Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

 

Thanks @Ramlaen - shame the original presentation can’t be found. That link is a couple of years too early. 

 

It also helps clarify this concept art.

 

On 3/17/2018 at 8:57 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, makes sense. Trying to find the Watervleit Arsenal report for this year. It talked about production of XM35 tubes, but would be good to see whether the XM360 tubes were being produced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Experimenting with 2 man crews.

 

Within that, the Army needs $98.6 million to produce three sets of experimental prototypes of an NGCV Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) that will take part in operational experiments for manned-unmanned teaming evaluations and “the applicability of two man crew (2MC) to achieve overmatch in the future fight,” the reprogramming document states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2018 at 8:11 PM, 2805662 said:

 

Thanks @Ramlaen - shame the original presentation can’t be found. That link is a couple of years too early. 

 

Maybe that's because it hasn't been given yet.

 

42 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I swear the NGCV is like 100% identical to the Carmel.

 

Wasn't there a US proposed joint Indo-Israeli-American IFV/AFV project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all, who's excited for a new issue of ARMOR?  No one?

 

I have spent hours going through armor issues from the 40's through the 90's, and have found it a generally entertaining and rewarding experience.  Even as a civilian enthusiast I can find plenty in these old issues that is worth reading.  However, current issues are either far too advanced for a simple person like me to understand, or are just the most obnoxious sort of business-speak nonsense.  

 

For example, the new issue features an exciting article titled "Using Logistics Release Point Meetings to Mitigate Persistent Friction Points in Cavalry Squadron Operation."  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2018 at 7:32 AM, 2805662 said:

Another image of the catchily-named ACT3205 Unmanned Tank Killer Concept:

 

5MK6qeE.jpg

 

How can this vehicle be a "tank killer", it has no advantages in protection and firepower over MBT. Just like Russin "Sprut-SD" - it's not a "tank killer" but that's how media calls it. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can easily be argued that the ACT3205 would be more lethal than an Abrams just by virtue of its main gun, the XM360, which can accept higher pressure ammunition (meaning, it can shoot more powerful/heavier rounds) than the Abrams' M256. USAR has been meaning for quite a while already to replace the M256 with the XM360E1, but several setbacks such as the FCS cancellation and other budgetary constraints got in the way of that (not to mention, when the FCS program was still alive, the plan was to mount the XM360E1 on the Abrams once they finalized the A3 version...and we have no idea whether we'll ever see a M1A3 or merely get another sarabande of SEPs and ECPs instead).

 

As for protection, since it doesn't have a crew, it frees up space for electronics and/or stuff like spaced armor to protect the said digital vitals. Of course, one can argue that a remote-controlled tank brings its own caveats (see the multitude of troubles the Russian Uran UGV went through in Syria, such as intempestive disconnects and reduced visibility/attack range), but it has also its own perks (not risking any crew).

Share this post


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

It can easily be argued that the ACT3205 would be more lethal than an Abrams just by virtue of its main gun, the XM360, which can accept higher pressure ammunition (meaning, it can shoot more powerful/heavier rounds) than the Abrams' M256. USAR has been meaning for quite a while already to replace the M256 with the XM360E1, but several setbacks such as the FCS cancellation and other budgetary constraints got in the way of that (not to mention, when the FCS program was still alive, the plan was to mount the XM360E1 on the Abrams once they finalized the A3 version...and we have no idea whether we'll ever see a M1A3 or merely get another sarabande of SEPs and ECPs instead).

 

As for protection, since it doesn't have a crew, it frees up space for electronics and/or stuff like spaced armor to protect the said digital vitals. Of course, one can argue that a remote-controlled tank brings its own caveats (see the multitude of troubles the Russian Uran UGV went through in Syria, such as intempestive disconnects and reduced visibility/attack range), but it has also its own perks (not risking any crew).

   Uran 9 should not be used as a scale/show of proper military grade UGV capabilities as company behind it was almost a scam, and there were even arrests of company managers IIRC.

Share this post


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

It can easily be argued that the ACT3205 would be more lethal than an Abrams just by virtue of its main gun, the XM360, which can accept higher pressure ammunition (meaning, it can shoot more powerful/heavier rounds) than the Abrams' M256.

 

The support of higher pressures is mentionled for the XM360E1 only; the basic lightweight XM360 seems to be designed to deliver the same performance as the existing M256, but in a vehicle at half the Abrams' weight.

 

XUpYEB_lC9UfGpCqrxnklewSn7s6Z0ZFufzQ510F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade334 said:

It can easily be argued that the ACT3205 would be more lethal than an Abrams just by virtue of its main gun, the XM360, which can accept higher pressure ammunition (meaning, it can shoot more powerful/heavier rounds) than the Abrams' M256. USAR has been meaning for quite a while already to replace the M256 with the XM360E1, but several setbacks such as the FCS cancellation and other budgetary constraints got in the way of that (not to mention, when the FCS program was still alive, the plan was to mount the XM360E1 on the Abrams once they finalized the A3 version...and we have no idea whether we'll ever see a M1A3 or merely get another sarabande of SEPs and ECPs instead).

 

As for protection, since it doesn't have a crew, it frees up space for electronics and/or stuff like spaced armor to protect the said digital vitals. Of course, one can argue that a remote-controlled tank brings its own caveats (see the multitude of troubles the Russian Uran UGV went through in Syria, such as intempestive disconnects and reduced visibility/attack range), but it has also its own perks (not risking any crew).

 

Still not enough. The real "tank killers" are ATGMs (because they have real firepower advantage over tanks).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...