Originally Posted by Gator

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.

We were using the M393A1s in South Korea up until 1985, then it went away, the unit I was with got the chance to shoot all of them down range along with our M392s and WP rounds, the M774s were given to the South Koreans and we switched over to the M833.

China is going out of their way at the present moment on grabbing up as much of the special metals that they can get their hands on.

Hi Supostat,

In post 16 of this thread, mention was lightly made of a discreet communications technique, the resulting systems would be immune to detection, blocking, jamming and monitoring. Over the years, this subject has been raised with a number of bodies such as those that define Military R&D programs, but has not gone any further and is one of a pair of techn ologies conceived as component systems of advanced combat robotics.

Essentially, this introduces fly-by-wire without the wire; as a result, controls need no longer be anywhere near the sensors and actuators that provide input and control data feeds.

These are far more than a system that would enable remote control, had this technology been in place at the time of 9/11, this event could not have taken place and it should be recognised, it could easily have been in place long before that date.

nero1234

I hate to be conservative, espcially when i feel my self sounding like a cavalry officer in 1916....("These funny looking metal boxes can never replace the shock of cold steel).

However, as a tank commander in the IDF i have to say a few things...

1. Thoguh all out wars with massive tank fleets seem a thing of the past, i wouldent put my money on it... After WWI all out war in europe with millions of soldiers seemed a thing of the past. When big players decide to play against each other(Russia Vs China, India Vs. Pakistan, Israel Vs. Egypt/Syria...) one of the weapons of chice will have to be the tank. Nothing takes the fight to the enemy like an armoured brigade, nothing.
2. Unamanned turrets scare me. As a tank commander i am taught to use my eyes to locate the enemy, and see the terrain. I dont see how and opics will allow me to see as well as with my head outside.
3. Autolaoders... I feel the same about them as i feel about unmanned turrets. I dont know about loaders in your army...But my loader is preetey fast, and dose good work with his MG. Not to speak of the 60mm mortar. And when you have 3 men to maintain your tank, it takes more time than a 4 men crew...

just my thoughts.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

I hate to be conservative, espcially when i feel my self sounding like a cavalry officer in 1916....("These funny looking metal boxes can never replace the shock of cold steel).

However, as a tank commander in the IDF i have to say a few things...

1. Thoguh all out wars with massive tank fleets seem a thing of the past, i wouldent put my money on it... After WWI all out war in europe with millions of soldiers seemed a thing of the past. When big players decide to play against each other(Russia Vs China, India Vs. Pakistan, Israel Vs. Egypt/Syria...) one of the weapons of chice will have to be the tank. Nothing takes the fight to the enemy like an armoured brigade, nothing.
2. Unamanned turrets scare me. As a tank commander i am taught to use my eyes to locate the enemy, and see the terrain. I dont see how and opics will allow me to see as well as with my head outside.
3. Autolaoders... I feel the same about them as i feel about unmanned turrets. I dont know about loaders in your army...But my loader is preetey fast, and dose good work with his MG. Not to speak of the 60mm mortar. And when you have 3 men to maintain your tank, it takes more time than a 4 men crew...

just my thoughts.

Sherman

1. But doesn't eliminating the 4th crewman mean you can theoretically put more tanks onto the battlefield?

2. The thing about autoloaders, its weird some guys I have spoken to hate them others don't. Its true that the early Soviet autoloaders would "attempt to load the gunner into the gun" (quote Cadet Seaman) but you take a tank like the French Leclerc which as had a very good record with its autosystem. Seems it depends on the actual tank. In theory at least reducing the number of crew is a good thing.

is it just me or did some posts here get deleted/modified?

1. But doesn't eliminating the 4th crewman mean you can theoretically put more tanks onto the battlefield?

2. The thing about autoloaders, its weird some guys I have spoken to hate them others don't. Its true that the early Soviet autoloaders would "attempt to load the gunner into the gun" (quote Cadet Seaman) but you take a tank like the French Leclerc which as had a very good record with its autosystem. Seems it depends on the actual tank. In theory at least reducing the number of crew is a good thing.

yes, but again, maitainance is a bitch and the loader is usually the commanders right hand...

The only thing I can see wrong with auto loaders is just how do they know what type of round that you will need next

You would push the ammunition select button, works along the same lines on what is used on a carousel or a bustle mounted system.

Autoloader: Thousands of moving parts.

Loader: One moving part.

Which one is more prone to failure? Sure the autoloader can't show up for duty drunk, but in most armies neither can the loader. An autoloader just adds one more piece of equipment for the crew to maintain with one fewer pair of hands to work on it. Every member of a tank crew is required to be a shade tree mechanic and is generally field promoted to grease monkey within a few months. Performance wise I am sure the autoloader can match the human loader, but it's the out of combat situations where a loader comes in handy, such as maintenance, and an autoloader probably doesn't make a very good wingman.

Auto loaders are quite reliable and do have emergency back up procedures in place. We may see a auto loader in the M1A3 upgrade while still retaining a 4 man crew. The 4 man crew versus a 3 man crew is always subject for a good debate with pros and cons on both approaches, when bigger mainguns are fielded you will not have a choice in going the auto loader route.