Even though there is a light weight 120mm that could be shoe horned in a FCS type vehicle, my speculation is that they will mount the 120/140 dual maingun system on the M1A3. To me the give away was that they want to slap a auto loader into it. The FCS program by far is not dead, the U.S Army has a vision of augmentation of the M1A2/A3 into this family of vehicles. We have finally come to the long overdue conclusion that you still need heavy armor on the battlefield and this is not going to change any time soon with alot of countries out there that are investing in MBT upgrades.
T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour
- Status
As I said, the FCS is not not dead but I just doubt that we are going to see it like it is envisioned by the MoD planners.
Why is an autoloader a give away for you? As long as I understand it they want to give the Abrams an autoloader but also want to remain with a 4 men crew.
This is the best what one could wish.
Especially in difficult terrain and MOUT environments the additonal pair of eyes of the loader is a huge plus. Add to that a modern RWS (With a .50cal HMG or a 40mm AGL) with good optics (including TI) and you have a really big enhancement in crew performance.
Iraq has shown that the loader is really needed, bBe it for observation, fighting with the MG or as an additional pair of hands for repairs.
The only problem was that he had to load the gun and so wasn't able to observe the surrounding area or do other tasks when the tank was using its main gun.
By adding an autoloader without getting rid of the 4th crewman you get the best of both worlds.
Why is an autoloader a give away for you? As long as I understand it they want to give the Abrams an autoloader but also want to remain with a 4 men crew.
This is the best what one could wish.
Especially in difficult terrain and MOUT environments the additonal pair of eyes of the loader is a huge plus. Add to that a modern RWS (With a .50cal HMG or a 40mm AGL) with good optics (including TI) and you have a really big enhancement in crew performance.
Iraq has shown that the loader is really needed, bBe it for observation, fighting with the MG or as an additional pair of hands for repairs.
The only problem was that he had to load the gun and so wasn't able to observe the surrounding area or do other tasks when the tank was using its main gun.
By adding an autoloader without getting rid of the 4th crewman you get the best of both worlds.
We are already starting to see less M1 series tanks fighting in urbanized settings in Iraq, more Strykers are handling the patrols and infantry support tasks.
Why can`t you still have a auto loader with the dual purpose gun system and keep your loader, with the layout of the bustle mounted auto loader it is feasible to do this. Also we are talking about keeping this bad boy for the next few decades, I would think that we wouldn`t take any chances on what China and Russia will be coming out with in that time frame, Russia possibly has a 135mm and China has a 140mm that they are quite confident with, Russia will have to have at least a new turret design, but the type 99 doesn`t have to rely on too many modifications to complete this. Germany has tested this dual caliber gun system also right.
Are we talking about the same?
My post was about the possible Abrams upgrades, giving it an autoloader WITHOUT getting rid of the 4th crewman so there is the optimal solution.
As for FCS getting a 4th crewman.
No way. They want to make it small so having dedicated space for a 4th crewman besides an autoloader is going to work against their ideas.
My post was about the possible Abrams upgrades, giving it an autoloader WITHOUT getting rid of the 4th crewman so there is the optimal solution.
As for FCS getting a 4th crewman.
No way. They want to make it small so having dedicated space for a 4th crewman besides an autoloader is going to work against their ideas.
Yes - we are talking the same, a dual caliber gun on the M1A3 with a auto loader and a 4th crewmember. The breech mechanism isn`t that much bigger.
I agree that its not much known yet ..
Here are some info I read though
http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/MBT/n_tagil.html
Here are some info I read though
http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/MBT/n_tagil.html
Basing opinion on yutube.. lol. Optics is on the level of any other modern tank. Besides, Polish, Croatian, etc. versions are worse - you can ask peoples who served on both versions. Some NEW russian upgraded versions of T-72 might be better than old versions of T-90 - but general optic quality remains almost the same. There was very little progress in that area in the last 20 years - general in the world. And here i speak about optic quality.
However, optic capability have improved on modern tanks - all these independend command sights, etc. There was simply several new "modes" added.
I dont think it is possible without completely redisigning the tank. There aer simply not enouth space incide for both autoloader and gunner.
From my POV, keeping the loader as observer dont worth it without giving him additional independed powerfull weapon like 30mm autocannon at very least.
Keeping the loader as "technican" make even less sence - technic guys will serve much better in technic regiment, with proper training and tools. Not constantly risking on the battlefront. Of course, it will require changing TOE for western tank units - but better sooner than later.
