A while ago I talked about how the XM-25 was a stupid, useless waste of money. More recently, I expressed my disdain for it’s stillborn parent project, the XM-29. But that is not to say I don’t think that all infantry needs are rifles and machine guns. No, enemies in defilade or behind cover are a classic problem, and I like the classic, time-tested, cheap solution that is the mortar. Today, we’re going to be talking about the smallest of the common modern mortars, the 60mm.
The US Military has been using 60mm mortars since the Second World War, and really liked the concept. So we Americans have stuck with them, and they’re excellent light weapons for the platoon or company. Depending on charge and model, they’re good for a maximum range of four kilometers. Unlike the XM-25, mortars and mortar shells are both cheap. They also actually work. Let’s look at some examples.
The current American standard mortar is the M224A1. Fully assembled, it weighs just under 38 lbs, but it can be broken down into its components (namely baseplate, bipod, sighting unit, and mortar tube) to be carried by the mortar team. Nominally, the M224A1 is operated by a crew of three men. The M224A1 can also be operated ‘commando style’ by a single man. Here, a smaller baseplate is used, and the bipod is omitted. The soldier supports the tube with his hands for aiming. Perfect for light infantry. The M224A1 can be gravity-fired, or may use an optional manual trigger. The M224A1 has a one meter long barrel.
The M6 mortar family from Hirtenberger is the British standard mortar, when they’re not being criminally stupid and removing them from equipment tables. The M6 comes in three different barrel lengths: 640 mm, 895 mm, and one meter. Bipods and baseplates are standard across all models. Again, smaller baseplates are available for ‘commando style’ operation.
Since 60 mm mortars are pretty common, shells are available from a wide variety of manufacturers. The same sorts of warheads are available in all of the catalogs though: HE, combined effect antipersonnell/antimateriel, white phosphorous smoke, red phosphorous smoke, illumination, and IR illumination. Nothing too sophisticated here. Inert training rounds are available as well, and mortars are cheap enough that you can afford to practice with them.
Mortars are a proven solution to the problem of cover on the battlefield. They work. They’re cheap. Get some for your army today!
Ah, another wonderful late Cold War vehicle that didn’t survive peace. As a bonus, it’s super confusingly named. Do not confuse this vehicle with the Marder II tank destroyer of World War II. Thanks, Germany. I’ll use Roman numerals when referring to the tank destroyer, and arabic numerals for the IFV.
Anyway the Marder 2 is a look at what the Puma might have looked like if the Germans weren’t so hell bent on shoehorning the thing into a damn A400m. Let us suppose we worried about a proper, conventional war, and let us suppose we don’t care about overrated air deployability with a bunch of massively overpriced transports that have been consistently plagued with problems. And that we don’t have. Let us also suppose that we are German designers, and we love our armor properly heavy.1
We’d get the Marder 2. It weighs 44 tonnes kitted out. Hey, just like the Puma with the full armor kit. Unlike the Puma, the Marder 2 had a more conventional armor layout. It could withstand 40 mm APFSDS rounds on the frontal arc, and 20 mm APFSDS everywhere else. Pretty hardcore. Armor was composite right out of the gate, so it was also quite effective against HEAT rounds and ATGMs.
Marder 2 also had a proper manned turret for two. The main gun was a big 35 mm autocannon with a whopping 177 ready rounds, and another 110 stored in reserve. That’s some serious firepower. More than twice as many ready as a CV9035. I like it. I like it a lot. There was also the usual MG3 coax machine gun. As a further bonus, the cannon and feed system was designed to accommodate 50 mm Supershot with only a barrel change. A never-was round for a never-was vehicle.
There is something missing though. You guessed it: ATGM capability. I still really like having it.
The rest of the Marder 2 is pretty conventional. It had just under 1,000 hp in a V8, letting it keep pace with the Leopard 2. It also matched the Leopard 2’s road range of 500 km, which is nice. It had a crew of three and seven dismounts, just like the Marder 1 IFV. Not terrible, but not great either.
Some other numbers: It was 7.31 m long, 3.48 m wide, and 3.05 m high. It had a fuel capacity of 890 L. The commander had an independent, stabilized thermal sight. The gunner had all of the fancy fire control systems you’d expect from the early 90s, plus the ability to shoot at low flying aircraft.
