Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

From Tank & AFV News

Quote

 

>IHS Jane’s 360 – Orbital ATK chosen for US Army’s new AMP tank round

Key Points

  • The army has selected Orbital ATK to finish development and qualification for its 120 mm AMP tank round
  • The AMP round would allow Abrams to carry fewer ammunition types and choose the effect of a chambered round

Orbital ATK has been selected to continue developing a new 120 mm Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP) round for the US Army’s M1A2 Abrams main battle tank, the Pentagon announced on 23 January.  The USD46 million contract is to complete development and qualification of the XM1147 High Explosive Multi-Purpose with Tracer (HEMP-T) round, which was developed with an ammunition data link and programmable multi-option fuze (point detonate with or without delay, or airburst effect).

 

 

 

I think the marijauna legalization is going a bit too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad I am not the only one who smiled at that.

The thing that I still do not understand about the XM1147, is what about it requires developing a new round? The M329 APAM-MP, M339 HE-MP and DM11 HE-MP (which is already used by the USMC) all seem to do what is required and are all available to the US Army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AMP repeats all the mistakes IMI did with the APAM. It was quickly realized to be too complicated (5 or 6 modes IIRC) and simultaneously too expensive. So expensive that special permission had to be granted to fire APAM.

During the 2014 conflict in Gaza, another round called M339 "Hatzav" with only 3 modes entered service alongside the APAM and it was reported by tank crews to have significantly decreased engagement times, resulting in far higher efficiency due to simplification (all the capabilities actually exist in it, but inside fewer modes), and same lethality which they claimed as surgical (would aid in preventing collapse of buildings and lowered harm to different floors). 

Seems that they didn't learn from the Israeli experience and decided to repeat the same mistake. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing proximity and timed fuse with fragmentation and EFP. Something like including all the components.

I personally wonder if it is full caliber or it will be in a sabot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HEMP lacks a nose fuse, so should have better performance against reinforced targets than either of the israeli rounds. The lack of submunitions ought to reduce cost as well. HEMP only has 3 modes, I can't see much similarity at all with the mistakes of APAM.

3 hours ago, sevich said:

I'm guessing proximity and timed fuse with fragmentation and EFP. Something like including all the components.

I personally wonder if it is full caliber or it will be in a sabot.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170127175609/http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2013/APR_JUN/Articles/PeraltaArticle.pdf

Look at page 24, no sabot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

HEMP lacks a nose fuse, so should have better performance against reinforced targets than either of the israeli rounds. The lack of submunitions ought to reduce cost as well. HEMP only has 3 modes, I can't see much similarity at all with the mistakes of APAM.

 

I can see the possibility that it is a further development of the XM1069, but I feel that raises as many questions as it answers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Xlucine said:

HEMP lacks a nose fuse, so should have better performance against reinforced targets than either of the israeli rounds. The lack of submunitions ought to reduce cost as well. HEMP only has 3 modes, I can't see much similarity at all with the mistakes of APAM.

1)Nose fuze doesn't impact the round's performance much. If at all. For anti-LAV and anti-bunker modes, there is a special delay.

APAM and M339 are both said to pierce 200mm of reinforced concrete, which is plenty enough against all sorts of urban or non-armored threats. Now if there's a meter thick concrete walled bunker that needs to be destroyed but is too much for HE-MP rounds, one can always use HEAT-MP rounds. 

2)The submunitions are not what raises the cost. The 5-mode fuze is what does it.

3)We're not talking about the HEMP here, but the AMP with its 6 modes. 

4)The mistake of APAM, as I've said above, is to give a single round too many operation modes which, even if didn't confuse gunners (more often than not, some modes overlap in certain scenarios, creating confusion as to which one to pick), it was enough to slow down the operation for even the more skilled, more experienced and more familiar gunners with the APAM over the M339 which offered pretty much the same capabilities in much more comfortable package. The AMP seems to ignore it and even add a 6th mode.

