Chinese weapons/MIC issues

collegeboy16 wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Adding length to a gun, then increasing the propellent is not exactly a standard to be proud of.

if it was that easy as you implied then everyone would have done it by now...

i know it may come as a surprise to you but gun systems(yeah systems!) are actually very sophisticated pieces of technology.
critical components like the barrel and the chamber are already nearly at their limit when firing high powered apfds rounds; in fact users are instructed to avoid using such "magnum rounds(propellant that is a lot more powerful is in the same amount as weaker one)" when they are too hot or else the gun fcks them up too. and, its the reason why insensitive propellants are thing.
not to mention the associated systems are also affected. the gun control system, unless future proofed like the T-14's with 152 mm gun is already built up to the level of the current gun's maximum capacity of recoil forces in most cases, so you have to upgrade it too. so, no adding powder isnt very easy thing to do. and, to a lesser extent extra weight from a longer barrel also negatively affects the gun control system. again, the power traverse and stabilizers are optimized for the current and lighter barrel so unless they are future proofed the gun/turret movement is gonna be slower, possible less precise or they can keep up and cook themselves in the process.

If tank cannons are "gun systems", then the AK-47 is a "weapons platform"

And yeah, for the "third largest MIC on the planet"

Lengthening the barrel, increasing propellent load, making sure hydraulics don't burn out on the turret etc.

Is not impressive whatsoever.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
If tank cannons are "gun systems", then the AK-47 is a "weapons platform"

And yeah, for the "third largest MIC on the planet"

Lengthening the barrel, increasing propellent load, making sure hydraulics don't burn out on the turret etc.

Is not impressive whatsoever.

tell that to the first two largest MICs. from what i recall the first one peaced out of this sh!t, and just focused on improving the round itself without changing the internal ballistics much. the second one is only beginning to introduce her new gun and associated ammo and is vey much still in the testing phase too.

collegeboy16 wrote:
tell that to the first two largest MICs. from what i recall the first one peaced out of this sh!t, and just focused on improving the round itself without changing the internal ballistics much. the second one is only beginning to introduce her new gun and associated ammo and is vey much still in the testing phase too.

Maybe I fucking will tell them, I'll send them a nice telegraph. Actually, lets write this thing together. I'll get us started.


Dear Spetstekhnika Design Bureau, Rheinmetall, etc


Some guy on the internet posted an article about a new Chinese gun that was basically a lengthened 125mm cannon with huge propellant casing.

Afterwards, China withdrew all information about and we know nothing about it. It could even be some vapourware/propaganda piece for all we know!

This telegram is to ask you all why you haven't made something similar, and how a country that has demonstrated nothing in terms of innovative scientific advancement in military fields

managed to make this.

Please reply back as quickly as possible.



Anything you want to add?

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Maybe I fucking will tell them, I'll send them a nice telegraph. Actually, lets write this thing together. I'll get us started.


Dear Spetstekhnika Design Bureau, Rheinmetall, etc

oh but i was referring to USA and Russia, the relevant entities then are GDLS,ATK and Spetstekhnika Design Bureau.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Some guy on the internet posted an article about a new Chinese gun that was basically a lengthened 125mm cannon with huge propellant casing.

Afterwards, China withdrew all information about and we know nothing about it. It could even be some vapourware/propaganda piece for all we know!

This telegram is to ask you all why you haven't made something similar, and how a country that has demonstrated nothing in terms of innovative scientific advancement in military fields

managed to make this.

if we are going to talk about caricatures might as well not send one to the Germans, we know their answer would be "because we are peace loving hippies who hate war yadda yadda yakkity yak"

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Please reply back as quickly as possible.



Anything you want to add?

i would love to say "please send us samples of your products", but that would be monkey-pawing it. instead just some neat brochures and CDs with all sorts of neat stuff inside. relatives of mine travel often and get to visit weapons expo and bring me home nice goodies and giveaways.

EDIT: was reading the acronym while typing.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:
tell that to the first two largest MICs. from what i recall the first one peaced out of this sh!t, and just focused on improving the round itself without changing the internal ballistics much. the second one is only beginning to introduce her new gun and associated ammo and is vey much still in the testing phase too.

Maybe I fucking will tell them, I'll send them a nice telegraph. Actually, lets write this thing together. I'll get us started.


