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.'

 

[Scott Kenny]

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

I'm not aware of any good options there. Tracks are simply the least-bad option.

 

[shin_getter]

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.

 

[Dilandu]

I'm not aware of any good options there. Tracks are simply the least-bad option.

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.

 

[Avimimus]

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)

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It think this sums up an Ogre nicely...

 

[Justo Miranda]

It think this sums up an Ogre nicely...

Wheeled coffin

 

[Owens Z]

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.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

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.

 

[shin_getter]

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

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

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?

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.

 

[isayyo2]

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.

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.