M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

[Scott Kenny]

"Poor quality control" and "under engineered components" describes a lot of American (and Canadian) products, yes.

The Expeditionary Tank, and Teledyne's turret in particular, never actually functioned properly. It (the turret, but also the tank) went through a rather torturous development phase and shifted hands of ownership almost as often as the factory lot it sat in. Mobile Gun System addressed the bulk of issues besides the problem with ammunition storage and weak shell handling during transfer from the magazine to the breech rammer-loader: the ammunition replenisher and the ability to rotate the drum.

The things remaining were well known and fairly simple to fix if you were willing to replace everything for a third time. The cost quoted was too high for the Army to absorb, probably because GDLS Ontario was trying to grift them. Stryker itself already has a rather significant cost increase over the LAV III it's made from. Maybe they counted in CAD$ and quoted as USD$ to get a free 25% profit margin? Who knows.

When Mobile Gun System became too heavy to use the new V-hull the MGS fate was sealed: Why spend money on a dead end weapon system? Just use it until the hulls wear out and fob it off onto an unsuspecting ally or send it to the scrapyard. Not an ideal solution but America isn't good at the whole "war economy" thing.

In an ideal world, it would have just bought Armored Gun Systems for the Stryker brigades, like it wanted in 1988 for the 9th ID (MTZ).

And now it looks like Strykers are getting M10 Booker MPFs, about 30 years later, with Strykers at the end of the order pool for M10s.

Admittedly, in terms of "keeping everything on the same base chassis" it was a good learning point for the MGS, as it gave lessons for FCS that was supposed to be doing much the same for tracked vehicles.

 

[Scott Kenny]

"Poor quality control" and "under engineered components" describes a lot of American (and Canadian) products, yes.

The Expeditionary Tank, and Teledyne's turret in particular, never actually functioned properly. It (the turret, but also the tank) went through a rather torturous development phase and shifted hands of ownership almost as often as the factory lot it sat in. Mobile Gun System addressed the bulk of issues besides the problem with ammunition storage and weak shell handling during transfer from the magazine to the breech rammer-loader: the ammunition replenisher and the ability to rotate the drum.

The things remaining were well known and fairly simple to fix if you were willing to replace everything for a third time. The cost quoted was too high for the Army to absorb, probably because GDLS Ontario was trying to grift them. Stryker itself already has a rather significant cost increase over the LAV III it's made from. Maybe they counted in CAD$ and quoted as USD$ to get a free 25% profit margin? Who knows.

When Mobile Gun System became too heavy to use the new V-hull the MGS fate was sealed: Why spend money on a dead end weapon system? Just use it until the hulls wear out and fob it off onto an unsuspecting ally or send it to the scrapyard. Not an ideal solution but America isn't good at the whole "war economy" thing.

In an ideal world, it would have just bought Armored Gun Systems for the Stryker brigades, like it wanted in 1988 for the 9th ID (MTZ).

I remember you or someone else saying the Army lost interest in the M8. Did you mean the entire brass thought the M8 was bad or just Shinseki who was already dreaming of FCS and also had to save money somewhere to keep some 300 000 soldiers (allegedly that's what was at risk if M8 kept being funded, due to budget cuts)?

No, it was a budget item, not a matter of it not being suitable for mass production. I mean, it was fully type certified (not XM8, M8) and ready to start production when the Peace Dividend killed it.

 

[Kat Tsun]

"Poor quality control" and "under engineered components" describes a lot of American (and Canadian) products, yes.

The Expeditionary Tank, and Teledyne's turret in particular, never actually functioned properly. It (the turret, but also the tank) went through a rather torturous development phase and shifted hands of ownership almost as often as the factory lot it sat in. Mobile Gun System addressed the bulk of issues besides the problem with ammunition storage and weak shell handling during transfer from the magazine to the breech rammer-loader: the ammunition replenisher and the ability to rotate the drum.

