Well, Master Gunner, thank you for your valuable input. My point about MRS or alternatives was really intended to fish for information about possible alternate approaches to this highly sophisticated optronics instrument and it's even more arcane software. Piezoelectric bend sensors located along the barrel, integrated inside the thermal shroud, and of course coupled with PT-1000 temp sensors for obvious signal compensation needs, could well provide a good all round solution to the barrel droop and whiplash problem, and also enable a simpler, faster automated analysis and compensation in a more rugged and probably less costly package. Developing such a thing could also bring about a whole kibernetic approach to proprioception, but here I'm drifting. Has anybody heard about something like that except for the scant info released about the Merk 4? BTW, I'd also like this board to move on to the more down-to-earth aspect of tank warfare: what about fightability and ergonomics?-

1. The one that just put a sabot round through your grill doors. 2. (All tied) M1A2, Leo 2A6, Challenger 2, Merkava IV, T-90 (Maybe) 3. The rest are targets.

>>And ones again,the M1A1/A2 and challenger1/2 may have ''real'' combat experience,but against what??? A couple of 40 year old T-55 tanks and some poor equipt T-72 tanks. I don't call this REAL combat experience ok. Get my point? The Leopard has too prove himself in the battlefield but also the M1A2 and Challenger2 have too prove themself << First, this again deliberately misrepresents the first Gulf War dramatically. US and UK consistently eviscerated Iraqi forces with gross numerical superiority -- Eagle Troop, 2nd Armored Cavalry, again, is illustrative -- so it is fair to say that one a number of occasions, at the point of contact, US and UK tanks were fighting outnumbered 2-5:1, and on the offensive to boot, and still devestated the enemy. Much of this owes to the disparity in quality between Iraqi and western units, but it also speaks to the quality of the equipment. Second, there is more to "combat proven" status than just plinking enemy tanks with main gun rounds. CR2 and the M1 series have proven themselves highly survivable under fire, proven themselves highly reliable and mission ready, etc. There are all manner of lessons learned about equipment and its use when things are done for real. Leo2 has not been validated by such experience (I'm not buying deployment to the Balkans in this regard). Leo2 is widely agreed to be a fine tank, but even if you consider the combat record of the M1 series and Chally 1 and 2 as modest, it is more than the Leopard 2 can cite.

Jeffrey wrote: "I guess mike-golf,as a tanker you know more than the people who build that tank" One more attempt here. I'm not saying that at all. I do happen to understand how armor, main guns, FCS and so forth work. Mike-Golf is US Army slang for Master Gunner. I spent a decade as a US Army Master Gunner, in regular units and at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. What I think is going on here is that a trainee is having his leg pulled. I used to do it to soldiers all the time! I had one private convinced that M1's with a serial number between 3500 and 3650 had "soft spots" in their armor because it sounded different when tapped with a hammer in some spots. You've heard from two people who say that "hollow armor" as you have described would be ineffective in the manner you describe. Both of us have long years of experience with the use of tanks and a huge amount of technical knowledge, some of which we aren't at liberty to disclose. I won't disagree that the Leo2A6 has advanced armor applied to it. I won't say it's better or worse than the M1's and Challenger's armor. I just don't agree with it being "hollow armor". The composition of modern armor is a highly guarded secret. If you really knew what was in there you would not be discussing it here because you would not want to spend a long time in prison.

HA HA! mike_golf, I would add that while neither one of us could possibly know more than the designers, we certainly know more than Jeffrey and his friends. I am the Canadian equivelent of the MG, except we call it Advance Gunner. I was qualified in 1984, and thought I knew it all after the course. I never did stop learning, and I know enough now to know I don't know any where near all! As an aside to shirrush, novel concepts indeed! That's called thinking outside the box, but the MRS is simple, cheap, and easy to repair. Any replacement would have to be the same.

Canuck, this MRS-thingy is obviously made for ease of maintenance, otherwise it would not have been accepted for service by the US, the Brits, the Cheeermanss, the Swedes, The Italians, the Turks, the Pakis, etc. I don't know how much it costs, having never paid for one, but I wouldn't call it "simple": http://www.prinsci.com/amrs.htm

Shirrush wrote: "I don't know how much it costs, having never paid for one, but I wouldn't call it "simple" I think there is a difference between simple for the end user and simple to design and build. The MRS is not anywhere close to being simple from a design perspective. The software and physical design is quite complex. But, from an end user perspective it is "simple". It's easy to use, flip a switch and you begin an MRS alignment. It's rugged and reliable. I can count on my hands the number of times I had to have an MRS replaced on a tank I was responsible for. So, I think what our Canuck friend is referring to when he says simple is the end user perspective, not the design. I like your ideas for sensor systems, but I worry about how rugged and reliable they would be and how to simple to use for the end user. Remember, that poor tank crewman already has the most complex job you can imagine, trying to engage and destroy the enemy while being shot at himself. You can't add to that complexity just for the sake of a nifty techno-gadget.

I went back to Knox for Master Gunner school in 1986. That was when you still had to pass the Tank Crewman's Gunnery Skills Test on Day 0 of the course with no retries for any station allowed. I understand they have taken that requirement out. It certainly separated the men from the boys. We dropped 10% of our class on Day 0 because they couldn't pass the TCGST without having to retake at least one of the 18 required stations. Maybe I'm just old and crusty but I thought it was important to know the guy showing up was at least a capable tank crewman before putting him in the class. Now their units have to certify them from what I understand. Yep, AG is equivalent to MG, except I think you get more theoretical knowledge in school than we do. We have to pick ours up after the fact. A TDY to Aberdeen takes care of that and then some.

Yeah, it's strange. We used to have to pass a "threshold knowledge test", of course, the test was both a written practical test, and a hands on, being tested on the equipment. Failures were sent home, at their Unit's expense. That ensured some home study before they came, believe me! Now, the test is used as a benchmark, so the instructors know where to start their teaching. We don't have a huge amount of theory, we take the theory of how all the projectiles work, how armour works, armament, and, of course, all the factors affecting projectiles. Some of the classes were pretty tough, like the internal, intermediate and external ballistics classes!

The way I imagine it, a solid-state sensor array would be inbedded in the thermal shroud and as such never see daylight, so to speak. It should be able to constantly, and automatically update the FCS, without causing the gunner any extra burden. It would have the same calibration requirements as any other scientific instruments, and this could be easy to automate through software. OTOH, any lens-and-mirror assembly such as the MRS needs to be cleaned, the more often in a dusty environment. Tanks have this habit of kicking up dust when they move, and at exactly the same time their computers need to know where their barrels are... Are you saying that the MRS is used, manually, as a sort of quickie boresight alignment procedure?-