M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Not sure 5' 5" people are intellectually challenged, the correlation between height and intelligence is minor.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Not sure 5' 5" people are intellectually challenged, the correlation between height and intelligence is minor.

It's not that being short makes you challenged, it's that in any modern, Western, European society like the United States, being less than 2 standard deviations below average (i.e. 5' 5" or less) means you were so thoroughly malnourished, your brain growth gets stunted from lack of basic nutrients like folic acid. There are exceptions to this, such as certain genetic disorders or premature births, but this assumes those are absent.

It was a finding in T.W. Teasdale's Danish study, about the aftermath of the WW2 famines on children born in the 1970's: people that short relative to their cohort peers tended to do especially poorly in verbal and mathematical IQ tests, but that's still getting into 99th or 95th percentile short, with almost a full SD reduction in IQ on a WAIS-IV test. Conversely, being similarly tall was less important.

It says a lot that even the literally "my-parents-starved-in-Leningrad post-Great Patriotic War anthropometrics" Soviet infantrymen of 1967 weren't that short, though. The design anthropometrics for the BMP-1/-2 assume a soldier height of around 5' 6" to 5' 7" with margins, and the BMP-3 is closer to 5' 10", and the M1 tank and M2 Bradley are 95th percentile vehicles with a general assumption of 6' 1", because the US male height has been stagnant since the 1970's, at least, at around 70 inches. That seems to be the genetic maximum of American males in general.

That aside, there's relatively little reason to believe that reducing height of the vehicle is important for reducing mass in any case. The main method of reducing mass is reducing internal main gun ammunition, removing hydraulics for electrics, condensing powerpacks, removing whole crewmen, and altering seating geometries.

All U.S. infrastructure is built to M1 standards (or rather, M1 is built to U.S. infrastructure) so those sort of constraints aren't hugely important, but it would be closer to 5' 7" or 5' 9" restrictions if they were trying to build something like T-72 or Challenger PIP, rather than 5' 5".

Which is why Madrat's strangely specific suggestion of 5' 5" is very bizarre, because it matches closely with what an American in the Teasdale study would be: around 5' 5". They would probably be about two-thirds an SD lower in IQ in the ASVAB compared to the average 5' 9" American, too. The tanks designed with the most restrictive human factors known tended to design to 50th percentile height and a cut off at 1 SD below and 2 SD above in general. For the Soviets in 1970 this would be 5' 7", with a cutoff around 5' 5" and around 6'. For the Americans in the same case, it would be 5' 9" with a cutoff around 5' 6" and 6' 1".

Not that taller people can't be tank crews of course, but that the ergonomics would be uncomfortable and they would find their knees getting sore after a while, is all. Shorter people would be much harder to find in general, as it's questionable they would be able to make the cut for armored troops in the first place.

 

[bobbymike]

While all this is fascinating it seems very tangential to the topic of Abrams replacement

 

[Foo Fighter]

Apropos to crew requirements having a corelation to designing the vehicles to be fit for purpose.

 

[Jemiba]

Indeed, and though I don't know, if the mentioned studies are scientifical fully approved, we are entering themes that may be problematic here, as some people could regard it as close to some kind of discrimination.
So, please, back to the original topic.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

While all this is fascinating it seems very tangential to the topic of Abrams replacement

Like comparing shell size to hand size

 

[scrubhead]

Army Science board has released their 2020 final report on OMT and the 5th generation tank. Clicking on the link only leads to a error for now, but this will probably, maybe, hopefully be fixed soon ( they apparently released this on August 31st this year, and idk if the link worked then ). Caught this on Sturgeon's house thanks to again, Clan Ghost Bear. Below are some pictures from said report, posted by Clan Ghost Bear.

Summary of report from HigherGov:

Spoiler

The Army Science Board is conducting a 2020 study entitled An Independent Assessment of the 2040 Battlefield and Its Implications for 5th Generation Combat Vehicle Technologies. The Terms of Reference (TOR) for this study is attached. Among the objectives of this study are to examine and determine:

• What are the critical 5th Generation Combat Vehicle technologies?
• Which technologies should the Army invest in, accelerate, or otherwise take into account?

