Future Armour

[TangoTwoBravo]

What's wrong with 70 ton tanks?   If they can go over bridges and move by rail cars I'm OK with it.   I grant that 70 tons is a bit heavy for some bridges and you need stronger AVLBs but that is the cost of doing business.

Regarding future vehicles, call me a Luddite, but I'm very leery of things designed by engineers.   This is a funny thing to say, of course, since they design pretty much everything.   The conventional layout tanks we have now, however, have evolved over time through trial and error in the unforgiving forge of combat.   Designs without hatches, drivers in the turret, crews in the hull, low profile turrets and other "good ideas" look fine on paper and maybe on the range but they often fly in the face of what has shown to work in combat.   What follows is my little wish list for Future Armour.

Give me a conventional tank layout with cross country mobility, hi-end optics, fire control and comms, outstanding armour and a killer gun.   Design it so that I can acquire and kill any vehicle or bad guy at battle ranges while being able to take hits myself.   Don't give me a weapon system that I need airspace coordination to use.

I want to be able to independently scan with a TI system of my own, and maybe the loader could have one too.   This is not just to find targets but to see the other friendly tanks around me in all conditions.   Pointing the main armament at them when looking for them is just not polite and might create a misunderstanding.   A visual IFF system for TI would be a big bonus.  

I want to be able to survive getting hit by anti-tank weapons.   If this is a pain for the movement people I apologize in advance.   I also apologize for making them also ship my tank back from the theatre, which might not be a problem for lighter designs.   Avoidance of fire is best, of course, but I'd like to be able to survive my bad days.   My enemy is pretty smart and cunning and he has a say.   Relying on not getting hit to survive is like relying on abstinence for birth control.   Sounds perfectly good in theory but not so much when the lights go out and Zeppelin starts playing.

I want lots of bullets and a bottom escape hatch.   Let me fight the tank hatches up but give me the option to employ my many machineguns from a closed down state.   Some extra scopes/sights to see close up would also be a good thing.   Please give me a human loader, and not just because he is an outstanding loader for the guns.

One more thing.   Put the button that switches between my "A" and "B" frequencies on my ICS/Rad drop cord toggle.   The less I touch the CI the better and that also keeps the loader happy.  

I guess that will do it for now!

Cheers,

2B

p.s. Editted for spelling.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The only thing wrong with 70 ton tanks is that they are too heavy to spin off a "family" as the Leo 1 and Scorpions did.  That increases training, (both crews and maintainers)  logistics and cost.  Of course, bridges, roads, transporters and such don't like 70 ton tanks too much......

We think alike when it comes to tank design, it would appear that the MGS meets, let's see, um, exactly zero of our requirements.  Oh, wait, it does have a hatch......

I still think a well protected tank can be designed in the forty ton range, with a family of vehicles using the same powertrain and suspension that would weigh in at around thirty tons.  Not if we keep a four man crew, however.  Internal volume would have to be decreased if weight is going to be decreased with no penalty in protection.  Other armies have managed to produce two man turrets, with capable autoloaders.  It just seems that the MGS is having difficulties. 

The Rooikat is a very good example of a vehicle designed by, and for, crewman.  It is very friendly, both in ergonomics and in maintenance.  The hull batteries slide out for maintenance and replacement, for example.  Come to think of it, the Rooikat was the winner of the Canadian trials a few (maybe 10) years ago.  Of course, the SOR was weighted toward a wheeled vehicle, armed with 105mm gun.  Strange, the MGS was way, way down the pecking order.  Yes, the LAV 105 does date that far back, at least in prototype form.

I still say that the Leopard 1 family is/was the absolutely best example of how a family of vehicles can be built, each vehicle, on its own, built to a world class standard.

 

[TCBF]

"Oh, wait, it does have a hatch......"

Righto, Lance, we just  don't want our heads sticking out when we spin a sabot out the tube and Mr. Muzzlebrake does his thing.

;D

Tom

 

[George Wallace]

Lance..2B

I tend to agree with you.   I definitely have a Leopard bias.   I however see a problem with getting the weight down to around 40 tonnes.   I don't see us finding 'armour' strong enough to protect, even add-on armour will add to the weight.   Plus, to get smaller we will be diminishing our crew ergonomics, which have given us a large advantage over Warsaw Pact tanks in the past.

If we can give a tank of the Leo 1 dimensions the same or better protection of the Leo 2, we might have the ideal size and weight.   (Don't forget a 120!)

 

[Kat Stevens]

excuse an old thumperhead horning in here for a minute.  I think I asked this before, but when exactly did fire-on-the-run become an undesirable trait in ANY armoured vehicle, not just panzers?  I also have a heavy track bias, having chased you guys around for >10 years in AEV/AVLB. Did I miss something? Big Tube=Big Bang=Big Bullet=Big Hole, no?  Sorry for the hijack, talk amongst yourselves... ;D

Kat

 

[a_majoor]

It seems 2Bravo is in favor of the Leopard 2A7 concept (i.e. an evolved tank), being on the upper end of the scale. Most of the other designs mooted have most of the attributes listed by 2Bravo (except the EGS prototype, which has no hatches), and none have the high angle gun mount I would list as desirable (The Strv 2000 concept comes close with the 40mm coax).

