Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Lynx will probably be selected now that it isn't hampered by its size.

 

AFAIK U.S. Army reps has said after trials that Lynx is a bit 'obese'.

Share this post


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

- what is the interest in having an optionally maned IFV ? I can understand the need for an UGV, but what kind of task can one give to a vehicle without its crew ?

 

Only engineer versions of NGCV will be probably unmanned I think so. Just like BAE tries to do it with Terriers.

Share this post


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

@Ramlaen: did you notice this?

 

rbqyA7V.jpg

 

6LOgMdM.jpg

 

IMHO, it's a bit small to be the mystery cylinder on the M1A2C, but it's the right shape. A zoom on that part of the exhibit reveals it to be the Blackstone Vehicle Mount Kit (VMK).

 

https://www.leonardodrs.com/media/6608/blackstone_vm_datasheet.pdf

 

It looks like a bicone antenna but it is like half the size of the one on the M1A2C.

 

The antenna on the Stryker is the blue force tracker.

https://www.army.mil/article-amp/127314/battle_tested_stryker_upgrades_to_new_blue_force_tracking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 11:46 PM, Zadlo said:

 

AFAIK U.S. Army reps has said after trials that Lynx is a bit 'obese'.

Any sources/references for that? Would be interested to read what was said. 

Share this post


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

Any sources/references for that? Would be interested to read what was said. 

 

From my friend who is working with American defence industry from the business side. I would call him a 'lobbyist' as well.

 

But on the other it has said Lynx was still a very good IFV. So RLS probably has to slim it down to fit air mobility requirement (two base vehicles in one C-17)

Share this post


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

Just noticed this from Gur Khan´s blog:

2037403_original.jpg

Has the US moved away from DU armor?

No. It has developed a new family of armor to replace the HAP-1/2/3, but no info on the status of the DU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

Just noticed this from Gur Khan´s blog:

2037403_original.jpg

Has the US moved away from DU armor?

 

You will also notice that I made that image and posted it in this thread about two weeks ago.

 

We don't know the composition of the new armor in the M1A2C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the double post.  

What baffles me is that they decided to increase the thickness of the armor, while they publicly declared that the tank got new hull armor for protection against IED (most likely, side armor) and that ain´t lightweight. Thats why i figured that if anything, the new armor on the turret should have been first and foremost more weight efficient, but now they made the turret modules even thicker (with all the practical disadvantages that brings, more difficult for the driver  to enter and exit the tank, less vertical coverage), thats why i started to doubt even if they have DU there.

Share this post


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

Sorry for the double post.  

What baffles me is that they decided to increase the thickness of the armor, while they publicly declared that the tank got new hull armor for protection against IED (most likely, side armor) and that ain´t lightweight. Thats why i figured that if anything, the new armor on the turret should have been first and foremost more weight efficient, but now they made the turret modules even thicker (with all the practical disadvantages that brings, more difficult for the driver  to enter and exit the tank, less vertical coverage), thats why i started to doubt even if they have DU there.

Protection against IEDs is part of the TUSK. An improvement in the frontal armor was needed to cope with new and emerging threats like the T-14.

Share this post


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

No. It has developed a new family of armor to replace the HAP-1/2/3, but no info on the status of the DU.

Just need someone to post a pic of the turret serial to check whether the suffix is ‘U’. 

Share this post


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

Protection against IEDs is part of the TUSK. An improvement in the frontal armor was needed to cope with new and emerging threats like the T-14.

I´m refering to this "There is a new armor package inside the turret and the hull..." (1:04).  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L94E8DGLmjw&list=PL72124C26D466E6CB&index=370&t=0s
the engineers need to accommodate a lot of new stuff in an already weight limited tank, thats why my first intuition was that they were making the armor lighter. If i had to speculate i would bet that the protection requirements are to be able to resist Svinets 1-2 and whatever the Type 99A shoots. At this moment there is little to no practical reason to be protected against unicorn projectiles such as Vacuum.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

What are the other suffixes? 

 

Quote

Turret:


XXXX - BRL-1 or BRL-2 armor package.
XXXXU - Heavy Armor Package.
XXXXM - Heavy Armor Package (some US tanks have it, don't know why that change in letter).
XXXXA - Heavy Armor Package variant for Australia.
XXXXE - Export Armor Package for Arab states.

Hull:

XXXXD - Tank was made in Detroit Tank Arsenal.
XXXXL - Tank was made in Lima Army TankPlant/Joint Systems Manufacturing Center.

 

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...