Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

Revert from TOW to TOW?

Revert from any prospect of finally replacing the TOW, to still using the TOW 10 years from now up to 50 years from now.

The TOW is limited by its guidance unit to LoS engagement, and limited in its efficiency by its flat trajectory.

 

The OMFV should be equipped with a missile that is at least based on a 5th gen design, i.e one that allows an efficient engagement of MBTs (top attack), an evasion of some APS (top attack), precision fires (GPS+Networking), and NLOS (man-in-the-loop+Networking).

As it stands, the TOW is only truly efficient in one task - demolition. This is an overlapping capability with the 50mm gun, which based on current proposals seems to be geared more towards increased post-penetration effect and anti-infantry, than penetration of armor.

 

A significant upgrade to the Javelin, or a purchase of the Spike or MMP, will give the OMFV a substantial increase in firepower AND combat roles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2019 at 6:12 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

(via GoogleBooks, which unfortunatelly shows this magazine in snippet view mode only. So, it's possible to recover text over the course of several hours, all of it - in case one is lucky enough, but puctires are all gone)

And here is an article from International Defence Review on Bradley -
which was reprinted in 1982 in Volume 13 "Tracked armoured vehicles" (of The International Defence Review Special Series) - a compilation of articles which appeared in IDR in late 70s.BfBEOLc.jpg
This time I wasn't so lucky, so an entire page 62 was obtained only in plain text without any formatting, which is a mess. So I've decided to exclude it from text version of article.
it repeats this page https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112075689338;view=1up;seq=12 anyway

Spoiler

oHWobgm.jpg


Kv923K7.jpgnc9DR4T.jpg
bYIlA0J.jpgJ2ekZ3S.jpg
DpBsG3V.jpgE7kWYnc.jpg

Spoiler

====61====
IDR 1980-07
The US Army's Infantry and Cavalry Fighting Vehicles (David G. Holmes)

Tanks alone cannot win battles against a modern army. They may dominate key phases in both offensive and defensive combat, but their success will be fleeting without infantry, artillery and air support. Infantrymen are vital, not only for the dismounted assaults so often necessary to take an objective, but also for holding ground. On today's battlefield, they also provide essential protection for armour against enemy infantry anti-tank teams. The need to provide heavy infantry with reasonable levels of mobility and protection was the primary impetus behind the design and development of armoured personnel carriers (APCs) until the early 1960s. Subsequently, the proliferation of man-portable anti-tank weapons (which raised the necessity of combined arms combat formations to counter them), and the need expressed by many armies for the APC-borne infantry to engage in combat while still mounted, led to the development of a new type of armoured infantry carrier, the infantry combat vehicle (ICV).
The first generation of ICVs is typified by the West German Marder and the Soviet BMP. Although they each reflect design philosophies based on slightly different national perceptions of the infantry's place on the modern battlefield, both have similar basic characteristics and configurations. In the nearly fifteen years since their entry into service, the technologies that were incorporated into their designs have been surpassed. However, the US Army has had to wait until now for the development of the XM2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) and almost identical XM3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV) to provide convincing evidence of this. Meanwhile, it has had to make do with the 1960s-vintage M113 APC, described by Assistant Secretary of the Army (RD&A) Percy Pierre as being '"so inferior to its Soviet BMP counterpart that it cannot even accurately be considered a fighting vehicle. It is at least a generation behind In firepower, mobility, and overall design. Our forces will pay for that obsolescence if they enter mechanized combat in it." 
Although the BMP and Marder are both excellent vehicles in their own right, the IFV at last brings into the US Army force structure a modern vehicle showing considerable improvement over them. The IFVs most spectacular advantage over the BMP and Marder is in firepower. In this attribute the IFV has been compared to a light tank carrying an infantry squad, or in the case of the CFV, a light tank with a scout/observer team. However, they differ significantly from the majority of light tanks in that they carry a 300 round magazine of ready ammunition plus 600 spare rounds (1200 in the CFV) for their fully stabilized 25 mm automatic cannon, and in that they are also armed with a twin launcher for improved TOW anti-tank missiles.

 

Requests for proposals 

In the early 1960s, the US Army began a series of studies to examine the characteristics of an armoured infantry vehicle that would meet its requirements for operations on a future battlefield. Those requirements included stipulations that the new infantry vehicle be air transportable in the C-141 StarLifter; that it be able to keep up with main battle tanks; that it have levels of armour protection sufficient to defeat small arms fire of up to 12,7 mm; that the infantrymen inside the vehicle be able to see and participate in mounted combat operations; and, finally, that the vehicle be fitted with a primary weapon station that was armoured, had a fire-on-the-move stabilization system and which mounted a weapon capable of successfully engaging enemy armoured vehicles.

The operational requirements for the Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV) successor to the ageing M113 "battle taxi" were initially issued in a request for proposals (RFP) to industry in 1963 by the US Army's Materiel Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM). Three companies responded with proposals: Pacific Car and Foundry, Food Machinery & Chemical (FMC) Corporation, and Chrysler Corporation. Pacific Car and Foundry was awarded a contract to build five prototypes of its design, known as the MICV-65. Delivery began in 1965 for qualification testing. The MICV-65 (or XM701 , as it was designated by the US Army) used the M107/M110 self-propelled artillery chassis, powerplant and running gear. It had a two-man turret with an M139 20-mm cannon, and carried an infantry squad of nine men and a crew of three. Six of the infantrymen had vision blocks and firing ports for their rifles. The XM 701 was criticized for its exceptionally large size, and for its vertical frontal armour glacis. In 1967 the US Army finally rejected it on the grounds that it exceeded the weight specifications and would not be capable of meeting a number of other operational requirements. By this time, the involvement of the US in the Vietnam war, and the consequent diversion of the project's funds, precluded further engineering development. 
However, even with cancellation of the MICV-65, work continued at FMC on two candidate MICVs with private company development capital. The two candidates were the product improved M113A1, or XM765 Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle (AIFV — now in service in the Netherlands Army and ordered for the Belgian Army), and the XM723 MICV. There were significant differences between the two. The XM765 used the same track laying system as the M113 with a more powerful 280 hp engine, had a one-man turret with a 20 mm M139 automatic cannon, and had the same frontal armour slope as the M113. The XM723 used the widened track system of the US Marine Corps' Landing Vehicle Tracked, Personnel-7 (LVTP-7) with a 450 hp engine, a 20 mm automatic cannon, also in a 

