Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III

[ColBosch]

The pseudo-tank destroyer model is what prompted the US Army to develop the Stryker MGS. That is, it's not a tank, it's not meant to kill tanks, but it does give mechanized infantry companies an organic, big, direct-fire gun. That said, there are still times you really want nothing short of a real main battle tank, and it's still a good idea to deploy some in support of any major mission. At the least, they make convoy guards par excellance.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I could see the use of that Leo Casemate in an urban or tight confines setting where you're playing ambusher more than anything else.  Maybe if the focus were less on tank fights and more on an infantry support gun, that 150mm idea wouldn't be so bad.  Hell, as a casemate setup, maybe even roll it all the way into an armed engineer vehicle, like the M728 CEV.  Rear mounted crane, forward bulldozer perhaps, or modular for mine clearance, or who knows.

In any generic battlefield situation I'd prefer a tank of course, but if I were filling some pretty thin niches I kinda like it.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

What about the Swedish tanks where they hard-mounted the gun to the hull and moved the whole body to aim instead of moving the gun?

[Euphonium]

My understanding as that the Swedes chose that design because they had no intention of offensive operations, and wanted a low-profile tank for defensive purposes

[kato]

One should also point out that that the Swedes did run 350 Centurions rearmed with 105mm guns concurrently up to the 90s for MBT applications in parallel to their 290 Strv103 with the same armament. Originally the MBT project that became the Strv103 was supposed to replace the Centurions.

They did have a rather mixed set of constraints for the project, which were basically overall:

• weight under 42.5 tons, preferably under 32 tons
• low silhouette
• high mobility
• 105mm armament with autoloader

Three options were looked at:

• "Strv A" (A for America) (buying an American or British tank, such as M48)
• "Strv T" (T for Tyskland, Germany) (buying a French/German tnak, i.e. the Europapanzer project that became the Leopard 1 and AMX-30)
  
• "Strv S" (S for Sweden) (a domestic production, lightweight, low silhouette, turretless)

This was reduced to two options around 1958 - Strv A or Strv S.

However, around the same time, intelligence about the Soviet T-10 tank project suggested that the 105mm gun had to be lengthened considerably to provide sufficient penetration; from the initial 55-caliber length considerations the prototypes grew to an 85-caliber gun.

The Strv A was by design not suitable for this barrel length, leading to Strv A as an option to be replaced by Strv K - which would have placed a Centurion Mk X turret (with the then new 105mm L7 rifled gun) on a domestic KRV chassis. Strv K was then soon cancelled when Sweden decided to buy actual Centurion Mk X - and subsequently refit their Mk III and Mk V - thus only leaving the Strv S as the only option. Afterwards they spent 6 years improving the Strv S design...

Strv S2 prototype looking sleek in 1961:

[Kidd]

What a classic. I almost wish it had been battle tested.

[Matti]

What about the Swedish tanks where they hard-mounted the gun to the hull and moved the whole body to aim instead of moving the gun?

Nicholas Moran "The Chieftain" has got videos about it

[sadlerbw]

Honest question here from someone who is not at all well versed in the art of armored warfare: why do we need the 120mm gun on an MBT? When you have 155mm artillery, drones loaded down with 250lbs bombs and Hellfires, and a variety of IFV-mountable and in some cases man-portable anti-armor missiles backing you up, what is it that you need that big 120mm gun on a heavily armored chassis to do? I get the armored mobility part, but I'm having a bit harder time figuring out why we still want the big cannons instead of, say, a 30mm and a couple missiles. I don't doubt that a reason exists, it just isn't obvious to me why MBT's with a single, large cannon are still so popular.

[monbvol]

For their versatility versus expense mostly.

