Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

Something like hedging their bets due to all the cancelled programs. An if we are going to be using these for another 10-15 years we should make the guys riding inside a bit safer. Though now it's looking like it's getting cancelled instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they’re not going to give the AAV7 the Gavin treatment (many variants)? I’m disappointed. 

 

 

Also, $5 the replacement vehicle will also be canceled before mass production and the USMC will still be stuck with the AAV for another 15 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Thank god, the ever increasing acronym soup was getting old.

Share this post


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

 

Does that mean the SEP 1 and 2 are now the M1A2A and M1A2B, respectively? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now with Trophy:

WhatsApp%20Image%202018-09-16%20at%2013.

 

Also seems to have some improved and much thicker side and front armor, with what also seems like space reserved for additional side armor modules.

This probably means that Rafael is involved in the next-gen ERA project of the US Army, part of the VPS project which also involves signature management and laser warning at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Karamazov said:

What are you doing in the tank? Which position?

 

 

Was a gunner at the time. Was showing a soldier how to bang out the air filters. Guess you could say I got a little to hands on. 

Share this post


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

 

 

Was a gunner at the time. Was showing a soldier how to bang out the air filters. Guess you could say I got a little to hands on. 

of course :D 
Ok, what you can say about M1 technical service?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

 

 

Was a gunner at the time. Was showing a soldier how to bang out the air filters. Guess you could say I got a little to hands on. 

I always hated that.

Share this post


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

Please elaborate on that question. 

Does the crew have difficulties with the tank? Any troubles with engine or transmission after hard exercices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Karamazov said:

whith this joke you walk on the edge of the knife:D

I am far from US lands, under protection of his majesty Tsar Vladimir Putin. And all GULag's prisons are closed.

Also, this is my work after all.

:hacking:

 

Share this post


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

Does the crew have difficulties with the tank? Any troubles with engine or transmission after hard exercices?

 

 

Depends on how you define difficulties. In general yes the tanks are always difficult. This is a result of never being to do actual services on the tanks due to time constraints. As far as engine/transmission it all just depends man. Our engine actually blew during this field problem, alot of it just comes down to engine age and luck. I think the Brigade as whole blew at least 10 packs during that rotation as a whole. 

Share this post


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

 

 

Depends on how you define difficulties. In general yes the tanks are always difficult. This is a result of never being to do actual services on the tanks due to time constraints. As far as engine/transmission it all just depends man. Our engine actually blew during this field problem, alot of it just comes down to engine age and luck. I think the Brigade as whole blew at least 10 packs during that rotation as a whole. 

 

You must have been double fucked in that situation then. I’m guessing replacement engines aren’t just on hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2018 at 9:37 AM, Conner Webb said:

 

You must have been double fucked in that situation then. I’m guessing replacement engines aren’t just on hand.

 

 

Depends on the circumstances. In this instance our tank got the new engine of a sister platoons tank since said tank didn't have functioning internal coms anyway. That being said once the problem was over a replacement engine was ordered. in reality if a engine blows they just order a replacement and it's always expedited anyway so it usually just takes a few days to up to like a week and a half. 

 

During my first problem (coincidentally the same kind of field problem) my tanks engine blew up (no air filters while driving around in a desert on a turbine engine will do that) and we had a replacement engine within 1 week of getting back from the field. 

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.
×