M1A3 Abrams Upgrade?

[Damian90]

If UK will ever purchase a foreing tank (of course designed by one of NATO countries), I suspect it will be M1 with diesel engine.

Germany sold out almost all of it's stored Leo2's, what's is left are tanks in worst condition, waiting for customers, and not much of the left anyway.

If UK would wish to purchase used tanks, then only M1's remain in significant numbers.

As a side note. UK initially selected M1A1/M1A2 as replacement for Chieftain and Challenger, but prime minister Thatcher said to army official to "reconsider" their choice and support UK industry. So it would be really interesting if hypothetically UK would choose M1 again, and induct it in to service.

 

[My2Cents]

I'm wrong because I recently read an old interpretation that has since been updated. There has never been a law against using explosive weapons against people but there was against an individual. That is firing an explosive round right into someone by directly targeting their body. Because it was very impractical and the intent was to outlaw explosive bullets the laws of war now recognise a limit on explosive rounds at 400 grams. And all rounds (except burning agents by jurisdictions) can be fired at anyone.

I think you mean 400 grains, not 400 grams.

400 grams is 0.9lb or 12.9oz. About the weight of a 30mm cannon projectile or a little more than 2x 40mm grenades.

400 grains is 25.9 grams.

 

[RobWilliams]

The OSD of the Challenger 2 is ~2035 so any comment on the current availability of models of MBT and the effect this has on a potential purchase is irrelevant.

I wouldn't like to guess about a replacement of it just yet.

EDIT: Anyway, back to the original topic.

It's good to see they've stuck with 120mm, there was a few whispers about they should go 140mm but i'm glad they didn't.

For those interested, i've attached a couple of docs about XM360 tests and data (vintage 2006 and 2010 respectively).

 

[Damian90]

~2035? This is approx when US plans to start R&D for M1 Abrams replacement.



It gives some possiblity for Joint Venture... hmmm a deep cooperation between GDLS and BAe, it could be interesting.

 

[RobWilliams]

Good image, thanks. (Interesting to note that the potential replacement of the M109 should roughly coincide with that of the AS90)

When you were talking about German stocks of Leo2 being in poor cop and all that, it gave the impression you were talking about the 'here and now' rather than the future.

That'd be quite interesting IMO - considering it'd give the UK a chance to get a decent smoothbore MBT cheaply (in terms of unit cost) + the already close cooperation in terms of armour, could be quite a nice result.

 

[Damian90]

When you were talking about German stocks of Leo2 being in poor cop and all that, it gave the impression you were talking about the 'here and now' rather than the future.

Yes "here and now", but future is also uncertain, considering economic problems, I doubt that Germany alone will be capable to design next generation MBT.

On the other hand Joint Venture between all NATO countries? But different armies have different requirements, and previous JV's are not encouraging.

That'd be quite interesting IMO - considering it'd give the UK a chance to get a decent smoothbore MBT cheaply (in terms of unit cost) + the already close cooperation in terms of armour, could be quite a nice result.

Yes, the previous cooperation successes between USA and UK is encouraging to start such JV, and it might be successfull.

 

[StobieWan]

The OSD of the Challenger 2 is ~2035 so any comment on the current availability of models of MBT and the effect this has on a potential purchase is irrelevant.

I wouldn't like to guess about a replacement of it just yet.

EDIT: Anyway, back to the original topic.

It's good to see they've stuck with 120mm, there was a few whispers about they should go 140mm but i'm glad they didn't.

For those interested, i've attached a couple of docs about XM360 tests and data (vintage 2006 and 2010 respectively).

Rheinmetall trialled a Leo armed with a 140 mm gun a while back and it kind of worked but the ammo was a pig to handle on account of weight etc. Interestingly those trials were co-ordinated with the Royal Ordnance Factory so there were ties there. Some sort of co-operative venture for a replacement for the Leo, Cr2 and M1 seems more likely than ever since the general doctrines of all the key users have drawn closer with the passing of years. As long as there's a UK variant with some sort of boiling vessel for hot drinks, we're in.

 

[Damian90]

AFAIK M1A2SEP have some sort of BV installed.

But back to the big guns. XM360 and XM360E1 seems to be good candidate for future family of guns for vehicles.

XM360 being low recoil can be used in lighteweight wheeled and tracked platforms, while XM360E1 seems to be really nice alternative for rhinemetall guns, as it is lightweight compared to them.