The things remaining were well known and fairly simple to fix if you were willing to replace everything for a third time. The cost quoted was too high for the Army to absorb, probably because GDLS Ontario was trying to grift them. Stryker itself already has a rather significant cost increase over the LAV III it's made from. Maybe they counted in CAD$ and quoted as USD$ to get a free 25% profit margin? Who knows.

When Mobile Gun System became too heavy to use the new V-hull the MGS fate was sealed: Why spend money on a dead end weapon system? Just use it until the hulls wear out and fob it off onto an unsuspecting ally or send it to the scrapyard. Not an ideal solution but America isn't good at the whole "war economy" thing.

In an ideal world, it would have just bought Armored Gun Systems for the Stryker brigades, like it wanted in 1988 for the 9th ID (MTZ).

And now it looks like Strykers are getting M10 Booker MPFs, about 30 years later, with Strykers at the end of the order pool for M10s.

Admittedly, in terms of "keeping everything on the same base chassis" it was a good learning point for the MGS, as it gave lessons for FCS that was supposed to be doing much the same for tracked vehicles.

The Stryker is a great example of why things need to be kept on separate chassis, why the idea of modularization is dumb, and why it invariably leads to higher costs and more headaches. Boxer does it best, yet it's somehow more expensive than Stryker, much less a few dedicated chassis that just use the same engine/transmission.

"Poor quality control" and "under engineered components" describes a lot of American (and Canadian) products, yes.

The Expeditionary Tank, and Teledyne's turret in particular, never actually functioned properly. It (the turret, but also the tank) went through a rather torturous development phase and shifted hands of ownership almost as often as the factory lot it sat in. Mobile Gun System addressed the bulk of issues besides the problem with ammunition storage and weak shell handling during transfer from the magazine to the breech rammer-loader: the ammunition replenisher and the ability to rotate the drum.

The things remaining were well known and fairly simple to fix if you were willing to replace everything for a third time. The cost quoted was too high for the Army to absorb, probably because GDLS Ontario was trying to grift them. Stryker itself already has a rather significant cost increase over the LAV III it's made from. Maybe they counted in CAD$ and quoted as USD$ to get a free 25% profit margin? Who knows.

When Mobile Gun System became too heavy to use the new V-hull the MGS fate was sealed: Why spend money on a dead end weapon system? Just use it until the hulls wear out and fob it off onto an unsuspecting ally or send it to the scrapyard. Not an ideal solution but America isn't good at the whole "war economy" thing.

In an ideal world, it would have just bought Armored Gun Systems for the Stryker brigades, like it wanted in 1988 for the 9th ID (MTZ).

I remember you or someone else saying the Army lost interest in the M8. Did you mean the entire brass thought the M8 was bad or just Shinseki who was already dreaming of FCS and also had to save money somewhere to keep some 300 000 soldiers (allegedly that's what was at risk if M8 kept being funded, due to budget cuts)?

No, it was a budget item, not a matter of it not being suitable for mass production. I mean, it was fully type certified (not XM8, M8) and ready to start production when the Peace Dividend killed it.

M8 AGS survived the Peace Dividend just fine, as did EXFOR/Brigade Combat Team/Force XXI transition, and the F-22 Raptor and Zumwalt.

The Peace Dividend happened in 1991-1994 during the Bush administration and was mainly a great dismantling of large ammunition factories, research & development labs, and future ability to produce new articles of equipment in favor of maintaining force readiness. Its effects on military readiness are greatly exaggerated as the real steel stuff was mainly putting the Pattons and M113s in depots, killing a lot of backwater National Guard procurement, and axing the more ancient carriers like Forrestal, Midway, and Oriskany.

It has largely been reverted too, since the Global War on Terror allowed for a major budget increases to rebuild things like the LCAAP and Army Research Labs to allow people like Picatinny to do their jobs again. It lasted a little less than 15 years in practice.

The problems of the American military in meeting the requirements of future wars is far deeper and more concerning than "money".

 

[Elan Vital]

Tbh, what made it "unsuitable for mass production"? That's a reason that can be extremely easily manipulated to hide pretty much any other motive.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Tbh, what made it "unsuitable for mass production"?

