Are MBT's becoming obsolete?

[ran 0]

Imagine reactive armour go off in crowded urban areas with inf and civillians nearby....

No good idea, imo.

steel debris + plasma in fusion + concussion = bad for the people around

[Ares1978 0]

What designs?

I'm not trying to swing a big American dick around here by saying we've got the best IFV, but we're one of the very few countries in the world who have used our IFVs in combat and used those experiences to improve them.

Of course not, I would ask the same question if I were in your shoes. Lets say, Dardo Hitfist, the Japanese Type 89 or BWP-2000. The absolute minimum for IFVs being designed nowadays is a 30mm main gun + TOW and enough armor to defeat standard 30x173 APFSDS-T rounds.

But what's the point claiming that yours is the best, if you don't know how good other IFVs are? I mean, how do you even know it is good? Everything is relative.

[Ares1978 0]

Imagine reactive armour go off in crowded urban areas with inf and civillians nearby....

No good idea, imo.

Somehow I doubt that a burning fuel and ammunition filled vehicle is that much better. I don't know if it's worth the risk or not.

[hellfish6 7]

What designs?

I'm not trying to swing a big American dick around here by saying we've got the best IFV, but we're one of the very few countries in the world who have used our IFVs in combat and used those experiences to improve them.

Of course not, I would ask the same question if I were in your shoes. Lets say, Dardo Hitfist, the Japanese Type 89 or BWP-2000. The absolute minimum for IFVs being designed nowadays is a 30mm main gun + TOW and enough armor to defeat standard 30x173 APFSDS-T rounds.

But what's the point claiming that yours is the best, if you don't know how good other IFVs are? I mean, how do you even know it is good? Everything is relative.

Why is 30mm the magical number? The 25mm cannon on the Brads are able to penetrate the frontal armor of T-55s with the APFSDSDU rounds.

The Dardo, T89 and BWP are all good IFVs, but still - none have seen combat (well... there are Dardos serving in Iraq right now, and many of them have welded on PSP sheeting for additional armor, but they haven't fought tanks or organized opposition - ever).

I don't think it's possible to underestimate the value of what seeing happens when an RPG hits a vehicle in actual combat conditions. Add to that the fact that only the Bradley has a CITV (A3 variant, anyway) and the FCBC2/BluforTracker system and the Bradley is not only an effective killer, but it's also a more effective co-ordinator.

And the Bradley has had a 50mm cannon tested out on it at one point (Bushmaster 50mm Mk 3) but the Army still opts for the 25mm, probably because it can carry more 25mm ammo than 50mm ammo.

The Marine's new EFV will be interesting, though. It'll have a turret with a 30mm cannon and two Javelin launchers last I heard, and the cannon is supposed to shoot the same ammo as the A-10's gun.

[dm 9]

You want to put reactive armour on an IFV

Seems the Americans already have

Pics of Bradleys (possibly the same chassis, not sure) from current Ops in Iraq.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]Imagine reactive armour go off in crowded urban areas with inf and civillians nearby....

No good idea, imo.

   You guys make it sound like reactive armor goes off like a MOAB and kills every thing for a square mile if detonated.

   If your standing next to a vehicle that gets his by a RPG round your going to die any way, What difference is it going to make to you if the IFV has reactive armor? You can only die once.

[ran 0]

If your standing next to a vehicle that gets his by a RPG round your going to die any way, What difference is it going to make to you if the IFV has reactive armor? You can only die once.

Depends of the kind of RPG warhead.

The reactive armor on IFV would be counter-productive, the goal is not to make the killing of your infantrymen easier but to offer them fire support.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

You want to put reactive armour on an IFV

Seems the Americans already have

"]http://www.ballisticaddonstudios.com/users....mg]

"]http://www.ballisticaddonstudios.com/users....mg]

Pics of Bradleys (possibly the same chassis, not sure) from current Ops in Iraq.

If I was assigned to that unit, I'd make sure to always take point, or stay back at base. I would NOT want to use a reactive armour laden vehicle to act as my armour

[Tovarish 0]

Not even the Russians are putting ERA on their IFVs, and I think we all know how much they love ERA. I think the BTR-T is an interesting concept - uparmour an old tank chassis and turn it into an IFV.

from what I read it's only drawback is that it's somewhat slower than other IFVs

[ACF 0]

I think the BTR-T is an interesting concept - uparmour an old tank chassis and turn it into an IFV.

from what I read it's only drawback is that it's somewhat slower than other IFVs.

