New 120mm “multi-purpose” round under development

UPI is reporting that the U.S. Army has awarded Orbital ATK a $16 million contract for first-phase development of a new 120mm multi-purpose tank round.  According to the article, Orbital ATK said the 120mm Advanced Multi-Purpose, XM1147 High Explosive Multi-Purpose with Tracer cartridge will replace four existing rounds, including those for defeating armor and breaching reinforced walls.  The article does not specify which four rounds this new munition will replace.  A timeline for this new ammunition development was not disclosed.  Orbital ATK and the U.S. Army earlier this year finished qualification for the M829E4, creating the Army’s fifth generation 120mm kinetic energy round.

Orbital ATK website listing their line of 120mm ammunition types. 

Video: Iraqi Abrams destroyed by ATGM

Here is a rather startling video from Live Leak showing an Iraqi Abrams tank being hit by a Kornet anti-tank guided missile.  It appears that the missile strikes the turret rear, setting off the ammo storage.  The tank can be seen to move after being hit, which suggests that the driver survived the attack, at least initially.  One crew member is seen jumping from the turret after the ammunition is already burning.  This suggests that the compartmentalized ammo storage system worked, preventing the ammo fire from immediately killing the crew.

From the Vault: IDR Article on Tank Suspensions 1976

Today we present an article that originally appeared in International Defense Review way back in 1976.  While much has changed since then, a good deal of the information in this article is still relevant.

Tank wreck videos

A new youtube channel called Wartime Wrecks has posted a couple videos in the past couple days of tank wrecks. These videos are really collections of still images set to trippy music.

 

 

Nature preserve located where tanks used to roll

0,,18717502_401,00DW has posted an article about a piece of land in Germany that was once an exercise site for armor and is now a nature preserve for rare animals.  While this article is not specifically about tanks, it’s a somewhat interesting look at the ecological impact that armored operations can have on an ecosystem.  Somewhat ironically, the use of the land as a area for running tanks made it ideal for it’s current use as a preserve for rare animals due to the fact that the land had no buildings on it and was cleared of most trees, and no fertilizer, liquid manure or pesticides were used on it.   This area is called Schmidtenhöhe and has been designated a natural reserve and a national natural heritage site by the German government.

According to the article, only one weekend per year do military sounds disturb the birds’ chirping on Schmidtenhöhe: When members of the local Military Vehicles Drivers Koblenz club gather to maintain and drive military vehicles.  This once a year tank drive does have an environmental benefit, creating hollows that fill with rain water that become home to some of the species of the preserve.  However, the use of the land for armor exercises has also left large parts of it contaminated with old munitions, some of it still live, as well as oil and diesel fuel.

Full article here. 

Video: AAV-P7 Leaps off Pier

Foxtrot Alpha has posted an article containing video of an Indonesian Armed Forces AAV-P7 launching itself off a pier at high speed.  This spectacle was part of the 70th anniversary of the Indonesian Armed Forces celebrations.  Click on the image below to go to the Foxtrot Alpha page and view the video.

amphib

AFV news from Jane’s

IHS Jane's 360Jane’s 360 has several AFV related headlines on their site currently.  Rather than make a individual post for each, we will list the headlines below.  None of these stories are particularly earth shattering, but they may be of interest to some readers.

Iraq, Saudi Arabia reportedly interested in placing major BMP-3 orders

Pentagon budget 2016: lawmakers fund up-gunned Stryker project

Brazilian Navy M113 upgrade now on track

Malaysian Army chief bullish on AV8 deliveries

Afghan National Army to receive more Commando Select 4x4s

Lithuania orders German PzH 2000s

Inside the tank: The M5 Stuart & M24 Chaffee

Wargaming Europe’s Richard Cutland takes a look at the M5 Stuart & M24 Chaffee.

Chieftain’s Hatch: How Suitable was T29? Pt.1

chieftains hatchTank researcher Nicholas Moran has posted a new article in his “Chieftain’s Hatch” web forum.  The post is a description of an Armored Board report from 1948 concerning future requirements of the heavy tank program.

Excerpt:

After the war, the US heavy tank program was in full swing. However, there was still some debate as to just what the heavy tanks would look like, or even what it is they were going to do. As a result, though it was accepted that the T28 and T29 series tanks were dead ends, they still provided some kernels for thought on the matter. Armored Board decided to put a more detailed writing down as to where the heavy tank program should go, if at all. Specifically, “to secure sufficient information on the employment of heavy tanks to form an intelligent basis on which future requirements for heavy tanks in the US Army may be determined.” The report was dated 30th June 1948.

This is a fairly long report, so I’m going to split it up into two parts. One the more philosophical outlook as to just what heavy tanks were supposed to be doing and the second, next week, will be on the practical matters relating to tanks of the T29 class in particular. Extract follows:

Background:

By current definition the term Heavy Tank includes those from 56 to 85 tons. The United States first developed a tank (Heavy Tank, M6) in this weight class in 1942; however, it failed to meet service requirements and was not produced. The German Mark VI (Tiger) appeared in 1943 followed by the Mark V (Panther) and a heavier more powerfully armed version of the Mark VI (The Royal Tiger). The Russian 50-ton KV, new in 1941, was succeeded by the Josef Stalin series in 1944. The Josef Stalin -3, a vastly improved fighting vehicle of the heavy tank class, weighs approximately 60 tons, is armed with a 122mm gun and as early as the summer of 1945 had been produced in considerable numbers.

Read the full post here.

From the Vault: British Report on Captured Panther Tank

German Panther test page 1Today we present a report from the British Fighting Vehicles Proving Establishment from 1944 testing a captured German Panther tank provided by the Soviet Union.  The tests paint a rather unflattering picture of the Panther, although it  is noted in the report that this particular vehicle may have had a malfunctioning engine by the time it was handed over to the British.  Tests were done comparing the Panther to the Cromwell, Sherman II, Churchill VII and T.14.  The tests ended prematurely when the Panther tank caught fire.  Based upon the picture provided with this report, it appears that this particular tank is an early production “Ausf D” Panther (the early model commanders cupola is a good indicator).  Checking the serial number provided in the report against the chart on page 28 of the Tom Jentz book “Germany’s Panther Tank” reveals that this particular vehicle was built by MNH (Maschinenfabrik Niedersachsen Hannover) in June of 1943.  These early Ausf D models were notorious for their mechanical shortcomings, having many issues that were somewhat resolved in later models of the Panther.

The vehicle also suffered from transmission problems during the tests, in particular  3rd gear become inoperable.  This was not an uncommon complaint regarding Panther transmissions.  While the engine and transmission issues encountered by the British are not unexpected, their criticism of the Panther suspension is somewhat surprising.  The double torsion bar suspension system of the Panther is often discussed in books as complicated but very effective.  According to the British report “the pitch and roll records show that the Panther suspension damps out quicker than that of the other tanks tested, it was found that in cross country going it was harder than the others.  The nose of the tank dipped right down until the front suspension was “solid” when riding over the larger bumps. and this gave an uncomfortable ride for the crew.”

Photos of this report was kindly provided by P.M. Knight (who has written some very excellent books on British Cruiser tanks.)  We have transcribed the text of the photographed report for better readability.

Report below:

[Read more…]