Apparantly enough processing power to fly a giant Nazi German space ship...
M1A3 Abrams Upgrade?
- Thread starter sgtgunn
- Start date
- Status
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #183
While nobody ever adopted it, the Italian Otomatic SPAAG 76m gun has a slant range of 6000m which gives it a larger engagement envelope than the Stinger. A 5 round burst of proximity fused 76mm would give any aircraft a bad time! It would also be useful as a ground support weapon.
Adrian
The M1A3 has 2 turrets, the main turret with 120mm gun and coaxial MG. The second turret is the RWS that open a second cannel for seeing and shooting.
The main purpose of the main turret is to fight against tanks, IFVs/APCs, bunkers etc. and for that his main gun will be ok. But against soft target like trucks, jeeps etc. the tank will use the coaxial gun. The coaxial gun should be the new 0.5”from FN the M3. This HMG is a single barrel and has 1,100 spm.
The main purpose of the RWS is to fight in urban areas against soldiers in buildings, on roofs, in trances and those that carry RPGs, ATGMs and other anti tank weapons.
There are several guns for the RWS:
1. The GAU-21 Gatling gun, 0.5” HMG with 1,000 or 2,000 selectable spm and range of 2,000 meters.
2. The same HMG as the coaxial gun, the M-3.
3. The M-134 Minigun, 7.62mm MG, with 3,000 spm and 6 barrels, but his short range, only 1,000 meter, and poor penetration, will work against it.
One option for the RWS is a turret from Rafael or Elbit allow installing two guns in the RWS, from list of MG, HMG, and AGL.
The Pk of a 76mm Oto Gun at 6,000m is far lower than a Stinger missile. There is a DSTO paper detailing the difference somewhere on my C drive and their webpage but I'm too bleary eyed to look it up. Also the gun and fire control assembly weighes at least 10 tonnes compared to 10 kilos for the Stinger.
Yes true but you must admit the 76mm SPAAG looks cool.
On a more serious note guided projectiles would / should change the equation some what but then again if you have a guided projectile why not stick with 120mm rather than have a special platform.
Yeah because that never happened before with XB-70, MBT-70, M60 "Starship," B1, etc etc.
Seriously, though, the teen series fighters had a lot of teething problems in their day. Procurement since WW2 has been pretty consistently FUBAR. YF-23 should still have one ATF, but I won't go there. :dance
A3 is definitely go. Integrated TUSK, though the ERA/skirts is a pain hopefully just integrated armor. Ultimately needs a completely new turret with beefed up side, deck, and rear armor but I imagine we'll see derivative with hopefully better integrated applique solutions. I would expect to see it stay a turbine, thankfully to give that great mobility. LV100-5 will drop into the Abrams chassis and be much more efficient both with fuel and with maintenance. I am definitely expect to see M360E1 120/48L with the MDM, AKE (M829E4), etc. I wish I had stayed in long enough to see AIM2/FEP on the Abrams, though. I miss move, shoot, communicate with a passion.
I prefer Trophy but Quick Kill should be pretty good, too.
Hi my first post here.
Are there any, more detailed informations about M1A3 R&D? Of course besides the informations I allready have, but can't post them due to this posts limit.
AFAIK US Army planned this production/modernization orders break, to save money and redirect it to M1 Upgrade Program R&D.
As for Quick Kill APS, it have it's advantages over other systems. First is that each container with interceptors acts as separate subsystem, thanks to that and the VLS design, even if containers on one side of vehicle are damaged, containers from second side can still fully protect vehicle against attacks from any side.
Also at least in theory, VLS design should permitt to intercept multiple attacks from any angle at once.
Such design is also more modular, permitts better flexibility and probably can better fits with addon armor, because VLS launchers being rather small sized, allows to be placed in M1 turret rear storage basket for example, so there is still free space on tanks turret and hull to install addon armor.
Oh and there is something else, the number of interceptors carried in VLS launchers will be rather high, higher than interceptors numbers in most other APS.
Are there any, more detailed informations about M1A3 R&D? Of course besides the informations I allready have, but can't post them due to this posts limit.
AFAIK US Army planned this production/modernization orders break, to save money and redirect it to M1 Upgrade Program R&D.
As for Quick Kill APS, it have it's advantages over other systems. First is that each container with interceptors acts as separate subsystem, thanks to that and the VLS design, even if containers on one side of vehicle are damaged, containers from second side can still fully protect vehicle against attacks from any side.
Also at least in theory, VLS design should permitt to intercept multiple attacks from any angle at once.
Such design is also more modular, permitts better flexibility and probably can better fits with addon armor, because VLS launchers being rather small sized, allows to be placed in M1 turret rear storage basket for example, so there is still free space on tanks turret and hull to install addon armor.
