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

I agree that the existing method of adjusting a 155mm howitzer's muzzle energy (by varying sizes of propellant bags), while acceptable for an Ogre's leisurely shooting day, wouldn't work in an all-out fight. I don't know how best to accomplish the needed variable muzzle energy, and of course I'm not demanding a laid-out solution from you all. It's too bad that liquid propellants haven't worked out. Ogre would necessarily start as a research project, not something that could be built next year even given a "waste everything except time" unlimited budget (unless DARPA is driving something around the salt flats of Groom Lake that we don't know about). I suggested to Foo Fighter that the project for a replacement for the M1 when that successful tank at last becomes obsolescent in another decade or so should start today.

Railguns powered by superconducting capacitors, lasers or particle beams that could melt through current tank armor in a fraction of a second without thermal blooming, anti-kaiju Atomic Heat Ray Guns or Maser Cannons, etc., if they ever work at all, are weapons for the generations after Ogre, and therefore are not covered in this thread. Ogre would be a relatively conventional tank, somewhat bigger, with the next generation of defense, firepower, and mobility, whose one all-new feature is being able to provide direct and indirect fires with equal facility, to win out over tomorrow's threats.
One way to vary it would be to use a high-low pressure gun with gas venting. The PAW 600 is such a weapon without the venting. What you have with such a gun is a variable muzzle velocity with the same charge being used. Of course, if you want high velocity, that isn't the way to go because you won't have it in any setting.

I'm being lazy so here's the intro version:

 
I agree that the existing method of adjusting a 155mm howitzer's muzzle energy (by varying sizes of propellant bags), while acceptable for an Ogre's leisurely shooting day, wouldn't work in an all-out fight. I don't know how best to accomplish the needed variable muzzle energy, and of course I'm not demanding a laid-out solution from you all. It's too bad that liquid propellants haven't worked out. Ogre would necessarily start as a research project, not something that could be built next year even given a "waste everything except time" unlimited budget (unless DARPA is driving something around the salt flats of Groom Lake that we don't know about).
Honestly, I think that the next advancement in tanks is going to be another type or two of ammunition. Still got long rods and HEAT for direct fire, now we're adding two mid-range munitions: one fast for the flat plains of Iraq or Kursk 3, one slow for built up areas and mountains of Korea 2.


I suggested to Foo Fighter that the project for a replacement for the M1 when that successful tank at last becomes obsolescent in another decade or so should start today.
100% agree with that. Army has been sitting on the Abrams too long and absolutely needs a new tank design cooking.


Ogre would be a relatively conventional tank, somewhat bigger, with the next generation of defense, firepower, and mobility, whose one all-new feature is being able to provide direct and indirect fires with equal facility, to win out over tomorrow's threats.
You mean 2 new features: all around armoring and APS to protect against top attack and FPV kamikazes, plus the mid range shooting.
 
One way to vary it would be to use a high-low pressure gun with gas venting. The PAW 600 is such a weapon without the venting. What you have with such a gun is a variable muzzle velocity with the same charge being used. Of course, if you want high velocity, that isn't the way to go because you won't have it in any setting.

I'm being lazy so here's the intro version:

Thanks, T.A. Take a look at < https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/rarefaction-wave-gun-raven.14469/ > too, about the rarefaction wave gun (RAVEN) project. Basically, a big gun's breech is opened after the projectile is already far down the barrel, so that no muzzle energy is lost, but the gases venting rearward substantially reduce (c50%?) the felt recoil. Apparently successful tests, but no news thereafter about actual applications.
 
Thanks, T.A. Take a look at < https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/rarefaction-wave-gun-raven.14469/ > too, about the rarefaction wave gun (RAVEN) project. Basically, a big gun's breech is opened after the projectile is already far down the barrel, so that no muzzle energy is lost, but the gases venting rearward substantially reduce (c50%?) the felt recoil. Apparently successful tests, but no news thereafter about actual applications.
I like the concept, but I suspect that the RAVEN gun ran afoul of backblast.

