NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Stuart Galbraith]

55 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I don't think that "HESH is becoming useful again". It was sorta ingenious in the age of homogeneous armor, lost its ingenuity with the introduction of airgapped armor arrays and retained a certain value against light armor and for the demolition of up to medium-hard structures (rebar concrete walls of regular thickness).

On the downside, HESH requires substantial design compromises. That you're still pushing the idea indicates to me that you're not really taking notice of them because they are well known for decades

- a narrow band of comparatively slow impact velocities

- the resulting unfavorable trajectories,

- the necessity for upright storage,

- the requirement for a rifled bore

- the requirement to strike a hard surface for reasonable performance

- the requirement to strike said hard surface at not too shallow an angle

 

How anyone can still propose HESH as a round with a lot of potential is beyond me. It's 1950s crap that has made it into the 21st century only because the British MOD is full of penny-pinching nitwits.

You realised I was blatantly taking the piss, right? 🤨

[Ssnake]

The thought that you might crossed my mind, admittedly.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Martineleca]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And we abandon HESH, just when it becomes useful again. Ah, isn't that just like the MOD.

 

Jokes aside, do you know if either the Chieftain or Challenger has at any point been tested with a cannon larger than 120mm?

[Martineleca]

On 3/16/2023 at 6:28 PM, Josh said:

130/140mm seems like a solution looking for a problem, IMO.

Aside from packing a heavier round for increased striking power, the Ascalon has almost a full meter longer barrel with capability for accurate beyond the horizon shots of 7km or more. It would be interesting which of the two calibers the US selects to upgun Abrams, the vaunted Thumper prototype was armed with a 140mm gun.

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, Martineleca said:

Jokes aside, do you know if either the Chieftain or Challenger has at any point been tested with a cannon larger than 120mm?

I believe we were experimenting with a 130 or 140mm at one point. I dont believe it was ever mounted on an AFV, test rig or otherwise.

The exception is this, which is, or so I was told, more cgi than reality. But there is seemingly a latent capability there.

 

[bojan]

3 hours ago, Martineleca said:

Aside from packing a heavier round for increased striking power, the Ascalon has almost a full meter longer barrel with capability for accurate beyond the horizon shots of 7km or more...

1. "Accuracy" (more like dispersion) is not dependent on gun barrel length. US WW2 203mm howitzer with short stubby barrel had dispersion such that it could put to shame most modern artillery systems with super long barrels. which is actually better for accuracy than a long thin one. But today's tank guns, eastern and western have perfectly acceptable accuracy for all ranges they can be realistically expected to engage.

2. Where are you going to find direct fire range of 7km? As for indirect fire, gun accuracy is the least of the factors involved.

 

[Martineleca]

52 minutes ago, bojan said:

Where are you going to find direct fire range of 7km? As for indirect fire, gun accuracy is the least of the factors involved.

 

I guess the idea is that if 7km is doable, 4km or 5km that's usually the maximum range for other tank cannons will be just a regular shot for the Ascalon.

[bojan]

28 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

I guess the idea is that if 7km is doable, 4km or 5km that's usually the maximum range for other tank cannons will be just a regular shot for the Ascalon.

Due the FCS, not due the gun. And FCS is limited to that range because more than that is simply way too rare occurrence to actually matter in reality, hence long range performances of Ascalon can not be realistically employed, hence they are largely irrelevant.

[Martineleca]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I believe we were experimenting with a 130 or 140mm at one point. I don't believe it was ever mounted on an AFV, test rig or otherwise.

Considering that British were among the first to incorporate the 120mm gun onto a modern NATO MBT design back in the 1960s, were they planning for the new larger cannon to be rifled as well?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Think it was the same gun the Europeans were kicking about, so a smoothbore.

[Martineleca]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Think it was the same gun the Europeans were kicking about, so a smoothbore.

The issue with either of the larger caliber guns is that they were designed to be paired with an autoloader, which is fine for newly built tanks, but also makes their incorporation into existing models very expensive as it requires at minimum reconfiguration of the turret. Is this why such a move was ultimately rejected for the Challenger 3?

[Martineleca]

17 hours ago, bojan said:

Due the FCS, not due the gun.

The new generation of cannon fired ATGMs is claimed to be able to strike targets out to 8km away, aren't they targeted with the same FCS that aims the gun?

[Martineleca]

On 3/17/2023 at 2:10 PM, Ssnake said:

We may actually return to 20...25 year replacement cycles, depending on how world politics play out.

Rheinmetall sees a potential NATO market for between 5000 and 8000 Panther KF51 MBTs in the 2025 to 2035 and onward timeframe. - That's quite a commitment if true, they must be really confident that some countries will drop out of the MGCS program for more immediate alternatives. 

[bojan]

8 hours ago, Martineleca said:

The new generation of cannon fired ATGMs is claimed to be able to strike targets out to 8km away, aren't they targeted with the same FCS that aims the gun?

Not really, you don't need all calculations that are done for regular projectiles (range, wind, temperature, cant etc etc). For SACLOS ATGMs all you have to do to guide them is keep reticle on the target, rest is done by guidance unit.