And we've gone back full circle to the Priest/Ram Kangaroos of WWII!  With all their disadvantages.

Is this an infantry 'support' vehicle or an infantry 'carrying' vehicle - it's still rear-engined so access is 'over the top' and it doesn't look like it could carry more than a couple of dismountable troops.

Speed isn't a major issue as long as it's no slower than the tanks it's supporting; though that's probably the case with an old hull.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

MBT and urban area's;

Read what you can about the expecience by the russians; The tanks main gun can not elevate high enough to target (RPG)infantry standing on roofs or hiding in tall buildings. That's why russians used Shilka vehicles together with tanks.

It's also the reason why more modern russian armored vehicles have turrets that can do this (note the turret on the BTR-T).

The MBT is still very effective at blowing holes in buildings and scaring the shit out of enemy troops, though. The destruction caused by the main gun and the amount of firepower it can take (it can take direct frontal hits from RPG's, only the roof is very vulnerable) make it very effective.

IFV's;

Note that they are used for transporting troops. Tanks can't do that. IFV's are not only used in urban area's. IFV's like the Bradley are much better than a hard-core-APC like the M113 (although still a good vehicle).

In an urban area they can be used for infantry support, but they are not really suited for the job, due to their thin armor. This means unsuited when the enemy is well equiped and trained. In Iraq the enemy needs to stand directly in front of the tank with the tip of the RPG only an inch from the front of the vehicle to make sure he'll hit it. And even than they'll manage to miss.

When fighting a well trained force (for example US vs France) tactics might change very quickly. Air-power can't be called in, because no side truely own the skies. A city fight will quickly turn into a bloody infantry and tank fight. IFV's will still be used, but not in the same way as they are used in Iraq.

Future tanks;

Some say that future tanks will be missileplatforms and that the gun will disappear like it did in the Navy. Unfortunately for those guys I can say that the Navy is going for bigger guns again, because they are very usefull for bombing a beach.

A tankshell is much cheaper than a missile and doesn't need a lock-on. It can be fired and just about anything and you can try all the counter-meassures you want; a big piece of flying metal can't be fooled.

In tank to tank combat the missile will be very effective and might replace the gun in the future. But in urban fighting, extreme weather conditions etc, the gun is the only thing you can trust.

[ACF 0]

Didn’t I see a thread somewhere asking for opinion?

I’m surprised that the Dunnigan article hasn’t attracted more comment. Whilst it holds many truths, it strikes me that there are some holes in it that are big enough to drive a tank through…

As a starter: if there were ‘successful American urban warfare tactics that go back to World War II’ involving armour, how come there ‘have been several surprises in this Israeli and American experience . . . that tanks can effectively work in urban areas’ despite ‘the conventional wisdom was that armor was too vulnerable in cities, and that infantry alone was able to clear out enemy resistance’?

Even more worryingly, in the context of a security problem with ‘bad guys [who] are rarely good shots’ ‘hiding in a building’, we are quite happily proposing a solution based on MBT main gun ‘firepower (especially new tank shells designed for street fighting)’. The word ‘overkill’ seems made for this situation. The words ‘reasonable force’ don’t.

There is, I submit, a distinction between clearing a house and clearing the land on which it stands. This article isn't making it(and just what are these ‘new tank shells’?)

I'm not disputing it's dangerous and unpleasant, but driving Abrams through Baghdad and Merkavas through Palestinian shanties is not 'urban warfare' in the same vein as Berlin 1945 or, for what I know of it, Chechnya. This article seems too ready to apply ‘lessons’ from one to the other without acknowledging, or seeing, the differences.

The effectiveness of tanks in built-up areas is largely dependent on the ability and armoury of the opposition more than the tanks themselves.

I will stick my neck out and suggest that ‘armoured firepower’ is never going to be anything other than useful. The variables are how vulnerable the ‘armour’ is to whatever the enemy has got and how relevant the ‘firepower’ is to the task in hand. These variables will themselves vary depending on what we and the enemy are each trying to do: are we talking internal security actions, where zero casualties is a realistic aim, or old-fashioned all-out war where the objective comes first. We like to think it won’t happen again, but one day the bottom line might be that 100% casualties in tanks (not forgetting the crews) may still be preferred to 50% casualties in infantry for equivalent results; battles have been fought on that basis before (Goodwood).

