The M1A2 Abrams: The Last MBT?

[Rubberanvil]

I think they're placing their faith in imaging-infrared guided weapons to the general target area by combined INS/GPS. Of course, they are under the delusion that this will be cheap.

Iirc hotter burning smoke grenades have been show to disrupt the targeting of infrared guided missiles.

[Rubberanvil]

This guys paper should have focused on getting a cheap, easily mass-produced, man-portable *unguided*weapon that can be carried by any infantryman. Said weapon should have range and be as accurate as possible all across its range envelope.

Probably because nobody stopped R&Ding manportable recoiless cannons (Carl Gustav), RPGs (RPG-29) and AT rockets launchers (LAW).

[phongn]

IIR guidance is considerably more difficult to spoof than more basic IR sensors.

[SWPIGWANG]

I think MBTs would always be fairly useful in some roles in the near future. While the USA with its super power status and need for power projection is trying to find low weight alternatives to the MBT, an army with no such requirement, the Israelies, is moving in the opposite direction. With development of more and more super armored monsters and armoring everything from APCs to MBT levels. The need for physical dominance of terrain without resorting fragil infantry requires this. As long as the defense and offense techs are fairly balanced, tanks will be around.

The major reason why MBTs are so annoying is IMHO, not its capacity to kill other tanks, but its capacity to rape anything that moves with direct fire HE. Personally I believe what will largely replace MBTs is artillery that can match tanks in mobility, accuracy, verstility and responsiveness.

As for the death of the big battlewagons, I think the real gist of that argument was that armor died on warships because you simply couldn't protect a ship anymore with it.

I think armor died because most of the important things on a ship, like radar and such, can not be armored.

[CRUCIBLE]

I think armor died because most of the important things on a ship, like radar and such, can not be armored.

Battleships were sitting ducks. Period. They couldnt defend against airborne Torpedoes. Armouring of the deck emplacements had nothing to do with it.

As for the mentioned easy kills of Ground attack Jets/Helicopters against MBTs. Well, yes and no.
Its highly dependable on the terrain and the organization of the MBT platoon (AA support IS standard, at least here in Germany ).

Uhmm, Missile Carriers WILL NOT have Missiles with TWO tracking units. Sorry, they wont. The tracking unit is about 2/3 of the cost of a missile. Another reason to dump this idea altogether.....

Every new weapon platform (direct fire) which was/is mentioned for Infantry AT use, will be first introduced to MBTs. So IF a working Railgun/Gauss should be designed, it would be build into a MBT first.

Never forget the factor of MONEY! A missile carrier as MBT replacment is not functioning. MBT = more bang for the buck.

[phongn]

Uhmm, Missile Carriers WILL NOT have Missiles with TWO tracking units. Sorry, they wont. The tracking unit is about 2/3 of the cost of a missile. Another reason to dump this idea altogether.....

NLOS-PAM has a "dual-mode UCIR/SAL (Uncooled Infrared/Semi-Active Laser) seeker" so it can be in laser-guided more or hunt targets on its own. NLOS-LAM has a LADAR.

[SWPIGWANG]

I think armor died because most of the important things on a ship, like radar and such, can not be armored.

Battleships were sitting ducks. Period. They couldnt defend against airborne Torpedoes. Armouring of the deck emplacements had nothing to do with it.

Armor != Battleships. All ships can have armor, from the deck armor of the british carriers to the various smaller plates in ww2 vintage ships. Armor have steadily become less over the years and resulted in the aluminium boats that gets disabled by a 1 ton rock. (non exploding bomb) Excluding torpedos, which is limited in range and speed, something as well armored as an ww2 vintage BB with their outdated armor can still take alot of punishment before it goes down. However, it wouldn't take much more than aluminium boat worth of weaponary to make it combat ineffective and thus armor is largely abandoned as a form of defense.

[CRUCIBLE]

Uhmm, Missile Carriers WILL NOT have Missiles with TWO tracking units. Sorry, they wont. The tracking unit is about 2/3 of the cost of a missile. Another reason to dump this idea altogether.....

