Posted on 08/19/2004 8:47:02 PM PDT by Southack
Sorry!
I didn't read through before posting. I should know better.
I wonder why I do not see any of the contributors to these letters on the DoD payroll? Gosh could it be they are blowing smoke or exhaling more than their share of hot air? I am getting cynical about arm chair quarterbacks. The more I talk to "real" warriors just back from Iraq and Afghanistan the more these articles by experts from bygone eras get under my skin. It is like CNN running out a retired LTC or Major as a tactics expert. If he was such an expert why did he retire as a LTC or Major?
I understand your point about armchair quarterbacks, but keep in mind that lots of revolutionary inventions and ideas come from civilians who've never had a day of military service. Certainly the Wright brothers and their airplane revolutionized military combat, for instance...as did Morse and his telegraph and code...as did Bell and his telephone...Marconi/Tesla and their radio...the inventors of the laser, etc...
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
In an urban environment, quad-50's would be a lot more effective
I could live with Quad 50 Cal's.
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Modifying the Abrams Tank
For Fighting in Urban Areas
by Sergeant First Class Ira L. Partridge
Armor Magazine
June/July 2001
The regimental commander was discussing the problems tanks might encounter in urban situations: "If we found ourselves in action in Bosnia, or in a new Somalia or Chechen-like scenario, how fast could we deploy a few M1 tanks that were specially modified for MOUT? A few of the right vehicles could make a big difference...."
He then suggested some features that would not cost much to add to the M1-series:
"These improvements could be accomplished fast in an emergency deployment," he said. "If we work on the prototype now, and put some ideas to work, we can make this a real option if it is needed."
Armor leaders have long acknowledged that the Abrams main battle tank (MBT) may have to fight in an urban environment, a mission commonly referred to as Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT). But it took until May of 2000 for the Army to open the first MOUT city specifically designed to train mounted warriors with Abrams tanks, along with the other members of the combined arms team.
Two Ways to Approach MOUT Tactics
A combined arms team should always be the primary maneuver force in MOUT environments. The tank’s inherent features — a large caliber precision cannon, several machine guns mounted in stable cradles carrying more ammunition than two squads of infantry, and a moveable protective barrier — would be an undeniable asset to this combined arms team.
Fighting in MOUT is slow and deliberate, regardless of the care given to protecting the force or civilian population. MOUT fighting also presents many tactical problems. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and the Russian Army are forces that have both recently conducted combat in MOUT environments, with each using fundamentally different tactics.
At one end of the spectrum are the tactics used by the Russians in Chechnya. During combat operations between 1994 and 1996, the Russians suffered devastating losses in city fighting due to badly defined strategy, poor tactical maneuver, and inadequately protected vehicles. Their tactical solution, however, came at a price that would appall most Western powers. Russian forces, towards the end of the first Chechen war, adopted a scorched earth policy similar to tactics used during World War II. Air power and artillery were liberally used to reduce urban environments to rubble before maneuver forces would enter to mop things up.
The Russian weapon of choice for urban warfare in Chechnya seems to be the TOS-1 heavy flamethrower system, designed to defeat targets with the effects of high temperature and extreme pressure by firing 30 incendiary rockets singularly or in salvo.
1 TOS-1s and massed artillery became a way for the Russians to achieve a "bloodless" victory — for them. This combination of TOS-1s and artillery is capable of releasing large clouds of flammable gas and creating massive blasts that incinerate buildings and people.2 In the second Chechen war, Russian tactics have been similar. The following excerpt describes the outcome:"Today, Grozny is no more. The contrast between the damaged Grozny before the latest battle and the utter destruction afterwards could not be more pronounced. The literal leveling of the city points to lessons that the Russian Armed Forces learned from their earlier battles for Grozny."
By removing the urban from urban-environment, Russian forces reduced the tactical problem presented and created a more favorable battlefield.
Israeli forces, on the other hand, demonstrated in the 1982 Lebanon campaign that MOUT operations are able to achieve tactical success without indiscriminate destruction or civilian casualties. They learned that, in MOUT, infantry must advance dismounted as part of a combined arms team, and operational timetables cannot be set to keep pace with mounted maneuver forces.
4 By surrounding and isolating large urban areas, the IDF took a slow, deliberate, and systematic approach to successfully clear cities. Dividing and subdividing the MOUT into areas that were subsequently reduced using direct and indirect coordinated fires spared unnecessary collateral damage to property and the civilian population. If faced with a similar tactical fight in MOUT, the U.S. Army would likely use similar tactics.But tactics and training are not the only areas the Army will have to master to succeed in MOUT as part of the combined arms team. Systems and components — preferably "off the shelf"— will be needed to improve the fightability and survivability of the Abrams tank in a MOUT environment.
