Future Armour

[suffolkowner]

If they are a sensor first then lets have flying unmanned sensors. Which we do.

I can easily visualize a situation where all four tanks in a Troop are firing their main armament. I have having a harder time visualizing them all operating Class 1 UAS at the same time. We have structures for Class 1 UAS and a C2 network.

Does each tank need a crewman dedicated to looking at UAS feeds and comms? In the OCs and BC's tank the operator is an Sgt/MCpl who is there to help the OC/BC with battlefield information management. They are the loader, but since those tanks shouldn't be firing too much its not a crisis. If the OC's panzer is firing then his C2 of the sqn takes a back seat for a moment - Maslov's hierarchy of needs places not blowing up ahead of talking to Tp Ldrs and the CO on the net. For the tanks in the Troops? Seems wasteful to have a fourth crewman when you have an auto-loader. I am not a fan of auto-loaders but perhaps that is my arch-conservatism speaking.

With a possible move to 130mm is the weight of the cartridge a factor in moving to an auto loader?

 

[KevinB]

With a possible move to 130mm is the weight of the cartridge a factor in moving to an auto loader?

Reduce operator strain, and errors.
Theoretically they will be safer as one doesn’t need a human to be exposed to ammunition during the load cycle.

 

[McG]

And the cartridge should be light weight semi-combustible so there are no giant brass casings before or after firing.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

With a possible move to 130mm is the weight of the cartridge a factor in moving to an auto loader?

I am not a tank designer! There is an upper limit to what can be handled by a human inside the turret. There are also real limits on things like the width of the tank due to rail cars which in turn limits the size of the turret ring.

The Brits tried separate ammo pieces, but I wouldn't call that an unqualified success.

All that to say, there may well be a point when an auto-loader is a necessity.

 

[Underway]

This is why an autoloader for the 130mm. It's at least 40lbs 20lbs heavier than the 120mm round, and significantly larger.
Side by side comparison below. KF 51 carries 20 in the ready magazine. There is no separate bagged propellant like in an artillery piece.

 

[FJAG]

Every time I talk to a tanker about autoloaders I hear the same excuse. What are we gonna do if we need to repair a track or something? That's at least a four-person job. But now I see that the loader is the cook for the tank. No one wants to boil their own IMP's...

I actually have the same reservation about autoloaders for artillery. They add a lot of weight and mechanical complexity to the system. I work on the presumption that any mechanical system will fail just when you need it most. Artillery also has a variety of ammunition to use and various fuze requirements (which are being sorted out through multifunction fuzes). There are only so many spaces in an autoloader magazine which can effect your useful load. (That's also a problem in a standard turret but not to the same extent). I always want a manual backup and the term manual infers that there's a man or woman to run it.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but IMHO a human still makes the most versatile loading system that there is.

With a possible move to 130mm is the weight of the cartridge a factor in moving to an auto loader?

Can't speak for tankers but a 130mm cartridge weighs around two thirds of that of a 155mm projectile and arty gunners handle those all the time. That said, I came across this:

The issue of increased cartridge weight is another important aspect. The cartridge, which contains the shell and its propellant, is loaded into the breech of the gun the gun before it can fire. The 130 mm cartridges are 30 kg, whereas the 120 mm cartridges are 21 kg. Because of this significant 9 kg increase in weight, Rheinmetall engineers believe that the 130 mm 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.

Why Can't Tanks be Larger? Rheinmetall's 130 mm Gun and the Future of MBTs - WhiteFleet.net

Updated 6/9/2017 to correct an error concerning the Rheinmetall 120 mm’s users. German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall recently unveiled its new highly-anticipated 130 mm cannon design for use on next-generation tanks. Rheinmetall’s 120 mm tank gun...

whitefleet.net

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Weight is one thing, but length can be even more restrictive. You need to be able to manipulate the shell in the turret to load it in the breech. I believe that was part of the reasoning for the Brits to go with separate propellent and projectile (not to mention a third part for the primer I believe). Complexity with the ammo, though, can lead to mistakes.

So I can believe that a 130mm unitary APFSDS munition could be too long for a human to manipulate within a turret. Perhaps a designer could have a simple two part ammo system to keep a human loader.

