new big 'Ogre' tank that combines functions of tank and self-propelled howitzer?

For the shaped-charge bomb vs. battleship persons, I don't know why you are here, but there are refreshments on the dining room table. For the "the tank is dead" people: you may have a point, and I know that you are numerous, but please go make your point on another, more suitable thread.

I wrote that the future replacement for the M1 tank, with added indirect fires capability, would continue the steady weight gain of the past eighty years, which you may not agree with, but at least is reasonably arguable. I made a rough estimate of 75 or 80 tonnes. Somehow contributor Scott Kenny jumped to the weight of the Panzer VIII Maus tank, which if it had entered service would be 190 to 200 tonnes each. If you chained the very heaviest 155mm SP howitzer in the world (the Panzerhaubitze 2000) to the top of the fattest M1 tank, then you would be nowhere near this weight. In fact you could chain two PzH 2000s to the top of an M1, and still be of less weight. But following the unexplained jump to Maus mass, some commenters are debating an AFV of this unrealistic size.

For those who actually engaged with the points of my argument, and those readers who have found it interesting, I thank you. Some comments:

DWG, how could an Ogre division with c300 155mm guns be less responsive to an urgent call for indirect fires than a current armored division that has a few dozen M109s, AS-90s, or PzH 2000s? I'm not following you.

Jpa58, I did acknowledge that a 75- or 80-tonne Ogre would give even more strategic mobility headaches than today's 67-tonne M1A2. For tactical mobility (i.e. needing suitable power-to-weight and broad tracks), don't be misled by the Maus nonsense here.

Desertfox, I worry that a low-velocity 155mm would result merely in a Booker that is less useful than existing M109s, unable to shoot to the ranges that we are already accustomed to. And again, don't Maus me: I dispute that increasing from 67 up to 75-80 tonnes moves an AFV into some entirely different "superheavy" category.
 
Justo Miranda said:
To dodge the most powerful radar, it is enough to fly at a height of thirty centimeters.
Click to expand...
I don't need to get a return off your drone when it's on the wrong end of a megawatt of RF energy. Your drone lets all the magic white smoke out and stops working because it's cooked.


Owens Z said:
I wrote that the future replacement for the M1 tank, with added indirect fires capability, would continue the steady weight gain of the past eighty years, which you may not agree with, but at least is reasonably arguable. I made a rough estimate of 75 or 80 tonnes. Somehow contributor Scott Kenny jumped to the weight of the Panzer VIII Maus tank, which if it had entered service would be 190 to 200 tonnes each. If you chained the very heaviest 155mm SP howitzer in the world (the Panzerhaubitze 2000) to the top of the fattest M1 tank, then you would be nowhere near this weight. In fact you could chain two PzH 2000s to the top of an M1, and still be of less weight. But following the unexplained jump to Maus mass, some commenters are debating an AFV of this unrealistic size.
Click to expand...
I went to that weight because the modern battlefield requires 360x360deg protection equal to the current Abrams glacis. Front armor, side armor, rear armor, top armor, and bottom armor; all equal to the current Abrams glacis or turret front.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I went to that weight because the modern battlefield requires 360x360deg protection equal to the current Abrams glacis. Front armor, side armor, rear armor, top armor, and bottom armor; all equal to the current Abrams glacis or turret front.
Click to expand...
Yep. And something must be done with movement system. The tracks are far too vulnerable.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I went to that weight because the modern battlefield requires 360x360deg protection equal to the current Abrams glacis. Front armor, side armor, rear armor, top armor, and bottom armor; all equal to the current Abrams glacis or turret front.
Click to expand...
Add to that, if you're putting a 155mm gun in a tank, with enough elevation to fire at artillery arcs, and all its ammunition you're necessarily getting a much bigger volume to armour.

Modern MBTs with 120mm guns and top-end protection are easily reaching the 80 tonne mark. A 155mm gun and its ammunition would take up about twice the weight and volume of a 120mm gun. Given those two facts, I find it very hard to believe that such a tank could come in at appreciably less than 150 tonnes.

Remember that the turret of a self-propelled artillery vehicle isn't armoured to withstand direct fire. That of a tank is.

Also, I'm old enough to remember when this concept was being called the 'ArTank'. I thought it was a really neat idea. I was sixteen or seventeen at the time, and lots of things seemed like neat ideas...
 
Owens Z said:
DWG, how could an Ogre division with c300 155mm guns be less responsive to an urgent call for indirect fires than a current armored division that has a few dozen M109s, AS-90s, or PzH 2000s? I'm not following you.
Click to expand...
Think about the cost, you're not getting 300 Ogres in a division, or you're getting fewer divisions.

Even assuming 300 Ogres, 6 battalions, you need them in the front line, because they're going to be too slow to react fast if they aren't. That means the enemy can choose to engage them all at once in order to force them to commit to direct action. Even if you manage to keep some out of the line they're big sensor targets and difficult to hide, plus they reveal themselves the moment they open fire, opening themselves to counter-battery and airstrikes. And at that size they can't so much shoot and scoot as shoot and shuffle.
 
Owens Z said:
For the shaped-charge bomb vs. battleship persons, I don't know why you are here
Click to expand...
Because we've been down the heavily armoured behemoth road before, and they went the way of the dinosaurs.

Or if you want a land example, consider if there might be a reason why we never built successors to T-10, M-103 and Conqueror/Caernavon.
 
