Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

As for PzH2000, there also other new SPH's, like K9, T-155 or Krab.

And still there is no better then PzH2000 SPH now
K9, T-155 and...Crab are under* PzH2000 level.

*the same AS90, 2S19 Msta-S, 2S30 Isie't, and chineese SPHs.

 

[methos]

M109PIM is a stop gap, and only thing it really lacks is longer gun barrel. Rest of components like autoloader are derivatives of solutions from XM2001 and XM1203, so they are newer and better than these from PzH2000.

Not really. Newer does not mean better and the Crusader is barely newer than the PzH 2000 (in fact the programmes run simultanously during quite some time). The PzH 2000 production ran from 1998 to 2003, while the Crusader was in development from 1995 to 2001. The PzH 2000A1 was completely developed after the Crusader. The only real advantages the Crusader ever had when compared was the complete compartimensation of the ammo (not really necessary for a vehicle which cannot survive any autocannon or RPG) and the low weight (as result of the lower protection level of the XM2001).
The PzH 2000 autoloader can be boosted to 12 - 13.6 rpm without much modifications (I linked a video about this trials earlier in this thread) compared to 4 rpm of the M109 PIM. The M109 PIM still has some problems of the original M109 and is outranged by any modern artillery system, meaning it is cannonfodder in a symmetrical conflict. Even the Swiss exchanged the guns of their M109s.

 

[hest]

But Crusader had very modern elements (even as compared with PzH 2000), as cooled gun which would give significantly better sustained fire rate. This feature is also present in Koalitsia.

 

[Damian]

Not really. Newer does not mean better and the Crusader is barely newer than the PzH 2000 (in fact the programmes run simultanously during quite some time). The PzH 2000 production ran from 1998 to 2003, while the Crusader was in development from 1995 to 2001. The PzH 2000A1 was completely developed after the Crusader. The only real advantages the Crusader ever had when compared was the complete compartimensation of the ammo (not really necessary for a vehicle which cannot survive any autocannon or RPG) and the low weight (as result of the lower protection level of the XM2001).
The PzH 2000 autoloader can be boosted to 12 - 13.6 rpm without much modifications (I linked a video about this trials earlier in this thread) compared to 4 rpm of the M109 PIM. The M109 PIM still has some problems of the original M109 and is outranged by any modern artillery system, meaning it is cannonfodder in a symmetrical conflict. Even the Swiss exchanged the guns of their M109s.

Methos, Crusader contrary to most SPH's used composite armor. Even it's prototype have up-armored glacis plate (under which crew comparrment is placed).

XM2001 was in reality a completely new generation of SPH's, much more modern than PzH2000. It had more powerfull engine, was lighter, completely automated (crew was only pushing buttons), even reloading from it's reloading vehicle was completely automated.

As for M109PIM, of course it is not perfect, and as I said, the biggest problem is the short gun barrel, the question is why the barrel is still only L39, of course we can assume that this perfectly fits US Army for now, they need more rounds per minute not more range, thi is why focus on autoloader derived from XM2001 and XM1203, not range, for US Army their long range artillery is USAF.

 

[militarysta]

But Crusader had very modern elements (even as compared with PzH 2000), as cooled gun which would give significantly better sustained fire rate. This feature is also present in Koalitsia.

And You know that those one parametr haven't sense on modern battelfield? ;-)

Against modern enemy nobody will stand in one place and shoot by 5-10min. It's suicide!

Durign developmend PzH2000 most important factor was fast rapid in less then 60s. As I remember developers in late 1980. established that Soviet forces whit artyliery radars and MLRS will be able to countrfire in about 3min after first SPH shoot. So whole "fire job" for PzH2000 battery must be done in ~45s and after that quick and fast change position, before MLRS plowed field by cluster munition in 500x1000m area.

So cooling gune in pointless when there is no option to long fire (>1min) from one position.


And even whit that design idea germans decide to made two types of add-on armour anti cluster munition and bomblets.

 

[methos]

But Crusader had very modern elements (even as compared with PzH 2000), as cooled gun which would give significantly better sustained fire rate. This feature is also present in Koalitsia.

A cooled barrel is not really necessary in most cases. The "average" modern SPAG like the K9, AS-90 or the Crusader carry only 48 rounds with them, the PzH 2000 carries 60. Firing 20 rounds of these at the highest possible rate of fire is possible without stoping because of barrel heating in the PzH 2000 - this corresponds to 41% (or 33% for the PzH 2000) of the total ammunition carried. A self-propelled artillery gun is not made for firing huge amounts of ammo at once, if you want to fire as much projectiles as possible at once, then you should use rocket artillery.
If you want to have a vehicle capabe of firing multiple times without the need to replenish ammunition, then the gun artillery like the K9, M109, AS-90, Crusader and PzH 2000 is the best choice.

Methos, Crusader contrary to most SPH's used composite armor. Even it's prototype have up-armored glacis plate (under which crew comparrment is placed).

