please... 
Posted on 05/13/2005 3:39:21 PM PDT by CHARLITE
If I was the test officer for a live fire test of the next tank, I would use five RPG-7U fired simultaneously from at least two directions and impacting within inches of each other.
"Physics would predict it would flop onto its side..."
I was being a bit facisious. But yes, a smaller bore extremly high velocity system where spent uranium is in the round may come to past. In fact I just read somewhere, about a week back that indeed there is a whole new extremly high energy weapon system being contemplated, where currently it would only approach a 50 caliber. But the whole idea behind the A1 is that it not only intimidates the enemy in close quarters, but can act as a little shield for infantry, ram throw walls of homes and buildings, mash a toyada flat, zoom along a street and be firing it's machine guns at the same time it is firing a big cannon at moving or stationary targets. SLB's dire prediction above is rather un-settling if you know what I mean.
Funny no ones brough up the thought that the Abram tank's main reason for existing was to counter any Russian made tank. Not that this should prevent it from going the way of the battleship. Hell I just read last week in one of our articles that one of the Iraqi generals where planning on using T72's and other Ruskkie tanks they still have laying around on the insurgents. Keep the A1 in production, sell it to the Iraqis, and have it available in the future when our ground forces would pray it can zoom down the road and bail them out of a real tough situation. Like you said TOW crews have their limitations. They don't have anything to hide behind when confronting an enemy buried in buildings etc..
"The Abrams is safe for now for two reasons: 1. The battle of Medina Ridge. 2. Fallujah."
Let us hope so. For the USA not to have a evolving in high tech main battle tank almost appears absurd in some ways.
"Stryker with 120mm is DEAD. It was toyed with but will not materialize. One big issue is the auto loader. If it was to work with an auto loader it would be a totally different ammunition system from the current 120mm family. More than likely two piece ammo instead of the current combustible case."
Roger. That is basically along the lines of the article I mentioned some threads back had to say. There was no way a 120mm could be mounted on the Stryker, it's underbody is simply not designed for such a huge release in energy to be effectively dissipated without busting things up. Plus there is nothing like a huge tank tread with lots of weight that can maneveour in all types of lose soil conditions and yet still use main gun with effect. Thanks for the inputs.
Read your profile. Thanks for serving your country. Like I had to tell you anything about tanks.
Not a problem, just doing my job.
please...
MISSILE
The launcher fires Kornet missiles with tandem shaped charge HEAT warheads to defeat tanks fitted with ERA or with high explosive/incendiary (thermobaric effect) warheads, for use against bunkers, fortifications and fire emplacements. Armour penetration for the HEAT warhead is stated to be 1200 mm. Range is 5 km.
The missile has semi-automatic command-to-line-of-sight (SACLOS) laser beamriding guidance, flying along the line of sight to engage the target head on in a direct attack profile.
As armor protection levels and antitank weapon lethality levels continue to rise, armor protection for many modern tanks has outpaced most AT weapons. However, ATGMs have been able to increase their size, range, and warhead configurations to threaten even the heaviest tanks. Among notable trends in ATGMs is the worldwide proliferation and variety of manportable and portable antitank guided missile launchers. These include shoulder-launched, short-range systems, such as the French Eryx, and a variety of copies of former Soviet systems, such as the AT-3/Malyutka ("Suitcase SAGGER). Another notable trend is in development of upgrade ATGMs, with increased lethality. The most common type of lethality upgrade is addition of a nose precursor or tandem warhead. A more recent lethality upgrade has been the use of warheads that permit the "fly-over, shoot-down" mode. These missiles can over-fly a vehicle behind a hill, and fire an explosively-formed penetrator (EFP, in the shape of a cannon kinetic-energy penetrator round) downward through the relatively soft top of armored vehicles. Other improvements include improved guidance and resistance to countermeasures, reduced smoke and noise signature, and increased range. A fairly common trend has been addition of night sights, including thermal sights for the launcher. As the missiles and launchers have been improved, weight loads have increased. Most of the so-called portable launchers (AT-4 launcher, TOW, and HOT) have outgrown the portability weight limit, and must be carried in vehicles and only dismounted short distances from the carriers.
| M1C1 Modular Combat Vehicle Science & Technology |
|
|
The U.S. Army is upgrading to a more mobile, modular, and powerful fighting force in the immediate future. It is expected to rapidly engage the enemy, and once engaged, to defeat said enemy while remaining present on the battlefield for extended periods of time.
The M1A10 Modular Combat System will enhance our ability to meet and exceed all expectations of the above goals. It is the next generation urban combat tank.
The M1A10 is a modified M1 (or M1A1 or M1A2) Abrams main battle tank platform. It contains eleven unique improvements:
Taken in sum, these modifications adapt existing M1 and aircraft combat components into an ideal M1A10 anti-personnel urban weapons platform. They enhance the overall ability of this new ground-based combat system to specifically enable more lethal close-in fire support to be available for longer periods of time to our infantry. These changes also enhance the tank’s ability to remain functional on the battlefield even if damaged.