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Background. In its previous study, An Independent Assessment of the Next Generation Armor/Anti-Armor Strategy, the ASB used the successful fielding of the M1 Abrams as a model to outline the development and fielding of a 5th Generation Combat Vehicle. That FY 19 study provided a series of key, substantive insights into the development and fielding of the 5th Generation Combat Vehicle, to include:

• Vehicle Design Attributes
• Critical 5th Generation Combat Vehicle Technologies
• Recommended 5th Generation Combat Vehicle Technology Testbeds

Scope. This Request for Information (RFI) intends to gather information relevant to nine key design attributes identified in the FY 19 study. The nine areas for which the RFI seeks relevant technology information include:


1. Mobility: lighter-weight of construction materials and of protection and weapons systems, silent mobility, fuel-efficient propulsion systems, operations with reduced crew, and improved speed over complex terrain

2. Protection: 360o protection, advanced armors and ballistic protection for, integrated active protection systems, and countermeasures

3. Masking: next-generation active and passive means to reduce the EMS, acoustic, and thermal signatures to render the system difficult to locate and very hard to target; low profile design to lower a vehicle's radar cross section and reduce its thermal, electronic, and acoustic signature; low-tech passive systems such as next-generation camouflage netting, color-changing materials and radar absorbing paint; intelligent multispectral camouflage systems to rapidly blend a vehicle into the existing EMS background; decoys and portrayal of false actions and locations; cognitive electronic warfare systems employing machine learning to counter the enemy's radars and optics; electronic jamming to protect the emissions of friendly communications and electronic systems against enemy detection; electronic warfare support measures and signals intelligence; electronic countermeasures (ECM) and digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) to hide beneath the blanket of enemy or friendly jamming; and active acoustic dampening provided by ancillary, networked robotic systems that could generate false readings and false locations

4. Firepower: cannons and munitions; automated/assisted target recognition tracking; rapid target de-confliction and cooperative engagement; and precision fires at close and extended ranges

5. Robotics: manned-unmanned teams, unmanned ground vehicles as wingmen for protection systems and/or fires, AI for simplified command and control, and unmanned air vehicles (tactical drones) for enhanced situational awareness and/or top attack of enemy vehicles

6. Command & Control Networks: AI, decision aids, hardened electronics, resistance to cyber-attacks, quality of service, self-forming, resistance to jamming and electromagnetic pulses, assured information, and cooperative engagement

7. Computing: software resistant to cyber-attacks; aided target recognition; AI for assisted mission planning, fire control, route planning, and human factors; embedded onboard training; embedded PNT; precision fires; and cooperative engagement

8. Improved Reliability and Maintainability: reduced mean time to repair, onboard/embedded diagnostic and prognostics, reduced fuel consumption, and near-real-time condition reporting

9. Improved Human Factors: reduced crew cognitive load, modern intuitive man-machine interfaces, AI-assisted task automation, 360 and overhead observation, and crew stations and placement

Submission Instructions and Format: To respond to this RFI, submit responses via email, identifying the specific area(s), listed above. Responses must be received by March 15, 2020 by 5:00 pm EST. Submissions should specifically address the following:

1. Which area or areas are the technologies or systems being proposed?
2. Within the area(s) what attributes are being addressed?
3. What is the capability improvement that the proposed technology or technologies will give the new combat vehicle?
4. What is the proposed concept (how is the new technology going to work)?
5. What is the current maturity level (TRL or other measure of maturity like Basic Research, Applied Research, Technology Demonstration or Technology Development, or Systems integration) of the technology or technologies being proposed?
6. When is it anticipated that the technology or technologies will be mature enough to integrate onto a platform?
7. Is the development of the concept or technology now part of a funded program? If so, please name the program (state if funded by company IR&D).
8. Has your organization conducted any studies or demonstrations of the technologies in the past or are any planned?
9. How much funding do you anticipate needs to be invested to bring the technology to maturity no later than 2028?

Original Thread and Post By Clan Ghost Bear:

United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines

sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com

An Independent Assessment of the 2040 Battlefield and it's implications for the 5th Generation Combat Vehicle (5GCV) // 404 if clicked

https://asb.army.mil/Portals/105/Documents/2020s/FY%202020%20BF2040%20ExSum%20(E).pdf?ver=G5s0339zk2MpT-xp5l4Ypw%3d%3d

Edit: Saved copy of report on Imgur, courtesy of again, Clan Ghost Bear. You're going to have to download all the images and convert them to pdf, however.

https://imgur.com/a/VS2RNex

View: https://imgur.com/a/VS2RNex

 

[MadRat]

If you bend one of those tubes you really tried hard to earn that court martial.

