Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

On 6/10/2019 at 8:42 AM, Ramlaen said:

 

Probably not, having a CROWS-J on an Abrams is also extremely unlikely.

 

Wasnt there a stop production order on the CROWS-LP a while back? What CROWS are the M1A2C shipping with? 

 

I wouldnt mind the Abrams with a CROWS-J, not because it would be useful, but so that people can stop saying "Abroomz sux cause no gun launched missile" 

Share this post


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


Wasnt there a stop production order on the CROWS-LP a while back? 

 

No.

 

What CROWS are the M1A2C shipping with?

 

CROWS-LP

 

I wouldnt mind the Abrams with a CROWS-J, not because it would be useful, but so that people can stop saying "Abroomz sux cause no gun launched missile"

 

Dumb people are dumb and where would you store the missiles?

Share this post


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

 

Wasnt there a stop production order on the CROWS-LP a while back? What CROWS are the M1A2C shipping with? 

 

I wouldnt mind the Abrams with a CROWS-J, not because it would be useful, but so that people can stop saying "Abroomz sux cause no gun launched missile

Who said that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

article on AUSA 1975 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1975-06
lXZEpIU.jpg

Spoiler

D-PMDfcXUAAvIR2?format=jpg&name=4096x409 D-PME-qWkAA476m?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

article on AUSA 1976 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1977-01

D_g6rJ6X4AEr5oj?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

D_g6tOLWwAI6TkV?format=jpg&name=4096x409 

 

D_g6uWOXoAALIIN?format=jpg&name=4096x409 D_g6volX4AIF8qh?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

D_g6-I1XYAEfNDh?format=jpg&name=4096x409 D_g6__sXsAIoGGF?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

D_g7CBuWsAAQvCo?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

(In haste, I forgot to make a photo of page 103, and better photo of page 108)

 

article on AUSA 1977 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1978-01

D_kwoKPXUAM2uLI?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

D_kwzShXkAEzgoO?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

D_kw1zGXUAEAAEV?format=jpg&name=4096x409 D_kw3OrXYAA_wGa?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

D_k1KkpXkAAYLmg?format=jpg&name=4096x409 D_k1NEbWkAEDMgc?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

D_k1PYgWkAAbaIC?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 7:23 PM, Ramlaen said:

 

No.

 

 

 

 

CROWS-LP

 

 

 

 

Dumb people are dumb and where would you store the missiles?

On March 21, Gen. Robert Abrams, commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command, stated FORSCOM’s position is that the Army should “immediately stop the fielding of CROWS-LP [Common Remote Operating Weapon Station – Low-Profile] systems to Forces Command Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABVT),” in a memorandum directed at the vice chief of staff for the Army, which was obtained by Task & Purpose.
The memo goes on to say, “The CROWS-LP system does not correct tank commander visual and fire control issues.”
Ten days later, Army Acquisition Command issued a stop-work order to CROWS Low-Profile manufacturer Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, according to a copy of the order, also obtained by Task & Purpose.
The problem is, nobody from the Army or the Defense Department seems to know the details of the stop-work order or the FORSCOM memo.

 

I guess it never came to pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Vicious_CB said:

The problem is, nobody from the Army or the Defense Department seems to know the details of the stop-work order or the FORSCOM memo.

 

The article that cemented Task & Purpose as cheap clickbait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2019 at 4:55 AM, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

The M109A7 with the ERCA and Auto-loader is to be designated XM1299:

OWVDDsg.jpg

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2019/armament/Musgrave.pdf

 

That .pdf went up in late June and I completely missed the upgraded vehicle being called the XM1299.

Share this post


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

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-news/army-testing-new-weapons-technology-at-proving-grounds-in-yuma

 

Video shows a Bradley being used to test hydropneumatic suspension and says the Abrams will be tested with it in the future.

From Japan ?

 

Look at the weight simulators on the turret. They are not symmetrical. 

Share this post


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

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-news/army-testing-new-weapons-technology-at-proving-grounds-in-yuma

 

Video shows a Bradley being used to test hydropneumatic suspension and says the Abrams will be tested with it in the future.

 

Not sure what I'm missing, but I don't see the video in that link.

Share this post


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

 

Not sure what I'm missing, but I don't see the video in that link.

 

Probably your javascript blockers, I have to allow them to see the video. Here is a direct link.

 

https://mcp-cdn-foxlocal-ksaz.storage.googleapis.com/video/video_studio/2019/07/24/Army_testing_new_weapons_tech_in_Yuma_area_587470_1800.mp4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

article on AUSA 1980 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1981-01

EADDWVxXYAEu62P?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EADDaz7XoAEVMd-?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EADDb5EXsAA8Qou?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EADDiJjX4AA2ADb?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EADGTQkWkAESCek?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

article on AUSA 1981 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1982-01

EAXrhy7XUAEB7B4?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EAXri38XsAYwHGh?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EAXrjo1XoAAUavL?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EAXrkX4WsAEeIuS?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EAXuAbBW4AAwe8j?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EAXuBhiXsAEfbAX?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EAXuMETWkAAe8Bd?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EAXuQFpX4AARy-A?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

article on AUSA 1981 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1982-02

EAbPIAsXUAAvCdl?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EAbPJY-XsAA6Add?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EAbPKqtWsAAIr-g?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EAbPNYVWwAEDA2n?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EAbSM7DX4AEd1nx?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EAbSOMlW4AAEPNq?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EAbSPVhXsAA6u1-?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EAbSQp2XYAMY3lg?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

article (in german) on AUSA 1981 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1982-01

EANHK0PWsAACV2J?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EANHanbVAAcGnTC?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EANHcbEXYAEyZ_A?format=jpg&name=4096x409 

 

EANHfNHUEAEQdhN?format=jpg&name=4096x409  EANISfrXoAAUe12?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EANIUgCWwAA8_WS?format=jpg&name=4096x409 

 

article on AUSA 1982 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1982-12

EAka6NRWkAM5N0H?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EAka7MqX4AUioqm?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EAka9_mXsAUnjlT?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EAkbA1VWsAEzZK8?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EAkc5C1XkAAqaQj?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EAkc69uX4AApAY0?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EAkc9iGXkAMU_Pg?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EAkc-67XoAAMje2?format=jpg&name=4096x409


from that article on AUSA'82 - Ares concept turret w/75mm on nonexistent 6x6 wheeled chassis, which reminds me of ACVT and MPWS concepts - like one from cover of Armor magazine's January-February 1980 issue (although this one was with "gun pod" turret) (same drawings also available in Wheled versus tracked vehicles study final report, March 1985 on page 235 aka 3-73)
EAkkGEnWkAY6uIT?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EAkkHeXXYAAlgjB?format=jpg&name=orig

 

EAkkUxmXUAETGnA?format=jpg&name=large

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight: the same people who refused for over half a century to even mount an autoloader in a tank because "too many moving parts can fail" now want to replace the Abrams with a completely unmanned tank?

Share this post


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

So, let me get this straight: the same people who refused for over half a century to even mount an autoloader in a tank because "too many moving parts can fail" now want to replace the Abrams with a completely unmanned tank?

 

No and no.

Share this post


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

people who refused for over half a century to even mount an autoloader in a tank because "too many moving parts can fail"

I'll take "things that never happened" for $500, Alex.

See also: MBT-70.

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...