The Army didn't want it.

You don't need a reason other than that.

That's a reason that can be extremely easily manipulated to hide pretty much any other motive.

The actual reason is that Congress gave the Army a very classic "you want three things? pick two" dichotomy. The Army chose to burn M8 AGS on the altar of the MGM-166 LOSAT and the FGM-148 Javelin to provide the Force XXI brigades with long range anti-tank and anti-helicopter fires based on the battlefield experiences in Desert Storm, because the assumption was that paratroopers would simply melt on contact with heavy armor no matter if they had Armored Gun System without good missiles.

They needed Javelin and LOSAT far more, because TOW was very long in the tooth, and Dragon was bad. Sheridan was also bad but you can't fight Saddamite Type 59 battalions with a 105mm.

LOSAT dies because it's too complicated for mass production and the incoming Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV) can't handle anything larger than a TOW anyway. CKEM is proposed as a "possibly TOW launcher compatible" competitor and rapidly pushed into prototype status in less than 3 years. Then FCS falls apart under Gates's administration after metal is finally bent because the Army had spent years telling everyone Iraq and Afghanistan were never going to end and people had finally started listening (also nothing important for FCS actually functioned right).

The U.S. Army truly is it its own worst enemy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The actual reason is that Congress gave the Army a very classic "you want three things? pick two" dichotomy. The Army chose to burn M8 AGS on the altar of the MGM-166 LOSAT and the FGM-148 Javelin to provide the Force XXI brigades with long range anti-tank and anti-helicopter fires based on the battlefield experiences in Desert Storm, because the assumption was that paratroopers would simply melt on contact with heavy armor no matter if they had Armored Gun System without good missiles.


They needed Javelin and LOSAT far more, because TOW was very long in the tooth, and Dragon was bad. Sheridan was also bad but you can't fight Saddamite Type 59 battalions with a 105mm.

LOSAT dies because it's too complicated for mass production and the incoming Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV) can't handle anything larger than a TOW anyway. CKEM is proposed as a "possibly TOW launcher compatible" competitor and rapidly pushed into prototype status in less than 3 years. Then FCS falls apart under Gates's administration after metal is finally bent because the Army had spent years telling everyone Iraq and Afghanistan were never going to end and people had finally started listening (also nothing important for FCS actually functioned right).

The U.S. Army truly is it its own worst enemy.

I mean, I knew as soon as we went in that we were going to be there for a decade pissing on wildfires of counterinsurgency (see also Vietnam, and how long the US had Occupation Forces in Germany and Japan post WW2)...

But when people were remembering the 100 hour war and not the 10 years of No-Fly-Zone enforcement afterwards... Can't fix stupid, boss.

 

[Foo Fighter]

"Abrams based IFV fictional artist impression".

I must admit to not being impressed with that. It does not look like they have 360deg turret rotation and with the pax in the back, where is the powerpack? Driver is front and centre so that is out.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Buy the Meerkava and develope it, they OWE the US big time. Pretty sure the concept could come up with something more than usable as the Namer came out OK.

The Merkava is a good tank if you want to defend your own country (or drive a short distance into the next one) but is a poor choice for a nation that has a habit of making expeditions all around the world. It's wider than many similar MBTs, and in general isn't designed for the same purpose.

You will note I mentioned a concept from the Meerkava rather than the vehicle itself. Lots can be done with a concept like this and it couls spin off a heavy IFV too. As a coat hanger, the vehicle is not bad in and of itself.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You will note I mentioned a concept from the Meerkava rather than the vehicle itself. Lots can be done with a concept like this and it couls spin off a heavy IFV too. As a coat hanger, the vehicle is not bad in and of itself.

The Merkava is the perfect tank for Israel's conditions.

It is terrible for how the US fights wars, on someone else's territory! Short deployment range and very heavy.

Though honestly, I do expect what ever tank ends up replacing the Abrams to use a lot of Merkava details. Engine forward to allow IFV and SPG versions to be developed easily, etc. But it will NOT be a 1:1 copy of a Merk.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I would hope not. Essentiall I think we agree.