I will be surprised if they were to go with a 152mm gun system, the size alone for the shells is close to five feet in lenght, thus the issue of not being able to carry a large amount. It dosen`t take long to shoot a tanks basic combat load of ammunition during a meeting engagement.
I think that it will depend on what type of auto loader they decide to go with, it could be feasible with the bustle mounted system if they can keep everything behind the breech mechanism, my biggest concern would be the amount of space for the loader and with the rate of fire.
you mean sth like this...a bustle mounted autoloader and retaining the 4 man crew...in case of the Abrams
http://mdswebmaster.com/UK/MDS2007/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=152&Itemid=94
http://mdswebmaster.com/UK/MDS2007/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=152&Itemid=94
Yes - this is a good option that is being tested, we could see a increase in the size of the bustle though to allow more ammunition and also to adjust for the 140mm ammunition.
Especially recent events in Iraq and A-stan have shown that the 4th man is direly needed and welcomed by the crews. In a crowded environment for example like during MOUT operations the observing capability as well as the self defence capability (Even with a plain normal GPMG on the loaders hatch, maybe with a gunshield) is heavily improved.
And your idea of sending more men to the maintenance units is far away from reality. I am talking about fast repairs and maintenance work in the field without getting a dedicated maintenance team to the beast, like for example a thrown track.
For sure it is possible to do this with a 3 men crew. But with a 4 man crew you get somebody who is able to cover you and copy the radio traffic because you need 3 men for getting the track back in position (1 driver, 2 men working on the track). If it needs to be really fast 3 men can work on a track. This is also very good if you are for example stuck in a mudhole. Tunks tnd to break down in the most possible worst of areas.
Just ask some people who served in 3 and 4 men crews, like for example finland or older generations in russia. I just have to ask my father with which tank field maintenance and repair was more easy T-55 or T-72.
And as long as I know there is a new lightweight compact 25mm chain gun available from an US company but I forgot the name. Anybody has the name? Otherwise I am doing a quick search.
Having this together with another RWS (GPMG, HMG, AGL) would defenitely enhance combat capabilities and many targets which were former main gun targets could now be engaged by the chain gun. This would reduce the problem of less main gun ammo when switching to a 140mm gun.
A 25mm on a tank along with a maingun, I don`t know that would take up some major space between chain gun and munitions, it is feasible if you carry it in a coax mount but do you think that we would be able to keep the fourth crewmember along with the auto loader for the tank. I know the French carried a 20mm for a coax on the AMX 30, I wonder how reliable it was.
For the light weight 25mm chain gun manufacturing company, could it be GE.
For the light weight 25mm chain gun manufacturing company, could it be GE.
No, I am talking about putting the lightweight gun into a RWS.
The coax can stay a GPMG or maximum a .50cal (Like in the Leclerc).
Edit: Ok the gun I talked about was the 25mm M307 ACSW. I would like to see maybe a Bushmaster III on a RWS, but that would IMHO be too big.
The coax can stay a GPMG or maximum a .50cal (Like in the Leclerc).
Edit: Ok the gun I talked about was the 25mm M307 ACSW. I would like to see maybe a Bushmaster III on a RWS, but that would IMHO be too big.
Last edited:
It is not independent from the main gun so it is in my eyes not as good as a RWS solution.
An RWS not only gives you the capability to engage targets independent of the main gun but it also qadds to your situational awareness and target aquisition by giving your loader an additional optic/TI.
An RWS not only gives you the capability to engage targets independent of the main gun but it also qadds to your situational awareness and target aquisition by giving your loader an additional optic/TI.
The 20mm isn't really coax on the AMX-30. Its elevation is just usually tied to the main gun (but that can be disengaged for higher angles), and the TC or gunner can use the same sights.
The AMX-30 was not the only one btw.
The Swiss Pz61, developed around the same time as the original AMX-30 (and using some identical components), had a 20mm Oerlikon coax too.
The 20mm was struck from the design with the follow-on Pz68 (which was slightly bigger, slightly heavier, but otherwise pretty much identical), which was ordered 3 years after the first Pz61 were delivered. That might be an indication of the guns usefulness.
The 20mm on the original Pz61 was removed in 1983, and replaced by a 7.5mm MG along with FCS changes to update them to Pz68 levels.
Can it move independantly in deflection from the maingun on the AMX-30. Also why did they remove the 20mm from the PZ61 and go with a 7.62.
- Status