Oh and there is something else, the number of interceptors carried in VLS launchers will be rather high, higher than interceptors numbers in most other APS.
Mmm... I wonder what the M1A3 is going to look like? Uhh hang on, what's this picture.
It is well documented that the M1A3 will replace the M256 main gun with a version of the XM360 developed for FCS. Since this gun has not been seen *before* with a fume extractor it looks quite weird on the M1A3. But such long fume extractors have been used before and for whatever good reason looks like will be used on the M360 for M1A3. As to the source it’s the US Army Manoeuvre Centre of Excellence.
Well, from official sources that I have both XM360 and XM360E1 (the tank version intentended for M1) do not have bore evacuator, and most probably the have cleaning system same as GIAT/NEXTER CN-120-26, pressurized air cleaning system.
It have advantages like cooling barrel between shots, and might be usefull.
Also on graphic gun is too short. XM360 was reported to be L48 without muzzle brake, XM360E1 is longer (do not have muzzle break) and is probably L50 gun.
IMHO graphic shows just one of early concepts for M1A3, we need to wait year or two for more detialed informations, as it is a known fact that from technology demonstrator to prototype is a long way.
It have advantages like cooling barrel between shots, and might be usefull.
Also on graphic gun is too short. XM360 was reported to be L48 without muzzle brake, XM360E1 is longer (do not have muzzle break) and is probably L50 gun.
IMHO graphic shows just one of early concepts for M1A3, we need to wait year or two for more detialed informations, as it is a known fact that from technology demonstrator to prototype is a long way.
That’s because the XM360 was designed for a tank with an unmanned turret so fume extraction wasn’t needed. Plus of course a fume extractor is about the simplest device fitted to a tank so hardly a crucial element when designing a new ordnance.
Add something into the internal volume of the tank via a rebuild? LOL. As to the temperature cooling from air injection it would only be a few degrees and not worth it. Especially since the tube is designed to handle the temperature range of the ammunition and tank guns are not sustained fire weapons compared to artillery.
That’s just perspective caused by the image angle and the addition of extra length to the turret front armour.
You’re welcome to your opinion but it’s not formed on anything other than the above factoids. Also this image is a few weeks old from the mounted requirements division of the US Army. The very people who set the specification for tank upgrades and rebuilds (and all army combat vehicles).IMHO graphic shows just one of early concepts for M1A3, we need to wait year or two for more detialed informations, as it is a known fact that from technology demonstrator to prototype is a long way.
Perhaps You are right but...
I was trying to have messurements or estimations from different sources of the current M1A1/M1A2 tanks, and estimations were from ~800+ mm to ~900+ mm, while one person who made accurate 3d model in proper scale, with use of whole official data to the vehicle size + internal volume, said that his initial messurements were ~1,000+ mm thick front turret armor.
On this graphic it definetly looks like the armor is more than ~900-1,000mm thick.
I have a request then if You don't mind, there is any link to the original source of this image? I'am really unable to find it, if it is avaiable in the internet of course.
You want to say, that armor was again increased in thickness?
I was trying to have messurements or estimations from different sources of the current M1A1/M1A2 tanks, and estimations were from ~800+ mm to ~900+ mm, while one person who made accurate 3d model in proper scale, with use of whole official data to the vehicle size + internal volume, said that his initial messurements were ~1,000+ mm thick front turret armor.
On this graphic it definetly looks like the armor is more than ~900-1,000mm thick.
I have a request then if You don't mind, there is any link to the original source of this image? I'am really unable to find it, if it is avaiable in the internet of course.
You do realise that wire diagrams showing relative thickness of armour are meaningless?
800mm of ballistic plate does not equal 800mm of RHA, or 800mm of any other magical compound solution.
apart from the fact that any real ballistic data is not even going to be remotely accurate if its on the internet and about contemp systems
1) Armor thickness is not meaningless, and knowing how thick armor is, we can at least speculate how much special armor is in cavity. The more special armor, the better protection is, sorry this is a fact.
When You compare for example space occupied by special armor per whole armor module thickness in NATO tanks, and let's say T-xx series, You will see that NATO tanks have more special armor, even if at specific angle, armor thickness is similiar.
I spent several years on collecting data and sources about composite armors of modern MBT's. It seems from all more recent sources and photos, that composite armors used by NATO are closer in design concept to NERA. As we know single plate of NERA is less efficent than single ERA cassette, this means that for NERA like armor, more layers, the better is protection. So the obvious conclussion is that the thicker armor is, the more layers can be put inside, the better is protection.
2) Please, do not lecture me about this. I'am perfectly aware that RHA equivalent estimations are useless fantasy, and I'am not interested in this. Making estimations without complete data about discussed armor type is meaningless, and long time ago I left such things behind me as nothing interesting.