▲ The XM2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) at speed on a bump course. Note stabilized 25-mm Chain-Gun and 7,62-mm MAG coaxial machine gun, which remain level, despite hull movement. Acceleration, cross-country mobility and mechanical reliability goals have been achieved earlier than expected. Despite slower starting acceleration, the IFV turned in faster mean times than the XM1 tank over the same test tracks on three occasions out of five during phase 3 Operational Test (OT-III) at Aberdeen Proving Ground. During tactical OT-III trials at Fort Carson, M60A1 tanks were unable to keep up with prototype IFVs. 
====62====
====63====
one-man turret, and a hull with a better ballistic shape across its forward armour arc. Both the XM765 and XM723 had similar interior configurations, with six firing ports and vision blocks, a rear loading ramp, and the vehicle commander's position in the hull immediately behind the driver. 
The MICV development hiatus ended in 1972 with the issuing of a material need document accompanied by an RFP in April of 1972. Six companies responded with technical proposals and contract bids. Of the six companies, three (Pacific Car and Foundry, Chrysler and FMC) were selected to formulate cost estimates and design prototypes. An Engineering Development and Advanced Production Design contract was awarded to FMC's Ordnance Division by mid-November of 1972, with the XM723 MICV selected as the development vehicle. The contract was worth $29.3 million and provided for the fabrication of eleven test bed vehicles. 
Through the years between 1972 and 1975 the MICV Program advanced through its RD&E stages in virtual obscurity. Then in the fall of 1975 several events culminated in some major program decisions needing to be re-considered. Earlier in the year, the Army had rejected two prototype designs for its Armoured Reconnaissance Scout Vehicle (ARSV) program, directing the Armour Branch to work instead with the XM723 MICV as a baseline cavalry vehicle. The cavalry vehicle was required to have a two-man turret which would have an anti-tank capability, a coaxial machine gun and stabilized automatic cannon of between 20 and 30 mm in calibre. To consolidate the operational requirements of both the Cavalry and Infantry, the Army formed the MICV Task Force in August of 1976 (see IDR 1/1976). In the years following this decision, the entire MICV development program came under repeated attack by analysts intent on its termination. At one point the Secretary of Defense recommended to Congress that funds for further development should be cut from the budget due to XM723 mobility problems. However, in assessing the alternatives, perfecting the MICV always seemed to Congress to be the most viable solution. Some of the alternative options that were considered and rejected were: to start from scratch and design a 50 ton vehicle that would incorporate special armour; to reverse engineer a copy of the BMP; to obtain licence rights to produce a foreign designed vehicle like the Marder, and to re-engineer the M113 into an AIFV that the Army user would accept. In the end, the MICV was judged to be the least expensive and most cost-effective alternative.
With that decision the MICV program was renamed, with four development efforts (on the XM723 MICV, the ARSV Cavalry Vehicle, plus the 10-ton Carrier vehicle using the XM723 chassis, and the Bushmaster Rapid Fire Vehicle Cannon System) all put under the title of the Fighting Vehicle System (FVS), and the MICV and MICV scout version becoming the XM2 IFV and XM3 CFV, respectively.
On February 29, 1980, the Army ordered the IFV into low-rate initial production, with 100 vehicles being procured in the first year. If Congress approves each of the succeeding planned annual procurement requests, the US Army will acquire a total 6,882 vehicles. Plans to order the 10-ton carrier for a variety of roles, including the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS - see IDR 5/1980) and Assault Breaker (IDR 1/1980, pp. 91- 94), as well as for recovery, logistics, ambulance and mortar variants, are only now beginning to be formalized. They could, however, result in total FVS vehicle requirement for the US Army alone rising to five figures.

 

The TBAT-II turret

The common TOW, Bushmaster Armoured Turret - two-man (TBAT II), which has been under development for four years, provides the primary battlefield punch of the IFV and CFV. The three turret weapons are the 25mm M242 Hughes Helicopters Chain Gun selected to meet the Bushmaster cannon requirement; the Belgian 7.62 mm M240 FN MAG-58 machine gun, fitted coaxially with the Chain Gun; and the reloadable twin launcher for Hughes Aircraft TOW anti-tank missiles. There are also two quadruple smoke grenade, mounted one on each side of the gun mantlet. The three weapons between them should permit the successful engagement of all types of target on the battlefield, including Mi-24 Hind helicopters, with the possible exception of the yet to be deployed Soviet T-80 battle tank when approaching head-on. In addition to the weapon system outlined above, the TBAT-ll has four other major component systems: vision and sighting; fire control and stabilization; ammunition stowage and feed; and communications. 
• Vision and sighting system. 
The commander is provided with all-round vision blocks in his slightly raised cupola on the right side of the turret. He also has a hard optical link to the gunner's dual magnification, day/night Integrated Sight Unit (ISU). The biocular ISU, which incorporates thermal imaging common modules for passive night vision, is located to the left of the turret in front of gunner's hatch. It gives 4X wide angle magnification for target acquisition and normal Chain Gun and FN MAG engagements, plus 12x magnification for longer range engagements such as would be required with TOW missiles. The gunner also has two forward angled periscopes, one each side of the ISU, giving him a total arc of view of 120° to the front of the turret. 
• Turret weapons. 
The externally (electrically) powered 25 mm Hughes Chain Gun was selected over the competing self powered (gas operated) Ford/Oerlikon KBA cannon to meet the Army's Bushmaster requirement because, in the words of Army FVS Program Manager Brig. Gen. Phil Bolte, "it was a little better in reliability, a little better in overall performance, and significantly cheaper. ..there was a three-year production contract tied into the evaluation." He described the Chain Gun as having proved during troop trials of the IFV to be "a real winner. The performance of the HE round was really impressive. The firepower of the whole turret is really tremendous."
As stated in the original RFP for the Bushmaster program, the weapon was required to have both fire suppression and anti-armour capabilities. Consequently, the Chain Gun has a dual-feed ammunition system for High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) and Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) rounds. It fires single shots, or at selectable rates of 100 or 200 rounds/min. 
Rationale for using the 25 mm HEI round is as follows: during the 1973 Mid-East war, the AT-3 Sagger ATGM proved to have a weak link that is characteristic of all wire-guided, line-of-sight missiles (including the newer, semi-automatic Soviet AT-4 and AT-5) — they can generally be "suppressed" by placing automatic return fire on or around the ATGM gunner's position, thus causing him to lose missile steering/aiming concentration and allow the missile to fly out of control. The 25 mm HEI projectile contains twice as much explosive as 20 mm projectiles and 25 percent more than Soviet 23 mm HEI ammunition. On impact, it causes 90 percent incapacitation over a radius of more than seven metres and 50 percent incapacitation over more than 30 metres radius. 
The requirement for an armour-piercing 25mm round is basically well known as is as is the fact that in any Soviet attack in Central Europe the ratio of BMPs to tanks in the first wave is likely to be two-to-one. What is less well-known is that, of the total 25 types of armoured vehicle already fielded or entering service with the Warsaw Pact.

