Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, MRose said:

 

If that's the case, and you're preparing for a near peer war, the money is better spent elsewhere...

Hardly. The APS is the single most cost effective piece of tech on a tank. By a very long shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lookin' good. Is that one that's finally been delivered to an active unit? Wonder how long those mudflaps are going to stay though. I can see that going the way of the old retaining rings 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CROWS-LP is really small, I like it. 

Now they just need to make the loaders's transparent shields fold and the GWOT "tower tank" look will be a thing of the past.

(Also paint them green and send them to Europe to end the decades of tan)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, but Ramlaen suspects it's a new, compact version of the AN/VLQ-12 CREW Duke 3 antenna (the electronic boxes are under armor) or a replacement for it.

 

It's either that or it's an antenna for the upgraded IVIS POS/NAV system. I doubt it's for the JTRS radio, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good depiction of why the RWS on an Abrams is located on the gunners sight instead of in the center of the turret like on the early incarnations.

 

tRQu09A.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, it doesn't look like the RWS can be manually swung sideways much unless the gunner traverses the turret or the commander climbs out of his hatch and kneels next to the CITV turret. I guess he has to button down and remote-control the RWS to accurately hit a target that stands to the tank's three o'clock or six o'clock? (without traversing the turret - let's say the gunner is busy concentrating on another target)

Share this post


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

Still, it doesn't look like the RWS can be manually swung sideways much unless the gunner traverses the turret or the commander climbs out of his hatch and kneels next to the CITV turret. I guess he has to button down and remote-control the RWS to accurately hit a target that stands to the tank's three o'clock or six o'clock? (without traversing the turret - let's say the gunner is busy concentrating on another target)

 

 

You can very much manually traverse the CROWS manually. You don't fire off the side of the tank that's a no-no for any given weapon system unless it's a emergency. If you're having to shoot off your six of clock you're probably screwed anyway..... 

Share this post


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

 

 

You can very much manually traverse the CROWS manually. You don't fire off the side of the tank that's a no-no for any given weapon system unless it's a emergency. If you're having to shoot off your six of clock you're probably screwed anyway..... 

 

In an ideal scenario, yes, the gunner would traverse the turret in the direction of the threat and the commander can simply fire the forward-facing CROWS, but you can't expect every situation to be to your advantage. Urban combat, for example, can be extremely unpredictable with threats popping up anywhere at any angle because of the large amount of cover (I know you're going to argue that the tank commander should know better than roll into a locale where he can get boxed in, but for argument's sake, please bear with me). True, one would first assume the infantry would be the one to provide fire support in such cases, but again...we assume everything is going by the book and no bad surprises happen like with the T-72 below, which was hit on the right flank by a RPG-29:

Spoiler

 

 

Additionally, what happens if the CROWS' cameras are damaged/disabled and only manual operation is left? That doghouse mount becomes kind of a handicap as it restricts the manual traversing angle (without the commander climbing out of his hatch, I mean), doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't just turn the turret to face the threat you turn the whole tank to face the threat. Worst case scenario most TC's would just have the driver orient thank tank so he has an angle on the target. Also Taking on threats from multiple angles is why you have wing men.  Remember tanks always fight in a section as part of a Platoon (4 tanks). Each tank has a sector of fire to cover which in turn covers roughly from 10-2 on the clock. If you're getting shot by anything under that you're kinda fucked. Trying to base things off getting shot in the ass which is already bad business to begin is kinda silly. 

 

edit: Main reason why the CROWS on top of the dog house is so the TC can reach it with his hands from the TC's hatch and can load, unload and perform immediate action if necessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one from my personal way back machine. Bon Jovi on a tank, 5/77 Armor, Mannheim Germany, 1984. We had a guy in our battalion, Terry Svejda, that was always going on about how he "knew" people in the music business. His dad owned a few music store in Chicago. He was a huge KISS fan and they were touring Europe, and he said he was going to get them to come visit our unit. Turns out he just got the opening band, Bon Jovi. 

 

2rpue4x.jpg

 

Terry is standing on the right in the black jacket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the first time we see this kind of graphics. Last one I saw was an Abrams with the Trophy sponsons (early concept) but no armor pack either. Not sure what's the purpose behind leaving out the HAP-3/NGAP cavities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

Not the first time we see this kind of graphics. Last one I saw was a Abrams with the Trophy sponsons (early concept) but no armor pack either. Not sure what's the purpose behind leaving out the HAP-3/NGAP cavities.

 

Showing that it's possible to stuff all kind on armor package on those emplacement would be my guess.

The image probably come from a random presentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, calling all people who actually know what they're talking about:

 

 

@N-L-M and I were debating whether the torsion bars on tanks with torsion bar suspension are interchangeable.  I pointed out that according to this article, the torsion bars of the Leopard 1 are deferentially pre-stressed.  Also, that the Tiger I had non-uniform torsion bar diameters.

 

N-L-M retorted that those are German tanks, and therefore anything silly and over-complex that they do is not necessarily reflective of other tanks generally.

 

 

 

So, anyone who knows, how interchangeable are the torsion bars on the different road wheel stations on a tank?

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.
×