NLOS-PAM has a "dual-mode UCIR/SAL (Uncooled Infrared/Semi-Active Laser) seeker" so it can be in laser-guided more or hunt targets on its own. NLOS-LAM has a LADAR.

I never stated there are NO systems with 2 tracking devices. But keep in mind the cost factor. Therefore there wont be multi trackers in a Missle Carrier warhead.
Not if it should be a MBT replacement.

Again, MBT = more bang for the buck.

[Sea Skimmer]

Battleships were sitting ducks. Period. They couldnt defend against airborne Torpedoes. Armouring of the deck emplacements had nothing to do with it.

No, every except the USN's battleships were sitting ducks. Torpedo bombers tend to be very easy to shoot down, defence against bombing really is more important and its the limits of deck armor and not TDS's that killed the last battleship projects.

As for the mentioned easy kills of Ground attack Jets/Helicopters against MBTs. Well, yes and no.
Its highly dependable on the terrain and the organization of the MBT platoon (AA support IS standard, at least here in Germany ).

But all weather defence only exists at the divisional level. Western militaries ground forces are pretty damn vulnerable to air attacks without heavy fighter cover. Luckily they're unlikely not to have that.

Uhmm, Missile Carriers WILL NOT have Missiles with TWO tracking units. Sorry, they wont. The tracking unit is about 2/3 of the cost of a missile. Another reason to dump this idea altogether.....

Hardly, even at twice the price your still spending only a fraction of the cost of even the cheepest new MBT on the market, the T-72, and it lacks both sufficent armor and the countermesures to require any advanced ATGM.

Every new weapon platform (direct fire) which was/is mentioned for Infantry AT use, will be first introduced to MBTs. So IF a working Railgun/Gauss should be designed, it would be build into a MBT first.

Well perhaps not, the US seems to have ideas about throwing a railgun on an LAV style vehicle first simply because of the space needed for the generators and capacitors. Such a vehicle also has more to gain from not having a ton or so of volatile propellant onboard. But your point does stand, and MBT's could make use of the technology.

Never forget the factor of MONEY! A missile carrier as MBT replacment is not functioning. MBT = more bang for the buck.

Indeed it does. But tank destroying missile carriers have there own place as well and they show many signs of becoming far more lethal. The difference in capability between a single Milan rail on the roof of an APC and the same vehicle with a rack of Longbow Hellfire's is pretty immense and that sort of upgrade or replacement is going to become common in the next decade or two.

[Rubberanvil]

Dumb question, other than the AT role for mission carriers, what else can they do?

[Aaron]

Dumb question, other than the AT role for mission carriers, what else can they do?

You name it they do it. APC's and varients of APC's fulfill every role imaginable on the battlefield. Some of the roles are:

Ambulance
Mortar Carrier
Cargo Carrier
Air Defense-missiles and guns
Command and Control
Engineering Vehicles

And many more, the list is really to extensive to type out here.

*Edited for spelling*

[SWPIGWANG]

Dumb question, other than the AT role for mission carriers, what else can they do?

You mean missile carriers right?

Well, not too much. There are dual use AT-AA designs but they require an expensive senser suit on it.

If you mean what an good M113 can be made into, the answer is everything imaginable and unimaginable. (petty much)

[Stuart Mackey]

Battleships were sitting ducks. Period. They couldnt defend against airborne Torpedoes. Armouring of the deck emplacements had nothing to do with it.

I dont think so. A BB is no more a sitting duck than any other vessel afloat, remember that carriers also had ariel torpedo's hit them during the war. What put paid to the BB was a simple lack need for that kind of ship, not to mention the equation of expence vs versitility. A carrier and its escorts can accomplish most things a BB can and at much greater range and what a carrier cannot do other assets can.

[Rubberanvil]

Dumb question, other than the AT role for mission carriers, what else can they do?

You mean missile carriers right?

Ment to type missile.

[Sea Skimmer]

Dumb question, other than the AT role for mission carriers, what else can they do?

Destroying bunkers and other fortifications is a given; just how flexible your missile carrier is depends on the missiles. The Russians for example are very fond of having HE and incendiary warheads for they're anti tank missiles so they can be used against a wide range of targets. The US Army seems to be looking into doing this as well.