The most effective combat technique in MOUT fighting is for tanks and infantry to work together as part of a combined arms team. MOUT is not just an infantry problem, and effective use of armor in MOUT quickly becomes an issue when bullets are flying. According to published doctrine, armored vehicles will face a variety of tactical problems and possibilities in MOUT environments.
5 Issues like restricted movement, complicated and confused command and control, and the canalizing effects presented by buildings will be unlike maneuvering in open terrain. Additionally, the Abrams tank has limitations imposed by its design — the first being its sheer size. Most tankers know first-hand the challenges of trying to negotiate a street or town with a behemoth 70 times larger than the typical vehicle. In addition, the main gun’s limits of elevation and depression — and the traversing restrictions imposed by narrow streets — will hamper its effectiveness against targets in tall buildings and basements. A third problem is the dead space in the area immediately surrounding the tank. This dead space falls between the sides and rear of the tank and the closest point that can be seen through the vision blocks. Another problem in the MOUT environment is the tank’s exposure to attack from above, which is an area that is not as heavily armored as the tank’s frontal armor.Precision .50-Caliber Machine Gun In order to achieve the precision necessary to kill a point target at an extended range using a .50-caliber machine gun, the weapon must be mounted to take advantage of the tank’s fire control system. This can be accomplished in two ways. You can mount the weapon as a coax or attach it to the gun mantle using a Telfare Mounting the weapon as a coax may sound like a good idea at first, but the concept was studied and rejected when the Abrams was first being developed in the ’70s. There were two primary reasons for rejecting the concept. First was the volume of brass produced when the weapon fired: how do you remove the brass from the turret? Second was the weight differential at the back of the cannon. Not that the added weight of the machine gun and a defined volume of ammunition could not be balanced. But the issue of a several hundred pound difference in weight that occurred before and after firing the ammunition, creating a transitory situation of going from back-of-the-gun-heavy to back-of-the-gun-light, was a difference in balance that could not be adequately resolved. A better idea is to use a single shot .50 caliber mounted on a Telfare device. The device is already in the inventory and the fire control system already has a SUBDES With a few modifications to stabilize the mount, and the addition of a tray to carry ammunition cans, the existing Telfare device could be used in a similar manner by the Abrams tank, especially if SLAP-T (Saboted Light Armor Piercing with Tracer) ammunition was used instead of the API-T (Armor Piercing Incendiary with Tracer) usually used in the Telfare device. Higher velocity SLAP-T ammunition travels on a flatter trajectory, making it more accurate at longer ranges. This system would allow the Abrams to accurately engage snipers and other lightly armored targets using an M2 machine gun, set on single shot, as a precision direct fire weapon. Grenade Launchers There are three ways that grenade launchers could be employed to improve the Abrams’ capabilities in MOUT: by replacing one of the turret machine guns with a Mk 19 grenade launcher, by adding additional grenade launchers that fire HE grenades, or by adding a grenade launcher that could be aimed. Simply switching the loader’s machine gun with a Mk 19 grenade launcher is an immediate solution, enabling the Abrams to engage targets with grenades in a 180-degree arc while maintaining the tank commander’s ability to engage targets with a .50-caliber machine gun. However, the limitation of this solution is the fact that the loader could only fire the weapon while exposing himself to small arms and sniper fire — a significant threat in MOUT. So, while the Mk 19 might offer a valuable asset, it is not the total solution. Additional grenade launchers could be added along the bustle rack and sponson boxes using a system like the Galix combat vehicle protection system, produced by Etienne Lacroix and Giat Industries of France.
Each of these problems can be overcome by technological solutions currently available that would make the Abrams better suited to fighting in a MOUT environment. What follows are ways that the Abrams could be improved to better protect the crew and enhance its lethality in MOUT.
There are two grenade/mortar systems available that could be aimed. The first, produced by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann of Germany, is a 76mm adjustable grenade launcher system.9 It could be incorporated into a redesigned loader’s hatch that, if needed for a deployment, could be quickly changed. This launcher can be rotated 360 degrees, has a single launcher barrel that is breech loaded, and is normally set at a 45-degree angle but is capable of other angles. The device is loaded from within the vehicle using a small hatch and has a safety interlock that prevents firing if the hatch is not properly closed. An indicator on the mounting turntable indicates the direction of fire and grenades are fired electrically from inside the vehicle. Grenade types made for the launcher include smoke, tear gas, and HE. Having this device would enable the Abrams to lob grenades in the area surrounding the tank with the hatches closed.
