Admiral Beez
Major
Has this canister round been used in combat? It seems the ideal ammunition for Ukraine's Leopard 2s when clearing the field of mass infantry.
Tanks post-2022: what now?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Admiral Beez
Major
What's the consensus on the US Army's new MPF light tank?
en.wikipedia.org
This seems like a good, more deployable replacement for Canada's Leopard 2 MBTs.
Mobile Protected Firepower - Wikipedia
This seems like a good, more deployable replacement for Canada's Leopard 2 MBTs.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I'm not a fan of the Griffin - I think the U.S. Army should have gone with the M8 AGS, which would have matured by requirement like the M1 Abrams, over the past 20+ years.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I've always liked the looks of the Sheridan.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Don't get me started on the StuG...
Too tall, not enough performance to make up for the lack of armor.What's the consensus on the US Army's new MPF light tank?
View attachment 721298
Mobile Protected Firepower - Wikipedia
This seems like a good, more deployable replacement for Canada's Leopard 2 MBTs.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
MPF is a weird vehicle. Doctrinally, its not a light tank. It's more like a hybrid of a tank destroyer/assault gun/heavy infantry support vehicle. It's meant to provide long range fire support to help infantry deal with targets that they wouldn't organically be able to handle (bunkers/emplacements and heavy armour). But, it's not an exploit vehicle in the way tanks are meant to be.
Functionally, it's more like 'we have Abrams at home' - big gun, reasonable armour (production vehicles likely to be capable of handling 30mm to the front and at least 14.5mm AP to the sides), full sensor suite, four man crew and an 1100hp engine.
Design history wise, hooo boy. Settle in folks.
MPF can be traced back to the ASCOD family of vehicles developed in the late 1980s/early 1990s by Austria and Spain (with some Norwegian input). The basic vehicle is about 26 tonnes and comes in IFV, SAM, ATGM, mortar, recon/artillery observer and medevac roles.
By 1997, General Dynamics had bought out the companies that developed ASCOD and were hunting around for some new markets to sell it. So, they took turret developed for the 76mm gun on the South African Rooikat 8 x 8 and teamed it with the full power M68 105mm, and produced a 30-31 tonne light tank based on a modified ASCOD.
No one was really interested, mostly because the turret wasn't nearly ready for prime time and the US Army had cancelled the M8 about 18 months before so light tanks were doctrinally out of favour (and everyone was still reducing defense spending). About 18 months later, they tried again with General Dynamic's own 105 mm armed Low-Profile Turret. Again, not much interest.
A couple years after that, they got the bright idea of doing the same thing again. This time with the much beefier Italian Oto Melara 105LRF turret, along with updated engine, new internals and modern electronics/thermals.
This seems to have created a brief flurry of interest in the early 2000s in light tanks. But, with the GWoT arriving, anyone who had money decided to stick with their MBTs and go with wheeled tank destroyers for lighter firepower. So we get the Stryker with the 105mm, the Japanese Type 16, a couple of 8 x 8s from China and a few oddities elsewhere.
Then the US creates the design requirements for MPF around 2016. By this time, General Dynamics UK were using ASCOD as the basis for the Ajax family of vehicles.
So, General Dynamics in the US takes the automotive plans for Ajax and breathes heavily in Imperial on it. General Dynamics also designs a 'new, scaled down' turret based on the M1A2 sep3 - just ignore the striking similarities to the older South African and Italian turrets- and teamed that to the M35 lightweight 105mm. Which was developed in the 1980s for the 'Light Mobile Protected Gun' (sound familiar?).
And viola, a "new" American design. With Spanish-Austrian-Norwegian-South Africa-Italian-British heritage.
Functionally, it's more like 'we have Abrams at home' - big gun, reasonable armour (production vehicles likely to be capable of handling 30mm to the front and at least 14.5mm AP to the sides), full sensor suite, four man crew and an 1100hp engine.
Design history wise, hooo boy. Settle in folks.
