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

[Owens Z]

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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

To dodge the most powerful radar, it is enough to fly at a height of thirty centimeters.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Dilandu]

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.

Yep. And something must be done with movement system. The tracks are far too vulnerable.

 

[Yellow Palace]

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.

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...

 

[DWG]

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.

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.

 

[DWG]

For the shaped-charge bomb vs. battleship persons, I don't know why you are here

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.

 

[DWG]

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.

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.

 

[Dilandu]

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.

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.

 

[Yellow Palace]

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.

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.

 

[Dilandu]

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.

Or reloading only at fixed angle. This would affect rate of fire, of course, but would allow gun mount to be more compact.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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...
/

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.'