Future Armour
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
The point of the S tank comparison was the earlier observation that small vehicles might not have room for useful quantities of ammunition. You can look at this from a maximum/minimum perspective: we have examples of non standard vehicles holding anywhere from 50 rounds 105mm to 16 rounds 105mm. Conventional MBT's can hold 50 or more rounds of 105mm (Merkava 1 with the 105mm cannon could hold @ 80 with the extra ammunition racks in the rear hull), but the current discussion is based around the "desire" for smaller and lighter vehicles which can still pack a large calibre main gun.
Since vehicles with small amounts of on board ammunition are not very useful (Think MMEV with it's bulky ADATS missiles), then any realistic design should carry at least 30 rounds of main gun ammunition to be considered a creditable design.
Based on other earlier posts, it would seem the number one design criterion (often the one not addressed by the designers) is crew layout and ergonomics. If the crew is unable to work effectively, then any theoretical advantages of the tank design is lost, while a well laid out tank allows the crew to wring out the full potential of their mount. French tanks in 1940 were better armed and armoured than contemporary German designs, but since the crew commander was stuck in a one man turret with the 37mm high velocity anti tank gun, he was less able to control the tank or deal with the larger situation. 1930 era Russian tanks with multiple turrets (like the T-35) gave the commander multiple headaches trying to coordinate the firepower of the tank, while also manoeuvreing and coordinating with the other arms. Our own experiments with giving crew commanders all kinds of electronic widgits might go the same way if the crew commander is being distracted from running the tank and "seeing" the immediate environment around him.
Since vehicles with small amounts of on board ammunition are not very useful (Think MMEV with it's bulky ADATS missiles), then any realistic design should carry at least 30 rounds of main gun ammunition to be considered a creditable design.
Based on other earlier posts, it would seem the number one design criterion (often the one not addressed by the designers) is crew layout and ergonomics. If the crew is unable to work effectively, then any theoretical advantages of the tank design is lost, while a well laid out tank allows the crew to wring out the full potential of their mount. French tanks in 1940 were better armed and armoured than contemporary German designs, but since the crew commander was stuck in a one man turret with the 37mm high velocity anti tank gun, he was less able to control the tank or deal with the larger situation. 1930 era Russian tanks with multiple turrets (like the T-35) gave the commander multiple headaches trying to coordinate the firepower of the tank, while also manoeuvreing and coordinating with the other arms. Our own experiments with giving crew commanders all kinds of electronic widgits might go the same way if the crew commander is being distracted from running the tank and "seeing" the immediate environment around him.
George has touched on the difference between being a 'Vehicle Mover' and a 'Crew Commander.'
The newfangled gizmos should simplify the crew commander's job of commanding his tank AS WELL AS the other tanks she may command in a Troop, Sqn Minus/Half Sqn, Sqn, Cbt Tm, BG, etc.
Everything that aids her command is useful. That which complicates her command is dangerous.
In the past, the tendency of new tank commanders transitioning from the Lynx was to pay too much attention to the turret. The Lynx allowed a 95% focus above the cuppola ring. The tank did not, due to the addition of a gunner and loader who needed direction and supervision. Add to that the nature of the beast - tank going one way, turret pointing another way - spending too much time focussed below the cuppola ring in a tank is a good way to roll a tank upside down. A tank is not a submarine.
Yet.
Someday soon, an AFV that can be successfully (meaning 'against other tanks') fought' totally hatches down may be produced. Until then, Crew Commanders will have to learn to balance controlling what is going on inside the tank with controlling what is going on outside the tank. Once that is mastered, they have to learn to command the rest of the Tp/Sqn/Cbt Tm/BG/etc as well.
As a superb DS once explained to me: "It's not an off/on switch, it's a reostat. Now a bit more turret, now a bit more driver control, now a bit more troop control, now a bit more turret, and so on."
The sheet the DS was holding in his hand was pink, not green. :-[
;D
The newfangled gizmos should simplify the crew commander's job of commanding his tank AS WELL AS the other tanks she may command in a Troop, Sqn Minus/Half Sqn, Sqn, Cbt Tm, BG, etc.
Everything that aids her command is useful. That which complicates her command is dangerous.
In the past, the tendency of new tank commanders transitioning from the Lynx was to pay too much attention to the turret. The Lynx allowed a 95% focus above the cuppola ring. The tank did not, due to the addition of a gunner and loader who needed direction and supervision. Add to that the nature of the beast - tank going one way, turret pointing another way - spending too much time focussed below the cuppola ring in a tank is a good way to roll a tank upside down. A tank is not a submarine.
Yet.
Someday soon, an AFV that can be successfully (meaning 'against other tanks') fought' totally hatches down may be produced. Until then, Crew Commanders will have to learn to balance controlling what is going on inside the tank with controlling what is going on outside the tank. Once that is mastered, they have to learn to command the rest of the Tp/Sqn/Cbt Tm/BG/etc as well.
