Which comment?

Originally Posted by Gator

Which comment?

The first.

Originally Posted by Gator

Dual Purpose and Sabot Rounds are easier to come by than Interchangable Caliber Tubes.

.

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

Are you basing that comment on the U.S still sitting with the mind set that we will only engage former Eastern block armor threats.

Dual Purpose and Sabot Rounds are easier to come by than Interchangable Caliber Tubes. The Tubes being Changed would mean new sized ammo Rounds, how many Rounds does a Tank carry now? How many more could a Tank carry if different sizes were needed? Would they all fit nicely inside the Ammo Storage Compartment of the Tank? Or would the Tank need different Compartments for different sized Rounds? What about the Auto-Loader, would that need to be switched out as well?

As for Tanks, doesnt matter who the US fights, I believe large scale Tank on Tank Battles are a thing of the past, and, Tanks are, in my opinion, not good for City Fighting when large groups of Terrorists are involved and intermixed with Civilians, which makes the MBT not a good use of limited Tax Dollars, in my own opinion.
Missiles are more common on the Battlefield, and one doesnt even need the Delivery System of a Missile now, all one needs is the EFP Warhead, or an EFP IED.

I believe the SP Gun is the best use of Military Funds. The SP Gun can be used as a highly mobile Firebase, if I had my way I'd bring back the 8 inch SP Guns, and the 175MM SP Guns, to be used along with the 155MM SP Gun.

Originally Posted by Gator

.As for Tanks, doesnt matter who the US fights, I believe large scale Tank on Tank Battles are a thing of the past, and, Tanks are, in my opinion, not good for City Fighting when large groups of Terrorists are involved and intermixed with Civilians, which makes the MBT not a good use of limited Tax Dollars, in my own opinion.
Missiles are more common on the Battlefield, and one doesnt even need the Delivery System of a Missile now, all one needs is the EFP Warhead, or an EFP IED.

I believe the SP Gun is the best use of Military Funds. The SP Gun can be used as a highly mobile Firebase, if I had my way I'd bring back the 8 inch SP Guns, and the 175MM SP Guns, to be used along with the 155MM SP Gun.

However, in Chechnya actually tanks were used often to sweep out terrorists/rebels of houses in which they were fortified. 30mm HE rounds of BMP-2 cannon was not powerful enough, and artillery did no provide accuracy enough to hit a certain building. Then tank was driven into position and made a one or more direct hits into target with its 125mm HE rounds.

Originally Posted by Supostat

However, in Chechnya actually tanks were used often to sweep out terrorists/rebels of houses in which they were fortified. 30mm HE rounds of BMP-2 cannon was not powerful enough, and artillery did no provide accuracy enough to hit a certain building. Then tank was driven into position and made a one or more direct hits into target with its 125mm HE rounds.

When I was an Engineer we had a 165mm Demolition Gun on what was called the CEV, the Combat Engineer Vehicle.....
Looked like this




Not a MBT, not anything close to it, but it sure got the job done as far as the Battlefield Engineer Mission, and, with 165MM HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) Round, we could do a lot of damage with that puppy.
We could also clear Minefields with it and a host of other Engineer missions.
You think something like that would have gotten the job done in Chechnya?

Originally Posted by Gator

We could also clear Minefields with it and a host of other Engineer missions.
You think something like that would have gotten the job done in Chechnya?

Nop, ordinary (common) T-62/72/80:

http://www.pbase.com/igor01/image/1744281/original

Of course, if possible artillery also was used, but the point was that MBT still can be useful in anti-guerilla war.

Originally Posted by Gator

.



Dual Purpose and Sabot Rounds are easier to come by than Interchangable Caliber Tubes. The Tubes being Changed would mean new sized ammo Rounds, how many Rounds does a Tank carry now? How many more could a Tank carry if different sizes were needed? Would they all fit nicely inside the Ammo Storage Compartment of the Tank? Or would the Tank need different Compartments for different sized Rounds? What about the Auto-Loader, would that need to be switched out as well?

As for Tanks, doesnt matter who the US fights, I believe large scale Tank on Tank Battles are a thing of the past, and, Tanks are, in my opinion, not good for City Fighting when large groups of Terrorists are involved and intermixed with Civilians, which makes the MBT not a good use of limited Tax Dollars, in my own opinion.
Missiles are more common on the Battlefield, and one doesnt even need the Delivery System of a Missile now, all one needs is the EFP Warhead, or an EFP IED.