MPF can be traced back to the ASCOD family of vehicles developed in the late 1980s/early 1990s by Austria and Spain (with some Norwegian input). The basic vehicle is about 26 tonnes and comes in IFV, SAM, ATGM, mortar, recon/artillery observer and medevac roles.
By 1997, General Dynamics had bought out the companies that developed ASCOD and were hunting around for some new markets to sell it. So, they took turret developed for the 76mm gun on the South African Rooikat 8 x 8 and teamed it with the full power M68 105mm, and produced a 30-31 tonne light tank based on a modified ASCOD.
No one was really interested, mostly because the turret wasn't nearly ready for prime time and the US Army had cancelled the M8 about 18 months before so light tanks were doctrinally out of favour (and everyone was still reducing defense spending). About 18 months later, they tried again with General Dynamic's own 105 mm armed Low-Profile Turret. Again, not much interest.
A couple years after that, they got the bright idea of doing the same thing again. This time with the much beefier Italian Oto Melara 105LRF turret, along with updated engine, new internals and modern electronics/thermals.
This seems to have created a brief flurry of interest in the early 2000s in light tanks. But, with the GWoT arriving, anyone who had money decided to stick with their MBTs and go with wheeled tank destroyers for lighter firepower. So we get the Stryker with the 105mm, the Japanese Type 16, a couple of 8 x 8s from China and a few oddities elsewhere.
Then the US creates the design requirements for MPF around 2016. By this time, General Dynamics UK were using ASCOD as the basis for the Ajax family of vehicles.
So, General Dynamics in the US takes the automotive plans for Ajax and breathes heavily in Imperial on it. General Dynamics also designs a 'new, scaled down' turret based on the M1A2 sep3 - just ignore the striking similarities to the older South African and Italian turrets- and teamed that to the M35 lightweight 105mm. Which was developed in the 1980s for the 'Light Mobile Protected Gun' (sound familiar?).
And viola, a "new" American design. With Spanish-Austrian-Norwegian-South Africa-Italian-British heritage.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Still think they need to get back to basics...
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
It was used in Afghanistan. Reports are that use was very rare and the round wasn't viewed as particularly useful so it wasn't issued very much.
Range is short (effective range between 50 and 300m), which is REALLY close if you're a tanker. Plus, it lays down a big spray of pellets, so it's almost impossible to use if there are any friendlies in the intervening space between you and the target.
Standard 7.62 coax or M830 'MPAT' round was preferred when engaging soft targets. MPAT also has an airburst feature, which would probably make it more useful against dug in targets or those in partial or full cover.
M1028 was developed because Army command in South Korea freaked out in 1999 over the possibility of human wave attacks by North Korean infantry.
Admiral Beez
Major
I bet Ukraine would do well with a force of Stridsvagn 103 and Kanonenjagdpanzer. Too bad they were all scrapped, minus a few museum pieces. NATO should have done what Russia does, store every tank ever made for a rainy day, like Belgium's warehouse of Leopard 1s.
The Stridsvagn would have fired the same NATO 105mm as Ukraine's Leopard 1 and M-55 tanks. Is the French 105mm in the Scorpion the same ammo?
The Kanonenjagdpanzer's 90mm gun would be a limiting factor, but sufficient to penetrate anything up to a non-ERA protected T-62.
Attachments
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Major
I wonder what tanks Canada will get.
globalnews.ca
Canadian military will get new tanks to replace Leopards going to Ukraine: minister - National | Globalnews.ca
Anita Anand says the Canadian Forces will be receiving new tanks to replace the eight fighting machines sent to Ukraine, and they won't necessarily be Leopard 2 battle tanks.
globalnews.ca
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
As long as we're cranking up production of M-1s anyway and it's just a train ride away, how 'bout the Abrams?
The best road is the railroad.
The best road is the railroad.
Admiral Beez
Major
I agree. But we still have a sixty-four Leopard 2s plus twenty-odd Leo2-based ARVs. And then there's Rheinmetall Canada and their investment in the domestic economy, shown below rebuilding a Canadian Leopard 2 in the 2010s.
