General AFV Thread

[LoooSeR]

Belarus moded BRDM - Cayman. Vehicles are prepared for state trials

[LoooSeR]

Egyptian Army Armored cars/light MRAPs

[LoooSeR]

Taiwan's 360 degress observation system

 

New Patria AMV 28A

[Ramlaen]

 

[LoooSeR]

South African Olifant 1 

[ZloyKrolik]

Its weird to see an Abrams with an infantry bumper number. 1-8 IN in that video.

[ZloyKrolik]

From Tank & AFV News

Quote

 

>IHS Jane’s 360 – Orbital ATK chosen for US Army’s new AMP tank round

Key Points

• The army has selected Orbital ATK to finish development and qualification for its 120 mm AMP tank round
• The AMP round would allow Abrams to carry fewer ammunition types and choose the effect of a chambered round

Orbital ATK has been selected to continue developing a new 120 mm Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP) round for the US Army’s M1A2 Abrams main battle tank, the Pentagon announced on 23 January.  The USD46 million contract is to complete development and qualification of the XM1147 High Explosive Multi-Purpose with Tracer (HEMP-T) round, which was developed with an ammunition data link and programmable multi-option fuze (point detonate with or without delay, or airburst effect).

 

 

 

I think the marijauna legalization is going a bit too far.

[Ramlaen]

Glad I am not the only one who smiled at that.

The thing that I still do not understand about the XM1147, is what about it requires developing a new round? The M329 APAM-MP, M339 HE-MP and DM11 HE-MP (which is already used by the USMC) all seem to do what is required and are all available to the US Army.

[Collimatrix]

Apparently it replaces all of them.  Some sort of fancy programmable fuse lets it slice and dice.

[Ramlaen]

It is meant to replace M830(DM12), M830A1, M908 and M1028 with a unitary round.

I just don't understand what additional requirement exists that, lets say the M329 APAM, is not capable of.

[Mighty_Zuk]

The AMP repeats all the mistakes IMI did with the APAM. It was quickly realized to be too complicated (5 or 6 modes IIRC) and simultaneously too expensive. So expensive that special permission had to be granted to fire APAM.

During the 2014 conflict in Gaza, another round called M339 "Hatzav" with only 3 modes entered service alongside the APAM and it was reported by tank crews to have significantly decreased engagement times, resulting in far higher efficiency due to simplification (all the capabilities actually exist in it, but inside fewer modes), and same lethality which they claimed as surgical (would aid in preventing collapse of buildings and lowered harm to different floors). 

Seems that they didn't learn from the Israeli experience and decided to repeat the same mistake. 

 

[sevich]

I'm guessing proximity and timed fuse with fragmentation and EFP. Something like including all the components.

I personally wonder if it is full caliber or it will be in a sabot.

[Xlucine]

HEMP lacks a nose fuse, so should have better performance against reinforced targets than either of the israeli rounds. The lack of submunitions ought to reduce cost as well. HEMP only has 3 modes, I can't see much similarity at all with the mistakes of APAM.

3 hours ago, sevich said:

I'm guessing proximity and timed fuse with fragmentation and EFP. Something like including all the components.

I personally wonder if it is full caliber or it will be in a sabot.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170127175609/http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2013/APR_JUN/Articles/PeraltaArticle.pdf

Look at page 24, no sabot

[Ramlaen]

46 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

HEMP lacks a nose fuse, so should have better performance against reinforced targets than either of the israeli rounds. The lack of submunitions ought to reduce cost as well. HEMP only has 3 modes, I can't see much similarity at all with the mistakes of APAM.

 

I can see the possibility that it is a further development of the XM1069, but I feel that raises as many questions as it answers.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

9 hours ago, Xlucine said:

HEMP lacks a nose fuse, so should have better performance against reinforced targets than either of the israeli rounds. The lack of submunitions ought to reduce cost as well. HEMP only has 3 modes, I can't see much similarity at all with the mistakes of APAM.

1)Nose fuze doesn't impact the round's performance much. If at all. For anti-LAV and anti-bunker modes, there is a special delay.

APAM and M339 are both said to pierce 200mm of reinforced concrete, which is plenty enough against all sorts of urban or non-armored threats. Now if there's a meter thick concrete walled bunker that needs to be destroyed but is too much for HE-MP rounds, one can always use HEAT-MP rounds. 

2)The submunitions are not what raises the cost. The 5-mode fuze is what does it.

3)We're not talking about the HEMP here, but the AMP with its 6 modes. 

