Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Conner Webb said:

I‚Äôd just love to know how they would drop 15 tons of weight from it? ūü§Ē

 

The Griffon tech demonstrators turret? Basically removing all the armor.

 

BGDkcQJ.jpg

Share this post


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

Not sure if he has an inside track or this is a prediction

 

 

 

I'm fairly certain Mr. Drummond posted exactly the same photo and the same incorrect predicitons about a year ago, just with a different announcement date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

I'm fairly certain Mr. Drummond posted exactly the same photo and the same incorrect predicitons about a year ago, just with a different announcement date.

I also remember something like that. Maybe he's just looking for attention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The XM360E1 isn't an ETC gun in its stock state, but the ETIPPS I & II tests retrofitted ETC capability into several guns, including the XM291 (ETIPPS II), the XM360 (ETIPPS I) and the M256 (ETIPPS I). For the XM360 to benefit from ETC tech, you have to mount a big, high energy density capacitor block to the turret (or find a big, spare compartment in the hull to stash it in) to fuel the firing circuit, like they did with the XM8 Lightning Bolt demonstrator.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a476392.pdf

 

P.S. That document refers to the XM360 as XM36. Typo?

Share this post


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

Not sure if he has an inside track or this is a prediction

 

 

An autoloader in a lighter vehicle with an autoloader and a autocannon on the roof. Sonds like somebody told him about this cool vehicle called MBT-70.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the really stupid looking, and detached from reality 'model' (i.e they think a vastly different MBT would look nearly identical), the expectations are fairly okay. 

The gun will definitely be replaced. Because why not? There is a need in added power that is not just incremental.

Modular armor became the norm so even if the internal structure isn't changed, the layout should at least change.

Autoloader and encapsulation of the crew mean the turret will likely be unmanned, which means it will indeed be smaller.

And they do need that autoloader if they want to proceed with the robotic wingman by having a 3rd crewman do the group control.

Smaller turret and new wiring technologies also mean weight can be reduced quite drastically as well.

 

Light cannon though? Idk. A jamming system could work, but for a hard kill they can definitely use a 0.5" cal HMG.

Share this post


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

 

That autoloader plan also proposes converting the loader into something akin to an EWO or drone pilot (either small UAVs or UGVs like the robotic wingmen). Still, to perform those duties he'd need some space and making his station more cramped would go in the way of that.

 

Loaders need a lot of space, cutting them down to a similar footprint as the gunner would free up a lot of room. I'm not sure if this would tetris out as resulting in a reduced width turret, but it'd free up some volume

Share this post


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

Aside from the really stupid looking, and detached from reality 'model' (i.e they think a vastly different MBT would look nearly identical), the expectations are fairly okay. 

The gun will definitely be replaced. Because why not? There is a need in added power that is not just incremental.

Modular armor became the norm so even if the internal structure isn't changed, the layout should at least change.

Autoloader and encapsulation of the crew mean the turret will likely be unmanned, which means it will indeed be smaller.

And they do need that autoloader if they want to proceed with the robotic wingman by having a 3rd crewman do the group control.

Smaller turret and new wiring technologies also mean weight can be reduced quite drastically as well.

 

Light cannon though? Idk. A jamming system could work, but for a hard kill they can definitely use a 0.5" cal HMG.

 

The thing is you are describing a new vehicle, not an upgraded Abrams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

The thing is you are describing a new vehicle, not an upgraded Abrams.

An M1A3 might as well be an entirely different vehicle based on technologies developed as part of the NGCV's OMFV project (M1A3 is already part of NGCV).

Otherwise why not call it M1A2E, or M1A2D1?

 

I think it's fairly fair considering how the naming convention has changed since the cold war. An ECP phase today is bigger than a difference between the A1 and A2.

 

The naming today suggests a far smaller upgrade than reality, and the naming during the cold war suggested a far greater upgrade than reality.

 

 

Share this post


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

Loaders need a lot of space, cutting them down to a similar footprint as the gunner would free up a lot of room. I'm not sure if this would tetris out as resulting in a reduced width turret, but it'd free up some volume

only a standard place for ammunition + put-in(not putin, ok) mechanism. Like Leclerc(but inside the turret) or MBT-70

Share this post


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

can you elaborate on these projects?

 

Optionally manned fighting vehicle, think of a manned Abrams with a remote control Abrams as a wingman.

Share this post


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

can you elaborate on these projects?

 

Optionally manned fighting vehicle, think of a manned Abrams with a remote control Abrams as a wingman.

 

The NGCV was the CFT. What was the "NGCV," they made the "NGCV-OMFV"

Share this post


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

Maybe something on the (remote?) turreted/RWS ACV 1.1?

 

 

 

Since this hasn't been revealed yet I'm going to speculate that it's some sort of ATGM launcher.

Share this post


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

Maybe something on the (remote?) turreted/RWS ACV 1.1?

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, skylancer-3441 said:

 

emjAQKE.jpg

 

Fancy that - MCT-30 put forward in another US program. 

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¬į 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.
×