Dear Spetstekhnika Design Bureau, Rheinmetall, etc


Some guy on the internet posted an article about a new Chinese gun that was basically a lengthened 125mm cannon with huge propellant casing.

Afterwards, China withdrew all information about and we know nothing about it. It could even be some vapourware/propaganda piece for all we know!

This telegram is to ask you all why you haven't made something similar, and how a country that has demonstrated nothing in terms of innovative scientific advancement in military fields

managed to make this.

Please reply back as quickly as possible.



Anything you want to add?

Not taking any side in this debate, as I don't have a lot of relevant knowledge in regard to this stuff, and can't even really always discern who does.

Nevertheless, that ^ post is some funny sh*t!

Also, since Rheinmetall made the gun for the Abrams, wouldn't they, in fact, be one of the correct parties to receive this hilarious missive? Now go easy on me; I already admitted that I don't know a lot.

BKP wrote:

Not taking any side in this debate, as I don't have a lot of relevant knowledge and can't even really always discern who does.

Nevertheless, that ^ post is some funny sh*t!

Also, since Rheinmetall made the gun for the Abrams, wouldn't they, in fact, be one of the right parties to receive this hilarious missive? Now go easy on me; I already admitted that I don't know a lot.

It was satire, I was making fun of collegeboy16 for making a big deal of the a new Chinese cannon.

You are correct, Rheinmetall was indeed the maker of the 120mm cannon for the Abrams.

As such,(if you will look at the beginning of the message) Rheinmetall is indeed one of the recipients.

I chose Rheinmetall and Spetstechnika as they are the main gun manufacturers for America and Russia.

Fun fact: the Chinese 125 mm gun is based on an eighties designed 120 mm, which was in turn developed off of the Rhm L/44 120 mm... 



Just saying, this conversation should move elsewhere.

BKP wrote:

Not taking any side in this debate, as I don't have a lot of relevant knowledge in regard to this stuff, and can't even really always discern who does.

Now go easy on me; I already admitted that I don't know a lot.

Here are a couple of people that know their thing.

Mindstorm
GarryB
Medo
Mike E
SOC
Me


If anyone of the above are reading this, or anyone that knows their thing who is not featured on this list, please do not take offence at either the ordering of you, or the omission of yourself.

Mike E wrote:Fun fact: the Chinese 125 mm gun is based on an eighties designed 120 mm, which was in turn developed off of the Rhm L/44 120 mm...

Off Topic

Just saying, this conversation should move elsewhere.

GerrehBeh, git yur New Zeelend buttucks in dis thread and make the changes as you see fit.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
It was satire, I was making fun of collegeboy16 for making a big deal of the a new Chinese cannon.

wasnt making a big deal out of it, just pointing out that they are closer to parity now with this new development.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
You are correct, Rheinmetall was indeed the maker of the 120mm cannon for the Abrams.

As such,(if you will look at the beginning of the message) Rheinmetall is indeed one of the recipients.

I chose Rheinmetall and Spetstechnika as they are the main gun manufacturers for America and Russia.  

um, have you read what i just wrote? when its time to upgrade their firepower the Americans didnt approach Rheinmetall looking to upgrade their gun. instead they went to ATK and have them develop newer rounds instead.

Parity? In what ways...?

The US made a mistake with that decision and they know it, there's a reason the A3 will use a longer barrel.

The Chinese are obviously not on the same level as the Russians, but I was impressed with the WS-3 MLRS which has a purported 400 km range using GPS guidance.

Cyrus the great wrote:

The Chinese are obviously not on the same level as the Russians, but I was impressed with the WS-3 MLRS which has a purported 400 km range using GPS guidance.

Those are literally just cruise missiles stacked together in what China calls a "MLRS"... Not that it makes the weapons any less "impressive".

Mike E wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

The Chinese are obviously not on the same level as the Russians, but I was impressed with the WS-3 MLRS which has a purported 400 km range using GPS guidance.

Those are literally just cruise missiles stacked together in what China calls a "MLRS"... Not that it makes the weapons any less "impressive".

So the Chinese adapted cruise missiles to their WS-3 launchers? I guess if you can't achieve those ridiculous ranges using rocket artillery, just change the definition of what an MLRS is. I read that the Russians will create a 200 km MLRS to succeed the Smerch. Source: http://sputniknews.com/military/20121119/177581650.html

Mike E wrote:Parity? In what ways...?

um, they now have a gun system capable of providing the needed energies for their apfsds to have a chance to burn through the enemy armor.

