U.S. tank round kills T-72 frommore than 5 kilometers away!

www.defensenews.com...

A U.S. Army Abrams 120mm cannon destroyed a T-72 tank more than 5,000 meters away using a next-generation guided tank round able to find its own way toward a target, service officials said.

The December test at Yuma Proving Grounds, Ariz., was staged to prove that the guidance system of the Mid Range Munition (MRM) would work when fired.

The MRM has two guidance modes.

The first is laser designation, in which the round follows a laser spot generated by some other target seeker to the target, or in so-called offset mode, near the target.

The second is with its 3-inch infrared camera. The guidance system compares the IR images to a target library stored in electronic form.

"The algorithm running through the round is looking at the environment and differentiating the target from items that might be in range in a normal desert environment," said Jeff McNaboe, Army MRM program manager.

In the December test, the round used only its infrared seeker, the first time it had destroyed a target without laser-guided help, said David Rigoglioso, deputy product manager for large caliber ammo, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.

Impressive in a way, however I remember that the new ammo can hit targets from about 8 or more kilometers so I don't see how its upsurps the previous record . Able to reduced the number of enemy tanks heading towards you further by hitting them from afar than the regular rounds that hit targets from about 4 kilometers.

a 4km shot with a regular round would only be pure luck. the thermal sites in the gunner's station coulnd't distinguish a tank from a truck at 2.5 km much less 4km. the m1a2 has nice thermal site on the commander's .50 cal and the old m60 tank had a thermal site that could distinguish male/female at 1000m. no one's exactly sure why the m1a1 has a poor thermal site for the gunner.

i can't imagine why the military would want tanks shooting more than 2-3km at a time. it's hardly EVER feasable and if it is, artillery can do the job 10 times better. not to mention air support.

I think going with the IR camera (originally part of the ATK design if I'm not mistaken- I believe Raytheon-General Dynamics originally intended to use millimeter wave radar guidance) was a mistake.

Field expedient IR camouflage measures may prove able to render targets unrecognizable to the targeting database. At the Battle of Medina Ridge, during Desert Storm, the few Iraqi tank commanders who exercised correct light and heat discipline were able to hide among the burning tanks until they had the opportunity to engage the Abrams at close range (in at least one case from the rear) yielding 4 disabled M1A1s- and that was against human eyes, not just a computer sporting a glorified webcam.
The use of controlled fires in defensive positions could be used to create that opportunity, without requiring the enemy to first have the majority of his force in flames.

Worse still, if a dynamic IR camouflage system were deployed, it might eliminate most of the easiest solutions to the problem. There is, after all, a reason this thing is being designated for desert terrain at present, and that even under those conditions this is the first time they've ever been able to achieve a hit without laser guidance.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that when I dig into this I'm going to find out that the test was probably conducted at night with the target's engine running to make things easier for the IR system.
The military has a track record of stacking the deck in demonstrations of ideas that need further development, in order to buy time for fixing problems they can't seem to solve. Sometimes they eventually solve the problem, and sometimes they end up sending a beta version into combat and praying that the enemy is stupid.

The laser guided mode seems more promising, but we'll never see its full potential unless we deploy laser-designator equipped UAVs with our armored divisions.

This still won't be enough against Iron Man.

two lines

reply to post by Mozzy


I think part of the idea is to divide the R and D costs between multiple projects (they've got a 155mm howitzer shell for the M-777, the XM982 Excalibur, and ATK is using pretty much the same technology for the precision guided mortar round and the Navy's extended range munition).

But I do understand why they want that kind of range for a tank shell.

The M1A2 has about 5 times the operational range of SP artillery, is better protected, with a good loader has a 20% better rate of fire than the M-777 (6 rounds per minute rather than 5), and with this round can provide more accurate fire with far less collateral damage. It also takes less than half the crew of the M-777 or M-198 Paladin (9 and 8 crewmen respectively) and only one more crewman they they wanted to use in the Crusader (3). It's a pretty cost-efficient response to the cancellation of Crusader.

The only problem, as I've said, is making that kind of range practical from a guidance standpoint. That means proliferation of laser designators, at least in my mind, given my lack of faith in the IR system.

pffft AND - the longest battle kill is allready over 5km`s by the british army in 1991


also the russians have been firing tank ATGM rounds for many many years - with longer ranges.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
reply to post by Mozzy

 

I think part of the idea is to divide the R and D costs between multiple projects (they've got a 155mm howitzer shell for the M-777, the XM982 Excalibur, and ATK is using pretty much the same technology for the precision guided mortar round and the Navy's extended range munition).

