Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, skylancer-3441 said:

NGCV CFT panel at AUSA 2018

 

 

tBh09TB.jpg

/I'm kinda curious as to what those people had to say when they heard about T-15 with 57mm/

 

Huh. Australians Major General Kath Toohey & Brigadier Shane Gabriel front row in the left. At least they’re keeping up w/what the US Army is doing. 

Share this post


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

So nothing about replacing it with a modernized Javelin? 

 

The US Army seems to be happy with both the upcoming TOW-ER and Javelin-G missiles.

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


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

BMP-3 with Kornet ATGM? To many drugs was used by this picture author Of course they meant Arkan shot?

Yeah, also was thinking how we manage to launch 152 mm caliber ATGMs through 100 mm caliber barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Unless they're factoring into their equations the vehicles' respective dismounts and the theoretical AT weaponry the latter are packing (though I'm not sure RU soldiers would be packing something as big as the Kornet instead of a slimmer [and lighter] RPG-28 or RPG-32)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Inferior optics on T-15... Funny. I doubt there is anything known about the latest russian optics... but they already rated it "inferior"...

   Probably based on assumption that it is either made on base of what we had on hands in T-72B3, or that we are using Chinese export crap, both of which is a possibility. GurKhan had a comment on our thermal imagers, and he wasn't postivie in it about their capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LoooSeR said:
11 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Inferior optics on T-15... Funny. I doubt there is anything known about the latest russian optics... but they already rated it "inferior"...

   Probably based on assumption that it is either made on base of what we had on hands in T-72B3, or that we are using Chinese export crap, both of which is a possibility. GurKhan had a comment on our thermal imagers, and he wasn't postivie in it about their capabilities.

 

I thought it was French crap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

His anecdote about the pressure sensor on the bustle ammunition compartment's sliding door was fascinating. I love those little-known details.

 

And lucky for him, too. Having your arm crushed by a quarter-ton slab of steel sounds like an extremely bad, career-ending day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a guy in our unit lose the tip of a finger doing pretty much the same thing. Transferring ammo from one side of the rack to the other, the TC's side is un-powered and it rolled back and the guy didn't  get his hand out of the way quick enough. 

 

Nick's wistful reminition on being back in the tank, I've felt that as well. You spend as many hours in these things as you do, they grow on you. I guess that's how sailors feel when they go back aboard ships that they've served on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 4:14 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

 

tBh09TB.jpg

 

5000 m LOS in Eastern Europe? They want to fight in Eastern Ukraine or in Kazakhstan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shifting LoS from grid to grid is just one more reason for the US Army to ditch the TOW and either modernize the Javelin, or get a Spike or MMP-like missile that could operate at its maximum range regardless of LoS.

Share this post


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

I don't trust the US Army to make a good decision on trying to "replace" the Bradley. I say they just invest in the M2A4/M2A5 and replace the turret.  

 

You sure about that? According to that Army chart it's called the "1M2A4" - I'm not sure I even trust them to manage the Bradley.

 

(But that chart is a comedy of goofs - at least one typo, magical 100mm Kornets, not bothering to account in potential ammunition advances for guns, no counting of protection at all, magic 8-balling the optics on T-15, really confusing TOW nomenclature...)

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.
×