DanielStarseer

Nope. Only the guns (ESR steel), the fire control systems, and the powerpacks were post-timeframe technology. The actual metalwork involved in building a new turret and modding the hull, including the face-hardening of the armor, all that was know years prior.

Warning: Wall Of Text coming, but sometimes, that's what it takes... Development curve. Sink similar talent into further refining these calibers (as we saw for the L7/M68 gun and ammo family), and velocities will improve further yet. Granted, you don't take on modern MBT types (anything beyond a Leo 1 and AMX 30, anyway) with 90mm from the front. You just don't do it. But development has taken 76mm even 60mm sabot rounds beyond 1600m/sec. There's 105s and larger that don't do that with some of their earlier-generation projectiles (which some nations still use, because they just don't have the threat of Abrams, T-80, and Challys knocking on their doors). Anything above said 76mm 60mm could just as well achieve such velocities. The room for growth was there. When were the first L7s available? 1959 in Centurions, in the British Army? How soon again did those make it into the export market, available as either an upgrade or in a complete tank? And how soon was APFSDS available for it for widespread export? When the British went with the 105, those 20-pdrs would've been on the cheap (comparably), as they were phased out in favor of the larger caliber. (And remind me again, how long did the UK keep those lesser calibers, even 17-pdrs and ammo, in reserve stocks...?) Either or, same can be said of the 90mm's being scrapped out of American service. Multiple nations still use various 90mm guns, even 76's, simply because they just don't have to contend with the threat of first-world latest-gen MBTs. If the whole of this thread was upgrading T34s, obviously you aren't doing it to go toe-to-toe with the latest heavy armor the world superpowers were building at the time. Your concern is all your neighbors who are probably getting those superpowers' WW2 hand-me-downs, much like your T34s: Shermans, British Comets, other crisers, even some Panzers out there. Why you want APFSDS for a 20-pdr (or 85mm, or 90mm...) ? Because you'd already have those guns in service when APFSDS was starting to become widespread, you already have an established ammo logistics, and unless your neighbors suddenly opened bases to those superpowers with the latest heavily-armored MBTs, why do I need to step up to 105mm? That would imply abolishing all the older stocks, regunning every tank and all that's associated with it, etc. Claims from even the late 1980s suggest medium-caliber tank gun ammo would be effective against even T-62s (T-72 now,...grated, that's minus the latest ERA/Kontact/etc), so was there then much worry of all those surplus T54/55s and ex-NATO M47s that all your despot neighbors were supposedly getting? Really? Is this another "Russians invented everything first" proclamation? Because it would seem, if they did so achieve 1700m/sec APDS in 1941, why weren't they then using it predominantly over ever other AP type? Couldn't afford to produce enough? What caliber was this in? Was it limited to only one specific gun type that they just couldn't manufacture enough of (or just didn't have enough tanks to put them in)? Seems like 1700m/sec of the right kind of penetrator material is going to wreak havoc on any armor the Germans had, anywhere. Were these things so unreliable that they shattered on impact too often, and thusly didn't do guaranteed sufficient damage enough of the time, to justify mass production? Please, enlighten me. Crawl into a Stryker MGS with a tape measure and get back to me. The turret ring diameter of its 105mm gun mount is 62 inches. (Hunnicutt's Armored Car, page 299 if you don't believe me.) Two men and a 105 in a turret smaller than a Sherman's 69 inches? Mostly external and autoloaded, yeah. But it fits, don't it? It isn't about what could or couldn't be done then or now. You just said nobody could it. Same as that CMI CT-CV: that's a little more comfortable for the crew. But it still doesn't need 6 feet of turret ring diameter to fit into. (Didn't stop the Russians from developing and deploying the ASU-85, did it?) They did not because it became apparent that the superpower MBTs were getting thicker. If you can only afford to maintain and field a suitable force of upgraded T34s, taking on superpower MBTs is something you aren't going to be planning to do. So any of those medium calibers would suffice for you. Comparing like calibers here: the 88/56 and 88/71 were different beasts, despite same bore diameter. As were the French 105/44s in Israeli Shermans when compared to L7s in other MBTs. Doing the same to those medium calibers would yield similar capability increases: better KE effect from more powerful cartridges, that wouldn't require a mass retooling of your ammunition supply manufacturers (or a large dependence on foreigners if you went for another caliber entirely). And besides, it's already been argued ad infinitum that a majority of third world countries (or at least closer to third world than second-world-who-would-be-supplied-by-superpowers-with-nearly-new-stuff) since you can only afford a fleet of T34s to begin with, you'll will see a lot of combat activity that isn't going to be spent engaging tanks: it'll be strong-arming the local insurgency or a border dispute, which will involve a lot of HE throwing at targets other than tanks. Lengthy exchanges with medium caliber shells will be a lot easier on your defense coffers than slinging 105mm and greater for days or weeks at a time. You can't fight a war if you can't afford to sustain it. Judging by what few AFV-vs-AFV exchanges we've seen come out of these countries post-WW2, there's little to indicate that improved development in medium caliber guns wouldn't have served those nations just as well (why again did Israel think it was sensible to develop that 60mm hypervelocity so many years after the 6 Day War?). Looking principally at Israeli experience, a mix of medium caliber KE-gun tanks and larger-caliber HEAT-throwing tanks would probably be the more ideal course (it was argued that HEAT shells of that era didn't always have 100% reliable fuzes at certain angles).

