Last Wednesday, the U.S. Army took delivery of the first of a new series of Abrams-based main battle tanks. The M1A2 System Enhancement Package Version 3 is slated to replace the Version 2 that has been in production since 2005.
About the Author
More From SOFREP
"Power" in itself doesn't mean much in the context of tank warfare as I understand it. These days the first tank to get a good hit with a sabot wins. That being the case, range, accuracy and the ability to target (and move to the next target) would probably be key. That being said, yes a 130mm should have the ability to put a bit more velocity on those sabots. That may increase range and with lower flight times help with getting hits, it may however not be enough of an advantage to switch over and get rid of our inventory of 120 stuff. If the 120 is an effective tank killer, why go through the pain and expense changing it up. If anything these tanks need to shed some pounds. I can't say that I know how to make that happen and maintain the capabilities that the Army desires. I do know that even when I was more tuned in to such things over a decade ago there was plenty of talk about the weight causing problems, and we are piling more on...
A prototype 130mm gun... Also, the tank is getting too heavy. The M1A2 SEPV2 with all the gadgets and whistles weighs around 70 tons. The new M1A2 SEPV3 is pushing the tank closer to 80 tons! Add in the new TROPHY systems being attached to some M1A2 SEPV2 tanks in Europe (and probably the rest of the fleet in due time), you are adding about two tons... We need new upgraded tank recovery vehicles and Abrams bridges now due to all of this added weight. I would focus on a lightweight 120mm gun rather than going for a prototype 130mm gun. It's not like the 120mm rounds can't penetrate modern armor.
Rheinmetall already has a 130mm gun, that is 50% more powerful than the current 120mm gun. Don't know why we can't put that on there.