• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Why Can’t Tanks be Larger? Rheinmetall’s 130mm Gun and the Future of MBTs

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Why Can’t Tanks be Larger? Rheinmetall’s 130mm Gun and the Future of MBTs
Posted By: Alex Hempel June 25, 2016
Rheinmetall Defence

German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall recently unveiled its new highly-anticipated 130mm cannon design for use on next-generation tanks. Rheinmetall’s 120mm tank gun is the most widely fielded non-Russian tank gun and holds a virtual monopoly on NATO and Western-allied tank armaments; currently, all Western main battle tanks (MBTs) are armed with either smoothbore (most countries) or rifled (UK) 120mm Rheinmetall cannons. There are two variants, the L/44 and L/55, which have barrels of different lengths. In many cases, the cannons are license-produced, such as the L/44 M256A1 cannons used on M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks, which are manufactured at the Watervliet Arsenal in New York.

M1A2SEPV2.jpg

An M1A2 SEP V2 Abrams tank, armed with a license-produced L/44 120mm gun.

Intended for use in next-generation main battle tanks, the new gun 130mm comes at a time when tank armor is becoming increasingly difficult to penetrate. Innovations such as explosive reactive armor, high-end composites, and active protection systems oftentimes mitigate if not completely nullify the effects of anti-tank weapons such as kinetic (KE) sabot rounds and explosively formed penetrator warheads. Russia, in particular, fields Kontact-series explosive reactive armor, which is designed to, among other things, reduce the effectiveness of the of KE rounds fired from 120mm tank cannons. Equipped with Kontact ERA, many newer Russian tanks have armor levels which approach that of advanced NATO tanks and inhibit the penetration of all but the highest-power anti-tank weapons.

T72_Georgia.jpg

This T-72 tank is covered in older ERA bricks. Newer ERA such as the Kontakt-5 fitted to some T-90 tanks is even more effective.

It is in this context that the 130mm gun becomes appealing. Because increases in bore diameter are not proportional to increases in propellant volume, the modest 10mm increase in bore size actually yields a massive 50% increase in kinetic energy over the standard 120mm round. This increase ensures that the 130mm gun will remain potent for some time, whereas the ability of the 120mm gun to counter future advances in protection is less clear.
However, it remains unseen whether or not the 130mm gun will eventually achieve the ubiquity of its predecessor. Upping the caliber of tank cannons to increase kinetic energy is far from a novel idea. In fact, trials during the Cold War were undertaken with even larger 140mm guns. However, a number of problems precluded the introduction of the 140mm gun, and it is easy to see how these same issues may manifest themselves in tanks with the 130mm as well.

Thumper.jpg

This Abrams-based testbed is fitted with a massive 140mm cannon. The idea ended up being abandoned, as issues effectively integrating such a large gun into the Abrams platform arose.

The biggest issue that will face engineers trying to incorporate the 130mm gun is its increased weight and dimensions. The 130mm is heavier, at 3.5 tons, than the 3 ton 120mm gun. Housing the slightly enlarged 130mm as well as its correspondingly enlarged equipment will necessitate a redesigned turret, according to Rheinmetall engineers. This could be problematic because many NATO tanks are already behemoths. The American M1A2 SEP V2 Abrams weighs in at a staggering 69 tons, a weight similar to the largest heavy tank destroyers of World War II.

At this point, it is worthwhile to examine the role of the MBT on the battlefield. Unlike the highly specialized 70-ton gun carriages of World War II, main battle tanks are not slow breaching vehicles. Rather, they are all-purpose armor intended to fill a variety of roles, from engaging other tanks to exploiting maneuver opportunities and bolstering infantry operations. Thus, the “main” in “main battle tank” reflects that MBTs are intended to be versatile, which requires speed and mobility. Further increases in weight could threaten this mobility significantly.

Most obviously, there is the issue of operational mobility, or the ability of the tank to move to the battlefield under its own power. One factor affecting operational mobility is ground pressure per unit area, usually expressed in psi. This figure is obtained by dividing the tank’s weight by the surface area of its tracks’ contact patch. Obviously, a higher weight per unit area results in the tank being more prone to sinkage into soft ground as well as more rapid wearing of road surfaces. If the weight of a 130mm-armed tank were to be increased but the track size was to remain the same, problems associated with higher ground pressure would manifest.