Interestingly, the dismounts sat on seats in the middle facing outward. Each man had a vision block. No firing ports were provided, which is good. Those never worked as advertised, and just compromised protection. I’m not sold on the merits of this seating arrangement with the vision blocks. I’d much prefer benches along the outer sides of the troop compartment rather than in the middle. It simplifies the rear hatch setup, and ends up using the passenger compartment space more efficiently. This is one place that the Puma does well with its repeater displays. Small cameras are a lot less disruptive to armor too. Note that this is nothing that can’t be fixed. Most early IFVs, including the Bradley and later model BMPs, had firing ports plated over. We have much smaller breaches to deal with. And the original Bradley had a pretty goofy seating layout that was later made sensible. And a more conventional seating arrangement would give us some room for those ATGMs we like.
Unsurprisingly, we’re a big fan of this vehicle. Even with it’s 1991-vintage design, it’s almost exactly what we’d want. It’s got tons of firepower, great protection, good mobility, and good capacity.
1.) Or at least, German designers in certain eras. Early WW2 designers didn’t favor particularly heavy armor on Panzers. This of course changed with later models. And the Leopard 1 was reasonably armored, but not heavily like a Chieftain. The Marder 1 was well armored for it’s size, however, and the Leopard 2 is about the equal of the Abrams. Modern German armor is loaded with armor, as is good and proper. (Leopard 2A6/2E: 63 tonnes, Leopard 2A7: 69 tonnes, Puma: 42 tonnes, PzH 2000: 55 tonnes)
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Three big European nations, all washed-up, has-been powers, decide to collaborate on a project. They threw everything including the kitchen sink into it. The end of the cold war meant a reduction in ordered numbers, a boatload of delays, and the sort of cost increases that make legislators hold angry hearings. Somehow the project didn’t get cancelled, and now one of the three actually has some.
It’s the PARS 3 LR ATGM. Also known as Trigat, this was supposed to be the cool new missile of choice for attack helicopters in France, Germany, and the UK. The Europeans had their own TOW equivalent, called HOT. The latest version, HOT-3, was rather better than the TOW-2A as far as range and armor penetration were concerned. The Americans decided that they wanted something better. They buckled down, said “Hughes, get ‘er Done!” and got the awesome Hellfire missile for their helicopters, starting in 1984. The Europeans stuck with the wire-guided HOT for quite a while, but eventually decided that they needed a new missile too. No problem. They’d team up. Hey, the ECC was still cool back then. They hadn’t figured out that these multilateral programs were nothing but goat rope.
Of course, in 1991 the Soviet Union broke up. Goodbye Cold War. Hello vengeful legislatures. As we’ve seen before, lots of stuff got frozen as is. Big projects died. So the Americans, who had Hellfires in production, got to keep them. Funding for PARS 3 was cut, which brought delays.
Let’s look at the missile before resuming our history lesson. It’s about Hellfire-sized, weighing 49 kg and measuring 1.6 m long and 159 mm wide. It’s got the usual tandem shaped-charge warhead that we’d expect. Guidance was an imaging infrared system, something like what you’d find on some Maverick missiles. Nothing wrong here, but it was new ground for the Europeans. Definitely something that would drive cost up. Remember, basic Hellfires have semi-active laser homing guidance. Which is quite a bit easier and cheaper. I’m all for fancy fire-and-forget, but the perfect is the enemy of the good enough. And getting away from wire-guided missiles is much more important for missile range and helicopter survivability.
The Hellfire is cheaper, combat proven, and comes with some alternative warhead options, including thermobaric and fragmentation warheads. There’s also the radar-guided AGM-114L version, which is pretty fancy, and gives that fire and forget capability. It’s been combat proven all over the world. Get rid of the stupid PARS. It’s overpriced and doesn’t do anything the competition doesn’t.
But don’t just take my word for it. Two of the three partners backed out. First was the UK. They didn’t much care for the project, or the Eurocopter Tiger (a wise decision). They went with Apaches and Hellfires. They even got the fancy Longbow fire control radar for their Apaches, and the AGM-114L version (among others). Awesome. Good on you, GB! Even the French, who stuck with the Tiger (Tigre?) project, got sick of the issues. They bought Hellfires for their Tiger(re)s, like the Australians did. Look, when the French back out of a project because it’s too expensive and not delivering, you know you’re done. The French are as protectionist as they come, and work hard to keep a native arms industry as best they can. But even they have limits.