It certainly could impact rotation speed which would increase time to getting first round on target.

 

[jsport]

'does not have competitive national advantage in main gun development....' when you have Rarefaction wAVE guN (RAVEN) research and

Home

cost cant be everything anymore.

 

[Scott Kenny]

'does not have competitive national advantage in main gun development....' when you have Rarefaction wAVE guN (RAVEN) research and

Home

cost cant be everything anymore.

The US literally hasn't designed their own new tank gun since the 1960s and the (failed) 152mm used on M551, M60A2, and MBT70. Other guns? M26/46/47/early 48s, 90mm dating to 1940s. M48A3(?) and later? British L7 105mm. M60? Same L7 105mm. Abrams? Rhinemetall 120mm.

RAVEN seems to be optimized around a relatively light cannon size, though it can probably scale to 120mm. I'd say that RAVEN would be the way to mount that new 50mm Bushmaster 3 in a helicopter.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Absolutely incorrect. Perhaps you're thinking of France? Open question whether 130mm is a actually new design or just a scaled up 120mm.

Aside from the obvious success that Benet has had with the M777ER and XM1299 ERCA, the U.S. might have the most genuinely experienced main battle tank gun designers in the world, at least outside of Russia (or including it).

M68 is not an L7 in the slightest. It only shares ammunition, which is not very relevant, as the breech design and recoil system are completely different. Neither is the M256 a Rheinmetall gun, it only shares the caliber, but the gun was designed by Benet. Everything else, again, is different. Maybe it can take the same barrels. Provided they're L/44, of course, because the L/55 becomes both unbalanced and overly heavy when mounted on the M1 tank.

XM360 is an indigenous American tank gun, as is the XM35 (a derivative of the M68A1, with an even stronger breech), and the XM291 series, if we want to dip into the late 1990's and early 2000's. All three are among the most modern tank guns in existence, barring the 2A82 and possibly some experimental Chinese guns, and these have been sustained as the same people who worked on them definitely haven't left Benet (or did so only very recently).

RAVEN is not a tank gun, it's a system, explicitly designed for large caliber recoilless rifles, and has zero relevance to future U.S. tank guns. It was so the Stryker MGS could fire 120mm rounds if I remember right, but it was never particularly successful, because it's a glorified recoilless rifle. You can't really armor those.

The most obvious choice is either XM360E1 or XM291 as a starting point, like how ERCA uses some weird howitzer breech from the '80's.

 

[MadRat]

Seems like barrel length is always a factor here. I wonder how much energy it takes to deflect an enemy turret at say 4km. If you could use a recipricating gun to rapidfire 3-5 rounds off with an APKWS head, could you do enough damage economically to justify a lighter diameter and higher caliber? If you might be able to lower your barrel diameter to 76-90mm and go higher caliber to make up for the lack of mass. At a certain point even small diameter DU slices through the heaviest of armors.

The other factor is 99% of your targets are not armor. Would be be better off with one 120mm or 3-5 as many smaller diameter shells against your main targets. Seems like the IFVs moving to larger diameter cannon suggest quality (120mm) is less necessary than quantity, especially if you can throw in smart seekers when accuracy is absolutely critical.

 

[TomS]

Remember that when they talk about comparative advantage, they're talking about how much it costs (in money and other resources) for us to do the development work versus letting someone else do it. The US obviously has some ability to design tank guns, but a lot of that capacity is already tied up working on things like ERCA. So the judgement is that we can let Germany or whoever design tank guns (or at least tank gun cartridges) and the results will be good enough for us without eating up resources in the US that are better used working on other things

 

[asVAL]

Hmm... Rh-130 off-the-shelve for M1E3? It's supposed to be a drop-in upgrade over legacy 120mm guns, so maybe just rework some of the hydraulic drives and digital control. Better yet modernize it into a full-electric system as many users on here have craved for so loong~

 

[Scott Kenny]

Hmm... Rh-130 off-the-shelve for M1E3? It's supposed to be a drop-in upgrade over legacy 120mm guns, so maybe just rework some of the hydraulic drives and digital control. Better yet modernize it into a full-electric system as many users on here have craved for so loong~

Plus needing an autoloader, the 130mm shells are twice the length and weight of the 120mm.