That family concept may end up being the sticking point, how far down the road do you want to go? I think the Leopard 1 family, with a "sort of, kind of" relationship (they were first and second cousins) is probably the way to go, since it allows the vehicles to be specialized enough to be good at their design task, rather than trying to bend a reasonable design out of shape to do all kinds of other jobs. (In the LAV thread, Kirkhill proposes a sort of LAV "pickup truck" or "8X8 technical" to be the weapons platform, to reduce the size, weight and height of the basic LAV chassis, for many of the same reasons).

On the other hand, this distant family relationship might not translate into "up front" savings that are so popular with the political class, even though there are long term savings and benefits.

 

[TCBF]

Cost and logistical benefits are useful only insofar as they provide a political benefit.  You will note that the cost and logistic benefits did not stop the Libranos from cancelling the EH-101, then buying the Cormorant for S&R, then AGAIN not buying the, er, EH-101, for the NSA.  This is not solely a military matter, as the gun registry and firearms act will illustrate.  Politics trumps money every time.

Tom

 

[Zipper]

WOOT! 2B, sometimes I could kiss you man! :-*

No really...          ...I could...

...Ok, just kinding.

Whats the big deal about a "family" of vehicles? Yes it would be nice and would keep costs down. But since when did that ever concern us? We have the "LAV" family in 3 (or 4) diffrent forms that all require different parts and support training. So its not like we're doing ourselves any favours right now. And all at a loss of massive capabilities.

Heavy track is a necessity regardless of what some say as it being a thing of the past. No, it doesn't need to be 70 tons or more. But something that (as 2B said) can take a hit as well as fight in any condition is rather important. Majoor's ideas of a gen4 tank along the Leo (1 or 2) lines would be rather desirable, but without compromising any of 2B's ideals.

What the powers that be need to do is get their collective heads out of their asses and stop jumping on every "family" band wagon that comes along. We could do it with 2 different chassis (heavy (gen4) and light (LAV)) and still not be coming close to the costs that the US and Brits spend.

And thanks be to Kat for putting his thumper opinion in, as it just proves the point further.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Part of the problem here is that so many items on the wish list are incompatable with each other.  Just a quick review....

We want a well armoured tank, with hatches and periscopes and such.  The problem is that any hole in armour weakens that armour.  Even if you plug the hole with a periscope or a hatch, it will be weaker than the armour surrounding it.  There has to be a compromise somewhere, with the fairly recent advent of top attack munitions such as the Bofors Bill and the TOW 2B and similar missiles, engineers have been shying away from hatches, and trying to come up with unique solutions.  In todays reality, it would be impossible to design a tank that weighed less than 60 tonnes if it had top hatches to be proof against top attack munitions. If we really want/need a forty ton tank that has the protection of todays 70+ tonne tanks, then top hatches will have to be reduced to a maximum of one, that would be similar in design to the STVR 122 commander hatch.

We want a four man crew.  Four men take up more internal volume than a three man crew, and require that much more administrative support. (25% more water, food, etc)  More internal volume means more armour.  More armour means more weight.  Mopre weight means a bigger engine and better suspensions.  Engineers have designed and built tanks with two man crews, and this may be the way of the future.  I don't see any new tanks coming out with a four man crew, they will be all two or, at the most, three man crews.

From a design point of view, high angle guns are a nightmare.  Guns need room to recoil, as well as room for their breech rings to avoid the floor when elevating.  The higher the angle, the bigger the hole in the front of the turret, and the bigger the mantlet has to be.  Also, the higher the angle of elevation, the higher the turret has to be.  One relatively simple solution to this problem would be to have two different turret designs, one mounting a direct fire cannon, the other a breech loaded mortar capable of both direct fire and indirect fire.  Such mortars are well in to the testing phase now.

Another solution to many of the problems is to have an externally mounted gun, with the crew remaining inside the hull.  There would have to be some means of elevating the trunnions to a height that would allow for recoil while firing at higher angles of elevation, but this brings along corresponding problems with the auto-loader, situational awareness, and FCS issues.

I'm not out to flame anyone here, my intent is to make people think about the different criteria involved when trying to come up with a new concept tank.  I do know one thing, after having seen prototypes and engineering designs, and that is that the days of charging along cross country, guns blazing, head out of hatch as we yell orders to the crew are over.  It's too bad, because, by golly, it sure was fun!

 

[a_majoor]

Nice analysis Lance. As always, our desires outpace reality.

WRT the ability to take out high angle and other 3D targets, would you advocate an internal mortar a la the Merkava and Achzarit, which carry breech loading 60mm mortars on board, or are you thinking of a heavily modified gun cradle mechanism on an EGS type vehicle which can raise up to fire at unusual targets, but would otherwise lay flat (so to speak) on the upper portion of the machine?

This might lead to a machine which looks rather like an "S" tank when the gun is in the stowed or direct engagement position, but with the cannon elevating for high angle or "hull down" shooting. The autoloader should probably stay with the tank, and the gun returned to battery for reloading (although this sort of negates the high rate of fire an autoloader could provide).