▼ XM2 IFV, with twin TOW launcher raised into firing position, outboard of the gunner's thermal-imaging Integrated Sight Unit which gives x4 or x12 magnification. Other points of interest are the folding trim vane on the glacis; the driver's unitary hatch; 25-mm Chain Gun and 7.62-mm MAG in turret mantlet; hinged skirt plates and two firing ports.
====64====
of armoured vehicle already fielded or entering service with the Warsaw Pact forces, 19 (uncluding the BMP) have armor on their frontal arcs that is estimnated to be defeatable by 25mm AP rounds.
This figure could well go up if depleted uranium (DU), otherwise known as Staballoy, penetrators are used in the 25 mm AP rounds. As Brig. Gen. Bolte told IDR: "We were directed in DSARC [the Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council] to study a DU AP round. I don 't know what the decision will be on it, but we have already looked at it." 
Brig. Gen. Bolte in fact has had considerable previous experience of DU, having conducted the US Army s controversial XM1 tank gun competition between British 120 mm rifled, German 120 mm smooth-bore and the current 105 mm rifled gun in US Army service, all of which fired special DU rounds in the trials. Asked by IDR if there are any problems in handling the 25 mm Staballoy round, he answered: "No... I don't see any problem." He added that "the nose of our round is encased in [a] plastic sabot and wind-shield." 
Whatever the decision on the 25 mm DU round, simply put, the Chain Gun's APDS penetrators will defeat the majority of the armoured vehicles in the Warsaw Pact attack formations (as, for that matter, will those of the 25 mm cannon on Dutch and Belgian AIFVs, up-gunned German Marders and 30 mm Rarden cannon to be fitted on the new British MCV-80). This extensive and extending NATO capability to destroy substantial numbers of BMPs, without resorting to valuable anti-tank missiles, is likely to force Soviet infantry to dismount and assault on foot with the leading tanks over distances longer than the effective range of these widely deployed NATO cannon — assault distances which are much longer than those called for in current Soviet tactics. Additionally, the 25 mm APDS round and the intrinsic anti-aircraft capability of the Chain Gun may just be enough to offset the close air support and airmobile assault potential of Soviet and Warsaw Pact Frontal Aviation helicopter units equipped with Mi-24 Hinds. This capability is especially germane if reports from Afghanistan of the Hind's belly and side armour protection against 14.5 mm and even 23 mm ground fire are accurate. 
Further complications for Soviet and Pact commanders that will be caused by introduction of the IFV/CFV are the facts that its improved armour protection (see below) will result in far more of the new US vehicles surviving the preliminary Pact artillery barrage, from up to 37 artillery tubes per kilometre of attack frontage, and that the vehicles' TOW missiles will account for significant numbers of assaulting Pact battle tanks.
With the introduction of the IFV/CFV, TOW missiles will for the first time be deployed organically under armour right down to heavy infantry squad level. According to Brig. Gen. Bolte, the TOWs in the IFV will be of the improved type, with new warheads currently being developed by the Army Missile Command (MICOM) to defeat the special armour of deployed Soviet T-64 and T-72 tanks. Even if they are not able to penetrate the further improved armour expected to appear shortly on the newest Soviet T-80 tank, they should at least be able to cause 'mobility kills' if they strike its running gear, quite apart from destroying vital optical systems in the case of a turret hit, and concussing the crew. As recently reiterated by the US Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), the best way to exploit the long range of TOW, while minimizing exposure to visual acquisition and return fire by the target tank crew, is to engage heavy armour targets from their flanks where their 'buttoned down' vision is poor.
The twin TOW launcher is stowed on the left outside of the IFV turret in a downwards-folded position. To fire a TOW, the gunner slews the turret towards a target, switches the Integrated Sight Unit to 12X magnification, raises the missile launcher to the horizontal firing position, puts the sight crosshairs on the target, launches his missile and tracks the target as the missile flies down range, until impact, or it runs out of control wire.
After the gunner has launched two TOW missiles from the twin tube box, he traverses the turret 45° to his left and elevates the launcher to bring down its rear end. He then notifies the infantry squad member who is the designated loader to 'pop' the cargo hatch over the squad compartment, and reload both TOW tubes by pushing fresh TOW missile containers up into the launcher from the rear. The IFV carries an additional five TOW missiles in the troop compartment while the CFV carries another ten. The coaxial 7.62 mm MAG-58 machine gun is the most overlooked weapon of the three in the TBAT-ll turret. This is an unjustified oversight because there will be engageable targets that neither the Chain Gun nor the TOW system should fire upon. The targets could include close-in soft targets like trucks or assaulting enemy infantry, and small targets at short range that need to be 'hosed down' while trying to conserve 25 mm ammunition.
The MAG-58 is a gas operated weapon that is located on the right side of Chain Gun, in the mantlet. It is sectioned off from the turret interior to reduce the amount of propellant gases escaping inside the turret. (Because the Chain Gun has a longer dwell time than self-powered, gas-operated weapons, its level of propellant discharge gases is very low and consequently is not partitioned off from the turret interior)
• Fire control and stabilization system. 
Combined with the turret weapons and ISU, the fire control and stabilization systems are the key to the IFV's impressive firepower capability. As Brig. Gen. Bolte pointed out, neither a ballistic computer nor a laser rangefinder are included on cost and complexity grounds, although "one possible product improvement is to put a laser rangefinder in the turret." He noted that the 25 mm Chain Gun "will put three rounds down range and get on to the target" and that, apart from slightly improving first round hit probability of the gun, the greater additional benefit of a laser rangefinder would be that "it keeps you from wasting TOW missiles. There is no sense in firing a TOW ar a range that is longer than your wire." As for fitting a computer, he said: "You are talking about a lot of money. I just don't think we are going to do that because of the money involved. Somebody can decide they want to do it, but we are not planning it now. The priority is to get this vehicle into service at the lowest cost possible... Secondly, there is a limit as to how much you give this commander to do. We're worried right now about getting qualified squad leaders. You have taken a squad leader out of an M113 where he's got a .50 calibre machine gun and dismounts with his squad to fight. All of a sudden we are making [him] the equivalent of a tank commander. More so, we are giving him a guided missile too, while we are still requiring him to be able to dismount and fight with his squad." For the present, therefore, the main fire control subsystems are: the electro-hydraulic turret traverse drive, with a maximum slew rate of 60°/sec and a minimum tracking rate of 0.05 mils/sec; the electrical gun elevation drive with a maximum 60°/sec elevating speed for the two mantlet weapons; the separate actuator and elevation drive for the twin TOW launcher; the gunner's dual yoke hand control lever; the commander's hand controls; the electronic control box; and the turret's electrical slip ring.
Both the Chain Gun and the 7.62 mm MAG in the mantlet are stabilized in traverse and elevation, a feature that is so far unique in infantry combat vehicles. Two rate gyros mounted on the gun rotor provide references for stabilization. Rate signals from the gyros are amplified and shaped in frequency in low level electronic amplifiers. The resulting signals control solid state power amplifiers that power servo motors in the traverse and elevation drives to stabilize the gun line.

▼ The XM2 IFV seen from the right side, left side and head-on. Front view clearly shows very wide tracks, which improve mobility over soft ground.
====65====
Stabilization performance is enhanced by the use of feed forward signals from two additional rate gyros mounted in the turret and hull.
• Ammunition stowage and feed system. 
The Chain Gun can be fed from one of two ammunition feed chutes from the 300 ready round magazine on the floor of the turret basket. The magazine is divided into two sections with one holding 25 rounds and the other having 275 rounds. The choice of which type of 25 mm ammunition (HEI or APDS) to load into either side of the magazine is at the discretion of the turret commander. A further 600 25 mm rounds are carried in the hull. The coaxial MAG-58 has a 600 round belted ammunition box, in the right side of the turret, that feeds the weapon in its sectioned compartment alongside the Chain Gun through a feed chute. 1400 spare 7.62 mm rounds for the MAG-58 are also carried. 
• Turret communications. 
Radio equipment in the IFV company commander's turret includes one AN/VRC-46 and one AN/GRC-160. In the platoon commander's turret two AN/GRC-160 radios are fitted, while each squad leader's turret has one AN/GRC-160. Radio equipment in the CFV turret, from the platoon/section leader's vehicles downwards, consists of one AN/VRC-12 and one AN/PRC-77. Once the SINCGARS-V frequency hopping radio family is brought into service in 1984, a progressive replacement of the older communications gear will begin. The internal intercom for each of the two vehicles differs slightly, with five installation harnesses for the IFV, and four in the CFV. In the IFV the intercom stations are for the commander and gunner in the turret, and the driver, fire team leader and machine gunner below in the hull. The CFV has the same two turret intercom harnesses as the IFV, but only two in the hull, one for the driver and one for the missile loader/observer. Combat Vehicle Crewman (CVC) helmets are provided for each intercom station in both the IFV and CFV. 
• Turret systems redundancy and backup power. 
Each of the TBAT-ll turret systems is modular and can be replaced without the vehicle being sent to an upper echelon repair facility. The redundancy that has also been engineered into the mission-critical systems of the turret (i.e. weapons, fire control system and communications gear) allows any of the systems to be operated from the turret's back-up power system, consisting of 12 Volt 6TN, 100 amp-hour batteries.
Nevertheless, in response to a question on battery life when the batteries are used for backup power. Brig. Gen. Bolte noted that "it depends what you do with [battery power]. You can fire the Chain Gun, but you had then better switch to manual operation of the turret traverse and gun/TOW elevation, or you aren't going to have the batteries very long. "Basically," he said, "those batteries are designed to fire the weapons and operate the Integrated Sight Unit. The user, however, wasn't satisfied with just backup batteries and Hughes Helicopter has now developed a hand crank that has proven to be feasible [to operate the Chain Gun in the backup manual mode]. It looks like it is working satisfactorily and we will have them [hand cranks] during tests scheduled for later this year. We have fired approximately 500 rounds [with the hand crank] so far." At the time of his interview with the author, Brig. Gen. Bolte said that the IFV had also fired about 400,000 25 mm Chain Gun rounds and 151 TOW missiles, several of the latter at night. 