Mike E wrote:
The US made a mistake with that decision and they know it, there's a reason the A3 will use a longer barrel.

honto ni? afaik the A3 will use the XM360E1 gun which is for the most part similar to the Rh. 120 L/44 except for the major addition of a datalink system for use with smart 120 mm rounds. they still love their apfsds no doubt, but they have an ever increasing hardon for smart rounds for quite some time now.

Cyrus the great wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

The Chinese are obviously not on the same level as the Russians, but I was impressed with the WS-3 MLRS which has a purported 400 km range using GPS guidance.

Those are literally just cruise missiles stacked together in what China calls a "MLRS"... Not that it makes the weapons any less "impressive".

So the Chinese adapted cruise missiles to their WS-3 launchers? I guess if you can't achieve those ridiculous ranges using rocket artillery, just change the definition of what an MLRS is. I read that the Russians will create a 200 km MLRS to succeed the Smerch. Source: http://sputniknews.com/military/20121119/177581650.html

I dont know full details and cost of such a system, but lets face it, an mlrs system launching cruise missiles is very smart and a very good way to counter abm systems. Russians should build something similar but with even greater ranges. May not be a cheap rocket system like typical mlrs, but the effectiveness wpuld outweigh that.

sepheronx wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

The Chinese are obviously not on the same level as the Russians, but I was impressed with the WS-3 MLRS which has a purported 400 km range using GPS guidance.

Those are literally just cruise missiles stacked together in what China calls a "MLRS"... Not that it makes the weapons any less "impressive".

So the Chinese adapted cruise missiles to their WS-3 launchers? I guess if you can't achieve those ridiculous ranges using rocket artillery, just change the definition of what an MLRS is. I read that the Russians will create a 200 km MLRS to succeed the Smerch. Source: http://sputniknews.com/military/20121119/177581650.html

I dont know full details and cost of such a system, but lets face it, an mlrs system launching cruise missiles is very smart and a very good way to counter abm systems. Russians should build something similar but with even greater ranges. May not be a cheap rocket system like typical mlrs, but the effectiveness wpuld outweigh that.

Iskander K with 4 Kaliber cruise missiles with a range of over 2600km and a CEP of 2-3 metres is what the Chinese have tried to achieve, and evidently failed.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Mike E wrote:Parity? In what ways...?

um, they now have a gun system capable of providing the needed energies for their apfsds to have a chance to burn through the enemy armor.

Mike E wrote:
The US made a mistake with that decision and they know it, there's a reason the A3 will use a longer barrel.

honto ni? afaik the A3 will use the XM360E1 gun which is for the most part similar to the Rh. 120 L/44 except for the major addition of a datalink system for use with smart 120 mm rounds. they still love their apfsds no doubt, but they have an ever increasing hardon for smart rounds for quite some time now.

College...it's completely impractical and that's what we've been saying this whole time. To start, it's a standalone. The barrel is too long to be mounted on any foreseeable Chinese MBT. Propellant cases are huge (IMO despite yours) and would generate outrageous amounts of pressure. Leading to barrel problems, which itself leads to accuracy problems. This gun is a joke...give me 10 grand an I'll build a better one, longer barrel and all. 

My bad, I thought they had enough brains to go for a longer barrel. Good way of rendering the A3 Abrams useless.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:Iskander K with 4 Kaliber cruise missiles with a range of over 2600km and a CEP of 2-3 metres is what the Chinese have tried to achieve, and evidently failed.

Well Belorussia has chosen a Chinese MRLS as a basis for it's new 'Polonaise' LR MRLS (over 200km range), which is apparently aimed at countering ABM sites in Poland

see here: https://www.russiadefence.net/t1782p120-belarus-armed-forces#96909

Cyberspec wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:Iskander K with 4 Kaliber cruise missiles with a range of over 2600km and a CEP of 2-3 metres is what the Chinese have tried to achieve, and evidently failed.

Well Belorussia has chosen a Chinese MRLS as a basis for it's new 'Polonaise' LR MRLS (over 200km range), which is apparently aimed at countering ABM sites in Poland

see here: https://www.russiadefence.net/t1782p120-belarus-armed-forces#96909

Yes I remember posting that...with all the Sinophobic China bashing in this thread people should take a step back and realize that China was doing their part to undermine NATO ABM proliferation in Eastern Europe, as it's just as much undermines economic security for China (see the Silk Road Initiative) as it undermines political security for Russia.

