Canada's tanks

[FJAG]

Is that timeline evidence that the west is screwed, or demonstrative of a piece of tech that is pretty much against the mechanical/technological asymptote bashing its head against the wall trying to manufacture a generational leap when there's only really room left for incremental gains and tweaks?

I think it nis indicative of what happens when you merge three companies - two German and one French - to design and build a family of vehicles around one chassis in 8 pillars.

 

[KevinB]

I think it is indicative of what happens when you merge three companies - two German and one French - to design and build a family of vehicles around one chassis in 8 pillars.

Competing requirements...
Weight reduction - passive protection increase - active protection systems - larger cannon - common chassis for other platforms etc.

When everything is a priority, then nothing is.

Some of it reminds me of the MBT-70 program, but while there aren't competing cannon requirements (152mm and 120mm) the desire to have a common chassis is going to take some efforts.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Competing requirements...
Weight reduction - passive protection increase - active protection systems - larger cannon - common chassis for other platforms etc.

When everything is a priority, then nothing is.

Some of it reminds me of the MBT-70 program, but while there aren't competing cannon requirements (152mm and 120mm) the desire to have a common chassis is going to take some efforts.

If you place your order today with your customs specs, South Korea will have it ready by next Thursday, with a side of spare ribs.

 

[KevinB]

I was thinking for the past few days on the Common Chassis issue - mainly from the Merkava standpoint - how the design of that works for a "at home Army that has realistically a 200km operating bubble - and how that doesn't work for the expeditionary army that anticipates moving that distance in a day or less at times of rapid advance, but will not have the ability to simply flat bed the tank to a Depot for maintenance when it needs engine or transmission work.

You can see from this video the access to the Abrams engine and transmission is dead simple - but also blocks any method of creating a rear access point for a crew compartment.

If one was to move the engine forward - I don't think the turbine would be possible anymore - and a larger diesel would be used -
but then ones transmission grows to link back to the rear drive sprockets - cutting into to available space.

So while I like the idea of a common chassis - I don't think that one can get there from here in a system that will offer the maintenance needs of a maneuver/expedition army - without size increases to the chassis - which no one really wants either.

 

[suffolkowner]

Looks like Germany going ahead with Leopard 3 MBT.

Flash News: Germany Revolutionizes Tank Development with Orders for New Leopard 3 Armed with 130mm Cannon

Flash News: Germany Revolutionizes Tank Development with Orders for New Leopard 3 Armed with 130mm Cannon

armyrecognition.com

So is Germany/KNDS going to go ahead with the ARC 3.0 as the basis for the Leo3 and Italy/Rheinmetall going with the KF51?

 

[GR66]

I was thinking for the past few days on the Common Chassis issue - mainly from the Merkava standpoint - how the design of that works for a "at home Army that has realistically a 200km operating bubble - and how that doesn't work for the expeditionary army that anticipates moving that distance in a day or less at times of rapid advance, but will not have the ability to simply flat bed the tank to a Depot for maintenance when it needs engine or transmission work.

You can see from this video the access to the Abrams engine and transmission is dead simple - but also blocks any method of creating a rear access point for a crew compartment.

If one was to move the engine forward - I don't think the turbine would be possible anymore - and a larger diesel would be used -
but then ones transmission grows to link back to the rear drive sprockets - cutting into to available space.

So while I like the idea of a common chassis - I don't think that one can get there from here in a system that will offer the maintenance needs of a maneuver/expedition army - without size increases to the chassis - which no one really wants either.

Well I could live with a GDLS Canada-built Abrams-X / Griffin III (XM30 candidate) tank/IFV combo.

If the M109A7 and MLRS are both based on the Bradley chassis I wonder if the same could be done on the Griffin III chassis?

 

[MilEME09]

So is Germany/KNDS going to go ahead with the ARC 3.0 as the basis for the Leo3 and Italy/Rheinmetall going with the KF51?

basically, my issue with all these news tanks is to much tech being shoved in them, making them expensive and harder to maintain which will bite us in the add in a major war. We need simpler designs that are cheaper to make and maintain, even if its not a 100% solution, 90% is good enough in some cases, especially if we need another 500 yesterday.

 

[Kirkhill]

Is that timeline evidence that the west is screwed, or demonstrative of a piece of tech that is pretty much against the mechanical/technological asymptote bashing its head against the wall trying to manufacture a generational leap when there's only really room left for incremental gains and tweaks?

I think you are on to something there. When form follows function you end up, as you say, approaching asymptotical limits. There is little room left for great leaps forwards.

 

[suffolkowner]

basically, my issue with all these news tanks is to much tech being shoved in them, making them expensive and harder to maintain which will bite us in the add in a major war. We need simpler designs that are cheaper to make and maintain, even if its not a 100% solution, 90% is good enough in some cases, especially if we need another 500 yesterday.

how much is enough? how much is too much? A way to test it?