[glitterboy2098]

because a 120mm and its shells are cheaper on a shot-per shot basis than a guided missile, and are a lot harder to defend against (you can't jam a shell, or shoot it down with an Active Defense System, or use cage armor to make its hit do nothing)
this is especially true of the APFSDS rounds, which are unaffected by reactive armor (getting very common now) and render much of the protection advantages of composite armor nullified (composite works great against HE, HESH, and HEAT warheads, but less so against pure kinetic)

as for why not just a 155 or bombs.. well, sometimes your targets are in places where a simple straight shot will hit them, but a ballistic arc or a top attack by a plane/bomb will have a lot less chance. not to mention that radioing in an artillery request, or a airstrike takes time (even when you aren't stuck in a queue because everyone else is asking too), it takes even more time for the artillery shell flight time or the aircraft flight time, and calling in the attack would often give away your own presence (even if your radio is encrypted and such, that there was a radio signal is still detectable)

also, lets just face it.. a 120mm shell is going to do a lot less collateral damage around the target than a 155mm will or a bomb will.

[DoctorMonkey]

Honest question here from someone who is not at all well versed in the art of armored warfare: why do we need the 120mm gun on an MBT? When you have 155mm artillery, drones loaded down with 250lbs bombs and Hellfires, and a variety of IFV-mountable and in some cases man-portable anti-armor missiles backing you up, what is it that you need that big 120mm gun on a heavily armored chassis to do? I get the armored mobility part, but I'm having a bit harder time figuring out why we still want the big cannons instead of, say, a 30mm and a couple missiles. I don't doubt that a reason exists, it just isn't obvious to me why MBT's with a single, large cannon are still so popular.

Basically what the others said


Versatility - the time taken to swap from "fin" to HESH to canister to spraying someone with co-axial is measured in seconds
Relative cost effectiveness of the shells down the gun versus missiles
Direct fire and accuracy versus artillery or air dropped ordnance


To be honest, once you have the huge armoured tank set up it feels like the gun isn't the biggest expense and you'd feel a fool if your lovely 30mm and missiles armed tank came across someone with a 120-125mm who then shoots down your missiles with APS and laughs off your 30mm shells...

[Weirdo]

Also, hell hath no fury like the ghosts of the tankers who had to fight MBTs with 30mm on the day your 155s and bombs were busy elsewhere...except maybe for the survivors.

[Kidd]

instead of, say, a 30mm and a couple missiles.

Adding on to glitterboy's very comprehensive post - a 30mm does next to nothing against modern tank armour. I think even the Puma IFV's frontal armour can stop 30mm. Tanks are generally going to face other tanks in combat, and the arms race has seen their main guns go from WW2 40mm to 75mm to 105mm to 120mm as thicker and more advanced armour gets put on.

Antitank guided missiles also face all kinds of defences. Explosive reactive armour, multispectral smoke grenades, IR jammers, and of course seriously all the rage now are "hard-kill active protection systems" aka CIWS for tanks. Its getting so that the latest ATGMs work by top-attack - flying up and coming down on the tank roof, since armour and defences are all positioned to defeat horizontal (side-on) attacks. And even that is not foolproof.

The latest developments is that the Europeans are mulling a new tank with a 130mm gun, and in some places tanks are resorting to platoon fire - 4 tanks firing on a single tank target - to get past all those defences. And everyone is scrambling to put hardkill APSs on their tanks.

[Charlie 6]

Honest question here from someone who is not at all well versed in the art of armored warfare: why do we need the 120mm gun on an MBT? When you have 155mm artillery, drones loaded down with 250lbs bombs and Hellfires, and a variety of IFV-mountable and in some cases man-portable anti-armor missiles backing you up, what is it that you need that big 120mm gun on a heavily armored chassis to do? I get the armored mobility part, but I'm having a bit harder time figuring out why we still want the big cannons instead of, say, a 30mm and a couple missiles. I don't doubt that a reason exists, it just isn't obvious to me why MBT's with a single, large cannon are still so popular.

I consider the MBT one of two implacable all weather things on the battlefield.  The other is artillery and a third, if it had any offensive utility, would be the landmine.  Employed properly, the MBT is very hard to deal with and if you aren't prepared for it you really can't do much about it unless the other guy (or gal) screws up.  That implacable nature combined with its sheer versatility (e.g., massed armor, a cavalry element, infantry support) ensure its continued existence.

[Daryk]

Heh... the MBT: the only problem it can't solve is its own logistics...

[Charlie 6]

Heh... the MBT: the only problem it can't solve is its own logistics...

That's true of anything outside of an X-Wing.

[sadlerbw]

Interesting responses. Not sure I'm convinced by all of them, but certainly some good points in there. It got me motivated to look up a couple things.