In all China is actually returning the favor, because remember back circa 2006-08 we saw a proliferation of white papers and 'paid news' articles with thinly veiled threats about how the U.S. Navy could undermine Chinese shipping lanes through the Straits of Malacca, but by 2008 Russia produced the shipping container Klub missile system in direct response, as rest assurance towards the Chinese, with unconfirmed reports of the Chinese purchasing them...not so long after Western publications went ballistic claiming that the Klub shipping container system was designed for rouge states lol!

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:Iskander K with 4 Kaliber cruise missiles with a range of over 2600km and a CEP of 2-3 metres is what the Chinese have tried to achieve, and evidently failed.

Well Belorussia has chosen a Chinese MRLS as a basis for it's new 'Polonaise' LR MRLS (over 200km range), which is apparently aimed at countering ABM sites in Poland

see here: https://www.russiadefence.net/t1782p120-belarus-armed-forces#96909

Yes I remember posting that...with all the Sinophobic China bashing in this thread people should take a step back and realize that China was doing their part to undermine NATO ABM proliferation in Eastern Europe, as it's just as much undermines economic security for China (see the Silk Road Initiative) as it undermines political security for Russia.

In all China is actually returning the favor, because remember back circa 2006-08 we saw a proliferation of white papers and 'paid news' articles with thinly veiled threats about how the U.S. Navy could undermine Chinese shipping lanes through the Straits of Malacca, but by 2008 Russia produced the shipping container Klub missile system in direct response, as rest assurance towards the Chinese, with unconfirmed reports of the Chinese purchasing them...not so long after Western publications went ballistic claiming that the Klub shipping container system was designed for rouge states lol!

Sinophobic China Bashing?

China doing their part?

China returning the favor?

Remember that time when China invaded the USSR?

Remember that Soviet-Sino split?

Please produce those unconfirmed reports of China buying the Klub container. Not a single one has been sold.

China is ripping off Russia, directly trying to cut into Russian markets. Russia is an ally of convenience for China.

With India choosing Chinook over Mi-26, Russia's only allies are its Army, Airforce, and Navy.

Sucks being the world's most advanced military power, everyone tries to take you down.

Mike E wrote:
College...it's completely impractical and that's what we've been saying this whole time. To start, it's a standalone. The barrel is too long to be mounted on any foreseeable Chinese MBT.

and the 7 m long 2a82-1m isnt? it has a fume extractor, that means it is meant to be mounted on a tank.

plus it has been shown that more massive guns like the 140 mm can be mounted without much modification on current tank designs.

Mike E wrote:
Propellant cases are huge (IMO despite yours) and would generate outrageous amounts of pressure. Leading to barrel problems, which itself leads to accuracy problems. This gun is a joke...give me 10 grand an I'll build a better one, longer barrel and all. 

the case is ~900 mm long, as ive said just compare it to the nearby HE shell.

and yes the pressure is going to be huge on this one, and so will the 2a82(-1m)'s. if the Chinese dont have the tech. to maintain a good service life beyond a few tens of firing high powered apfsds they can always have a larger train of gun barrel spares and change it on the field.

you say the gun is a joke, i disagree. the gun is fine, imo if there is anything to poke hole in it its the design choice to use a turret bustle based AL on whatever tank that will mount it. for the T-14 its ok, since it would carry at most half the main AL's ammo load and thus would be fairly small and more importantly replaceable since you have another AL. but, for the new tank the one and only huge-ass bustle would present a huge target from within +-30° and top attack munitions. then there is the fact that if you blow the bustle AL up its a major firepower kill, ie tank's mission is a failure and has to retreat so opponents will have another weakpoint to exploit.

Mike E wrote:
My bad, I thought they had enough brains to go for a longer barrel. Good way of rendering the A3 Abrams useless.

its just different approach. they have lots of money to burn so they will prolly go the way of HEAT rounds in the extended range, top attack and programmable fused variants. which is just ironic, since its the Soviets who loved HEAT for their tanks at first.

7 meters is better than 7.5 meters, and more importantly the 1M is mounted on a larger vehicle to being with. China seemingly will stick with the Soviet-esque low profile designs for the foreseeable future...and a barrel longer than 6 meters is asking for trouble, never mind 7.