 

[Maxman1]

I was thinking for the past few days on the Common Chassis issue - mainly from the Merkava standpoint - how the design of that works for a "at home Army that has realistically a 200km operating bubble - and how that doesn't work for the expeditionary army that anticipates moving that distance in a day or less at times of rapid advance, but will not have the ability to simply flat bed the tank to a Depot for maintenance when it needs engine or transmission work.

You can see from this video the access to the Abrams engine and transmission is dead simple - but also blocks any method of creating a rear access point for a crew compartment.

If one was to move the engine forward - I don't think the turbine would be possible anymore - and a larger diesel would be used -
but then ones transmission grows to link back to the rear drive sprockets - cutting into to available space.

So while I like the idea of a common chassis - I don't think that one can get there from here in a system that will offer the maintenance needs of a maneuver/expedition army - without size increases to the chassis - which no one really wants either.

And that is exactly why the T-14 Armata failed, at least as a concept of a common chassis for a tank, APC/IFV, SPG and whatever else they envisioned. The fundamental differences between the vehicle types are too much to plug and play, and the only real option is to design separate vehicles from the start.

 

[KevinB]

basically, my issue with all these news tanks is to much tech being shoved in them, making them expensive and harder to maintain which will bite us in the add in a major war. We need simpler designs that are cheaper to make and maintain, even if its not a 100% solution, 90% is good enough in some cases, especially if we need another 500 yesterday.

I think if you look at the attrition rate of Western tanks compared to Russian tanks in Ukraine, the cost benefit analysis slides heavily towards the better tanks being more survivable. The other understanding is there is no 100% solution, everything is a compromise, so you need to make the most informed decisions on the criteria you want in a platform. I'm biased to the Abrams, as modules can be swapped much more easily - and maintenance at the unit level doesn't need to be as involved as some other systems.

how much is enough? how much is too much? A way to test it?

As I said above the key is identifying the KPP's (Key Performance Parameters) in the system that you need.
Additionally ensuring you have some space and weight for "future proofing" the design.
The ready racks that the Western Tanks have as a survivability feature (rear turret with blow out panels above) turned out to be a tasty target for FPV Drones - as very few Western tanks had any top protection - as the Russian missiles didn't have an accurate top attack ability, and the heavy frontal armor protected against any (or most) direct fire threat. So as a result APS systems have been designed an added to existing designs, and incorporated into the baseline of new systems.

Well I could live with a GDLS Canada-built Abrams-X / Griffin III (XM30 candidate) tank/IFV combo.

If the M109A7 and MLRS are both based on the Bradley chassis I wonder if the same could be done on the Griffin III chassis?

You could but, I am not holding my breath on the XM-30, given the US Army has ordered a lot more AMPV turreted versions than expected, as well as the performance of the M2A2 Bradley's in Ukraine have shown it to be a much more resilient warhorse than anticipated - the only downside to the Bradley that is really noted is the 6 dismounts, (which XM-30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle - previously OMFV - doesn't really solve).

The MICV competitors have completed their CDR (Critical Design Review) and now the Army is conducting it's own --
If they pass, they will get into Prototype Build and Test Phase - which is scheduled to take 18 months - and move into a Limited User Test before the anticipated Contract Award in FY 27, and IF this goes forward first units would be delivered FY29.

So given the AMPV is replacing the M113 in the US Army (and probably elsewhere) I think the Bradley chassis is a sound option still for the M109 and MLRS.

 

[KevinB]

And that is exactly why the T-14 Armata failed, at least as a concept of a common chassis for a tank, APC/IFV, SPG and whatever else they envisioned. The fundamental differences between the vehicle types are too much to plug and play, and the only real option is to design separate vehicles from the start.

Well it is doable - as the Israeli's proved - it just isn't easy, nor practical for most users who want a tank.

I'd argue the T-14 also proved how badly it could be done too .


It seems that one need at least 2 Tracked Platforms
1 MBT Base with potential variants of AEV, AEBV, AVLB, ARV, "SHORAD GUN" a la Geopard (and the question remains does that role need to be a MBT Chasis - I'd only say yes if you have a HAPC MBT variant - but unless you are Israel or maybe Liechtenstein the cons outweigh the pro's for that setup.
1 IFV based with potential variants beyond of what I am willing to dedicate time to writing

 

[FJAG]

I think that the greatest advantage of a rear-engine vehicle is that you can put all of the crew in the hull at the front and make the rest of the vehicle unmanned. That works for the tank and all tank variants. It even works for an SP to mount the turret mid-body a la the Russian 2S19 and 2S35. It obviously does not work for an infantry carrier or cargo or equipment carrier needing ready access from ground level. To me that means you either need two different chassis or give up the notion of an unmanned turret.

 

[KevinB]

I think that the greatest advantage of a rear-engine vehicle is that you can put all of the crew in the hull at the front and make the rest of the vehicle unmanned.

I don’t necessarily think that is the true advantage. As the front engine would offer a lot more mass beyweeen the crew and enemy direct fire systems (a la Merkava). The only bonuses I see are access under less armor for maintenance and your largest thermal generator being at the rear and being shielded by the rest of the tank from viewers to the front.