The second device is a 60mm breech loaded mortar, made by Soltam Defense Limited of Israel,10 which can be aimed and fired by the loader from a closed hatch and is currently used on the Israeli Merkava tank. The loader inserts the mortar into a ball type firing port and aims and adjusts fire with the loader’s periscope. To incorporate this device on the Abrams, one could again modify a loader’s hatch by installing the ball type firing port, thus allowing the tank to engage the immediate area with 60mm mortar rounds.
Each of these grenade/mortar devices would require the modification of a predetermined number of loader’s hatches that could be stockpiled for quick change onto vehicles deploying. Modifying only the loader’s hatch would limit the money required for the modification to the predetermined number selected as the cache size. Fiber Optic Cameras and Dead Space Security The tanker’s best friend in a MOUT environment is infantry running alongside and hiding behind the tank. Joined as a combined arms team, this complementary situation provides immediate security in the tank’s dead space. In MOUT, more than any other environment, the tank crew is vulnerable to sniper fire and grenades being tossed into open hatches and will normally always be buttoned up. This makes the tank vulnerable to additional threats like the "sticky bombs" seen in the movie Saving Private Ryan, and other types of explosive devices delivered by an unseen dismounted soldier. To counter this threat, a MOUT-modified Abrams should have the capability of independently monitoring this critical area, so that if supporting infantry are unavailable, the tank can still maintain security in the tank’s visibility dead space. One solution is a variation of the Krauss-Maffei Wegmann driver’s backward driving system. This system is currently being fitted onto Leopard 2A5 and 2A6 tanks and enables the driver to drive the tank backwards without assistance from the other crewmembers. It’s a modular system consisting of a black and white monitor screen, video control unit, controlling elements and power supply mounted in the driver’s compartment. The camera is housed in an armored box welded to the rear of the back deck, comprised of a black and white CCD camera with high sensitivity and resolution, and includes an automatic cleaning device. The door of the camera box opens automatically as soon as the driver places the tank in Reverse, with the driver’s controls configured so that he does not move them any differently than when driving forward. The camera has a 54° x 72° viewing angle, allowing the driver to drive as fast backwards as he does forward. For purposes of MOUT, the system should be modified to allow the driver to independently open the door to overwatch this area of dead space. If this system were expanded and modified to mount cameras on the four 
cardinal aspects of the turret, the TC could view the area normally dead space when buttoned up, regardless of the positioning of the turret. The system should be set up to independently control the camera doors and view one or all cameras at once. Along similar lines, a parallel system of microphones and speakers could be installed to both hear and talk to personnel in the vicinity of the tank, bringing to fruition a situation like the car alarm that tells someone to "Step away from the vehicle."
Another area of observation that is sometimes overlooked, but critical in MOUT, is looking straight up. Tanks may find themselves next to buildings or other structures that require viewing the area directly above the tank. This can be accomplished by mounting a fiber optic camera — preferably thermal with a controllable pan/tilt mechanism — onto the bustle rack so that the TC can view this area.
One system that would also be invaluable in providing security in the tank’s dead space and against snipers is a variation of the Projectile Detection & Cueing (PDCueTM) Counter Sniper System available from the AAI Corporation of Maryland. (See photos above.) The PDCue system as designed will provide rapid real time data to locate and classify multiple firing situations directed at the tank. Detecting the sonic disturbance created by super sonic projectiles, it provides a compound defense and zonal monitoring in multiple configurations. PDCue displays this information on a screen that provides a visual display of attack direction in relation to the tank. Designed to provide real time output of azimuth, elevation, range, the caliber, miss distance, and GPS coordinates of the origin of fire, it gives a tank crew the ability to locate enemy snipers firing in the area of the tank. The system could also be integrated with a turreted weapon system to automatically traverse onto a sniper’s location and remain stabilized to that location, making adjustments for vehicle movement. It could also be modified to incorporate other sensors that would allow monitoring of the tank’s dead space with the addition of sonic or motion type sensors.