3) I'am not interested in any ballistic data, far more interesting is, how armor looks inside, how each material used in it's layers interact with other materials, in short how looks armor working mechanism. Or how it was possible to maintain reasonable weight of vehicle despite such thick armor. For example if nanotechnology was included during materials production to decrease their weight without sacrificing protection characteristics.
I'll lecture you as much as I like - especially when you have missed my point about armour thickness being relative.
BTW, I've done moire than just research and read books and collected articles.
I worked on one MBT upgrade program and 2 IFV programs assessing 5 different vehicles - and that included ballistic (kinetic) proximity tests. - so I reckon I might just have the edge over just collecting OSINT and trying to rooster my way into a forum as an expert.
Pay attention to Abe, - or for that matter note how any of the blackhats and former blackhats have judiciously avoided comment to date.
AV designers avoid over armouring as it impacts on a variety of other but just as critical functional requirements. - "more is better" is not the case - and has been a maxim for the majority of platrforms designed ever since the cogent lessons learnt from the King Tigert.
If you're perfectly aware and don't want to be lectured then I suggest that you craft your questions more carefully - because it seems to me that your roostering and claims to competency are centered on an academic perspective.
Depending on a point of view and what a person knows about armor working mechanism.
As far a scurrent open source knowledge says, modern composite armors are type of NERA. And as far as such sources says, NERA is most efficent when used as multiple layers, so the more, the better is protection.
Also such type of protection needs some space between layers so they can work properly. This means bulky/thick armor to just have enough space inside for these layers.
My intention is not to discuss who is expert or is not. My intention is to discuss about this subject, share and collect knowledge.
If You worked on such programs, great, I'am interested to read something about them, if this is not classified of course.
Of course, however there are solution to avoid unnececary increase in weight for example. German company IBD that is designing armor, is claiming that due to use of nanotechnology they were capable to reduce density and weight of some materials, without sacrificing their protection characteristics. I have a reasons to belive that in US, there is also performed work to induct such technology in to armor manufacturing.
Damien,
I don't think you are understanding what GF is talking about here.
GF is a moderator - mods on this forum (unlike other forums that tend to select on post count), here they are very likely to be defence professionals or work/have worked in classified programs or areas. As such they have knowledge that you do not and are probably prohibited in discussing on an open forum. They sometimes talk about things in round about ways or will tell you you are wrong without providing you the proof that you are wrong (as it would be a security breach to do so). I know that what I have told you here sounds to a recent arrival such as yourself like I am trying to tell you to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden or the emperor's new clothes. Over time you will realise when you have read many of the posts on here that yes, they do know quite a bit, and no, they cannot prove it to you.
If you don't like this, then there are plenty of other fora where fantasy can be compared at will with plenty of willy waving between fanbois - facts based on opinion and the type of argument for example that starts: "My uncles, brother's father told me once that an Abrams can really do 200kph but they keep the speed restricted to avoid friction melting the paintwork".
It's been 23 hours since your reply to GF - I'm guessing he (or the other moderators) are too busy banging their heads on a wall in frustration to answer you yet. If you do want to absorb some knowlege stick around, participate but I wouldn't be too quick to lock horns with a moderator unless you too are a subject matter expert (worked at TARDEC or General Dynamics for example or are ex armoured corps - incidentally what GF was talking about when he said 'blackhat' earlier - black beret = Armoured Corps). If you are - submit your qualifications to a mod, and you may have your status upgraded to DEFPRO.
Cheers,
This might be just a language barrier (english is not my primary language).
But my intention is not to fight with anyone, and I'am perfectly aware of qualifications of moderators here.
But this does not mean that I can't ask if they can provide some informations if these are not classified. If someone will answer, good, if there won't be any answer, also good.
And not, I was not in the army, neither in any R&D organization or defense company (maybe in future), so I try to learn by use of good open sources. And I do not mean here poor quality fairy tales, but something that can be called reliable, so I'am definetly not type of fantasy men either.
I know that open sources need to be taken with grain of salt. This is why I hope for a good discussion here (of course I do not expect that classiefied stuff will be posted here, hey I'm not idiot).
So I think now it is clear.
But my intention is not to fight with anyone, and I'am perfectly aware of qualifications of moderators here.
But this does not mean that I can't ask if they can provide some informations if these are not classified. If someone will answer, good, if there won't be any answer, also good.
And not, I was not in the army, neither in any R&D organization or defense company (maybe in future
), so I try to learn by use of good open sources. And I do not mean here poor quality fairy tales, but something that can be called reliable, so I'am definetly not type of fantasy men either.I know that open sources need to be taken with grain of salt. This is why I hope for a good discussion here (of course I do not expect that classiefied stuff will be posted here, hey I'm not idiot).
So I think now it is clear.
- Status