Owens Z said:
I wrote that the future replacement for the M1 tank, with added indirect fires capability, would continue the steady weight gain of the past eighty years, which you may not agree with, but at least is reasonably arguable. I made a rough estimate of 75 or 80 tonnes. Somehow contributor Scott Kenny jumped to the weight of the Panzer VIII Maus tank, which if it had entered service would be 190 to 200 tonnes each. If you chained the very heaviest 155mm SP howitzer in the world (the Panzerhaubitze 2000) to the top of the fattest M1 tank, then you would be nowhere near this weight. In fact you could chain two PzH 2000s to the top of an M1, and still be of less weight. But following the unexplained jump to Maus mass, some commenters are debating an AFV of this unrealistic size.
Click to expand...
You forgot to include the ammunition resupply vehicles for each PzH 2000. If you want artillery rates of fire you need artillery rates of ordnance supply, and next gen MBTs are struggling to fit just a couple of dozen 130/140mm rounds under armour.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Modern MBTs with 120mm guns and top-end protection are easily reaching the 80 tonne mark. A 155mm gun and its ammunition would take up about twice the weight and volume of a 120mm gun. Given those two facts, I find it very hard to believe that such a tank could come in at appreciably less than 150 tonnes.
Click to expand...
A possible solution - to use low-impulse gun. If you aren't planning to fire APDSF rounds - which could be replaced by gun-launched missiles - the low initial velocity wouldn't be much of problem.
 
Dilandu said:
A possible solution - to use low-impulse gun. If you aren't planning to fire APDSF rounds - which could be replaced by gun-launched missiles - the low initial velocity wouldn't be much of problem.
Click to expand...
Helps, but if you want to be chucking 155mm HE shells on high-angle trajectories, you're still talking about a bigger gun, with bigger shells, on a taller hull.
 
Nik said:
Didn't US super-heavy T28/T95 GMC have second sets of tracks in outrigger / sponsions ? Dismounting which reduced its ~100 tonne weight by ~25 tonnes ? And width to 'manageable' ??

But, these days, it would need a 'Stryker' turret, too...
Hmm Perhaps that could be modular like Boxer, dismounted and landed on the towed track-pair...

Snark:
"... jitter noise jam the bandwidth the drones are using..."
That's when you discover some of those drones are autonomous, HARM-tech, home on your emissions...
Oops...
/
Click to expand...
The antenna(s) and transmitter don't have to be co-located. Another idea here would be to want exactly that, except around the antenna you set up a field to zap the drones. It'd be a giant 'bug zapper.'
 
The thing with artillery is that vehicles isn't the constraint, ammo is. Artillery pieces are designed with many features that maximize efficiency of the ammo and you don't need very many of them to outshoot production, and their rear location means cheap unprotected vehicles are often sufficient. A large force of artillery vehicles just means you have no ammo to shoot out of much of it.

On the other hand, breakthrough vehicles suffers high loss rates when used as such and need to optimize for survivability. Large ammo with propellent for long range fire is just a hazard in multiple ways.

Personally I think future tanks will all use insensitive ammo and gun power will be sacrificed so that the ammo rack doesn't brew up on small penetrations.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not aware of any good options there. Tracks are simply the least-bad option.
Click to expand...
Some variation of Pedrail, probably. Replace the tracks with more sturdy "pads", designed to survive explosion - or at least not to break the whole drive unit, when knocked out.

P.S. My personal brainchild is the "Linerail"; the linear motor Pedrail, where individual "pads" are not linked, but pushed separatedly along the rails of linear motor stator. The destruction of each individual "pad" is not a problem; it could be simply detached and discharged, and the drive would continue to function.
 
I'm not sure. With increasing use of drones for counter-battery fire, loitering munitions, and powerful radars (and counter-battery radars) the 'safe-zone' is going to be pushed further back from the front than ever before (think 15km-20km). So having protected mobile artillery that can move between forward positions, and have some survivability is desirable.

So, maybe a lighter design:
- A crew of two or three in the hull
- Frontal and top armour, with spaced armour for the side and rear.
- An anti-drone system, possibly a split tread system (or wheels designed to use their teeth in an emergency for traction)
- Twenty rounds (with a rapid replenishment system)
- An unmanned turret with an artillery grade barrel (easy replacement in the field, longer time between replacements)
 
It think this sums up an Ogre nicely...

9d656d2661006fce33503d7970388979--album.jpg
 
Scott Kenny, thank you for engaging with my argument. I had thought that your unexplained jump to Maus weight was because you deny that indirect fires capability could be added to a new-design tank without more than tripling the mass, like Yellow Palace does. I admit I have never designed an AFV, but this sounded absurdly conservative. Instead, you clarify that you think Maus weight is what is needed for a future tank, regardless of any added SP howitzer capability, in order to give the tank M1A2-level glacis protection on all six sides. Okay. But don't you realize that you are necessarily saying that A) every Western MBT is completely obsolete and has been for years, and B) a replacement tank is so impractical as to be impossible? The "the tank is dead" people will agree with you, but few or no tank crewmen would. I think you are forgetting the classic triple qualities of tanks. Yes, my proposed Ogre adopts the wise British and Israeli preferred order of defense/firepower/mobility. But in the Ogre those three remain balanced, as a good tank should be. I say: modestly expand the vehicle's volume with clever design; increase the armor thickness somewhat from the latest M1, using a composite of updated superdense metals, superhard ceramics, and non-explosive reactive plates on a hammer- or press-forged framework of tough, strong Eglin or similar modern steel; and incorporate a V-shaped mine-resistant hull and the next generation of active protection from the very start. A new-design 155mm gun with extensive elevation and variable muzzle energy. An advanced high-power-to-weight engine up front and hydropneumatic suspension with wide, tough tracks (maybe a band of the latest super-textiles rather than Eglin steel treads?). All up, roughly 75 to 80 tonnes. A plausible next step upward from the M1, continuing an eighty-year trend. No Maus, no más.