Sorry, not buying it. How is it that the Germans and eventually Allies learned in WW2 that muzzle brakes on tank guns make a difference? Granted, MBTs can generally rely on their sheer mass to help absorb and dissipate punishing recoils, but even beasts like the Pz Vs (88/56) and VIs (88/71) had brakes on the tubes, as did the Pz IV (75/48) and Panther (75/70),...as did the various 17-pdrs (Firefly, Comet), and the later American 76mm's and even 90mm's. Tell me then: was it done purely out of appearance and "looks cool" factor? Recoil mitigation was known. It just took more years of materials science and further expirementation with gun dynamics to discover just how light a platform we could go when mounting larger caliber guns. Here. Scroll down down down until you get to Brazil's XIA-series light tanks, derived out of the Stuart. Proof positive that you do NOT need to be a first or second tier world power possessing phenomenal manufacturing capability and Ivy League design knowhow to create upgraded AFV designs with new turret designs that mounted larger and more powerful guns that the original design you started with (serious step up from those 37mm's, ain't it?). Not really. I'm just trying to make the point that it IS perfectly technologically possible to design effective AFV turrets with heavy firepower without needing massive turret rings to mount larger guns. One that note, how is it again that the Russians managed to fit a heavier-hitting 85mm gun (heavier-hitting than its original 76) into a larger, 63inch turret ring of a T34/85, yet the US/England team had so many difficulties getting suitably-powerful 3" guns into a 69" turret ring (and yet, we still eventually did manage to get up to 90mm types in there, when early in the War years it was balked that such guns would never fit (certainly not, if all we're going to try doing is just shoe-horning in a potent AA piece (fail point of 32-pdr) or naval gun with minimal modification)) ? I get it that a lot of it has do as much with the ammo length, the ease of handling and loading it, as it does with the actual recoiling mass inside the turret. But it wasn't a steep learning curve post-WW2 to realize that fatter and shorter cases can just as well offer similar propellant capacity as the longer and narrower cases.

There's an old Jane's A & A out there mentioning Egyptian offerings to upgrade T34s. I don't have it at the moment. But it's out there. So I can't specifically quote what they were offering as upgrades.

