Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, 2805662 said:




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

-U tanks













Mix of M1A1 and M1A2


-M tank







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









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:




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

Makes me think that it IS some sort of upgrade to the Bradley, based on the AMPV perhaps. Because the OMFV has to have a crew of 3 and they need to sit in a capsule. These models show a design without a capsule.

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


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. 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




-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.

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 Mighty_Zuk
      I realized we don't have a topic for a proper discussion of what future AFVs should look like, in the style of a general AFVs discussion rather than country-specific threads.
      I spotted a revived potential need for future MBTs - a coaxial autocannon to replace the coaxial MG. The reason? An APS neutralizer. 
      Here's my short post on why I think it should happen:
      I didn't add it there, but I see lasers as a potential alternative. However, I don't think they're viable because of the power required to properly neutralize an APS's components, especially if these components are dispersed, or worse yet, effectively camouflaged. An autocannon will be able to disable not only the APS but other external components all at once. 
      Similar to the engagement method showcased by Russia where they fired 2 Kornet missiles (almost) simultaneously to defeat an APS, a hypothetical mode of operation could include firing a burst of 2 KETF shells at a target prior to firing a main gun shell.
      An additional alternative could be to use a single main gun ABM shell that would initiate outside the scope of the APS's engagement range (e.g engagement range is 30m so it initiates at 50m), but it would have 2 main issues that are a longer time to kill a target and a greater consumption of ammunition (up to a 3rd of ammo would have to be allocated to ABM munitions strictly for anti-armor operations).
    • 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.
  • Create New...