Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Your homework is to come up with a reason for Mexico to do joint military exercises.

The joint military excercise would be there to deter US aggression, foster international interoperability and promote peace and regional stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

The joint military excercise would be there to deter US aggression, foster international interoperability and promote peace and regional stability.

 

Can you come up with a reason that actually fits Mexico's situation?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

article on AUSA 1985 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1985-12

EBhzax2XsAAuxYZ?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EBhzax1W4AAwMX2?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBhzayOW4AAiFIb?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBhzax2WkAEgRGJ?format=jpg&name=4096x409 

 

EBh2ZDOXoAIS3rc?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBh2ZDVXkAE2ve-?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBh2ZD9XUAY2jx6?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBh5RcQW4AIQufk?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBh5Rc5WwAACF2E?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

some pics photographed separately

Spoiler

EBh7mDaW4AINZR7?format=jpg&name=large

EBh7mC0W4AAKGrH?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EBh-QC3W4AAHQnm?format=jpg&name=4096x409
EBh-QDjXUAEzYrJ?format=jpg&name=small

EBh-QEMX4AEgN-5?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBh6QznXoAIfk8K?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EBh6QyNWwAAuTJ0?format=jpg&name=4096x409
EBh6QyzWwAQ88eR?format=jpg&name=small

 

EBh6Q0hXYAEkuSg?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EBh7mEFWsAAaupt?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EBh7mEtW4AEK7zB?format=jpg&name=900x900

EBh-QEpX4AAQBlU?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBh6-j2W4AEQ80q?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EBh6-kUWwBAxd8r?format=jpg&name=small

 

EBh6-k_XoAEkYQS?format=jpg&name=4096x409
EBh6-luXkAIa0UD?format=jpg&name=small

 

article (in german) on AUSA 1985 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1986-01

EBHMFi-WsAA0EQ4?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EBHMIbvWsAUTchH?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBHMPcEXsAEZ6wl?format=jpg&name=4096x409 

 

EBHMYggXkAAjQTs?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBHO0RWXoAAySBo?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBHO2ayXkAAqgjl?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBHO3jMXsAANIvD?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

larger pic of Mowag 8x8 w/Ares 75mm cannon
EBh_7WMXoAAVBLX?format=jpg&name=large

Spoiler

other version
EBh_7WvXYAE5Wqu?format=jpg&name=4096x409

and more on this vehicle from other sources - 
IDR 1980-01 AUSA article:

EADI_z2XsAENZi4?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EADJBq1WsAE7wzC?format=jpg&name=small

and aso leaflet I've stumbled across on Ebay once

EADJPqXXsAAF_w_?format=jpg&name=large

 

EADJXKgW4AEjAIB?format=jpg&name=large

 

larger pic of scalemodel of what would eventually become known as M109A5
EBHQAB4X4AAknn2?format=jpg&name=4096x409

btw, on this photo of M109A5 model one can spot at the background an red-and-black artist's drawing of some tank - also published b/w in Hunnicutt's book on Abrams, but it appeared earlier (and with caption which says it artist drawing of M1 replacement from General Electric) in IDR 1982-02

EBHT_C7W4AUUUCn?format=jpg&name=large

Spoiler

EBHT_C8W4AA3OMD?format=jpg&name=large


EBHT_C-XkAEcR7u?format=jpg&name=medium

EBHT_C9WwAAZCBK?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

and later, in 2008, journalist from Polish magazine Nowa Technika Wojskowa saw this pic among others used by Klimov's design bureau (responsible for Soviet and Russian gas turbine engines, including tanks), and started guessing whether this pic depicts T-80 replacement or not (NTW 2008-02, article Drogi do nowego rosyjskiego czolgu by Tomasz Szulc)

EBHp3kBWsAA7Sis?format=jpg&name=large

 

article on AUSA 1986 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1986-12