But I do understand why they want that kind of range for a tank shell.

The M1A2 has about 5 times the operational range of SP artillery, is better protected, with a good loader has a 20% better rate of fire than the M-777 (6 rounds per minute rather than 5), and with this round can provide more accurate fire with far less collateral damage. It also takes less than half the crew of the M-777 or M-198 Paladin (9 and 8 crewmen respectively) and only one more crewman they they wanted to use in the Crusader (3). It's a pretty cost-efficient response to the cancellation of Crusader.

The only problem, as I've said, is making that kind of range practical from a guidance standpoint. That means proliferation of laser designators, at least in my mind, given my lack of faith in the IR system.

Problem is, the M1A2 only fires 120mm which is a lot smaller than 155mm... and costs several times as much as an SPG. They're very different types of vehicles for different missions.

When you look at the war in Iraq, the T-72s were never much of a problem for existing weapons. The insurgents on foot, on the other hand, have proven a great deal tougher.

the t72 are old russian tanks. they couldn't penetrate the a1/a2 armor unless they were 5 feet away. the t90s however, that's a different story. anything above 120mm will eat the american tanks for lunch and vice versa.

the only problem with the long range capabilities of the tanks is identification. the thermal sites are no wehre near good enough to identify friend or foe at that range. it's just not possible. not unless the a2 has had an upgrade to the TIS in the last few years that i don't know about. the spotter would have to be used for this to be effective.

i can't imagine why the role of the tank needs to be expanded to midrange artillery. this sounds like just another way for general dynamics whoever to make a killing.

when the M1 came out in the 70's there was a heavily bolted, circular plate on top of the turret. no one knew what it was for. not even the mechanics who usually know everything. around the late 90's the mechanics started telling me taht the plate was going to be used for a loader's scope on the A2.

why woud GD sell 5,000 tanks when they can sell you 2,000 and then 2,000 more every five years for 10 times the price? they knew the loader's scope would be added down the road. the whole thing is just busines.s

reply to post by deltaboy


I have seen this before only years ago, they actually have specific sabots that are now GPS guided. I now when I was in years back as a 13B we were always test firing different variations of ammo.

Configurations of turrets have a lot to do with range and direction of shells.

This isnt what most people would call a shell





its a gun fired missile.

rocket motors , fins and guidance systems- the russian have been doing this for years.

anyone remember the 'shelala' thats not the right spelling, but I cannot remember back 30 years!!! its actually an Irish name, I'm sure it has a 'G' in the spelling somewhere!

reply to post by Harlequin


absolutely right. the russians have been playing with ATGM's since the early 70s. according to things i've personally heard them discuss not much consideration has ever been given to this technology, simply because it's looked upon as just that - a toy. IR and laser guidance don't work in a REAL battle, all it takes is a smoke screen to render them totally useless. i don't know about you guys, but i tend to listen to russians when it comes to warfare

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
anyone remember the 'shelala' thats not the right spelling, but I cannot remember back 30 years!!! its actually an Irish name, I'm sure it has a 'G' in the spelling somewhere!

'Shillelagh' (MGM-51). Main armament of the Sheridan light tank.

Awesome post and this technology is very interesting. I love how micro technology has been evolving over time. I think this micro tech will be one of the areas in which the USA excels as time progresses.

Hello i have just found this forum and have been impressed with the members knowledge . i would like to add some information i think is relevant. first is the range debate . the longest range tank kills were achieved by the IAF in the 60's . i think it was the water wars ??? will need to find a reference for it . The range was on the order of 10 km .and i think it was a 20 pdr on a centurion . not sure if it had been upgraded at that point .

As far as the missiles go . ( or self guided anti tank rds ) The need that the United States Army has right now is a way of using sensor fusion to achieve a goal on the battlefield . alot of the projects that you see and say "WHY THIS PROJECT "about are part of a larger picture. a tankl 5 km's away killed by an abrams . this is nice but not essential . a tank located by an infantry unit 5 km's away from an abrams and not in direct site of the abrams . this is a difficult situation . the abrams recieves via various input the target location and type . the loader loads the guided munition . the gunner hands over to the target computer . turret traverses gun elevates and fires. target destroyed. Friendly infantry saved.

Another point to remember is that tank design does not stay still somewhere their is a design better then an Abams . Without continual improvement it will become no better then a target .