Shells, please. (our esteemed colleague who collects the multitude of small and medium caliber ammo probably doesn't have the major caliber stuff on hand...) And remind me again: why am I not allowed to modify the recoil stroke, muzzle brake, or any other elements? I'm well aware we don't just swap parts in and out on the fly: we have to custom fit everything. ...And remind me again why I have to stay at the same turret ring diameter if I want to upgeade my 1950s fleet of T34s? If it can be upped for an 85, why not something else? Wouldn't be the only example in history of turret ring modding in a particular AFV type. The gun might. Does the ammo (more rounds? less rounds) ? And again, see the M8 AGS. That thing proved it could fit a complete 105mm gun capable of firing the L7/M68 ammo family, and it could upgrade to a 120mm (and with an autoloader, no less) that still fires MBT-killing KE rounds, all from a comparably compact turret ring (an M8's overall width of about 2.7m, minus the width of two 38cm tracks and their suspensiion elements attached to the hull, minus several cm when you also factor in actual hull sides and the turret ring/basket support structure...tell me, do we even have enough room then for 69inches of turret ring in that thing between the tracks (since you seem so adamant that that's all the more we're allowed to consider: between the tracks only; why can't we step the turret ring wider above the tracks?) ? Again, continued AFV development post-WW2 has shown that bigger guns (length, caliber, muzzle horsepower) can be safely installed and fired on lighter hulls with less-heavy turrets than what we saw in WW2. Today we aren't afraid to fire full-power L7/M68 series 105 rounds from 20 ton hulls that don't require 69" turret rings to do so, but would you have dared doing such in WW2? Look see here: LCTS90. (Are you telling me that 1345m/sec APFSDS is "low to medium velocity" for a gun of that caliber? This is along the lines of where the AMX-13's 90mm evolved to (no, I get it, this is the Belgian CMI gun, but it's similar enough). Had the 85mm seen such incremental development, are you saying that no APFSDS could ever be developed for it, nor the 20-pdr, that would ever see such velocities? We've gotten 76mm types up in between 1400-1600m/sec... Just sayin'.) CMI CT-CV. It even boasts of a new APFSDS type outperforming all previous 105mm KE's. Piranha III. At a width of 2.66m, that's about 8 &3/4 feet wide, or 105inches. You're telling me that, factoring in that extra width of wheels and suspension, hull sides, and internal support structures for the turret, that we still cannot create a turret capable of this kind of firepower, for less than 69 inches across the turret ring (5ft 9in, or about 1.75m) ? Certainly seems like somebody figured out how. Granted, modern tungsten sabot rounds weren't even pipe dreams in mid-1950s, nor could the HEAT types of the day do what the latest designs can do (modern liner alloys and tandem types capable of breaching ERA). I'm just trying to prove that the mid-range tank gun calibers (above 76mm, but below 105mm) had ample room for growth, and just like 75-76mm and 90mm types (hell, if the 20-pdr hadn't been rebored up to 105, the NATO standard could've centered around an improved 32-pdr...), the specific caliber need not be damned to an existence of just one specific gun designed for AFV use and no other ever allowed to be developed. There've been upmteen dozen succesful 75-76mm gun designs over the years, and umpteen dozen 85-90mm types (Cockerill alone made 8 Marks of 90mm), that more that showed the calibers had growth potential beyond just one gun of that caliber in just one barrel length with just one breech design and just one cartridge size. Why must you damn the 20-pdr and/or 85mm to that fate, if even up thru 105 and 120mm we've allowed for various breech designs, barrel lengths, and case sizes to fit all manner of AFVs? Shucks, we've even managed to tinker around with recoil mechanisms, the length of recoil stroke, and muzzle brake designs, all combining to ease the recoil stresses on lighter platforms,...if you've been at all paying attention to technology not standing still.

Yet the Israelis fit that French 105 into a Sherman? Years of refining recoil mechanisms allowed for it to fit. And, looking at late WW2 Pz IVs and their, what, L48 75mm guns, those turrets didn't look big enough at all, esp. when we compare to Allied designs struggling to accomodate 3" guns upwards of L50. Yet they fit them in there, much to the upset of the Allies. Also consider that, in a hull not really much bigger than a Sherman, the M36 managed to fit a 90mm in its turret (oh, so it lacked any worthwhile turret roof armor...it still fit, didn't it?). And when comparing the T34/76 to the T34/85, the turret differences (at least externally) are the first indication that a bigger gun does fit. Is modifying a recoil stroke to stay within the confines of a given turret ring diameter really all that difficult? For the small size of an AMX-13, a high performance 75mm gun or 90mm isn't really something that looks like it should fit in/on that hull, either (nor did the smallish M8 AGS look like it should be able to accomodate a 120mm in place of its 105mm, yet the Thunderbolt variant did just that... in a hull not even 3m wide: how big a turret ring can that hull accomodate, after subtracting a good 36inches of width due to 15" tracks and suspension arms and side armor?). Looking at that Charioteer, it appears no where the monstrosity of the T34 mounting the 100mm...

