

Similar arguments apply to "assault gun", which a fair number of TD were employed as from time to time. I figure once everyone figured out how to put a high-powered 75 mm or 3" gun into a turret the TD and assault gun were no longer needed, except as expedients to get more guns into an army somewhat desperately on the strategic defensive.

Trying to look forward:

The weight of a platform must have already practically topped out, if only because of civil engineering limitations (eg. bridges permanent and temporary). Within that weight, the guns they can mount are already able to kill their peers. Some stand-off detonation protection (eg. against missiles) is awkward to arrange, but possible. Wheels and tracks both seem to have reached the limits of how far they can be exploited long ago. There is no obvious technology that can provide a non-fragile VTOL "tank" (ie. to skip past wheels/tracks) except at absurd levels of fuel consumption.

I keep thinking that if the munitions can overpower the kinetic protection and the problem has moved instead into the realm of "must not be acquired", future tanks might as well be lighter (and maybe there are some techniques for improving crew survival which have not been exhausted).

What is needed to enable armoured operations has not changed: first win air dominance and artillery dominance so that the other guy is too busy with other things to be able to mount some kind of drone swarm counter-measure to combined arms moving into his turf.