I am curious about barel lenght in XM360 and XM360E1, XM360 was claimed to be L48, but on graphics from designers, XM360E1 looks to be longer, L50 perhaps?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think you mean 400 grains, not 400 grams.

400 grams is 0.9lb or 12.9oz. About the weight of a 30mm cannon projectile or a little more than 2x 40mm grenades.

400 grains is 25.9 grams.

Its grams.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What're the laws concering engaging infantry with armour piercing incendiary rounds? Are there barriers in place or is it fair game?

The Australian "Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict" states:

Bullets or other projectiles weighing less than 400 grams which are either explosive or contain fulminating or inflammable substances (exploding small arms projectiles) are prohibited. It should be noted however, that tracer and incendiary ammunition are not prohibited

The problem with looking too closely at the laws of war is there are lots of apparent inconsistencies that will have been covered somewhere by some lawyers work through. As to incendiaries there is increasing bans on primary incendiary weapons like white phosphorous, triethylaluminium, etc. They can still be used on the battlefield but not as anti-personnel weapons.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If UK will ever purchase a foreing tank (of course designed by one of NATO countries), I suspect it will be M1 with diesel engine.

It’s extremely unlikely because British plans are to eventually replace the CR2 with a tank version of the FRES SV. Also if this was to be cancelled and they did acquire rebuilt M1s to the latest standard I doubt they would chance the engine any from what the US is using. Gas turbines aren’t too different for any modern army because of their aviation arms. Just like the Australian RAEME have little problem in sustaining M1s compared to Leopards so to would the British REME.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Rheinmetall trialled a Leo armed with a 140 mm gun a while back and it kind of worked but the ammo was a pig to handle on account of weight etc. Interestingly those trials were co-ordinated with the Royal Ordnance Factory so there were ties there. Some sort of co-operative venture for a replacement for the Leo, Cr2 and M1 seems more likely than ever since the general doctrines of all the key users have drawn closer with the passing of years. As long as there's a UK variant with some sort of boiling vessel for hot drinks, we're in.

Lots of people developed 140mm guns to a trial level including the Swiss and Israelis. But I doubt we will ever see one in service because advances in gun technology will allow other means of achieving more lethality without having to scale up. Plus of course there isn’t the need. Unless the Chinese start fielding a 60 tonne tank with loads of armour resistant to 120mm we won’t see a new class of main gun. XM360 with digitisation and similar are all the world needs at the moment.

I doubt there will be a single new NATO tank project as all of these main tank producing nations have their own AFV projects under way. That is heavy IFVs: Puma, FRES SV, GCV all of which can provide the chassis of a new generation tank. There may be a common turret project but this could be as fraught with trouble as other co-operation projects.

 

[Raven22]

On the sniper rifle bit are militaries still restriced to using FMJ ammo against human targets?

No, there's nothing wrong with engaging human targets with explosive MP rounds. You wouldn't go out of your way to do it, as it is a waste of an expensive round, but there is nothing wrong with doing so.

There is no law that says you can't use a HE projectiles weighing less than 400g against personnel. The projectile on MP-SD and HE-IT rounds for the Bushmaster on the ASLAV weigh only half that, yet we haven't exactly been shy about using them on individual personnel.

 

[Damian90]

t’s extremely unlikely because British plans are to eventually replace the CR2 with a tank version of the FRES SV.

I doubt that with current armor solutions it is possible for such lightweight vehicle, that is meant to engage threats by direct line of sight fire, can in the same time have good enough survivability for it's own and crew, compared to MBT.

Perhaps when nanotechnology will mature enough, but not know and not in nearest future.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I doubt that with current armor solutions it is possible for such lightweight vehicle, that is meant to engage threats by direct line of sight fire, can in the same time have good enough survivability for it's own and crew, compared to MBT.

Well that’s not true in the slightest. First of all armour levels are not a product of gross vehicle weight. They are a product of surface area. The smaller the inside of a tank the smaller the surface area needed armouring the smaller the weight for same level of armour compared to a bigger tank. This is the entire design ethos behind such tanks as the Swedish S-Tank and the Soviet Morozov series (Ts 64 to 90).