Per 20-pdr HEAT: no, there wasn't one, but technically, why couldn't there have been? If it could be made to work in 76mm, 85mm, 90mm, then why not for the 20-pdr? (esp. seeing as the 20-pdr, rebored, became the 105mm L7, and nobody knocks the HEAT potential of high-velocity 105mm...) Minimally, it should've outperformed anything in 75-76mm, and been on near-parity with anything 85-90mm. Same as my suggestion of an 85mm HESH round. There wasn't one, but the technology says there could have been, if enough customers desired it. WRT APDS: note that it still took years after WW2 before APDS evolved into APFSDS. The dynamics are well-known today, but weren't then (early 1950s). Looking at the 20-pdr's performance for its day, what threat AFVs have we seen in engagements of that day and age (up thru the 1967 6 Day War period), would the 20-pdr not have been successful against (MBTs aren't the only targets out there) ? (especially moreso if its ammo family had been further developed, as we see in almost every other caliber...)

Weren't those mostly the 75mm's, though? IIRC, wasn't the AMX-13's oscillating turret itself offered with a 90mm as an upgrade (the Austrian SK 105 did show that 105mm caliber would work in a similar turret, as well) ? The Super F4 that eventually found itself on ERC90s, VBC90s, and in other turrets (TS90?), or even (for the day) the Cockerill Mk7 gun (pre- Mk8 timeframe, their current offering), those shoulda offered some nice KE downrange. Granted, these gun families didn't reach their potential until the late 1980s with refined HEAT and APFSDS types. Would it have been possible circa late 1950s to get a British firm to develop 85mm APDS, or even HESH (useful in the days before composite armors and spall liners have become commonplace) that could offer some enhancement to the T34/85? Or what about even putting in a 20-pdr gun? That gun seems to fit that era suitably well. Load it out with APDS, HEAT, and HESH, and that should cover most threats suitably well.

What exact timeframe was this "Super T34" coming to fruition, anyway? After all, Israel isn't currently (or in the last quarter century) creating such upgraded Shermans. If a given nation (1950s-1970s) had an abundance of T34s in stock and proved it was capable of keeping them running, encouraging local industry to get involved would've led to, as in most cases, the potential to considerably upgrade from what was originally bought. Had "sh*t went down" more seriously between larger nations across the globe in those decades (like if Korea, VN, and the first A-stan invasion had been as ground vehicle instensive as the US saw in OIF), many nations who were supplied by WP or Western powers may have found themselves needing to keep operating what they had, as newer-gen AFVs may have been just not available. It's possible to upgrade anything old into something more modernly useful. Budgets and necessity dictate the "why" of it. But the tech available around the globe does suggest the "how" part is perfectly doable.

Any worse than the efforts over the years to upgrade, multiple times, said Shermans from WW2 stocks into M50 and M51 types? Sometimes, ya gotta make do with what ya got (Israel wasn't in position to go shopping at the finest AFV stores the Western powers had to offer at the time). Sometimes, you can only afford second hand (or even third rate cast offs) stuff, and can only afford to upgrade later as money and time permit (or as survival dictates). But shining example in Israel's case: look where decades of encouraging the homegrown industry have placed their capabilities: now when people upgrade, they aren't mocked for wanting Israeli avioncs, or Israeli missiles or small arms. And they have a world-class tank family culminating in the Merk 4 and are spawning considerable interest in their experiences with heavy APC types (even active protection systems they can actually make work...). It could also be said similar of South Afrikan industry capability: years of embargoes created a very viable and competitive defense industry with very impressive product lines, principally getting their roots grown in the upgrades market and maturing into full weapons systems production. Brazil did similarly upgrade Stuarts into the impressive X1 series (X1, X1A, X1A1, X1A2, and various support models). Refined their M41s and created the attractive Tamoio MB-3 medium-weight MBT, and had the whole Desert Storm thing not happened and a Middle Eastern country went thru with the purchase of Osorio MBTs, their AFV lines might've survived longer. The other South American powers, they too have encouraged much in their homegrown industries to keep older AFV types still viable against their neighbors (mostly automotive and spares machining). Granted, Leo2s could be had at fire sale prices for a time (so why upgrade the old, they ask?), but keeping foreign-supplied spares flowing until domestic sources can provide, has too often been seen as (and revealed to be) a liability. Just saying. Encouraging your own nation's homegrown industries to expand their repertiores into a fledgling defense support industry, adds considerable long term effects for your country's manufacturing prowess.

