New round for M1 Abrams main gun

[Sam]

Joejojoba111,
The XM 25 is an XM as in eXperimental Model. Not standardized yet and I'll bet it won't be. The manufacturer claims +- 5yards and that isn't good enough by a long shot. Haven't seen any certified testing on it and bet I won't for quite some time. +-5 is a 10 yard margin and that isnt really close enough for a real grenade to work well and that puny 25monkey measurement thing would be useless with a 10 yard margin. How much trash do you think you could get into an inch projectile? Cannister on the other hand is real handy stuff. Don't know if I'd want my back scratched with this M1069/69 stuff.

Sam

 

[NMshooter]

Guess the Army canned the replacement Combat Engineer Vehicle too soon...

165mm HEP-T sounds more effective vs. buildings than anything out of a 120mm.

 

[coonan357]

so basically what they are saying is we now are developing is a supersize shotgun shell for a tank??? and it costs 1600 a shot ?? wonder if winchester already sells "AA" shells in 105 and being there tungsten ,safe for waterfowl too. hmm I have somepesky canuk geese over here ....

 

[PCGS65]

You guys are right. Depleted urainium is very low radioactivity. You will receive more radiation from a day at the beach. I think when most people hear the word "urainium" the automatic assumption is a lethal dose of radiation. Not true about DU.

 

[Sam]

Coonan,
What they are doing is replacing the current cannister(shotgun shell) and the current excuse for HE with a dual purpose round.
My position is that the dual purpose item cannot replace cannister (shotgun shell).

Sam

 

[Battlespace]

I will not attempt to answer all the questions your responses have evoked. For information on the Abrams one of the best commercially available web pages is: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm They answer most of the questions the comments here have generated and put to rest many of the urban legends I have read in the past 20 or so minutes.

As far as addressing some of the issues concerning ammunition. I will let you all use your imaginations. Ammunition performance characteristics are some of our best kept secrets and will remain so if I have anything to say about it. Just rest assured that $1600 for a round of 120mm ammunition is money well spent if you happen to be a member of the crew that is facing the BGs in Iraq, better still if your loved one happens to be a member of that tank crew.

I don't know the engineering qualifications of any of the posters to this thread, but I do know most of the engineers who are developing these rounds and they have great pride in their work. I have the second .50 BMG SLAP round ever made on my desk where I work. It was a gift from an engineer who developed it at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. The pride he showed in it was something to see.

If you want to know my qualifications in this area look at my user name.

 

[Sam]

I don't care if those rounds cost $5600 a piece. Our guys deserve the best we can make. I just hope we can make this 1068/9 item so there is no diminishment of any capability.

SAm

 

[Bruce H]

Reading this I'm reminded of a line fron a book. The topic was military aircraft and their cost. The line was five gee whiz killing machines a year won't do us any good. We need rounds that are cheap to produce. Having one round that can do several jobs can be a round that doesn't do anything particularly well. Having a round that can be fused for air burst against soft targets and delayed to drop a house on others would be very handy.

 

[JonnyB]

Come spring, my younger son will likely be travelling with Armor. He's a Forward Observer (13F) for the Minnesota NG, in the artillery. Last I heard, he'll probably be with the Armor guys, while the arty is some miles behind/away.

If the per-round cost is 16 *thousand* dollars, and they need 500 or a million of them to bring him back safely to his wife, his son, his mother and to me, it's a bargain!

JB

 

[Tory]

Everything old is new again

The Second World War saw the development of some seriously complicated, sophisticated weapons systems and I don't mean just the obvious, like the atom bombs, Norden bombsights or B-29's (or Me 262's, Heinkel 162's or the V1and V2 rockets or the Long Lance torpedo, to give The Other Side it's due).

Radar was one major breakthrough; the application of that technology to artillery fuses (a largely American contribution) was another, if not widely known. It increased the kill rate against Japanese aircraft from 1600 shells per kill to a comparatively mere 400 shells per kill. The fuse was SO effective, the US Navy forbade its use over land, for fear a dud would fall into enemy hands.

When its use over land WAS finally allowed, it permitted an entire artillery barrage to be precisely airbursted over enemy troop positions, saturating the target area with projectiles and shattering the enemy's combat effectiveness. These shells were so deadly, Gen. Patton observed that their general deployment by the world's armies would require a change in tactics.

The round being discussed on this forum is simply the next generation in the continuing evolution of "reach out and touch someone" ordnance, started by the Chinese trying to scare away demons. Let's hope that we are again the first to develop it...

 

[xdoctor]

Cool. I want one.

 

[p35]

I absolutely agree that there's no such thing as too expensive to save a soldier. For the $16,000, though, I'd rather get 16 simple shells that work every time than one fancy one that duds 50% of the time because it's too complicated. The military has a tendency to deploy new weapons/systems before the bugs are worked out, and that's dangerous to soldiers too. How many died in Vietnam because their new M-16s jammed in a firefight?

 

[Battlespace]

How many died in Vietnam because their new M-16s jammed in a firefight?

In my year there with ten months spent in the boonies we NEVER had anyone killed or even wounded due to the M16.

 

[Cosmoline]

Load with double grape if you please.

 

[Crosshair]

I see this as a problem that is solved. Simple fact is that a 120mm cannon is not the ideal weapon in this situation. It is like trying to make an F-16 into a close air support aircraft. Yes it could be done, but something else already exists, the A-10. The ideal weapon for this is the 25mm Autocannon on the Brads. Heck, a quad 50 setup might be nice in some situations.