If we have an internal security (IS) situation and we are trying to minimise our own casualties it makes sense to give the 'security force' the best protection possible. That happens to be MBTs. What use they actually are is another matter. As was found with armoured cars in Iraq c. 1920 – if you have to put a man on the street for any reason, you hamstring a fighting vehicle by robbing it of at least one of its fighting crew. So you take infantry and end up with the majority of your potential casualties in lesser-armoured vehicles; at what point is it not worth risking the tanks?

There are, of course, other considerations. It’s not unreasonable to expect to have to minimise non-security force casualties as well; better not use that big gun, then. If you’re out to win hearts and minds, rumbling round in an MBT is literally putting something between you and your target audience.

From the other side of the hill, live tanks are nice propaganda coup for your average irregular (‘Look! I’m being oppressed!’) Better yet, dead tanks are a newsworthy achievement and dead ‘things’ don’t attract quite the same negative publicity as dead soldiers – people see the wreck, not what’s stuck to the inside.

What about what everybody else will think of you? It would have made sense to drive Chieftains around Ulster (or through Hyde Park, for that matter) for protection but, not being everybody’s idea of a war on terror, it would have been media and political suicide to do so; out came the Saracens, Shorlands and Pigs instead. Using MBTs has to be politically, as well as militarily, acceptable.

The article doesn’t fare much better with the techno-talk (or possibly I’m just a Luddite):

Tanks have blind spots all round, and they are significant at the ranges encountered in street fighting. The dead zones for the guns are even worse – there are potentially many situations where you can’t even traverse the turret because of the length and swept radius of the main gun. Again, dominating a city from the airy isolation of its multi-lane, ring-road is not quite the same as clearing a labyrinth downtown.

Tank guns have limited elevation, too, so the bad guys will counter with cunning tactics like going upstairs. Built-up areas scream ‘top-attack’ – the classic ambush in the canyon. Yes, you’d need balls of steel to hang out of a window with an RPG or a demo charge (not sure what the antonym for ‘kosher’ is, but presumably Gammon bombs are that and haram in the Middle East…) but a hit on a turret roof or engine deck is surely going to cause more upset than a hit on the frontal arc?

Video technology? Nice, but there’s still only eight eyes* maximum in the typical tank crew irrespective of how many monitors they’ve got. The better the field of view and the smaller the blind spots just means a bigger area to fret about. Let’s add another choice: do you use thermal or visible-spectrum opto-electronics, optical periscopes and episcopes or open the lid and have a quick dekko just to make sure?

Information overload beckons. Give commanders too much information and micro-management is a risk. I do concede it will be more manageable in an IS situation than ‘war’.

* Earlier comments about the endurance of tanks also have relevance here: though tanks can stay ‘on station’ and be maintained in situ, remember there’s only a four-man crew to ‘fight’ it 24hrs a day.

Robots that can be thrown through windows! So they can be chucked out again? I’d like to see a robot negotiate the room I’m typing this in; and I wouldn’t be trying to shoot it! If you’re exposing yourself to do the throwing, why not just start with a grenade or satchel charge and avoid the revisit? (We’re cleared to use 120mm guns, remember.) What happens while our ‘windows’ system boots – everyone huddling expectantly round the monitor? I don’t doubt there will be situations where it works and saves lives, but surely not that often?

OK, so I may be a little sceptical of new wonder technologies, but sniper location is in the same vein as long-accepted artillery and mortar locating systems. It certainly seems practical, though perhaps only in low-intensity scenarios and, as ever, a lot will depend on the interface. Even if it’s not 100% accurate, having a definite drill as a response to a response would galvanise and focus the snipees and reduce the paralysis/panic that might otherwise ensue.

Let’s slave a turret to it and have an anti-sniper point defence system! Though perhaps with manual firing as a safety feature rather than automatic engagement in our urban IS environment. Or maybe a civvy-friendly visible laser pointer – ‘X’ marks the spot.