Overhead Weapons Systems (OWS) An OWS is one way to enhance lethality and provide a way to accurately load and fire a machine gun while the tank is buttoned up. By assuming that the deploying tank is an M1A1, an OWS is easy to incorporate. Companies like Rafa’el from Israel, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann from Germany, and Otobreda from Italy have all developed OWSs for integration into a variety of armored vehicles. An OWS of the correct size could be mounted in the CITV ring, which is found on all M1A1s but covered by an armored plate. The Rafa’el Ordnance Systems Division offers two OWSs that would fit this purpose, the OWS 12.7DI and OWS 7.62mm. Krauss-Maffei Wegmann offers the Type 1865 remote-controlled gun mount system The Italian company, Otobreda, offers a power operated, remotely controlled, light turret Each of these systems has merits and faults in its own right. The Rafa’el system would be simplest to install and easy to train a loader on its operation. The Krauss-Maffei Wegmann system may be cost prohibitive due to modifications required for the cupola, but deploying tanks could still be upgraded quickly with modified cupolas. The Otobreda system is the most technological system, with complexity akin to operating the turret. Regardless of complexity or cost, an OWS would provide an invaluable asset to a tank in a MOUT environment, bringing to bear a second weapon system, with the Otobreda and Rafa’el systems, able to engage targets above the maximum elevation of the tanks main armament, including the advantage of loading the weapon without exposing the crew. Add-on Armor Add-on armor will be needed to enhance the armor protection of an Abrams in MOUT from top attack. Packages can be added to the tank in one of two ways. One can either use modular passive type armor that molds and conforms to the vehicle’s existing shape or a system of Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) "bricks" can be mounted to the vehicle. For years, the Russians have added ERA to upgrade the armor protection on main battle tanks. Israel has also fielded ERA and add-on armor packages for the last 20 years on a variety of vehicles to configure them for specific threat conditions. Israel has also been very tenacious in modifying, upgrading, and integrating captured armored vehicles through the use of ERA and add-on armor. American vehicles have used ERA to upgrade armor protection too, on the M60A1 for the Marines and some Bradley variants. Either approach has its bad points, like the additional weight added to the vehicle, or the fact that ERA — once hit — becomes ineffective. Good points include the ability to upgrade a vehicle’s protection without redesigning the base vehicle, and the ability to configure a vehicle’s armor protection to a specific threat level.
Cameras, microphones, and a speaker system in conjunction with an automatic monitoring system like PDCue would enable a tank crew to effectively monitor the dead space around the tank. Once detection of a threat in this area is achieved, then weapons can be brought to bear to destroy the threat or the tank can simply move away from the threat.
In a hostile MOUT environment, the Abrams will likely face situations like what the Israelis encountered in southern Lebanon, where attack from above or from the side by RPGs and AT missiles posed a substantial threat. These situations led to modular add-on armor packages for the Merkava and also led to Israeli development of heavy APCs.
One ERA system currently available is from Giat Industries of France. They have developed the Brenus ERA block that can be easily fitted on all types of vehicles, giving them a high level of protection against HEAT projectiles.14 The French Army has retrofitted its AMX-30B2 tank fleet with Brenus until those units can be fielded the Leclerc.
Rafa’el Ordnance Systems of Israel has three different types of add-on armor, including ERA.15 Passive armor like the Enhanced Appliqué Armor Kit (EAAK) has been designed and fielded on M113s and other APCs and was selected by the Marine Corps for the AAV-7. This passive armor is based on a special spaced armor technology, highly efficient against KE projectiles and able to suppress the residual penetration of shaped charge munitions. Composite ceramic armor has also been developed and can be mounted as removable armor tiles. Reactive armor from Rafa’el began with the first generation of Blazer ERA in 1974, and was adopted for retrofitting the entire Israeli tank fleet at the time. First generation Blazer was also the ERA seen on Marine M60A1 upgrades in the late ’80s, which was meant to upgrade the armor protection on the M60A1 until the Marines could field the Abrams tank. The latest generation, called Super Blazer, can be custom tailored as add-on armor for any type MBT, allowing for compatibility and operational requirements with all tank subsystems including optics, fire control systems, and guns. Super Blazer provides enhanced protection against shaped-charge munitions (like HEAT rounds and ATGMs) and increased efficiency against KE rounds. Rafa’el, together with Lockheed-Martin, also provides the latest reactive armor package for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
For the Abrams to be upgraded with add-on armor, a system using ERA blocks is not the answer. ERA blocks would involve the welding of mounting bolts to all the areas where the blocks are required. So the concept would not be uniformly applicable to the Abrams fleet. However, a modular — configurable — add-on armor package like that found on the Merkava could be custom fitted and tailored to specific threat levels. This modular package could be mounted with a slight modification to M1A1s as they are being deployed. Canister Ammunition A 120mm canister round has been designed to meet requirements set forth by U.S. Forces Korea for an anti-personnel round that is muzzle action and effective against massed troops 200-500 meters from the tank. Using tungsten steel balls or cubes, it could be used against a dismounted attack in numbers greater than could be effectively suppressed by the tank’s machine guns. This round is not currently funded for production but would not take long to produce in numbers large enough to support forces that are deploying. Conclusion Having discussed the many available systems, here are the recommended features to improve the Abrams tank for MOUT operations.