Somehow the Germans actually bought the darn things. Very silly. I’m sill confused about the utter foolishness of it. Just. Buy. Hellfires. Even the French agree.
There’s a relatively unsexy class of weapons out there that are critical, but don’t get any of the cool press of ATGMs. Behold, the humble rocket launcher/recoilless rifle. The HE Projector. They’re super useful, because there are plenty of targets on the battlefield that need a healthy dose of prescription HE, but don’t necessarily warrant the trouble of a guided round. Bunkers, for example, have a habit of not moving out of the way in time. These weapons are unsexy because there’s not a lot of room for whiz-bang gadgets. It’s a bazooka. Plain and simple.
A bunch of the use cases are conveniently used by disposable rocket launchers, like the AT4 or the M72 LAW. These tend to be lighter than the traditional recoilless rifle/unguided rocket launcher designs, and a lot less trouble. But they’re not reloadable. And you’re stuck with whatever round is in there; usually it’s a HEAT round. Which would be fine, except that these weapons aren’t going to punch through the front armor of a vanilla T-72, let alone a modern T-90 with ERA on the front. Other rounds might be more desirable. And here, the old recoilless rifles and rocket launchers still shine. Let’s look at one you might not be too familiar with: the French LRAC F1.1
The LRAC F1 is a reusable 89mm rocket launcher. The tube is mostly fiberglass, which keeps the weight down. It’s a 1970s-vintage design, but the launcher and sight weighs only 5 kg. This is very good, even compared to the modern versions of the venerable Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. The sight is a pretty simple fixed 3x optic with a stadiametric reticle. Gunner does his range estimation and chooses the point of aim by himself and fires. Pretty typical for this class of weapon. Rockets weigh 2.2 kg.
Available warhead types include a HEAT round, rated for 400mm of RHA penetration, which scares exactly no one these days. Oh well. We have Javelins for tank-killing. There’s also a HEAT-Frag Dual Purpose round, a smoke round, and an illumination round. These days, the most useful are the smoke round and the dual purpose round. The major use cases for this are first as a portable, short-range assault gun for infantry support, and second as a way of quickly throwing obscuring smoke a reasonable distance to break contact or hide an attack.
Rocket technology really hasn’t changed since the 70s, so the LRAC F1 is still a competitive system. Or it would be, if the French still used it.2 What changes would we want to make to update it?
Honestly, not many. Mostly produce new rockets, maybe integrate night sighting options. The launcher is plenty light already. The existing rockets aren’t very reliable anymore because of age, of course. Production should focus on the dual purpose rocket and the smoke rocket. Reformulating the smoke round to be infrared screening as well isn’t very hard, and would be very useful. Also, a thermobaric rocket would be an excellent idea. I’m a huge fan of the type. The tubes are rated for 130 launches, so they’d need to be made too. Pretty simple, and we can easily keep the cost down. No guidance system, no exotic materials. No gold plating.
There’s no good reason why the LRAC F1 can’t be successful on the arms market with good marketing. There’s plenty of demand for these systems, and not a lot of types that are still in production. Weight is a constant complaint, especially with the closest western competitor, the Carl Gustav. This does the same thing for about half the weight.
Verdict: Approved for production by the Borgundy Ordnance Procurement Board
1.) Also known as the LRAC 89 or the ACL STRIM. 2.) It’s been replaced by the AT4, a good (though somewhat limited) single-use rocket launcher, and the Eryx, which I’m not a fan of.
I’m on record as being a hugefan of the Bradley. But it’s a little bit disadvantaged when compared to newer designs. A large part of this is just the nature of upgrades. Newer designs have more headroom for upgrades than older ones. So while the Bradley still provides excellent firepower, and has enough multilayer ERA to get its protection up there with the rest, it’s now suffering from all that extra weight. Plus, it has a lot more electrical systems, which mean it needs more power. Which subtracts further from what you have on the sprocket for the drivetrain. Let’s see how Big Army is thinking of improving the Bradley.