Secondly armour technology today is way in advanced as it was 20 years ago. The FCS MGV program was going to deliver a tank with M1A2-HA frontal level armour across 360 degrees at around 30-40 tonnes. Since any Puma, FRES SV or GCV based tank is going to be in the 40-60 tonne weight class, have a range of volume/surface area saving features and use a range of advanced armours it will exceed current levels of protection with a likely net weight saving.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There is no law that says you can't use a HE projectiles weighing less than 400g against personnel. The projectile on MP-SD and HE-IT rounds for the Bushmaster on the ASLAV weigh only half that, yet we haven't exactly been shy about using them on individual personnel.

Yes there is but it is very specific and a typical legal nonsense. The Australian LOAC manual I quoted above leaves out an important qualification which makes the argument.

Customary laws of war prohibit the use of explosive projectiles under the weight of 400 grams that can only disable the person directly targeted. Most explosive shells under the weight of 400 grams like the 20mm, 25mm, 30mm and 40mm HE rounds produce fragments that will disable nearby soldiers. They are area weapons so therefore legal. But some particular explosive types and sizes under 400 grams in which if they hit an individual will not cause damage to anyone else are banned. Of course these projectiles will need to be much smaller than 400 grams to achieve this aim.

 

[Damian90]

Well that’s not true in the slightest. First of all armour levels are not a product of gross vehicle weight. They are a product of surface area. The smaller the inside of a tank the smaller the surface area needed armouring the smaller the weight for same level of armour compared to a bigger tank. This is the entire design ethos behind such tanks as the Swedish S-Tank and the Soviet Morozov series (Ts 64 to 90).

This is only partially truth, The weight is indeed not indicator of protection, and the internal volume is indeed important, however important is also thickness or internal volume of armor to provide enough space for armor to work. This because modern armor that are sufficent enough to protect against more capable threats are reactive types. Which means that they are not very space efficent due to their working mechanisms.

Secondly armour technology today is way in advanced as it was 20 years ago. The FCS MGV program was going to deliver a tank with M1A2-HA frontal level armour across 360 degrees at around 30-40 tonnes. Since any Puma, FRES SV or GCV based tank is going to be in the 40-60 tonne weight class, have a range of volume/surface area saving features and use a range of advanced armours it will exceed current levels of protection with a likely net weight saving.

As far as I am aware, the final MGV requirement was for 20-29 tons platform with front hull protection against max 45mm calliber armor piercing projectiles fired from automatic cannons. The 360 degrees protection against more capable threats had to bee provided by active protection systems. However active protection systems are not very efficent in defeating APFSDS ammunition (although it is possible), and they can be overloaded by quanitity of incoming projectiles.

In my opinion, and this is backed up by scientific report, the only way to improve protection with minimum weight increase, or even weight decrease is by use of nanotechnology.

Australian scientists tested a carbon nano tubes layer, 600nm thick, which is 0,0006mm, that was capable to provide protection against projectile with energy of 320J, hiting in the same spot several times.

This gives new capabilities, and gives also hope for efficent protection with reduced weight and probably also bulk.

There are questions however.

1) What is required thickness for CNT layer to provide sufficent protection against APFSDS and HEAT ammunition and other possible threats?
2) What will be weight of such layer?
3) When it will be possible to manufacture such materials relatively cheap, simple, in form of plates?

Of course the question is how such armor would be designed. Using pure CNT design is probably a no go.

Perhaps a design similiar to todays composite armors is more realistic, which means a steel structure creating a cavity.

This steel structure would have outer plate or plates made from high hardness steel, perhaps the best choice would be use of triple hardness steel, or something described as nanometric steel. While the back plate should be softer, more flexible.

In between these plates, we could place CNT layers encased in more triple hardness steel plates. Perhaps good addition to CNT's or even replacement for them, could be ADNR (aggregated diamond nanorods), this derivative of CNT is harder than diamonds, so alone or in combination with CNT, it could provide a much greater protection, with reduced weight compared to currently used or near future solutions.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This is only partially truth, The weight is indeed not indicator of protection, and the internal volume is indeed important, however important is also thickness or internal volume of armor to provide enough space for armor to work. This because modern armor that are sufficent enough to protect against more capable threats are reactive types. Which means that they are not very space efficent due to their working mechanisms.

Ohhh Kayyy so tell us all if your armour module has a lot of empty space in order to react against threats how much does this empty space weigh?