I do like this one: ‘Even the armor piercing shells from the tanks main gun can be useful in street fighting’. Perhaps if you’re using field telephones and need to lay a line through Fallujah? How many buildings will a DU long-rod penetrator penetrate before it gets bored with boring? (I don’t think there are tank ranges in the UK that can handle modern service APFSDS shoots)

Accounts from Arnhem (1944) referred to AP punching three-foot holes right through buildings. These are the accounts of those inside the buildings. A reasonable conclusion is that as long as you’re not actually on the trajectory, incoming shot was far preferable to incoming shell. The shot in question were almost certainly 50/75/88mm full-bore AP (only the British and Canadians had sub-calibre shot (APDS) in any quantity). Extrapolating down, I’d guess that modern sub-calibre penetrators would have much less, er, impact on the structure; but I wait to be corrected.

The HE in HEAT would be far more useful but I’d venture that the best nature for urban fighting would be good old HESH (high explosive squash head). A couple of kilogrammes (4kg at 120mm) of plastic explosive applied to a building is going to upset it and its occupants. Admittedly, modern ‘chemical energy’ (CE) natures like HESH and HEAT are designed as tankbusters and pure HE performance is a secondary consideration, but Chieftain was designed around (IIRC) a 60/40 HE/AT mix, underlining the importance of having an HE capability even in the days of the Soviet hordes.

When modern-format tanks were in their nappies before WWII, most countries made the considerable effort to get 75mm-ish low- to medium-velocity guns on a proportion of tanks (designing specific vehicles if we consider the PzKpfw IV or bodging horrible compromises. e.g. Char B, early Churchills, Medium M3 Lee/Grant). These were needed for general support tasks because the contemporary AT guns were small calibre and largely confined to firing solid shot.

Shells smaller than 75mm were considered to lack HE punch; anything bigger encroached upon the realm of the gunners (artillerymen). There was a happy convergence mid-war when circa-75mm was also the cutting edge AT calibre but as the effective AT calibre continued to increase, the HE capability exceeded what was really necessary.

Men, houses, trucks and other soft targets haven’t changed that much since WWII yet modern MBT main guns are comparable to WWII medium artillery. Thus, today, the useful general support calibre is merely half, not twice, the AT calibre. A big bang may not always be best though. Round weight and volume are roughly proportional to calibre cubed; halve the calibre and carry eight times as much ammo or dramatically reduce the under-armour volume and thus the size and weight (airportability’s a goal!) of your tank (or squeeze a couple of less-fashionable infantrymen in!).

So where does all my ranting leave us? Well, to me, the Dunnigan article is not doing much more than [re-]stating the bleeding obvious that mutually supporting combined arms are better than either agile, adaptable but soft infantry or big, blind but hard tanks on their own in built-up areas (specifically) or close country (generally). As a sensible lesson, that can’t be restated enough, but here it's undermined a bit.

If there is a point to this, maybe it’s that if someone’s decided that future ‘wars’ are going to see a lot of urban pacification on the Iraq model and not very much tank-killing then MBTs are not the ideal solution. While MBTs may be versatile enough to be usable, what you might actually want is something with MBT levels of protection for its crew and a dismountable element (i.e. infantry).

Weapon-wise, a restrained armoury of a couple of rifle-calibre machine guns and, playing safe because it’s still a big beast, let’s add a 75mm-ish medium velocity gun with all-round traverse and decent elevation, compact ammo and lots of useful natures. Then we can deal with the occasional bad guy who can shoot, without levelling the neighbourhood and manufacturing more martyrs.

Essentially it's a heavy IFV/MICV with something more versatile than a trendy cannon (e.g. Rarden or a chain gun) as main armament. Merkava with a Scorpion-style turret, anyone?

[DracoPaladore 0]

Quote[/b] ]Accounts from Arnhem (1944) referred to AP punching three-foot holes right through buildings

Just a side note:

Canadian soldiers in the battle of Ortonoa used their Anti-Tank rifles to punch through walls of buildings in order to advance from one structure to another without going in the street. Usually top floor to catch Germans off guard and prevent grenade casualties.

Just a quooosten:

What's the difference between an AFV and an IFV?