Nothing to do with if it can be done, everything to do with practicality. 

IMHO it is larger than that...I've said this on many occasions. Media sources are reporting a meter at least, and as of this instant there is not reason to believe otherwise. 

(Also) IMHO Russia has more experience with tank guns than China does. All of their 125's so far have been an enlarged and modified version of the German 120. Whereas Russia adopted their design decades ago, and has been improving it for just as long. The 2A82 is the first MBT-fielded gun that is new in design (from Russia of course).

Still no excuse for not adopting the L/55...at the very least let some battalions use it. The US is adopting their new generation of rounds (new multi purpose HEAT round, why bother...and also the E/A4 long rod as we've discussed) all while forgetting the gun that fires them... And if weight is such a big concern, just friggin build a new tank instead of the dead horse design called the Abrams. I swear our military is turning to trash because of this crap. - No new MBT in planning, no new IFV, the next APC is going to be a hunk of junk....ugh....

HEAT rounds are nice because they perform the same at any range, obviously, whereas KE rounds continuously and dramatically lose penetration performance. The US's problem is we like multi-purpose HEAT, aka ones that can be used for both anti-personally and anti-vehicle usage. This restricts their ability against well armored vehicles which is seemingly not an issue to our command. 

Russia has an advantage because their "A-P A-V" is good ol' HE-FRAG, allowing them to also field a specific anti-armor HEAT round as god intended. 

 - Random question, does anyone know the performance of that 140 mm gun?

Mike E wrote:7 meters is better than 7.5 meters, and more importantly the 1M is mounted on a larger vehicle to being with. China seemingly will stick with the Soviet-esque low profile designs for the foreseeable future...and a barrel longer than 6 meters is asking for trouble, never mind 7.

in the context of providing energy to projectiles all else being equal, no, 7 m is worse than 7.5 m long barrel. in the context of space constraints due to environment like in urban or forrested areas then both are equally bad since they are really long weapons.

as ive mentioned current vehicles can handle a 140 mm gun just fine- these guns could provide similar energies to low 140 mm at least so the argument for a larger vehicle does not have much merit.

and we actually have an example of a low profile turret with bustle AL - the Black Eagle tank.

Mike E wrote:
IMHO it is larger than that...I've said this on many occasions. Media sources are reporting a meter at least, and as of this instant there is not reason to believe otherwise. 

the whole round is certainly more than a meter, possibly 1.2-1.4 m long.

Mike E wrote:
(Also) IMHO Russia has more experience with tank guns than China does. All of their 125's so far have been an enlarged and modified version of the German 120. Whereas Russia adopted their design decades ago, and has been improving it for just as long. The 2A82 is the first MBT-fielded gun that is new in design (from Russia of course).

not just an opinion its a fact. and no, afaik most their guns are straight-up copies of their equivalents, no need to reinvent the wheel as they said. the new gun tho imo looks like mix of 120 mm and 125 mm gun designs.

Mike E wrote:
Still no excuse for not adopting the L/55...at the very least let some battalions use it. The US is adopting their new generation of rounds (new multi purpose HEAT round, why bother...and also the E/A4 long rod as we've discussed) all while forgetting the gun that fires them... And if weight is such a big concern, just friggin build a new tank instead of the dead horse design called the Abrams. I swear our military is turning to trash because of this crap. - No new MBT in planning, no new IFV, the next APC is going to be a hunk of junk....ugh....

haha, great joke! the US has about as many modern tanks as Europe and Russia combined. it makes more sense to update the huge abrams tank park for as long as possible while replacements are being developed and produced. for Russia's case its entirely opposite, lots of older tanks, not so much of modern ones so it make more sense to upgrade a few, scrap the rest, and rebuild the tank park from scratch with newer vehicles.

as for not adopting the L/55, its prolly the same reason why T-90A tanks still dont have Relikt ERA.

Mike E wrote:
 - Random question, does anyone know the performance of that 140 mm gun?

1 m penetration as minimum.

In an urban environment both are bad but half a meter still makes a difference...if 7.5 is no worse, what's the argument for not going up to 8 meters, or 10 for that matter.

As a general rule the gun should only make up x of the tank's length. If you're mounting a larger barrel to a smaller tank, you'll introduce new problems with stability, the point of even having a smaller vehicle, and weight etc etc.