Perhaps the most urgently needed and the most boring are the suspension changes. The M2(A0) Bradley had a design weight of 22,800 kg. This has gone up to 30,300 kg in the M2A3 version, and higher still with the extra applique reactive armor modules of the Bradley Urban Survival Kit. More weight means more load on a suspension that wasn’t designed to take it. Just like when you overload your car, this makes the Bradley sit lower on its suspension. This causes two problems. First, it reduces mobility across rough terrain. Basically, anything that isn’t a good road, you’re going to go slower. Again, you probably figured that out from your experiences in overloading your car. Second, and perhaps less obviously to those who drive, is that you’re more vulnerable to mines and IEDs. There’s less space underneath, and that empty space helps diffuse the blast. Clearly, we’d like to fix this. And so, top of the list of fixes is the suspension system. This means new tracks and a new set of torsion bars. This will restore cross-country mobility and ground clearance. It’s a much-needed fix, even if few people spend time thinking about torsion bars.
A quick side note. The US Army could redesign the suspension system and check a modern buzzword box or two. But why bother? Torsion bars work just fine. And most of the expected areas of operation are pretty flat. We don’t expect to spend the majority of our time driving over mountains. So hydropneumatics would be a waste of money. Ditto uncoupled running gear. Expensive luxury features aren’t worth the trouble. Those lead to budget kills. Smaller, more modest things are the sorts of things you can get approval for in today’s not-Cold War world.
Next up is the engine. Again, your experiences in driving will no doubt lead you to think that more weight means more power is needed. And that’s part 2. The original Bradley had a 500 hp engine. This was upgraded to a 600 hp model as a part of the M2A2 design. More weight, more power would be nice. I don’t have a model yet, but I’ve heard hints of and would expect a roughly 750-800 hp engine to be coming to Bradleys near you.
Next we come to optics. On the docket for the Bradley are the same third-generation thermal optics as installed on the Abrams as part of the SEP V3 package. This is another obvious upgrade. Have a single sort of thermal viewer across both vehicle fleets, only need to stock one kind of spares and train to fix/replace one kind of unit. Again, this means better visibility through smoke and dust.
We can expect an active protection system as a near-future follow-on. Big Army just hasn’t picked one yet. Again, smart money’s on Trophy. It’s relatively cheap, COTS, and proven capable of stopping things. Expect the Bradley to get what Abrams gets in terms of APS. This might come in ECP2, or might get rolled in before.
The other mod that I would expect is TOW-RF support. This enables the wireless version of TOW to be launched. It doesn’t affect compatibility with earlier versions. I don’t know how well it works in areas with heavy ECM. I would prefer a more modern missile, but this would be a positive step. On the other hand, this is a really small change, and I don’t have good information on whether it’s already being rolled out, part of ECP1, planned for ECP2, or planned on a separate roll out.
One thing I’ve heard exactly nothing on is any changes to the cannon. There were several proposals before Operation Iraqi Freedom, but the US Army appears happy with the 25 mm M242 gun in light of combat experience there. I see no reason why they shouldn’t be. Lots of other modern designs (with the notable exceptions of Russian things and K21), have pretty poor capacity for their primary guns, as seen in this handy table:
IFV
Ready Capacity
Caliber (mm)
M2A3 Bradley
300
25×137
M2 – 30 mm conversion
180
30×173
CV9040
24
40x364R
CV9030
160
30×173
CV9035
70
35×228
Puma
200
30×173
K21
224
40x364R
BMP-2
500
30×165
BMP-3
500
30×165
T-15/Epoch turret
500
30×165
Some notes on the above. I’m defining “Ready rounds” as “rounds from which you can fire without manual loading”, since these are autocannons. So the CV9040 gets the quick-access rounds counted as ‘stowage’, because someone has to grab them and refill the 24-round ready feed system (three eight-round racks). The K21 gets credit because the 200 rounds it has under the turret basket are connected to the gun via an automatic resupply system. So it has, in effect, 224 ready rounds with its giant autoloader-thing.
Note also that the Russians do not have any rounds stowed separately in any of their IFVs.
And now for something a little different. Let’s look at the South Korean K21 IFV.
In a lot of ways, this is an old-school traditional style IFV. It’s lightweight, coming in under 26 tonnes. It’s even amphibious. That said, it has some unique construction features. To keep overall weight down given the protection level (which we’ll get to later), the Koreans use fiberglass for the vehicle structure. This is a first for a military vehicle. And while we don’t know a lot about the long-term durability of fiberglass in a military vehicle, it does keep weight down while not jacking the price up too much. It’s a good idea. The K21 also has two (presumably sectioned) rubber inflatable bladders under the vehicle skirts to provide extra buoyancy and stability in the water. This is much nicer than the giant canvas erectable overskirt on the M2(A0) Bradley. And, it means that the K21 can actually cross rivers, like the BMPs. And, just about nothing else these days.