A range of new ammunition family for the 85mm (to include newer HEAT and APDS, APFSDS types) would probably have been a quick fix to any concerns of gun performance. And/or a new-gen 85mm entirely is perfectly reasonable: compare for example where the heavy 88mm's and 90mm's with their bulky recoil components were, coming out of WW2 were (performance wise) to what's available in the latest 90mm guns (CMI Mk8 & MECAR ammos, those French 90mm F4's, etc, Brazil even did a mod to 76mm M32s for their tanks, reboring to 90mm and a new ammo family). Or even, look at ammo in the 76mm family: compare WW2 Panther 75's capabilities (L70) or 17-pdr to more modern 76mm M32 (>1400m/sec), 75mm ARES (>1500m/sec), or that very impressive 76mm GT4 (1610m/sec?) used in the Rooikat (according to DefenceWeb.Co.ZA, "Denel GT4 high pressure 76mm 62-calibre rifled gun, firing an APFSDS round at a muzzle velocity in excess of 1600m/s. Capable of penetrating the front hull (275mm RHA) and turret (230mm RHA) of a T62 MBT at 2000m.") Then there was that site that showed WW2 Russian utilization of "T34/57", using the longer high velocity 57mm gun and its superior AP performance over the short 76mm, in rare cases. The potential thus, in modern guise, would suggest the T34 upgrading with, however much an oddity, those 60mm hypervelocity types (IMI's or OTO's). Chile did it in Shermans and M24s, so a T34 should just as well carry it, if KE is more desireable than HE...HEAT propnents might suggest perhaps a 90mm CMI type instead, but it would ultimately depend on the threats posed by my surrounding neighbor countries (and the most likely allies that would come to their quick defense). Then there's more modern engines and transmissions that offer considerable improvement (and requiring less volume) than WW2 counterparts (again, see post War Sherman projects, even the Chilean M24s (damn those dead links! ),etc). In this last three decades alone (since 1980), aftermarket rebuilding and upgrading of AFVs has proven to be a cash cow. Anything from main gun and ammo, fire control and optics, stabilization systems, powerpacks, even running gear (suspension, road wheels, tracks). How then is suggesting upgrading the T34 suspension to a new type is so totally a redesign (OK, from a belly-mounted torsion bar set up, I understand), yet a full sweep of modern kit into the powerpack, gun & ammo, and fire control/optics (cut holes in the turret roof for thermals?), even add-on armor, isn't enough to call it a complete redesign? (Odds are, someone might even have developed a new turret entirely, with medium pressure 100-105mm as in some of those overhead, ocillating, and semicleft types stemming back to that similarly seen when Shermans got those French medium pressure 105s...) A good Jane's Armour & Artillery Upgrades from the 1980s-1990s can be had fairly cheap (A decent copy of 97-98 going for less that $50US) , showing a plethora of upgrade products that could adapt to a T34 with minimal redesign to either (the tank or actual upgrade component). The tech was there. But hordes of ex-Soviet armor to be had on the cheap (T54/55 principally) eliminated for anyone the need to extensively upgrade their T34s just for national survival (as Israel did), when the CommBloc/WP was so eager to expand its sphere of influence by offering cheap, and more modern, military goodies. I might not have based my entire tank fleet around upgraded T34s, but they could still provide a useful element for supporting the heavyweight MBTs of my fleet (a fairly-well-protected middle weight to be used against all other AFVs and targets that don't require 105-120mm KE firepower to dispatch).

Yeah, I'd agree with that. But the question might be, would the current crop of Apache-compatible projectiles be too heavy for a man-portable grenade launcher even with its considerably-reduced launch impulse from a lower-powered case? I'd be all for the ability to fire, singly, that M789 30mm HEDP projectile. That's some serious havoc if we want to stop an inbound vehicle: put one of those into anywhere across the front of the vehicle (radiator/engine, windshield, etc)... Be damn good for upper-story shots down at ground vehicles, or infantry going to flank pesky AFVs and other prime targets (and possibly even some close range shots at helos).