No, Yellow Palace, in fact no modern MBT "easily reaches the 80-tonne mark". I believe the heftiest in the world today are that fraction of Challenger 2 tanks that have had appliqué armor added: about 71 tonnes, which (as I understand) the British Army acknowledges is a bit too heavy for the existing chassis and engine. 71 tonnes is approximately the full-load weight of the King Tiger and Jagdtiger in late WW2.

DWG, if you believe that an oncoming tank division of 300 T-90s and T-72s (plus some SP 152mm howitzers) can be defeated by a 300-Ogre division only if each and every Ogre picks one enemy to directly shoot at, then I think you are not understanding the Ogre concept. My own estimate is that 20% of the force will suffice, blowing apart the Russian-made tanks with rapid, accurate direct fire at 5 to 6 km, beyond their ability to respond. If it's two oncoming tank divisions, then make it 40%. The other 60 or 80% of Ogres will be available to rain HE and SADARM on rear echelons, and respond to indirect fire requests from friendly infantry far more heavily than any current unit could. If there is anything left of the enemy after three minutes, then shoot and scoot is standard, as it has been for decades. (Although I do not deny that there could usefully be a towed version of the Ogre's 155mm gun.) If people like even heavier weight of fire, add a Calliope-style multiple rocket launcher to the top of some Ogre turrets. Yes, the Ogre's price as well as its weight will substantially increase above the M1A2's (I mention in my original post that having one standard vehicle rather than two or more may help with costs). But if something like the Ogre is indeed required for dominance over future threats, then it's either pay up, or else drop to second-rank-power status; right? (I am omitting here the argument that tanks are obsolete and will be replaced by something entirely different, which is possible.) And yes, DWG, eventually an Ogreski or Sino-Ogre would be fielded, and sold to other unfriendly countries. I recommended developing a new 155mm-sized APFSDS dart of uranium-vanadium to defeat those when they come.
 
Weight of a vehicle, in and of itself, is an issue for moving it around. Even if you manage to get ground pressure down, you still have a mass and vibration that goes with its movement. Think of it as a sort of soil compactor. A massively heavy vehicle will through vibration accompanying its movement cause the soil to deform and compact beneath it.

Trains run on roadbeds of ballast for just this reason. The gravel of the roadbed of a rail line doesn't compact easily, will distribute and cancel out most of the vibration, leaving a stable surface for the track to ride on.
 
Owens Z said:
Scott Kenny, thank you for engaging with my argument. I had thought that your unexplained jump to Maus weight was because you deny that indirect fires capability could be added to a new-design tank without more than tripling the mass, like Yellow Palace does. I admit I have never designed an AFV, but this sounded absurdly conservative. Instead, you clarify that you think Maus weight is what is needed for a future tank, regardless of any added SP howitzer capability, in order to give the tank M1A2-level glacis protection on all six sides. Okay. But don't you realize that you are necessarily saying that A) every Western MBT is completely obsolete and has been for years, and B) a replacement tank is so impractical as to be impossible? The "the tank is dead" people will agree with you, but few or no tank crewmen would. I think you are forgetting the classic triple qualities of tanks. Yes, my proposed Ogre adopts the wise British and Israeli preferred order of defense/firepower/mobility. But in the Ogre those three remain balanced, as a good tank should be. I say: modestly expand the vehicle's volume with clever design; increase the armor thickness somewhat from the latest M1, using a composite of updated superdense metals, superhard ceramics, and non-explosive reactive plates on a hammer- or press-forged framework of tough, strong Eglin or similar modern steel; and incorporate a V-shaped mine-resistant hull and the next generation of active protection from the very start. A new-design 155mm gun with extensive elevation and variable muzzle energy. An advanced high-power-to-weight engine up front and hydropneumatic suspension with wide, tough tracks (maybe a band of the latest super-textiles rather than Eglin steel treads?). All up, roughly 75 to 80 tonnes. A plausible next step upward from the M1, continuing an eighty-year trend. No Maus, no más.
Click to expand...
The line of argument I went with assumes little to no APS systems. The classic "battleship" model, armored to take hits from its own guns.

Whereas the argument about how there's no practical amount of armor that can stop a shaped charge isn't quite true, there is armor that can stop HEAT rounds, it's called composite or Chobham. But that still means thick and bulky armor, which means the outer layer of steel is quite large and therefore heavy. But it's still relatively easy to make a shaped charge much bigger than the armor can stop for a lot less than the armor costs.

