ETC Guns and the Future of Tank Weaponry

[ATP]

I'll have to read that one.

You could see version from 1997/https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiJoIHL0M3rAhUwlYsKHSY-CWIQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fteatrtv.vod.tvp.pl%2F600954%2Fambasador&usg=AOvVaw3ha8KG_-rAJcoOnjXdnryK/

Back to topic - americans once builded gun for 152mm AT rockets,and used it on light tank M551 Sheridan.They planned to use it on MBT 70 tank,but abadonned that project.
Could somebody built something like MBT 70 with better AT rockets ? And would be such tank better then those with 130/140mm guns ?

 

[PsihoKekec]

That gun and rockets were terrible, they even installed them on some M-60s. Soviet solution of launching missiles out of normal guns was better if suboptimal only really useful if you are trying to breathe some new life into older guns like 100 mm and 115 mm. You either have a gun or a missile launcher, hybrids do poorly.

 

[Doomsought]

The biggest backer of the technology -the USN- was forced to abandon the US joint ETC project that kept giving them werid data due to the lack of understanding of plasma physics -and thus the simulation models- at the time. After a good ~3 decades wallowing in the dust, you're going to be forced to start from scratch.

Given what it is trying to do, I bet the research on plasma injectors that General Fusion is doing will have some benefits into filling those holes.

 

[Aaron Fox]

That gun and rockets were terrible, they even installed them on some M-60s. Soviet solution of launching missiles out of normal guns was better if suboptimal only really useful if you are trying to breathe some new life into older guns like 100 mm and 115 mm. You either have a gun or a missile launcher, hybrids do poorly.

That really isn't the case, as NATO's (especially the US's) attempts at making gun-launchers is based around a paradigm of 'APFSDS (as we moderners know it) doesn't exist yet, HEAT is chucked too slow, and we've got nothing in the LR band to attack with'. The USSR's use of gun-launchers was to cover a weakness in terms of FCS capabilities (partially because of their design choices as FCS isn't a small thing as a whole, partially because of the USSR's electronics industry had always lagged behind NATO's).

It also didn't help that we designed whole new HE/HEAT chucker guns instead of retrofitting older ones.

 

[Flintsteel]

If you want missiles, you'd probably be better off designing a new class of small missiles designed for a mini-VLS, and stuffing it in something like an M113 chassis. As a bonus, if you can develop alternate missiles types, you now have a single metal box that can play at anti-tank, artillery, and is its own anti-air.

But bullets are cheaper.

 

[Aaron Fox]

If you want missiles, you'd probably be better off designing a new class of small missiles designed for a mini-VLS, and stuffing it in something like an M113 chassis. As a bonus, if you can develop alternate missiles types, you now have a single metal box that can play at anti-tank, artillery, and is its own anti-air.

But bullets are cheaper.

Metal is cheap, silicon (specifically, the programming) is expensive. Also, those small missiles would have crap range or firepower capability, thanks to our limited rocket engine tech. Not only that, but warhead tech also isn't as effective in firepower capability as it is heavily reliant on the diameter of the missile while armor technology has largely kept up with shaped charge warheads (requiring even larger warheads to penetrate).

 

[Flintsteel]

Metal is cheap, silicon (specifically, the programming) is expensive. Also, those small missiles would have crap range or firepower capability, thanks to our limited rocket engine tech. Not only that, but warhead tech also isn't as effective in firepower capability as it is heavily reliant on the diameter of the missile while armor technology has largely kept up with shaped charge warheads (requiring even larger warheads to penetrate).

By mini-VLS I'm thinking something like the cancelled NLOS (XM501). Small for a VLS missile, but not exactly small. My point being that it would make more sense than a gun-missile system.

 

[Aaron Fox]

By mini-VLS I'm thinking something like the cancelled NLOS (XM501). Small for a VLS missile, but not exactly small. My point being that it would make more sense than a gun-missile system.

The only reason that most 'western' nations avoided a gun-missile system is that their only real attempt (the 152mm gun-missile system) was just that bad. Israel is the only nation that has gone into it via LAHAT...

 

[Aaron Fox]

Experimental variant of the Abrams called the M1 Thumper, equipped with a 140mm cannon.

Please note that this 140mm gun was an ETC gun as well. You know, just to screw with enemy tanks more.

 

[Bacle]

Please note that this 140mm gun was an ETC gun as well. You know, just to screw with enemy tanks more.

Wait; we had a functional ETC gunned' Abrams?

Let me guess, the batteries were too expensive to mass produce.

 

[Doomsought]

Wait; we had a functional ETC gunned' Abrams?

I suspect the lack there of is probably what tanked the project.

 

[Jormungandr]

Wait; we had a functional ETC gunned' Abrams?

Let me guess, the batteries were too expensive to mass produce.

IIRC the technology was still immature back in even the late 90's, and they couldn't perfect it versus the cost of repairing the barrels/systems compared to servicing regular guns. Things have changed a bit in recent years, and it's speculated it'll replace the more conventional gun on the Abrams for the M1A3, sometime in the future.

On a more abstract note, given that it's a sub-tech of rails guns (like coilguns), I wouldn't be surprised if GDI units in Tiberian Sun and C&C3 used ETC guns before they upgraded to full on railguns.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Please note that this 140mm gun was an ETC gun as well. You know, just to screw with enemy tanks more.

Sort of.

From what I've been able to find, the Advanced Tank Cannon System (ATACS) was intended as a next-generation upgrade for the Abrams tank, consisting of an XM291 gun paired with an XM91 autoloader. Both the cannon and autoloader were designed to be interchangeable caliber and could reportedly be converted between 140mm and 120mm configurations in a matter of minutes using only field level maintenance tools.