Still, judging by other PLAN vessels, the chinese will actually be able to arm their smaller ship with more firepower than any USN LCS will ever put to sea with.

Meh. "According to Hubbard's teachings, the Galactic Confederacy was the political unit formerly ruled by the tyrant Xenu. It ruled a broad swath of the galaxy, and lasted for "eighty trillion years" (80,000 billion years),[7] much longer than the universe's empirically-determined age of 13.7 billion years. Hubbard claimed that 75 million years ago, at the time of Xenu's mass murder, the Galactic Confederacy comprised 26 stars and 76 planets, including Earth (then called Teegeeack)." Under achievers. All that time and they only accumulated 26 stars and 76 planets, and only in one galaxy? Or was it something grander at one point, and it petered out and faded away from its former glory faster than B5's Centauri Republic? Why again do people worship these "small potatoes" confed ideals? Pathetic. ...Looking at his "math", I'm contemplating a kind of Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy thing here, where, due to a terrible miscalculation of scale, that entire confederacy was swallow by a small dog, then sh*t out as something even less significant: something Hollywood folk swear by (a double entendre there, for those who get it). Odder still, with all that was not lost at Alexandria, there's no mention of any of this stuff in any of the old languages. (I guess some communities just have better Forward Archives...)

Good god, they got their own cruise ship... Woman “imprisoned” on Scientology cruise ship for 12 years Anyone got any Mk48s they want to get rid of?

Showing my age, but whatever happened to the original US Army models? Back in my youth, Basic Training Ft Leonard Wood 1990, we learned on the M136/AT4, with its subcaliber 9mm tracer ammo. Were these phased out (or just fell by the wayside) for a length of time, and current op tempo renewed interest in them (since OEF/OIF started) ?

Ripping a Men In Black line,.. "Unlimited technology from the whole universe..." ...and all you're interested in is Earth's gold? Seriously? All that cosmic capability (interstellar travel, and all the related tech that goes with it), and prospecting for gold on some backwater uncivilized world is all you crave? Stupid humans.

...TW's site might offer them an ideal solution: would that WW2 German "mine shell" concept work well enough in a thinner-walled, larger-bang, more-ideal-fragmenting, 40mm smart grenade?

It isn't just about the size of the bang at the target end. It's also about some precision with that bang (where you need it, the first time every time, and more often than not ASAP). Until something like ODAM is in service, guided mortar rounds (currently limited to 120mm) that can take out an entire corner of a building (or an entire durka hovel or marketplace) can be way too much overkill. " DARPA and BAE Systems have more ambitious plans for the 60 mm mortar. At AUSA 2007 BAE Systems displayed the latest model of the Optically Directed Advanced Munition (ODAM), developed under a $9 million program awarded in 2005 by DARPA. Under this initiative, BAE Systems is planning to demonstrate a laser-guided, low cost optical seeker for the 60mm mortar. The guidance kit will be designed to replace the current 60mm mortar fuse to improve firing precision. " Sometimes we just want to pop the bad guys inside a room or behind a wall, without damaging everything and wounding everyone in the surrounding 30+m from detonation. If we can make it eventually fit in a 60mm mortar, it'll work (precision + programmable airburst) in a LAW-sized weapon that has a shorter time of flight and flatter trajectory than any mortar rounds (and without the weight of manpack mortars or the time constraints of awaiting approval from higher ups for calls-for-fire. That size also suggests something the size of the larger rifle grenades (like this one). Oh wait