The Russians also have anti aircraft warheads for them, how effective a missile is in that role depends on the missile. But shooting a helicopters in good weather is always an option even if you don't have a special warhead for it, and with many recent and planned anti tank missiles using radar or other fire and forget or all weather sensors you may not need any additional gear to have an effective anti helicopter weapon. Hitting fixed wing aircraft is a different story though, they fly too fast for most anti tank missiles to have any hope of getting a hit. They simply don't have the control surfaces or programming for it.

[CRUCIBLE]

No, every except the USN's battleships were sitting ducks. Torpedo bombers tend to be very easy to shoot down, defence against bombing really is more important and its the limits of deck armor and not TDS's that killed the last battleship projects.

Point taken as for the monetary factor i praised do much but didnt thought about at this one. But time (and R&D) have worked against it (Shipboard/stationary missiles, Jet Fighter with 40km+ missiles)

But all weather defence only exists at the divisional level. Western militaries ground forces are pretty damn vulnerable to air attacks without heavy fighter cover. Luckily they're unlikely not to have that.

Look at the Yes and no. Every Military vehicle movement in a MBZ is prone to air attacks (If no AS). And because of this, Missile Carriers are even less of worth as replacement of MBTs.

Hardly, even at twice the price your still spending only a fraction of the cost of even the cheepest new MBT on the market, the T-72, and it lacks both sufficent armor and the countermesures to require any advanced ATGM.

We are not talking about the kill chance of a Missile Carrier against a MBT. That is a given for sure. The MC shall be a replacement for a surviveable(sp?), multirole weapons platform (ok, its just a big gun and a MG but still.... ), which can be used for fighting Heavy Armour, Light Armour and Infantry at minimal cost.
The costs sum up you show me is indeed correct, but remember. It is only for the first time purchase of the Unit. After some working (combat) time, the overall price for the MC will surpass the MBTs maintenance/rearmin price.

Well perhaps not, the US seems to have ideas about throwing a railgun on an LAV style vehicle first simply because of the space needed for the generators and capacitors. Such a vehicle also has more to gain from not having a ton or so of volatile propellant onboard. But your point does stand, and MBT's could make use of the technology.

Yep, youre right too, point taken.

Indeed it does. But tank destroying missile carriers have there own place as well and they show many signs of becoming far more lethal. The difference in capability between a single Milan rail on the roof of an APC and the same vehicle with a rack of Longbow Hellfire's is pretty immense and that sort of upgrade or replacement is going to become common in the next decade or two.

Indeed. They have there own place. But i doubt they can replace MBTs.

Dont let it come down to ECM/ECCM warfare on the ground fighting level. That will get too complicated, as there are far more factors to calculate in. Till now, there is no need to harness MBTs with ECCM units in an ectended form (vs. ATG there is usually the own AS. Usually...). this will change IF MCs come into trade. At that point MCs. will be no more then short ranged Missile Artillery.

Just my narrowminded (and biased) look into the future...

And again. MCs can and will have a place, but i doubt they can replace a MBT.

[Rubberanvil]

Iirc missile carriers still don't have fire-on-the-move capability?

20 ton MCS would be a very poor replacement for a MBT in survivability, at best it would be a light tank.

[Sea Skimmer]

Iirc missile carriers still don't have fire-on-the-move capability?

That depends on the guidance system being used and the terrain. But for the most part they can only fire when stationary since the launchers aren't stabilized. But a result of that is that the launcher only costs a few tens of thousands of dollars, if that, and can be hauled around by anything. Meanwhile the gun on a main battle tank is a million dollar item, the fire control system another million. If all you want to do is destroy tanks, then missiles become very cost effective, as I've said above. The tanks lower ammuntion costs only become relevant when shooting up things that are not tanks, anti tank shells aren't the cheepest things around and your never going to fire all that many anyway.

[Rubberanvil]

If all you want to do is destroy tanks, then missiles become very cost effective, as I've said above.