The ATACS gun was developed as part of the Component Advanced Technology Testbed (CATTB) program, mounted in a new turret on a heavily modified and upgraded Abrams hull. However, the CATTB program (as well as the rival TTB/SRV program, which had an Armata-style unmanned turret) were cancelled after the fall of the Soviet Union, as there was no longer a perceived need for very expensive "super-Abrams" upgrades and it was (correctly, to be fair) believed that more advanced 120mm ammunition would be sufficient to keep the Abrams on top of armored warfare. The "Thumper" testbed posted above was a one-off secondary testbed with the CATTB turret mounted on a standard Abrams hull.

At some point after this cancellation, the 'orphaned' ATACS guns were reused as testbeds for experiments with ETC igniters. Very, very little information is available about that, other than it ultimately leading into the XM360 120mm gun program for the XM1202 Mounted Combat System, the tank component of the subsequently-cancelled Future Combat System.

TL;DR: The "Thumper" and CATTB testbeds had the 140mm gun, but at that time it was using conventional solid propellant. The ETC versions were later experimental work.

 

[Bacle]

IIRC the technology was still immature back in even the late 90's, and they couldn't perfect it versus the cost of repairing the barrels/systems compared to servicing regular guns. Things have changed a bit in recent years, and it's speculated it'll replace the more conventional gun on the Abrams for the M1A3, sometime in the future.

On a more abstract note, given that it's a sub-tech of rails guns (like coilguns), I wouldn't be surprised if GDI units in Tiberian Sun and C&C3 used ETC guns before they upgraded to full on railguns.

Hey, if the US wants to spent my tax payer dollars making a legit Mammoth Tank, with intergrated anti-air capabilities, that is government pork I will support.

 

[Doomsought]

On a more abstract note, given that it's a sub-tech of rails guns (like coilguns), I wouldn't be surprised if GDI units in Tiberian Sun and C&C3 used ETC guns before they upgraded to full on railguns.

No, ETC guns are not related to coil guns or rail-guns at all. The only thing like them in fiction are the plasma explosion driven Naval Autocannons from battle-tech, except ETC guns use plasma to ignite conventional propellant rather than on its own.

 

[Aaron Fox]

On a more abstract note, given that it's a sub-tech of rails guns (like coilguns), I wouldn't be surprised if GDI units in Tiberian Sun and C&C3 used ETC guns before they upgraded to full on railguns.

This isn't the case. ETC uses plasma igniters to kick-start the propellant reaction to propel projectiles down-range. This is far more effective than traditional propellant igniters, it is also safer, allows for the use of more effective (and stable) propellants, reduces the need for blowout compartments due to the fact that you need plasma to ignite the propellants (so ammo cookoff is all but impossible to do), and is incredibly consistent. Just how consistent? Well, the testing compared a traditional gun against the ETC gun, and... oh boy was the traditional gun all over the place while the ETC gun was practically one fat curve.

 

[Jormungandr]

No, ETC guns are not related to coil guns or rail-guns at all. The only thing like them in fiction are the plasma explosion driven Naval Autocannons from battle-tech, except ETC guns use plasma to ignite conventional propellant rather than on its own.

This isn't the case. ETC uses plasma igniters to kick-start the propellant reaction to propel projectiles down-range. This is far more effective than traditional propellant igniters, it is also safer, allows for the use of more effective (and stable) propellants, reduces the need for blowout compartments due to the fact that you need plasma to ignite the propellants (so ammo cookoff is all but impossible to do), and is incredibly consistent. Just how consistent? Well, the testing compared a traditional gun against the ETC gun, and... oh boy was the traditional gun all over the place while the ETC gun was practically one fat curve.

Yeah, I definitely would see GDI and Nod using this in their conventional tanks/walkers instead of the more regular traditional guns -- heck, given how fast technology progressed during the First Tiberium War, I wouldn't be surprised if the Medium, Light, and Mammoth Tanks of Renegade (the late war period) used this technology.

Nice bit of world-building that can be used for future projects.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Yeah, I definitely would see GDI and Nod using this in their conventional tanks/walkers instead of the more regular traditional guns -- heck, given how fast technology progressed during the First Tiberium War, I wouldn't be surprised if the Medium, Light, and Mammoth Tanks of Renegade (the late war period) used this technology.

Nice bit of world-building that can be used for future projects.

Spooktoon did a video on ETC guns:


TDLR: ETC guns are the next step in tank design, largely because they're the same as older equipment but are for more capable despite that.

Enjoy.

 

[Morphic Tide]

TDLR: ETC guns are the next step in tank design, largely because they're the same as older equipment but are for more capable despite that.

Well, there's some breach-block adjustments that need made for the plasma igniter, but everything else of the loading mechanics and turret can be kept the same. There's a point the increased pressure demands a new cannon design to withstand it, but you can get a good boost from a drop-in implementation.

I still want to see attempts at hybrid systems, because there's some pretty important complications you can work around by mixing chemical and electromagnetic shell propulsion, mostly regarding manipulating the pressure curve for component wear and combustion optimization. It'd be a ludicrous dick-wave of US overengineering, but it'd be neat!

 

[ShadowArxxy]

A relevant side point: the U.S. Army apparently defines hypervelocity as referring to artillery projectiles at or exceeding 3,500 fps and tank cannon projectiles exceeding 3,350 fps. While high, these velocities are only about one-third of those that correspond to the civilian definition of hypervelocity. The civilian definition comes from high-energy physics, and is based on material strength becoming a trivial factor relative to inertial stress, such that metal impactors actually behave like fluid in the collision.