Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Karamazov said:

This XM-1 was with hydropneumatic suspension?

I think only the Geneal Motors protoype had a hydropneumatic suspension. According to Hunnicutt the Chrysler prototype had a torsion bar suspension.

Share this post


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

I think only the Geneal Motors protoype had a hydropneumatic suspension. According to Hunnicutt the Chrysler prototype had a torsion bar suspension.

 

Wasn’t the General Motors pilot vehicle better in testing as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The General Motors prototype had hydropneumatic suspension on the first, second and last roadwheels, and torsion bars in the middle.

This curious arrangement also shows up in the South Korean K1 Type 88 tank, and is one of several reasons I suspect the South Korean design is a derivative of the General Motors design.

Share this post


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

 

Wasn’t the General Motors pilot vehicle better in testing as well?

 

According to soldiers involved in the XM-1 testing, the GM prototype was more popular and actually performed better than the Chrysler version. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

The General Motors prototype had hydropneumatic suspension on the first, second and last roadwheels, and torsion bars in the middle.

This curious arrangement also shows up in the South Korean K1 Type 88 tank, and is one of several reasons I suspect the South Korean design is a derivative of the General Motors design.

 

The K1 does look very similar too the GM XM-1 as well. Wasn’t the K1 being designed around the same time that the GM vehicle was being tested?

Share this post


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

 

The K1 does look very similar too the GM XM-1 as well. Wasn’t the K1 being designed around the same time that the GM vehicle was being tested?

 

No, the ROKIT program that became K1 was designed substantially later, and actually subcontracted mostly out to GDLS - the inheritors of the Chrylser Defense group that designed the M1.

 

16 hours ago, Collimatrix said:


Interesting.  Do you know any further details?

 

Army liked the GM's armor layout, FCS, and ability to fit the 120mm. But they *really* had a hankering for the Turbine powerplant of Chrysler's offering. So they basically came out and said they wanted a hybrid tank that was mostly like GM's but with the turbine drivetrain. Chrylser's offer to redesign their machine won the bid over GM's redesign, helped by Chrysler having some political favoritism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

No, the ROKIT program that became K1 was designed substantially later, and actually subcontracted mostly out to GDLS - the inheritors of the Chrylser Defense group that designed the M1.

 

 

Army liked the GM's armor layout, FCS, and ability to fit the 120mm. But they *really* had a hankering for the Turbine powerplant of Chrysler's offering. So they basically came out and said they wanted a hybrid tank that was mostly like GM's but with the turbine drivetrain. Chrylser's offer to redesign their machine won the bid over GM's redesign, helped by Chrysler having some political favoritism.

 

This is pretty much my understanding as well.  After the initial testing in July of 1976, Sec of Defense Rumsfeld issued a statement saying that they were delaying the decision until both vehicles were designed to accommodate either engine option and 120mm capable turrets.  This decision was basically a huge boost to Chrysler, since it meant that both companies saw each other's hand, to use a card playing metaphor.  With the extra time given, the Chrysler team did everything in the power to reduce the cost of their vehicle, while GM stood pat for the most part.  This gave Chrysler the edge they needed.  Also, Chrysler desperately needed this contract, GM was less excited about it.  It would probably be fair to say that GM was doing the government a favor by being in the contest, since it meant that the government could have a competition.  I think GM's excitement about building tanks was not all that high after the MBT-70 fiasco. Teledyne Continental Motors however really wanted GM to win so their engine could go into production.  Losing to the gas turbine pretty much sealed teledyne Continenal's fate.

Share this post


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

 

This is pretty much my understanding as well.  After the initial testing in July of 1976, Sec of Defense Rumsfeld issued a statement saying that they were delaying the decision until both vehicles were designed to accommodate either engine option and 120mm capable turrets.  This decision was basically a huge boost to Chrysler, since it meant that both companies saw each other's hand, to use a card playing metaphor.  With the extra time given, the Chrysler team did everything in the power to reduce the cost of their vehicle, while GM stood pat for the most part.  This gave Chrysler the edge they needed.  Also, Chrysler desperately needed this contract, GM was less excited about it.  It would probably be fair to say that GM was doing the government a favor by being in the contest, since it meant that the government could have a competition.  I think GM's excitement about building tanks was not all that high after the MBT-70 fiasco. Teledyne Continental Motors however really wanted GM to win so their engine could go into production.  Losing to the gas turbine pretty much sealed teledyne Continenal's fate.

 

From the Army's perspective, redoing the contest after both teams (purely because the army was going to mandate the turbine and did want that change to be done after signing the GM contract) had seen each other's solution gave them the best possible deal from their perspective, Chrysler's final winning proposal was everything they wanted. It's been said Chrysler needed the contract badly, but considering GM's tank branch up and closed shop immediately after losing the M1 contract, I have to imagine they were just as badly in need (Chrysler still had the Patton family for defense revenues...). It's amusing in a certain way that the winner of the contest in both cost and performance was knocked out of the running because of incredibly optimistic views of the turbine as the superior engine of the future. They had estimated lower costs, less maintenance, growth to 2000hp, and other idealistic views.

Share this post


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

FWIW, I think growth of the AGT-1500 to 2000 HP would be fairly straightforward.  As I understand it, the thing is already downrated to 1500.  There would likely be some cost to engine life.

 

Whats the power and torque curve and delivery like compared to the Diesel contemporaries that other tanks use? The main point people say about the M1 is that the AGT-1500 is far superior too Diesel engines but is that even really true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Diesel%20vs%20Gas%20Turbines%20dyno%20sh

 

1 hour ago, roguetechie said:

That actually does look pretty damn commanding when you're talking about doing tank like things in a tank sized vehicle.