Which in turn isn't cost effective being a one-trick pony. When the missile launchers themselves can be mounted on other multi-role AFVs. Plus missiles are overkill in power and cost when the targets doesn't require much to kill it,

The tanks lower ammuntion costs only become relevant when shooting up things that are not tanks,

Given there's a whole lot of targets for the tanks mgs, and the use of HE, HEP, canister, and WP shells for the maingun, tanks are pretty much everything covered.

anti tank shells aren't the cheepest things around and your never going to fire all that many anyway.

Compare to missiles, anti-tank shells are the cheapest things around.

[CRUCIBLE]

Ah ok... here i am.....well

Serious now, i have finally gotten to a Hauptmann at the Tin can brigade (MBTs).
I asked how much (aprox) a APDS and a HEAT shell for the Leopard 2 A6 costs atm (well here in Germany at least).

APDS = 3000 Euro (aprox, inc. maintenance) per Shell

HEAT = 2400 Euro (aprox, inc. maintenance) per Shell

I have no access to guys from the Luftwaffe (Air Force), to get any information about the price tags on Hellfire (or equivalent) ATG Missiles, but i am pretty sure on a price tag of about 65,000$ for ONE ATG missile.

So much for a cost efficient Missile Carrier in the long run, not talking about integrated targeting and fire solution equipment you need for missile launching units atop of that.

Again, what i think, an alternative. That is for sure. But not a replacement.

[Admiral Valdemar]

A single Igla MANPADS costs over £50k I believe. May not be an ATGM, but it's a good basis for cost here even if off by 10 grand, that makes shells still far more cost effective.

[CRUCIBLE]

Iirc missile carriers still don't have fire-on-the-move capability?

That depends on the guidance system being used and the terrain. But for the most part they can only fire when stationary since the launchers aren't stabilized. But a result of that is that the launcher only costs a few tens of thousands of dollars, if that, and can be hauled around by anything. Meanwhile the gun on a main battle tank is a million dollar item, the fire control system another million. If all you want to do is destroy tanks, then missiles become very cost effective, as I've said above. The tanks lower ammuntion costs only become relevant when shooting up things that are not tanks, anti tank shells aren't the cheepest things around and your never going to fire all that many anyway.

Yep, a MBT is expensive.

An Abrams (M1A2) comes at 4.3 mio $. But given the fact that even a M2 IVF Bradley comes at 3.16mio. $ as light armoured vehicle, a MC will come up with at least the same price tag as a Bradley.

And yep, i understand the point that with every missile the MC can destroy darn much money value (the MBTs), but the MC (with similar price tag) can be destroyed with a lousy RPG for about 2000$.

And to be honest, why in hell arent they developing a missile upgrade for MBTs? Would be nice. Yeah i know..additional targeting system, low ammunition count, bigger profile......

[Sea Skimmer]

Yep, a MBT is expensive.

An Abrams (M1A2) comes at 4.3 mio $. But given the fact that even a M2 IVF Bradley comes at 3.16mio. $ as light armoured vehicle, a MC will come up with at least the same price tag as a Bradley.

An M1A2 costs more like six million, and the Bradley is already carrying everything you'd find on an anti tank missile carrier plus a fuckload more so a pure anti tank vechical should cost less.

And yep, i understand the point that with every missile the MC can destroy darn much money value (the MBTs), but the MC (with similar price tag) can be destroyed with a lousy RPG for about 2000$.

So? Its point is to destroy armor, you don't send them into RPG range to try and screw with infantry. At the close rnages at which you can hit anything with an RPG all tanks become vulnrabul to them anyway, the Chechens destroyed hundreds of tanks clad in reactive armor with relativly obolete RPG models. The M2 you used as an example above BTW, has considerabul protection against RPG's. But most tank destroyers are built lighter and cheeper, which is the whole point. It means they cost less to build and equally importantly far less to operate while being easier to deploy. I've never arguged that missiles are a replacement for tanks, only that they have there own powerful place, and the worlds armies agree with me.

And to be honest, why in hell arent they developing a missile upgrade for MBTs? Would be nice. Yeah i know..additional targeting system, low ammunition count, bigger profile......