 

[jsport]

"Abrams based IFV fictional artist impression".

I must admit to not being impressed with that. It does not look like they have 360deg turret rotation and with the pax in the back, where is the powerpack? Driver is front and centre so that is out.

Given the modern context including compact power packs the above hypothetical Abrams IFV critique is not worth addressing.

An fictional artistic impression of a DEW based Abrams form factor.

 

[jsport]

hypothetical unmanned turret Abrams derivative w/ longer range rds.

 

[isayyo2]

"Abrams based IFV fictional artist impression".

I must admit to not being impressed with that. It does not look like they have 360deg turret rotation and with the pax in the back, where is the powerpack? Driver is front and centre so that is out.

Given the modern context including compact power packs the above hypothetical Abrams IFV critique is not worth addressing.

An fictional artistic impression of a DEW based Abrams form factor.View attachment 702834

What are you trying to achieve with these posts @jsport? This is just an ABV remade in Sprocket.

 

[Foo Fighter]

"Abrams based IFV fictional artist impression".

I must admit to not being impressed with that. It does not look like they have 360deg turret rotation and with the pax in the back, where is the powerpack? Driver is front and centre so that is out.

Given the modern context including compact power packs the above hypothetical Abrams IFV critique is not worth addressing.

An fictional artistic impression of a DEW based Abrams form factor.View attachment 702834

You'll have to give an English translation of that mate.

 

[jsport]

An fictional artistic impression of a DEW based Abrams form factor

 

[Elan Vital]

These Sprocket designs, while nice, might be better moved to the what-if section?

 

[DrRansom]

Based on Ukraine combat experience, future tanks will need anti-drone APS sooner than improved armor packages.

 

[MadRat]

Future tanks will rack-mount flexible-fuel powerplants. Running powerplants at maximum power rating when possible. Wheels will be electric drive. Field maintainable. Spare motors carried at platoon level.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Future tanks will rack-mount flexible-fuel powerplants. Running powerplants at maximum power rating when possible. Wheels will be electric drive. Field maintainable. Spare motors carried at platoon level.

Once you're at electric drive for your vehicle, a turbine is one of the best military engine options, because it is natively flex-fuel and will literally run on anything liquid and combustible with minimal modification. Computer controls to adjust fuel added to keep turbine inlet temperatures and rpm at the sweet spot for best economy.

And the electric aircraft folks have been busting their butts to make lighter and lighter motors with higher and higher power levels. There are megawatt electric motors that weight less than 100kg, one of the best is less than 60kg. 746 watts to the horsepower, a megawatt motor is 1340hp. out of 60kg/132lbs.

 

[Firefinder]

And the electric aircraft folks have been busting their butts to make lighter and lighter motors with higher and higher power levels. There are megawatt electric motors that weight less than 100kg, one of the best is less than 60kg. 746 watts to the horsepower, a megawatt motor is 1340hp. out of 60kg/132lbs

Feel the need to point out that all these motors are neodymium magnets based.

Which by their nature are fairly heavy. And by and large only mined in China which is an issue for defense contractors.

But just last year?

A company manage to break Iron Nitride magnets which are an insane combination of Iron and Nitrogen that has like twice the field strength in half the mass.

Also is apparently very easy to make deals once you figure out how, like they just rebuilting a factory in Michigan and selling them now to speaker companies at the moment. While the electric motors companies are basically waitung out their contracts to switch over apperantly.

Tesla apperantly manage to basically double the power of one their motors with a one for one swap with another keeping the same power at half tge weight.

Shits getting real fun.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And the electric aircraft folks have been busting their butts to make lighter and lighter motors with higher and higher power levels. There are megawatt electric motors that weight less than 100kg, one of the best is less than 60kg. 746 watts to the horsepower, a megawatt motor is 1340hp. out of 60kg/132lbs

Feel the need to point out that all these motors are neodymium magnets based.

Which by their nature are fairly heavy. And by and large only mined in China which is an issue for defense contractors.

