Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

On 10/14/2019 at 6:51 PM, DIADES said:

Jeebers!  That had better be cheap.  Only one (very small) step up from a Technical.

 

This comment alone makes me severely question essentially everything else you say or will say in the mechanized warfare forum...

 

Do you actually have an idea of what you're looking at in the Brutus platform?

 

Because I can assure you the God damn truck it's mounted on is so far beyond irrelevant to any potential thereof of the real thing Being showcased as to be entirely laughable for someone even peripherally interested in this realm to comment on that it's genuinely disconcerting.

 

TL;DR it's not about the God damn truck dummy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2019 at 6:35 PM, 2805662 said:

I *think* there’s been a middle eastern customer who has. 

EOS has sold RWS that support 30x113 to UAE, but those RWS are somewhat separate from the guns they carry.

 

The australian ABC would lead us to believe that they have, personally I would expect that payment for the gun goes to a separate entity than payment for the RWS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, roguetechie said:

dummy

I had forgotten how much I enjoy the witty repartee so often a feature of forums in general.  Thank you for reminding me of both that enjoyment and my own failings.

 

 

Share this post


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

I had forgotten how much I enjoy the witty repartee so often a feature of forums in general.  Thank you for reminding me of both that enjoyment and my own failings.

 

 

 

Seriously though, the cannon is the important part of Brutus and it's actually a very major development that heralds not only interesting future possibilities but also the era where foob and etc weapons are finally crossing the technical maturity line in a meaningful way.

 

This is all but the textbook definition of a big deal.

 

This and the gd ngsw bullpups are harbingers of actual advancements in gun technologies across the board which have the potential to let us do things we haven't actually been able to do before in pretty significant ways which also happen to be pretty synergistic with other stuff being developed as well as having some low key potential to dig us out of some holes we're currently in or facing capabilities wise.

 

Share this post


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

gun technologies

You are seeing a gun I think and I am seeing a vehicle.  May reflect our backgrounds - certainly my view does.  I guess as mature adults we should be seeing the system.

 

I don't really see a place for un-armoured guns anymore either - no matter how good the gun is.  Counter battery fire is just too good.  Shoot and scoot, yeah but enemy batteries and loitering drones will be firing on you while your first salvo is still in the air.  The only attraction for a gun on an un-armoured truck is price.

 

I guess I am situating the appraisal - I automatically think peer to peer.  If not that, then gun on a truck is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DIADES said:

and I am seeing a vehicle

Yes, and I believe you are in fact missing his point entirely- which is, as far as I can tell, that Brutus is a demonstrator for the weapon system, not a proposed system for fielding. Once the weapon system is developed, theres nothing preventing you from say plonking it on an armored FMTV chassis, or doing the same thing to the new 58 caliber barrel and gluing it on top of a LVSR.

Yes Brutus isnt a fieldable weapons system thanks to not being frag proof, but thats not its point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, N-L-M said:

missing his point entirely-

perhaps - but as I read it, one of the sales points of such low recoil systems is their ability to carry their own firing loads thus enabling them to be fitted to any old lightweight chassis.  Point is of course, that any old lightweight chassis can't carry a decent armoured cab and BTW, where does the ammo go?   A second lightweight truck?  With armoured cab?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DIADES said:

Point is of course, that any old lightweight chassis can't carry a decent armoured cab

Sure they can, see FMTV.

1 minute ago, DIADES said:

BTW, where does the ammo go?

Presumably in a fragproof box on said "real vehicle". Because again, the Brutus itself appears to be an expedient for tech testing, not a system for fielding in and of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Brutus

I reckon that if the recoil forces are as low (haven't seen numbers) as claimed, then perhaps fire on the move from a heavy tracked platform becomes possible'

 

Given that the proto is on an FMTV surely that is deliberate to illustrate exactly how the OEM sees sales?

Share this post


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

fire on the move from a heavy tracked platform

I suspect that that is entirely not the goal, for a few reasons:

1. The main difficulty in firing on the move is stabilization of the gun. Howitzers, for reasons of easy loading, have the gun out of balance with the trunnions very far aft to minimize the breech drop inside; however the recoil impulse with a good muzzle brake is not significantly in excess of that of a NATO 120mm or Russian 125mm, which have been mounted on vehicles as light as the Sprut with no brake.

Reducing recoil impulse does not help all that much with needing to keep the breech high off the floor for loading and therefore needing to keep it out of balance in the cradle.

2. The US Army for some reason still has a lot of towed howitzers in service, which I'm sure you'd agree need to be replaced with some kind of SP system cause as they are theyd get creamed in any real kind of war. Unfortunately the budget is not infinite (SAD!), and therefore replacing them all with M1299s is less than doable in any reasonable time scale. And replacing them is a much more pressing concern than firing on the move from a tracked platform. 

 

The rest of the world has either gone or is going the route of wheelyboys for various reasons, which bring with them their own host of issues, which ideally need to be worked out separately before you start full scale design and development. This is in my opinion what Brutus actually is. Brutus being FMTV based may be down to the fact that its a platform the Army has available for this kind of testing, and not due to it being intended to see service in this config. The total lack of any serious systems integration work shown so far makes me less than convinced that this platform is intended to eventually actually see service.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

which I'm sure you'd agree

and I do.  Truck mounted is way ahead of towed - although watching a well drilled team bring their gun into action is a joy.  Providing there are no bad guys...

 

Yes, wheels are for barrows.  I wasn't thinking that a low recoil force would make the platform smaller or shorter, more that the low recoil forces could allow a lighter, more agile platform (tracked) to have acceptable dynamic stability if the gun fired while it was in motion.  Not a deeply considered though, came out as I typed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with wheeled artillery. As long the vehicle is not a normal truck. Sadly there are few examples, like Archer, G6 and Dana. Compared to ordinary truck mounted systems, they have far superior offroad mobility, the chassis is specialized to carry heavier loads, so protection can be also higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, N-L-M said:

2. The US Army for some reason still has a lot of towed howitzers in service, which I'm sure you'd agree need to be replaced with some kind of SP system cause as they are theyd get creamed in any real kind of war. Unfortunately the budget is not infinite (SAD!), and therefore replacing them all with M1299s is less than doable in any reasonable time scale. And replacing them is a much more pressing concern than firing on the move from a tracked platform.

 

Towed artillery is the stuff for real kind of war.

 

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Nothing wrong with wheeled artillery. As long the vehicle is not a normal truck. Sadly there are few examples, like Archer, G6 and Dana. Compared to ordinary truck mounted systems, they have far superior offroad mobility, the chassis is specialized to carry heavier loads, so protection can be also higher.

 

Replacing trucks with cannons for Archer, G6 and Dana is like replacing the AT4 with SMAW.

Share this post


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

Towed artillery is the stuff for real kind of war.

Towed artillery would get counterbatteried 10 ways to hell so fast it'd make your head spin. Fire systems incapable of dodging or surviving counterbattery fire will have fuckall survivability in a big boy war. Doubly so for towed guns with substantially less range than enemy artillery, such as say the M777 compared to pretty much anything modern on the opposite side.

Fire-finding radars are everywhere since the 1990s, and the gun's survivability has to be evaluated under the understanding that the enemy is going to shoot back. 

Given that, the ability to shoot and scoot before enemy fire arrives is a critical survivability measure.

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...