As a superb DS once explained to me: "It's not an off/on switch, it's a reostat. Now a bit more turret, now a bit more driver control, now a bit more troop control, now a bit more turret, and so on."
The sheet the DS was holding in his hand was pink, not green. :-[
;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
CMI has updated their site with an old movie of the LCTS90 and MK8 on a Piranha II platform. Its very short and ofcours doesn't say much but I just wanted to let you know.
http://www.cmigroupe.com/vpage.php?id=75
http://www.cmigroupe.com/vpage.php?id=75
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bLy3PRW3ZM
Looks intresting
Looks intresting
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Interesting concept but the reliance on sensors, and the placing of the CC in the hull, can be problematic for situational awareness. There is also the aspect of a crew of two meaning that the CC is also the gunner which, again, would hamper SA.scottishcanuck said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Yes they need to improve that stuff. they should be able to see 360 degrees and put 2 more men.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
Quite a few design problems there. Certain sacrifices have to be made, I realize, but some things have to be maintained to ensure the effectiveness of armour. Hopefully, some of the engineering sod-ups from lessons learned with the M1 will be rectified (though it certain looks as though they've introduced new ones). Assuming the suspension is operator controlled, it looks neat.
It would be interesting to see what sort of niche they expect to use this particular vehicle in.
It would be interesting to see what sort of niche they expect to use this particular vehicle in.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4e7HVEPiWA&mode=related&search=
Nice video CV-90.
Nice video CV-90.
S
sandyson
Guest
When the talk is about air lifting tanks, usually "tanks" are the only weapon considered. What is forgotten is the team. The infantry may be light, but the recovery vehicles, the bridges (a river every 3.5 km), the armoured engineers, the sheer volume of munition, spare parts, and POLs are usually not mentioned. Unlike the one time super effort of assembling an air lift for the initial run, the logistical support is continuous. Having worked in logistics of 22nd NORAD I think someone is smoking--and its not tobacco in the pipe. The air force logistics alone would pinch the idea of air lifting armour into a battlefield. The air forces are short logistical support for their own battle. Forget it. Such air fleets haven't existed since the Berlin airlift--and that was mostly about coal not armoured logistics.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,906
- Points
- 1,160
When you simply must get through the ambush ;D
http://www.otomelara.it/products/schedule.asp?id=prod_land_aa_sidam_te
Wonder if that turret would work on a LAV, seems a tad top heavy though.
http://www.otomelara.it/products/schedule.asp?id=prod_land_aa_sidam_te
Wonder if that turret would work on a LAV, seems a tad top heavy though.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
It seems a bit of a retrograde step actually, since the trend has been for higher degrees of accuracy in the FCS and "Smart rounds" to attempt to reach the "one shot, one kill" ideal.
Anyway, if I want to punch an ambush I would preffer to load a cannister or Flechette round up the spout of a Leopard 2's 120mm cannon and follow up with coax and white phosphorus smoke grenades from the grenade dischargers. Should discourage all but the most dedicated..........
Anyway, if I want to punch an ambush I would preffer to load a cannister or Flechette round up the spout of a Leopard 2's 120mm cannon and follow up with coax and white phosphorus smoke grenades from the grenade dischargers. Should discourage all but the most dedicated..........
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Now that we have Leopard 2’s entering our inventory we should be looking ahead to how to make them more effective in Canadian service, as well as ahead to the day when they become obsolete and we need to replace them with a “Leopard 3”.
The Leopard 2 is the epitome of the “Generation 3” tank, combining high levels of mobility, protection and firepower. Like all Generation 3 tanks, it achieves its high levels of protection with massive arrays of armour, and mobility through a powerful 1500hp engine. While it is a great tank the end result is almost 70 tonnes in weight and had a fuel economy measured in “gallons per mile”, so a “Leopard 2.5” program should concentrate on those issues.
Since we are getting the uparmoured version (2A5) from the Dutch, a concerted effort should be made to find a means to replace the uparmour package with something that provides the same level of protection with far less weight. Replacing steel with ceramic materials, high density plastics and composites are all good places to start. Replacing parts like access panels, hatches and other fittings with light-weight replacements will also go some way to putting the Leopard 2 on a diet. Reducing the weight in these areas provides potential for follow on effects, such as lighter suspension, increased mobility and better fuel economy.
Automotive improvements would have to centre on a compact, fuel efficient powerpack. Greater fuel economy would translate into greater operating range. If the compact powerpack is light enough, it would also contribute to the weight reduction plan as well.
The crew will need higher levels of situational awareness in order to fight more effectively across the spectrum of conflict. Simple additions could include Urdan cupolas which lock open over the commander’s head, providing overhead protection while allowing him to operate “heads up”. A comprehensive sensor system to operate hatches down has been trailed for the LAV III, and should be included in Leopard upgrades. More advanced systems providing input from remote systems like TUAV’s or even “fire and forget” drones launched from the tank itself ( from the deck or as a through tube missile) would extend the situational awareness of the crew past the next bound or around the corner. The Israeli army already has this sort of system for their tanks and attack helicopters.