 

The biggest issue isn't so much the turbine's performance itself - which does live up to the promises, but rather that the Turbine is only compatible with the X1100 transmission, which sadly is not terribly good. Of all the transmissions they did calculations on, it was the worst performing (particularly bad on downshifts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense, no need to hire a helicopter to deliver the explosives.

 

On 7/29/2018 at 6:33 PM, SH_MM said:

Diesel%20vs%20Gas%20Turbines%20dyno%20sh

 

Interesting that they're comparing to a pretty beefy MTU 883. Presumably a 1500-horse diesel would look even worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22621/the-army-wants-armored-turrets-packing-120mm-mortars-for-its-strykers-and-other-vehicles

 

US Army wants 120 mortars for its Strykers, this time turreted ones, with direct fire capability (sort of like NEMO).

It's not exactly new info, but it's a good sign that it's not a dead project.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it's from seeing that Polish Rosomak variant during exercises.

 

From the market survey.

 

Quote

Significant 120mm Mortar FIFT system performance requirements include:


- Caliber: 120mm smooth bore (Threshold)
- A Minimum Range of 200m (Threshold) for Indirect and Direct Fire and 50m (Objective) for Direct Fire.
- A Maximum Range of ≥ 8,000m (Threshold) to 20,000m (Objective).
- Ammo Preparation: Automated storage and processing of ammo from fiber packing container (Objective)
- Mission Computation/Gun-Laying: Automated calculation of tactical and technical fire direction and gun lay (Threshold)
- Loading/Firing: Automated loading of round into gun tube from intermediate tray or ready rack and fire-on-command (Threshold). Ammo transitions from stowage through the firing event without human contact (Objective).
- Response Time of Initial Receipt: 30 seconds after receipt of fire mission if emplaced, 60 seconds after receipt of fire mission if moving (Threshold)
- Response Time of Fire and Move: Capable of accepting fire missions, firing and moving up to 750 meters on dry, hard surfaces within 90 seconds of identifying a potential enemy (Threshold) and "shoot on the move" (Objective) capability.
- The mission computation, gun laying, ammunition preparation and firing is Semi-autonomous (Threshold) or autonomous (Objective) computation of tactical and technical fire direction, automatic gun lay, preparation of the ammunition for firing, and firing of the mortar round.
- Munitions Family: Fire the full 120mm Family of Munitions (FoM) with modifications (Threshold) or be able to fire the 120mm FoM with no modifications and capable of handling to be determined (TBD) projectiles up to 40lbs and 40inches length (Objective).
- Fields of Fire: Must allow for firing from the platform in any direction within a 360 degree (6400 mil) arc (Objective).
- Lethality- Engagement Profile: Must be capable of Line of Sight (LOS) engagements to destroy moving or stationary light armored vehicles up to a maximum range of 500m (Threshold) to 4000m (Objective)
- Lethality- Massing Fires: Must be capable of firing Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) missions, with 6 rounds impacting/functioning within 4 seconds (first to last round) (Threshold) to 12 rounds impacting/functioning within 4 seconds (first to last round) (Objective).
- Lethality- Rate of Fire: Must provide a Maximum Rate of Fire (MROF) of at least 16 rounds per minute at maximum increment for 1 minute followed by a sustained rate of fire (SROF) of 6 rounds per minute at maximum increment indefinitely (Threshold). It is desired that the weapon be capable of being fired at the MROF of 24 rounds per minute for 2 minutes and maintain a SROF of 12 rounds per minute indefinitely (Objective).
Per the above requirements, the 120mm FoM include the following items:
- The M934/M934A1 HE, M930/M930E1 ILLUM, M929 SMK (Threshold);
- The M931 FRPC, M933 HE, M57 HE, M983 IR ILLUM, M91 ILLUM (Objective)
Per the above requirements, the 120mm FoM, shall be compatible with the following fuzes:
- The M734/M734A1 MOFA, M935 PD (Threshold)
- The M776 MTSQ, M745 PD, M524/M524A1 PD, M772 PD/MTSQ, M84 TIME, M567 PD, M532 PRX, M783 PD/DLY, M751 PD (Objective)

 

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 Mighty_Zuk
      I realized we don't have a topic for a proper discussion of what future AFVs should look like, in the style of a general AFVs discussion rather than country-specific threads.
       
      I spotted a revived potential need for future MBTs - a coaxial autocannon to replace the coaxial MG. The reason? An APS neutralizer. 
      Here's my short post on why I think it should happen:
       
      I didn't add it there, but I see lasers as a potential alternative. However, I don't think they're viable because of the power required to properly neutralize an APS's components, especially if these components are dispersed, or worse yet, effectively camouflaged. An autocannon will be able to disable not only the APS but other external components all at once. 
      Similar to the engagement method showcased by Russia where they fired 2 Kornet missiles (almost) simultaneously to defeat an APS, a hypothetical mode of operation could include firing a burst of 2 KETF shells at a target prior to firing a main gun shell.
       
      An additional alternative could be to use a single main gun ABM shell that would initiate outside the scope of the APS's engagement range (e.g engagement range is 30m so it initiates at 50m), but it would have 2 main issues that are a longer time to kill a target and a greater consumption of ammunition (up to a 3rd of ammo would have to be allocated to ABM munitions strictly for anti-armor operations).
    • 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.
       
×