Some thoughts.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

I would stay well away from the little 60 mm mortars, and have a dedicated, stand alone mortar capable of indirect fire out to 10 KM or so, with a direct fire capability to about 1 KM or so.  Royal ordinance is working on such a system, in fact, Saudi Arabia has ordered some of their turrets and mounted them in LAV's, believe it or not.  Here's a link to the turret:

http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/amsII.htm

These (breech loaded, turret mounted mortars) are still fairly new, and I can foresee many improvements along the way.  This type of turret, mounted on a common platform, would be a huge benefit to the commander.  The Saudi's have started something that I really like the looks of; especially for urban or closed in warfighting.

 

[bitterntwisted]

:skull:

one day the threat level will increase to where we need mbt's again.  we should NOT discard the cababilty.

one battalion's worth at least!  sorry, reigment, but I am not into all that regimental diatribe.......




bl

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Lance,

I guess my question is why the 40 ton limit?  If tanks in the 60 to 70 ton range have been shown to be war-winning then lets stick with them unless the engineers can actually make 40 ton tanks with the same capabilities.  At the risk of opening the M1 vs T72 can of worms again, the 40 ton tank seems to be somewhat of a blind alley right now.  Could not the technical improvements for a hypothetical 40 ton tank be applied to a 60 ton tank on a grander scale?

You are right, of course, to point out that design involves compromise and tradeoffs.  At the risk of looking stubborn, a hatch for the commander to have a look around is still, in my opinion, important.  An independent sight for the commander could assist, but I believe that a hatch allows for greater situational awareness as well as an increased ability to maneouvre the tank. 

Looking at crew size again, I suppose the march of technology favours crew reduction.  The big medium tanks of WW II had a crew of five, with an extra crewman helping the driver as well as looking after the radio.  Improved driving technology and "simpler" radios have made the fifth crewmember redundant.  Perhaps a reliable auto-loader is indeed the way to go, but I still prefer a human.  What is the weight saving with an auto-loader?  A two-man crew would, in my Luddite opinion, be a mistake.  Having one man crew command, gun and monintor the means (even with technical aids) would probably lead to information overload.  Perhaps with uber-automated weapons and FCS (like a touchscreen "gunner") it could be done but I still have my doubts.  Perhaps I am held back by 1940 history (French one man turrets against German three man turret designs)?  I guess there has been progress in 65 years.

If we are firm on 40 tons, is there a weight saving in losing the turret? 

Cheers,

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

Having one man crew command, gun and monintor the means (even with technical aids) would probably lead to information overload.

Isn't that what the pilot of a CF-18 is required to do?  How about the crew of an Apache? 

'Pologies if yanking chain 2B but I am not convinced that frozen eyeballs at 0 dark 30, wind in the hair, cordite in the nose, and impaired hearing is going to give you better situational awareness than 360 degree multi-spectral sensors feeding back to video screen below the turret ring.

And Lance, isn't the 120mm breech loading technology (both RO and AMOS) just an upscaling of the Thomson-Brandts that were used by the Irish, French and South Africans on their Panhard AML's?  Also the RO system has been available for a number of years now hasn't it?  Is there much more development of the weapon required?  Or is it reluctance to tactically employ a fairly radical departure?

http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/so95/5mortars95.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/irisharmoredvehicles/P_AML60.html

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Crew it any way you want, but I'm convinced that anything less than 4 and maintenance will suffer. Big track and guns take big labour. Cut the crew, you cut corners, pretty soon your cutting bait cause you ain't fishin no more.

 

[George Wallace]

Isn't that what the pilot of a CF-18 is required to do?   How about the crew of an Apache?  

Just one point there.....When the guns jam on an Apache or CF-18, the pilot can take off at the high port and be clear of the enemy in seconds.   In a tank, when you have a problem with your guns, you have a max of 60 kph cross country to extract your self from the situation, not 600 kph?   Just a slight difference in mobility, speed and maneuverability there.

 

[DG-41]

Not to meantion that aircraft return to base - and their dedicated maintainence pers and facilities - after every mission, where armour does most of their maintainence in situ by the crew.

DG

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair enough on the maintenance issues guys,  and on the jamming issues.  The extra hands are obviously necessary.

Do they have to be onboard?  Could the vehicle have a two-man crew with an alternate crew carried in an APC accompanying the ARV at either Troop or Squadron echelon?

Even with 4 troopers on board and a jammed weapon aren't you pretty much at a disadvantage already and running for cover, at least trying to get turret down?

 

[George Wallace]

Even with 4 troopers on board and a jammed weapon aren't you pretty much at a disadvantage already and running for cover, at least trying to get turret down?

Yes.   That could be the case.   However, the Commander is still commanding his vehicle, while the crew performs their functions of driving, and clearing the guns.   Without a Gunner keeping the guns on a target, and a Loader working on the gun, the Commander would have to do all this as well as keep track of where the driver was going and telling his superiors over the radio why he is pulling back, and planning his next three moves/decisions.  Talk about information overload.....   ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Good enuff George.  No further idiocies from here.  ;D