 

Hull design and armour protection 
The XM2 IFV as it is presently configured is the embodiment of three different prototype vehicles, borrowing design characteristics from each to meet the US Army's operational requirement. 
• Armour protection. 
Despite the interior modifications necessary to expand the XM723's 122 cm turret ring into the 152 cm diameter ring of the TBAT-ll, the basic external shape and armour composition of the IFV have remained essentially constant. The hull incorporates three types of armour: the roof, bottom, and interior sidesare series 5083 aluminium armour and form the structural frame to which the other two types of armour are mated. Series 7039 aluminium armour is used on the hull's upper sides, which are sloped inward from the vertical at angles of between 40° and 60°. Spaced laminate armour is used for the side skirts and rear ramp. Both the 5083 and 7039 armours are homogenous, while the double layer of spaced laminate armour is of steel, bonded between two sheets of aluminium. The three types of armour combine to make the IFV/CFV hull a highly resilient target. The folding trim vane, used when swimming, provides added protection on the front glacis. The design requirements for the XM2/XM3 specified that it have protection against direct fire from 14.5 mm AP ammunition and 155 mm artillery air and ground bursts, including shock wave and concussion effects as well as fragments. In the words of Brig. Gen. Bolte: "We do that quite well." In the most recent redesign of the Firing Port Weapon (FPW) embrasures, spaced-laminate armour covers have been added to the lowest part of the embrasure's face. The covers and side skirts can be removed in the event the IFV has to be transported by C-141 cargo aircraft. 
• Driver's Hatch. 
The driver's hatch and vision system of the IFV and CFV are unlike any others found in currently deployed armoured infantry vehicles. Shaped like half a clam-shell, the hatch is a complete module that contains the driver's vision blocks and passive night vision viewer. The whole hatch module is hinged at the rear so it can be locked partially open to give the driver head-out vision without any adjustment to his seat (see illustration). 
• Squad Compartment. 
The XM2 carries an infantry squad of six men in the rear troop compartment. When dismounted, they act as an M60 machine gunner, a machine gun loader, and four riflemen (two of whom have


► Interior right side of IFV squad compartment, seen from rear door. Note periscopes providing only means of sighting the FPWs, which are some distance below them. Beside periscopes are two vehicle intercom harnesses. Access door to turret is at left. The two FPWs slung from the roof above the periscopes are for the rear firing ports.
▲ An M231 FPW lined in its ball mount. Bag on weapon's right side is hooked on to the carrying handle and fits over the FPWs ejection cover to catch spent cases. The bag is sealed except for the flexible hose leading residual cartridge gases to outside of vehicle hull. Note the absence of sights for the FPW, which was formally adopted in January 1980 for the IFV. Though based on the 5,56-mm M 16A1, the FPW has 35 percent different parts. In addition to the large thread ahead of the forward handgrip (locking the FPW into the firing-port ball mount), the M231 fires from an open bolt, rather than a closed bolt, to reduce cook-off. Working parts have been correspondingly altered and rate of fire increased to 1,100-1,200 rounds/min. The M231 fires only full automatic bursts and has no single-shot capability. New short barrel is heavier than M16A1s to dissipate the greater heat generated by the higher rate of fire and exclusive use of tracer. A modified handguard and collapsable wire buttstock are provided for emergency use outside the IFV. Overall length is 723.9 mm, barrel length 368.3 mm and weight 4.3 kg.
====66====
M203 40 mm single-shot, pump-action grenade launchers attached to their M16A1 rifles). The squad is seated round the perimeter of the troop compartment clockwise from the 4 o'clock position to the 10 o'clock position, with the turret at 12 o'clock when forward. In the vehicle, each squad member is provided with the following: an individual fold-down seat; a firing port with ball-mounted M231 FPW; and an eye-level vision block. The FPWs and vision blocks are intended to allow the mounted infantrymen to deliver 5.56 mm suppressive fire out of the moving IFV. Recent tests are said to have shown that a remarkable degree of accuracy can be achieved by the individual rifleman using short bursts of automatic fire against point targets out to 250 m (see photocaption, p. 1079, for further description and comment). In addition, the vision blocks give the added benefit of battlefield orientation for the rifle squad prior to possibly dismounting for a final assault. 
If a dismounted assault is in fact required, US Army doctrine calls for an indirect approach, with IFVs moving up to covered positions as near as possible to the objective before dismounting their troops. XM 1 battle tanks will provide an overwatch for the assault force. The dismounted squads will normally carry one M60 machine gun, five M16A1 rifles, three M72A2 LAWs (or the newer Vipers or M202 multishot flame rockets) and up to three Dragon ATGMs, which may be stored in lieu of TOW missiles in the troop compartment. 
Asked by the author whether the IFV commander is going to dismount with his infantry team, Brig. Gen. Bolte said that he thought the US Army Infantry School is currently "planning to leave the squad leader, the gunner and the driver in the vehicle." He said that in his personal opinion "it will depend on the situation. I would think there are going to be plenty of times when [both] the gunner and the driver will stay with the vehicle and there may even be times when just the driver or [just] the gunner stays with the vehicle. When the most important place for the squad leader to be is with the 25 mm gun then he will be there." 
In addition to the squad weapons mentioned above, other items of equipment and stores found in the rear half of the IFV include a 10 gallon water tank, 5 TOW missile racks, stowage space under the rear compartment floor for 4,000 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition, 6,000 rounds of 5.56 mm, 600 rounds of 25 mm ammunition, and an automatic fire detection and Halon fire extinguishing system.
NBC protection, Brig. Gen Bolte told the author, consists of an M13A1 filter unit into which the commander, gunner and driver can plug their face masks. "The remaining crew members also have individual protective masks with self-contained filters that they use in either the mounted or dismounted role." Asked whether the IFV could be equipped with an austere overpressure system, he replied that it "is a possible product improvement we can make. A preliminary air leakage test has been conducted to aid any subsequent efforts to reduce leakage and incorporate an overpressure system that can handle it. You also must remember that this is an infantry vehicle and not a tank. We have people in there who may have to dismount to do their job, and in doing so cause overpressure leakage through the ramp door. In addition, in order to reload the TOW launcher somebody is going to open the cargo hatch in the roof, so that's another problem. And this gets us back to [the questions of ] what is this thing going to cost and how effective is it going to be?" 
• CFV scout/observer compartment. 
Apart from the turret communications system, the only other difference between the IFV and CFV is in their troop compartments. That of the CFV accomodates only two men, seated in the centre of the compartment alongside each other. The right-hand man, who sits below the roof hatch, has an observer role, but is also the TOW missile loader and faces forward, with ten spare missiles stowed on his right. He has one periscope at two o'clock and one at five o'clock, but generally observes through the hatch, which can be locked partly open. The left-hand man faces towards the rear and acts only as an observer, via three roof periscopes giving him vision from the five o'clock position round to ten o'clock. No firing ports are fitted on the CFV. Until early 1979, it was planned to stow a scout motorcycle in the rear of the CFV. It was deleted to save space and reduce the logistics/maintenance burden on cavalry platoons. (The scout motorcycles, it should be noted, are not being removed from the cavalry's force structure, but they are being formed into motorcycle scout platoons.) 

 

Automotive features 
One of the key requirements for the successor to the M 113 was for it to be a ble to keep pace with battle tanks, especially when operating cross-country in combat. With the probability of encountering a 50 m wide river every 16 km in Western Europe, an amphibious capability was also highly desirable. 
To keep up with the remarkable crosscountry speeds of the new, gas turbine powered XM1 Abrams main battle tank is a tall order. Brig. Gen. Bolte told the author that the IFV "can operate with the XM1. I'm not going to say that we will beat the XM1 in a drag race; it will probably beat us. It has a higher horsepower per ton ratio; that is what decides who wins the drag races. But there is no problem with compatibility. We can both operate over the same terrain and the same radius." 
Brig. Gen. Bolte was being modest, however. In tactical operations tests at Fort Carson, prototype IFVs were teamed with currently operational M60A1 tanks in offensive and defensive small unit engagement scenarios. The problem that plagued the tests throughout was that the M60A1s were unable to keep up with the IFVs during offensive manoeuvres. Later, during Phase 3 Operational Tests (OT III) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, prototype XM2s achieved acceleration, cross-country mobility and mechanical reliability performance goals that were better than those expected to be reached by fully developed production vehicles. In these tests, the XM2s were pitted against XM1s in separate, timed trials over the same test tracks. The results were described as "stunning": in three tests out of five, the XM2 — despite its slower starting acceleration — turned in faster mean times than the XM1. The IFV accelerates from 0-16 km/h in 2.4 sec and from 0-64 km/h in 25.2 sec. On the bump course, the XM2 proved to give an outstandingly smooth ride, with the vehicle negotiating the concrete ribbing at speed in a fashion that is said to have made it appear airborne. This kind of performance has been achieved by providing the IFV with a power-to-weight ratio of 21,28 hp/ton; a suspension allowing roadwheel travel of 35,56 cm; and the largest possible track 'footprint', to ease mobility over soft ground by reducing ground pressure, when fully combat loaded, to 0,52 kg /cm2. Maximum speed is 66 km/ h, cruising range is 483 km with full 622 litre fuel tanks, and the IFV is able to swim at speeds of 7.2 km/h using its tracks for propulsion. 
Development has not been without problems, however, some of them extremely serious. The radically new General Electric HMPT-500 hydromechanical transmission had severe teething troubles which were not finally resolved until 1978/79. Another major problem concerned the suspension, with a high failure rate in the trailing

single module, located slightly to the right of the vehicle centreline in the hull ahead of the turret. The driver sits on the left side of the engine. 
The engine is the commercially proven Cummins VTA-903T diesel. It is a turbo-

◀ An IFV tactically deployed with TOW missile launcher raised to the firing position. The 25-mm Chain Gun main armament fires HEI and APDS ammunition, and a depleted-uranium round may be ordered to further improve penetration capability. Primary targets for the Chain Gun are Warsaw Pact BMPs, but it may also be effective against armoured Mi-24 Hind helicopters. 
► An IFV on the move at dawn. Note the slightly opened driver's hatch. 
====67====
charged, four-stroke, 90° V-8 unit with a swept volume of 14.8 litres, developing a gross output of 500 hp (373 kW) at 2,600 rpm. Maximum torque is 1 ,300 Nm at 2,600 rpm with a compression ratio of 15.5:1. Cylinder bore and stroke are 140 mm and 121 mm, respectively. The principal cooling medium is water although, in the FVS, a cooling fan is mounted on the right front of the engine. Maximum fuel consumption (0.252 kg/kWh) is at 1 ,400 rpm, minimum (0.225 kg/kWh) at 2,100 rpm, while at the maximum engine speed of 2,600 rpm it is 0.240 kg/kWh. 
The HMPT-500 transmission, which has hydrostatic steering, is possibly the most sophisticated feature incorporated in the FVS; it is certainly one of the most innovative, and has some very unconventional components. After a troubled start, the HMPT-500 has now matured into a highly efficient sub-system of the FVS power pack's drive train. Three unique features distinguish the HMPT-500 from previously developed automatic steering transmissions for armoured vehicles: 
1. It has an infinitely variable gear ratio through three forward and one reverse speed ranges; 
2. The use of hydraulic ball-piston pump/ motor units which provide both propulsion and steering torque; and 
3. Automatic determination of speed ratio and engine output based upon throttle position and vehicle load. 
According to General Electric, the HMPT- 500 represents a technological breakthrough, as shown in its power transfer performance curves. These indicate outputs of 150 hp at 1,350 rpm, 250 hp at 1,750 rpm, 350 hp at 2,100 rpm and 470 hp at 2,600 rpm. Considering that the Cummins engine's maximum output is 500 hp at 2,600 rpm, the minimal power loss of only 30 hp at the sprocket is indeed remarkable. 
• Running gear and suspension. The IFV and CFV have six roadwheels per side, on trailing arms from the single tube torsion bars of the suspension. The sprockets are at the front and at the rear is an idler, or track tension roller, on each side. The single pin steel tracks are each supported on three return rollers and have detachable rubber pads. The suspension is completed by four shock absorbers per side.
Following the US Defense Department directive to employ, whenever possible, parts which are already type classified and in the US Army supply system, FMC has used the torsion bars and road wheels of the US Marine Corps' LVTP-7 in the IFV and CFV. The track is based on the LVTP-7's, but has been widened (from 45.7 cm to 53.3 cm), as have the idlers and drive sprockets. The return rollers are also already in service. 
• Repair and maintenance of the power pack. In keeping with the modularity concept embodied in all the FVS program's major components and sub-systems, either the transmission or the whole power pack can be pulled out of any of the vehicles with a minimum of work. After the power  pack has been removed, it can be "ground hopped" (i.e., started while detached from the vehicle) for fault isolation, tuning, repair, replacement or overhaul, without having to return the vehicle to a repair depot.
• STE/ICE The FVS Simplified Test Equipment/Internal Combustion Engine (STE/ ICE) kits are part of the continuing evolutionary growth of the Fighting Vehicle Program's development. During the OT-ll trials, prototype test kits played a major part in the  maintenance and repair exercises. The FVS STE/ICE kit has the capability of performing the following functions: 

Lubrication System 
Hydraulic Regulation System 
Transmission: Hydraulic Pressurization 
Hydraulic Fluid Levels 
Turret: Electrical System (all functions)

An ongoing program for the creation of an Army-wide family of test/evaluation kits is being conducted under the auspices of Tank Automotive Research and Development Command (TARADCOM) for use at direct support and general support maintenance echelons.The kits will have the capability to evaluate both the XM1 and the IFV/CFV.

 

Improved Reliability and Maintenance Development (IRAM-D).
When the recently computed non-availability and maintenance figures for the operational tests at Fort Carson were released, they were not only better than the requirements specified for OT-II, but were better than those specified for Initial Production Tests (IPT) scheduled for the first production vehicles in FY '83. The gross mean failure rating of the running great is one in every 965.6 km which is still considered high according to some critics. Furthermore, at last one problem (U-joints in the drive train) is still awaiting a revise mean failure rating from the fix which had been implemented since the latest phase of operational testing.
A dispute has raged for a number of years between government budget analysts and Army development managers over whether Mean Miles Between Failures (MMBF) should be adjusted to reflect fixes of high failure rate vehicle components in both the XM1 and IFV/CFV, for overall computation of mission failure ratings. The alternate is not to include developmental modifications which alleviate the problems. Because of this difference in computation practice, critics from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and a Office for Management and Budget (OMB) both assert that the FVS mean failure rates are biased. What the critics seem unable to do is look over the fence to infantry combat vehicles already in service with other nations (in both the Warsaw Pact and NATO). If they did, they would see that the US Army's currently operational vehicles lag far behind, but that the IFV and CFV will be superior to any of those at present in service. It would seem that what these critics want is a perfect vehicle capable of all things required on the modern battlefield, without realizing that such an IFV would be even more expensive than the one they are trying to stop. 

 

Costs 
Critics of the program have alleged that the XM2 IFV costs ten times more than the M113 it is to replace, and that the program should be cancelled on those grounds alone. Asked for his comments on these allegations, Brig. Gen. Bolte reacted strongly.

"First of all let me just say that the ten-fold price increase is a complete misnomer," he said. "We don't cost $920,000 a vehicle. What you are probably looking at is the production preparation cost folded into the basic per vehicle unit cost. Our anticipated vehicle buy is for 6,882 vehicles at a unit cost of $495,000 in 1978 dollars, which is nowhere near a ten-fold increase. As for the total cost written into our current contract, we have just concluded the initial phases of a cost reduction study aimed at isolating areas in our fiscal programming that can be cut back without impinging on our development schedule. Consequently we have identified a potential 10-15% reduction in per vehicle unit cost, which I daresay is quite an achievement for a program of our size.
"But no matter how you look at it, we do cost more than the M113. In that vein we have had a Cost/Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) of our potential impact versus that of the APC. The COEA conducted by TRADOC showed that the most effective solution to a vehicle for the infantry was the IFV. That COEA was updated with the latest cost figures last spring and still showed the IFV to be cost effective. What you are talking about is several orders of magnitude increase in capability of the rifle squad. Look what the rifle squad can do with the M113, a .50 caliber machine gun and a bunch of rifles. [With the IFV] you are talking about a tank killer, a BMP killer. There isn't any comparison."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2019 at 9:31 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Revert from any prospect of finally replacing the TOW, to still using the TOW 10 years from now up to 50 years from now.

The TOW is limited by its guidance unit to LoS engagement, and limited in its efficiency by its flat trajectory.

 

The OMFV should be equipped with a missile that is at least based on a 5th gen design, i.e one that allows an efficient engagement of MBTs (top attack), an evasion of some APS (top attack), precision fires (GPS+Networking), and NLOS (man-in-the-loop+Networking).

As it stands, the TOW is only truly efficient in one task - demolition. This is an overlapping capability with the 50mm gun, which based on current proposals seems to be geared more towards increased post-penetration effect and anti-infantry, than penetration of armor.

 

A significant upgrade to the Javelin, or a purchase of the Spike or MMP, will give the OMFV a substantial increase in firepower AND combat roles.

 

Given the purpose of the 50mm gun is engagement range, the only missile that would really supplant a TOW-ER is the Spike NLOS or Hellfire.

Share this post


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

 

Given the purpose of the 50mm gun is engagement range, the only missile that would really supplant a TOW-ER is the Spike NLOS or Hellfire.

No idea what the TOW-ER is (talking about newer variants with over 4km range?), but range is a little more than a figure on paper. For example any missile with a top attack mode, the Javelin included, with the same range on paper, would have higher realistic range because very often the LoS in combat is lower than the max range of the missile, and these missiles can engage NLOS targets while the TOW cannot.

 

Also please refer to the rest of the comment: The networking and top attack capability of missiles like either the Spike 2 family or MMP, as well as LOAL modes, are not only offering substantially higher effect vs MBTs, but are fully capable of utilizing the sensory package and user interface the OMFV program intends to achieve.

 

e.g they want a small scouting drone on the OMFV. With a good enough optical payload, it could do target designation of an NLOS target to a Spike/MMP. 

 

Or, you receive data on your BMS on the whereabouts of a high priority target. You fire off a missile to its coordinates, and right before the terminal stage you can visually identify it via a TV feed, and guide it to target yourself for the best approach (e.g you can fire it into a window, or maybe collapse the roof, or maybe they concealed in a bush so you want to aim based on movements not picked up by thermal sensors).

 

The TOW is inqdequate for the OMFV. Maybe it is for the Bradley, but it should be phasing out already.

 

Almost the entire Europe is now moving onto the current generation of ATGMs, whether Spike or MMP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(first time poster--been lurking too long)

 

I believe "TOW-ER" is the old designation for TOW 2B Aero, which has some sort of redesign of the nose and a longer guidance wire for a range of 4.5 km. It also has a flyover top attack profile and a dual-EFP warhead. There are also wireless-guided versions available.

 

All that said, I'd much rather see a more advanced missile system in OMFV.

Edited by foxhound
adding wireless guidance note

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, foxhound said:

(first time poster--been lurking too long)

 

I believe "TOW-ER" is the old designation for TOW 2B Aero, which has some sort of redesign of the nose and a longer guidance wire for a range of 4.5 km. It also has a flyover top attack profile and a dual-EFP warhead. There are also wireless-guided versions available.

 

All that said, I'd much rather see a more advanced missile system in OMFV.

 

TOW-ER is the current wireless TOW with a new rocket motor.

 

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2018-10-07-Raytheon-US-Army-improve-TOW-missile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Scolopax said:

AAV-P7A1 CATFAE (Catapult launched Fuel Air Explosives).  Troop carrying capabilities were exchanged for 21 fuel-air ordnance launchers for the purpose of clearing minefields and other obstacles during an amphibious assault.

 

1522149112_aavp7a1-catfae-4.jpg

There's the earthshattering kaboom!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Scolopax said:

AAV-P7A1 CATFAE (Catapult launched Fuel Air Explosives).  Troop carrying capabilities were exchanged for 21 fuel-air ordnance launchers for the purpose of clearing minefields and other obstacles during an amphibious assault.

 

1522149112_aavp7a1-catfae-4.jpg

 

What would be the advantage of the fuel-air ordinance over the line charges (as seen on the M1150)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

What would be the advantage of the fuel-air ordinance over the line charges (as seen on the M1150)? 

A couple thermobaric (fuel-air) rockets can cover a fairly wide area relative to a line charge, are very cheap and easy to make, and can be carried in large numbers on a single vehicle.

 

And I'm not sure about the following one but I believe they can exert substantially more downwards pressure to defeat AT mines. Will have to check this one.

Share this post


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

A couple thermobaric (fuel-air) rockets can cover a fairly wide area relative to a line charge, are very cheap and easy to make, and can be carried in large numbers on a single vehicle.

 

And I'm not sure about the following one but I believe they can exert substantially more downwards pressure to defeat AT mines. Will have to check this one.

The overpressure on FAE is very significant, over a bigger area than a MICLIC for sure.

 

Share this post


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

A couple thermobaric (fuel-air) rockets can cover a fairly wide area relative to a line charge, are very cheap and easy to make, and can be carried in large numbers on a single vehicle.

 

And I'm not sure about the following one but I believe they can exert substantially more downwards pressure to defeat AT mines. Will have to check this one.

 

1 hour ago, Belesarius said:

The overpressure on FAE is very significant, over a bigger area than a MICLIC for sure.

 

 

So what’s the point of using line charges? Lighter weight? 

Share this post


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

 

 

So what’s the point of using line charges? Lighter weight? 

Precision vs area of effect.

MICLIC charges are basically 1-2 vehicle wide area off effect IIRC in a small area.

Thermobarics are a bit more... indiscriminate. They tend to be a pretty big boom.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 5:15 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

And here is an article from International Defence Review on Bradley -
which was reprinted in 1982 in Volume 13 "Tracked armoured vehicles" (of The International Defence Review Special Series) - a compilation of articles which appeared in IDR in late 70s.BfBEOLc.jpg
This time I wasn't so lucky, so an entire page 62 was obtained only in plain text without any formatting, which is a mess. 

Another article on Bradley from this book, about IDR's journalists' experience with Bradley, 
- and it's even worse this time, with an entire page 88 been not available at all. GoogleBooks' text version of any given page ends with some words from following page, so I was able to get those words about turret, which are there in text-only version of this article behind spoiler, - but nothing more. It's either locked or I just was not able to figure out a specific phrase which would be available on that page only and nowhere else.
EPBvKNe.jpgul8q98V.jpg
tvLcF41.jpg

Spoiler

====87====
Operating the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle by D.H.C. Jenkins 


This article describes a test drive carried out by I DR in the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, including firing of the 25mm gun. A full technical description, with a detailed data table, and discussion of the operational aspects of
the vehicle appeared in the article The US Army's Infantry and Cavalry Fighting Vehicles by David G. Holmes, IDR 7/1980. 


In a ceremony at Fort Myer, Virginia, on October 20, 1981, the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV), the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV) and their derivatives were officially designated the Bradley family of fighting vehicles in
honour of the late General of the US Army, Omar N. Bradley. This ceremony marked the end of the vehicle's long gestation period which started in the mid-1960s with the change in the US Army's infantry doctrine. This change
gave the infantry a mounted as well as a dismounted role and gave rise to the requirement for a mechanised infantry combat vehicle (MICV). 
The MICV program started in January 1968 but saw little progress, because of budget limitations and the Vietnam war, until November 1972 when FMC was awarded an engineering development and production planning
contract for MICV. The first vehicles were to have been delivered in 1977 and were to be armed with what was then called the Vehicle Rapid Fire Weapon System i.e. the Bushmaster gun, in a one-man turret. Development of
this vehicle was slowed, however, by hardware development problems, difficulties encountered in the integration of the weapon system and the army requirement for the commander to be able to see the battlefield — which is
not possible with a one-man turret unless the commander himself is acting as the gunner. 
In 1975, following the cancellation of the armoured reconnaissance scout vehicle program, the MICV program manager was further tasked to develop a cavalry, or reconnaissance, version of the MICV. MICV development
continued along these lines until November 1976 when the US Secretary of the Army approved a recommendation that a single type of vehicle, with a two-man TOW/Bushmaster armoured turret, should be developed for both
the infantry and the reconnaissance roles. Development of this vehicle began in November 1976.
The next stage in development occurred in May 1977, when the MICV Systems program was re-designated the Fighting Vehicle Systems (FVS) program. The MICV was renamed the XM2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV), the
MICV/Scout was designated the XM3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle (CFV) and the program was set for a scheduled production date of May 1981. This deadline was met, with the first production vehicle being delivered to the US
Army on time, and production testing is being conducted in preparation for fielding of the vehicles. The first operational battalion will form at Fort Hood, Texas, in March 1983 and further battalions will be formed, again at Fort
Hood, during 1983 and 1984. The first battalion of Bradleys for the European theatre will be deployed in September 1983. The US Army plans to buy 4,000 IFVs and 2,800 CFVs. These will replace M113s which will be re-
allocated to other units. 


▲ Bradley IFV with /Off at the helm just before touchdown after a very brief but exhilarating flight. For airborne travel over greater distances, the Bradley can be carried in a C-5 Galaxy or a C-141 StarLifter. In the latter case,
a certain amount of preparation has to be undertaken. The head of the gunner's integral sight and the skirt plates have to be removed and the front two roadwheel stations have to be lowered by jacking up the suspension
trailing arms. 
▼ The M2 Bradley IFV at speed on the Aberdeen Proving Ground test track. 
▼ The rear crew compartment in the IFV.
====88====

Turret 
In both the M2 and M3, the two-man turret

 

====89====
approximately 1,200m and again there was no difficulty in keeping the target in the sights. 

 

Firing the 25mm Gun 
The gun is loaded from the crew compartment at the rear of the vehicle and the rounds pass through two feed chutes— one for HE one for HE rounds and one for AP rounds— up to the gun. HE rounds are loaded with the gun
traversed off 121° to the right, while the AP rounds are loaded with the gun traversed off 115° to the left. The normal ready-round mix is 75 AP and 225 HE rounds and stowage is provided in the vehicle for up to 600 more
25mm rounds. (The mix of APand HE would be decided by the commander according to the tactical situation.) The rounds are hand-cranked up to the gun and the gun is loaded by depressing the charge button on the gunner's
control panel. The US Army test crew told IDR that loading the 25mm gun takes three to five minutes according to the crew's experience and that the total time required to load all the turret armament is six to eight minutes. 
The first target designated for IDR was the 3.7m x 3.7m letter board Bravo mentioned above. There was no need to use the stadiametric rangefinder as the range, 1000m, was already known and this figure was then set on
the gunner's range drum. Having checked that the driver's hatch was lowered — with the hatch up, a limit switch prevents the turret from traversing unless the commander operates an override switch — the next step was to
lift and pull the toggle safety switch into the "arm" position, select the nature of round to be fired (for this test firing only HE rounds had been issued) and the rate of fire. 
For the first few rounds IDR fired single shots in order to be able to appreciate the firing characteristics of the weapon. Unlike larger-calibre guns, the 25mm gun produced no sight jump when fired. This meant that it was
possible to maintain the lay of the gun on a specific point and thus, to some degree, assess round dispersion. This characteristic would also aid accuracy when firing on the move. Round dispersion was more noticeable,
however, when firing bursts. This can be done by selecting either the low or high rate of fire and keeping the firing switch depressed. In an initial burst of zeal, IDR's first burst at high rate (200 rounds /min) could be described
as a GPMG-type killing burst of eight to ten rounds which appeared to take a long time to fire. At this point it was gently pointed out that the standard length of burst, for this gun, is four to six rounds but no harm had been
done and firing continued. 
Once target board Bravo had been destroyed, IDR requested permission to engage target board Charlie, a 3.7m x 3.0m, 10cm-thick armour plate set at a range of 1,890m. Permission was granted with the qualification that
Charlie had hitherto not been engaged by a Bradley. The technique adopted here was to set 1,800m on the range drum, aim at the centre of the target, fire and watch the trace. It was immediately obvious that this setting
would mean the rounds falling short, so a second attempt was made with the drum set at 2,000m (the range drum is graduated in 200m increments) and the aiming point set at the base of the target. At this setting the first
two rounds of single-shot fire bracketed the target and the third rewarded IDR with the flash indicative of a hit. This point of aim was maintained for a further five rounds to ensure that the reason for missing the target was
indeed round dispersion, and all bar one of the rounds were successful. Some 30 rounds were fired at this target with a higher percentage of hits than misses. 
In all, IDR fired 100 rounds of HE ammunition and noticed that single-shot aimed fire out to 1,000m was accurate although bursts at this range produced noticeable round dispersion. At the greater, range round dispersion for
both single shot and burst fire was responsible for a number of rounds missing the target. Although IDR experienced no gun malfunctions, the standard procedure for dealing with the most common of them, the misfired round,
had been rapidly and effectively explained. If a misfire occurs, the gunner has only to keep the firing switch depressed. This maintains the chain cycle and the defective round is ejected prior to a fresh round being loaded into
the gun. This mechanism thus prevents any hangfire problems and will help vehicle commanders to avoid those embarrassing minutes during a range practice when control has to be informed that a misfire has occurred and a
specified length of time must elapse, in order to avoid the hangfire problem, before the fault can be rectified.