Only to reduce the weight to match the U.S. requirements for air-portability. The protection level was not greater than on other SPAGs like the PzH 2000 and the Crusader did not have specialized roof armour.

XM2001 was in reality a completely new generation of SPH's, much more modern than PzH2000. It had more powerfull engine, was lighter, completely automated (crew was only pushing buttons), even reloading from it's reloading vehicle was completely automated.

All these features existed already on other vehicles, except the "being fully automatic".

 

[hest]

And You know that those one parametr haven't sense on modern battelfield? ;-)

Against modern enemy nobody will stand in one place and shoot by 5-10min. It's suicide!

Durign developmend PzH2000 most important factor was fast rapid in less then 60s. As I remember developers in late 1980. established that Soviet forces whit artyliery radars and MLRS will be able to countrfire in about 3min after first SPH shoot. So whole "fire job" for PzH2000 battery must be done in ~45s and after that quick and fast change position, before MLRS plowed field by cluster munition in 500x1000m area.

So cooling gune in pointless when there is no option to long fire (>1min) from one position.


And even whit that design idea germans decide to made two types of add-on armour anti cluster munition and bomblets.

In current artillery systems, including PzH-2000 and especially after such intense fire rates (10 rounds per minute, etc) gun is overheated and significant time amount is needed to cool down and recover previous rate. Thus a liquid cooled gun will give notable advantage, not only extended shooting time, but also intense fire rate and instant readiness after tactical relocation.

It is important improvement, thus both American and Russian planners wanted this requirement.

 

[militarysta]

I gun is overheated and significant time amount is needed to cool down and recover previous rate. .

What is "significant time"? 5min? 10? 15? hmmm?

In fact cooling gun haven't bigger sense when SPHs must shoot 8-10round fast and after that change position in about 2-4km. It takes longer time then natural cooling the gun.

Propably in Crusarder and Kolatsja this system is present after plans to ut in SPH liquid propelant.

 

[hest]

What is "significant time"? 5min? 10? 15? hmmm?

In fact cooling gun haven't bigger sense when SPHs must shoot 8-10round fast and after that change position in about 2-4km. It takes longer time then natural cooling the gun.

Propably in Crusarder and Kolatsja this system is present after plans to ut in SPH liquid propelant.

PzH and alike fire intensively only for first minutes, then fire rate is reduced to control heating and maintain operation.

With cooled gun it is not only possible to increment fire rate or to prolong it for more time, but it also allows to maintain a more constant activity. For example it is possible to perform intense fire for reduced time interval, relocate to new position and be able to resume inmediately maintaining intensity, fire rate, also it will be more accurate in general due to reduced heat effects.

As you focus only on operation in first minutes, you will not see much difference, but it is very notable for longer term, in prolonged operations.

And it is not related to liquid propellant, but as explained, it came from requirement to increase fire rate and activity. One variant of Koalitsia was double barreled configuration, until they decided to use liquid cooled gun.

 

[Damian]

Only to reduce the weight to match the U.S. requirements for air-portability. The protection level was not greater than on other SPAGs like the PzH 2000 and the Crusader did not have specialized roof armour.

Hard to call this not grater protection than on other SPH's.

ANd there is additional protection also on unmanned turret roof.

 

[methos]

I don't see why it should be better protected. Yes, the armour is very thick, but that's it. It's base armour is very poor and consists mainly of aluminium and titanium. The applique is necessary to survive common threats. PzH 2000 was designed with the same level of protection as the Leopard 1 - which means that the glacis should be 140 mm steel on the line-of-sight, offering protection against everything up to 40 mm APFSDS. How protective will the applique armour of the Crusader be?
Any idea of what the Crusader's armour is made? Ceramics tiles like MEXAS? NERA? I doubt that this armour will protect against anything greater than 40 mm APFSDS, if it is MEXAS-like armour it probably is against 30 mm APFSDS only.

 

[Akim]

Durign developmend PzH2000 most important factor was fast rapid in less then 60s. As I remember developers in late 1980. established that Soviet forces whit artyliery radars and MLRS will be able to countrfire in about 3min after first SPH shoot. So whole "fire job" for PzH2000 battery must be done in ~45s and after that quick and fast change position, before MLRS plowed field by cluster munition in 500x1000m area.

So cooling gune in pointless when there is no option to long fire (>1min) from one position.

Went on an artillery . A bit not in a theme, but.
Radars calculate the location of battery at once after the first volley, but a counterfire is inflicted only in 2,5-3 minutes. Armor SP is needed only anticomminuting. More protection does not make sense anymore. If there will be a direct hit of artillery shell on a Hanging trajectory, no armor thickness will rescue.
And rapidity of fire is important. At automated control system for 2 minutes it is possible to lay about strike on to 3-4 objective and to go away from position not waiting for a return fire.