[Ironsight 1]

Seems the US Army is going to upgrade the Abrams

Quote[/b] ]TUSK to update Abrams for urban battle

By Eric W. Cramer

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, March 9, 2005) -- The Abrams tank is growing a TUSK – that’s Tank Urban Survival Kit, a series of improvements, including some still in development.

TUSK will allow Soldiers in the field to improve the Abrams’ ability to survive in urban areas off the traditional battlefield for which it was designed.

Lt. Col. Michael Flanagan, product manager for TUSK, said the goal is to help improve the tank’s survivability.

“You have to remember, the tank was a Cold War design, aimed at a threat that was always to its front. It’s still the most survivable weapon in the arsenal from the front,†Flanagan said. “Today it’s a 360-degree fight, and these systems are designed to improve survivability in that urban environment.â€

The TUSK includes additional protection at the loader’s gun station on the turret, the commander’s gun station, reactive armor to protect the tank’s side from attack by rocket-propelled grenades and slat armor to protect the tank’s rear from the same weapon, and the tank/infantry telephone to allow infantry and armor Soldiers to work together in combat.

Flanagan said all the proposed upgrades use “off the shelf†technology, and the goal is for the entire TUSK to be applied by units in the field, without requiring a return to a depot for modification.

“The reactive armor, for example, is a product similar to what’s on the Bradley (Armored Fighting Vehicle),†Flanagan said. “It’s explosive armor that protects the vehicle.â€

Another example would be the slat armor designed to protect the tank’s rear from RPG attack. It is similar in design and concept to the slat armor used on the Stryker armored vehicles for the same purpose.

The first TUSK component to reach the field has been the Loader’s Armored Gun Shield, which provides protection to the loader when the Soldier is firing the 7.62mm machinegun on the Abrams’ turret. Flanagan said about 130 of the shields have already been purchased and sent to units in Iraq. Also incorporated into the loader’s firing position is a thermal sight, giving the position the ability to locate and fire on targets in the dark.

“This is the same unit that is used on machineguns carried by infantry troops, and we’ve incorporated it into the loader’s position,†Flanagan said. He said a system that attaches a pair of goggles to the sight, allowing the loader to fire the gun from inside the turret, while seeing the thermal sight’s image, is under development.

Also under development are improvements to the commander’s station outside the turret, although different systems are necessary for the M-1A2 Abrams and its older M1-A1 brethren.

“Because of things we added to the turret in the A2, the commander’s station had lost the ability to shoot the .50-caliber machinegun while under armor,†Flanagan said. “We’re developing a Remote Weapons Station, that will probably be similar to the one used on the Stryker, to allow that weapon to be fire from inside the turret.â€

Flanagan said the design could also allow the use of the crewed weapon station used on Humvees, but a final determination hasn’t been made.

Ultimately, most of these add-ons will be incorporated into a kit – installed in the field and removed in the field as a pre-positioned component for the next Abrams unit to take duty in that location. Flanagan said some kits will begin to reach the field later this year.

At least some of the kits’ components may also be included in new Abrams’ production.

“The loader’s shield and the remote weapons station, and the tank/infantry telephone all may be included as regular production items in the tank,†Flanagan said. “It’s important to remember that the Abrams will continue to be the dominant weapons system for the Army until at least 2030.â€

Full article

Click here for a pic

[EiZei 0]

Just a quooosten:

What's the difference between an AFV and an IFV?

Definition of AFV includes all armoured combat vehicles like MBTs and IFVs while IFVs are.. well.. IFVs.

[red oct 2]

Seems the US Army is going to upgrade the Abrams

Quote[/b] ]TUSK to update Abrams for urban battle

By Eric W. Cramer

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, March 9, 2005) -- The Abrams tank is growing a TUSK – that’s Tank Urban Survival Kit, a series of improvements, including some still in development.

TUSK will allow Soldiers in the field to improve the Abrams’ ability to survive in urban areas off the traditional battlefield for which it was designed.

Lt. Col. Michael Flanagan, product manager for TUSK, said the goal is to help improve the tank’s survivability.

“You have to remember, the tank was a Cold War design, aimed at a threat that was always to its front. It’s still the most survivable weapon in the arsenal from the front,†Flanagan said. “Today it’s a 360-degree fight, and these systems are designed to improve survivability in that urban environment.â€

The TUSK includes additional protection at the loader’s gun station on the turret, the commander’s gun station, reactive armor to protect the tank’s side from attack by rocket-propelled grenades and slat armor to protect the tank’s rear from the same weapon, and the tank/infantry telephone to allow infantry and armor Soldiers to work together in combat.

Flanagan said all the proposed upgrades use “off the shelf†technology, and the goal is for the entire TUSK to be applied by units in the field, without requiring a return to a depot for modification.

“The reactive armor, for example, is a product similar to what’s on the Bradley (Armored Fighting Vehicle),†Flanagan said. “It’s explosive armor that protects the vehicle.â€

Another example would be the slat armor designed to protect the tank’s rear from RPG attack. It is similar in design and concept to the slat armor used on the Stryker armored vehicles for the same purpose.

The first TUSK component to reach the field has been the Loader’s Armored Gun Shield, which provides protection to the loader when the Soldier is firing the 7.62mm machinegun on the Abrams’ turret. Flanagan said about 130 of the shields have already been purchased and sent to units in Iraq. Also incorporated into the loader’s firing position is a thermal sight, giving the position the ability to locate and fire on targets in the dark.

“This is the same unit that is used on machineguns carried by infantry troops, and we’ve incorporated it into the loader’s position,†Flanagan said. He said a system that attaches a pair of goggles to the sight, allowing the loader to fire the gun from inside the turret, while seeing the thermal sight’s image, is under development.

Also under development are improvements to the commander’s station outside the turret, although different systems are necessary for the M-1A2 Abrams and its older M1-A1 brethren.

“Because of things we added to the turret in the A2, the commander’s station had lost the ability to shoot the .50-caliber machinegun while under armor,†Flanagan said. “We’re developing a Remote Weapons Station, that will probably be similar to the one used on the Stryker, to allow that weapon to be fire from inside the turret.â€

Flanagan said the design could also allow the use of the crewed weapon station used on Humvees, but a final determination hasn’t been made.

Ultimately, most of these add-ons will be incorporated into a kit – installed in the field and removed in the field as a pre-positioned component for the next Abrams unit to take duty in that location. Flanagan said some kits will begin to reach the field later this year.

At least some of the kits’ components may also be included in new Abrams’ production.

“The loader’s shield and the remote weapons station, and the tank/infantry telephone all may be included as regular production items in the tank,†Flanagan said. “It’s important to remember that the Abrams will continue to be the dominant weapons system for the Army until at least 2030.â€

Full article

Click here for a pic

that looks pretty cool! will that cage on the back be enough though? i mean i thought they would have to make those bars a little more thicker that that to stop a rocket.

[Necromancer- 0]

Haha.. modified ESS profile NVG compatible Goggles!

That ERA will do a lot of work.

Imo... radio-controlled tanks with a M249 will do just as fine.. unless you really need some heavy fire support.  

[orson 0]

Your joking... they are fitting a phone to the rear for infantry to use ?  WOW thats a new one .... pffft . :P

They should evolve the remote control idea some more .

       vehicle for urban support of infantry

I see a humvee size tracked AFV controled from a support vehicle , completely remote but should have a manual control on the rear for grunts on scene .

Area for 2 or 3 strecher cases inside.

Fold out small arms protection screens on the rear .

40mm munitions launcher and a 7.62 MG .

Plenty of the usual optics/sensors

ceramic armour (chobham)

 Main bonus with a remote is there are no crew to scramble inside ... so more armour can be added making it quite tough.

 Another bonus with remotes is that they can be operated with no danger to the user , and a more measured approach can be taken with far less possibility  of panic fire .

 Remotes can have far more "eyes" than a conventional AFV , a support vehicle could have a bank of screens with a pair of eyes on each monitor without having to cram them all inside the AFV .

could think of lots more advantages to a specialy designed urban patrol/support/pacification vehicle ... rather than just adding some bits to existing kit . The tank is a beast of the open planes .. stop using them as gaurd dogs !

But i spose to build such a vehicle is to admit that the next war you fight may be against armed civilians in an urban environment ... and no country wants that do they ?

[red oct 2]

i think its a pretty sound plan to put a phone on it. suppose they are moving through a city and they discover something that wasn't in the briefing that could be a problem, they could make a call back to base and they could send some additional help to deal w/ it. or if the tank breaks down middle of nowhare, they'll have some way of calling for help.