Alternatively, when working with added weight of the 130mm, tank engineers could work to increase the track surface area proportionally to the weight increase and thus achieve a low ground pressure. However, tanks with tracks of a larger length and width have their own issues. The larger the vehicle, the more difficult it is to fit through passageways and urban streets. The tank could also reach a size that makes it unable to traverse smaller roads or passes, all of which would be detrimental to mobility. No matter the track size or ground pressure, overall weight also plays a factor: excessively heavy tanks may be unable to pass over small bridges, which can be an issue when there are many rivers in the area of operations.

M1ontoC5.jpg

Airmen load a M1A1 tank onto a C-5M Super Galaxy airlifter.

Also important is the effect of weight on strategic mobility, which is the ability to move the tank over long distances, ie: get it to the battlefield from wherever it is based or stored. In this realm, ground pressure is unimportant, as the tank itself generally does not have to move over soft ground during transport. Increases in overall weight and size, however, are critical. Tanks generally do not move unassisted over long distances, because they have atrocious fuel economy and the wear incurred by long-distance travel is expensive. And, of course, if there is a large water body such as a sea or ocean, boats are a necessity. Strategic airlifters such as the C-5 can also move tanks very rapidly, but this is by far the most expensive option and is only available to countries that possess such aircraft. Tanks are usually moved over land by a prime mover, whether it be a train or a truck, for the aforementioned reasons. Trains and trucks have payload size limits, namely the width of roads and the maximum width of a train car as permitted by rail infrastructure. Airlifters have similar limits to their maximum cargo dimensions and weight. Thus, the limits of tank size are not only established by battlefield needs but also logistical ones; for economic as well as tactical reasons, all tanks produced must fit onto some sort of a strategic transport. Any tank design which cannot fit onto a train or truck is essentially doomed.

So, in conclusion, tank designers will have to avoid significant increases in weight and size when producing new tanks with the 130mm cannon. Increases of more than a few ton over current-gen tanks would likely be unacceptable; and weight increases could be wrought on not only by the inclusion of a new gun but also of new protective systems, drive technologies, etc. Because of this, next-gen tanks will need to either miniaturize some components to free up space or design the next-generation components to be smaller the same size as their current-gen counterparts.

Take, for example, the turret. Engineers could theoretically design a 130mm turret that is the same weight as the current 120mm one while still increasing protection and performance, but this would require reducing the weight and size of some systems to accommodate for the increase in the weights of the gun and its equipment. Given advances in electronics and lightweight materials, this is within the realm of possibility, but the ease of execution is not yet clear. And, if we look at past trends in tank warfare as well as the trajectory of aircraft and ship weights, it seems a tall task. Indeed, American planes, tanks, and ships all tend to increase in weight as time passes. Whether tank designers can slow, halt, or even reverse this trend while still incorporating the larger 130mm gun remains to be seen; if engineers fail to do so, the proposition of widespread 130mm adoption will be significantly less attractive, especially for nations who need their tanks to weigh less than 70 tons.

The issue of increased cartridge weight is another important aspect. The cartridge is the shell and its propellant, are loaded into the breech of the gun the gun before it can fire. The 130mm cartridges are 30kg, whereas the 120mm cartridges are 21kg. Because of this significant 9kg increase in weight, Rheinmetall engineers believe that the 130mm cartridges must be autoloaded. Autoloading is the process by which mechanical means are used to reload the gun, as opposed to manual loading, in which a human loader performs the task.

carousel.png

A Russian serviceman loads trays into a T-72 autoloader.

At this point, some readers may be wondering: why would autoloading be detrimental? After all, machines tend to perform tasks faster and more precisely than humans do. However, in terms of tank gun loading, there are actually benefits conferred by using a human loader. Counterintuitively, a well-trained human loader can potentially load rounds more quickly than current autoloaders, if conditions are ideal. And, while machine loading may sound precise and reliable, autoloaders are highly complex and thus tend to break down or fail when damaged, which can be catastrophic when under fire. Many tank commanders also like having the extra crewman for a number of reasons, including the increased manpower for odd tasks and the redundancy in case of casualties. Because of the numerous benefits of manual loading, it is the method preferred by the majority of NATO countries, including military heavyweights such as the US and Germany.