These features would enable Abrams tankers to adequately protect themselves while delivering precise, deadly, and accurate fires to the enemy, thus avoiding casualties in the civilian population. The Russian tactical solution to MOUT is not a politically acceptable solution and is not one that Americans would embrace in situations short of all out war. Americans would also never accept the level of losses sustained by the Russians in the first Chechen war. A more tactful solution is through the deployment of technically superior fighting platforms like a MOUT-modified Abrams tank. In open terrain, few dismounted soldiers or lightly armored vehicles will brazenly approach or attack a tank. Though tanks have a tendency to become "bullet magnets" on the battlefield, not many want to get into a slugfest with an Abrams. War and battlefields are destructive and chaotic environments unlike any other human endeavor. American armor must face the reality of preparing to fight in MOUT. To think that American forces will not have to face combat in a MOUT environment with the Abrams tank is akin to the ostrich sticking its head in the sand. If adopted, this proposed concept would enable the Abrams tank to maintain a technological edge, even in the restricted confines of MOUT. "If we work on the prototype now, and put some ideas to work, we can make this a real option if it is needed." The time is now for this concept to materialize and a future Armor Conference is the opportunity to exhibit these improvements to Armor leaders. An Abrams modified for MOUT would be the best answer to reinforcing an embattled rapid deployment force that needs the combat power of a tank in a MOUT environment. Notes 1Yuri Babushkin, "Russia’s Arms 2000," (Military Parade, 2000), p. 238. 2"Russia is using Chemical Weapons in Chechnya," (Kavkaz-Tsentr, 6 Dec 99), http://www.fas.org /man/dod-101/ops/war/1999/12/991206-chechen-news.htm. 3Timothy L. Thomas, "Grozny 2000: Urban Combat Lessons Learned," (Military Review, Jul-Aug 2000). 4CPT James D. Leaf, "MOUT and the 1982 Lebanon Campaign: The Israeli Approach," (ARMOR, Jul-Aug 2000), pp. 8-11. 5FM 71-1, Appendix I – MOUT. 6M179 Subcaliber Training Device Telfare, (FM 17-12-7, Tank Combat Training Devices, 11 Mar 92) p. 4-1. 7The ammunition sub-designation is used to tell the tank’s fire control system the particular ballistic coefficient for the ammunition being fired. 8Tony Cullen and Christopher F. Foss, (Jane’s Armour and Artillery Upgrades, Twelfth Edition, 1999-2000), pp. 149-150, hereafter referenced as Jane’s. 9Jane’s, p. 152. 10 Soltam Systems Ltd., http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/artillery/soltam/. 11http://www.Rafael.co.il. 12Jane’s, p. 289. 13Jane’s, p. 300. 14Giat Industries website, http://www.giat-industries.fr/ukgiat/prod/proa5a.htm. 15Rafa’el Ordinance Systems website, http://www.rafael.co.il. SFC Ira L. Partridge has written several articles for ARMOR since being assigned to the Master Gunner Branch at Fort Knox. He received his initial Armor training at Fort Knox, Ky., in 1985. He graduated the Master Gunner Course in 1993 with an A8 ASI. His assignments as a Master Gunner include one year as a company master gunner and three years as battalion master gunner for 5-77 AR, 1st AD, Mannheim, Germany, moving with the unit in 1994 and redesignating to 1-32 AR, 2nd ID, Fort Lewis, Wash. He is currently serving as the newsletter editor, webmaster, and operations sergeant for the Master Gunner School at Fort Knox, Ky.
The GAU-8 is 6.4 meters long. Just a little too big for a tank.
