Compass Points - Advanced Armor
The stupendously new GRAY tank.
Compass Points - Advanced Armor
The stupendously new GRAY tank.
April 2, 2024
.
Forbes is reporting that Bahrain wants more of them. Ukraine and Israel need them today. Every major military force in the world needs them. The Marine Corps needs them also. The Marine Corps still needs what the Army has described as a "mobile, protected, direct fire system." That acronym would be 'MPDFS' but perhaps it is easier to just call the thing what it has been called for more than 100 years, a tank. What the Marine Corps may need soon is something like the stupendously new concept, the GRAY tank.
.
First, Forbes reports, "Bahrain Is The Latest Arab Gulf State To Buy Modern Western Tanks."
.
================
.
The island kingdom of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf recently requested 50 M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks from the United States and associated vehicles and equipment for $2.2 billion. The order is the latest in a long line of multi-billion dollar purchases by the Arab Gulf states of some of the best Western-built tanks money can buy.
The Bahraini order is for the M1A2 SEPv3, the most advanced variant of Abrams currently in service.
While undoubtedly a large number of tanks for such a small state, with a population of less than two million, Manama’s M1A2 fleet will still be dwarfed by neighboring Saudi Arabia’s arsenal of almost 600 M1A2 tanks and Kuwait’s 218. Still, they are more than an adequate replacement for the island kingdom’s current fleet of aging M60 Patton tanks.
Other Gulf Cooperation Council states have also acquired advanced Western-built tanks in recent years.
-- Forbes
.
================
.
Why are nations buying more tanks if tanks are obsolete? The answer is tanks are not obsolete. Sebastien Roblin writing at 19FortyFive reports that military commentators have been calling tanks obsolete since 1916, but tanks just continue to adjust to new threats and continue to prove their worth.
.
================
.
The discourse surrounding the effectiveness of tanks in modern warfare has reignited amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, where over 2,700 Russian and nearly 700 Ukrainian main battle tanks have been confirmed destroyed or abandoned. Critics argue that tanks are too heavy, costly, and vulnerable to modern weapons technology, advocating against further investment. However, historical precedents suggest that tanks’ roles and importance continue to evolve. While vulnerable to anti-tank weaponry, tanks remain crucial for ground maneuver warfare, supporting infantry operations, and defensive counterattacks. Despite challenges, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) are still sought after and actively invested in by military forces globally.
--Sebastien Roblin, 19FortyFive
.
================
.
It is true that tanks today are threatened by a variety of anti-tank weapons, including the powerful Swedish NLAW.
.
================
.
It weighs just 12.5 kilograms and measures a fraction over a metre. But Saab’s NLAW anti-tank weapon also packs a powerful punch. With a missile capable of penetrating 500 mm armour and a range of 20 to 800 metres, the system has won plenty of admirers in recent months thanks to its ability to defeat main battle tanks. Many have been surprised just how effective NLAW is, even in the hands of soldiers with little prior training.
. . . No other anti-tank weapon on the market today is quite like NLAW. It combines the simplicity and transportability of a man-portable shoulder-fire weapon with the effectiveness and lethality of a guided missile. Highly effective from as little as 20 metres and up to as much as 800 metres, it features both direct-attack and overfly-top-attack modes. This means it can destroy main battle tanks that are standing still, on the move, and partially concealed behind obstacles.
-- SAAB, NLAW - The Birth of a Tank Killer
.
================
.
How will tanks defend themselves against new threats like the powerful NLAW? It may take radically new kinds of armor. Scientists working with the US Army have discovered an entirely new kind of armor, Steel Foam. Amazingly, Steel Foam has one-third the weight of traditional armor and yet it yields three times the protective power.
.
================
.
Researchers have discovered that composite metal foam offers greater protection than traditional armor steel plate at a third of the weight. The discovery has broad implications for armored vehicles, and could result in stronger, lighter vehicles better able to protect occupants from the impact of kinetic weapons, explosive shockwaves, and fires.
Scientists at North Carolina State University and the US Army’s Aviation Applied Technology Directorate have invented what they call Composite Metal Foam (CMF). “Metal foam” is exactly what you think it is—metal with sponge-like holes in it. This not only makes CMF lighter than normal metal, but it also makes CMF spongy, allowing it to give slightly under impact, soaking up some of the energy of a collision.
. . . But the most fascinating part of CMF is the weight savings. In an article at Army Technology, Army and university scientists claim that CMF weighs three times less than traditional rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) steel plate used in tanks and armored vehicles. A tank with 12 tons of RHA armor would need just four tons of CMF. Lighter tanks need less powerful engines, increasing fuel economy and decreasing the strain a mechanized unit places on logistics. Alternately a tank could simply carry three times as much CMF than RHA, vastly increasing its armor protection without a weight penalty.
. . . CMF would be a valuable addition to the Army’s Next Generation Combat Vehicle, which seeks to replace the M1 Abrams main battle tank and M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The M1 Abrams weighs more than seventy tons, and getting the weight of the Abrams’ successor down without sacrificing armor protection is a top priority.
-- Popular Mechanics
.
================
.
The Marine Corps' abrupt decision to shed itself of all its tanks without a replacement was rash and unwise at best. True, the Abrams main battle tank was always too heavy for the Marine Corps. But the Marine Corps still needs a lighter "mobile, protected, direct fire system.” What the Marine Corps needs is something substantially lighter than the 70 ton Abrams, the 40 ton Booker (light tank), and even lighter than the 30 ton Bradley (less than a tank). The Marine Corps needs a "mobile, protected, direct fire system.” not much over 20 tons. How can the Marine Corps find this new weapon system? The Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico is tasked with investigating, finding, creating, and developing new and comprehensive solutions to difficult challenges. The Combat Development Command has the expert team to find an out of the box solution.