EBcG-3GWkAArucr?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EBcHAeKXkAA0K7E?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBcHCAZW4AEMZAL?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBcHHIfWsAAna_A?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBcKCEYXsAA17cP?format=jpg&name=4096x409 

 

EBcKGIhXYAUgf9g?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBcKIZUXYAAKGyq?format=jpg&name=4096x409 

 

EBcNP_7WkAA9FP-?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBcNR1rXoAADYN0?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

some pics photographed separately

Spoiler

EBcUtCMWkAAUt0H?format=jpg&name=large

EBcPC80XkAAn-YH?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBcPEI7W4AAijNF?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBcPtSPXYAARNws?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EBcPuPMXsAAOh56?format=jpg&name=4096x409

EBcPvHHXoAA3DYU?format=jpg&name=medium

 

article (in german) on AUSA 1986 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1987-01

EBVbmEzXYAEegHe?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EBVcTVaWwAMGzSf?format=jpg&name=4096x409 

 

EBVcUj3W4AAbg3E?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EBVcWCbWsAEFZUf?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

larger pic of scalemodel of M1 Abrams-based tank w/ some new turret

EBVgLhGW4AEn_1t?format=jpg&name=4096x409EBVhdiHWsAEuV4I?format=jpg&name=360x360
similar vehicle is well-known from artist's drawing

Spoiler

like this one from some magazine
EBVhgPrX4AEgBT0?format=jpg&name=900x900


and this one from Hunnicutt's book on Abrams, p.250
EBVhkWXWsAEFMS4?format=jpg&name=large

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, skylancer-3441 said:

AUSA 1985

That article mentions the COV.

I've encountered one of those in the wild before, but never knew what it was called. Magical, absolutely magical.

 

Knowing the name allowed me to find this: 

 

Also here are some pics of the one I spotted in the wild:

OLEG1XW.jpg

TP9mFyk.jpg

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2019 at 11:58 PM, Lord_James said:

You must be insane, @XhaxhiEnver; truly. When comparing the cost of a series production, you use a single year’s dollar equivalent, which accounts for in/deflation, because the uncorrected values will indeed skew the final costs. It is a common, accepted practice to use the value of the dollar (or whatever currency) of the first year of production of an item, for all years that the item was produced. Ergo, if you want to compare the unit cost of the M1 over its production run, you would most likely use the value of the M1 in the first year it was produced.

 

Inflation will make the cost higher because THAT’S WHAT INFLATION DOES! It makes the unit monetary value decrease, meaning you need MORE MONEY to pay for the same item. This is why it is imperative to adjust for inflation of goods. 

 

One thing you’re not understanding about that $4.2 billion number is that it is for EVERYTHING related to the M1: setting up a new factory and/or re-tooling of old factories to accommodate for the new vehicle (this cost money... like, a LOT of money); acquisition of ammo, fuel, spare parts, and crew pensions and training for each tank planned (make sure they’re not out of parts/fuel within days introduction), and that’s certainly not cheap for 7000 vehicles; worker, electric, and materials costs (it would be ridiculous to think contractor, sub-contractor, and other utility and manufacturing costs would not be estimated and included in the report). 

 

I don’t know where you learned to estimate finances, but you should probably ask for your money back. 

 

The cost of a series production, is calculated on procurement prices. Unless you pay for them prior and use a layered contract. Which them would indeed make no difference.

The US did not. It paid for tranches through yearly procurement programs. This meant that the inflation would affect both orders YoY and cost YoY. 

 

Furthermore Inflation doesn't do wonders. It is predictable post-hoc. So basically you can retrace how much the Inflation affected the unit price.


 

Quote

 

One thing you’re not understanding about that $4.2 billion number is that it is for EVERYTHING related to the M1: setting up a new factory and/or re-tooling of old factories to accommodate for the new vehicle (this cost money... like, a LOT of money); acquisition of ammo, fuel, spare parts, and crew pensions and training for each tank planned (make sure they’re not out of parts/fuel within days introduction),


 

This is simply not true. Ammo, fuel, spares do not go in the unit procurement. They are procured separately because tanks don't break down only once. That's why they enter the cost of use, not the cost of acquisition. Again, the added cost for tooling as calculated in 1982 was roughly 10% added on the Hardware (200K USD). Again, the cost per hour or the M1 ended up being 3/4 times superior to the M60. This isn't due to inflation alone. It is also due to how the tank works. 

