Jump to content
frez13

Weapons of 2017- M1A3/T-99

Recommended Posts

Since the setting of the game is 2017, you think a module will be feasible which includes the M1A3 Abrams or the Russian T-99 (Armata) main battle tanks? They are supposed to be on the field by 2017 or before according to their respective pages. I know budget may seem like it may be cut anytime on new weapons, but according to the M1 Abrams page "With the budget compromise of December 2013, the M1A3 program is expected to receive funding needed to begin full-scale production in 2018." Not sure about the Russian one, though.

 

I'm sure the M1A3 will look the same as the M1A1/M1A2 model-wise, so just a stat adjustment without the need for new model.

M1A3: Under development, with prospective prototypes by 2014, operational by 2017.[82] Improvements are to include a lighter 120 mm gun, added road wheels with improved suspension, a more durable track, lighter armor, long-range precision armaments, and infrared camera and laser detectors. A new internal computer system is also desired, with current wiring replaced by fiber-optic lines that could decrease weight by some two tons.[

Edited by frez13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't hold your breath for either of those in real life,...or the game.

Not holding breath for anything, but the M1A3 is just same model, just a stat change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armata is....a thing.  There's nothing at all solid on it besides Russian claims it'll eat all the American babies and protect all the Russians of the world no matter what country they're in with fiery dragon's breath.  

 

A lot of what is going to make the M1A3 interesting in terms of gameplay is already in the game in terms of the newer ERA, possible APS, and the AMP. What isn't going in would be:

 

1. The possible engine change, but that wouldn't matter that much in game.

 

2. The extensive lightening measures.  The armor array shouldn't change, but the sort of weight savings would make for a slightly faster top speed, and  better logistics, which is very important....just not relevant at the tactical manuever phase.

 

Reality is the Armata is too distant future, and line between M1A2 SEP v2 with 2017 upgrades, and the M1A3 is very fine indeed at the shooty-armored-moving level.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will apparently see Armata this May.

 

It will have chassis of current Koalitsiya prototype - as that is the meant to be the new modular chassis.

 

Other than that, not much else is concrete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wiki page said M1A3 gets an extra roadwheel, a ligher gun and God knows what else. I read one description that said it was going to be 10 tons lighter! It was supposedly being worked on this (I mean last) year but there's virtually nothing on the vehicle to be found on the web. Its a frickin' enigma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the Armata will be named the T-14 and not T-99.

 

Anyone seen this yet? (A computer generated model of what the T-14 might look like based on the early mock-up model that were revealed a few years back)

 

That hull is the same one I was talking about as displayed on the Koalitsiya prototype - So i would suggest that that mockup model will highly likely be similar to the first built prototype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: AMP

 

It most certainly is not at this point, It's supposed to be a "soon" thing like 2017-2020, but as of now the basic load was still a mix of sabot, MPAT, and sometimes canister.  

 

Re: M1A3

 

It is most certainly an enigma.  I worked with guys who got pulled in to basically be the focus group for some of the improvements. There never was a real "hey what do you think of this?" tank parked in the motorpool or something, it was very general "do you think the loader could use his own remote weapons station?" sort of questions.

 

The stuff that's been consistent:

 

1. New lightened gun.  Same performance, just much lighter

2. Better integration of electrical systems (a lot of stuff has just been added on top of existing architecture, so reworking stuff like the wiring harness to reduce redundancy is in the cards)

3. Replacement of copper wiring with fiber optics (this is supposed to save 2-5 tons of weight)

4. Data link for the gun to allow for rounds like the AMP or possibly some sort of future missile system

5. Improved commander's weapon station.  The CROW is too tall.  Way too tall, and while effective, it's clearly a bolt-on addition.  Something shorter, and better integrated into the tank is likely.

 

Stuff that's mentioned occasionally that I don't rule out:

 

1. Replacing the engine with a diesel.  It has been discussed, and would be more cost effective.  However the gas turbine still offers excellent performance, and we have the advantage of having a lot of them on hand right now.

2. Additional remote weapons system for the loader.  Given the COIN focus in the last decade or so, making a tank more MG focused doesn't seem unlikely, but at the same time it'd get in the way of the commander's station, the CITV would have to be worked around, and the loader has other things to be doing usually.

3. Some manner of add-on boathull for the belly armor to deflect mine blasts

4.ERA racks installed as standard vs a kit.  I'm sort of half on half on this, on the one hand, the ERA mounting kits definitely stayed well in the realm of the TUSK kit, and only the TUSK kit.  On the other hand, with better weight management it'd be possible to actually just have the ERA on all tanks.

 

Stuff that I've heard but seems very doubtful

 

1. Longer/larger gun.  It's possible to do, but most of the direction the Army has taken is better rounds, and the sheer length of a larger 120 MM gun is prohibitive in urban or other complex terrain.