 

[Damian]

I don't see why it should be better protected. Yes, the armour is very thick, but that's it. It's base armour is very poor and consists mainly of aluminium and titanium.

And from where You get knowledge about armor composition?

How protective will the applique armour of the Crusader be?
Any idea of what the Crusader's armour is made? Ceramics tiles like MEXAS? NERA? I doubt that this armour will protect against anything greater than 40 mm APFSDS, if it is MEXAS-like armour it probably is against 30 mm APFSDS only.

You see, I do not know armor characteristics, this is why I'am not making any fast conclusions like You.

 

[methos]

You see, I do not know armor characteristics, this is why I'am not making any fast conclusions like You.

You are making fast conclusions by saying it would be better protected. I think it is rather armour for protecting the roof of the crew comparment, like the one on the roof of the XM2001 and PzH 2000 and on the PzH 2000's driver station.

 

[Damian]

Well I definetly do not say that it is not well armored, neither we know characteristics of the base and addon armor.

 

[313230]

You are just a crazy fanboy, Damian.
If you think Donald Rumsfeld and the cancellation of Crusader are stupid, what advantages do you think Crusader had over pzh 2000 when it priced more than 5 times? 25M - 5M = 20M just for some automatic loaders and composite armor? It is lucky that you are just a netter not someone who has power to make decisions.

Personally I think wheeled systems like Caesar or Archer would be much faster, lighter, cheaper, some are transportable by air. Artillery system is not a tank.

 

[Damian]

You are just a crazy fanboy, Damian.

How typical. I'm still waiting when You will have something smart to say.

If you think Donald Rumsfeld and the cancellation of Crusader are stupid, what advantages do you think Crusader had over pzh 2000 when it priced more than 5 times? 25M - 5M = 20M just for some automatic loaders and composite armor? It is lucky that you are just a netter not someone who has power to make decisions.

Maybe then read something about Crusader program idiot. XM2001 had advanced automatic loading system, isolated crew compartment, advanced armor, more advanced Hydrogas suspension system instead of torsion bars, more advanced and compact powerpack (powerpack itself was intended as a common poerpwack for XM2001 and M1 tanks series) + advanced electronics.

Oh and the main gun itself, the XM297E2 is L56 not L52 like all currently used and considered as modern SPH's had. So there is also advantage in barrel.

Also gun liquid cooling system gives advantages.

And we are damn lucky You are not some ----in decision maker. Idiots are everywhere, You are great example of such, instead of reading good sources, You are only spreading You silly opinions.

Not to mention that Rumsfeld was idiot, many people in US Armed Forces admitts this, he cancelled plenty of promising R&D programs that were ready for induction only because these were to heavy to be transported abourd C-130... and instead he started another big program that was a money bag without a bottom and when finally Rumsfeld and his acolites were kicked out, and rational people analized the program they needed to cancell it as well because it was nothing else than a wet dream.

So US instead of inducting in to service advanced XM2001, had a double waste of money because of that old prick.

Good that at least the know-how is preserved and can be used in future.

Personally I think wheeled systems like Caesar or Archer would be much faster, lighter, cheaper, some are transportable by air. Artillery system is not a tank.

Ceasar have no survivability... damn the Chech 155 mm ShKH Zuzana is better system with protected crew and fully traversable turret. As for Archer it is interesting design, however it have lower mobility in difficult terrain than tracked system as well as low ammunition capacity (20 ready rounds + 20 than need to be reloaded) this can make problems.

Generally speaking simpler wheeled systems are good for poor countries that fight only enemy on the same or poorer level. As for highly advanced and big armies, tracked system with greater survivability and mobility as well bigger ready ammo capacity is better.

 

[Akim]

Personally I think wheeled systems like Caesar or Archer would be much faster, lighter, cheaper, some are transportable by air. Artillery system is not a tank.

Wheeled chassis limitedly. Yes, artilery is more mobile, but less all-terrains. In Soviet Union wanted to build on a license the Czechoslovak "Dana". But drive them on tests, from this idea was to renounce.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/42684-modern-artillery-tactical-missiles.html

 

[Damian]

Wheeled chassis limitedly. Yes, artilery is more mobile, but less all-terrains. In Soviet Union wanted to build on a license the Czechoslovak "Dana". But drive them on tests, from this idea was to renounce.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/42684-modern-artillery-tactical-missiles.html

Well Dana and it's more modern derivatives like Zuzana, Zuzana 2 and Himalaya still have some potential, and they have a higher survivability than such improvization like Ceasar that is in fact just a truck with gun mounted on the rear.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

A arty can be in various forms, In India there is a requirement of tracked as well as Wheeled SPGH..

Track SPGH can maintain there speed with a Armour thrust off-road, where as Wheeled is for quick deployment and lighter to operate over high altitude..

Personally I think wheeled systems like Caesar or Archer would be much faster, lighter, cheaper, some are transportable by air. Artillery system is not a tank.