But since there seems to be a time limit in place for editing and I was in a bit of a rush-
OTOH, a tank with a short gun in the same caliber must either accept a lower operating pressure (lower MV and lower MJ impact force) or work at a
-higher- operating /pressure/ (more work, short run).
Should read 'lower impact energy' or work at a -higher- operating /pressure/ (more work, shorter run). Implying the need for HESH/HEP/HEAT
alternatives, especially at extended range, for lower MV weapons. These being potentially vulnerable to reactives and themselves working better only
at large-caliber diameters.
Which means that direct fires are more or less equal now for penetration and lethality and all that is left are the /brains/ of sensing and
distribution of platforms which we allocate kills.
/By/ which we allocate kills.
And where armor is too heavy to deploy, the only hope is not to be shot with weapons of more than 5-10MJ.
Which is why there is no reason not to believe that the 'best way thru' is not from the top. Where the enemy is equally weak.
Which is why there is no reason not to believe that the best way through _IS_ from the top. Where the enemy is equally weak compared to U.S. AFV,
thus making it a game of not being hit rather than surviving through massive front-sector armor protection.
Again, sorry to waste a post but I needed to correct those statements at least.
In terms of efficiency-
At the ranges that are possible, the CKEM is capable of delivering devastating destructive effects at sea level speeds of approximately Mach 6.
“To put this in perspective, the 120 mm tank round has about 8 megajoules of energy, a megajoule being a unit of measurement of energy,” Thrasher
said. “The CKEM delivers in excess of 35 megajoules of energy, so when it hits a target it’s definitely going to defeat it.”
"[It] is a system that absolutely overwhelms any known or projected armors out through the foreseeable time frame," he continues. "The momentum and
the energy it imparts onto its targets are so overwhelming that it just overmatches anything that you can pile onto a vehicle to keep it out. It moves
so fast that the computing capability of the active protection systems that are out there can’t keep up with it. And it has a large mass with the
long rod penetrator, not to mention the large rocket engine that’s wrapped around it. We say that LOSAT puts 40 + megajoules of energy onto a
target. Contrast that with an M829 tank sabot round that puts somewhere between seven and 10 megajoules of rod energy onto a target. This will be a
pretty devastating capability in the hands of the soldiers who truly need it."
RE:Impact Energy in Megajoules L55 DM63 CKEM LOSAT etc 2/9/2005 9:45:49 PM
The M1 tanks original British L7 gun was 7.9MJ it was replaced by the 120mm RHEINMETTTEL which came in at 9-10MJ but that was in the early 80's
''Estimated muzzle kinetic energy, firing the APFSDS DM 53 (LKE II) round, is around 18-20 megajoules (MJ). The 120 mm L55 weapon is compatible with
the current MBT-types in service throughout NATO, as they can easily be retrofitted.''
Not exactly what you asked, but hey, I'm trying (very?).
So my 50MJ was off for the gun _at muzzle_ energy by half. But not for the LOSAT/CKEM which are taking that energy out to 6km or more (assuming LOS
Again, at these kinds of energy-for-range distances, time of flight and autopilot stabilization/guidance correction makes the notion of 'missing'
(Iraqi 'homemade' penetrators splashing in the dirt about 500m short because of poor longrod quality control and absent fire control compensation
vs. the intended original Russian ones) realtively unlikely.
And they hit with /so much/ energy that you might as well not even try to armor your vehicle but simply take a Goliath 21 type approach wherein you
put your SMALLEST POSSIBLE chassis (something that can duck between the most minor of terrain folds or behind vegetation/structural LOS blocks).
And shoot the enemy anywhere from in-the-face to as-they-drive-by.
Indeed, IMO, you are _better off_ going with light tanks along the lines of robotic Wiesels which put these kinds of weapons systems, along with a
light cannon, a little higher off the ground so that you can also take out the (by far more common) RPG shooter threat by firing /over/ obstacles and
While abandoning the high energy weapons to move towards 120-240mm range lobshot mortars that can 'soft loft' (low-acceleration G tolerance) rounds
like the Merlin and Stryx.
Or even (should firefinder and DEW weapons become common) going with a netfires LAM/LOCAAS type system which comes in under the horizon in swarms to
defeat APS while keeping subsonic seeker footprint processing and hunting-datalink target sharing algorithms relatively cheap and simple.
In any case, with the baseline technology behind the Abrahms now well known and the Germans, French, Italians and Brits all whoring world wide their
equivalents, there is _NO WAY_ to justify sending in 1 MBT per C-5 or C-17 load. As a kind of forced-entry means of rapidly engaging a threat with a
minimum 200 of his own tanks.
Because all he has to do to keep morale high through devastating attrition is break those tanks into 10-12 vehicle Team composites (IFV/ADV/MBT). And
they will get past the airpower slinging SFW. To overrun the landing area.
I find it ironic that we first invented 'high technology' warfare as a blood-for-treasure excuse to enrich our arms industry. And now are faced
with the proliferation of arms as the only means to prop up a faltering economy while losing 'definitive access' to foreign resources. And now must
invest such /huge/ numbers of these systems (and hundreds of billions of dollars) in dealing with insurgent type 'primitive' threat lockdown. That
we must start to think outside the box in terms of Mechwarrior/Clan like bidded contracts by which MTW/MRC conventional blowups are /prevented/. At
the lowest=lightest=earliest possible intervention.
We just don't have the money, political will or force structure to support more while tied down and bleeding from every orifice in Iraq. And those
who like to envision themselves as 'sitting in a cockpit or tank turret hair on fire, drool streaming in the breeze' of a conventional (knights at
war) maneuver conflict are the ones who must be dinosaured /first/. Because that is the type of battle which is easiest to win with robots and long
range standoff weapons that need no human in the loop. And the kind of opfor which is the most dangerous to deal with 'as equals' (1v.1) in a
forced entry situation where you are trying to decapitate or otherwise head off a fight that you cannot spend half a trillion dollars and six months
playing invasion-prep for.
If I can put a 20, 1 million dollar, robo-dunebuggies-
(probably stacked on pallets) on a Globemaster III and each is armed with 4 CKEM equivalent weapons with 6km reach. Killing 3 tanks before they
themselves die as virtually 'unarmored' targets. They will hold the line against the first 5 rushes of that 200 tank enemy armor force while I get
my AMS team unloaded and my hummer infantry AWAY.
Which should be enough to leverage the rest of the war as we play fire and fade 40mph ambush tactics to nullify any main force action from further
offensive ground taking ('mechanized insurgency' assymetry).
With a force construct that has perhaps 1/4 the manpower in it. 1/10th the maneuver logistic (ton mile) footprint in gas and munitions. And costs
out at a 6:1 improvement (6 robodobies per Abrahms equivalency) in fixed acquisition cost-per-asset replaced vs. the current, bloated and overweight,
'armor uber alles' structure.