2. Longer hull/more roadwheels.  I've never seen the logic for it given the weight reduction measures, maybe partly trying to lower ground pressure by increasing how much the existing weight is spread around.  However given the sheer number of M1 hulls in existence, and the expense of modifying them to that degree, it's more likely the basic shape of the hull and suspension will remain the same.

3 Home-grown APS.  The US program seems to have stagnated/suffered from reduced funding and priority.  The CMBS scenario where the US buys a few thousand units from Israel to add on to existing tanks seems more likely than the US APS coming out in time to install it.  Unless of course it's actually something that's just being done so in the dark for OPSEC reasons that no recent information has leaked on it.

4. Autoloader.  Just no.  Reworking the turret to that degree, and the value of the fourth crewman is not something I see the Army walking away from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

German pastry transport was at least 500% as efficient as the Allies.  The Allies only won because of outnumbering German pastry.

 

On topic:

 

Really think looking more at these hypothetical tanks that we're already at the cutting edge as far as what's likely to show up and trade blows in a hypothetical war in 2017.  T90AM is already kind of out there, M1A2 with APS and AMP is pretty tomorrow's war. Maybe if the game has the longevity that CMSF had in terms of release to final expansions, and the M1A3 is revealed to have such and such specs, and the Armata doesn't pull a Black Eagle, T-95 etc a sort of future systems pack makes sense.

 

(Of course, I'd be more excited for Fulda Gap 1990 myself, or for a weirdo Russia vs China campaign)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1. Replacing the engine with a diesel.  It has been discussed, and would be more cost effective.  However the gas turbine still offers excellent performance, and we have the advantage of having a lot of them on hand right now.

 

 

I don't think this is a good idea, a modern gas turbine would provide a better specific power and volumetric power than a modern diesel. The efficiency of a gas turbine is worse under normal operating conditions but it is not that bad, especially if you have an under armor APU. 

 

Gas turbines also offer superior IR signature than diesels. Exhaust radiates primarily at wavelengths that can not be used by terrestrial IR imagers (MWIR and LWIR in this case) due to atmospheric attenuation concerns, diesels only reject approximately half their heat into exhaust and the other half into heat exchangers that are very visible to IR imagers. Furthermore diesels tend to have more sooty exhaust which is approximately grey body radiator and can be detected by IR imagers. 

 

The problem with the M1's engine is not that it is a gas turbine but that it is an old gas turbine. 

Edited by nsKb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Engine replacement

 

The expense of making a new engine pretty much means it either needs to be an engine change, or it's just going to be the same refurbs.  I really liked the gas turbine, the sort of power it dishes out is awesome, and the acoustic profile is vastly superior (when a tank company is on the move, you'll hear the 1SG and medic M113s well before you hear the Abrams).  It's also fairly reliable given the smaller number of moving pieces.  I went from the Cav to the Abrams, and engine issues were largely limited to stuff our terribad mechanic* support did than the engine itself.

 

That said the thermal thing is right out.  Doesn't matter one way or the other, Abrams, Bradley, K1, K200, if it's an AFV, you might as well be looking at the sun in thermal.  

 

*Fun fact about Korea: most of the soldiers you receive are fresh out of AIT.  Your NCO pool is also greatly affected by all the SFCs that call in favors with branch/discover reasons they cannot possibly come to Korea at the last minute.  As a result your milage can vary.  My sister company's support was great, their team chief was spot on, and had one of those amazing junior E-5s that apparently was just born to be an NCO.  My team was lead by someone who was too medically broke to come to the field (but could spend three hours in the gym lifting and compete in hand to hand combat competitions), and my good E-5 was replaced with a well meaning one, that would have been good....if the team chief wasn't a turd and actually spent time developing him.

 

The junior enlisted's job quality suffered greatly as a result of this experience.  

Edited by panzersaurkrautwerfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the Armata will be named the T-14 and not T-99.

 

Anyone seen this yet? (A computer generated model of what the T-14 might look like based on the early mock-up model that was revealed a few years back)

As far as we know this is not Armata, but rather a separate design by Omsk on Armata chassis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could access artist's depiction of Armata (the tnk version) here, I believe it is reasonably accurate to provide the general idea:

http://rosinform.ru/photo/osnovnoy-tank-t-14--na-baze-tyazheloy-unifitsirovannoy-platformy-armata/

The actual vehicle would be accessible to public during the parade rehearsals - as parade vehicles pass through central Moscow for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multi-barrel machine gun? Check.

Auto-cannon? Check.

Big main gun with all the cool bells and whistles? Check.

 

Yeeeesssss.....

 

Minigun style coax tied in to modern aiming systems would be...breathtakingly effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multi-barrel machine gun? Check.

Auto-cannon? Check.

Big main gun with all the cool bells and whistles? Check.

 

Yeeeesssss.....

 

Minigun style coax tied in to modern aiming systems would be...breathtakingly effective.

The ammo goes uhm where? exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...