 

[jsport]

NGCCVS class II Large Calibre Indirect fire Direct Fire 15-25 ton radio controlled radio flyer is another conceived RAVEN install

 

[Scott Kenny]

View attachment 708963

27 ton unmanned tank? Might as well give it enough armor or ammunition for ~35-40 tons, since 27tons is well over C-130 transport weights and I bet you can't stuff any more unmanned tanks inside a C-5/C-17 than you can ~35-40ton vehicles.

View attachment 708961

NGCCVS class II Large Calibre Indirect fire Direct Fire 15-25 ton radio controlled radio flyer is another conceived RAVEN install

So that's a 105-155mm gun. Indirect fire suggests that you need at least 6 rounds in the autoloader ready rack. I don't see how you can stuff that many rounds inside an elevating turret.

Though the idea of having a 105mm RAVEN gun as an aircraft weapon makes me giggle.

 

[jsport]

Remember that when they talk about comparative advantage, they're talking about how much it costs (in money and other resources) for us to do the development work versus letting someone else do it. The US obviously has some ability to design tank guns, but a lot of that capacity is already tied up working on things like ERCA. So the judgement is that we can let Germany or whoever design tank guns (or at least tank gun cartridges) and the results will be good enough for us without eating up resources in the US that are better used working on other things

Speaking of other things, IMHO there is no hurry, so why not make incremental fleet upgrades while pursuing limited contractor developed and managed new vehicle capabilities until one or more pans out for some kind of new competition. Build and start testing something/numerous things for heaven sake. expand. Dependence on a foreign gun in todays shifty world seems ill advised, unless RM starts making guns in Detroit :}

 

[Scott Kenny]

Speaking of other things, IMHO there is no hurry, so why not make incremental fleet upgrades while pursuing limited contractor developed and managed new vehicle capabilities until one or more pans out for some kind of new competition. Build and start testing something/numerous things for heaven sake. expand. Dependence on a foreign gun in todays shifty world seems ill advised, unless RM starts making guns in Detroit :}

Pretty sure the M256 120mm is made here in the US, it was just designed in Germany.

 

[jsport]

View attachment 708963NGCCVS class II Large Calibre Indirect fire Direct Fire 15-25 ton View attachment 708961radio controlled radio flyer is another conceived RAVEN install

given the current context, indirect fire would appear to be a priority. Any gun under 140mm( more like 152/5mm) able accomplish limited counter battery but more importantly counter-UAS launch sites . Synoptic surveillance will get launcher targets but they must be engaged before they swarm ya.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Remember that when they talk about comparative advantage, they're talking about how much it costs (in money and other resources) for us to do the development work versus letting someone else do it. The US obviously has some ability to design tank guns, but a lot of that capacity is already tied up working on things like ERCA. So the judgement is that we can let Germany or whoever design tank guns (or at least tank gun cartridges) and the results will be good enough for us without eating up resources in the US that are better used working on other things

It's a fairly weak argument, though, at least on the face of it.

The Germans don't even know what gun their next tank will use, and the combined European industries, which are all separate countries, have about as much productive power in the "main battle tank gun" arena as Benet and Picatinny put together. That is, at least if we look at the past 30 years (1993-2023).

Consider that the European multinationals are fishing for contracts just to keep their current assembly plants open, rapidly losing those contracts to cheaper American or Korean offerings, that KMW have had to absorb the bulk of the French MIC just to drag enough work share agreements to get MGCS into the preliminary design stage (because the Germans apparently can't make it themselves), and have a open tank requirement that might be fulfilled sometime in the next 20 years, assuming they can keep their lights on and their plants running of course.

The U.S., a single nation, has all the real industrial output of multiple European nations (France, Germany, Italy, Britain), and has produced more tank guns than any single nation in that list, and about as many as all of them put together, in the past 30 years. This is just Benet and Picatinny working on fairly shoestring budgets, not the massive mega conglomerates of Rheinmetall, Oto-Melara, or Nexter.