First, it appears there absolutely are APS systems that are capable of defeating long-rod penetrators. The majority of these type of systems are only really good against ATGM's and RPG's, but there are some systems that were designed to deal with APFSDS projectiles as well. Don't know how effective they are, but silver bullets aren't necessarily a silver bullet anymore against other modern tanks.

The versatility of the 120mm cannon seems like an interesting argument, but I do still wonder how much of a variety our M1's usually have on-board. If the internet it to be believed, a current M1 can carry 42 rounds for the 120mm gun. What would the 'standard' mix be? Do they really carry more specialized stuff like Canister, HESH, or straight HE all the time, or is that the sort of thing you only load up if you KNOW you have a specific need for it ahead of time? Still, it does seem like most of the man-portable options don't have nearly the explosive payload of a 120mm round, and the vehicle-mounted missiles that do are more expensive than a comparable HEDP round or even a APFSDS round. Well, except for maybe 70mm rockets. The unguided versions come in a pretty wide variety of payloads, and they are only something like $1000/rocket. That is competitive with 120mm ammo pricing, although I'm not sure the accuracy would be comparable.

You folks are probably right and the big-gun MBT will be around for years to come. I just can't help but look at the Navy and Airforce and see how their worlds have changed from guns to missiles, and wonder when it will be the Army's turn. It will be a bot of a shame as I actually LIKE big cannons, but sometimes it feels like the only reason anyone wants cannons, of any size, these days is for targets that aren't worth spending missile-money to destroy. Anyway, thanks for all the opinions.

[Weirdo]

It should be noted that the USN is trying(with only mixed success so far, but that's what science is for) to move away from missiles in certain roles, such as lasers for CIWS, or guns(railguns or big conventionals firing guided rounds) for shore attack. The news is either slow or actually bad most of the time, but you can tell that the Navy really wants to move away from guided missiles where possible.

[Daryk]

I work in the Pentagon... I can (sadly) confirm that it is, indeed, all about MONEY.

[Charlie 6]

I work in the Pentagon... I can (sadly) confirm that it is, indeed, all about MONEY.

I can confirm...he does work at the Pentagon.

[Feenix74]

I used to wear a blue suit . . . I can confirm missiles cost money, lots of money  ^-^

[Fat Guy]

Do they really carry more specialized stuff like Canister, HESH, or straight HE all the time,

The M1 cannot use HESH. It requires a rifled gun.

The British Challengers are the only modern MBTs that can still make use of it.

[monbvol]

Yes a modern tank will always carry some type of HE for dealing with bunkers/hard points, canister for dealing with infantry, and probably both types of anti armor round.  Simply because tank on tank combat is still the minority of what kind of action tanks take part in and probably always will be.

[kato]

Adding on to glitterboy's very comprehensive post - a 30mm does next to nothing against modern tank armour. I think even the Puma IFV's frontal armour can stop 30mm.

Case in point though, a Puma weighs as much as a 1960s/70s standard MBT. There's no "even" about it.

And as for a 30mm doing nothing... sure it does something. It'll shred your optics and outside electronics, including that ADS. A burst of e.g. 30mm AHEAD, i.e. ~1000 shotgun pellets the size and speed of a rifle round impacting within the space of two seconds, will mission-kill any MBT.

Its getting so that the latest ATGMs work by top-attack - flying up and coming down on the tank roof, since armour and defences are all positioned to defeat horizontal (side-on) attacks

Standard in about any new ATGM design since the 80s.

[Feenix74]

Never having served under armour, how long does it take to repair/replace optics? I assume antennas are reasonably easy and quick to replace but optic blocks I assume are going to be reasonably involved and need special equipment for repair/replace. So depot level task or is it something that can be done in the field by the crew or your handy RAEME (mechanical engineer)?

[CDAT]

Yes a modern tank will always carry some type of HE for dealing with bunkers/hard points, canister for dealing with infantry, and probably both types of anti armor round.  Simply because tank on tank combat is still the minority of what kind of action tanks take part in and probably always will be.

