The Best That Never Was 2 (Prototypes)

[Brit]

I was Googling "Abrams 140mm"... I know... and found this:

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/abramsx-ge...spective-tank/

Is it the 140mm version? Unusual 'camo'/

Still, could be found in warehouse somewhere and put into use...



Edit: It seems to be the "General Dynamics AbramsX".
No. 3 of this site:
https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/ta...ogs-new-tricks
120mm main gun...

[pmulcahy11b]

I have a 140mm-armed Abrams on my Best Tanks that Never Were page, as the GDLS M1A4 Abrams V:

https://www.pmulcahy.com/best_stuff_...never_were.htm

The gun is here under 140mm NATO:

https://www.pmulcahy.com/misc_pages/lgcal_guns.htm

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Brit

I was Googling "Abrams 140mm"... I know... and found this:

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/abramsx-ge...spective-tank/

Is it the 140mm version? Unusual 'camo'/

Still, could be found in warehouse somewhere and put into use...



Edit: It seems to be the "General Dynamics AbramsX".
No. 3 of this site:
https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/ta...ogs-new-tricks
120mm main gun...

The real-world 140mm Abrams was the CATTB (Component Advanced Technology Test Bed), which was fitted with the XM291 Advanced Tank Cannon. Its special deal was that the caliber could be changed in the field in an hour by swapping barrels, being either a 120mm L/55 or a 140mm L/47. There were 17 rounds in the turret either way, with the hull carrying either 22 of the 140mm rounds or 33 of the 120mm rounds. A bustle-mounted autoloader gave the tank an 8-10 round per minute fire rate. Armor was upgraded as well so that the turret front was 1250-1300mm RHAe and the turret sides were around 520mm RHAe.

The gun was tested in 1987-88, the overall tank (fitted with a Cummins diesel) was tested in 1990, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 killed the project.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Brit

Edit: It seems to be the "General Dynamics AbramsX".
No. 3 of this site:
https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/ta...ogs-new-tricks
120mm main gun...

Thanks for turning me on to that site!

[Brit]

Paul, that's OK. Certainly seeing how your site has helped me over the years.

[Vespers War]

One interesting concept that was trialed but never entered service was the US Army's siliceous cored armor. It was a sandwich with two layers of steel around a layer of fused silica. Now-declassified reports state that it replaced an inch of steel in the original armor layout with four inches of silica. A four inch thick plate of silica was the same weight as a one inch plate of steel, so the only weight growth was because thicker armor meant slightly larger plates were needed. Against kinetic rounds, the silica was roughly equal to steel on a mass basis, so the four inches of silica were equal to the one inch of steel they replaced. Conversely, silica was about 50% more effective against chemical warheads (HE/HEAT) on a thickness basis, so the four inches of silica were equivalent to replacing one inch of steel with six inches.

The siliceous cored armor was trialed on the T95 medium tank of 1955 and the XM60 prototypes. The XM60's glacis and turret front were found to be completely immune to 120mm HEAT rounds.

However, there were downsides. The armor was expensive and difficult to produce, although that likely could have been improved over time - experimental armors are nearly always expensive and difficult to produce at first. More concerningly, an AP round that struck the armor but didn't penetrate could still pulverize the silica core, leaving the tank vulnerable to follow-up shots from either AP or HE/HEAT rounds. This did not hold for HE or HEAT rounds, where the silica's "elastic rebound" meant that armor would expand back into the hole made by the explosive (this would also happen as the HEAT jet was penetrating, which was the source of its ability to smother HEAT attacks). Unless perfectly aligned to fire down the same path as the first shell, a second chemical warhead hitting the armor would have no penetration advantage.

The easiest way to simulate an M60 with this armor is probably just to add Cp to the armor figures for HF and TF, and add some weight to account for the increased volume of armor. I haven't seen any estimates of how much weight the armor added, but 0.5 tonnes seems reasonable. This ignores the pulverization issue and simplifies the effect against HE/HEAT, but has the upside of being easy to implement.

[Raellus]

https://www.hotcars.com/weirdest-top...t-55-progrev-t

-

[Raellus]

Just when I think that I've discovered every exotic Cold War-era Polish weapon system, I stumble upon something new.

Apparently, the Poles were working on a modular rifle system. It would have been able to fire multiple calibers (but mainly a proprietary 7x41mm round) with a few parts swaps, and could be configured as an assault rifle, mag-fed SAW, carbine, and battle rifle. The Soviets put the kabash on it, as they wanted the Poles to pay for the AK-74 license. Those clever Poles still figured out a way to do their own thing, developing, adopting, and producing the just-different-enough wz. 88 Tantal instead.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/pro...-ak-in-7x41mm/

-

[Ursus Maior]

Many envision the Warsaw Pact to be to monolithic entity the Soviets always wanted and claimed it to be. In fact, the Poles and Czechoslovakians used their increasing strength in domestic industry to develop as much as they could for themselves, the Romanians did so too and had essentially left the Pact during the 1970s. Meanwhile, the Hungarians and Bulgarians barely fielded effective armies, the former were even more an occupied country then the rest and didn't move without order and consent of their Kremlin masters. Bulgaria had active T-34 regiments (as did Romania) in its hardly mechanized army.

The Polish had really amazing projects during the late days of the Cold War. No wonder the Soviets were relatively sure that, come push to shove, the Polish were likely not to follow orders to attack the West.