OTOH, I don't really see utility of tanks firing ATGMs vs same job being done with some other vehicle.

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

OTOH, I don't really see utility of tanks firing ATGMs vs same job being done with some other vehicle.

IMHO, it was Soviet time compromise between wery rare need for long distance shot (Soviet tankers in East Germany expected the average distance of tank to tank engagement to be about 800m, "knife fight in elevator cabin", while finding the place to fire at 3+ km is difficult task)  still demanded by military, and keeping the gun and FCS relatively cheap....

  As for me, it is much better to have regular ATGM mounted on tank the same way as on BMP (if Army insist on the need to have long arm for tanks).

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 3/18/2023 at 9:32 PM, Martineleca said:

The issue with either of the larger caliber guns is that they were designed to be paired with an autoloader, which is fine for newly built tanks, but also makes their incorporation into existing models very expensive as it requires at minimum reconfiguration of the turret. Is this why such a move was ultimately rejected for the Challenger 3?

I think it was a choice of either having a 120mm, or not having a tank upgrade at all. Even now its contentious that it wont even replace the tanks that are already in service.

Is it conceivable that we will get a 130mm? Yes. But I dont believe its going to be on Challenger 3 or even 4. Of course I didnt even think there would ever be a Challenger 3, so Im delighted to be wrong.

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

IMHO, it was Soviet time compromise between wery rare need for long distance shot (Soviet tankers in East Germany expected the average distance of tank to tank engagement to be about 800m, "knife fight in elevator cabin", while finding the place to fire at 3+ km is difficult task)  still demanded by military, and keeping the gun and FCS relatively cheap....

  As for me, it is much better to have regular ATGM mounted on tank the same way as on BMP (if Army insist on the need to have long arm for tanks).

Good luck with that on the North German Plain. Its about 3 KM between villages.

[Stefan Kotsch]

According to my information, about 1500 - max 2000  meters was assumed to be the mean shooting distance. Incidentally, the prescribed adjustment distance for the 125 mm gun is ~1600 m.

[bojan]

17 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

...while finding the place to fire at 3+ km is difficult task)  still demanded by military, and keeping the gun and FCS relatively cheap....

That is a part I really don't get. Tanks that already had pretty advanced FCS for own period (T-64BV and T-80BV) were the ones that got missile first. Plus guidance unit and missiles were not exactly cheap*. Decent computerized FCS was within reach of the Soviet level of technology in the early '80s for certain** (those used relatively simple processors, IIRC M1 used Intel 8008, which Soviets produced clone of...).

*I have only old Malyutka/Sagger to compare, but missile price in 1969. was about the same as a motorcycle and about 1/4-1/3 of the small car... Doubt that much more complicated Cobra/AT-8 were cheaper in the late '70s/early '80s.

**They could not afford it for all their tanks for sure, but for "premium" ones it was workable...

Edited March 20, 2023 by bojan

[Martineleca]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

*I have only old Malyutka/Sagger to compare, but missile price in 1969. was about the same as a motorcycle and about 1/4-1/3 of the small car... Doubt that much more complicated Cobra/AT-8 were cheaper in the late '70s/early '80s.

**They could not afford it for all their tanks for sure, but for "premium" ones it was workable...

Which is why it's weird the Shillelagh missile didn't find wider use within the US Military, it was originally supposed to arm the MBT 70 tank and once all the issues were worked out it became a formidable weapon, but by that time NATO doctrine had moved away from cannon fired missiles. 

[alejandro_]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

*I have only old Malyutka/Sagger to compare, but missile price in 1969. was about the same as a motorcycle and about 1/4-1/3 of the small car... Doubt that much more complicated Cobra/AT-8 were cheaper in the late '70s/early '80s.

**They could not afford it for all their tanks for sure, but for "premium" ones it was workable...

IIRC correctly difference in price between T-64B and B1 was 25%, with missile cost being equivalent to a car. 

[alejandro_]

Double post.

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by alejandro_

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Martineleca said:

Which is why it's weird the Shillelagh missile didn't find wider use within the US Military, it was originally supposed to arm the MBT 70 tank and once all the issues were worked out it became a formidable weapon, but by that time NATO doctrine had moved away from cannon fired missiles. 

The system was unreliable and given a high velocity gun with an FCS capable out to several thousand meters, completely redundant. I always found the Russian barrel launched weapons to be odd, given that they were fired from high velocity guns. Shillelagh made some sense when fired from lighter vehicles with low velocity guns. The opportunities in Europe for ATGM fire that exceeded the capability of even T-64's fire control seems rather limited to me, and it seems like a surprisingly complex solution to the problem from the traditionally more conservative Russian designers.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Josh

[Martineleca]

On 3/17/2023 at 1:30 AM, Ssnake said:

Sooner or later a target like the Armata (maybe just not the Armata) will come along. By that time we better be ready.

Have you heard the rumours about Italy seeking to buy 250 Leopard 2 tanks, maybe this is meant as a gap filler until MGCS or some other advanced model arrives in larger numbers. Still combined with their 200 Ariete they will have enough MBTs for two mechanised divisions, though the backlog of orders is growing even more, any idea if KMW will open a second Leo production line to meet increased demand?