Autoloaders do have some advantages, the largest being their smaller size relative to a human loader (or, more precisely, the space required to house a human loader in the turret). The usage of an autoloader is one of the reasons that Soviet tanks such as the T-72 have a lower profile than manually loaded Western tanks, thus presenting a smaller target. This decrease in turret volume afforded by autoloaders could play a role in compensating for the increased size and weight of the 130mm gun, assuming the necessary autoloader is still smaller and lighter than a human loader and its facilities. Another advantage afforded by the autoloader is its indifference to fatigue and bumpy terrain (human loaders can be jostled around if the tank is careening through ditches or over bumps). It is also possible that engineers could produce an autoloader that is faster and more reliable than a human loader, but this has yet to be achieved.

In conclusion, there are barriers to introducing the 130mm tank cannon. Not only will it be difficult to stop weight and size increases from impacting mobility, but it will also require some NATO members to adopt autoloaders, which they have opposed for decades. However, the 50% increase in kinetic energy is quite a dividend and could make all the engineering effort well worth it. If Russian tank armor and defenses progress much further, adoption of the 130mm may be the only way forward for Western tank armaments. In any case, it will be around a decade before the 130mm gun is ready for mass production and probably even longer before a tank is designed around it, so the best that can be done is to wait and see, as the progression of armor and resulting changes in NATO penetration requirements will not be revealed for some time.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
17191413_1300404530040838_9038241579311330556_n.jpg


More information in this article:

http://defense-update.com/20160614_rheinmetall-ups-tank-firepower-with-new-130mm-gun.html
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
113
Points
430
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.ca/2016/02/rheinmetall-to-develop-130-mm-gun-and.html

some older info on the 130mm
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
334
Points
1,010
Silly question time.

If we're stuck in this feedback loop of better armour drives bigger guns which drives better armour/active defences, etc. then what about breaking the cycle and focusing on weapons that simply immobilize the tank.  It would seem to me that the exposed moving parts of the tank are the weakest link.  Immobilize the tank and it loses its offensive utility and becomes an easier target for non-LOS weapons that have less difficulty taking out a stationary target. 

There are mines of course, but I don't recall really seeing anything active weapon systems that are specifically designed to target the mobility of a vehicle...they all seem to be focused on penetrating the armour.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
243
Points
710
GR66 said:
Silly question time.

If we're stuck in this feedback loop of better armour drives bigger guns which drives better armour/active defences, etc. then what about breaking the cycle and focusing on weapons that simply immobilize the tank.  It would seem to me that the exposed moving parts of the tank are the weakest link.  Immobilize the tank and it loses its offensive utility and becomes an easier target for non-LOS weapons that have less difficulty taking out a stationary target. 

There are mines of course, but I don't recall really seeing anything active weapon systems that are specifically designed to target the mobility of a vehicle...they all seem to be focused on penetrating the armour.

Concertina wire. 
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410

Attachments

  • 1985_03_00_0008_C Sqn trg.jpg
    1985_03_00_0008_C Sqn trg.jpg
    554 KB · Views: 838
  • 1985_03_00_0009_C Sqn trg.jpg
    1985_03_00_0009_C Sqn trg.jpg
    406.1 KB · Views: 1,048

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
243
Points
710
Been there, except it was -20 in Wainwright 01:30 and a foot of snow.  Uphill, both ways.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
Only a foot of snow?

You should try it at the bottom of a frozen lake, with only cereal boxes for gloves.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
GR66 said:
Silly question time.

If we're stuck in this feedback loop of better armour drives bigger guns which drives better armour/active defences, etc. then what about breaking the cycle and focusing on weapons that simply immobilize the tank.  It would seem to me that the exposed moving parts of the tank are the weakest link.  Immobilize the tank and it loses its offensive utility and becomes an easier target for non-LOS weapons that have less difficulty taking out a stationary target. 

There are mines of course, but I don't recall really seeing anything active weapon systems that are specifically designed to target the mobility of a vehicle...they all seem to be focused on penetrating the armour.

You could also target all their viewing devices blinding the vehicle and its crew as well.
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
61
Points
530
Here is the future German MBT.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/get-ready-russia-european-power-has-plans-lethal-new-tank-15251

Tank_0.jpg
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
295
Points
880
I think that Leopard 2 looking image is concept art and not anything from actual design.