LECLERC MAIN BATTLE TANK, FRANCE |
|
The Leclerc Main Battle Tank built by Giat Industries is operational with the French Army and the Armed Forces of Abu Dhabi of the United Arab Emirates. The Leclerc was first operational with the French Army in 1992 and with UAE in 1995. Leclerc Mk 2 tanks with improved software and engine control system entered production in 1998. The French Army has nearly 300 Leclerc MBTs in service and in September 2001 ordered the final tranche of 52, concluding a total order of 406 (plus 20 armoured recovery vehicles). Deliveries are expected to be completed by 2005. 390 tanks and 46 armoured recovery vehicles have been ordered by UAE. Deliveries of the tanks were completed in May 2004 and deliveries of the ARVs will conclude in 2005. FINDERS BATTLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMThe Leclerc is fitted with the FINDERS (Fast Information, Navigation, Decision and Reporting System) battlefield management system, developed by Giat. FINDERS includes a colour map display which shows the positions of the host tank, allied and hostile forces and designated targets and can be used for route and mission planning. The French Army has selected Giat to equip its Leclerc main battle tanks with a Terminal Information System (TIS) called Icone (Ergonomic Communications and Navigation Interface). The initial phase of the contract covers the equipment of more than 100 Leclerc tanks, with entry into service to start in 2003. The TIS has been developed together with EADS Defense Electronics Systems. It permits the exchange of digitised data including tactical situation and the graphic orders displayed on a background map, between the vehicle and higher level command. LECLERC MBT ARMAMENTThe 120mm 52 calibre smoothbore gun is fitted with a thermal sleeve and muzzle reference system. Fumes are exhausted with a compressed air unit. The gun, which fires APFSD (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) and HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) rounds, has a firing rate of 12 rounds/minute. The aiming system is entirely electrical for improved acceleration. The tank has an automatic loading system, which allows cross-country fire-on-the-move against mobile targets. 22 rounds of ready-to-use ammunition are carried. The tank is also armed with a 12.7mm machine gun co-axial with the main gun and a roof-mounted 7.62mm anti-aircraft gun. LECLERC DIGITAL FIRE CONTROL AND OBSERVATION SYSTEMSThe digital fire control system allows the gunner or commander to select six different targets to be engaged in just over 30 seconds. The system's digital computer allows realtime treatment of data from the tank's sensors and sights. The commander has eight periscopes and an HL-70 stabilised panoramic sight from SFIM Industries, now part of SAGEM. HL-70 includes laser rangefinder, day channel, and second generation image intensifier. Recognition range is 4km and identification range is 2.5km. The commander has a display showing the gunner's thermal sight. The gunner's station is equipped with gunner's main sight, three periscopes and a visual display unit. The gunner's stabilised sight is SAVAN 20 from SAGEM, which contains a three field of view thermal imager. The driver's has three periscopes, the centre periscope being the OB-60 driver's sight developed by Thales Optrosys (formerly Thomson-CSF), which has day and night channels. GALIX COMBAT VEHICLE PROTECTION SYSTEMLeclerc is fitted with Galix combat vehicle protection system, developed by GIAT and Lacroix Tous Artifices. Nine launch tubes for the 80mm grenades are fitted on either side of the turret roof. The Galix system can launch smoke or anti-personnel grenades or infrared decoys. Giat has developed the KBCM defensive aids suite which can befitted to the Leclerc. KBCM includes laser warner, missile warner, infrared jammer and the Galix system and can be integrated with the Finders battle management system. The French Army has evaluated the system. SACM V8X-1500 HYPERBAR DIESEL ENGINEThe Leclerc is equipped with an SACM V8X-1500 Hyperbar diesel engine providing 1,500hp at 2,500rpm. An electronic engine management system is supplied by SAGEM. The SESM ESM 500 automatic transmission has a hydrostatic transmission unit and five forward and two reverse gears. The engine is fitted with a Suralmo-Hyperbar high pressure gas turbine. The engine provides a road speed over 70km/h and cross country speed up to 50km/h. The tank also has a Turbomeca TM-307B gas turbine auxiliary power unit. The hydropneumatic suspension system is from Societe d'Applications des Machines Motrices (SAMM). UAE TROPICALISED LECLERC MAIN BATTLE TANKThe tropicalised Leclerc is optimised for tropical and desert conditions to meet the requirement of the UAE. A new powerpack and diesel auxiliary power unit has been installed and the hull is extended at the back to accommodate the powerpack and larger fuel tanks. The Euro Powerpack has the MTU 883 V-12 diesel engine providing 1,500hp, coupled with Renk HSWL295 TM automatic transmission. For this and export versions of the tank, Giat has developed the Leclerc Battle Management Equipment (LBME), a derivative of FINDERS. The HL-70 commander's sight has been replaced by the HL-80, also from SFIM. LECLERC NEW GENERATION RECOVERY VEHICLEThe Leclerc New Generation Recovery Vehicle (NGRV) has a longer hull with seven pairs of wheels. An hydraulically operated blade at the front of the vehicle is used to clear a path through battlefield obstacles. The vehicle is equipped with an hydraulic crane rated to lift 30,000kg loads and a winch with 180m cable rated at 35,000kg. A secondary winch is rated at 1,500kg. The crane and winch systems are supplied by Rheinmetall Landsystemes GmbH. |