My personal mental model for a tank to replace the Abrams is one using multiple hard-kill and soft-kill APS systems in layers, conceptually like modern warship defenses. One hard-kill system with a range of most of a kilometer or more, able to intercept or deflect long-rods. Another hard-kill system with a range of about half a kilometer, also able to intercept or deflect long-rods. A third hard-kill system with a range of about 250m. And finally a fourth system as the final defense before the armor, conceptually like the Iron Curtain APS. Assuming a long-rod taking a shot at ~5000m, your tank has a total of about 3000ms to deal with the attack (maybe more, assuming laser detectors and the usual timing of tank gunnery commands). This means your rockets will have to be FAST, on the order of Sprint fast, 100+gees. But all that is doable, just expensive and somewhat time-consuming to develop. Your APS will need to have a 360x180 or wider field of fire, to engage top attack projectiles and FPS kamikazes.

Now, that's all well and good for the upper side of the tank.

The underside protection is going to end up rather heavy, because there's no space for any APS to protect versus the mines and IEDs. This means double vee hulls and no more torsion bar suspension systems, rather using external springs like the Merkava does. This may end up using titanium plates for lightness.

That said, underside protection is about not allowing the crew or internal systems to be damaged by the force of the blast. The tank proper will still be immobilized for a while.
 
Owens Z said:
DWG, if you believe that an oncoming tank division of 300 T-90s and T-72s (plus some SP 152mm howitzers) can be defeated by a 300-Ogre division
Click to expand...
We see divisions of T-72s and T-90s wrecked by dudes with pickup trucks with Brimestone Spike Tow Quadcopters. Its just not a credible threat, the only good reason to invest in new vehicles is to deal with future threats.

The other 60 or 80% of Ogres will be available to rain HE and SADARM
Click to expand...
A bunch of 10ton MRLS trucks can have greater throw weight at 25 70 130km with cheap guided munitions not having to survive the shock of gun like acceleration. Vehicles with mechanized fast rearm, unparalleled ROF and large ammo weight fraction just dumps out throw weight far easier.

But if something like the Ogre is indeed required for dominance over future threats, then it's either pay up, or else drop to second-rank-power status; right?
Click to expand...
The United states and Britain didn't have a tank that can match the panther never mind tiger 2 or Maus. They must have 2nd rank power that lost the war right?

Frankly the tank never was that important, a superior air force could and did induce genocide on the opponent. The tank was just an "extension of politics" asset in which opponent's resistance could be broken via maneuver without killing everyone as fires would be limited to.

And that was before the PGM revolution.

Frankly, it didn't matter if say the Iraqis and ogres or armatas or whatever, all it means is that the USAF have to bomb them a few more days.
 
Owens Z said:
What do you all think of a new heavyweight AFV that combines the functions of a tank and a self-propelled howitzer? If it makes you more comfortable, then we could call it an assault gun combined with a self-propelled howitzer.
Click to expand...
While not a heavyweight by any means... An early Iteration of the Future Combat System combined direct and indirect fire into one high-angle 105mm cased-telescoped cannon called the Multi-Role Armament and Ammunition System (MRAAS). The MRAAS was to fire HEAT, Sabot, and cargo rounds utizling electro-thermal chemical (ETC) ignition, with their cargo shells having a designed range of 50km!

A prototype gun was tested, however fitting everything on an 18-ton C-130 sized chassis was a problem that could not be solved.
1727632973480.png
 
isayyo2 said:
While not a heavyweight by any means... An early Iteration of the Future Combat System combined direct and indirect fire into one high-angle 105mm cased-telescoped cannon called the Multi-Role Armament and Ammunition System (MRAAS). The MRAAS was to fire HEAT, Sabot, and cargo rounds utizling electro-thermal chemical (ETC) ignition, with their cargo shells having a designed range of 50km!

A prototype gun was tested, however fitting everything on an 18-ton C-130 sized chassis was a problem that could not be solved.
View attachment 742506
Click to expand...
Huh, that must have come and gone while I was underway... I don't remember seeing anything about that version!
 
Scott Kenny said:
The line of argument I went with assumes little to no APS systems. The classic "battleship" model, armored to take hits from its own guns.

Whereas the argument about how there's no practical amount of armor that can stop a shaped charge isn't quite true, there is armor that can stop HEAT rounds, it's called composite or Chobham. But that still means thick and bulky armor, which means the outer layer of steel is quite large and therefore heavy. But it's still relatively easy to make a shaped charge much bigger than the armor can stop for a lot less than the armor costs.

My personal mental model for a tank to replace the Abrams is one using multiple hard-kill and soft-kill APS systems in layers, conceptually like modern warship defenses. One hard-kill system with a range of most of a kilometer or more, able to intercept or deflect long-rods. Another hard-kill system with a range of about half a kilometer, also able to intercept or deflect long-rods. A third hard-kill system with a range of about 250m. And finally a fourth system as the final defense before the armor, conceptually like the Iron Curtain APS. Assuming a long-rod taking a shot at ~5000m, your tank has a total of about 3000ms to deal with the attack (maybe more, assuming laser detectors and the usual timing of tank gunnery commands). This means your rockets will have to be FAST, on the order of Sprint fast, 100+gees. But all that is doable, just expensive and somewhat time-consuming to develop. Your APS will need to have a 360x180 or wider field of fire, to engage top attack projectiles and FPS kamikazes.

Now, that's all well and good for the upper side of the tank.

The underside protection is going to end up rather heavy, because there's no space for any APS to protect versus the mines and IEDs. This means double vee hulls and no more torsion bar suspension systems, rather using external springs like the Merkava does. This may end up using titanium plates for lightness.

That said, underside protection is about not allowing the crew or internal systems to be damaged by the force of the blast. The tank proper will still be immobilized for a while.
Click to expand...

I see. If I am reading correctly, then I think you and I are on the same page about this. I asked for "the next generation of active protection" to be designed into the Ogre from the ground up (i.e. not as some afterthought). Your more detailed info on exactly what "next generation" would entail sounds good. We do want to spare nearby infantry and soft vehicles from damage by the active protection's use if at all possible: one of the reasons why I prefer non-explosive reactive plates rather than explosive.
 
isayyo2 said:
While not a heavyweight by any means... An early Iteration of the Future Combat System combined direct and indirect fire into one high-angle 105mm cased-telescoped cannon called the Multi-Role Armament and Ammunition System (MRAAS). The MRAAS was to fire HEAT, Sabot, and cargo rounds utizling electro-thermal chemical (ETC) ignition, with their cargo shells having a designed range of 50km!

A prototype gun was tested, however fitting everything on an 18-ton C-130 sized chassis was a problem that could not be solved.
Click to expand...

Thanks, isayyo2. I had considered briefly mentioning a mini version of the Ogre in my original post (roughly an updated M24 Chaffee crossed with FV433 Abbot at c18 tonnes), but the post was already long, it would unfocus the thread, and I have never been sold on the battlefield utility of a light tank. The very term "light tank" has been discouraged since the 1970s, as disparaging. I didn't know that a prototype direct/indirect 105mm gun had actually been built and fired until I read your note; this is interesting. For the full-sized Ogre, I specified simply a "new design" 155mm gun to keep things free instead of getting bogged down in details, like using the successful German dual-recoil sliding system, or the electrothermal-chemical ignition, liquid propellant, RAVEN opening-breech system, etc. that (I heard thirdhand) have never really worked out.
 
shin_getter said:
We see divisions of T-72s and T-90s wrecked by dudes with pickup trucks with Brimestone Spike Tow Quadcopters. Its just not a credible threat, the only good reason to invest in new vehicles is to deal with future threats.
Click to expand...
How well have those T-90s and other high-end Russian AFVs been employed? It doesn't matter how good your gear is when the situation is FUBAR from top-to-bottom as it has been much of the war. Would Ukrainian forces have been able to conduct any of the counterattacks they have without their AFVs? Unlikely, especially the most recent one into Russian territory. Having such assets is far better than committing to a light force that would be primarily restrictive to a purely defensive action. Such a force would be extremely vulnerable if their opponent were to gain the advantage at countering their UAVs and their ability to spot targets for guided artillery and missiles.
 
Owens Z said:
I see. If I am reading correctly, then I think you and I are on the same page about this. I asked for "the next generation of active protection" to be designed into the Ogre from the ground up (i.e. not as some afterthought). Your more detailed info on exactly what "next generation" would entail sounds good. We do want to spare nearby infantry and soft vehicles from damage by the active protection's use if at all possible: one of the reasons why I prefer non-explosive reactive plates rather than explosive.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. I'm still expecting the "Abrams replacement Tank" to weigh in at no more than ~60 tonnes, max, and ideally more like the low 50s.

It's going to get more stuff added to it over the course of the tank's life, and there's also dozer blades or mine plows/rollers to stick on the front.

But the logistics of moving something as heavy as the SEP3 with mine rollers is that 84 tonnes is at least 10 tonnes too heavy. So you gotta backtrack from that to the max the roads and bridges can handle (iirc that was ~75 tonnes), then take off the mine rollers and then drop the vehicle weight by at least another 10-15% from that to allow for growth over time. That's what makes your starting max weight.

So, I'd say that the replacement would have heavy protection on the turret front, glacis, and belly, with the sides and top having less strict armor thickness and more layers of APS in play. Though I have seen a vehicle with a mine/IED APS, it was a dedicated chunk of hardware that took up an entire 8x8 at present. Russian Mista system, IIRC, it's used to lead the convoys of road-mobile ICBMs and destroy mines and IEDs before they can hurt the lead vehicle, let alone the TELs it's escorting.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Having such assets is far better than committing to a light force that would be primarily restrictive to a purely defensive action. Such a force would be extremely vulnerable if their opponent were to gain the advantage at countering their UAVs and their ability to spot targets for guided artillery and missiles.
Click to expand...
Light forces like those on motorbikes and golf carts are conducting assaults too. With sufficient superiority in fires it generates results too.

If the critical capability is CUAV or LRPF than figure out that vehicle first and leave less important capabilities to left overs in budget.

Scott Kenny said:
My personal mental model for a tank to replace the Abrams is one using multiple hard-kill and soft-kill APS systems in layers, conceptually like modern warship defenses.
Click to expand...
The big difference between ships and land vehicles is that ships are more efficient the larger they are, up to the point of 300k ton tankers, while land vehicles is less efficient as you get bigger, especially with unprepared surfaces. As such, it makes sense to split weapon systems amongst multiple vehicles as opposed to attempting Vickers A1E1 all over again.

The line of thinking of stacking defenses is always grossly underestimating the value of "defensive" weapons. If you could build an FCS that can swat at Sabot at 1km, why stick it on a "tank" with no ammo load when it really should be on a dedicated vehicle with enough ammo to defeat an artillery barrage? If your FCS can react to a Sabot just showing up, its fast enough to instantly inflict first shot against land vehicles moving into position, and blinding to cause mission kill is a proven concept. If the range is 1km then a single vehicle can cover a formation with careful positioning.