4)The mistake of APAM, as I've said above, is to give a single round too many operation modes which, even if didn't confuse gunners (more often than not, some modes overlap in certain scenarios, creating confusion as to which one to pick), it was enough to slow down the operation for even the more skilled, more experienced and more familiar gunners with the APAM over the M339 which offered pretty much the same capabilities in much more comfortable package. The AMP seems to ignore it and even add a 6th mode.

This is why the IDF is phasing out the APAM in favor of the M339.

[Xlucine]

17 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

I can see the possibility that it is a further development of the XM1069, but I feel that raises as many questions as it answers.

 

I'm convinced they're the same rounds. Back in 2013 there was lots of discussion about how great the XM1069 AMP round is, and now we get the same claims made about the XM1147 AMP. Maybe someone finally noticed the innuendo?

 

8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

1)Nose fuze doesn't impact the round's performance much. If at all. For anti-LAV and anti-bunker modes, there is a special delay.

APAM and M339 are both said to pierce 200mm of reinforced concrete, which is plenty enough against all sorts of urban or non-armored threats. Now if there's a meter thick concrete walled bunker that needs to be destroyed but is too much for HE-MP rounds, one can always use HEAT-MP rounds. 

2)The submunitions are not what raises the cost. The 5-mode fuze is what does it.

3)We're not talking about the HEMP here, but the AMP with its 6 modes. 

4)The mistake of APAM, as I've said above, is to give a single round too many operation modes which, even if didn't confuse gunners (more often than not, some modes overlap in certain scenarios, creating confusion as to which one to pick), it was enough to slow down the operation for even the more skilled, more experienced and more familiar gunners with the APAM over the M339 which offered pretty much the same capabilities in much more comfortable package. The AMP seems to ignore it and even add a 6th mode.

This is why the IDF is phasing out the APAM in favor of the M339.

1) this isn't just about penetrating reinforced targets, this round is replacing M908 - it has to turn large blocks of concrete into rubble. A more rigid nose is only a good thing against concrete, and 8" is not very much for an actual bunker.

2) 5 modes because it has the additional complexity of when to release the submunitions - not a degree of freedom that the AMP has to control

3) AMP = HEMP, it's right there in the janes article. They don't have 6 modes, they have 6 different capabilities - there's a difference. Point detonate (SQ or with delay) and airburst are the only options for the fuse, with those you can engage "ATGM teams, reinforced walls, bunkers, light armor, dismounts, and obstacles" (https://www.army.mil/article/98946/Army_developing_new_120mm_AMP_tank_round)

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Xlucine said:

I'm convinced they're the same rounds. Back in 2013 there was lots of discussion about how great the XM1069 AMP round is, and now we get the same claims made about the XM1147 AMP. Maybe someone finally noticed the innuendo?

 

1) this isn't just about penetrating reinforced targets, this round is replacing M908 - it has to turn large blocks of concrete into rubble. A more rigid nose is only a good thing against concrete, and 8" is not very much for an actual bunker.

2) 5 modes because it has the additional complexity of when to release the submunitions - not a degree of freedom that the AMP has to control

3) AMP = HEMP, it's right there in the janes article. They don't have 6 modes, they have 6 different capabilities - there's a difference. Point detonate (SQ or with delay) and airburst are the only options for the fuse, with those you can engage "ATGM teams, reinforced walls, bunkers, light armor, dismounts, and obstacles" (https://www.army.mil/article/98946/Army_developing_new_120mm_AMP_tank_round)

 

1)As I said, if there's a bunker, that would usually require a HEAT-MP round. I doubt the AMP can pierce a meter of concrete.

2)The FCS determines when to release the submunitions, not the crew. The crew only has to set the right mode and range. 

3)Then I might have understood the article wrong. 

[LoooSeR]

Best Korean Best tank - Songun-915 - during recent exercices

[Zyklon]

[LoooSeR]

Photos from Venezuela Zamora 200 exercices (mid Jan of this year). Source.

VN-16 (export version of Chinese ZBD-05 IFV) launching HJ-73D ATGM.

Assault guns on VN-16 chassis.

 

T-72Bs and Nona-SVK SPGs

BMP-3s

BTR-80As

 

^With VN-1 APCs.

BTR-80As full auto fire:

 

[LoooSeR]

That is strange way to put cage armor.

[Zyklon]

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

Turkish Sabra with RCWS and laser warning sensors.

[LoooSeR]

Leclerc of the French peacekeepers in Southern Lebanon

[LoooSeR]

BMP-2 of Finish army