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
5 hours ago, Serge said:

From Japan ?

 

Looks like a Horstman.

s7zi1PY.jpg

xVbRaeQ.jpg

 

Quote

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

 

The turret is not symmetrical.

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 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...