That works for the tank and all tank variants. It even works for an SP to mount the turret mid-body a la the Russian 2S19 and 2S35.

Not sure if I’d suggest it works for SPA, especially if your examples are the 2S series Generally everyone else uses a rear crew compartment for their systems, and having briefly crewed a 109 in Gagetown, and having only crawled through a 2S19, the M109 was clearly setup much better from a usage standpoint.

It obviously does not work for an infantry carrier or cargo or equipment carrier needing ready access from ground level. To me that means you either need two different chassis or give up the notion of an unmanned turret.

Well you could have the front open up, not sure if anyone these days is willing to act like a LCI and open into enemy fire.

 

[Cloud Cover]

“Well you could have the front open up, not sure if anyone these days is willing to act like a LCI and open into enemy fire.”

Driver Advance! In Reverse!!

 

[FJAG]

I don’t necessarily think that is the true advantage. As the front engine would offer a lot more mass beyweeen the crew and enemy direct fire systems (a la Merkava). The only bonuses I see are access under less armor for maintenance and your largest thermal generator being at the rear and being shielded by the rest of the tank from viewers to the front.

I'll stay with my opinion when you consider that the turret can be fully automated, kept down in size and leaving the crew separated from the mechanics of the turret and the explosives in it and the bustle. Agreed on the mass in the front but that leaves a tank, like the Merkva and the M1 with a conventional crewed turret.

Not sure if I’d suggest it works for SPA, especially if your examples are the 2S series Generally everyone else uses a rear crew compartment for their systems, and having briefly crewed a 109 in Gagetown, and having only crawled through a 2S19, the M109 was clearly setup much better from a usage standpoint.

Again the difference is automation. Take for example an artillery gun module which is quite adaptive and could be mounted on a tank chassis. A three man crew forward in the hull could operate the gun without ever leaving their seats similar to an MLRS.

Well you could have the front open up, not sure if anyone these days is willing to act like a LCI and open into enemy fire.

Not so much. That's why a say you can either go to a Merkava and Namer chassis where one chassis can fill all your needs or go to two systems.

 

[FJAG]

I don’t necessarily think that is the true advantage. As the front engine would offer a lot more mass beyweeen the crew and enemy direct fire systems (a la Merkava). The only bonuses I see are access under less armor for maintenance and your largest thermal generator being at the rear and being shielded by the rest of the tank from viewers to the front.

I'll stay with my opinion when you consider that the turret can be fully automated, kept down in size and leaving the crew separated from the mechanics of the turret and the explosives in it and the bustle. Agreed on the mass in the front but that leaves a tank, like the Merkva and the M1 with a conventional crewed turret.

Not sure if I’d suggest it works for SPA, especially if your examples are the 2S series Generally everyone else uses a rear crew compartment for their systems, and having briefly crewed a 109 in Gagetown, and having only crawled through a 2S19, the M109 was clearly setup much better from a usage standpoint.

Again the difference is automation. Take for example an artillery gun module which is quite adaptive and could be mounted on a tank chassis. A three man crew forward in the hull could operate the gun without ever leaving their seats similar to an MLRS.

Well you could have the front open up, not sure if anyone these days is willing to act like a LCI and open into enemy fire.

Not so much. That's why a say you can either go to a Merkava and Namer chassis where one chassis can fill all your needs or go to two systems. It's basically a binary choice.

 

[KevinB]

I'll stay with my opinion when you consider that the turret can be fully automated, kept down in size and leaving the crew separated from the mechanics of the turret and the explosives in it and the bustle. Agreed on the mass in the front but that leaves a tank, like the Merkva and the M1 with a conventional crewed turret.

I'm not at the point that I think a tank turret is ready for total automation and no crew, but if you didn't have a conventional turret with a penetrating basket - you could have a front engine setup that everything slid out the back, by popping some pins and rolling it out as a sub chassis.

Again the difference is automation. Take for example an artillery gun module which is quite adaptive and could be mounted on a tank chassis. A three man crew forward in the hull could operate the gun without ever leaving their seats similar to an MLRS.

Fair but I think the extra mass of the tank chassis is a tad overkill on an Artillery System

Not so much. That's why a say you can either go to a Merkava and Namer chassis where one chassis can fill all your needs or go to two systems. It's basically a binary choice.

Agreed.

 

[OldSolduer]

basically, my issue with all these news tanks is to much tech being shoved in them, making them expensive and harder to maintain which will bite us in the add in a major war. We need simpler designs that are cheaper to make and maintain, even if its not a 100% solution, 90% is good enough in some cases, especially if we need another 500 yesterday.

This above.

Get there firstest with the mostest. The Sherman wasn't a tech marvel - but there was a lot of them compared to the German tanks.

 

[suffolkowner]

This above.

Get there firstest with the mostest. The Sherman wasn't a tech marvel - but there was a lot of them compared to the German tanks.

how many bells and whistles can you leave out without compromising ? Seems like an impossible quest