You can't have infantry shelter behind a tank with a RAVEN gun and be able to use that gun. And that makes it extremely difficult for the tank to be used in urban combat to blast strongpoints.
 
Unfortunately this thread lost two or three valuable posts during the recent emergency backup. But Scott Kenny, DWG, and I were in agreement that the rarefaction wave gun (RAVEN) concept doesn't seem suitable for a new tank. No news about RAVEN from any Army higher-ups in the past fifteen years or so, so it appears that they agree too.
 
The tank for this gun is "Nota"

The longtime Soviet/Russian standard caliber for tanks is 125mm (also adopted by Communist China), and the similar standard for NATO and allies is 120mm, especially variants of the Rheinmetall Rh-120 gun. For many generations, the respective artillery calibers have been six inches (152.4mm) for Russia, and the similar French-originated 155mm for the West, as being about the limit for shells that fit young men can load for extended firing. Since at least the time of Object 292, Russian designers have worked to arm their tanks with a 152.4mm gun, for a big leap in firepower, although so far no production has resulted. If the modern Russian 2A83 gun design (or a knockoff in China) ever does enter service in numbers, then I suspect that further development of the 45-year-old Abrams tank will no longer be thought adequate for the US Army and others. The 2A83 is smoothbore, and hence presumably cannot shoot regular 152.4mm artillery shells. While thus not being the equivalent of the conjectural rifled 155mm gun of the Ogre tank that is the subject of this speculative thread, still a formidable weapon. Could the armor of any in-service tank survive a hit from an APFSDS penetrator sized for a 152.4mm gun?
 
Could the armor of any in-service tank survive a hit from an APFSDS penetrator sized for a 152.4mm gun?
At this point you could just use old-style AP shell with bursting charge inside. The multi-layer armor of modern tanks are not optimized against the heavy AP shells, which rely on their weight & velocity to penetrate.
 
At this point you could just use old-style AP shell with bursting charge inside. The multi-layer armor of modern tanks are not optimized against the heavy AP shells, which rely on their weight & velocity to penetrate.
Can a 152mm AP shell penetrate more than 700mm of RHA equivalent?
 
Can a 152mm AP shell penetrate more than 700mm of RHA equivalent?
Easily. Since while its RHA equivalent against APFSDS and shaped charges, against AP shell its essentially two thin sheets of metal with some funny porcelaine or glass inbetween. It would just smash through, not being stopped or deflected.
 
Easily. Since while its RHA equivalent against APFSDS and shaped charges, against AP shell its essentially two thin sheets of metal with some funny porcelaine or glass inbetween. It would just smash through, not being stopped or deflected.
Not that thin, IIRC the Abrams outer panels are on the order of ~4"/100mm thick with another 4"/100mm on the inside to support the armor weight. Plus more than just ceramics/glass on the inside.



The 152 mm projectile has one significant advantage, it can be nuclear
It's physically possible to make a 120 or 125mm nuclear round, it just uses a lot of plutonium.
 
Logistics, logistics, logistics...

Cannot make chassis wider, as won't fit aboard vehicle fleet, cross bridges etc.
Cannot make chassis longer as, beyond certain length : width ratio, tracks scuff.

Um, has anything since the T28/T95 prototypes used dismountable track sponsons ?? Would also seem handy for affixing reactive armour etc etc...

Also, manual / semi-manual loading would seem to need a really wide turret ring for big enough basket for sufficient main-gun elevation to play 'howitzer', too.

Accepting conventional turret simply cannot do both without a shot-trap, must tank design add VLS ??

FWIW, wasn't Gavin Lyall's 'Uncle Target' McGuffin, a prototype tank with gel-propellant main gun; chased across Jordanian desert by all and sundry ??
 
