Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

 

C2jPBUu.jpg

 

5345-A as an Australian example. What are the other suffixes? 


-U tanks
 

 

 


m1_abrams_22_of_55.jpg

m1_abrams_42_of_55.jpg

m1a2sepv2_027.jpg

M1_tank.jpg

4873312346_13a934204a_o-56a9b26c5f9b58b7d0fe292c.jpg

m1a2_details_068_of_125.jpg

 

 
 

 

 

Mix of M1A1 and M1A2

 

-M tank

 

 

 


M1A1_Abrams_tank%2C_Ramadi%2C_Iraq_%282202457201%29.jpg

2037403_original.jpg
 

 

First pic is M1A1 from Ramadi 2005. M designation seems rare and no idea what the difference is to the more common "U". Both are used on tanks in service with the Army and Marines.

 

-E tanks

 

 

 


Egyptian_Tank_in_the_streets_of_Cairo_Fe

C8xXiku.jpg

original.jpg
 

 

 

Egypt, Saudi and Iraq respectively

Share this post


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

so no ID on where this was built? Do re-furbed bulls have the suffix removed?

 

I've never been able to confirm the hull letter thing, and in all the images I have only on Australian Abrams is the number legible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ZloyKrolik said:

Why the end connector on the fender latch lever? To keep the lever from dropping too far?

I think it’s to weight the spring to prevent it bouncing out of place? 

Share this post


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

gE0BvZtr.jpg

 

 

Interesting they chose a case-mate style tank for the OMFV, and the full caliber gun is also unusual. I like the rounded hull though, very mine resistant :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 8:53 PM, ZloyKrolik said:

Why the end connector on the fender latch lever? To keep the lever from dropping too far?

It's to keep the fender from closing on you when you need to open it up for whatever reason.  

 

Source: Was a 19K myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7f0d1cb412c1d7ab04f9984e1868688b&tab=core&_cview=0

The United States Government has identified a requirement to integrate a 30mm Weapon System on Double "V" Hull (DVH) Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICVVA1). The Lethality Annex to the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) requires Project Manager - Stryker Brigade Combat Team (PM-SBCT) to develop and field a Medium Caliber Weapon System (MCWS) for the ICVVA1. This requirement is intended to be accomplished in two phases which are detailed in sections A.2 - A.3.1.4.2 of the RFQ. Please note that details included regarding Phase 2 is for informational purposes only and is subject to change. This Request for Quotation (RFQ) W56HZV-19-Q-0082 (Phase 1) solicits contractors to perform a Design Integration Study (DIS) to integrate a weapon station using a Government-Furnished XM813 gun on a Government-Furnished ICVVA1 hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BAE's MPF

 

-uses the same new hull seen above, but not the M8 turret

-improved underbelly and ballistic protection

-comparable protection to a Bradley

-MTU engine

-same overall dimensions as the M8 so it can fit in a C-130

-19 tons to 26 tons

 

I suspect their MPF includes components of the CV90 MkIV.

Edited by Ramlaen

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...