Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

Quote

Curtin said he expects that (WB America)'s AUSA exhibit will include ‘data sheets and white papers covering the RAK and what we call Krab, which is a self-propelled 155mm howitzer. And I anticipate that we will also have some other vehicle examples, like Langusta 1 and 2 multiple rocket launcher, and the Daisy, which is basically an anti-UAV rocket launcher system.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-2018-us-arm-polish-wb-group-makes-debut/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really, really want to know the genius behind FCS who decided that for large-caliber weapons the only protection needed was the world's most complicated APS. They never did get Quick Kill working to a satisfactory level did they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

The Lynx 41 would probably succeed in place of the FCS because it can actually carry the weight necessary while still having good protection.

With a lot more development required. It’s still a sole-prototype napkinpanzer. 

Share this post


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

With a lot more development required. It’s still a sole-prototype napkinpanzer. 

 

Everytime the Lynx KF41 is mentioned, you seem to write a comment about it being a "napkinpanzer". Aside of the terminology being subjectively wrong (I've only heard this term before related to actual paper designs, but for the Lynx KF41 there is indeed a working prototype), you never bother to provide any reasoning for it being a so-called "napkinpanzer". Yes, the exterior is very smooth and lacks any signs of storage racks, but that is related to the new stealth characteristics mentioned by Rheinmetall and the DTR magazine. They even embedded the bolts and washers into the armor to minimize the radar signature - that is not a new concept, but hasn't been widely adopted. You complain about the interior being too clean and mostly empty, but the vehicle was used to showcase the available room to potential customers at an international exhibiition. If this vehicle went to actual field tests in this way, it might be valid to criticize it for having an unrealistic interior configuration - but expos are not meant to showcase realistic configurations. Sometimes AFVs are fitted with under floor lighting before such an expo, in order to make them look cooler. Someitmes non-functional mock-ups are presented, because it is not financially viable to ship a whole AFV to another country just to showcase it for two days - or because the actual working prototypes aren't available at the time. KMW has done that with the Leopard 2 a few times: they once weren't allowed to export (even temporary) a German Leopard 2A7 to showcase at IDEX, so instead they leased a Leopard 2A6 form another user country, shipped it to IDEX and added non-functional mock-up parts to replicate the look of a Leopard 2A7.

 

 

If your only reason for calling it a "napkinpanzer" is the interior layout, which actually will be modified on user's specific requirements, then it is a poor decision to whine abou the Lynx KF41 everytime somebody posts about it. When the CV90, Lynx KF41, ASCOD 2 and Puma were tested in the Czech Republic, only the latter was actually fitted with all components, storage options for weapons and equipment, radios, BMS, etc. The reason behind this was the Puma being a German army vehicle, while the industry-owned demonstrators/prototypes all would only be fitted with user- and mission-specific equipment, once a choice had been made by the user.

 

if you have other reasons to call it a "napkinpanzer" and those are actually valid, then I'm willing to support this claim. What exact reasons do you have to believe that it doesn't work and is an unfinished paper/napkin design? Do you have any reason to believe that some of the components are not functional, that they are mock-ups? It's not like Lynx KF41 is a second PL-01. It has been in development for three years, makes use of existing and working components and the technology used for it actually exists, while the PL-01 was a mock-up based on another chassis fitted with visual representations of non-existing armor modules, turret and APS launchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair cop. I’d call it a “comment”, rather than a “whine”, but YMMV. 

 

The KF31 is a mature design that is ready for a customer to buy it - tomorrow. It has competed internationally against the Puma and the CV90. The BoxerCRV is also very mature, and that track record of Rheinmetall putting mature  products in front of the customer (especially in Australia), sets an expectation, reasonable or otherwise. 

 

The KF41 is far from that. Rheinmetall has inferred that the KF41 is similarly mature as the KF31, which it patently is not. The KF41 as displayed at Eurosatory, Land Forces 18, and (presumably) AUSA 18 did not have a functioning turret (hand transverse only), for example. None of the appliqué armour, which has different geometry to the that trialled on the KF31, has been produced as a complete vehicle set for the KF41. The Lance 2.0 turret is a comparatively (to the Lance 1.0) immature design who’s flaws are yet to be wrung out. Interior stowage design, itself a major package of work, hasn’t been displayed. It also doesn’t have mature variants. 

 

Having been on both sides of vehicle development, display, deployment, and disposal, I’m aware that there are mock ups, models, and show ponies. At Eurosatory 18, it was illustrative to move from the Puma (on loan from a panzergrenadier battalion of the Bundeswehr) to the KF41, to the Stryker Dragoon (also an in-service vehicle). That experience, coupled with my other experiences led me to the “napkinpanzer” Moniker as an attempt to highlight where in the product cycle KF41 sits. It may evolve into 

 

My comments on “napkinpanzer” is a counter-point to Rheinmetall’s incessant propaganda/marketing on the KF41. It’s also a callback to the incomplete products that litter the history of German AFV development. 

 

 

Share this post


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

@2805662 How was the Stryker Dragoon looking maturity wise compared to the Puma? I only saw some driving by at GTA.

It was a typical in-service, in-use truck on display with its crew talking about it. Had a new-but-used feel to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

The Lynx 41 would probably succeed in place of the FCS because it can actually carry the weight necessary while still having good protection.

The Lynx was designed with basic components to provided both an affordable and low risk chassis. There is no breakthrough. 

So, I’m not sure this is what the US Army is looking for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2018 at 11:51 PM, TokyoMorose said:

I really, really want to know the genius behind FCS who decided that for large-caliber weapons the only protection needed was the world's most complicated APS. They never did get Quick Kill working to a satisfactory level did they?

The QK system was not intended to defeat KEPs afaik, and they deemed the Trophy satisfactory back then, so they didn't really seek any physical end-game protection against large caliber guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

it seems to me that MCAS turrret was described there

as one "with embedded growth to 50mm". So, maybe they will show this turret with Bushmaster III?
tlcNb8p.png

 

They do specify turret so it might just be a shell or mockup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will it be an actual prototype or the mockup shown at AUSA the last time? GDLS has been very quiet about the Griffin since exhibiting its mockup at the previous AUSA, so I'm not sure they have already reached the working prototype stage.

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...