Um, has anything since the T28/T95 prototypes used dismountable track sponsons ?? Would also seem handy for affixing reactive armour etc etc...
I do not believe so. Those are a right PITA to worth with, and require a suspension designed for the purpose. You can't build them with torsion bar suspensions, you'd need something that bolts onto the side of the hull instead.

Though I should add that "suspension units that just bolt onto the side of the hull" also allows you to do more under hull shaping for mine/IED resistance without adding height to the vehicle. See Merkava for an example, it uses coil springs on the suspension arms bolted to the outside of the hull.


Also, manual / semi-manual loading would seem to need a really wide turret ring for big enough basket for sufficient main-gun elevation to play 'howitzer', too.

Accepting conventional turret simply cannot do both without a shot-trap, must tank design add VLS ??
Turret-ring diameter is defined by the gun's recoil stroke, not elevation. You need to be able to have the gun not slam into the turret ring when the gun elevation is such that it is in line with the turret ring or basket.

I think that a VLS is likely, but not for artillery weapons per se. Just for Loitering Munitions and/or recon drones.
 
I do not believe so. Those are a right PITA to worth with, and require a suspension designed for the purpose. You can't build them with torsion bar suspensions, you'd need something that bolts onto the side of the hull instead.

Though I should add that "suspension units that just bolt onto the side of the hull" also allows you to do more under hull shaping for mine/IED resistance without adding height to the vehicle. See Merkava for an example, it uses coil springs on the suspension arms bolted to the outside of the hull.



Turret-ring diameter is defined by the gun's recoil stroke, not elevation. You need to be able to have the gun not slam into the turret ring when the gun elevation is such that it is in line with the turret ring or basket.

I think that a VLS is likely, but not for artillery weapons per se. Just for Loitering Munitions and/or recon drones.
You also have to have room between the turret ring and the breech to load rounds, unless you want a fixed loading position (like the T 62) that slows down rate of fire.

Then there's things like, how do you load something like a 28 cm gun without including a loading tray and power ramming? Next comes using bagged versus cased charges. Then there's the issue of smoke and fumes clearance meaning you need a pneumatic system.

You'll also need some system to move shells and charges from the magazine / bins / racks to the turret meaning some sort of hoist system. None of this can be done manually. It also argues that you end up with a fixed position loading system.

Seems kind of pointless to have guns that big unless you add some sort of advanced, ship-like, fire-controls to the vehicle. If all you have are the sort of stadia telescopic sights tanks of that era had you are limited to maybe 5,000 meters of reasonably accurate fire. It seems a total waste to build such a vehicle to be little more than a self-propelled artillery piece as an alternative.
 
You also have to have room between the turret ring and the breech to load rounds, unless you want a fixed loading position (like the T 62) that slows down rate of fire.
Sure, but usually the recoil stroke length of the gun is at least equal to if not exceeding the length of the projectile.


Then there's things like, how do you load something like a 28 cm gun without including a loading tray and power ramming? Next comes using bagged versus cased charges. Then there's the issue of smoke and fumes clearance meaning you need a pneumatic system.

You'll also need some system to move shells and charges from the magazine / bins / racks to the turret meaning some sort of hoist system. None of this can be done manually. It also argues that you end up with a fixed position loading system.

Seems kind of pointless to have guns that big unless you add some sort of advanced, ship-like, fire-controls to the vehicle. If all you have are the sort of stadia telescopic sights tanks of that era had you are limited to maybe 5,000 meters of reasonably accurate fire. It seems a total waste to build such a vehicle to be little more than a self-propelled artillery piece as an alternative.
But today we do have ship-like fire control systems in tanks and artillery.

Remember, this is a modern/near future vehicle that may have a bigger gun and does have artillery levels of gun elevation. We're not talking about some Landkreuzer Ratte here, we're talking about an OGRE Mk1 that's maybe 50% bigger than an Abrams at most.
 
Sure, but usually the recoil stroke length of the gun is at least equal to if not exceeding the length of the projectile.

That depends on the recoil system. You can get a really short recoil, even if it is somewhat violent.
But today we do have ship-like fire control systems in tanks and artillery.