So when I got out of the military the rounds that were available for general use (120mm main gun)
M829A3/E4 APFSDSDU-T "Sabot" AKA Silver Bullet/Super-Sabot said to be able to defeat ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor). The E4 may be a A4 now. Per unit cost of around $10,000 each. Used against heavy armor

M830 HEAT-MP-T "HEAT" A multi-purpose (what the MP stands for) round that is good at taking out armor, and OK at taking out troops with the frag sleeve around the explosives. Used against all armor and troops/bunkers.
PS-Wikipedia says it is no longer in service, but I was still seeing them my last deployment in 2011.

M830A1 HEAT-MP-T "MPAT" Not a upgrade to the M830 but a entirely new round. A new and improved heat round that has a better frag sleeve, and such. Biggest thing is that it is also a sabot round and can be used for more than just ground targets. Used against light/medium armor , troop and helicopters.

M908 HE-OR-T (High-Explosive Obstacle-Reducing Tracer) "not sure call but guess HE" A modified M830A1 to make it contact warhead (or more specifically time delayed) so it blows up after going into the bunker a bit. Used for bunkers.

M1028 Canister "Canister" A short range anti-personnel round. Used for anti-personnel and helicopters.

Now for a not general issue rounds but they were in testing and at least some were making it to the battle field.
XM943 (Smart Target Activated Fire and Forget) "Staff" First heard about this one from my brother (who at the time was still in tanks, after I got out) it is a top down heat attack round. It has a look down shoot down radar or something. Supposed to be able to used against anything armor, troops, even helicopters.

And one that I found reference to when looking just now, not sure if it ever made it to the field.
M1069 Advanced Multi-Purpose "AMP" kind of a do everything round, anti-troops out to about 3000 meters, anti-helicopter, ant-armor.

Never having served under armour, how long does it take to repair/replace optics? I assume antennas are reasonably easy and quick to replace but optic blocks I assume are going to be reasonably involved and need special equipment for repair/replace. So depot level task or is it something that can be done in the field by the crew or your handy RAEME (mechanical engineer)?

Depends on the optics. If you are talking a vision block, 30 seconds from when you have the replacement, loosen the wing nuts pull the old one out (or just catch it so it does not hit you junk), and put the new one in then re-tighten the wing nuts this is operator level maintenance.. If you are talking the gunners primary sights then I can not even hazard a guess, but this will take battalion maintenance at the very least.

[Feenix74]

Cheers thanks CDAT :thumbsup: I learn something everyday.

[Kidd]

Case in point though, a Puma weighs as much as a 1960s/70s standard MBT. There's no "even" about it.

And as for a 30mm doing nothing... sure it does something. It'll shred your optics and outside electronics, including that ADS. A burst of e.g. 30mm AHEAD, i.e. ~1000 shotgun pellets the size and speed of a rifle round impacting within the space of two seconds, will mission-kill any MBT.
Standard in about any new ATGM design since the 80s.

Puma's quite an outlier in any case.

30mm won't penetrate MBT front armour though. And not everyone has AHEAD or similar rounds.

Yeah, "latest" is pretty relative innit? There don't seem to be very many extremely new developments in the ATGM line - except the MMP. Is it all it's cracked up to be?

[kato]

Puma's quite an outlier in any case.

The current incarnation of the good old Marder as its predecessor also comes in at 38.5 tons  ;)

And it just got upgraded the last 3 months to fire Spike-LR, doubling its anti-tank envelope.

There don't seem to be very many extremely new developments in the ATGM line - except the MMP.

Spike-LR meanwhile is being upgraded by Rafael, as Spike-LR II, to be available this year - first order was by the IDF last year.

Increases range to 5.5 km ground-to-ground / 10 km air-to-ground (by using an uncooled seeker that means it has more space/weight available for the rocket motor), will have a datalink, switchable warheads (tandem HEAT or SAPHE/MP), new seeker AI, some nebulous counter-APS capability and 70°+ angle top-attack profile. Uh, and the rounds are compatible with extant Spike-LR launchers like the above...

I'd rate the Spike family as a whole as a relatively new ATGM system.

[Matti]

Yes a modern tank will always carry some type of HE for dealing with bunkers/hard points, canister for dealing with infantry, and probably both types of anti armor round.

What about flechette?