 

Last but not least, the 4.2 billion USD FY72 is for 4800 tanks, which still falls short of the 7K target. So...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/raytheon-and-rheinmetall-expand-us-army-omfv-team/

Quote

Raytheon and Rheinmetall have introduced new partner Pratt & Miller Defense into their teaming to offer the Lynx IFV for the US Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) competition. 

The US-based company will provide engineering analysis for the vehicle being pitched for the OMFV requirement, the selected design for which is scheduled for fielding in 2026 and will replace the Bradley fighting vehicle.

‘Pratt & Miller brings extraordinary engineering experience and expertise to the team to make sure Lynx can withstand the battlefield's harsh conditions,’ Brad Barnard, Raytheon OMFV director, said. 

‘Our troops deserve the safest and most advanced combat vehicle possible, and that's exactly what we will deliver.’

Raytheon and Rheinmetall teamed to offer the Lynx - a tracked armoured vehicle – for OMFV in 2018, which the companies say will be manufactured in the US if selected. 

‘Raytheon and Rheinmetall are assembling a US supply chain for Lynx,’ Matt Warnick, American Rheinmetall Vehicles managing director, said. 

‘Partnering with Pratt & Miller brings us one step closer to building Lynx in the USA.’

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6567119520996048896/ - 4 photos of slides from recent presentation on NGCV's RCVs

ECIVd06XUAY_-nk?format=jpg&name=large

Spoiler

ECIVd01XkAA6X0s?format=jpg&name=large

ECIVd0yWwAUVmee?format=jpg&name=large

 

ECIVd06WkAArQZH?format=jpg&name=large

 

and another one from https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6567111444783996928/

ECLGATEXYAIYjiv?format=jpg&name=large

Spoiler

ukBFQqD.jpg

 

xW3ONsL.jpg

 

AbtDOrl.jpg

 

KBPZguu.jpg

 

qN33lJz.jpg

 

ECLGAS3XUAI500Z?format=jpg&name=large

 

ECLGAS-XYAAhAvX?format=jpg&name=large

 

ECLGAS5XoAE57MH?format=jpg&name=large

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://upnorthlive.com/news/local/us-army-tests-combat-vehicles-for-next-generation-at-camp-grayling
article with video on MET-D demonstrator and RCVs
which shows MET-D's new interior with several monitors and couple of joysticks for people-other-than-commander-and-gunner

9E29f0j.jpg

 

ECqwifFX4AAeRtq?format=jpg&name=large

 

Spoiler

same poster with countdown clock at the bottom, which appeared on photos posted back in July
ECqoAGFWkAAyDN1?format=jpg&name=large

unfortunatelly this video only shows a close-up of upper part of poster,
ECqoAGKWsAEJtP8?format=jpg&name=large
so MET-D's cutaway in better quiality then this:
CQXU0S1.jpg
is still not available 



and also another video on RCVs

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

article from International Defense Review 1982-09 on Tank Breaker, DARPA's program from late 70s-early 80s to develop fire-and-forget ATGM to replace Dragoon, which eventually led to Javelin

ECxnXohW4AA71ik?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

ECxnXoiXUAEvTNb?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

ECxnXohX4AEgbQE?format=jpg&name=4096x409 ECxnXohWwAEA4te?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

separately photographed pics

Spoiler

ECxnwXAX4AEuzC8?format=jpg&name=4096x409

ECxnwXSW4AYlsbA?format=jpg&name=360x360

 

ECxnwYCXoAA8CpE?format=jpg&name=4096x409

ECxnwYlXYAA_fA5?format=jpg&name=4096x409

IqFAQWRl.jpg

 