.
What would the Marine Corps' new out of the box solution look like? The stupendously new tank concept might be called the GRAY tank. The GRAY tank would use Steel Foam instead of regular rolled steel. Steel Foam armor would reduce the weight by two-thirds while yielding three times the protection. Then, in additional weight savings, the GRAY tank would forego a traditional main gun and instead use a gatling gun of NLAW rounds. The GRAY tank NLAW gatling gun could fire in both direct-attack and overfly-top-attack modes. This means it can destroy main battle tanks and other targets that are standing still, on the move, and partially concealed behind obstacles. The GRAY tank -- Gatling Round and Advanced Armor Yielding -- tank would provide Marines with what it needs now, a new "mobile, protected, direct fire system.” The Marine Corps needs to put the Combat Development Command to work on the new tank. That is the kind of creative challenge the developers at Quantico accomplish every day.
.
Compass Points salutes the Marine tankers of yesterday, the Marine tankers of tomorrow, and everyone across the Marine community and in Congress working to get the Marine Corps the weapons and equipment needed today, including a new "mobile, protected, direct fire system.”
.
- - - - -
.
Forbes - 04/01/2024
Bahrain Is The Latest Arab Gulf State To Buy Modern Western Tanks
By Paul Iddon, Senior Contributor
.
- - - - -
.
19FortyFive - 03/14/2024
The Age of the Tank Isn’t Over Just Yet
The discourse surrounding the effectiveness of tanks in modern warfare has reignited amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, where over 2,700 Russian and nearly 700 Ukrainian main battle tanks have been confirmed destroyed or abandoned.
By Sebastien Roblin
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2024/03/the-age-of-the-tank-isnt-over-just-yet/
.
- - - - -
.
Popular Mechanics - 03/28/2018
The United States' Next Tank Could Be Protected by 'Steel Foam'
The composite material offers dramatic weight savings and increased protection from shock, fires.
By Kyle Mizokami
.
- - - - -
.
SAAB - 11/02/2022
NLAW - The birth of a tank killer
The NLAW anti-tank system has attracted plenty of praise recently for its ability to stop main battle tanks in their tracks. But where did it come from? And what makes the system so effective?
https://www.saab.com/newsroom/stories/2022/november/the-birth-of-a-tank-killer
Good post. I'll start with this up front: "how are we getting our current/near future vehicle assets anywhere, much less our fantasy armor. We need shipping and connectors. We used to have them."
1. Agree, the USMC needs something heavier than an LAV, MPC, ARV, et al.
2. Agree, the USMC needs something tracked, especially for assault and armor/heavy armor.
3. Agree, advanced materials open opportunity for valid weight reduction with increases in survivability for a given weight.
3. Disagree, the M1A1 was not always too heavy. The M1A1 brought survivable maneuver and firepower that exceeded the weight penalty. The weight of the M1, while grown over the years, was still manageable, especially with the bridging, connectors, engineering assets, and recovery systems available. I'll concede it was testing the limit of practical weight, but it was still manageable.
4. Disagree, 20 tons is too low for a maximum weight. Current LAV is about 12-14 tons. Sheridan was 15 tons. M24 was 20 tons and M41 was 25. If you stick to 20-30 tons, you are making an Assault Weapon / Scout Vehicle. Understand that and use it as such. For a tank, 45-50 tons is my guess of the spot where modern materials and capabilities will overlap to create a minimum viable tank, which will really be a light tank. For the USMC, the modern tank needs not just be a cannon and machinegun platform, it is a hardened C2ISR node (UAS/sUAS manager), the premier modern FIST Platform, a loitering munitions platform, and should be an EW node. If made too light, it will be a low grade assault weapon system and a waste of time and logistics over what is currently available or planned. Study what is optimum weight for balance of armor capabilities necessary to give Marine forces adequate armor capability.
5. Point, defining characteristic of a tank is that its survivability onion means it should have a high degree of survivability in direct gunfight if it is shot in the face, ie, it won't be a catastrophic kill. For a light tank, it has improved survivability over light / no-armor assets. This is a key ability across the spectrum of combat and conflict operations.
6. Point, there is infinite demand for the armor protected firepower and maneuver of a tank under combat conditions. (See - Russian and Ukrainian Operations).
7. Point, there is infinite demand for reduced weight and logistics under operations other than combat. The infantry and logisticians would optimally prefer an M1A1 that can be kept in a poke ball until needed. This is easily turned into a self licking ice cream cone where any weight, POL, ammo logistics is too much.
8. Point, Neither #6 nor #7 should be paid much attention; they are black holes that will suck energy. There is reasonable space between the two extremes.
Remark: globally, over the last 10 years, we have repeatedly seen forces with low weight armor/unarmored assets attempt to increase the weight / survivability of their platforms through any means necessary, or recreate ad hoc armor forces from whatever is available. (Battle of Marawi, ISIS, Ukraine), etc.
[cFrog going back under his Lilly pad now...]
Tanks
Throwing away the Marine Tank Battalions is an unbelievable organizational mistake degrading the Marine MAGTF concept. The “Comments” on the “CP-Advanced Armor” page highlights another problem with fixing the damage of the 2030 design. What tank do we use to replace the tank battalion’s capability and mission in the MAGTF? The QUICK and easily answer is to follow the US Army’s lead with their current M1 main battle tank. Procuring the tanks (and deciding which tank) is not the only problem. Training the tankers, leaders, mechanics, is the other issue that needs to be address along with logistic chains of replacement parts and modifications. The last I looked, the Marines use to send our tank fellows to US Army schools to learn their associated MOS. Let’s first re-establish the tank battalions as quickly as possible. We can continue the debate on technology and which tank as we fill the US Marine tank parks.