[stevevcb 3]

I'm quite surprised that the Abrams doesn't have an infantry phone as standard. I'm pretty sure every British MBT has had one since the Centurion, I assume it's the same for most NATO countries. In fact, if you watch Full Metal Jacket, you see someone using one on an M48.

Quote[/b] ]i think its a pretty sound plan to put a phone on it. suppose they are moving through a city and they discover something that wasn't in the briefing that could be a problem, they could make a call back to base and they could send some additional help to deal w/ it. or if the tank breaks down middle of nowhare, they'll have some way of calling for help.

It's just an intercom, or at least they are on other tanks. No real need to mount a radio on the outside of the tank, because the crew will have a vehicle mounted in the turret, and the infantry will usually have a signaller with them.

[hellfish6 7]

The Abrams never had a phone on back because the jet turbine engine made the rear exhaust of the M-1 about 3000 degrees. They've started putting on an exhaust deflector that shoots the super hot air up instead of to the rear. Now they can put a telephone there, something that was standard on all other US tanks since WW2.

[Necromancer- 0]

The Abrams never had a phone on back because the jet turbine engine made the rear exhaust of the M-1 about 3000 degrees. They've started putting on an exhaust deflector that shoots the super hot air up instead of to the rear. Now they can put a telephone there, something that was standard on all other US tanks since WW2.

The military re-defined the "mobile phone".

[Ares1978 0]

Why is 30mm the magical number? The 25mm cannon on the Brads are able to penetrate the frontal armor of T-55s with the APFSDSDU rounds.

The rest of the world doesn't have access to DU ammunition, like the US does. It's also a matter of protection. Modern AFV's are also better protected than those from the mid-50's.

Quote[/b] ]The Dardo, T89 and BWP are all good IFVs, but still - none have seen combat (well... there are Dardos serving in Iraq right now, and many of them have welded on PSP sheeting for additional armor, but they haven't fought tanks or organized opposition - ever).

Had they done it, they would have done a much better job than the Bradley (I'm saying this just to illustrate my point).

Quote[/b] ]And the Bradley has had a 50mm cannon tested out on it at one point (Bushmaster 50mm Mk 3) but the Army still opts for the 25mm, probably because it can carry more 25mm ammo than 50mm ammo.

AFAIK, the 50mm cannon is the 35/50 cannon, with about same performance with the APFSDS in both configurations, but with the advantage of being able to use larger and smarter explosive shells. The 50 mm ammo doesn't take up more space than the 35mm ammo. If it's anything like its Mauser equivalent.

Quote[/b] ]The Marine's new EFV will be interesting, though. It'll have a turret with a 30mm cannon and two Javelin launchers last I heard, and the cannon is supposed to shoot the same ammo as the A-10's gun.

30x173, no big deal. That's the same caliber most of the western 30mm guns use nowadays. Of course, the US uses DU rounds.

[miles teg 1]

Actually sticking a phone on the back of a tank for infantry is not the best idea. During past wars, many tank commanders ripped out the phones on their tanks so the infantry wouldn't use them. The reason? Simple... the tank driver can't see whats behind them and if they have to back up suddenly or spin around very quickly...guess what... you have a dead or seriously injured infantryman.

In short, its a REALLY REALLY bad idea to be walking around behind a tank if the driver doesn't know you are there. This is one reason why the Israeli Merkava Mk-4 tanks and the Namer Heavy APC have rear view cameras.

At any rate, as far as I know, the TUSK upgrade won't have any cameras. So I envision a few squashed infantrymen trying to use that phone. When I went to Ft. Irwin (29 Palms/NTC) for training we were told that the leading cause of death there was from getting run over by armored vehicles.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[hellfish6 7]

Quote[/b] ]The Dardo, T89 and BWP are all good IFVs, but still - none have seen combat (well... there are Dardos serving in Iraq right now, and many of them have welded on PSP sheeting for additional armor, but they haven't fought tanks or organized opposition - ever).

Had they done it, they would have done a much better job than the Bradley (I'm saying this just to illustrate my point).

That's total and absolute speculation. That's like saying I would kick the ass on anyone on this forum in a fistfight. There's absolutely no basis of fact for either of those statements.