What you have said has nothing to do with the original point. You are going on about the weight of armour modules per their degree of effectiveness. The whole point I tried to make was the design of the tank sans armour determines the surface area requiring armour which has a huge impact on gross vehicle weight between designs that may have the same level of armour. The classic example used is the Swedish S-Tank vs the British Centurion Mk 7. Both had the same level of armour thickness, firepower, mobility. But the S-Tank weighed in at under 40 tonnes and the Centurion at well over 50 tonnes because of the more volume efficient design of the S-Tank (no turret).

As far as I am aware, the final MGV requirement was for 20-29 tons platform with front hull protection against max 45mm calliber armor piercing projectiles fired from automatic cannons. The 360 degrees protection against more capable threats had to bee provided by active protection systems. However active protection systems are not very efficent in defeating APFSDS ammunition (although it is possible), and they can be overloaded by quanitity of incoming projectiles.

No, no, yes, no and no.

The maximum weight for MGVs at cancellation was over 40 tonnes. Armour level was scalable via modules. With the highest module having protection greater than frontal armour of a M1A2. There was some debate as to whether these modules would be fitted to the MCS variant of MGV because of an operational concept of using it as a high speed, stand-off tank firing non line of sight weapons. However the ICV variant was to have the high level armour modules fitted to front and sides (which has now been carried over to the GCV).

As to APS it was to be the primary active defence of the MGV and they can defeat APFSDS ammunition. Some types of APS are actually extremely effective against APFSDS rounds. It depends on the hard kill (HK) solution but something like the IMI Iron Fist will reduce the effectiveness of a 125mm APFSDS so that even a LAV class vehicle will resist it. The overloading argument is nonsense. Most APS concepts have the ability to defeat between 4-10 near simultaneous threats before needing crew reloading. Decoys can be easily rejected by the kind of threat detection systems used and targeting a tank with more than four near simultaneous threats in a combat situation by anything other than a purpose designed swarm weapon is near impossible.

In my opinion, and this is backed up by scientific report, the only way to improve protection with minimum weight increase, or even weight decrease is by use of nanotechnology.

Tell that to all the armour designers of the last 20 years.

 

[Volkodav]

Has anything come from the BAE perforated armour concept? Basically lightening holes in full thickness armour plate, reducing weight while maintaining protection, I imagine it would be used as an inner layer in a composite structure or even in multiple layers with the holes offset from one another.

What would be interesting is a modern-day, highly manoeuvrable, heavily armoured short overall length tank destroyer / assault gun. It would have an auto loading 120mm gun (either fixed or in a casemate), firing conventional and guided projectiles. It would be fitted with a comprehensive ISR kit and RCS for self defence and a two or three man crew. The whole vehicle would be little larger than a CVR(T) or M-113, but lower and weight would, if possible, be limited to 20-25 tonnes. The idea would be to drop a troop of these in to increase the weight of a deployed Infantry force as required without needing to deploy MBTs but being more survivable than striker AGS etc.

I will grit my teeth and wait to get slapped down now.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I will grit my teeth and wait to get slapped down now.

I think something like this could be very useful but just not for this kind of employment:

The idea would be to drop a troop of these in to increase the weight of a deployed Infantry force as required without needing to deploy MBTs but being more survivable than striker AGS etc.

The infantry need something with lots of armour that can go in close to blast those positions they can’t and to supress the enemy in the face of direct fires. A light weight, high mobility vehicle is unlikely to carry this kind of armour. But as an open terrain warfare asset for traditional cavalry roles as well as anti-armour it would be ideal. Especially if supported by a strike-recce complex integrated with artillery and TACAIR and a purpose designed VTOL aviation asset to provide both operational mobility and resupply. This kind of thing has been on the drawing board since the 1970s via the US RDF/LT concept and though it always demonstrates its worth in studies and trails has struggled to find a place in competition with more traditional tanks and assault guns.

Perhaps the best way for it moving forward is via the cavalry. But when the cavalry are being asked to provide recce and the like in complex battlefields strewn with IEDs and requiring them to go in and look closely at the human terrain they want something with more survivability. But for conventional operations perhaps the option say for a mechanised corps would be in place of 2-4 heavy armour/mech infantry divisions and a cavalry brigade (aka US “regiment”) have 1-2 cavalry divisions with light armour strike vehicles and 1-2 heavy assault divisions (armour/mech infantry).