APFSDS: I ran the government testing of the ETC ignition at Aberdeen Test Center (ATC). A little history - the program started out being a research effort to develop low volatile propellant and a means to ignite it so that it would achieve the same interior ballistics as the current high volatile propellant. The government spends a fortune storing, shipping and protecting current tank ammunition because it is so highly volatile. I retired in 2012 and for probably 3 years prior had heard nothing from the propellant development. Can’t remember if the last firings I did used the compact PPS shown in the article. Most of the firings I did utilized an experimental 105mm gun designed to marry to an autoloader. I did fire some of the 120mm, M829A2 slug, base pad rounds from the 120mm, XM360 light weight gun. As the article shows ignition times were amazingly tight. That of course equates to consistent chamber pressures and muzzle velocities thus increased accuracy. I cant remember if we temp. conditioned any rounds to test the theory that the voltage input to the round could be adjusted so that for instance a round at -25deg F would have the same interior ballistics as a round +145 F. The problems were the size of the PPS, meeting the charge/discharge time of 5sec., safety, the interface between the firing line from the PPS through the breech block to the base of the round, and determining the amount of voltage to be sent to the round depending on round temp. From the article it sounds like some of the hurtles have been crossed. As of my retirement I had heard nothing about integrating ETC into the M1A2 tank.