But just last year?

A company manage to break Iron Nitride magnets which are an insane combination of Iron and Nitrogen that has like twice the field strength in half the mass.

Also is apparently very easy to make deals once you figure out how, like they just rebuilting a factory in Michigan and selling them now to speaker companies at the moment. While the electric motors companies are basically waitung out their contracts to switch over apperantly.

Tesla apperantly manage to basically double the power of one their motors with a one for one swap with another keeping the same power at half tge weight.

Shits getting real fun.

Getting the weight down is critical if you're using in-wheel motors. A heavy motor means lots more unsprung weight, and that's hard on the suspension and makes the vehicle less fuel efficient and less nimble.

I'm looking forward to a Stryker/LAV6/Type 16 replacement with 1200hp due to 150hp wheel motors. (why doesn't this forum have the "evil" smilie?)

 

[Fluff]

And the electric aircraft folks have been busting their butts to make lighter and lighter motors with higher and higher power levels. There are megawatt electric motors that weight less than 100kg, one of the best is less than 60kg. 746 watts to the horsepower, a megawatt motor is 1340hp. out of 60kg/132lbs

Feel the need to point out that all these motors are neodymium magnets based.

Which by their nature are fairly heavy. And by and large only mined in China which is an issue for defense contractors.

But just last year?

A company manage to break Iron Nitride magnets which are an insane combination of Iron and Nitrogen that has like twice the field strength in half the mass.

Also is apparently very easy to make deals once you figure out how, like they just rebuilting a factory in Michigan and selling them now to speaker companies at the moment. While the electric motors companies are basically waitung out their contracts to switch over apperantly.

Tesla apperantly manage to basically double the power of one their motors with a one for one swap with another keeping the same power at half tge weight.

Shits getting real fun.

Getting the weight down is critical if you're using in-wheel motors. A heavy motor means lots more unsprung weight, and that's hard on the suspension and makes the vehicle less fuel efficient and less nimble.

I'm looking forward to a Stryker/LAV6/Type 16 replacement with 1200hp due to 150hp wheel motors. (why doesn't this forum have the "evil" smilie?)

Thats also why I doubt the pictures up thread, of an abrams chassis with a narrow turret - surely the chassis would also be narrower, thus reducing the weight of armour, for the same depth of armour. In line crew would be a good starting point? Crew in a pod at the back of the tank, also possible?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Thats also why I doubt the pictures up thread, of an abrams chassis with a narrow turret - surely the chassis would also be narrower, thus reducing the weight of armour, for the same depth of armour. In line crew would be a good starting point? Crew in a pod at the back of the tank, also possible?

Part of the problem is that a certain size gun requires a turret ring of X size, regardless of how many crew you give it. Gun breech needs to stop in the center of the ring, so it can be reloaded and elevate. Bigger recoil forces from bigger guns require a larger turret ring. So yes, you can make a somewhat narrower Abrams if you allow the turret ring to be closer to the edge of the hull and easier to damage.

 

[jsport]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvYhkyRPLLY


RAVEN tech disrupts all turret/gun/vehicle calculations... if explored/funded...people are policy and usually bureaucratic.

 

[Scott Kenny]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvYhkyRPLLY


RAVEN tech disrupts all turret/gun/vehicle calculations... if explored/funded...people are policy and usually bureaucratic.

40% of the recoil of the same caliber, but this is from the same company that designed the Stryker MGS turret.

You know, the turret that doesn't work?

Now, the rotating breech design is pretty cool, would be a great spot to use case-telescoped ammunition and basically have the cannon close to the top of the turret, or just externally mounted entirely.

But the backblast problem he grossly underplayed by showing a missile launch instead of a 106mm recoilless rifle. Backblast from a 106 is a huge area!

 

[jsport]

Exploratory development and firing of a 350-pound 5-inchgun for the Navy (program Fire-Box)has proven successful at a 10-fold reduction in barrel weight...
is significant

RAVEN promises to reduce gun system weights by factors of two or more. It will virtually eliminate recoil kick to stop shaking up our combat systems.