Protectionwise, the K21 is built for the Korean peninsula. It’s got frontal armor against the 30×165 mm APDS threat that’s likely from North Korean IFVs. The rest is protected against 14.5 mm HMG rounds, and the roof is protected against shell splinters. This armor compromise was likely necessary to achieve amphibious capability, but it’s rather marginal by modern standards, as it lacks extensive RPG protection. It should work in the Korean peninsula, and that’s what matters. I don’t know how much more weight the suspension is rated for, so I don’t know how easy it would be to up-armor the K21. But if we can tack a whole bunch of ERA and applique armor on a Bradley, it could be done here, if we wanted.
Okay, I’m not a fan of the armor. I like heavy. But I do like the armament. The K21 has a 40 mm Bofors clone, complete with a modern MBT-grade fire control suite and full stabilization systems. Big punch. Optics for fire control are like those on the K2 Black Panther, so they’re excellent third-generation thermal viewers and modern laser rangefinders. The commander’s sight is, of course, fully independent. Note that the turret is a conventional, two-man affair. Modern MBT fire control with a big 40 mm autocannon? Yes, please.
Let’s talk a little more about that 40. The 40 mm Bofors round means you comfortably outgun just about every IFV in the world. Aside from a few tank-like things like Namer1, you can kill any IFV you want with frontal hits, and you can punch through any MBT’s turret side. Plus, you get a really big HE shell, and the good folks at Bofors have already developed plenty of advanced rounds for you, including the 3P (Programmable, Proximity-fused, Prefragmented). The downside of course is that the rounds are very big. This is the 40x364R mm round, and it’s a beast. Which means ammunition stowage and handling is a massive pain. In the CV9040, the Swedes have a triple-feed ready rack that holds a whopping 24 ready rounds2, and there’s 210 more in various racks with various levels of accessibility. The ready rack has to be topped off from the semi-ready-rack (which holds 48 rounds) by hand, and then the dismounts have to refill the semi-ready-rack from under the turret basket, where most of the rounds are stored. It’s a massive pain, but it’s workable. If the year is 1935, you can’t do better.
The South Koreans took a different, more modern approach with the K21. They still use the 24 round ready rack, but built an autoloader in the turret floor to replenish it. Underfloor storage is about 200 rounds. The system looks like this:
Neat, huh? Way better than that goofy ikea manual reloading process on the CV9040. This is a 40mm system I can get behind. This will actually let you keep fighting for a while, and with a really powerful round to boot. Be still my beating heart.
The K21 also has a 7.62×51 mm coaxial machine gun. It’s a clone of the M60D. There’s also provision for a two-tube launcher for South Korea’s latest ATGM, but I can’t confirm if these have been fitted yet. Or maybe I just don’t have pictures. This missile should be a lot like the Israeli Spike LR, in being a top-attack, fire-and-forget missile. I don’t know if the Koreans had Israeli help, Israeli licensing, built a copy themselves, or just came to the same conclusions Rafael did about ATGM design. Still, it should be a good missile choice. Much like the Puma, if the Germans would get off their butts and finish the integration already, dammit. Seeing as the South Koreans actually have proximate threats, and they spend Real Money on defense, they’re much more trustworthy on such matters. I wonder what ‘Get ‘er done!’ translates to in Korean…
The K21 does not currently feature any kind of active protection system. The Koreans are planning to integrate that as a follow up. Given the threat level on the Korean peninsula, I approve of this plan. Historically, programs that choose not to do everything immediately, and get a working, good enough version in the field and then add on extras tend to do better. There are plans to integrate a hard-kill active defense system on an improved version in the near future. There are also plans to try to reduce the weight further. All in all, this project actually seems well managed for once.
Dismounts are another area where the K21 shines. It holds nine. NINE! That’s a squad! How can they do this on a 6.9 m long vehicle? Simple, they compromised. Given that the most likely confrontation is a conventional war with North Korea, who’s not likely to bury giant IEDs, the South Koreans stuck with old-school bench seats in the back. They’re not fancy shock-absorbing, blast-resistant seats, but they’re more compact. So you can keep the protected volume (and hence, weight) down, and still carry an actual, usable squad of dismounts. Good on you, Korea! Here’s to real wars and not stupid COIN-y “police actions”.