None of these new European vehicles will be entering service before the mid-2040's, so there's at least 20 years between now and then, and more than likely they will extend into the 50's, at least if we look at past performances like Ajax or SPz Puma. There's a lot of bellyaching about work sharing agreements and such that will need to be sorted out, as well as the very basic question of "which gun do we use", and of course with any Franco-German European combat system you get a big question mark hanging over the issue of maintenance and spare parts availability. NH90 is probably very instructive as to how the MGCS will go.

Knowing people who work at Benet and Picatinny, the generals in charge of ACQ are very vulnerable to FOMO, as they still fear the Russian MIC (to be fair, 200 tanks a year is pretty gosh darn good these days, even if they are acting as a depot and refurbishing), and have literally no idea what the Chinese are doing (which means the Chinese are doing something nefarious as opposed to nothing at all).

Benet is the most productive, per man-hour paid, heavy gun design group in the world. Picatinny is the most productive automatic loader and mechanical designers, on the planet. No one else comes close.

Everyone else might be similarly skilled, or similarly knowledgable in the field, but between Europe's byzantine political apparatus, the Chinese party politics, the Japanese legal inability to export heavy weapons, the Koreans' newcomerness, and the Russians' poverty, only the U.S. has successfully managed to combine the ability to produce that same heavy ordnance with the capacity to be on time to meet aggressive schedules.

The ammunition will absolutely be European. That is, once Europe can figure out if they're going to use the KNDS or Rheinmetall ammunition. Give them another 7 years to produce the necessary reports and budget statements to determine if they want to fund a council to convene to make that decision. Possibly the engine, if GD can sell the MTU883 as a potential powerpack, but the gun? Only European if ACQ has actually lost their minds.

The U.S. is one of the world's leading big gun designers, it's just terrible at making ammunition, but it hasn't designed its own ammunition since the MBT-70, which was bad, and it only designed its first successful sabot rounds in the 1970's, after using British-designed projectiles and sabots for decades prior.

It's pretty bad when the guys in charge are looking at ERCA, which combined a tank main gun vertical sliding breech design (M256) with a bagged charge 155mm howitzer in less than 7 years from prelim to production, and say "you're not good enough" and start oogling the other guys, who have yet to produce a single production plan for their new tank gun, and this despite starting two years earlier, as a potential replacement.

I'm pretty sure that experience in high pressure guns is why Benet was charged with ERCA in the first place, and not Watervliet, given that the M256 is a Benet labs gun design and with the supercharge has more requirements of a main battle tank than a conventional medium pressure howitzer like Watervliet's M284. Since the end of Vietnam (and in real terms, the past 50 years), Watervliet has designed more bagged charge howitzers than high pressure guns al a the 175mm or 16", including (I think) the howitzer that ERCA was based on, so that's the only real explanation that makes sense. Picatinny does automatic loaders, Watervliet does mortars and howitzers, and Benet does the high pressure guns now.

It's less a serious statement and seems to be more just simple FOMO generated by seeing KF51 at trade shows tbh.

 

[Scott Kenny]

given the current context, indirect fire would appear to be a priority. Any gun under 140mm( more like 152/5mm) able accomplish limited counter battery but more importantly counter-UAS launch sites . Synoptic surveillance will get launcher targets but they must be engaged before they swarm ya.

Still needs a way to get rounds from the stowage in the hull up to the breech, and ideally ~6 rounds ready to go in the autoloader up in the turret.

And recoilless guns have a pretty massive backblast which makes them much less desirable in urban combat. Troops can't hide behind the bulk of a vehicle that uses recoilless/RAVEN guns because the backblast will KILL them.

 

[Kat Tsun]

RAVEN has been dead for literal decades at this point. It was never developed because the M68 was bullied into working on the MGS.

 

[jsport]

RAVEN has been dead for literal decades at this point. It was never developed because the M68 was bullied into working on the MGS.

someone we know at Pic would beg to differ.

 

[Kat Tsun]

someone we know at Pic would beg to differ.

I don't know who "we" is, but the only option for a new tank is going to be a modified gun firing Rh-130's upscaled 120mm rounds, or the XM360E1. Given how badly the European tank development programs are going, XM360 will probably be the gun selected.