 |
 |
  Leclerc Mk 2 tanks with improved software and engine control system entered production in 1998. |
|
 The Leclerc has a range of more than 500km without refuelling. |
||||
 The Leclerc Mk 2 fitted with snorchels to enable fording at up to 4m depth. |
||||
 The Leclerc Main Battle Tank is operational with the French Army and the Armed Forces of the UAE. |
||||
 The Leclerc Main Battle Tank. |
||||
 The Commander's Station with the Finder's battle management system. |
||||
 The gun has a firing rate of 12 rounds per minute. |
||||
 Leclerc on exercise in Qatar. |
||||
 The Leclerc can re-fire at different moving targets whilst on the move. |
||||
 The Leclerc's weight of 56t make for easy transportation and allow the crossing of a wider range of bridges. |
||||
 The Leclerc Main Battle Tank demonstrates it's manoeuverability in Europe. |
||||
 The tropicalised Leclerc Main Battle Tank demonstrates the fire power of its 120mm main armament. |
||||
 |
|
A Leopard 2 with Mobile Camouflage System. |
c#115
|
August 2004 |
| Army Eyeing New Artillery Systems |
| by Harold Kennedy |
The U.S. Army gradually plans to modernize its field artillery systems, in an effort to replace aging platforms and introduce advanced technology. In anticipation of increased spending on new weaponry, companies have in recent months unveiled a number of technologies targeting future Army and Marine Corps needs. A case in point is a new 105 mm self-propelled howitzer just entering the marketplace. General Dynamics Land Systems, of Sterling Heights, Mich., and South African’s Denel (Pty) Ltd., recently demonstrated the howitzer—which consists of a Denel gun turret mounted on one of GDLS’s LAV III light armored vehicles—to Army and Marine Corps officers and representatives from Britain, Canada, and Australia. The 17.5-ton howitzer was fired first on the beach at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., the site of the Air Armament Center. The targets, measuring six by eight feet, were located deep over the horizon in the Gulf of Mexico. Eglin has 133,000 square miles of water ranges in the gulf that are used for weapons testing. Then, the gun was loaded into a C-130, flown to Fort Sill, Okla., site of the Army’s Field Artillery School, and fired again. For safety reasons, the weapon was fired remotely, controlled from a nearby bunker. The howitzer can pump out eight rounds a minute in indirect fire at targets up to 30 kilometers away, said James D. Vickrey, director of GDLS artillery programs, to reporters at the Eglin demonstration. The projectiles are loaded automatically from an internal 32-round magazine, reducing the crew size to no more than three members, he said. A variety of rounds are available, including smoke, illumination, high-explosive, and pre-formed fragment versions, Vickrey noted. Each category produces its own useful effect, he said. For nighttime operations, the illumination round “lights up the whole world,” but “the big killer” is the PFF, he said. It sprays thousands of tungsten balls wherever it hits. That “pretty much wipes out a soccer field,” he said. “This is not your father’s 105.” GDLS spent $5 million of its own funds on the project, and teamed up with Denel in October 2003 to develop the demonstration model, Vickrey said. Denel is a major producer of long-range artillery systems. GDLS officials said the demonstrator could be adapted to the future combat systems that the Army is developing to replace its current family of armored vehicles. Plans call for the FCS to include five varieties of manned ground vehicles, including a non-line-of sight cannon. GDLS is teamed with United Defense LP, of Arlington, Va., to design the future combat vehicles. In 2003, United Defense demonstrated a 155 mm non-line-of-sight cannon, featuring a modified version of the M777 lightweight, towed howitzer. The 105 mm weapon also could be placed atop a variation of the Stryker eight-wheeled, armored combat vehicles that GDLS is building for the Army, company officials asserted. The mortar carrier variant of the Stryker includes a 60 mm weapon and a 120 mm version. Mortars fire indirectly, high over obstacles to hit relatively close targets. The Army currently doesn’t have a requirement for a 105 mm self-propelled howitzer, said Lt. Col. Greg Kraak, chief of Futures Integration at the Field Artillery Center at Fort Sill. But the Army is interested in learning about the capabilities of the GDLS system, he told reporters at Eglin. “What appeals to us is that the fact that it can be loaded on a C-130.” The Army’s current self-propelled howitzer is the M109A6 Paladin 155 mm, the most recent version of a 40-year-old design. The Paladin—built by United Defense—weighs 