This is why the IDF is phasing out the APAM in favor of the M339.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

I can see the possibility that it is a further development of the XM1069, but I feel that raises as many questions as it answers.

 

I'm convinced they're the same rounds. Back in 2013 there was lots of discussion about how great the XM1069 AMP round is, and now we get the same claims made about the XM1147 AMP. Maybe someone finally noticed the innuendo?

 

8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

1)Nose fuze doesn't impact the round's performance much. If at all. For anti-LAV and anti-bunker modes, there is a special delay.

APAM and M339 are both said to pierce 200mm of reinforced concrete, which is plenty enough against all sorts of urban or non-armored threats. Now if there's a meter thick concrete walled bunker that needs to be destroyed but is too much for HE-MP rounds, one can always use HEAT-MP rounds. 

2)The submunitions are not what raises the cost. The 5-mode fuze is what does it.

3)We're not talking about the HEMP here, but the AMP with its 6 modes. 

4)The mistake of APAM, as I've said above, is to give a single round too many operation modes which, even if didn't confuse gunners (more often than not, some modes overlap in certain scenarios, creating confusion as to which one to pick), it was enough to slow down the operation for even the more skilled, more experienced and more familiar gunners with the APAM over the M339 which offered pretty much the same capabilities in much more comfortable package. The AMP seems to ignore it and even add a 6th mode.

This is why the IDF is phasing out the APAM in favor of the M339.

1) this isn't just about penetrating reinforced targets, this round is replacing M908 - it has to turn large blocks of concrete into rubble. A more rigid nose is only a good thing against concrete, and 8" is not very much for an actual bunker.

2) 5 modes because it has the additional complexity of when to release the submunitions - not a degree of freedom that the AMP has to control

3) AMP = HEMP, it's right there in the janes article. They don't have 6 modes, they have 6 different capabilities - there's a difference. Point detonate (SQ or with delay) and airburst are the only options for the fuse, with those you can engage "ATGM teams, reinforced walls, bunkers, light armor, dismounts, and obstacles" (https://www.army.mil/article/98946/Army_developing_new_120mm_AMP_tank_round)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xlucine said:

I'm convinced they're the same rounds. Back in 2013 there was lots of discussion about how great the XM1069 AMP round is, and now we get the same claims made about the XM1147 AMP. Maybe someone finally noticed the innuendo?

 

1) this isn't just about penetrating reinforced targets, this round is replacing M908 - it has to turn large blocks of concrete into rubble. A more rigid nose is only a good thing against concrete, and 8" is not very much for an actual bunker.

2) 5 modes because it has the additional complexity of when to release the submunitions - not a degree of freedom that the AMP has to control

3) AMP = HEMP, it's right there in the janes article. They don't have 6 modes, they have 6 different capabilities - there's a difference. Point detonate (SQ or with delay) and airburst are the only options for the fuse, with those you can engage "ATGM teams, reinforced walls, bunkers, light armor, dismounts, and obstacles" (https://www.army.mil/article/98946/Army_developing_new_120mm_AMP_tank_round)

 

1)As I said, if there's a bunker, that would usually require a HEAT-MP round. I doubt the AMP can pierce a meter of concrete.

2)The FCS determines when to release the submunitions, not the crew. The crew only has to set the right mode and range. 

3)Then I might have understood the article wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photos from Venezuela Zamora 200 exercices (mid Jan of this year). Source.

VN-16 (export version of Chinese ZBD-05 IFV) launching HJ-73D ATGM.

775330628c4e.jpg

Assault guns on VN-16 chassis.

d3dc97f95c58.jpg

1129ef7a4ba8.jpg

2a1506ea5788.jpg

 

T-72Bs and Nona-SVK SPGs

33770d73c368.jpg

BMP-3s

628ea3568498.jpg

BTR-80As

e85bff1c7276.jpg

 

^With VN-1 APCs.

BTR-80As full auto fire:

 

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.


  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
×
×
  • Create New...