If that's what the paper's authors meant by "main gun development" then yeah, the ammunition is an important part of that, but so is being able to use the same ammunition as NATO allies. It's simply not very relevant, as the guns are all going to use the same ammo, so the only question is what the gun looks like.

It will most likely be an XM360, with the Rh-130 being a distant second, unless Rheinmetall suddenly is able to produce a vehicle people are interested in or Russia or China suddenly produce a tank that requires a bigger gun.

 

[TomS]

It will most likely be an XM360, with the Rh-130 being a distant second, unless Rheinmetall suddenly is able to produce a vehicle people are interested in

With the reports that Hungary is funding KF51 Panther development, I'm very curious whether it will have the new 130mm gun as shown in the mockups or if they will fall back to a long-barrel 120mm.

 

[Scott Kenny]

With the reports that Hungary is funding KF51 Panther development, I'm very curious whether it will have the new 130mm gun as shown in the mockups or if they will fall back to a long-barrel 120mm.

I'm expecting the long 120mm.

130mm with two piece ammo doesn't gain a whole lot in terms of penetrator size.

 

[GTX]

Going to 130mm means a lot of new ammunition has to be procured and a lot of old 120mm ammunition risks going to waste.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

The US literally hasn't designed their own new tank gun since the 1960s and the (failed) 152mm used on M551, M60A2, and MBT70. Other guns? M26/46/47/early 48s, 90mm dating to 1940s. M48A3(?) and later? British L7 105mm. M60? Same L7 105mm. Abrams? Rhinemetall 120mm.

RAVEN seems to be optimized around a relatively light cannon size, though it can probably scale to 120mm. I'd say that RAVEN would be the way to mount that new 50mm Bushmaster 3 in a helicopter.

Thread 'USA Inability or Unwillingness to Produce a Main Tank Gun'
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...willingness-to-produce-a-main-tank-gun.35104/

 

[asVAL]

Going to 130mm means a lot of new ammunition has to be procured and a lot of old 120mm ammunition risks going to waste.

How about swappable barrels?
IIRC XM291 was intended to be interchangable between the 120mm and 140mm tube so that they could use legacy 120mm ammo for both training and low-intensity combat that doesn't need a super-sabot.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Going to 130mm means a lot of new ammunition has to be procured and a lot of old 120mm ammunition risks going to waste.

That too, but the US/NATO has done that before with the 105 to 120mm change.

How about swappable barrels?
IIRC XM291 was intended to be interchangable between the 120mm and 140mm tube so that they could use legacy 120mm ammo for both training and low-intensity combat that doesn't need a super-sabot.

That also involves a big difference between ammo stowage arrangements.

 

[Kat Tsun]

With the reports that Hungary is funding KF51 Panther development, I'm very curious whether it will have the new 130mm gun as shown in the mockups or if they will fall back to a long-barrel 120mm.

Given the tank has only ever been shown with 130mm, I'm not sure it can even be fitted with the 120mm tbh. It would probably require redesigning the turret mounts, given the Rh-130 is literally a scaled up and embiggened 120mm gun.

Hungary will probably just operate a mixture of tank rounds and MBTs, like most places in Eastern Europe. Poland will still have the more complex supply situation in 2025, given it will be operating a mixture of Abrams, Leopard 2, PT-91, and K2. This is no more complex in practice than any of NATO's Cold War militaries, which often had three or four main battle tank types in service at any one time.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Given the tank has only ever been shown with 130mm, I'm not sure it can even be fitted with the 120mm tbh. It would probably require redesigning the turret, given the Rh-130 is literally a scaled up and embiggened 120mm.

Would definitely require redesigning all the ammo stowage.

 

[asVAL]

That also involves a big difference between ammo stowage arrangements.

Rheinmetall 130mm rounds are just necked up 120mm case with a 130mm sabot so I dont see any massive changes tbh. Length would be a restriction, so you would be losing lots of horizontal space here, but otherwise fine imo.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Would definitely require redesigning all the ammo stowage.

