Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

from this article and comment section https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/10/16/the-american-s-tank/ 

Quote

In 1968 a Swedish military attaché visited the ATAC in the US. Besides discussing the MBT 70 and its missile as well as new armor types they were also shown several conceptual tank designs, one of which was clearly inspired by the Strv 103

Quote

 there are actually 13 more but not all of them are tanks, some are SPG’s some apc’s and one is arguably a helicopter.

so - I guess, that means 14 concepts, with 8 of them posted so far


....Including a couple of infantry carrying vehicles - Heavy IFV with tank-like protection, and another vehicle with remote-controlled turret (and machineguns) and protection against radiation
 

https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/07/us-afv-concepts-no-5/

Ohr9LWf.jpg
t74VIrI.jpg

Quote

COMBAT VEHICLE, INFANTRY, MISSILE/ROCKET

(C) The design study was prompted by a concept proposed by an officer at the Combat Arms Group at Ft. Leavenworth about a year ago. He proposed a vehicle that combined a half infantry squad, with a turret mounted assault weapon with crew and driver. Essentially the design could be envisioned as a Sheridan lengthened to provide space for six additional men, or an MICV Concept with half the squad removed and the cupola replaced with a Sheridan turret & crew. The concept was called a Mechanized Fighting Vehicle. ATAC at that time prepared several concept versions of the proposal. The officer who proposed the idea prepared a write-up describing the merits of the vehicle and the proposed operational doctrine. The proposal sparked a great deal of lively interest in a concept of this type.

(C) This is a result of that idea. The vehicle has a low silhouette and provided 60 degree frontal protection against shaped charge and kinetic energy projectiles of current tank mounted size. Side protection is against small shaped charge warheads and KE protection up to about 30 millimeters size. The weapons are missiles and rockets in a launcher that can be elevated and controlled. The Commander’s cupola mounts a Rapid Fire Weapons System as described in previous concepts.

(C) Characteristics and Outstanding Features

a. Weight: 46 ton

b. Width: 137 inches

c. Height (top of hull): 68 inches

d. Height (overall): 100 inches

e. Length (overall): 258 inches

f. Ground pressure: 10.7 psi

g. Variable ground clearance: 6-24 inches

h.Primary armament – Missiles & Rockets

i.The vehicle provides excelent protection for the 8-man crew.

j. Previously listed advantages of this type of design are also applicable to this concept.

 


https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/us-afv-concepts-no-8-armored-infantry-carrier/
n0dVetA.jpg
BEBmLCO.jpg

Quote

ARMORED INFANTRY CARRIER, SPECIAL PROTECTION

Concept Description and Design Rationale

(C) This design study shows an Armored infantry Carrier with nuclear protection. The purpose of this concept was to explore the feasibility of providing an armored personnel carrier, as part of the tank-infantry team, with radio-logical shielding similar in protection to the tank is accompanies.

(C) The vehicle has a rather low silhouette and provides protection for a nine man crew. The Vehicle Rapid Fire Weapon System is remotely mounted and operated. There is also a remote controlled machine gun mounted on either side of the vehicle. Sliding hatches for entrance and exit are provided in the roof.

(C) Characteristics and Outstanding Features

a. Weight: 75,000 lbs

b. Width: 138 inches

c. Height (top of hull): 69 inches

d. Height (overall): 87 inches

e. Length: 231 inches

f. Ground pressure: 10.5 psi

g. Variable ground clearance: 6-22 inches

h. The concept provides radiological shielding in addition to conventional protection.

i. Environmental control system and air purifying device are furnished for the crew.

j. Weapons are remotely mounted and controlled.


...
and another proposal, which reminds me of Soviet (Chelyabinsk) BMPT prototypes from late 80s - same idea of providing something better than port hole for every dismount, coupled with doctrine which demands to distmount as little as possible, coupled with reducing number of dismounts to 4-5.
https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/us-afv-concepts-no-9-armored-combat-carrier/

 

BkQsEgn.jpg1Ix9x6w.jpg

Quote

ARMORED COMBAT CARRIER

Concept Description and Design Rationale

(C) This concept study shows an Armored Combat Carrier. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of providing infantrymen with a truly fighting vehicle, rather than simply an armored carrier. In previous studies of Armored Personnel Carriers, the doctrine of the crew fighting from the vehicles has only been acknowledged by providing port holes for rifles. This permitted part of the crew to fire while on the move, while the other members remained passively inactive. The firing position, and the limited vision of the crew members makes accurate and effective fire most difficult.

(C) In this concept there are six crew members including the driver and commander. The design is based on the assumption that the major portion of the time the crew will fight from the vehicle instead of traditional dismounted role.

(C) The Commander’s cupola mounts the Vehicle Rapid Fire Weapons System with a machine gun, and provides good all around vision for the commander. There are corner mounted machine guns for each of the other crew members. This corner mounted machine gun would be enclosed and would provide excellent vision and stabilized fire for the operator. Each of the corner mounted weapons has approximately 180 degrees field of fire. The vehicle provides frontal and side protection against shaped charge warheads.

 

(C) Characteristics and Outstanding Features

a. Weight: 75,000 lbs

b. Width: 128 inches

c. Height (top of hull): 74 inches

d. Height (overall): 105 inches

e. Length: 261 inches

f. Ground pressure: 11.9 psi

g. Variable ground clearance: 6-24 inches

h. Protection against shaped charge warheads.

i. All crew members have a stabilized weapon system.

 

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.
×