Remember, this is a modern/near future vehicle that may have a bigger gun and does have artillery levels of gun elevation. We're not talking about some Landkreuzer Ratte here, we're talking about an OGRE Mk1 that's maybe 50% bigger than an Abrams at most.
But those systems on tanks are set up to like 5000 meters or so because that's the expected maximum engagement range. An Ogre would really need something that could let it outrange any opponent other than another Ogre. That means you need something that works at say, 10,000 to 15,000 meters at least.

True Ogre vehicles are in the absurdly large region of at least 1000 tons...
 
That depends on the recoil system. You can get a really short recoil, even if it is somewhat violent.
You can, but lighter vehicles like a longer recoil stroke. Crud, the recoil stroke on a 16"/50 Mk7 (Iowa main gun) is 14-18ft and is violent enough to kill someone even at the very end of the stroke!


But those systems on tanks are set up to like 5000 meters or so because that's the expected maximum engagement range. An Ogre would really need something that could let it outrange any opponent other than another Ogre. That means you need something that works at say, 10,000 to 15,000 meters at least.
Artillery fire controls already exist. You're just fitting both conventional tank and conventional artillery FCS in the same vehicle.


True Ogre vehicles are in the absurdly large region of at least 1000 tons...
I am running on the idea here as being "a vehicle with Abrams frontal protection across the full 180x360 arc while still being small enough to be strategically mobile"
 
You can, but lighter vehicles like a longer recoil stroke. Crud, the recoil stroke on a 16"/50 Mk7 (Iowa main gun) is 14-18ft and is violent enough to kill someone even at the very end of the stroke!



Artillery fire controls already exist. You're just fitting both conventional tank and conventional artillery FCS in the same vehicle.



I am running on the idea here as being "a vehicle with Abrams frontal protection across the full 180x360 arc while still being small enough to be strategically mobile"
7fa2c682f0ee85d2138d1d3e94aacb61--military-humor-nose-art.jpg
 
Logistics, logistics, logistics...

Cannot make chassis wider, as won't fit aboard vehicle fleet, cross bridges etc.
Cannot make chassis longer as, beyond certain length : width ratio, tracks scuff.
That's why I suggested the idea of tank with modular side/rear armor, which could be added when required and dismounted for transportation.
 
That's why I suggested the idea of tank with modular side/rear armor, which could be added when required and dismounted for transportation.
I'm not totally happy with that idea, because it makes the vehicle exceptionally vulnerable during transportation. Also, doing that more or less halves the transport capacity of a ship, and may require two Tank Transporters on roads.

But if the requirement is "Abrams protection across all arcs", I don't see any other way to do that. Which may even require T28 Superheavy "Doom Turtle" style additional track units to bolt onto the outside.
 
I'm not totally happy with that idea, because it makes the vehicle exceptionally vulnerable during transportation. Also, doing that more or less halves the transport capacity of a ship, and may require two Tank Transporters on roads.
I'm not talking about tank without armor. My idea is more or less a two-mode tank.

* The "battle tank mode" (also the transport mode) - 60-80 tons tank with heavy armored front and lightly armored sides (as most main battle tanks have), reasonably mobile, transportable;

* The "assault tank mode" - the additional armor plates are put on sides and rear, bringing tank total weight to 120-150 tons. The mobility decreased, but the tank now have all-around heavy armor and could be used to break enemy defense lines;
 
I'm not talking about tank without armor. My idea is more or less a two-mode tank.

* The "battle tank mode" (also the transport mode) - 60-80 tons tank with heavy armored front and lightly armored sides (as most main battle tanks have), reasonably mobile, transportable;

* The "assault tank mode" - the additional armor plates are put on sides and rear, bringing tank total weight to 120-150 tons. The mobility decreased, but the tank now have all-around heavy armor and could be used to break enemy defense lines;
Right, but any modern ATGM is capable of defeating "normal" side or top armor.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom