Inside the US Army's Lethal New M1A2 SEP v.3 Abrams Main Battle Tank

[DavidSling]

it really needs an APS badly IMO, but if we had to go for a radical new design,I think we should go for the K2 Black Panther and start upgrading that.

so make a deal to aquire 1000 K2 Black Panthers, buy 250 straight from SK and build the other 750 in the U.S

entire program shouldn't cost more than $10 billion dollars.

https://defence.pk/threads/the-us-army-chose-to-acquire-the-israeli-system-iron-fist.433644/
http://www.drs.com/news-and-events/...rophy-active-protection-systems-for-m1-tanks/

 

[C130]

Could you at least attempt to be specific, please? "More modern" means nothing. You mean 'newer'? If not, what do you mean? What does it offer that late model Abrams don't?

it offers a MMW targeting system (better FCS all around), advance suspension system, L55 cannon, MTU 883 engine, etc

and I feel the M1 Abrams is fine as is, but I am saying if we were going to go for an entire new tank why not go for one that's already been designed instead of wasting billions on a program that will probably be canceled.

 

[Penguin]

it offers a MMW targeting system (better FCS all around), advance suspension system, L55 cannon, MTU 883 engine, etc

and I feel the M1 Abrams is fine as is, but I am saying if we were going to go for an entire new tank why not go for one that's already been designed instead of wasting billions on a program that will probably be canceled.

Hydropneumatic suspension does not make a tank superior. If that were so, the Japanese Type 10 and earlier Type 90 or even the still older Type 74 would be superior to Abrams too.

Type 74

Type 90

Type 10

Sweden's Strv 103

As for MTU-883, you do realize Abrams has been offered by General Dynamics with a drop-in Tognum America/12V883 diesel engine diesel engine to replace the gas turbine engine. Guess what engine that is a license produced copy of? This GD engine also powers Merkava IV
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1486.html

As indicate Abrams has been trialled with XM 291 140mm cannon. This cannon can use 140mm but also 120mm munition, by simple barrel change
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM291_Advanced_Tank_Cannon

There is no reason whatsoever it cannot mount 120mm/L55, just like the Leo2 went from L44 to L55 with ease (and in future could go to 130mmL51 recently unveiled by Rheinmetall).

I will grant you the Extremely High Frequency radar system deployed on the frontal arc of the turret. Otherwise I don't see anything in the K2 sensors that isn't also available in the current Abrams. The level of automation of the FCS is also different, but I see no reason why something like this cannot be retrofitted.

 

[LeGenD]

Change its design of the tank already, this design isn't effective

Seriously?

 

[Beny Karachun]

The Merkava tank began development in 1973 and entered official service in 1978

Congress canceled the MBT-70 in November and XM803 December 1971, and redistributed the funds to the new XM815, later renamed the XM1 Abrams. Prototypes were delivered in 1976 by Chrysler Defense and General Motors. The turbine-powered Chrysler Defense design was selected for development as the M1. A total of 3,273 M1 Abrams tanks were produced 1979–85 and first entered U.S. Army service in 1980. In March 1982, General Dynamics Land Systems Division (GDLS) purchased Chrysler Defense, after Chrysler built over 1,000 M1s.

What is your point? Sorry, I was banned for the 100th time

 

[Penguin]

What is your point? Sorry, I was banned for the 100th time

you shouldn't make a tank based on the same tank you were using for 30 years

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/inside-t...abrams-main-battle-tank.454396/#ixzz4PYaCGkWI
https://defence.pk/threads/inside-t...abrams-main-battle-tank.454396/#ixzz4PYaCGkWI
M1 is younger than Merkava.

 

[Beny Karachun]

you shouldn't make a tank based on the same tank you were using for 30 years

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/inside-t...abrams-main-battle-tank.454396/#ixzz4PYaCGkWI
M1 is younger than Merkava.

Tell me which tanks look more similar, Merkava Mk1 and Mk4, or M1 Abrams and M1A2.
Merkava Mk4

Merkava Mk1

M1 Abrams

M1A2 Abrams

 

[Beny Karachun]

Hydropneumatic suspension does not make a tank superior. If that were so, the Japanese Type 10 and earlier Type 90 or even the still older Type 74 would be superior to Abrams too.

Type 74

Type 90

Type 10

Sweden's Strv 103

As for MTU-883, you do realize Abrams has been offered by General Dynamics with a drop-in Tognum America/12V883 diesel engine diesel engine to replace the gas turbine engine. Guess what engine that is a license produced copy of? This GD engine also powers Merkava IV
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1486.html

As indicate Abrams has been trialled with XM 291 140mm cannon. This cannon can use 140mm but also 120mm munition, by simple barrel change
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM291_Advanced_Tank_Cannon

There is no reason whatsoever it cannot mount 120mm/L55, just like the Leo2 went from L44 to L55 with ease (and in future could go to 130mmL51 recently unveiled by Rheinmetall).

I will grant you the Extremely High Frequency radar system deployed on the frontal arc of the turret. Otherwise I don't see anything in the K2 sensors that isn't also available in the current Abrams. The level of automation of the FCS is also different, but I see no reason why something like this cannot be retrofitted.

Also let me respond as I didn't when you said it
Both of the tanks are being powered by an American made German engine, we don't have the area to actually build enough engines.

As for the 140mm cannon:
Israel Military Industries (IMI) have been requested to develop a 140mm APFSDS shell for the Swiss 140mm L47 gun program for their Leopard.
The resulting penetrator was 1 meter in length, and could penetrate 1,000mm(penetration roughly equals projectile length above certain L/D ratio and m/v) of armor with a velocity of 1,800m/s.
IMI, in parallel to its works on the 120mm MG253, has been cooperating with Switzerland with the purpose of mounting the 140mm gun on the (then in development) Merkava 4 in case NATO decided to adopt a new caliber.
Not many may know but when the designers of Merkava 4 talked about modularity, they were not only speaking about the armor.
Firepower was among the many things they planned to be interchangeable.
And indeed, the turret of the Merkava 4 allows for an easy replacement of the gun. A 140mm gun will fit instead of the 120mm gun, and the bustle has enough room to store the long 140mm shells.

Also a newly developed 120mm gun RG120 built also by IMI. Marketed as a possible armament for light vehicles with unmanned turrets, but according to ArmadaInternational magazine the capabilities are even better than currently mounted guns on MBTs.
It is possible that it exceeds the MG253 chamber pressure of 7,250 bars. It could be the base for a new 120mm gun for the next tank in the family.

 

[Penguin]

Tell me which tanks look more similar, Merkava Mk1 and Mk4, or M1 Abrams and M1A2

A meaningless, hence pointless exercise. The armor level of the M1 Abrams was well beyond that or Merkava Mk1 already. So, the Merkava was playing catch up, with its successive swap outs of modular armor (incidentally, that didn't stop Mk1 and 2 phasing out)

Also let me respond as I didn't when you said it
Both of the tanks are being powered by an American made German engine, we don't have the area to actually build enough engines.

No, the US tanks aren't. It is merely offered as an option. Before the German engine went into the Merkava, it was underpowered with its older US engine.

As for the 140mm cannon:
Israel Military Industries (IMI) have been requested to develop a 140mm APFSDS shell for the Swiss 140mm L47 gun program for their Leopard.
The resulting penetrator was 1 meter in length, and could penetrate 1,000mm(penetration roughly equals projectile length above certain L/D ratio and m/v) of armor with a velocity of 1,800m/s.

A shell is not a gun. The Swiss have not converted their Leo2s to 140mm.

IMI, in parallel to its works on the 120mm MG253, has been cooperating with Switzerland with the purpose of mounting the 140mm gun on the (then in development) Merkava 4 in case NATO decided to adopt a new caliber.

As you may have noticed Germany is developing a new 130mm L41 smoothbore

Not many may know but when the designers of Merkava 4 talked about modularity, they were not only speaking about the armor.

Yawn.

Firepower was among the many things they planned to be interchangeable.
And indeed, the turret of the Merkava 4 allows for an easy replacement of the gun. A 140mm gun will fit instead of the 120mm gun, and the bustle has enough room to store the long 140mm shells.

Also a newly developed 120mm gun RG120 built also by IMI. Marketed as a possible armament for light vehicles with unmanned turrets, but according to ArmadaInternational magazine the capabilities are even better than currently mounted guns on MBTs.
It is possible that it exceeds the MG253 chamber pressure of 7,250 bars. It could be the base for a new 120mm gun for the next tank in the family.

Ben , stop pounding a dead horse.

 

[Beny Karachun]

A meaningless, hence pointless exercise. The armor level of the M1 Abrams was well beyond that or Merkava Mk1 already. So, the Merkava was playing catch up, with its successive swap outs of modular armor (incidentally, that didn't stop Mk1 and 2 phasing out)


No, the US tanks aren't. It is merely offered as an option. Before the German engine went into the Merkava, it was underpowered with its older US engine.


A shell is not a gun. The Swiss have not converted their Leo2s to 140mm.


As you may have noticed Germany is developing a new 130mm L41 smoothbore


Yawn.


Ben , stop pounding a dead horse.

And this is based on...? The Mk1s are already retired out and Mk2s are also about to be completely retired

I am not talking about the older versions. I am talking about the Mk4.
The Mk4 has a 1500HP supercharged diesel engine, the Abrams has a 1500HP Turbine engine.

We can buy the gun. And neither the Americans, Russians, British, French or any in the world has converted to 130mm/140mm cannons yet.

Yeah, I do know that, so...?

 

[Penguin]

GD883 Diesel Power Pack
The GD883 diesel engine, paired with Renk RK325 automatic transmission, comprises the Merkava Mk4 powerpack. Produced under cooperation between MTU and general Dynamics Land Systems, this liquid cooled, direct injection engine is considered the most powerful of its kind. It was designed as an alternative to the gas turbines, currently used in the M-1 family of tanks. The US-German engine develops 1500hp power, and with the utilization of the specially designed automatic transmission, it offers the best power/weight ratio for heavy tracked vehicles. The electronically controlled transmission has five forward gears, also provides steering and braking functions.
Engine weight: 1,900 kg
Power pack weight: 4,800 kg
Power output: 1,500hp
http://defense-update.com/directory/GD833.htm

MT 883 Ka-500
MTU has been awarded a contract for series production of EuroPowerPacks from Giat Industries of France and the first of these was shipped late in 1992. The EuroPowerPack incorporates the MTU MT 883 V12 diesel, a transversely mounted Renk HSWL 295 TM automatic transmission and a cooling and air filtration system.

The first application for the EuroPowerPack is in the re-engined Leclerc MBT for the United Arab Emirates and the Giat Industries' Leclerc armoured recovery vehicle. For trials purposes, a EuroPowerPack has been installed in a new version of the Vickers Defence Systems Challenger 2 called Challenger 2E. For the export market, especially Turkey, a General Dynamics Land Systems M1A2 MBT has been fitted with a EuroPowerPack and this completed initial trials late in 1998.

In 1998, MTU and General Dynamics Land Systems of the US signed an agreement under which the MTU 880 series of diesel engines will be manufactured in the US and offered on the home and export markets.

Production of the MTU 880 series will be undertaken at General Dynamics Land Systems Muskegon facility where production of the older AVDS-1790 series of V-12 diesel engine has been undertaken for many years with over 44,000 engines built. Most of these have been for US built M47/M48/M60 and the lsraeli"Merkava MBTs.

Possible US applications of the MT 883 are export versions of the M1A2, for example Turkey, who has expressed an interest in a diesel powered version rather than the normal turbine powered model and re-engineering of US Army M1A1/M1A2 MBTs.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1486.html

So, German engine and German transmission replace US engine and transmission.

The M1 has a Lycoming / Honeywell AGT1500 gasturbine engine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_AGT1500
This is coupled to a Allison DDA X-1100-3B four-speed

So, to say "Both of the tanks are being powered by an American made German engine" is incorrect.
Source: https://defence.pk/threads/inside-t...-main-battle-tank.454396/page-2#ixzz4QIBSEQ55

We can buy the gun. And neither the Americans, Russians, British, French or any in the world has converted to 130mm/140mm cannons yet.

Yeah, I do know that, so...?

German defense company Rheinmetall has unveiled a prototype of a 130mm smoothbore gun for a future main battle tank (MBT). According to the company, the increase of 8 percent in caliber results in 50 percent more kinetic energy over the 120mm gun from Rheinmetall, installed in thousands of tanks worldwide.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...5/tank-gun-german-rheinmetall-130mm/85920592/

ermany recognizes that it will have to replace the Leopard 2 with a new design in years 2030 and beyond. As such Berlin has embarked on developing the next-generation Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) in conjunction with France.
The new main battle tank is in a concept development phase between the German and French governments and industry. While France is the only current partner, the Germans expect other European nations to jump onboard the project. The concept development phase should be completed by 2017.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...uropean-power-has-plans-lethal-new-tank-15251

At Eurosatory 2016, the German Company Rheinmetall unveils its new 130mm/L51 gun to counter new Russian combat vehicles based on the Armata heavy tracked platform. Prompted by initial considerations for a future MBT, Rheinmetall's Weapons and Ammunition division launched a company-financed 130mm demonstrator programme last year to confirm the anticipated significant increase in performance against modern threats.
The new Rheinmetall 130mm/L51 could be a new upgrade component for the Leopard 2 main battle tank. At Eurosatory 2016 Rheinmetall is presenting concepts for enhancing the firepower of present and future main battle tanks.
According Rheinmetall MBT development road map, the gun will also be used in new Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), being developed by Rheinmetall. Officials from the Company told that the increase of the caliber to 130 mm enhances the gun`s armour-piercing capability by half.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/euro...r_to_new_modern_combat_vehicles_12806163.html

New German-made Rheinmetall 130mm/L51 unveiled at Eurosatory 2016, the international land and airland defence and security exhibition in Paris, France. (Source Miltechmag)

120mm L55 = 6600mm barrel
130mm L51= 6630mm barrel

 

[Davos]

G'day Mate

After read thru the whole post. I am amaze no one had comment on the need or use for such an upgrade (or thereof)??

In battlefield equipment, there are 2 basic principals you need to follow to fight a war.

The first one is you fight with what you had, not what you would have
The second one is you equipment should serve your purpose, not you serve your equipment.

You cannot change a tank design unless you want to change your doctrine with it, that is why country stayed with their own design and usually just upgrade them, but not overhaul them. Especially in the case of the USA, which operate nearly 8,000 tanks, try to imagine a program to replace all 8,000 tanks, how big it would be and how quickly you can do it?

Another reason is that, being a tanker myself, a tank is quite subjective, it basically depends on crew quality and training quality, would a 130 mm guns be a lot better than a 120 mm smoothbore? Maybe it's faster, or more accurate, but then what you gain in those you drop back in weight (Being heavier) and less ammo storage, as the round is bigger.

There are pros and cons for any new thing, unless the pros clearly outweigh the cons, I don't see a need to change what's working right now.

But then, that's just me,

Davos

 

[Penguin]

G'day Mate

After read thru the whole post. I am amaze no one had comment on the need or use for such an upgrade (or thereof)??

In battlefield equipment, there are 2 basic principals you need to follow to fight a war.

The first one is you fight with what you had, not what you would have
The second one is you equipment should serve your purpose, not you serve your equipment.

You cannot change a tank design unless you want to change your doctrine with it, that is why country stayed with their own design and usually just upgrade them, but not overhaul them. Especially in the case of the USA, which operate nearly 8,000 tanks, try to imagine a program to replace all 8,000 tanks, how big it would be and how quickly you can do it?

Another reason is that, being a tanker myself, a tank is quite subjective, it basically depends on crew quality and training quality, would a 130 mm guns be a lot better than a 120 mm smoothbore? Maybe it's faster, or more accurate, but then what you gain in those you drop back in weight (Being heavier) and less ammo storage, as the round is bigger.

There are pros and cons for any new thing, unless the pros clearly outweigh the cons, I don't see a need to change what's working right now.

But then, that's just me,

Davos

The 130mm/L51 above has 8 percent greater in caliber that results in 50 percent more kinetic energy over the 120mm gun from Rheinmetall (presumably L44, since above is spoken about 'in thousends of Leo2'), and 50-20=30% over improved 120mm and ammo (=L55?). .

New ammunition designed for the L/51 cannon include high performance kinetic rounds – Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot – (APFSDS), and high explosive, air-bursting munitions (HE-ABM). Both are derived from existing types designed for the L44/55 120mm guns. (.... indeed a lot longer)

REBUILD! Not just upgrade them, or overhaul.

The need or use for such an upgrade:

Armata T-14 Future Upgrades – The 152mm Main Gun


Russia like a lot of countries have been developing and experimenting with larger bore calibre main guns.

Generally these offer no significant increased advantage in firing Kinetic Energy APFSDS rounds, as the smaller calibre main guns (125mm) have a higher firing pressure and larger calibre are low pressure.

However they do offer advantages for shaped charge ammunition like HEAT rounds and ATGM, as the shaped charged size can be increased or a second charge added (known as a tandem charge).

Whilst using these larger main guns offer the advantage of increased barrel life, less fatigue to the vehicle as they have a lower pressure whilst firing, they have issues such as a less number of rounds stored.

Further complications arise in that the length of the part of the main gun in the turret increases and when fired the recoil goes back so far it causes problems in the reloading of an autoloader.

These type of issues were confirmed in 2015 from recent declassified information we found of similar large calibre 140mm main gun projects outside of Russia and may very well be why the T-14 Armata has not yet been fitted with the 2A83 152mm main gun that started development in the 1990’s for the T-95 tank project.

From http://tanknutdave.com/armata-t14-main-battle-tank/