The existence of super Sprint missiles all over the place also means no one will bother with a single sabot dart that gets intercepted, they'd MRLS a entire salvo of HVM to defeat defenses.

There is the relative price of things. A metal box with a diesel and steel tube is centuries old tech and cost relatively little, as personal vehicles can now have comparable engine power. An FCS with sensors that can swat out a sabot is extremely expensive, consider how everything from Pansirs to S400s fail to intercept slower projectiles considering their market prices.

The problem with highly armored sensor-rich vehicle is that the expensive part is not actually armored.

--------------
Ultimately if a "invulnerable vehicle" is feasible on the backs of projectile interception at modern technology, naval battles would be about ramming. If it is about using projectiles to intercept, the interceptor projectiles quickly becomes the attack projectile.
 
There have been statements on this forum as to the weight of the M1 when fitted with various 'kit' as being in the hundred ton range.

Seriously needed, is a factual range for weights of various base and enhamced kit levels.

A replacement in the near to medium future SHOULD seek to reduce weight where feasible.

New materials and looking forwards, powerplants with differing requirements for fuel/energy storage. this will affect packaging.

Not much attention has been obvious as to the efficacy of active and passive systems for ATGM/drone attack, let alone the use of IED and similar ambush tactics. We cannot consider the replacement until we do.

Deployment, what WILL the force be made up of? Ad hoc attachments as with the battle group or more fixed setups? How will we manage dissimilar and peer/near peer threats?

All this chat about 'stuff' is, I am sorry to say - pointless until we have a clear defininition of what we will face and jhow we will face it.
 
shin_getter said:
The big difference between ships and land vehicles is that ships are more efficient the larger they are, up to the point of 300k ton tankers, while land vehicles is less efficient as you get bigger, especially with unprepared surfaces. As such, it makes sense to split weapon systems amongst multiple vehicles as opposed to attempting Vickers A1E1 all over again.
Click to expand...
Needs to be stuck on no more than a platoon's worth of vehicles, based on modern US/NATO operations that have a tank battalion and a mechanized infantry battalion swapping companies, and then effectively swapping platoons inside the companies. So the "Armored" companies have 2 tank platoons and 1 mechanized infantry platoon, the "Mechanized" companies have 1 tank platoon and 2 mechanized infantry platoons. (IIRC the Future Combat Systems model was actually 2 tank platoons and 2 mechanized infantry platoons natively in companies)



shin_getter said:
The line of thinking of stacking defenses is always grossly underestimating the value of "defensive" weapons. If you could build an FCS that can swat at Sabot at 1km, why stick it on a "tank" with no ammo load when it really should be on a dedicated vehicle with enough ammo to defeat an artillery barrage? If your FCS can react to a Sabot just showing up, its fast enough to instantly inflict first shot against land vehicles moving into position, and blinding to cause mission kill is a proven concept. If the range is 1km then a single vehicle can cover a formation with careful positioning.

The existence of super Sprint missiles all over the place also means no one will bother with a single sabot dart that gets intercepted, they'd MRLS a entire salvo of HVM to defeat defenses.
Click to expand...
Known issue for Aegis. Didn't stop the US from developing it.



shin_getter said:
There is the relative price of things. A metal box with a diesel and steel tube is centuries old tech and cost relatively little, as personal vehicles can now have comparable engine power. An FCS with sensors that can swat out a sabot is extremely expensive, consider how everything from Pansirs to S400s fail to intercept slower projectiles considering their market prices.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is functionally a mini-Aegis unit which will not be cheap.

Is not installing such a system affordable in the sense of how many tanks we'd lose due to the lack of such?


shin_getter said:
The problem with highly armored sensor-rich vehicle is that the expensive part is not actually armored.
Click to expand...
No argument there, the radar TRMs all need to be outside the armor. Or we need to develop armored radomes for the radars...
 
GTX said:
I believe the goal for M1E3 is 60 - 65 tonnes
Click to expand...
Scott Kenny said:
Not exactly. I'm still expecting the "Abrams replacement Tank" to weigh in at no more than ~60 tonnes, max, and ideally more like the low 50s.

It's going to get more stuff added to it over the course of the tank's life, and there's also dozer blades or mine plows/rollers to stick on the front.

But the logistics of moving something as heavy as the SEP3 with mine rollers is that 84 tonnes is at least 10 tonnes too heavy. So you gotta backtrack from that to the max the roads and bridges can handle (iirc that was ~75 tonnes), then take off the mine rollers and then drop the vehicle weight by at least another 10-15% from that to allow for growth over time. That's what makes your starting max weight.

So, I'd say that the replacement would have heavy protection on the turret front, glacis, and belly, with the sides and top having less strict armor thickness and more layers of APS in play. Though I have seen a vehicle with a mine/IED APS, it was a dedicated chunk of hardware that took up an entire 8x8 at present. Russian Mista system, IIRC, it's used to lead the convoys of road-mobile ICBMs and destroy mines and IEDs before they can hurt the lead vehicle, let alone the TELs it's escorting.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong, Scott. To lose c15 tonnes from the current M1A2's 67 tonnes will necessarily mean less protection for the crew, whatever active systems are used. That would not be tolerated. I think I have history on my side: the steady and continuous rise in weight of MBTs over the past eighty years, which I say will continue for another generation. And weapons systems tend not to shrink after some peak: instead, they steadily increase in size over the years until they disappear (e.g. line-of-battle sailing ships, dreadnought battleships, etc.).