Point being? The BE had a low profile turret but idk what you're getting at. 

Of course...the Vacuum rounds themselves are almost a meter in length, I have no doubt any new Chinese ones would be as well. - Speaking of which I've heard Russian APFSDS rounds are less aerodynamic than Western ones thanks to their tail design, and as such have lower penetration w/o already being shorter...any truth in this? 

The Chinese worked a bit on the 120 mm, it isn't really a copy of anything. 

Haha, and they can only only have a little over 1000 in active service...big deal... You didn't post a rebuttal to my statement that it's a dead horse at this point, which is true. You can only update a platform so far. Soooo...updating them with a gun that offers basically no benefits, and rounds that, excluding the KE, are useless...is a good thing? How so? 

The major benefit of the A3 Abrams will be the diesel (assuming they actually adopt it), outside of that everything will be a small upgrade, like the A2 SEP was to the A2, and the A2 itself was to the A1 HA and on and on. - AFAIK it will be lighter weight, and that's the big push behind it. 

That being? The T-90A's will be receiving Relikt when the B3 variant roles around whole the Abrams is stuck with this L/44 till the end of its service life. 

Supposedly the RUAG gun was tested at 1 meter in penetration, indeed.

Mike E wrote:In an urban environment both are bad but half a meter still makes a difference...if 7.5 is no worse, what's the argument for not going up to 8 meters, or 10 for that matter.

the difference is negligible, both would be awkward to move about in heavily built-up or forested areas. and why the cut off at 7.5 m? prolly because anything further and the added velocity is small enough that the additional bulk is not worth it.

Mike E wrote:
As a general rule the gun should only make up x of the tank's length. If you're mounting a larger barrel to a smaller tank, you'll introduce new problems with stability, the point of even having a smaller vehicle, and weight etc etc.

but what i keep telling you is that the current vehicles can handle even larger guns just fine.

Mike E wrote:
Point being? The BE had a low profile turret but idk what you're getting at. 

oh just reminding what such a tank will look if they went that way.

Mike E wrote:
Of course...the Vacuum rounds themselves are almost a meter in length, I have no doubt any new Chinese ones would be as well. - Speaking of which I've heard Russian APFSDS rounds are less aerodynamic than Western ones thanks to their tail design, and as such have lower penetration w/o already being shorter...any truth in this? 

only true for the older designs, the ones with ring type sabots and oversized tail fins. all the newer Russian APFSDS use spool type(2 areas in contact) sabots so the fins could be made smaller. smaller fins means smaller drag, so you retain more velocity at impact.

Mike E wrote:
Haha, and they can only only have a little over 1000 in active service...big deal... You didn't post a rebuttal to my statement that it's a dead horse at this point, which is true. You can only update a platform so far. Soooo...updating them with a gun that offers basically no benefits, and rounds that, excluding the KE, are useless...is a good thing? How so? 

heh, its actually the KE rounds that are going to be obsoleted if they continued neglecting improving the gun's physical performance attributes- the m829E4 as compared to the m829a3 looks to be as far as they can get with the design.

and they have ~6k modern tanks, not 1000. if you want to set the bar for modern tanks that high then Russia only has 930 modern tanks .

and yes, there are limits to how far upgrades can make a tank competitive as long as possible, but the current situation with the US having a 6k strong modern tank park and Russia just introducing its new tanks just means they have a lot more ground to give and so can afford to slack off for some time. however, they havent been slacking at all, they are apart from updating their current tanks developing replacements.

Mike E wrote:
The major benefit of the A3 Abrams will be the diesel (assuming they actually adopt it), outside of that everything will be a small upgrade, like the A2 SEP was to the A2, and the A2 itself was to the A1 HA and on and on. - AFAIK it will be lighter weight, and that's the big push behind it. 

how sure are you? now that they have seen the T-14 they prolly pushed the introduction of M1A3 just to see what they can add further to make it more competitive to T-14.

Mike E wrote:
That being? The T-90A's will be receiving Relikt when the B3 variant roles around whole the Abrams is stuck with this L/44 till the end of its service life. 

and its a gun barrel- its about as easy to replace as ERA, if not moreso. i mean you grab a vehicle with a small crane, replace the gun barrel, fire a few rounds to zero and voila! its done; could even be done in the field.