Claims of 80% recoil reduction are made and novel means to mask back blast should be explored.

recoil barrel travel has reduced down to 5% from baseline.

https://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/2004/1_JanFeb/articles/64_RAVEN_New_Gun_Shakes_up_FCS_200401.pdf

As am aware of, the MGS never worked because wheel light vehicle could never support the recoil and be accurate w/o anchoring. ARES has never been accused of anything that made the press and are still around as a company.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Exploratory development and firing of a 350-pound 5-inchgun for the Navy (program Fire-Box)has proven successful at a 10-fold reduction in barrel weight...
is significant

That's about the same weight as an M40 Recoilless rifle barrel, and a good bit less weight than the 120mm WOMBAT. So they may have a nice trick to play with.

RAVEN promises to reduce gun system weights by factors of two or more. It will virtually eliminate recoil kick to stop shaking up our combat systems.

Claims of 80% recoil reduction are made and novel means to mask back blast should be explored.

We have developed Confined Space rounds and launchers for rockets and recoilless rifles, it involves blasting a large quantity of plastic beads/powder out the back of the tube. The plastic powder loses speed very quickly in air.

The trick would be how to have the powder blast out under a Direct Blowback mechanism, as that is the simplest way to have the chamber open shortly before the projectile leaves the muzzle, so there's still enough pressure in the tube to get a recoil compensating jet. There are direct blowback bolt weight calculators, and this bolt is deliberately lighter than they usually call for so it opens early. That said, a direct blowback bolt for a .50BMG would weigh 50lbs!

But the idea of a full sized cannon with an unlocked breech scares the (expletives deleted) out of me.

As am aware of, the MGS never worked because wheel light vehicle could never support the recoil and be accurate w/o anchoring. ARES has never been accused of anything that made the press and are still around as a company.

No, MGS never worked because the ammo loader was mis-shaped, it did not fully support the standard 105mm NATO round, so sometimes a round could get stuck inside the magazine; the bottom of the ammo box was so thin that it could flex under weight and recoil, shifting where rounds sat; and the rim grabber for the loader was too small to positively control the round as it went into the breech.

 

[Prophet141]

The concept of the RAVEN gun is sound, so even if Teledyne (or whichever successor companies continued to not properly fix the MGS's low profile turret system) I'm sure another company could elaborate on the technology. Given the precision timing the weapon relies on it may pair well with ETC technology, since that allows for more precise propellant burn and therefore a more consistently functional RAVEN gun.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvYhkyRPLLY


RAVEN tech disrupts all turret/gun/vehicle calculations... if explored/funded...people are policy and usually bureaucratic.

40% of the recoil of the same caliber, but this is from the same company that designed the Stryker MGS turret.

You know, the turret that doesn't work?

Now, the rotating breech design is pretty cool, would be a great spot to use case-telescoped ammunition and basically have the cannon close to the top of the turret, or just externally mounted entirely.

But the backblast problem he grossly underplayed by showing a missile launch instead of a 106mm recoilless rifle. Backblast from a 106 is a huge area!

 

[jsport]

Exploratory development and firing of a 350-pound 5-inchgun for the Navy (program Fire-Box)has proven successful at a 10-fold reduction in barrel weight...
is significant

That's about the same weight as an M40 Recoilless rifle barrel, and a good bit less weight than the 120mm WOMBAT. So they may have a nice trick to play with.

RAVEN promises to reduce gun system weights by factors of two or more. It will virtually eliminate recoil kick to stop shaking up our combat systems.

Claims of 80% recoil reduction are made and novel means to mask back blast should be explored.

We have developed Confined Space rounds and launchers for rockets and recoilless rifles, it involves blasting a large quantity of plastic beads/powder out the back of the tube. The plastic powder loses speed very quickly in air.

The trick would be how to have the powder blast out under a Direct Blowback mechanism, as that is the simplest way to have the chamber open shortly before the projectile leaves the muzzle, so there's still enough pressure in the tube to get a recoil compensating jet. There are direct blowback bolt weight calculators, and this bolt is deliberately lighter than they usually call for so it opens early. That said, a direct blowback bolt for a .50BMG would weigh 50lbs!

But the idea of a full sized cannon with an unlocked breech scares the (expletives deleted) out of me.

RAVEN timing based system depends on an precisely unlocked breech, and the wave is the primary phenomenon exploited here so am failing to see a problem. Successful firing all over place as examples.

As am aware of, the MGS never worked because wheel light vehicle could never support the recoil and be accurate w/o anchoring. ARES has never been accused of anything that made the press and are still around as a company.

No, MGS never worked because the ammo loader was mis-shaped, it did not fully support the standard 105mm NATO round, so sometimes a round could get stuck inside the magazine; the bottom of the ammo box was so thin that it could flex under weight and recoil, shifting where rounds sat; and the rim grabber for the loader was too small to positively control the round as it went into the breech.

the above sounds too simple not to have quick fixes, the demise of the vehicle took years, but if there were any recoil based issues they were going to be magnified and never fixable effects as the whole chassis jerked in an uncontrol manner on its suspension.

 

[Firefinder]

It should be pointed out that Wheeled Big Gun Vehicles like the MGS isn't a new thing.

Even with full power tank sabot rounds.

The B1 Centauro is one such vehicle that uses standard Nato Ammo in both the 105 and 120mm just fine. Another was the 6 wheel V600 as well.

Hell the XM8 is another light weight vehicle, that was lighter then the Stryker despite being tracked.

There was two major issues with the MGS thru. First was the dodgy autoloader that was seemingly set up to fail.

The Next was that they really didn't tuned the recoil mechanism to tge vehicle weight.

It was basically a slightly modified recoil system from the 50 ton M68 tank. Instead of a system set up for a 20 ton Stryker.

The Suspension Jerking alone wasn't that big of an issue. It meant for that due to being able to go 40 mph PLUS off road, which will put more stress on it then the gun firing will.

No it was the insufficiently calibrated recoil system was the big issue. That allow too much stress to be put into the hull, causing all type of fun things to happen.

And fixing that likely ment needing to rebuild that entire turret when you add in the Autoloader woes.

Throw in the early gen Stryker inherent issues?

And add in the MGS was too tall to fit in a C130 with it never being like by any of its users?

You can understand why it quietly side line and left to die.

This shit was kniwn back in 2013 when my old unit reflagged from Armor to Stryker and the MGS issues was raised.

We got told a fix was being looked into then by the General.

Nearly 8 years later it got pulled.

Actaully 2002 to 2021 is long enough for a LT or several to become a general who could kill the MGS...

Cause after the usual teething issue the MGS become THAT Problem Child of the Styker family. The rest of the Strykers work just fine for the most point with the usual minor issues.

Though honestly we probably should move this to the Stryker thread cause the Stryker was never MENT to be an Abrams replacement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Though honestly we probably should move this to the Stryker thread cause the Stryker was never MENT to be an Abrams replacement.

It was meant to get the Army used to working in FCS sized vehicles and FCS organized units, so more of a stepping stone to the Abrams replacement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

RAVEN promises to reduce gun system weights by factors of two or more. It will virtually eliminate recoil kick to stop shaking up our combat systems.

Claims of 80% recoil reduction are made and novel means to mask back blast should be explored.

We have developed Confined Space rounds and launchers for rockets and recoilless rifles, it involves blasting a large quantity of plastic beads/powder out the back of the tube. The plastic powder loses speed very quickly in air.

The trick would be how to have the powder blast out under a Direct Blowback mechanism, as that is the simplest way to have the chamber open shortly before the projectile leaves the muzzle, so there's still enough pressure in the tube to get a recoil compensating jet. There are direct blowback bolt weight calculators, and this bolt is deliberately lighter than they usually call for so it opens early. That said, a direct blowback bolt for a .50BMG would weigh 50lbs!

But the idea of a full sized cannon with an unlocked breech scares the (expletives deleted) out of me.