 

ECxoF2hW4AEM8W9?format=jpg&name=small

ECxoF1wXoAAj7tk?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

ECxoF4AWwAAlHBu?format=jpg&name=small

ECxoF3UXYAcx83y?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

ECxoTGzXsAQ_NI4?format=jpg&name=4096x409

ECxoTH4X4AEzqrN?format=jpg&name=4096x409

ECxoTIiW4AE-Z0E?format=jpg&name=4096x409

ECxoTJRXsAAfQUx?format=jpg&name=small

 

...including two possible designs of Tank-Breaker-carrying vehicles, each transporting dozens of missiles:

ECxpGptX4AAvo8n?format=jpg&name=360x360

ECxpGo7XUAQQiGn?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

 

5O78DaEl.jpg

zzpjo6f.jpg

ECxpGrSWwAAazCK?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

article on AUSA 1987 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1987-12

EB1aQAMX4AEXQIP?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EB1aQANX4AAwgpT?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EB1aQAPWsAAYkiE?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EB1aQARX4AAWVKX?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EB1cUAtXYAAmhJt?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EB1cUApXsAEJ4IF?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EB1cUA1XUAIvJnV?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EB1dMIUXYAEX9cp?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EB1dMItWkAEjVwF?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

separately photographed pics

Spoiler

kvhRJP7l.jpg

EB1dn4XX4AAXv7E?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

v2Knjcpl.jpg

EB1dn44WkAAy6kG?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EB1dn5VXUAE6RmF?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

OCDdaaGl.jpg

EB1dn5wWkAAA5-I?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EB1fgwiW4AAlEtE?format=jpg&name=4096x409EB1fgxCWkAEJMLD?format=jpg&name=small

 

EB1ewgmWkAINWrf?format=jpg&name=4096x409

8Gtor3el.jpg

 

 

olpystRl.jpg

26czppK.jpg

 

EB1ewhFX4AIkCSn?format=jpg&name=4096x409EB1ewhqXkAAHYlZ?format=jpg&name=360x360

 

 

EB1fgyDW4AAvad5?format=jpg&name=small

EB1fgxhW4AAYadm?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

XbPU3Hml.jpg

d4AJHET.jpg

 

EB1ewgKXsAEPWgZ?format=jpg&name=4096x409

BHJHTLll.jpg

 

 

EB1e_k5W4AEOpRL?format=jpg&name=small

EB1e_kYXYAErR6o?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EB1e_l6WkAAAsYe?format=jpg&name=small

EB1e_lYXUAATNhh?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

article (in german) on AUSA 1987 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1988-01

EB5hIR4XkAEAv8U?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EB5hKZkXsAE9JLY?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EB5hNMuXYAARbJ8?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EB5hRBBWsAIXm8l?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EB5kyXIXUAACBHD?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EB5k0UYWsAAiCiT?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

separately photographed pics

Spoiler

EB5nEzNXYAIiiF1?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EB5nIahX4AAvoUD?format=jpg&name=large

 

p7Oqxbo.jpg

 

oULDMGk.jpg

 

KHwqesF.jpg

 

MT4Tafn.jpg

 

EB5nLgRWsAELV1_?format=jpg&name=4096x409

rDuspx8.jpg

 

EB5oag1XoAIDhVm?format=jpg&name=large

also from Jane's AFV Retrofit Systems 1993-94

Spoiler

EB5ohRxXkAAdVUu?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EB5om7HXsAATfC-?format=jpg&name=large

EB5ooZXWsAALv_V?format=jpg&name=small

 

 

EB5ouktXUAQO1Rt?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EB5owULWwAA8jcZ?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EB5mwBkXoAA_mYM?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EB1iJQOXoAAhXJO?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

 

article on AUSA 1988 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1988-12

ECt2kGbXoAAu6V0?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

ECt2kGZWsAAx-9a?format=jpg&name=4096x409 ECt2kGgW4AEmQ-U?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

ECuAfhvWkAAe6qP?format=jpg&name=4096x409 ECuAfh4XsAAOos7?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

ECuAfhxW4AArsc0?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

separately photographed pics

Spoiler

ECuCWnaW4AAlb9c?format=jpg&name=4096x409

KOp7COVl.jpg

 

ECuBARoXsAAaZob?format=jpg&name=4096x409

6xvbR43l.jpg

 

ECuBAR3W4AAtCEy?format=jpg&name=4096x409

K3rthaal.jpg

 

ECuBASjWkAATrTN?format=jpg&name=4096x409

ECuBATKXsAElFv3?format=jpg&name=small

 

ECuGc4oXYAAPp5X?format=jpg&name=4096x409

cJ4aBpFl.jpg

 

ECuBTCUXYAAzyGN?format=jpg&name=4096x409ECuBTDCW4AU65s5?format=jpg&name=small

 

ECuBTD0WwAElXd0?format=jpg&name=4096x409ECuBTEmXkAAxl06?format=jpg&name=small

 

ECuCWo5XYAEKCx5?format=jpg&name=4096x409wrrbl7Dm.jpg

 

ECuCWoHXYAY8I-6?format=jpg&name=4096x40917pnTZIl.jpg

 

article (in german) on AUSA 1988 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1989-01

EC0IvviXkAAGib2?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EC0IvviWkAAvbYZ?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EC0IvvhXoAApUnm?format=jpg&name=4096x409 EC0IvvdXkAACi7_?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EC0JWZXXYAAkJn-?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

article (in german) on AUSA 1988 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1989-02

EC3Sii6W4AAwVJG?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Spoiler

EC3Sii6X4AIzHsB?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EC3SijBXUAAQ9Fu?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

separately photographed pics from both articles

Spoiler

EC0JhgUXsAEkKSA?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EC0Jhg3WwAEWhm8?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EC0JhhSW4AAo2HR?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EC0Jhh0XUAEz1qB?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EC0JWZWW4AEQ-bz?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EC3XFktXkAAQTg2?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

EC3XFkxWwAEjKan?format=jpg&name=4096x409
camouflage canvas/tarpaulin/whatever over most of ERA kit

printed on a page spread, which is rather hard to photograph, so it kinda turned Bradley into 5-roadwheel version w/puny little turret and short-barrel cannon
b/w pic from Czechoslovak magazine ATOM 1989-02 shows it properly:

Spoiler

EC3XFkuXYAAyaXA?format=jpg&name=900x900

 

EC3XFlgWkAYwZMG?format=jpg&name=4096x409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/08/28/us-army-picks-3-teams-to-build-infantry-squad-vehicle-prototypes/

The U.S. Army has picked an Oshkosh Defense and Flyer Defense LLC team, an SAIC and Polaris team, and GM Defense to competitively build Infantry Squad Vehicles intended to provide ground mobility for infantry brigade combat teams.



The ISV is intended to supplement and potentially replace vehicles the Army procured as version 1.1 of the Ground Mobility Vehicle.

The ISV “is additive” to infantry brigade combat teams “and currently not planned as a replacement for current vehicles in the formation,” according to Herrick.



Oshkosh and Flyer, in a way, represent the incumbent, as Flyer produced the GMV 1.1. vehicle currently fielded. Flyer Defense “is the design authority” and will lead the team in building the prototypes, according to a statement from the team.

GM Defense’s ISV is based on its Chevrolet Colorado midsize truck and its ZR2 and ZR2 Bison variants, according to a company statement, “supplemented with both custom and commercially available parts proven by Chevy performance engineering in more than 10,000 miles of punishing off-road development and desert racing in the Best of the Desert Racing series.”

The SAIC-Polaris team is submitting the DAGOR vehicle, which “delivers off-road mobility while meeting the squad’s payload demands, all within the weight and size restrictions that maximize tactical air transportability,” according to Jed Leonard, vice president of Polaris Government and Defense.

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...