A word on costs. The K21 costs $3.95 million. Given the electronics, this is a very good price. Almost like good project management helps you come in on budget.
There are some other variants out there that you might be interested in as well. There’s a “medium”2 tank version available with a crew of three and a 105mm low-recoil gun. Perfect for your assault gun needs. It also gives you something with a reasonable gun that can cross rivers with your infantry carriers.
So, what do we think? Well, but for the protection, it’s great! And if it had a hard-kill APS, it might be a reasonable compromise on protection, given that it can float. Armament is great, as is dismount capacity. We’d probably prefer to forget about amphibiousity and load it up with a modern, multilayer ERA kit like what’s on Bradley, and call it good. That gun system is really hard to argue with, especially when you add the ATGM capability. This thing rocks.
1.) Not technically an IFV, but you get the idea. 2.) I would call it a light tank, but medium tank probably looks better in the ad copy. It’s the same weight as a regular K21 and is just as amphibious.
The French are not wasting any time in selecting a replacement for their worn-out FAMAS rifles. The HK 416 has been selected as the new French Service rifle, beating out the other downselected rifle, the FN SCAR 16.
Let’s review salient points in the 416’s favor, in case you’re wondering why the French picked a gun from La Boche. I’ve got some more thoughts on the 416 itself, but those will wait. This is about France.
1.) The HK 416 has been chosen as a general issue rifle already, by Norway. The SCAR 16 has not. While both were developed by American special operations units, and both are in service with a number of special operations groups around the world, including some in France, there’s a lot you can learn from a rifle by giving it to a bunch of grunts to use and abuse. Grunts can break everything. And the Norwegians have found some minor issues, which HK has fixed. So that’s a bunch of bugs the French won’t find. Picking something someone else has already issued generally means you’ll find fewer problems.
2.) The HK 416 is going to be the G36 replacement. Only a matter of time. I’ll have more on the G36 later this week, but given the problems it has in the heat (even if no one in cold-ass Germany thought to test in the heat), the Germans will be ditching the G36. The winner is going to be German, because they’re still secretly nationalist. And that means it’s going to be the next service rifle of Germany.
Why does this matter for France? Well, France is trying to cooperate a lot more with Germany on military matters. They’ve got a bunch of projects in the works with Germany, including a new tank project. Even if I think multinational projects like that are a terrible idea, and no multinational tank project has ever actually delivered anything, they’re committed. So choosing a common service rifle is a no brainer.
3.) The HK 416 is very automatic-rifle-like. Remember, in its off the shelf form (ok, they nicely put USMC on the side), the 416 was selected as the Squad Automatic Rifle for the US Marine Corps, in sort of a modern-BAR type role. I’m not sure if this is important to you, but if it is, if you’re worried about battles like Wanat (and can’t just fix your officer corps), the 416 is the rifle for you. It is also heavy. If you like heavy, it’s the rifle for you.
So there you have it. That said, I’d still prefer a more traditional direct impingement M4, maybe from Colt, or maybe Colt Canada (they actually have a somewhat different catalog than regular Colt), or LMT.
Well, the Russians have a new tank. And, for all its failings, the US Army is poking General Dynamics Land Systems for some Abrams upgrades to keep pace. Let’s see what they look like.
A brief aside: A separate program, and therefore not included in the SEP v3 upgrade package is a new anti-armor round. It’s the M829E4 round. It’s an APFSDS-T round, and it uses depleted uranium. It’s awesome, but very classified. Interestingly, I saw this a couple weeks after the T-14 was unveiled in a parade, which I find to be interesting timing. Connect two facts…
Anyway, SEP v3! GDLS has added an under-armor auxiliary power unit (the UAAPU). It’s in the rear left quarter, replacing part of a fuel tank there. This should help with the inefficiency of the big AGT 1500 when it’s idling. Judging by the exhaust the UAAPU probably uses a very small gas turbine. It’s a good application for one, since turbines are small for their power and reasonably efficient under load. It should also help with providing all of the power needed for today’s fancy electrical systems. The UAAPU should provide enough power to run the turret (and everything in it) with the engine off. About time.