RAVEN timing based system depends on an precisely unlocked breech, and the wave is the primary phenomenon exploited here so am failing to see a problem. Successful firing all over place as examples.

The article you linked suggested delayed blowback as the usual working example, with it being accurate enough with modern ammunition production that it's within 1% of the desired opening time, and even those variances don't cause any serious issues. I still see a lot of people seeing "direct blowback" and "120mm cannon" in the same sentence losing their minds.

It's when you're trying to get fancy, and dump pressure early to control muzzle velocity in an artillery cannon model that things get ugly.

 

[jsport]

How Electrification and Autonomy Can Unlock the Potential of Unmanned Ground Vehicles

At large, an electric and autonomous future in the defense sector will greatly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations, while also substantially reducing the environmental footprint, fully burdened cost of fuel and risk to human life. Likewise, purely electric propulsion...

www.mobilityengineeringtech.com

Even though these vehicles may not be a reality for quite some time given the need for significant technology and infrastructure advancements, engineers should be diving headfirst into the design possibilities that this sort of transformation unlocks.

 

[jsport]

U.S. Army NGCV CFT (@NGCVCFT) / Twitter​

click baiting....

 

[skyblue]

That illustration is so bad on so many levels, extremely cringy. Surely the U.S. Army can find and afford better artists? In this day and age there are huge numbers of concept artists, illustrators, 3d modelers etc. who can do way better

 

[Foo Fighter]

Future tanks will rack-mount flexible-fuel powerplants. Running powerplants at maximum power rating when possible. Wheels will be electric drive. Field maintainable. Spare motors carried at platoon level.

There is no platoon/troop level resupply mechanism. The lowest would be Company/squadron level and they simply do not have the logistics or supply assets to do what you suggest. Whimsy, pure whimsy.

 

[jsport]

Future tanks will rack-mount flexible-fuel powerplants. Running powerplants at maximum power rating when possible. Wheels will be electric drive. Field maintainable. Spare motors carried at platoon level.

There is no platoon/troop level resupply mechanism. The lowest would be Company/squadron level and they simply do not have the logistics or supply assets to do what you suggest. Whimsy, pure whimsy.

exactly, a big problem when one Army claims distributed multi-domain is the game. believe even the DSB 1996 Summer study on Distributed Cmbt Cells (DCC) expressed the need for small units logistics as did most Army After Next (AAN) concepts.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The primary reason the M1 Abrams never got an L/55 version of the M256 gun was explained to me as the change would have required some extensive changes to the stabilization system. Does anyone know more about the specifics of this? How did the Germans do it with the Leopard 2A6?

 

[Scott Kenny]

U.S. Army NGCV CFT (@NGCVCFT) / Twitter​

View attachment 703175View attachment 703176
click baiting....

I'm trying to figure out what all those vehicles are...

• I'm assuming the one all the way on the left is the APC/M113 replacement. It's not an AMPV, though.
• Second from the left looks like the MFP or MPF replacement.
• Third from left, closest to us, looks like some flavor of IFV, Bradley or OMFV replacement. But dang is it tall!
• The tank on the ridge must be the Abrams replacement.
• Which leaves the strange vehicle on the far right. Hull looks like a tank, but turret has a small caliber gun (ie, not a 105/120mm). I'm guessing it's the M3 CFV replacement?

Anyone else got ideas?

 

[Kat Tsun]

Far left/rear is an AMPV but one of the new ones, and middle is M10 Booker. Both are likely traced from promotional images. Nearest is probably a notional OMFV while the far right tank is probably OMT. The little vehicle between the right two I'd imagine is supposed to be RCV-L. That covers all the major armored vehicle programs more or less, though whether OMT is a serious program or just a video game is an open question, and OMFV might end up looking more Bradleyish than this imagines.

The notional tiny tank/RCV-L looking thing is kinda goofy. It's like an M48 hull or something. But the OMT looks like a gigasized MBT-70.

If you made the OMFV a box like M113 instead of a wedge, I would think these were concept arts for a miniatures board game from the '80's.