You haven't yet commented on the main point of this thread: the usefulness and practicality of an AFV that combines the functions of a tank and a self-propelled howitzer.
 
Last edited:
Owens Z said:
I think you are wrong, Scott. To lose c15 tonnes from the current M1A2's 67 tonnes will necessarily mean less protection for the crew, whatever active systems are used. That would not be tolerated. I think I have history of my side: the steady and continuous rise in weight of MBTs over the past eighty years, which I say will continue for another generation. And weapons systems tend not to shrink after some peak: instead, they steadily increase in size over the years until they disappear (e.g. line-of-battle sailing ships, dreadnought battleships, etc.).
Click to expand...
Well, the M1E3 is getting a new turret, differently shaped so as to incorporate APS directly instead of slapping it on the sides like the SEP3 does and then needing turret counterweights to balance everything out again.

IIRC just ditching those counterweights accounts for 3-5 tons of weight savings, not counting whatever weight reductions the new turret shape gets.

Swapping torsion bars for hydropneumatic in-arm suspension units or even just coil springs outside the armor like Merkava would save weight (IIRC coils are lighter than torsion bars), plus you can save weight by going to an all-rubber track instead of an all-steel track. A single Abrams track link is ~50lbs.


Owens Z said:
You haven't yet commented on the main point of this thread: the usefulness and practicality of an AFV that combines the functions of a tank and a self-propelled howitzer.
Click to expand...
? You're right, I haven't. My bad.

I don't think it's a good idea. Yes, the gun may grow all the way to a 155mm if someone figures out some super-fancy armor. Or if someone figures out a new 155mm GL-ATGM with guidance that doesn't get KO'd by firing a HEAT or HE round.

But in general, tanks are supposed to be direct fire artillery.

There may be some validity to putting the next generation arty onto the same chassis as the MBT, keeping the underhull protection and some of the overhead protection. But I'd rather trade armor thickness for increased ammunition capacity for Artillery vehicles.
 
Not intending to sound harsh, but maybe the reason, quote,
'You haven't yet commented on the main point of this thread: the usefulness and practicality of an AFV that combines the functions of a tank and a self-propelled howitzer.'
Is because the idea concept and point itself us useless and impractical.
My personal thinking is theres just no way to equate a what sounds like a theoretical 'warhammer' type 'ogre' vehicle with RL. timeline development based upon actual experience and development

Thread 'Mortars as anti-tank weapons?' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mortars-as-anti-tank-weapons.9614/
 
Last edited:
TsrJoe, arguments are fine; you are free to be as harsh here as you like. You write that "...the idea, concept, and point itself [of this thread are] useless and impractical"; that "there's just no way". You're not arguing anything, you are just asserting. This is even worse than Scott Kenny's argument-from-authority that a tank must by definition shoot only direct fire. Whereas the second paragraph of my original post pointed out that tanks have been used for indirect fires for a long time, most famously in the Korean War!

I asked the "the tank is dead" people to remove themselves to a more suitable thread, and they (mostly) have done so. For those who are interested in the topic of this thread, please do pick apart any of the points I have made, as harshly as you like, with your own informed arguments. I have given point-by-point reasons to back up my position, open to all. "Argle bargle" gives me and others nothing to engage with.

Foo Fighter, point taken. For the record, I myself do not believe that tanks in general are obsolete in 2024, and I do believe that the US Army's current M1 tanks (and by extension other Western MBTs) can handle any possible adversary tanks today, even if well outnumbered. And the basic M1 design probably has a bit more life in it for further upgrades. Nevertheless, appropriate planning for the future remains essential, to keep the current superiority intact. Especially with today's creakingly long gestation times, starting to plan the next generation of tank is today's job. The cancelled Russian T-95 tank was due to have a monster 152mm gun, and the second-generation Armata is rumored to be considering the same 152mm. Fortunately Russia is short of cash at the moment, and its arms factories are helpfully being blown apart by drones as we speak. But to sit around "until we have a clear definition of what we will face and how we will face it" is to wait until the threat is on top of us. Unwise.
 
Owens Z said:
TsrJoe, arguments are fine; you are free to be as harsh here as you like. You write that "...the idea, concept, and point itself [of this thread are] useless and impractical"; that "there's just no way". You're not arguing anything, you are just asserting. This is even worse than Scott Kenny's argument-from-authority that a tank must by definition shoot only direct fire. Whereas the second paragraph of my original post pointed out that tanks have been used for indirect fires for a long time, most famously in the Korean War!
Click to expand...
I said "in general, tanks are supposed to be direct fire artillery."

Key words there IN GENERAL.

Yes, tanks fire beyond line of sight. IIRC it's still a required part of the (US Army) FCS that they have artillery tables built in, so they can punt HEAT rounds out to "interesting" distances. As happens accidentally when someone has the FCS set to HEAT with a sabot loaded. Yakima High School got a new gym roof after one gunner did that. Fortunately nobody was in the gym when the dart landed, IIRC it was a night shoot so the tankers saw the tracer go way up into the sky and knew they had oopsed.

You see two sets of acronyms get used for gun ammo (and missiles). BLOS and NLOS. BLOS is Beyond Line of Sight, NLOS is Non Line of Sight. The usual difference I've seen in terms of how they're used is that BLOS is less than 10km range, while NLOS is upwards of 25km.