Interestingly, with the exception of surplus Shermans in Korea, Canada has not used US tanks post WW2. Post-war we had Centurions, Leopard 1s and now Leopard 2s. Given our post-war purchases or license production of US combat aircraft (Sabre, Banshee, Tracker, Voodoo, Starfighter, Freedom Fighter, Aurora/Orion, etc.), one would have thought we'd operate Patton tanks.
Apparently PM Pierre Trudeau was strongarmed into buying the Leopard 1s by the other NATO members. I wonder if the Centurions could have been upgraded to a capability equal to the Leopard 1s we bought. The Israelis and South Africans did wonders with their Centurion upgrades.
Last edited:
The UK has had a strong AFV production capability post WWII. But aircraft production had issues thanks to political decisions.
Admiral Beez
Major
Britain's Hawker-Siddeley Group wholly owned Avro Canada. It's too bad the UK and Canada couldn't work together on a common aircraft requirement instead of the former developing the P.1121 and the latter the CF-105 Arrow. What both nations needed was an equal to the US F4 Phantom II, which coincidently first flew in 1958, the same year both the Avro Arrow first flew and the Hawker P.1121 was canceled.
As for using British tanks to follow Canada's soon to be retired 105mm-armed Centurions, Britain's decision to use ammunition incompatible with US/NATO standards in their post-Centurion Chieftain and Challenger tanks likely pushed Canada toward the Leo1 and Leo2 that fired the same 105mm and later on 120mm ammo as the Abrams. The stockpiles of 105mm ammo from the Centurions could also go into the Leo1.
Last edited:
There was a tremendous amount of American aid to AVRO during their work on the Arrow. You could almost say it was a minor partnership.
The Centurian is an old design, based on the Black Prince IIRC that came out right at the end of WWII. I agree with you that they didn't like the Brit 120. Non fixed ammunition, and still rifled. So nowhere near the performance of the Rheinmetall 1200 smooth bore.
Black Prince was a project started to put a 17lber and new turret on a Churchill which was scrapped once the Sherman was modified to the Firefly.
Centurion was originally to be a larger version of the cruiser tanks and expanded after rail size restrictions were lifted.
Challenger was designed to be mainly used to protect and support infantry. The rifled barrel was kept to enable use of the HESH
round which is very good against strongpoints as well as armour.
Centurion was originally to be a larger version of the cruiser tanks and expanded after rail size restrictions were lifted.
Challenger was designed to be mainly used to protect and support infantry. The rifled barrel was kept to enable use of the HESH
round which is very good against strongpoints as well as armour.
Admiral Beez
Major
To be fair, the British 120mm gun was a generation before the Rheinmetall 120 smooth bore. When it entered service the British 120mm gun was the best tank gun in the world, and in an era of thinly armed Pattons, Leopards and T-55s, with the Chieftain the British had the best protected/armed (and slowest, lol) MBT available.
The British have finally decided to ditch their gun and go with the Rheinmetall 120mm smooth bore on the Challenger 3. Considering the regressive progression of Britain's tank numbers, it will be interesting to see how many Challenger 3 tanks get produced (or converted from Chally2s).
Cheifttan - 900 operated by British army (996 others exported)
Challenger 1 - 420 operated by British army (before all sold to Jordan)
Challenger 2 - 227 (out of 386 delivered) operated by British army (others to Oman and Ukraine)
Challenger 3? - my guess is under 200 operated by the British army. Likely the last British tank before the UK switches to whatever replaced the Leo2.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Major
I agree, as long as you're not beholden to your supplier partner's national governments for permission to deploy or transfer the tanks. One of the reasons Britain was the first to donate western MBTs to Ukraine was that the Challenger 2 was not restricted by either Berlin or Washington. No one who wanted to donate their Leopard 2s or Abrams could do so without this. But Britain was free to do as it wished.