A number of tanks already have gun launched missiles, however there are serious size limitations to such weapons, heavy ATGM's are generally a good six inches or more in diameter and no production tank today has better then a 125mm gun. That seriouslly limits the warheads power, its almost certainly not going to be powerful enough to destroy modern tanks. The limited length of the missile that can be fired and the requirment for highly compact control surfaces fruther reduces the missiles effectiveness and can made it easy to evade at long range, which is where you'd be shooting the things.

If you put the missiles on the tank externally then you have basically an unacceptabul fire hazard.

[Sea Skimmer]

Ah ok... here i am.....well

Serious now, i have finally gotten to a Hauptmann at the Tin can brigade (MBTs).
I asked how much (aprox) a APDS and a HEAT shell for the Leopard 2 A6 costs atm (well here in Germany at least).

APDS = 3000 Euro (aprox, inc. maintenance) per Shell

HEAT = 2400 Euro (aprox, inc. maintenance) per Shell

I have no access to guys from the Luftwaffe (Air Force), to get any information about the price tags on Hellfire (or equivalent) ATG Missiles, but i am pretty sure on a price tag of about 65,000$ for ONE ATG missile.

That's about right for a Hellfire, though Hellfires are alot more expensive then most ATGM's because of the huge warhead, and long range.

So much for a cost efficient Missile Carrier in the long run, not talking about integrated targeting and fire solution equipment you need for missile launching units atop of that.

What the fuck is so hard for you to understand? Your firing that missile as something that costs a quarter million dollars or more and you have jack shit operating and training costs for the system compared to a tank. The Missile is expensive, everything else is far cheeper then a tank and shot for shot more effective against tanks.

Its kind of telling that the Soviet and now Russian army, who are rather fond of tanks, have pretty much the best tank destroying missile carriers on the planet and deploy complete battalions and even regiments of them.

Again, what i think, an alternative. That is for sure. But not a replacement.

I never said I thought they where a replacement, only that they had a strong position in modern and future militaries. You clearly have not understood that.

[CRUCIBLE]

That's about right for a Hellfire, though Hellfires are alot more expensive then most ATGM's because of the huge warhead, and long range.

They need the same range profile as a Hellfire, the Hellfire is saving fuel during the "fly-down" process as it is a ATG. A Hellfire equivalent needs to boost itself up to a decent height, before it can drop down.
But it would in fact need a smaller warhead.

What the fuck is so hard for you to understand? Your firing that missile as something that costs a quarter million dollars or more and you have jack shit operating and training costs for the system compared to a tank. The Missile is expensive, everything else is far cheeper then a tank and shot for shot more effective against tanks.

Its kind of telling that the Soviet and now Russian army, who are rather fond of tanks, have pretty much the best tank destroying missile carriers on the planet and deploy complete battalions and even regiments of them.

I allready posted that the system is effective for the cost, but not effective in general, as there are far more allready exsisting weapon systems that excell(sp?) in the AT department.

I have to disagree on the trainig part and to some degree on the operation cost part. Trainig will cost as much as MBT training as combat maneuver routines will/must be included as they are operating IN the MBZ. Otherwise you could just shoot FF AT warheads with you artillery and have a better cost/effectivness ratio.

Oh and btw, i like you attitude, calm down a bit.

I never said I thought they where a replacement, only that they had a strong position in modern and future militaries. You clearly have not understood that.

Mate, you assume that they will have a strong position, and i do not have to understand that.
On the other hand i quiet clearly understood that you have not marketed a MC as MBT replacement. Please do not assume i am an incompetent idiot.

To your latest post.

The 3.16 mio. $ Bradley is the unmodified upgradeless pure variant. That means a MC will even with less armour/mobility be in the same range.

The Chechens didnt destroyed MBTs with RPG fire, they laid ambushes on frequently used routes and immobilized them. After that they either waited for the crew to come out or placed AT mines under them which were rigged to detonate via a simple cord pull (they did it on routes were that was indeed a possibility).

I have to agree that i (or you) have no idea how well a MC would be armoured. But if it should be a light armoured vehicle like the Bradley (or even less), then it runs in real danger from ANYTHING on the field to be destroyed. Heck, even mortar explosions in a 50m radius would cripple them.