The major problem is that tank guns fire at such high velocities for the long-rods to work that they don't get a good drop to hit behind hills and things until you are at really extreme ranges, effectively making a large "donut" of area that a tank gun cannot effectively engage without guided ammunition. For example, the KSTAM top-attack munition pops a parachute out to give better angles and to drop more vertically onto a piece of dead ground or whatever.

To use artillery terms for tanks for a second: tanks are set up to always fire at charge super for artillery. So you don't have the easy ability to reduce the propellant charge to have your shots drop more vertically at short ranges; instead you have to use guided ammunition.
 
A LV/MV 155mm version of the Booker might not be a bad idea. But its not the same as a HV 155mm Abrams which is very likely unworkable, trying to do everything at once just is not going to work.
 
Scott Kenny said:
To use artillery terms for tanks for a second: tanks are set up to always fire at charge super for artillery. So you don't have the easy ability to reduce the propellant charge to have your shots drop more vertically at short ranges; instead you have to use guided ammunition.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I asked people to keep an open mind and not be hung up on how things have "always" been done. For the notional Ogre, I asked for a new-design 155mm gun with unusually extensive elevation and heretofore-unheard-of variable muzzle energy; thinking outside the box rather than be married to existing paradigms. You are right; the design effort for such a gun (and the Ogre itself) would not be easy. Absolute maximum muzzle energy at 0-degree elevation to put a uranium-vanadium APFSDS dart through an Ogreski or Sino-Ogre spotted 5 km away, and at 47 degrees to put an HE shell as far as it can possibly go in response to a desperate call for help. Or a gentle puff at maximum elevation to put an HE shell on the reverse slope of the next hill, and at 0 degrees to affix a squash head round to a stone wall in front of you. And to do all four of those shots from one vehicle within a minute or two. I didn't get into details of exactly how to achieve variable muzzle energy within the next ten years or so, because I am not privy to secret info, and because the interesting things that have made it out to the public, like electrothermal-chemical ignition, liquid propellants, the RAVEN opening-breech system, etc. have not seemed to actually work, so far at least.
 
Owens Z said:
Agreed. I asked people to keep an open mind and not be hung up on how things have "always" been done. For the notional Ogre, I asked for a new-design 155mm gun with unusually extensive elevation and heretofore-unheard-of variable muzzle energy; thinking outside the box rather than be married to existing paradigms. You are right; the design effort for such a gun (and the Ogre itself) would not be easy. Absolute maximum muzzle energy at 0-degree elevation to put a uranium-vanadium APFSDS dart through an Ogreski or Sino-Ogre spotted 5 km away, and at 47 degrees to put an HE shell as far as it can possibly go in response to a desperate call for help. Or a gentle puff at maximum elevation to put an HE shell on the reverse slope of the next hill, and at 0 degrees to affix a squash head round to a stone wall in front of you. And to do all four of those shots from one vehicle within a minute or two. I didn't get into details of exactly how to achieve variable muzzle energy within the next ten years or so, because I am not privy to secret info, and because the interesting things that have made it out to the public, like electrothermal-chemical ignition, liquid propellants, the RAVEN opening-breech system, etc. have not seemed to actually work, so far at least.
Click to expand...
The easiest ways to achieve the variable muzzle velocity you're talking about is either artillery-style different charge levels or a railgun/coilgun (I'm going to stick with railgun, even though most of the guns have been coils).

Downside of the artillery style is greatly reduced rate of fire if you need to pull charges out of a round. Also, the ERCA charge super loading was longer than a 155mm shell by a significant amount, and was really too big to load by hand.

Issue with railguns is the sheer power necessary, which doesn't easily fit into tanks yet. Imagine needing a 3000hp engine to power the railgun, separately from powering the chassis.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The easiest ways to achieve the variable muzzle velocity you're talking about is either artillery-style different charge levels or a railgun/coilgun (I'm going to stick with railgun, even though most of the guns have been coils).

Downside of the artillery style is greatly reduced rate of fire if you need to pull charges out of a round. Also, the ERCA charge super loading was longer than a 155mm shell by a significant amount, and was really too big to load by hand.

Issue with railguns is the sheer power necessary, which doesn't easily fit into tanks yet. Imagine needing a 3000hp engine to power the railgun, separately from powering the chassis.
Click to expand...

I agree that the existing method of adjusting a 155mm howitzer's muzzle energy (by varying sizes of propellant bags), while acceptable for an Ogre's leisurely shooting day, wouldn't work in an all-out fight. I don't know how best to accomplish the needed variable muzzle energy, and of course I'm not demanding a laid-out solution from you all. It's too bad that liquid propellants haven't worked out. Ogre would necessarily start as a research project, not something that could be built next year even given a "waste everything except time" unlimited budget (unless DARPA is driving something around the salt flats of Groom Lake that we don't know about). I suggested to Foo Fighter that the project for a replacement for the M1 when that successful tank at last becomes obsolescent in another decade or so should start today.

Railguns powered by superconducting capacitors, lasers or particle beams that could melt through current tank armor in a fraction of a second without thermal blooming, anti-kaiju Atomic Heat Ray Guns or Maser Cannons, etc., if they ever work at all, are weapons for the generations after Ogre, and therefore are not covered in this thread. Ogre would be a relatively conventional tank, somewhat bigger, with the next generation of defense, firepower, and mobility, whose one all-new feature is being able to provide direct and indirect fires with equal facility, to win out over tomorrow's threats.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom