European MGCS ( Main Ground Combat System)

kqcke for you said:
As far as i know both rounds are supposed to be the same in case diameter and length.
Click to expand...
Hrm. Interesting. That certainly removes one easy choice option.


kqcke for you said:
Things the projectile diameter, max./min. ... pressure are different.
Click to expand...
Given equal length penetrators, I'd rather have the one that runs at the lower pressure. Gives you more development room later on.



kqcke for you said:
And even if one is some 10-50mm longer the extra 10mm diameter are also „important“ for NLOS munitions.
Click to expand...
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. The Javelin is a 120mm (or close to that) diameter, so if the seeker etc fits in that form factor it'll fit in either one just fine.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Given equal length penetrators, I'd rather have the one that runs at the lower pressure. Gives you more development room later on.
Click to expand...
I try to look into it later to which has which.
Scott Kenny said:
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. The Javelin is a 120mm (or close to that) diameter, so if the seeker etc fits in that form factor it'll fit in either one just fine.
Click to expand...
Yes they javelin which both don't produce. In the end the 140mm makes it easier for france to refit ther MMP for example to which germany (rheinmetall) has no alternative.
 
Slightly amused that Rheinmetall managed to make an uncrewed turret which appears larger than most crewed turrets. On brand.
 
kqcke for you said:
So the 140mm Ascalon has a normal 120mm round case diameter of 160mm with 169mm at the rim. But its supposed to be 130cm long or 1300mm. The 130mm L52 also has 1.3m long muntion.
Click to expand...
And for some reason my brain went to "Let's just go ahead and go for the Supershot idea, punch the bore all the way out to ~160mm**" with no bottleneck to the case or taper.

** Note that if it was a brass case it'd be more like 155mm to account for case wall thickness.

But both the 130mm and 140mm have the same chamber volume and overall length? Okay, my vote is for the 140mm due to lower current operating pressures.
 
kqcke for you said:
Probaly the best concept we got in the eurosatory. Iron Fist, Strikeshield and MUSS 2.0. tought i would guess a production version would also carry TAPS so 4 kinds of APS systems. Thats a lot in many ways
Click to expand...
Exhibition proven !
 
jsport said:
www.defensenews.com

Europe’s armor industry must merge, Arquus boss says

Many middling companies are unable to muster the research-and-development oomph needed to push the market forward, according to Emmanuel Levacher.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
I don't think it really makes sense... if anything consolidation was and is still ongoing in the European defence sector, and land equipment hasn't been an exception. UK and Swedish contractors largely consolidated under BAE systems, for France and Germany there is the recently formed KNDS alongside Rheinmetall and Arquus. As the article points out, Belgium's John Cockerill is consolidating with Arquus. Italy's IVECO largely lost the tracked-vehicle manufacturing expertise, and OTO Melara consolidated into Leonardo. Last but not least, there's GDELS which is perhaps the biggest and widest consolidation.

If further consolidation is possible, I'd say yes, but from this point it would be very complicated. Also, from European tax payers' perspective, I think it better stays this way for the foreseable future. Moreover, the interview highlights Turkey as an example for external competition European land defence sector is facing and a reason to consolidate, but Turkey itself has like 3~4 major armored vehicle manufacturers, which goes against the article's arguement; they have more armored vehicle designer/manufacturer than any of the individual European nations. If anything, the harsh competition they are facing are more to do with decades-long peace-dividend era and the inefficienies born from it, rather than lack of industry consolidation.
 
Eh, nothing new much in that article. Its mostly about disjointedness of european defense firms, lack of consolidation into bigger firms, no political will to do that
And generally lack of political will to work together on many different areas. From how to fund eu military to specific different needs of different eu countries, resulting in an example of many different tank subvariants etc etc. Germany amd France are made an example of two powerhouses that can't see eye to eye on many matters. Including the mgcs.
 
one opinion. France & Germany collab. on submarines & tanks & IFVs, & SPHs, small arms up to autocannnons and AAA no, on cargo planes & helicopters & fighter planes, probably surface combatants, high end drones et al. yes.

PS: low tech drones...IDK.
 
Last edited:
140mm could be more utile. Big enough to destroy next gen tanks with primary round's higher pressures. Large enough bore to employ secondary artillery rounds at lower pressures. If you could replace 152mm as standard round you simplify logistics train further yet.
 
MadRat said:
140mm could be more utile. Big enough to destroy next gen tanks with primary round's higher pressures. Large enough bore to employ secondary artillery rounds at lower pressures. If you could replace 152mm as standard round you simplify logistics train further yet.
Click to expand...
Artillery rounds imply a separately-loading projectile and propellant, or at least semi-fixed projectiles where the arty crew pulls the shell out of the brass case and adjusts the amount of propellant to be used for the upcoming fire mission.

Whereas tank rounds are fired at what amounts to artillery charge Super power/pressure levels. Maximum powder/muzzle velocity, all the time.

The two are not comparable in any way, shape or form.
 
The problem isn't a problem at the moment because no product exists. The design would match the requirements. There is no reason the design would need to follow an existing incompatible solution.
 
MadRat said:
The problem isn't a problem at the moment because no product exists. The design would match the requirements. There is no reason the design would need to follow an existing incompatible solution.
Click to expand...
Okay, now the mission is to identify which TRL6+ technologies are available to provide a variable muzzle velocity in a cannon to enable it to be used for both LOS direct fire and NLOS indirect fire.

The three variable-propulsion options I know of are:
  1. Artillery-style separately-loading or semi-fixed-loading
  2. Liquid propellant(s)
  3. Rail/coil
1) Artillery style doesn't work well for tank guns. It induces a limit in the length of the long-rod, where the case splits, which is undesirable. It is also slower than loading a single piece ammunition.
2) Liquid propellant or hypergolic binary propellants have been studied, but I'm not sure if they're at TRL6 yet. There's definitely some issues with hypergolics leaking inside the vehicle and then blowing up.
3) Electromagnetic cannons require a very large power generator and fast-discharge energy storage system. I do not believe that you could package the necessary parts into something the size of a tank, yet. Maybe in 50 years?
 
I take it they can alter the propellant even if they go to partial caseless design. We had different bag charges for different ammo so why not have a differential propellant load?

Not as if you will fire anti armour weapons outside of direct fire mode.
 
Foo Fighter said:
I take it they can alter the propellant even if they go to partial caseless design. We had different bag charges for different ammo so why not have a differential propellant load?

Not as if you will fire anti armour weapons outside of direct fire mode.
Click to expand...
Right, but you want/need the longest possible penetrator as your APFSDS dart. That implies a single piece loading. For example, the Primer flash tube in the 120mm case stub is only about 15cm long. So the bulk of the propellant in a 120mm is actually wrapped around the end of the dart and sabot, not inside the case stub.

And you want to load those as a single unit, not even the unfold-and-stuff like the Russian 125mm ammo.
 
Forest Green said:
armyrecognition.com

Analysis: Germany's MGCS program developing the next-gen tank for modern ground warfare

Analysis: Germany's MGCS program developing the next-gen tank for modern ground warfare
armyrecognition.com armyrecognition.com
Click to expand...
AI and the need integrate into "NATO logistics networks" will be used as an excuse to get nothing done...MGCS needs acceleration not more excuses for procrastination.

Europe & the US should be highly focused on developing advanced small calibre gun based APS and other overlapping longer range APS capabilities.

If any lesson is learned, MGCS & Next Gen Abrams needs to ingress, raid, make max temporary effect then survive even w/ many hits & rapidly retreat replenish and hid...repeat.
 
Last edited:
jsport said:
AI and the need integrate into "NATO logistics networks" will be used as an excuse to get nothing done...MGCS needs acceleration not more excuses for procrastination.
Click to expand...
Which means they need to sell the US on the new caliber, whether 130mm or 140mm.

And also stick a .338 Norma/8.6x63mm MG into the coax spot, because those fly better to the longer ranges that a stabilized turret and FCS allow you to shoot at.



jsport said:
Europe & the US should be highly focused on developing advanced small calibre gun based APS and other overlapping longer range APS capabilities.
Click to expand...
Agree on the overlapping APS, not sure about gun based options versus FPV drones. I'd rather use a DEW, whether laser or microwave.


jsport said:
If any lesson is learned, MGCS & Next Gen Abrams needs to ingress, raid, make max temporary effect then survive even w/ many hits & rapidly retreat replenish and hid...repeat.
Click to expand...
That's honestly been the way tanks should work for a really long time. Like since WW2.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom