Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

Still not known, alas. We suppose it's some sort of anti-IED jammer though I remember seeing pics of an AMPV with that cylinder and a CREW Duke v3, so nothing's certain (unless they cover different parts of the spectrum). It's also suspected it acts in concert with that black bar that's standing next to the driver's hatch.

 

EDIT: yep, it was an AMPV, Mission Command variant. You can clearly see the Duke v3 antenna behind that cylinder.

EDIT bis:

The only thing I found so far, that remotely looks like that cylinder, is something called the Assured Positioning, Navigation and Timing (A-PNT) - Mounted / Anti-Jam Antenna System (AJAS): https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/a-pnt-mounted-ajas/

The antenna cover's texture is similar, but it's obviously squatter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are the bulges on the turret cheek supposed to still be weight simulators? Its looks nothing like the stacked welded plates in the earlier pictures.

 

 

 

"The U.S. Army on Friday released the first detailed images of the next version of the Abrams tank with active protection systems.

The new images – made at U.S Army Yuma Proving Ground revealed the M1A2C Abrams main battle tank with the Rafael Advanced Defence Systems-developed Trophy HV hard-kill active protection systems (APSs)."

 

 

Dz_IlaAUcAEA1Z2-min.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Vicious_CB said:

So are the bulges on the turret cheek supposed to still be weight simulators? Its looks nothing like the stacked welded plates in the earlier pictures.

 

We aren't sure what they are yet, but the speculation is that they are some sort of armor upgrade and might serve as ballast to balance the turret when Trophy APS is mounted. The welded plates were likely a placeholder during testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys im here today for clarification about the infamous swedish tank trials: there is controversy about DU armor being tested or not by the swedes, whats the general consensus about the issue on this forum? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

Hi guys im here today for clarification about the infamous swedish tank trials: there is controversy about DU armor being tested or not by the swedes, whats the general consensus about the issue on this forum? 

 

Who is claiming the Swedes tested DU armor?

Share this post


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

 

Who is claiming the Swedes tested DU armor?

A lot of people, myself included, but there is controversy sorrounding the interpretation on statement made by Lindstrom. Thats why im asking here for opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

A lot of people, myself included, but there is controversy sorrounding the interpretation on statement made by Lindstrom. Thats why im asking here for opinions.

 

Let me rephrase the question, what leads you to believe DU armor was tested?

Share this post


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

 

Let me rephrase the question, what leads you to believe DU armor was tested?

The performance of the turret compared to the front hull, the context of 125mm apfsds used at the time and above all, this:
" M1A2 hade ett ballistiskt skydd i exportversion. Skjutförsök mot dess bästa ballistiska skydd gjordes i USA." (http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, alanch90 said:

The performance of the turret compared to the front hull, the context of 125mm apfsds used at the time and above all, this:
" M1A2 hade ett ballistiskt skydd i exportversion. Skjutförsök mot dess bästa ballistiska skydd gjordes i USA." (http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm)
 

 

I see this is a search for ammo in the argument on the WT forum. 'Export armor tested in the US' is not evidence that the Swedes tested DU.

 

Since you asked, my opinion is that the Swedes tested M1IP/M1A1 armor. If you haven't read it yet I suggest going through the Contemporary Western Tank Rumble thread.

Share this post


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

 

I see that this is a search for ammo in the argument on the WT forum. 'Export armor tested in the US' is not evidence that the Swedes tested DU.

 

But since you asked, my opinion is that the Swedes tested M1IP/M1A1 armor. If you haven't read it yet I suggest going through the Contemporary Western Tank Rumble thread.

As far as I am aware, Sweden was only inspired by the US to test DU armor themselves.

 

Original:

" Inspirerade av den valda skyddslösningen i den amerikanska stridsvagnen M1A1 DU där Chobhampansaret uppgraderats med skikt av utarmat uran, gjordes provskjutningar i Sverige även mot denna typ av material. Resultaten visade på möjligheten att nå bättre skyddsprestanda om volymen och inte vikten var gränssättande. "

 

English:

" Inspired by the american armor solution in the M1A1 DU main battle tank, in which the Chobham armor was upgraded with layer of depleted uranium, a test was conducted in Sweden of this type of material. The results showed that if was possible to increase armor protection if volume, but not the weight was the limiting factor. "

 

In short, they tested a home made armor, and concluded it was only worth it if volume was the constraint, not the weight. 

 

Source:
http://www.ointres.se/strv_2000.htm

Share this post


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

As far as I am aware, Sweden was only inspired by the US to test DU armor themselves.

 

Original:

" Inspirerade av den valda skyddslösningen i den amerikanska stridsvagnen M1A1 DU där Chobhampansaret uppgraderats med skikt av utarmat uran, gjordes provskjutningar i Sverige även mot denna typ av material. Resultaten visade på möjligheten att nå bättre skyddsprestanda om volymen och inte vikten var gränssättande. "

 

English:

" Inspired by the american armor solution in the M1A1 DU main battle tank, in which the Chobham armor was upgraded with layer of depleted uranium, a test was conducted in Sweden of this type of material. The results showed that if was possible to increase armor protection if volume, but not the weight was the limiting factor. "

 

In short, they tested a home made armor, and concluded it was only worth it if volume was the constraint, not the weight. 

 

Source:
http://www.ointres.se/strv_2000.htm

Nice find!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the weight and the protection level, it is not possible that the Abrams tank variant proposed to Sweden featured the armor array of the a M1IP/M1A1 model. If the armor included depeleted uranium (or another material with similar density) IMO shouldn't make a massive difference, at least not a difference large enough to surpass the level of protection reached by the M1A2 Abrams with Swedish add-on armor (which had heavier and thicker armor than the US model).

 

A lot also depends on how the DU is used within the armor array - what would make DU superior to tungsten (which can easily be offered on export tanks). Tungsten carbide is the armor material with the highest TE I've seen, easily outperforming both conventional tungsten alloys and uranium oxide (in scale tests).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SH_MM If I had to guess, maybe it's kind of like why Uranium alloys won out in the US for penetrators? Abundance and ease of manufacturing. Staballoys are easier to extrude and turn on a lathe than Tungsten alloys, they can also be drawn and cold rolled with less difficulty. WC and WHAs are often both sintered into a near-net shape because of the difficulty of machining them. Comparing between Oak Ridge's guide to machining depleted uranium and Midwest Tungsten Service's machining guide for their MT series heavy alloys, with a density of 17 g/cm3, the tungsten alloy requires a higher spindle speed, a slower feed rate and a slightly shallower depth of cut on roughing. In the worst case for both metals (slowest spindle speed, slowest feed rate, shallowest cut depth), you can turn tungsten at about half the rate of Uranium on a lathe.

 

1" Uranium bar Roughing: 573 RPM, 0.012"/rev feed, 0.050" cut depth = 1.080 in3/min metal removal rate

 

1" WHA bar Roughing: 764 RPM, 0.008"/rev feed, 0.030" cut depth = 0.576 in3/min metal removal

 

WHA lets you go significantly faster than uranium on finishing however, again comparing the worst case scenarios for both metals we get

 

1" Uranium bar Finishing: 1050.423 RPM, 0.002"/rev feed, 0.002" cut depth=0.013 in3/min metal removal

 

1" WHA bar Finishing: 954.930 RPM, 0.004"/rev feed, 0.010" cut depth=0.120 in3/min metal removal

 

This is why WHA penetrators are manufactured as close to the finished shape as possible while Uranium penetrators can afford to be further off from the complete shape.

 

Tungsten Carbide is an absolute bitch to machine too, requiring specialized inserts like Polycrystalline Cubic Boron Nitride and cutting rates during roughing that approach the finishing speeds of Uranium

 

There is also another difference between the two materials that's worth noting, how they interact with the actual cutting tool. Uranium is frequently compared to austenitic steel in Oak Ridge's literature, described as being susceptible to work hardening and built up edges. Tungsten on the other hand varies between class 4 alloys which behave like a highly abrasive version of grey iron with a risk of chip hammering, to the less dense class 1 and class 2 alloys whose behavior is closer to Uranium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=731f452069aadb0b320a63d9d64b3b45&tab=core&_cview=0

 

Quote

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY - This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes as a means for the Government to conduct market research, identifying interested parties and their capability to support the requirement for the XM813 Remote Weapon System and Unmanned Turret. It does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP in the future. Solicitations are not available at this time. Requests for a solicitation will not receive a response. This notice does not constitute a commitment by the United States Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. All information submitted in response to this announcement is voluntary; the United States Government will not pay for information requested nor will it compensate any respondent for any cost incurred in developing information provided to the United States Government. Not responding to this Sources Sought notice does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if any is issued. If a solicitation is released, it will be synopsized on FBO.gov. It is the responsibility of the potential offerors to monitor this site for additional information pertaining to this requirement.

The U.S. Army Contracting Command - New Jersey on behalf of the Product Manager Crew Served Weapons (PM CSW), located at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, is seeking information from organizations that possess Remote Weapon Systems and unmanned turrets which integrate the XM813 Automatic Cannon, co-axial machine gun, and additional armaments. Information is being sought for ruggedized/militarized system with high technology and manufacturing readiness levels that meet the following criteria:


Weapon Station Description:
Weapon integration: 
Primary Armament: XM813 30x173mm Automatic Cannon
Co-axial Armament: NATO 7.62mm (for example M240B or MK52)
Sensors:
Thermal camera with 70% identification to ranges outwards to 4 km of a NATO sized vehicle target (3.1 m x 3.1 m)
Platform Integration:
Compatible with a medium sized combat vehicle platform (for example Stryker, M113, and AMPV)


Characteristics: Provide the following system information:
• Block diagram of the system architecture
• Description of fire control and operator interface
• Additional armament capability (for example Stinger, Javelin, and Spike Missile)
• Ammunition capacity of all integrated weapons
• Sensor characteristics (detect and identification ranges)
• System weight with/without weapons and ammunition (control unit and weapon station separately)
• System size (control unit and weapon station separately)
• Swept weapon station diameter 
• Power requirement
• Reload under armor
• Wireless and network capability
• Ability to fire airburst and performance
• Accuracy and dispersion

 

Share this post


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

Forgive my retardation, but isn’t the Styker Dragoon turret an XM813, or similar to it? 

 

The Dragoon has a Kongsberg MCT-30 turret, XM813 is the name of the 30mm gun used.

Share this post


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

Forgive my retardation, but isn’t the Styker Dragoon turret an XM813, or similar to it? 

XM813 is the designation for the 30mm gun, which the Dragoon carries in its turret.  The army is looking into a new turret or weapons system to carry the gun.

 

Ninja'd by Ramlaen

 

 

I know it's just being used as an example here, but listing the AMPV as a potential platform for this new turret is interesting.  I figured OMFV has the role of future tracked IFV locked in.  M113 being listed as well probably adds to the example bit.

Share this post


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

I know it's just being used as an example here, but listing the AMPV as a potential platform for this new turret is interesting.

 

It also mentioned Spike missiles and the Mk52 7.62mm chain gun, so I'm not going to read too much into that just yet.

Share this post


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

XM813 is the designation for the 30mm gun, which the Dragoon carries in its turret.  The army is looking into a new turret or weapons system to carry the gun.

 

Ninja'd by Ramlaen

 

 

I know it's just being used as an example here, but listing the AMPV as a potential platform for this new turret is interesting.  I figured OMFV has the role of future tracked IFV locked in.  M113 being listed as well probably adds to the example bit.

It does have it locked in, but buying at least a couple armed AMPV would make sense, considering the OMFV won't enter service until 2027.

Share this post


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

 

The Dragoon has a Kongsberg MCT-30 turret, XM813 is the name of the 30mm gun used.

 

Ok, so, additional retardation: 

 

why are they sending out the RFI for unmanned turrets when the MCT-30 can already do all those things, including the ATGMs? Competition? 

Share this post


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

 

Ok, so, additional retardation: 

 

why are they sending out the RFI for unmanned turrets when the MCT-30 can already do all those things, including the ATGMs? Competition? 

 

To use M-SHORAD as an example, the Boeing turret that the Army asked them to stick on a Stryker did what the Army asked for, but the Army ended up choosing the (better) Moog/Leonardo RIwP turret.

 

Will that happen with the Kongsberg MCT-30? Dunno, but there are a lot of competitors who will try to woo the Army.

Share this post


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

 

Ok, so, additional retardation: 

 

why are they sending out the RFI for unmanned turrets when the MCT-30 can already do all those things, including the ATGMs? Competition? 

The MCT-30 is not suitable for integration with ATGMs. If you want a Javelin or any other ATGM, you gotta either mount it on the side of the turret like this:

Spoiler

8Uo7Z5x.jpg

 

or like this:

Spoiler

DIX_gtJXcAA4KLd.jpg

 

Both of them are absolutely terrible options, because it makes them highly susceptible to damage from environmental effects and weaponry that would not really bother the turret's armor.

 

Additionally, the US Army may want to couple this effort with the APS program.

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...