I believe the SP Gun is the best use of Military Funds. The SP Gun can be used as a highly mobile Firebase, if I had my way I'd bring back the 8 inch SP Guns, and the 175MM SP Guns, to be used along with the 155MM SP Gun.

Interchangable gun tube technology has been around now for quite some time especially with the U.S, this is most likely the type of gun system that we will replace the M256 with when the M1A3 makes it debut, the breech and recoil mechanism will be able to use a 120 or 140 mm gun tube. A gun tube is really not that difficult to change out on a M1 or LEO 2 series tank, pop out 2 retaining pins rotate it out of the buttress threads and slide it out and replace. Also the M1A3 will most likely sport a universal automatic loading system that will be housed in the rear turret area. This gun system should also work on the FCS system also by using lighter alloys such as titanium for strength.

We are pretty much at our limits with 120mm KE projectiles including DU alloy, the key to engaging a opponents armor is at the max distance as possible, we have always settled for the 2000 meter engagement range and with the possibility of future ballistic armor designs being researched by some countries we may be hard pressed to maintain that goal. ETC technology is still around 10 - 15 years from having a gun system that will withstand the battlefield environment and a 140mm will give close performance levels to that system.

Everyone is under the impression that all future conflicts will be small scale operations only, but our potential future opponents keep mass producing tanks like there is no tomorrow, some of these militaries are no pushovers like what was the case of Iraq, they know how to fight a air land battle doctrine also and they have the technology to back it up. You will see the U.S Army and U.S Marines keeping their heavy sleds for quite along time.

Also we are fighting smarter now in Iraq with vehicles that are better capable in a urbanized environment versus having to use a tank.

Here is a proto type M1A3 and a future M1 series auto loader

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

Also we are fighting smarter now in Iraq with vehicles that are better capable in a urbanized environment versus having to use a tank.

MBT still can be used in urban areas, but it requires appropriate tactics, in general from nearby infantry.

How about US plans to introduce a full-effect HE rounds for 120mm `Rheinmetall` instead of dual purpose HEATs? Does such idea exist?

Originally Posted by Supostat

MBT still can be used in urban areas, but it requires appropriate tactics, in general from nearby infantry.

How about US plans to introduce a full-effect HE rounds for 120mm `Rheinmetall` instead of dual purpose HEATs? Does such idea exist?

Agreed - tanks can be used when dealing with enemy strong points just as long that you can provide flank and rear security for it, using them for patroling or convoy escort duty does nothing but turn it into a moving target. Other vehicles are better adapted for this type of scenario and are being fielded by Russia and the U.S as you know.

We have all kinds of different projectiles in the works for the M256/L44, the problem with my Defense Department is that it takes them way too long to field something, here is some of the ones we may see.

M-830 MPAT Airburst projectile
M-1028 Cannister projectile
M-1069 Full bore Multi purpose.

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

Agreed - tanks can be used when dealing with enemy strong points just as long that you can provide flank and rear security for it, using them for patroling or convoy escort duty does nothing but turn it into a moving target. Other vehicles are better adapted for this type of scenario and are being fielded by Russia and the U.S as you know.

We have all kinds of different projectiles in the works for the M256/L44, the problem with my Defense Department is that it takes them way too long to field something, here is some of the ones we may see.

M-830 MPAT Airburst projectile
M-1028 Cannister projectile
M-1069 Full bore Multi purpose.

Airburst can be accomplished with fuzing on a standard HE Round, by way of a MTSQ or VT Fuze. The PD Fuze on the same Round would be good for Hardened Targets such as a House or Bunkers.
With everyone going big on Armor and Crew Protection, I believe the HVAPDS to still be the best for AT.

Canister Projectiles have been around for a long, long time, they were used in the Civil War here in the US, a lot like the Grape Shot also used.
I'm a big fan of the Flechette Round myself.
Tungsten is nice, but expensive, and, hard to come by in the US. Seems China has the largest deposits of Tungsten, and I do not believe it wise for the United States to be dependent on other Nations for National Defense Systems.

I believe the reason it takes the DoD so long to put something out into the Field is everyone keeps trying to reinvent the wheel, so to speak.