The SEP v3 also brings out the armor upgrades. The turret face and the front hull are better than they were before. How much better? Classified. Hooray for a new composite armor array though. I’m not sure if either section has gotten thicker, since I don’t have time up close with the SEP v3 and older v2 units. But the front armor is better now.
The Abrams has gotten some changes to its roof-mounted remote weapons stations. Tank crews in the field complained that the existing units tended to block their view a lot when the buttoned up. Also, they’re quite large, which makes going under bridges and things annoying. So there are new remote weapons stations that are lower profile and placed better to not obstruct the view as much. Happily, there are two RWSes as standard: one with an M2 for the tank commander and one with an M240 for the loader. I always approved of the number of machine guns on the Abrams. It takes advantage of that fourth man to operate another machine gun if he’s not slinging shells for the main gun. This is a big plus in urban areas.
The Abrams finally sees an upgrade to the M256 that lets it interface with guided rounds. There’s a new breechblock that can now perform this task. So integrating gun-launched missiles (such as the Israeli LAHAT) or airburst rounds can actually proceed. About damn time. The Israelis and the Germans have been able to do this on their 120 mm guns for years now. There are also plans to integrate a new airburst round to replace some other antipersonnel and demolition rounds that are currently in the inventory.
The thermal sights on the SEP v3 have been improved to be ‘third generation’ units. So they can see in both long-wave and mid-wave infrared. This allows for better images on the screens as well as better ability to see through obscurants like smoke or fog. Obvious capability win.
Finally, let’s talk about what’s not included: a new gun. It is not clear to me that the Abrams needs one, given the new round and the changes to the M256 to enable linking with smart rounds. They could deploy the XM360E1. They could also field a new 120mm/L55 gun, though this would require some upgrades to the stabilization system.1 If they’re going that far, they might wait to see/opt for the Rheinmetall 130 mm gun. We shall see. For the foreseeable future, I don’t think this is a huge concern.
No side armor changes have been announced. This is unsurprising to me. It is not feasible to provide protection from MBT main gun rounds on the sides. The concern you can do something about is RPG-type attacks, and the Abrams already has an excellent armor kit for the hull skirts and turret sides from the Tank Urban Survival Kit program.2 These systems are tough and combat proven. No more is needed. The TUSK program also added some optional belly armor to counter the IED threat. Again, more isn’t likely needed in the immediate future.
The SEP v3 still lacks active protection systems. Several are under evaluation, and may show up in a follow-on program. The US Army is particularly keen on Trophy, but there are also some promising systems from Raytheon.
Overall, this is a really good set of upgrade features, and there are more follow-ons coming. There are at least two engineering change proposals floating around out there. For once, this is a reasonably well managed program, introducing phased upgrades to keep an older platform competitive. Way cheaper than designing a new one, but it keeps the factories busy (and therefore open). Also, not trying to do everything at once keeps budgets under control and reduces the chance of the dreaded budget kill.
I would love to compare this to the German Leopard 2 improvements (2A8 anyone?), but nothing concrete has been announced. The US Army is doing a really good job of keeping on top of upgrades right now. These new upgrades should help make sure that the Abrams is a match for any tank out there. I’m also pretty happy about the lack of gold plating so far. Better knock on wood there.
1.) This drove the cost up too much back in the 90s when this was last considered. Back when there was no Russian threat to speak of. The US Army has been happy with their depleted uranium alloy rounds. Which tend to perform about as well as a similar-vintage tungsten-based-alloy round from the L55 gun, so maybe Big Army bet right on this. 2.) Specifically the XM-19 ARAT-1 and XM-32 ARAT-2 reactive armor packages.I’ll have a write-up as soon as I can get more information. There’s not much out there on these, especially on the newer XM-32s.
France has a long history of building excellent, if quirky, reconnaissance vehicles. Reconnaissance vehicles tend to be small and lightly armed. But the French have always sought to use them as the heirs to the light cavalry tradition, and have armed their recon vehicles appropriately. In some cases, the result is basically a light tank. We’ll look at those later. Today, we’re looking at something quite a bit smaller but still well armed. Today, we look at the petite Panhard CRAB.
The Panhard Crab weighs eight to ten tons, depending on protection level. It is a 4×4 vehicle with some particularly interesting suspension and drivetrain capabilities. It has a crew of three, and a turret that can be fitted with a bunch of armament options.
