Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

Look who is back  :D

 

Yeah, sorry for inactivity. Been busy a lot the last few months.

 

Also IIRC Jordan uses a modified version of the M60AX with a Swiss 120mm gun, right? Or is that an entirely different tank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sorry for inactivity. Been busy a lot the last few months.

 

Also IIRC Jordan uses a modified version of the M60AX with a Swiss 120mm gun, right? Or is that an entirely different tank?

 

 

M60 Phoenix sure does look like M60AX, and it's not at all uncommon for big companies to "badge engineer" things for countries that want to claim their own indigenous weapons projects that they're not actually capable of making.  Supposedly M60 Phoenix is a Jordanian design through and through.

 

Armor is a bit differently shaped though.  They don't have the big cutout in the hull applique on M60 Phoenix that M60AX does, and M60 Phoenix lacks the cutouts in the frontal armor packages for the stereo rangefinder.

 

But I don't know for sure whether it's a related development or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really bad compared to an Abrams':

rebound+figures.jpg

 

And since all these souped-up M60 designs were basically pitched as Abrams alternatives, that was a piquant point of comparison.

Yep.  The suspension on the M60 was really not all that different from all the other Patton series tanks, going back to the M46.  The torsion bars on the M1 were a much more advanced material that allowed for greater bending.  Initially, an improved suspension system was considered for the M60A3 variant.  The first system considered was a tube over bar system.  This was later dropped and the competition was between a Hydro suspension (National Waterlift) and the "advanced torsion bar" system (ATB.)  ATB consisted of bars made from high strength H-11 electroslag refined steel and had a spring rate roughly halfway between the standard bars and the tube over bar system.  The ATB could have been put into existing tanks quite easily, all it required was replacing the existing bars.  Chrysler was determined to kill any mobility upgrades to the M60A3, which they saw as a threat to the XM1 program.  Also, Chrysler did not want to do anything that might help out Teledyne Continental, which stood to profit if their new 950hp version engine was accepted into the M60A3.  Since Teledyne Continental was partnered with GM on the XM1 program, Chrysler did not want to do anything to help them out at all.  As I understand it, this included Chrysler putting pressure on Allison to say they couldn't get the CD-850 transmission upgraded to accept 950HP.  Therefore, Teledyne Continental went and licensed the German Renk transmission to go with higher power output versions of the AVDS-1790 for the "Super 60" and Merkava II.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M60 Phoenix sure does look like M60AX, and it's not at all uncommon for big companies to "badge engineer" things for countries that want to claim their own indigenous weapons projects that they're not actually capable of making.  Supposedly M60 Phoenix is a Jordanian design through and through.

 

Armor is a bit differently shaped though.  They don't have the big cutout in the hull applique on M60 Phoenix that M60AX does, and M60 Phoenix lacks the cutouts in the frontal armor packages for the stereo rangefinder.

 

But I don't know for sure whether it's a related development or not.

 

As far as I know, Teledyne Continental had nothing to do with the Jordanian Phoenix, so I would say that there is no real connection.  That said, I never have figured out which subcontractor did the armor layout for the Super 60 (M60AX).  Teledyne Continental were engine guys, the armor stuff was farmed out to some other company.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the off chance that anyone is interested in the M41 Walker Bulldog, be sure to check out PS Magazine Issue 014 1953 Series.  The entire issue is dedicated to the M41 and has a wealth of information about the operation and maintenance of the vehicle.  

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.
×