32 tons, nearly twice the weight of the GDLS demonstrator, and requires a large aircraft—a C-5 Galaxy or C-17 Globemaster—for transport. The Paladin’s heft makes it difficult to deploy rapidly in response to fast-breaking regional crises. Heavy artillery can be deployed by ship, but the process takes weeks and sometimes months. The Army had planned to replace the Paladin with the Crusader, another 155 mm self-propelled howitzer from United Defense. Its weight had been trimmed down to less than 40 tons, light enough to fit two into a single C-17. Pentagon leaders, however, decided that the Crusader still was too heavy, and in 2002 cancelled the program. The services are planning the next generation of artillery to fit inside the C-130, officials explained. In part, this is because the C-130—unlike other transports—can land on rough, dirt fields as short as 1,400 feet. The C -17 requires 3,000 feet, and the C-5 needs 4,900 feet. The Air Force has far more C-130s than of the other two transports. At last count, the service had 126 C-5s and 113 C-17s. It plans to increase its number of C-17s to 180 by 2008. By comparison, the Air Force has more than 500 C-130s. With those numbers, Kraak said, “we’ll continue to tap the C-130s.” The Army has two C-130-transportable artillery pieces. Both are towed, not self-propelled, and both are aging. They are the M198 155 mm medium howitzer, made by the Rock Island Arsenal, in Illinois, and the M119A1 105 mm originally designed by the United Kingdom’s Royal Ordnance. The U.S. Army and Marines intend to replace their 25-year-old M198s with BAE’s M777, a 155 mm towed howitzer that began low-rate initial production in 2003. During that same year, it test-fired the M777 with the XM982 Excalibur GPS inertial navigation-guided projectile. Excalibur is designed to provide precision-strike capability for artillery, with 10-meter accuracy at a maximum range of 40 kilometers. The M119A1, which was first fielded to the Army in 1989, also is coming to the end of its service life in coming years, Kraak said. “We’re going to have to find a replacement for it.” The Army,” he said, is “looking at a number of systems.” Among the new technologies now being marketed to the Army is United Defense’s variable-volume chamber cannon, called the 105 mm V2C2. In February, United Defense test-fired the V2C2 using a 105 mm round and a 155 mm modular charge. The weapon can be integrated with a 20-ton class combat vehicle or configured as a towed platform, said Jim Unterseher, UDLP’s Army program director. “We believe this cannon system offers a cost-effective 105 mm solution for the Army field artillery,” he said. The variable volume chamber allows the Army to use the M231 and M232 modular artillery charge system that is already in its inventory. That would enable artillery units to employ only one family of propellants for 105 mm and 155 mm systems. In March, United Defense signed an agreement to lead marketing efforts in the United States for Giat Industries’ Caesar 155 mm self-propelled howitzer, originally built for the French Army. The Caesar, which is mounted on a 6 x 6 truck, is C-130 transportable, said Tom Rabaut, president and CEO of United Defense. The agreement with Giat “has the potential for United Defense to produce the howitzer system for United States requirements,” he added. |
I'd also like to see the older M1's get upgraded into urban assault vehicles by having their 105mm cannons replaced by the A-10 fighter's GAU-8 Avenger 30mm gattling cannon.
That's a GREAT idea
Thanks!
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
>>Rather than a new platform, I'm thinking more along the lines of going back to an older (and seemingly discredited) way of waging war: total destruction, which was the hallmark of western military practice since ancient Greece. This "hearts and minds" b.s. does not work until the enemy has had the snot beat out of him and is in no position to continue resistance.
Worth saying again. Carnage and Culture bump.
A big part of our problem in Iraq, is that the general populace in some areas, doesn't know they've been beaten. At the end of WWII, the German and Japanese people by God know they'd gotten the smack-down.
>>. . .changing the two existing M1 treads into four half tracks.
>>
>> What costly problems are these changes frought with, specifically?
Well, that one requires total replacement of the existing drive/transmission system, and would add significant mechanical complication, with added unreliability the natural follow-on. There's a reason there are no existing AFVs with the system you propose.
To mount the fire control system you are suggesting is another large engineering change that is costly and time consuming. I'm not sure it is even feasable. The Abrams is an engineering marvel, intended to kill enemy tanks on the battlefield. That it does very well. Again, the right tool for the job is needed the Abrams is not that tool in this case(my opinion).
So given the options of leaving hundreds of our old M1's mothballed in Alabama or updating them for urban combat in Iraq, you'd choose to let them collect dust and rust stateside?
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Click here for printable version