Change Number 1 replaces the 105mm M1 or 120mm M1A1 main battle cannon with the 20mm GAU-4 gattling cannon (or 30mm GAU-8). This permits vastly more anti-personnel and anti-armor rounds to be fired in combat. The end result is that an M1A10 crew can use this weapon to provide the close-in urban fire support previously available only in low-flying A-10, Apache helicopter, or Harrier ground-support fighter aircraft. In essence, the M1A10 is an armored A-10 fighter on the ground protecting our troops.
Change Number 2 replaces the M1’s two tank treads with four half-tracks. This permits the M1A10 to remain mobile on the battlefield even if an entire track is knocked out by enemy action or thrown off in maneuvers. The existing M1 two track design heritage is almost a century old, and its lack of redundancy is an almost unforgivable liability in today's modern world. Four half tracks can be spaced and powered such that battlefield redundancy is built in to a dependable platform. This new design eliminates the need for additional side-skirt reactive armor (with all of the added maintenance, weight, and associated cost problems of said armor).
Change Number 3 automates the job of the M1’s loader. Since the GAU-4 (or GAU-8, if desired) is auto-loaded, a loader is no longer required in the crew of an M1A10 compared to an M1. This reduces training costs, reduces on-going expenses, allows the existing tank force man-power to be spread out further, reduces the number of potential casualties from enemy fire, reduces weight and supply considerations, as well as enhances the overall ability of each tank crew to know precisely what the rest of the crew is thinking/doing.
Change Number 4 replaces the ammunition storage area for 105mm shells in the M1 with the integrated GAU-4 (or GAU-8) weapons system in the M1A10.
Change Number 5 reinstates the medium and long range anti-tank capabilities to the M1A10 of the M1 that would otherwise be lost due to the change in main battle cannon. HellFire missiles can be directly integrated to the M1's existing targeting laser.
Change Number 6 adds two powerful, weatherproof intercoms, one on each side, to the exterior of the M1A10. This permits basic communication and coordination between urban support infantry and the M1A10 crew. Such communication is advantageous for the close quarters work of urban combat.
Change Number 7 adds a projectile detection system to locate incoming enemy small arms fire such as the Projectile Detection & Cueing (PDCueTM) Counter Sniper System by the AAI Corporation. The PDCue detects sonic disturbances and calculates their point of origin.
Change Number 8 camouflages the M1A10 with an electrically deployable, 387 inch long, infrared-blocking urban, jungle, winter, or desert disposable ghilli suit.
Change Number 9 gives the M1A10 tank crew heads up notification that their vehicle is being targeted by a laser (and from where), as well as jams enemy laser and infrared targeting.
Change Number 10 adds slat armor, when desired, in such a way to the M1A10 as to deflect the hot M1 exhaust gasses both skyward and earthward. This enables infantry to walk close behind the M1A10 in order to use it as a shield from enemy fire, and it also adds critical protection to the rear of the M1A10 from enemy RPG's, which would otherwise pose a disabling threat to the turbine. Additional chains may also be draped from the slat armor when the situation merits even more protection.
Change Number 11 permits the M1A10 crew to view in real time the live feed from the closest overhead UAV, giving the crew the ability to see over walls and hills.
You know what would work WONDERS in places like Iraq? Remember Ontos? The THING... with not one, not two, or even three, but SIX (count 'em, SIX) 106 Recoilless Rifles... Load them on Monday and shoot them til Saturday is over. If ONE 106 recoilless will spoil your whole day, imagine what six will do, especially all at once...
Also, remember the Mechanical Mule? Open platform. Little open cockpit for the driver. No armor, no COVERING of any sort. Used to haul stuff but sometimes mounted a 106 recoilless with a .50 cal spotting rifle... The message from the .50 cal was simple: if you don't like THIS, you sure ain't gonna like what's coming NEXT...
You stole my thunder about using a recoilless, aka reckless, rifle for the armored gun system, AGS, version of the Stryker series of vehicles for future combat systems, FCS.
Check comments# 55 & 56 about reckless rifles.
"The article was somewhat detailed in all the current defeciant design as how it would work in loose sand etc., and how easy it is to target it's tires, and blow them out.
I have read that the Stryker can still move on blown tires. Have you ever seen what it takes just to repair a tracked vehicle that's had its track thrown off its drive wheel just by the terrain, let alone a mine or IED? It takes a minimum of 20 - 30 minutes to break the track, and then rejoin the track so that the vehicle can move again, as opposed to describing a circle.
The M1C1 Modular Combat Vehicle design could be useful, but it will have about the same wieght as the current Abrams tank design, i.e. logistical constraints will limit its deployability. Light Army and Marine units of action, to use DOD's current terminology, need veicles that can be carried, and/or delivered by C-130s until heavy tank battalions can arrive on the scene.
A somewhat radical and imaginative turret design could have an Armored Gun System version of the Stryker that's able to engage in direct and indirect fire. How it works as a 120 mm mortar carrier will be instructive.
Not according to this link.
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.