Anyway, more here: https://army.ca/forums/threads/120146.0/all.html
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
702
Points
940
MCG said:
I think that Leopard 2 looking image is concept art and not anything from actual design.

Anyway, more here: https://army.ca/forums/threads/120146.0/all.html

*ahem*

revolution.jpg
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
295
Points
880
No, it is more like the below 2A7.

... but certainly not what we should expect the Franco-German "main ground combat system."
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2323.JPG
    IMG_2323.JPG
    231.4 KB · Views: 1,635

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Loachman said:
Only a foot of snow?

You should try it at the bottom of a frozen lake, with only cereal boxes for gloves.

Was this you?
 

Attachments

  • 1985_01_20_007_65K damage_6A Crse.jpg
    1985_01_20_007_65K damage_6A Crse.jpg
    575.8 KB · Views: 998
  • 1985_01_20_005_65K damage_6A Crse.jpg
    1985_01_20_005_65K damage_6A Crse.jpg
    496.8 KB · Views: 965
  • 1985_01_20_011_65K damage_6A Crse_Dvr Hatch.jpg
    1985_01_20_011_65K damage_6A Crse_Dvr Hatch.jpg
    586.1 KB · Views: 794
  • 1985_01_20_008_65K damage_6A Crse.jpg
    1985_01_20_008_65K damage_6A Crse.jpg
    480.9 KB · Views: 774

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
One would be very interested in the story...
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
6A Course.  Lawfield Corridor.  Late January 1985.

Tank became bogged on one of the Traces.  It had broken through a layer of ice.  Crew got out and left hatches open as it was not down below the top of tracks.  ARV hooks up and begins Recovery.  Tank breaks through a second layer of ice below top layer and is dragged to the bottom.  ARVs pull it out, and haul it back into K17.  Sat in hangar all night and this is what we found when we came in the next morning.  Drivers hatch full of mud.  Icicles hanging down like prison bars in the Loader and CC hatches.  AMU ripped off.  Mud on back deck making it look like a "Fastback".  Notice the 12" block of ice still rammed up between gun and glacis plate.  Over $65K damage.  First C Sqn tank to go to "rebuild" in Montreal.
 

Attachments

  • 1985_01_20_006_65K damage_6A Crse.jpg
    1985_01_20_006_65K damage_6A Crse.jpg
    561.1 KB · Views: 832
  • 1985_01_20_009_65K damage_6A Crse.jpg
    1985_01_20_009_65K damage_6A Crse.jpg
    568.3 KB · Views: 678
  • 1985_01_20_010_65K damage_6A Crse.jpg
    1985_01_20_010_65K damage_6A Crse.jpg
    603.6 KB · Views: 740

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
So it was crossing on ice over a deepish body of water, or swamp?
 

b00161400

Full Member
Reaction score
9
Points
180
I find it curious that on many places on here we are lamenting the death of the tank due to their vulnerability to a variety of threats and here we have a discussion on how we need a 130mm gun so we can defeat tanks that right now seem very difficult to penetrate....

In terms of balancing the characteristics of a tank with a 130mm cannon perhaps its time to look at a tank destroyer design.  Lighter armour with a big gun that travels directly behind the heavily protected MBTs.  Although if this is the design solution then the tactical solution would likely seek something that could fire from defilade.  So, as opposed to a 130mm direct fire cannon it would be some kind of top attack missile system that could targeted after launch or remotely by troops in contact.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
While the idea of bigger and bigger guns has been around for a long time (look at the 140mm M-1 test bed, this was the mid 1980's...), practical considerations of weight, the mass of the ammunition and even the amount of ammunition that can be carried means that it isn't as easy as just sticking a bigger gun in the gun cradle. If anything, the Merkava might be the model for a "gun tank" in the future, with a low profile or even unmanned "cleft" turret to reduce the armoured volume up top, engine in the front to provide more protection across the frontal arc and a large rear area in the hull to carry the massive 130-140mm rounds in sufficient quantity.

It might be more feasible to think of a future tank as a mobile, protected fire support platform using smart or top attack rounds to engage a wide variety of targets (and also expand the range of tank engagements). Rounds like KSTAM provide the ability to prosecute top attack engagements out to 8km, and LAHAT out to 13 km with a forward observer (could be dismounted infantry, helicopter or even UAV)


 
Top