Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

No image of an actual Griffin I yet, the only thing we've been allowed to see is a mock-up at AUSA: 

 

Awhe59a.jpg

 

tNyslWS.jpg

 

It's essentially a heavier Griffin II with "full-fledged" AJAX hull, stripped-down M1 turret and the XM360 120mm gun.

 

And then there's the Griffin III with its 50mm autocannon and Iron Fist APS:

 

wqJIRMs.jpg

Share this post


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

Griffin II

 

8UOJT2k.jpg

 

there https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-army-awards-general-dynamics-contract-for-mobile-protected-firepower-300768433.html available even larger version of same pic - up to 76 mpix https://prnewswire2-a.akamaihd.net/p/1893751/sp/189375100/thumbnail/entry_id/1_mbts0c4m/def_height/10000/def_width/10000/version/100011/type/1 although apparently anything more than ~5.6 mpix (2700x2062 pix) is just an upscale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^--- That was SAIC and ST Kinetics' proposal for the MPF program. It was eliminated from the competition a couple days ago (with the two remaining candidates being GDLS' Griffin and BAE's M8 Buford).

It's essentially the Singaporean ST Kinetics' NGAFV coupled with an elongated, Belgian CMI Cockerill 3105 turret (105mm Cockerill high-pressure gun).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Karamazov said:

@Renegade334 @Clan_Ghost_Bear
Thanks. 
Can somebody tell me about this light tank?
TWrnb_RAVnI.jpg
if I understand correctly, Griffin 3 this is light tank with 50mm gun. But Griffin 2 was equipped 120mm smoothbore gun. Ok, what is it  ↑.  What the program for which it was created? 

 

 

Griffin III is an IFV

Griffin II is a light tank with a 105mm gun

 

Griffin II competes with the M8 and NGAFV-105 for the US Army's Mobile Protected Firepower program, a light tank for Infantry BCT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ramlaen said:

Griffin III is an IFV

Griffin II is a light tank with a 105mm gun

 

Griffin II competes with the M8 and NGAFV-105 for the US Army's Mobile Protected Firepower program, a light tank for Infantry BCT.

Well done, thank you. I thought Griffin III is evolution Griffin II.  It was confusing.

Share this post


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

 

According to this Shepard Media article (now behind a paywall) from last years AUSA it has a 105mm, and I believe that is an 105mm M35 barrel.

 

 

Yeah, no wonder I missed it, I don't have a SM subscription to read their articles. Thanks, though.

 

So the scheme is this:

- Griffin 1: 120mm

- Griffin 2: 105mm

- Griffin 3: 50mm

 

Wonder if they'll bother building that Griffin 1 or if it'll be relegated to being an optional upgrade to the Griffin 2.

Share this post


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

 

Yeah, no wonder I missed it, I don't have a SM subscription to read their articles. Thanks, though.

 

So the scheme is this:

- Griffin 1: 120mm

- Griffin 2: 105mm

- Griffin 3: 50mm

 

Wonder if they'll bother building that Griffin 1 or if it'll be relegated to being an optional upgrade to the Griffin 2.

 

Following that trend with a polynomial trendline, the Griffin 4 is due to have a -45mm main armament

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it looks much better now that they shaved some height off the hull - the Griffin I mockup (see my 2nd G1 pic above) was rather shocking to behold, as it made for a very big (and therefore very conspicuous) tank. Still, given that the hull lost some volume, I wonder if they're still using the same engine or if they chose something more compact (I doubt Cummins and Achates have reached the point where they can already -and confidently- implant their new OP engines inside MPF prototypes). The front sprocket at least shows that we're still dealing with a forward engine compartment.

 

It also feels like (the angle and the fact that the picture is cropped could be deceiving me, though) they moved the turret ring forward: the back of the turret doesn't look like it's hanging off the back of the G2 hull as much as it did on the G1 mockup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

It also feels like (the angle and the fact that the picture is cropped could be deceiving me, though) they moved the turret ring forward: the back of the turret doesn't look like it's hanging off the back of the G2 hull as much as it did on the G1 mockup.

The parallax is high. 

But, we can consider the center of the turret ring is at the lever of the forth roadwheel. The new external fuel tanks are longer than the Griffin-I rear sponsons.

Look at the position of the exhaust. 

Ct3s82xWAAEaUo9.jpg

So, turret seems to be at the same place. 

 

Trying to forward the turret means increasing the diving trend when riding off road. 

Share this post


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

-blah blah blah-

The front sprocket at least shows that we're still dealing with a forward engine compartment.

 

-blah- 

A true sign of all-aspect superiority. Guess I'm rooting for Griffin now.

 

Seriously though, they kinda need that added frontal protection because the weight economy will not favor much armor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2018 at 5:08 AM, Renegade334 said:

Wonder how much it weighs now, compared to the updated Buford (Level 1 configuration).

 

Apart from Tom Clancy - derived sources, is there any official confirmation that the M-8 was named? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US Army pick 2 applicants for competition

"The Army picked its two traditional armored vehicle manufacturers, General Dynamics and BAE Systems, to build contending prototypes for its Mobile Protected Firepower light tank, the service announced today. Each company will get up to $376 million to build 12 prototypes, with delivery starting in 14 months and testing in 16. In 2022, the Army will pick a final winner to build a planned 504 vehicles."

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/12/army-picks-bae-gd-for-mpf-light-tank-prototypes/ 

ÐаÑÑинки по запÑоÑÑ mobile protected firepower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pitchblackuniverse said:

Is anyone familiar with this kit on the front of the hull in this picture? Doesn’t look like a mine roller or plow attachment, never seen it during my service. My guess is some sort of old TUSK kit? Don’t know how to properly insert images sorry. http://tinypic.com/r/e7xi0k/9

 

IIRC it was a ram that would let them push barriers out of the way without damaging the vehicle.

 

 

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...