Granted, BGM-71 (TOW) 's "soft launch" impulse allowed it to upgrade much more quickly (less robust components). As to the MGM-51 (Shillelagh), well, the Russians did refine gun-launched guided projectiles down to 100mm. The US still struggles with it (despite the costly success of Copperhead and even-more-affordable-and-promising Excalibur). MGM-51 and its troublesome fire control components was, by comparison, as dismal a failure as was the mechanical reliabilities of the Sheridan. Fast-forward from the Sheridan era to the now-defunct FCS program, and the US recognized that, in fielding lighter vehicles, a precision projectile useful to longer ranges is desirable. Israel pulled it off (LAHAT series). ATK was really close with the MRM for the FCS. But so far, even with multiple lackluster naval programs, the US doesn't seem capable of the mastery of gun-fired precision projectiles. (Funny how we hide behind the notion that ATGMs will always be at the ready, so direct-fire (or near-direct-fire/BLOS) guided shells aren't needed...we WILL incorporate precision guidance in the coming gen of artillery, though...go figure). No MBT70-sized weapon would've ever been successfully mounted on any airmobile (short of a C-5 or C-17) US AFV. Even the Stryker MGS struggled with its 105mm system (odd indeed, considering it worked fairly fine way back in the 1980s when Teledyne originally designed the gun pod system...odder still the Sprut can successfully fire that 125 in all its ammo forms, for its weight, yet the US can't seem to get the idea of lessening recoil for major caliber guns on AFV hulls). Compare sizes: the US has no real Sheridan replacement (Stryker MGS doesn't cut it) and nothing comparable to Sprut (odd that we countered the BMP and BMD threat with development of the Bradley, brought about the M1 as Soviet armor seemed to be surpassing M60 growth potential, even went "8wheel airmobile" on a flawed concept fraught with misconceptions one after the other, yet we hear numerous accounts of frontline grunts asking/wishing they had more immediate organic firepower available for numerous incidents, and even in a day and age where the USMC screams for amphibious-capable AFV hulls..). No, no Sparky rant (the M113 is past its prime, regardless of any promising floaty upgrades and hull extensions that make it look very much like a Bradley chassis... ), but firepower solutions are there. I'm just suggesting one option. (Notice that, despite however successful the TOW has become, it didn't stop the US in pursuit of deciding it needed the Stryker MGS in addition to the ATGM variant, with the twin TOW launcher...). So why not further enhance these tank-caliber guns with PGM capability (we wanted to with the FCS) ?

Too bad the US had a rather disappointing experience with the whole Shillelagh/152mm gun launcher program. Had it received as much attention (upgrading) over the years as the TOW, it would be interesting to see if we'd have progressed to a more favorable air mobile system than the Sheridan: the 152mm caliber does have a lot of usefulness, and the Shillelagh itself certainly could've matured into a much more capable and favorable system (the diameter and length allowed for it). It certainly wouldn't have become a sabot thrower (long enough barrel to milk out a worthwhile KE velocity), but as a drop-in turret into current hulls (Bradley, Stryker, or even Abrams as a demo gun?), it would've put a large-caliber infantry support gun at our disposal, with gun-launched missile capability useful for long-range precision against vehicles and other targets.

While this 25mm may be seen as lacking in some circles, but stepping all the way up to the 84mm systems, that starts to cut into how much effective load a given grunt can carry (how many 84mm rounds in addition to his other kit?). What about the NAWC/DRS Spike or the M72 LAW? Those are small enough you could almost assign one to every, or every other, person, and carry sufficient reloads throughout the squad/team without adding considerably to the weight (compared to 84mm rounds and launchers).... The biggest problem I still see: it's going to be carried by a dedicated gunner, someone trained proficiently enough to be as accurate as possible nearly every time. It's not a weapon suitable for everyone to train with, especially considering how expensive the individual rounds would be: training a lot of people would add up quite quickly. But still, either of these launchers is still going to be cheaper per-round than any similar system(s) developed for the 84mm launchers...

(these guys...) ARES, INC; A History of Our Development of Cased Telescopic Ammunition, From Small Arms to Cannon Caliber Projects

That being the case, the mention of the "85" systems could mean little more than someone is building new warheads for RPGs... Talley has created some impressive newer designs for the M72 series, so it's certainly possible a defense contractor is building new-gen, new-tech RPG warheads (winning hearts and minds of ANA allies everywhere...).

...Almost suggests this thing isn't a Spike variant after all...? Like OI said, the UK know-how for small packaged guidance showed its mettle with Starstreak built around late 1980s-early 1990s tech. Then there was, not long ago, and Aviation Week article about development of guided rounds for the 84mm Gustav family. Is it possible UK know-how developed a small-form precision guidance kit that could easily withstand the launch stresses an RPG-7 series creates? (...or perhaps, the "85" designator in these warheads could be pertaining to proprietary new designs, that being their actual diameter, yet the warheads actually replace the standard warheads available in Spikes? That though would imply that the UK is working with Israel in actually building Spikes, not just buying them as a UOR/RFI system...)