My preference for human loaders is based on reliability and flexibility. Having four people for crew routine is a bonus but is not the reason in and of itself.

Anyhoo. I don't see the point in "feather-bedding" the fourth crewman in a tank if an auto-loader is required.

 

[NavyShooter]

Weight and length are two factors - the real 'concern' would be having a human trying to lift, maneuver, and insert that heavier shell into the breech while the vehicle is moving.

An artillery piece is sitting static when firing - the troops are lifting a heavy shell, but do not have to deal with the additional factor of being on a moving platform and having extra G-loading impacting them as they try to maneuver the round. A tanker has to be able to pull the round out of the ready-use location, probably spin it around, then slam it into the breech, while the tank is driving, going up or down hill, slamming around.

Having a much longer, heavier round in their hands while dealing with the pitching/rolling/yawing movement of the tank is the real hazard.

I suspect that a 120mm is close to the limit of what a person can manage in that kind of environment.

 

[suffolkowner]

Panthers and other Beasts

Eurosatory saw some interesting developments when it comes to western tank designs – a field which honestly hasn’t seen an overly impressive pace for the last few decades. Are we finall…

corporalfrisk.com

corporal frisk takes a look at the KF51 and a bit about the KNDS-EMBT, might as well call it the alphabet tank

 

[Underway]

What I love about the online "tank" community is how they pick favorites. All of a sudden the M1 fanboys come screaming out to talk about how much power does the KF-51 actually generate, the high-tech nature of the new M1s etc... I love that what is essentially a "concept tank" is just kicking the hornet's nest a little bit.

 

[FJAG]

What I love about the online "tank" community is how they pick favorites. All of a sudden the M1 fanboys come screaming out to talk about how much power does the KF-51 actually generate, the high-tech nature of the new M1s etc... I love that what is essentially a "concept tank" is just kicking the hornet's nest a little bit.

This is the phrase that does it for me:

“the commissioning of the MGCS should take place between 2035 and 2040 if the Armée de Terre and the Bundeswehr agree on a common requirement and if industrial companies find a fair workshare”

IMHO there is not now, nor ever will be, the invulnerable tank. All tanks are a compromise of armour, weapon and manoeuverability. Can you go to war with an A4 or an earlier version M1? Yes you can albeit with greater casualties. I don't want to sound heartless but the difference between an adequate tank force and a better than adequate one is time and money. Both are a bitch. Time means you may not have your better than average tank until long after you need it. Money means you may not have anywhere near as many as you need. The whole thing is a cruel game of risk acceptance and risk avoidance.

Prudence tells me that you need a short game and a long game. The short game tells me you need to buy off the shelf tanks that are "adequate" as they are or can be made "adequate" in short order. The long game tells me that incremental upgrades are possible. So where is the low risk?

For me it's the M1. The US has built about 9,000 of these and (depending on which web page you go to) has around 1,500 - 2,500 in active service and another 2,500 - 3,500 in reserve storage. On top of that they have an active manufacturing facility in Lima OH and a rebuild and repair facility in Anniston AL. I don't like its turbine engine because of the excessive fuel consumption and heat signature but drop-in diesel replacements are possible. Long story short, the M1 is here now, available in large numbers, has an upgrade path, and repair and refurbishment facilities to tie into. It's better than "adequate". We can dream all we want about A7s and EMBTs and MGCSs and robotic combat vehicles which may or may not fall into our hands in 2035 or 40, but if we want to be able to fight the near peer battle SSE says we should currently be capable of, then we need to tap into what's easily available off the shelf. And yes - Europe is and will remain a focus.

NATO to boost its rapid reaction force to 300,000 troops​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nato-nrf-troops-expansion-1.6502680

 

[suffolkowner]

What I love about the online "tank" community is how they pick favorites. All of a sudden the M1 fanboys come screaming out to talk about how much power does the KF-51 actually generate, the high-tech nature of the new M1s etc... I love that what is essentially a "concept tank" is just kicking the hornet's nest a little bit.

Well GDLS is advertising a "new" Abrams and Stryker coming this fall I think