Each of these initiatives can be done independently. A Leopard 2 with lightweight armour and parts will get better mobility and fuel economy even with the current engine, while an compact fuel efficient power pack can deliver the mobility advantages to an otherwise unmodified Leopard. Improving situational awareness for the crew is best done as a separate program, and can be instituted in any Leopard with or without weight reduction or engine upgrades. The best part is since the Leopard 2 is in such wide service, there is the potential to share the R&D cost across a wide range of users, not just absorbed by the 100 tank Canadian fleet.
The Leopard 2 is the epitome of the “Generation 3” tank, combining high levels of mobility, protection and firepower. Like all Generation 3 tanks, it achieves its high levels of protection with massive arrays of armour, and mobility through a powerful 1500hp engine. While it is a great tank the end result is almost 70 tonnes in weight and had a fuel economy measured in “gallons per mile”, so a “Leopard 2.5” program should concentrate on those issues.
Since we are getting the uparmoured version (2A5) from the Dutch, a concerted effort should be made to find a means to replace the uparmour package with something that provides the same level of protection with far less weight. Replacing steel with ceramic materials, high density plastics and composites are all good places to start. Replacing parts like access panels, hatches and other fittings with light-weight replacements will also go some way to putting the Leopard 2 on a diet. Reducing the weight in these areas provides potential for follow on effects, such as lighter suspension, increased mobility and better fuel economy.
Automotive improvements would have to centre on a compact, fuel efficient powerpack. Greater fuel economy would translate into greater operating range. If the compact powerpack is light enough, it would also contribute to the weight reduction plan as well.
The crew will need higher levels of situational awareness in order to fight more effectively across the spectrum of conflict. Simple additions could include Urdan cupolas which lock open over the commander’s head, providing overhead protection while allowing him to operate “heads up”. A comprehensive sensor system to operate hatches down has been trailed for the LAV III, and should be included in Leopard upgrades. More advanced systems providing input from remote systems like TUAV’s or even “fire and forget” drones launched from the tank itself ( from the deck or as a through tube missile) would extend the situational awareness of the crew past the next bound or around the corner. The Israeli army already has this sort of system for their tanks and attack helicopters.
Each of these initiatives can be done independently. A Leopard 2 with lightweight armour and parts will get better mobility and fuel economy even with the current engine, while an compact fuel efficient power pack can deliver the mobility advantages to an otherwise unmodified Leopard. Improving situational awareness for the crew is best done as a separate program, and can be instituted in any Leopard with or without weight reduction or engine upgrades. The best part is since the Leopard 2 is in such wide service, there is the potential to share the R&D cost across a wide range of users, not just absorbed by the 100 tank Canadian fleet.
ironduke57
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 230
Regarding an new engine. There is already the EuroPowerPack. It has 1650hp, but need´s 15% less fuel and uses incl. a new gear 3 m³ less space.
Regarding add on armor weight. First the add on armor on the turret front is not solid. Here you can see how it should work.
- http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/43/2141243/1400_3035373839363966.jpg
Second the swiss developed an different Armor package for there Leo2´s called WE (Werterhaltung). It should weight less, because it should use an alloy with more titanium in it.
- http://img173.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=13640_87ka_122_179lo.jpg
- http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31407 (more info and pix)
And regarding an Leo3. ATM there is no know development in that direction.
Regards,
ironduke57
Regarding add on armor weight. First the add on armor on the turret front is not solid. Here you can see how it should work.
- http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/43/2141243/1400_3035373839363966.jpg
Second the swiss developed an different Armor package for there Leo2´s called WE (Werterhaltung). It should weight less, because it should use an alloy with more titanium in it.
- http://img173.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=13640_87ka_122_179lo.jpg
- http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31407 (more info and pix)
And regarding an Leo3. ATM there is no know development in that direction.
Regards,
ironduke57
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Interesting about the powerpack, I had heard there was something like it but never knew the details. Is anyone adopting it?
The lightweight armour package is the sort of thing I was thinking of. Even if the arrow shaped add on armour is replaced by a similar section but made of a lighter composite material, there will still be a certain weight saving and gain in mobility/fuel economy. To my mind that is a goal worth persuing.
The first linked picture of a Swiss Leopard 2 shows something on the turret roof which looks like a RWS installation?
As for the "Leopard 3", that's just wishful thinking on my part. On the other hand, what will the replacement for the Leopard 2 be called? (Plan early!)
The lightweight armour package is the sort of thing I was thinking of. Even if the arrow shaped add on armour is replaced by a similar section but made of a lighter composite material, there will still be a certain weight saving and gain in mobility/fuel economy. To my mind that is a goal worth persuing.
The first linked picture of a Swiss Leopard 2 shows something on the turret roof which looks like a RWS installation?
As for the "Leopard 3", that's just wishful thinking on my part. On the other hand, what will the replacement for the Leopard 2 be called? (Plan early!)
Similar threads
