Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

Maybe because the M8 Buford is back on the testing range for the MPF contest?

 

The fact that the Army keeps hinting at MPF having a 105mm gun makes me think that they want to use the XM35 in whichever vehicle is chosen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

The fact that the Army keeps hinting at MPF having a 105mm gun makes me think that they want to use the XM35 in whichever vehicle is chosen.

 

Would the gun be considered GFE under the program?

 

Also, I would’ve thought that the gun on the M8 would’ve been type classified when the platform was - i.e. why is it still the XM35 and not the M35?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

 

Would the gun be considered GFE under the program?

 

I believe so, I’m not familiar with the particulars of how they would be supplied to vendors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

The fact that the Army keeps hinting at MPF having a 105mm gun makes me think that they want to use the XM35 in whichever vehicle is chosen.

 

Cockerill 105 not good enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

 

Cockerill 105 not good enough?

 

I would assume it’s viable, that document is from before SAIC/STK/CMI threw their hat in the ring.

 

Speaking of which I think their chances will be heavily influenced by the ACV selection.

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

 

Cockerill 105 not good enough?

 

The US fully tested the XM35 (isn’t it a derivative of the M68A1?) back in the Nineties, so they’d have a detailed level of understanding and comfort with the XM35, presumably. Cockerill 105? Not so much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 2805662 said:

 

isn’t it a derivative of the M68A1?

 

Barrel, breech, recoil mechanism. They are quite a bit different.

 

XM35 breech block

z8GOyX6.jpg

 

M68 breech block

105mm-m68-7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Barrel, breech, recoil mechanism. They are quite a bit different.

 

XM35 breech block

z8GOyX6.jpg

 

M68 breech block

105mm-m68-7.jpg

Dangers of going from memory. That said, they have detailed knowledge of the XM35 and very little of the Cockerill 105 in comparison. 

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.
×