 

Automotive characteristics 
In a speech at the Bradley dedication ceremony, Brigadier General D.P. Whalen, the FVS program manager, said that "for the first time infantry and armoured cavalry [vehicles] can keep pace across country with our main
battle tanks" and in tests this has proved to be true although the Bradley's acceleration is not as good as that of the M1. IDR was also given the chance to verify this claim and can say that, in terms of speed, manoeuvrability
and cross-country comfort for the crew, the two vehicles could indeed complement each other. The Bradley is powered by the commercially proven Cummins VTA-903T turbo- charged V8 diesel engine. This engine has a
swept volume of 14.8 litres and develops 375kW (500hp) at 2,600rpm, giving a power-to-weight ratio of 17.5kW/t. Transmission is via the General Electric HPMT-500 gearbox with hydrostatic steering. The power pack is
mounted in the front of the vehicle to the right of the driver's station and drives the vehicle through front-mounted drive sprockets. The M2 test crew told IDR that a pack lift can be carried out in 20 minutes. Interestingly, no
guide lugs have been built into the pack 

 

▲ The Bradley vehicle's power pack comprises a Cummins VTA-903T V8 diesel engine with a General ElectricThis hatch and another armoured hatch, behind it, have to be removed when carrying out a pack lift. 
◀ ◀ Interior of the two-man turret for both the IFV and the CFV. The commander sits on the right and the gunner on the left . At top centre is the 25mm Bushmaster cannon with the gunner's armament control box beneath it.
To the left of this can be seen the gunner's control yoke below the integrated day /night sight. 
◀ View through the TOW loading hatch of the IFV. In order to reload the missile launcher, the gunner traverses the turret 45° to the left and elevates the launcher. The missile loader then opens the hatch, removes the empty
tubes and reloads by sliding new tubes into the launcher. (This reloading method is no different in the CFV.) The US army has recognised that, since the hatch has to be opened in order to reload the launcher, it would be
impractical to have any form of collective over-pressure NBC protection system in the vehicles. Consequently, if the vehicle is operating in an NBC environment, the crews have to rely on their standard NBC protective clothing
and respirator. This has also meant that it has been unnecessary to fit expensive seals in other areas of the vehicle and that, if the squad has to disembark while under NBC threat, the men are already wearing the necessary
equipment.
====90====
casing to aid in fitting the pack into the rather tight space available. The wide (53.3cm) single-pin, steel tracks have detachable rubber pads and are supported on each side by three top rollers. Track tensioning is carried out
hydraulically at the rear idler. IDR was told that track and pad lives are approximately 4,800 and 2,400km (3,000 and 1,500 miles), respectively. There are six roadwheels per side, mounted on trailing arms, with torsion bar
suspension and shock absorbers on the forward three wheel-stations. 
Daily routine maintenance takes 15-20 minutes and includes checking all fluid levels — for the pack and final drives this means pulling up the engine deck as the relevant dipsticks are not grouped together. Simplified Test
Equipment/Internal Combustion Engine (STE/ICE) equipment has been fitted to allow electrical, hydraulic and lubrication parameters for the engine, transmission and turret to be rapidly and simply monitored. 
After an initial orientation circuit of the Aberdeen Proving Ground test track, IDR was invited to take the helm. The driver's station is normally entered through the large driver's hatch. The driver can also enter from the rear
crew compartment through a narrow space between the turret basket and the left wall of the hull although the primary reason for this space is not entry but evacuation of the driver should he be wounded. The driver sits in an
adjustable seat, complete with safety harness, and steers the vehicle by means of a yoke. Directly in front of him are the necessary dials and switches. Prior to starting up, power is switched on, with the gear select lever — on
the driver's right — in the neutral position. To start up, the gear lever is pushed over to the right of the gear selector boxand held there until the engine has started. For driving in normal conditions the "drive" position is
selected by moving the lever through the neutral gate and down. The low-ratio gear is selected by moving the lever from the drive position, down and to the left. If the vehicle has to be tow-started, the lever is moved down
once more to the "tow start" position and for towing the lever is moved to the rear of the selector box to the "tow" position. In this position, the quill shafts in the final drives are automatically disconnected. Neutral turns can be
made with the gear lever in the neutral position but held over to the left of the selector box. To select reverse gears the lever is moved through a gate and up. 
With drive selected, it is necessary to apply power relatively slowly at first to allow the gears to engage — failure to do this results in a very jerky start — but once the vehicle is moving the accelerator can be fully depressed
and held there. Indeed, when cornering it is necessary to apply as much power as possible, taking into account the prevailing conditions. The transition from one gear to another is smooth, both up and down the range,
although acceleration is slow. The vehicle can, however, sustain a top speed, cross-country, of between 48 and 56km/h (30 and 35mph) and a top road-speed of 66km/h (41mph). One major cause for concern is the lack of
visibility to the driver's right caused by the high engine decking. This spoils what would otherwise be an excellent mark for visibility both when driving head out and closed down. The driver's hatch is of the clam-shell type and
can be held in any one of four open positions or completely closed down. When the hatch is shut, the three vision blocks give the driver almost the same field of view as he has when driving head out, the only exception being
the poor view of the area immediately surrounding the front and sides of the vehicle. The suspension worked well, ironing out most of the bumps encountered and treating IDR and the crew to a surprisingly soft landing after a
brief, but impressive, flight (see photo). Indeed, there was no sudden shock and the sensation was almost one of landing on foam rubber as the shock absorbers gradually took up the shock of impact.

 

Crew compartment 
The external appearances of the IFV and the CFV are almost identical — the only difference being that the firing ports in the CFV are not used and have therefore been blocked off. The crew compartments, though, have totally
different arrangements. The IFV carries a squad of six men whereas the CFV only carries two men (a TOW loader and an observer) in the rear compartment. In both cases adjustable seating is provided for the crews,
although this feature is wasted asseveral of the seats have to be completely lowered for the occupants to be able to sit in them without banging their heads on the roof. This problem becomes even more acute when the
occupants are wearing their combat helmets. 
Internal stowage for ammunition in the IFV is plentiful, with space for up to 600 25mm rounds, 3,600 7.62mm rounds, 4,360 5.56mm rounds, five TOW /Dragon missiles and three LAWs. A sa result, there is very little space
left in which to stow personal kit or food. In addition there is a 38-litre internal water tank mounted on the hull on the right of the compartment. 
A number of questions concerning the tactical use of the IFV are raised when the layout of the squad seating is examined. The layout has been optimised for good observation, delivery of fire and loading of the 25mm gun and
TOW launcher with the infantry squad mounted. It appears that this seating plan would lead, however, to difficulty in "debussing" rapidly when required to do so.

 

▲ When swimming, the Bradley is propelled by its tracks and has a maximum speed of approximately 7 km/h. It is likely that in this photo the vehicle is deep fording as the bow vane has not been deployed. IDR discovered for
itself how difficult it was to raise the vane after use if the crew stood in front of the vehicle and attempted to raise the vane from that position It was quickly pointed out, however, that the vane is counterbalanced to enable the
driver to raise it from his cab by pulling a length of cord attached to the top of the vane. It is possible, the US Army told IDR, to fire the Bushmaster while the vehicle is swimming. (Photo: FMC)
▲ The M2 IFV during IDR 's test drive at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA. In the background are the remnants of target board Bravo after IDR had fired some 60 25mm rounds at it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 6:26 PM, Belesarius said:

Precision vs area of effect.

MICLIC charges are basically 1-2 vehicle wide area off effect IIRC in a small area.

Thermobarics are a bit more... indiscriminate. They tend to be a pretty big boom.

 

 

Hmmmm. 

 

This might be stupid, but if the blast radius is an issue, couldn’t they make smaller TBEs? I mean, the reason we have several different bomb sizes is because 500lbs might be too much for situations (or not enough). 

Share this post


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

 

Hmmmm. 

 

This might be stupid, but if the blast radius is an issue, couldn’t they make smaller TBEs? I mean, the reason we have several different bomb sizes is because 500lbs might be too much for situations (or not enough). 

Probably because you wouldn't get the Overpressure you need with smaller charges. Miclics are a line charge, so you have a defined area to drive through that you are pretty sure is clear, and they detonate at surface level. 

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...