Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

On 8/5/2018 at 6:49 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

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.

 

 

Seems like a good idea to me.  Might be more handy than the 30mm gun turrets they are currently putting on Strykers.  I would think a 120mm heat round from a mortar would be able to knock out more than just "light armored vehicles" as called for in the LOS requirements in the list Ramlaen posted.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Seems like a good idea to me.  Might be more handy than the 30mm gun turrets they are currently putting on Strykers.  I would think a 120mm heat round from a mortar would be able to knock out more than just "light armored vehicles" as called for in the LOS requirements in the list Ramlaen posted.  

 

Now I'm interested in seeing a 120mm mortar in one of those CMI turrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

120mm mortars should not be a replacement, but a complement.

It's impossible to have a turret that does not cut into the hull as the gun has to be possible to reload while near vertical, let alone one that carries enough ammo.

 

But it does introduce a new capability. By allowing mortar crews to drive on the same battlefield as the IFVs, they can effectively remove the need for MBTs for most of their tasks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Also, my dudes. It has come to my knowledge that Mike Sparks. THE Mike Sparks, also known as JamesBondisReal, denies being associated with BlackTail Defense.

 

There can't possibly be two separate people with the same weird obsessions of aircraft carrier battleship hybrids and supergavins,

Share this post


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

 

There can't possibly be two separate people with the same weird obsessions of aircraft carrier battleship hybrids and supergavins,

 

Late stage meiosis, mayhap? (can't be mitosis - I refuse to believe the guy has the right number of chromosomes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 8/6/2018 at 10:13 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

But it does introduce a new capability. By allowing mortar crews to drive on the same battlefield as the IFVs, they can effectively remove the need for MBTs for most of their tasks. 

Definitely no.

Having a direct fire capability doesn’t mean the mortar carrier can be used this way. 

 

Mortar carriers can’t go into the same ground as IFV or MBT because there very nature call them on the best place to provide indirect fire support.

To provide fire support, mortar carriers are using on dedicated firing positions, dedicated axes, with a dedicated tempo ruled by half planed rang concern and the request of the « availability » of tubes.

 

The main interests for under turret mortars are :

- MRSI capability ;

- low profile pattern of fly to hit very specifically building areas ;

- and self defense, of course. 

Problems are :

- the cost ;

- heavy weight so lower armor ;

- more difficult deception. 

Share this post


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

 

Definitely no.

Having a direct fire capability doesn’t mean the mortar carrier can be used this way. 

 

Mortar carriers can’t go into the same ground as IFV or MBT because there very nature call them on the best place to provide indirect fire support.

To provide fire support, mortar carriers are using on dedicated firing positions, dedicated axes, with a dedicated tempo ruled by half planed rang concern and the request of the « availability » of tubes.

 

The main interests for under turret mortars are :

- MRSI capability ;

- low profile pattern of fly to hit very specifically building areas ;

- and self defense, of course. 

Problems are :

- the cost ;

- heavy weight so lower armor ;

- more difficult deception. 

It is all well understood, but they place high importance in direct fire capability.

 

Even howitzers with several times the range and just half the armor, were seen as very useful demolition guns at short ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The importance of the direct fire capability is stressed to provide MRSI and self protection. 

 

Of course, SPGH can be used to destroy strongholds with hit and run drills. This is why armored artillery is necessary. But considering the general use of artillery and mortars, it’s an exception. 

 

One point today is the fact that western countries realized clear FEBA no more exists. So, each element of land forces must self protect itself without the help of infantry. 

A very good exemple is the French fleet of Carapace trucks. Half of them have RWS for FARP just for self-protection. 

Share this post


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

I am not sure what i see on the sides of this thing. Are those some sort of APS modules along whole side armor on top of ERA/NERA?

Is it possible that those 8 things are simply backpacks of vehicle's dismounts? And may be 4 other boxes were intended to represent other items - like boxes of MREs or whatever else could be stored outside of the vehicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2018 at 11:37 AM, skylancer-3441 said:

Is it possible that those 8 things are simply backpacks of vehicle's dismounts?

No, because it’s the best way to loose your kit after the first ride.

And no company can seriously make such a proposal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Serge said:

No, because it’s the best way to loose your kit after the first ride.

And no company can seriously make such a proposal. 

 

I think they’re there (if they are backpacks) because the company is representing how many dismounts it can carry, and that’s not exactly where the passengers’ equipment will actually be stored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Serge said:

No, because it’s the best way to loose your kit after the first ride.

And no company can seriously make such a proposal. 

I don't get what's the difference between my suggestion about backpacks stored outside, and real-life things like that:
Dkjk-JuUcAEkAez.jpg:large

(apart from lack of any ERA/NERA armor on this particular Bradley)

 

/...unfortunatelly that blue render is too small to see words written on those 8 things/

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.
×