Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines

Recommended Posts

I missed this but back in August a feeler was put out for an airburst capable 105mm round.

Presumably it would be for both the MPF and Stryker MGS. IMI is the only company I am aware of offering such a round.

 

ATK does make a multipurpose round but I don’t consider a proximity fuse to be airburst.

Quote

Our 105mm HEAT-MP-T, a high-explosive, anti-tank, multipurpose with tracer, is a 105mm version of the M830A1 HEAT-MP-T cartridge. It is designed as a replacement for the 105mm HEAT round.

Like the M830A1, it uses a discarding sabot with the same subcaliber warhead, with airburst capability selectable by the tank crewman. The cartridge has the same lethality as the M830A1 and is compatible with the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams MGS. The target range is 4,000 meters and a muzzle velocity of 1,330 meters a second.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2017 at 10:47 AM, Ramlaen said:

I missed this but back in August a feeler was put out for an airburst capable 105mm round.

Presumably it would be for both the MPF and Stryker MGS. IMI is the only company I am aware of offering such a round.

 

ATK does make a multipurpose round but I don’t consider a proximity fuse to be airburst.

I seem to remember a prox fuse, and a timed fuse for the old 105mm howitzer.

As well as a very nasty 81mm mortar fuse with proximity detection (Green Hornet?).

 

So a bit "con fuzed" unless this is for some kind of active/smart fusing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Meplat said:

I seem to remember a prox fuse, and a timed fuse for the old 105mm howitzer.

As well as a very nasty 81mm mortar fuse with proximity detection (Green Hornet?).

 

So a bit "con fuzed" unless this is for some kind of active/smart fusing. 

 

The 105mm M68 gun, not a 105mm howitzer. As far as I am aware the US just has 'dumb' ammunition in stock.

QBQQUzB.jpg

 

Airburst as in it explodes at a set distance and sprays the target area with fragments. My assumption is they want a single round to replace HEP/HEAT/Canister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

 

The 105mm M68 gun, not a 105mm howitzer. As far as I am aware the US just has 'dumb' ammunition in stock.

QBQQUzB.jpg

 

Airburst as in it explodes at a set distance and sprays the target area with fragments. My assumption is they want a single round to replace HEP/HEAT/Canister.

Ah the 105mm rifle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZloyKrolik said:

I assume that those pics are not to scale with each other. 

 

BTW, No Willy Pete?

 

105mm%20TK%20SMK%20(WP)-T%20M416A1_0.jpg

 

Not to scale and not at the same angle, I used the best looking pictures I could find at the time I made it (M724A1E1 is now M724A2).

 

I left out the M416 WP round because I couldn't find anything about it still being in use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Army put out an RFI asking if industry(GDLS) can deliver 72 Stryker MSL between FY2019 and FY2021.

 

From the Q&A feedback.

Answer: The determination of whether or not to use a .50 cal or 30mm gun effector has not yet been decided. Should the Government decide to direct the gun effector, a decision will be made at that time on consideration of providing the performance specification.

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I counted a crap ton of things wrong with that... Even before you get to the highly specious individual "comparisons"

 

As an example the gun tube life... Yes if you have WORSE metallurgy and gun production techniques AND several times the barrel life your cannon must obviously be superior....

 

Or it may not be able to pen an abrams to save it's life!

 

One of the two

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:


       

       

       

    • By EnsignExpendable
      Volketten on the WoT forums posted some XM-1 trials results.
       
       
      Compare this to what the Americans claimed the XM1 will do:
       

       
      Seems like the XM1 really didn't earn that checkmark-plus in mobility or protection. 
       
    • By JNT11593
      So National Geographic has a mini series airing right now called The Long Road Home. I'm curious if any else is watching it right now. The show is about black Friday, and the beginning of the siege of sadr city in 2004. It's filmed at Fort Hood with cooperation from the U.S. Army so it features a lot of authentic armor. The first couple of episodes feature Bradleys quite heavily, and starting with episode 4 it looks like Abrams starting getting more screen time. It's pretty cool if you want to see some authentic tanks and vehicles as long as you can stand some cheesiness and army wife shit.
       
      Edit: Just realized I posted to the wrong board.
       
    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×