Which is the easiest part of any ammunition swap, given that pulling ammo racks is a normal BDAR procedure.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Is there a telescoped round? Sorry I feel this has been dragged up before, just can't be sure where.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Yes, there is a 140mm cased telescoping round for the ASCALON, which is KMW's offering based on some Nexter evolution of the 40CTA technology I think? They don't have a tank for it though, unlike Rheinmetall's Leopard 2A4 kit and new turret, so it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

Lack of actual armor integration and firing tests, and possibly for good reasons, are why it's not a serious contender for 5GCV.

 

[TomS]

I'm expecting the long 120mm.

130mm with two piece ammo doesn't gain a whole lot in terms of penetrator size.

The Rh130 is a single-piece cartridge much longer than the 120mm. Which means the penetrator can be very long (higher L being the secret to better penetration). Especially now that they seem to have solved the challenge of embedding the projectile tail in the propellant charge.

Going to 130mm means a lot of new ammunition has to be procured and a lot of old 120mm ammunition risks going to waste.

Right now, all Hungary has is a very limited force of Leo2s and some Soviet-era reserve tanks. They don't have huge ammunition stockpiles to replace anyway.

Given the tank has only ever been shown with 130mm, I'm not sure it can even be fitted with the 120mm tbh. It would probably require redesigning the turret mounts, given the Rh-130 is literally a scaled up and embiggened 120mm gun.

Given that the KF51 is just barely past being a paper design (and will need a whole new chassis, apparently), I suspect they could go back and rework the turret for 120mm if the customer wanted.

But 130mm seems like a sensible forward lean, if the Hungarians have confidence that anyone else will follow along (like Germany). My guess is that Germany will fail out of MGCS and buy KF51 as well, leveraging Hungary's investment.

Hungary will probably just operate a mixture of tank rounds and MBTs, like most places in Eastern Europe. Poland will still have the more complex supply situation in 2025, given it will be operating a mixture of Abrams, Leopard 2, PT-91, and K2. This is no more complex in practice than any of NATO's Cold War militaries, which often had three or four main battle tank types in service at any one time.

Or for that matter, the various armies that have 105mm tank destroyers or assault guns and 120mm MBTs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Rh130 is a single-piece cartridge much longer than the 120mm. Which means the penetrator can be very long (higher L being the secret to better penetration). Especially now that they seem to have solved the challenge of embedding the projectile tail in the propellant charge.

Yet the longest thus-far-tested/shown penetrators are only ~850mm +-, which is the same length as the top line 120mm penetrators.

But yes, the 120mm is probably at the growth limit for penetrator length at this point, there's not much space between the primer vent tube and the end of the penetrator anymore. Maybe another 50mm length growth?

Given that the KF51 is just barely past being a paper design (and will need a whole new chassis, apparently), I suspect they could go back and rework the turret for 120mm if the customer wanted.

But 130mm seems like a sensible forward lean, if the Hungarians have confidence that anyone else will follow along (like Germany). My guess is that Germany will fail out of MGCS and buy KF51 as well, leveraging Hungary's investment.

I'm not expecting Hungary, a NATO member, to buy a new main gun round that isn't currently in NATO use.

Or for that matter, the various armies that have 105mm tank destroyers or assault guns and 120mm MBTs.

Like the US just added a new 105mm assault gun in the M10 Booker.

So yes, I could see some heavy tanks showing up in the TO&E of the future with 130mm and ~80tons weight. But I don't see the general medium/main battle tank getting the 130mm in the next generation.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Korea is going ahead with a 130mm K2, so that is probably what Hungary is leaning on, as that means Poland may opt for it as well. KF51 has good chances of getting exported while M1 will sort of wallow about until DA decides it wants to make XM360 a real boy.

Whether DA decides on XM360 or Rh-130 depends on whether or not the PRC is able to put out a new supertank that rattles people in the next 5-6 years or so, or whether KF51's limited orders snowball into another Total Rheinmetall-KMW Export Victory, because by then the question will be settled on which gun should be adopted. KF51 will either have sufficient basis outside "just" Korea, Hungary, and potentially a third country, MGCS will finally be dead, and the PRC will probably have some new supertank rumbling around the desert. That should be enough, put together, to put XM360 six feet under and have the US contemplating metallurgical compositions of the Rh-130's tubes and breech at Watervliet, recoil mechanism at Benet, and autoloader at Picatinny.

I wouldn't expect any serious decisions to be made on the 5GCV, or M1A3, or whatever it will be called by then, before 2028 though.