The turret is designed to be modular. Display models have tended to have turrets equipped with the M242 25 mm autocannon and about 150 rounds. Also available is a turret mounting the M230LF 30 mm autocannon. Note that this is a variant of the M230 chain gun used in the AH-64 Apache. It is chambered in 30×113 mm, not 30×173 mm. Both autocannons are fully stabilized. Another available option is a missile turret. This turret can be configured with four launch tubes for the new French MMP ATGM or the Mistral MANPADS missile. Other missiles could probably be integrated with some extra funds and work. This is where the Crab might suffer a little. It would be nice if it could use the Spike or Javelin missiles. In any case, all turrets have a 7.62 mm machine gun (coaxially mounted for the autocannon turrets) and are unmanned.
The Crab has a few different protection levels available. The heaviest (STANAG level IV) is good against 14.5 mm AP rounds and 155 mm fragments at least 30 m away from the burst. This is a light, easily deployed vehicle. This protection level is pretty typical for a lot of small utility and reconnaissance vehicles. We’ll find a way to deal.
Most interesting is the drivetrain of the Crab. It has an active pneumatic suspension, so it can be lifted for extra ground clearance. Tire pressure is centrally regulated, which helps deal with soft or hard ground. Both axles are independently steerable, which makes the turning radius very small–the Crab can make a u-turn with a 5 meter radius. It has a 320 hp engine, giving a top speed of 68 miles an hour. Finally, it can actually drive sideways by turning both axles to the same side. This is as close to go-anywhere as you can get in a wheeled vehicle. The light weight will also help with ground pressure.
The Crab can accommodate 3 men. It has a battle management system, and comes equipped with all of the networking gear and radios to transmit information to other units. It also has 360 degree camera coverage, to help with information gathering or movement in any direction. Mast mounted sensor systems are also available. Optics or a short-range radar system can be mounted on a telescoping mast.
So what do we think? It’s light for Borgundy, but so are most things that have ‘telescoping sensor mast’ as a factory option. It is well armed, networked, and extremely agile. We’ll take the superlative agility and armament, since it’s as good as it’s going to get in the light reconnaissance vehicle role. Bonus that it resembles Halo’s Warthog vehicle, if that was designed for humans who don’t wear fancy power armor.
A bit of old news, but I’m finally getting around to it.
The French are looking into replacing their FAMAS carbines with something new, because the FAMAS rifles are about 40 years old. And, because the French small arms industry is basically nonexistent1, they have to look elsewhere for a new carbine. The manufacturer must be European though. Sorry Colt and LMT.
Anyway, seeing as the new design had to be European, five companies stepped up to the plate to bat for this contest:
Of note is that the only bullpup design was the VHS 2.
A brief comment on the MCX. It’s a super new design; another AR with some not-so-small changes. SiG put in a truncated bolt carrier and a gas tappet operating system. The return spring setup is straight off an AR-18. It’s very, very light, and but for the lame looking stock, I rather like the design concept. And light is generally good. That said, of late SiG doesn’t have the best QC reputation2, and being the newest design, it doesn’t have the testing/refinements of some of the other designs. And this one is a bit more complicated than just adding an op rod, excuse me, a tappet gas system David ‘Carbine’ Williams. Truncated bolt carriers have been done before, but never with all that much reliability. Still, I commend them for entering it.
And now we have the results of the downselect. Still in the contest are HK and FN. So we’ll be watching the SCAR 16 and the HK416 go head to head to battle it out. This should not come as a surprise; both of these rifles have been used by some French special forces units, and both have been quite well tested and abused already. Honestly, I think the favorite at this point is the HK416.3 I’m pretty sure it’s the better gun, and it’s already got a pretty big contract up in Norway.
But this is a good choice. Going with the proven guns was a no-brainer here.
Also, not being a fan of bullpups, I’m quite happy to see the French return to the conventional layout.
1.) This makes me very, very sad. Such a shame that the nation that first developed smokeless powder can’t make it’s own small arms anymore. On the bright side, Col. Nicholas Lebel is probably spinning in his grave so fast that you could hook up a generator and power half of Paris. 2.) And this is with classic, proven designs: the P226 and P229. Which were *fine* until some genius decided to start messing with the designs to squeeze some more profit out of the margins. 3.) The favorite to win is a rifle made by la Boche? Sacre Bleu! At this point M. Lebel is going to be able to power all of Paris with his spinning.
