Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

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

Recommended Posts

8 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.

 

Actually Dana does not have any sort of special chassis. It's a modified Tatra 815 chassis (the main modification is that it's driving backwards compared to the truck). New Danish Caesars have modified newer but essentially very similar Tatra chassis. Older Tatra 813 chassis (in principle still the same thing) was used for RM-70 MLRS or OT-64 SKOT. 

 

Anyway Tatra chassis are kind of an exception because their specific design and modularity allow them to be used for basically whatever purpose. 

Share this post


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

Older Tatra 813 chassis (in principle still the same thing) was used for RM-70 MLRS or OT-64 SKOT. 

Tatra has nothing to do with OT-64 and most of its components (with the exception of its engine), OT-64 was designed by Praga-Avia using parts from their Praga-Avia S360 truck (btw, OT-64 was also designated as Avia A105 and Praga S260)(one may simply look at OT-64's double wishbone suspension, such thing was never used for any 111/12x/138/148/813/815-series Tatra AFAIK) which was developed as replacement for well-known Praga V3S, but was never put into production.

Share this post


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

Tatra has nothing to do with OT-64 and most of its components (with the exception of its engine), OT-64 was designed by Praga-Avia using parts from their Praga-Avia S360 truck (btw, OT-64 was also designated as Avia A105 and Praga S260)(one may simply look at OT-64's double wishbone suspension, such thing was never used for any 111/12x/138/148/813/815-series Tatra AFAIK) which was developed as replacement for well-known Praga V3S, but was never put into production.

You are right, of course. Sorry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Beer said:

 

Actually Dana does not have any sort of special chassis. It's a modified Tatra 815 chassis (the main modification is that it's driving backwards compared to the truck). New Danish Caesars have modified newer but essentially very similar Tatra chassis. Older Tatra 813 chassis (in principle still the same thing) was used for RM-70 MLRS or OT-64 SKOT. 

 

Anyway Tatra chassis are kind of an exception because their specific design and modularity allow them to be used for basically whatever purpose. 

Yes you are right, but the base chassis has extremely good offroad capability, its not an ordinary truck. Far better than the MAN, Renault or that Brutus prototype. No wonder that the Tatra is the king of truck trials.  If americans really want a wheeled artillery, they should definitely put it on the HEMTT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2019 at 11:23 PM, Ramlaen said:

The leftmost vehicle has an M2 .50 cal.

yeah, you are right.

 

I'll just have to be patient, and wait for a photo to come up.

 

Australia and UAE both seem to have M230LF, UAE's are thought to be mounted on an THeMIS unmanned ground vehicle.  https://johnmenadue.com/mike-scrafton-facilitating-repression-abandoning-values/

 

but this is off-topic, although M230LF is an USA (Californian) product?

Share this post


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

yeah, you are right.

 

I'll just have to be patient, and wait for a photo to come up.

 

Australia and UAE both seem to have M230LF, UAE's are thought to be mounted on an THeMIS unmanned ground vehicle.  https://johnmenadue.com/mike-scrafton-facilitating-repression-abandoning-values/

 

but this is off-topic, although M230LF is an USA (Californian) product?


Australia does not (yet) have M230LF. The only system in service in Australia that fires the 30 x 113mm round is the GIAT 30mm DEFA M781 fitted the the Eurocopter Tiger ARH.

 

EOS is an Australian company that sometimes ‘borrows’ ADF platforms to demonstrate its products, sometimes mounting M230LF, which can lead to some confusion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

Australia and UAE both seem to have M230LF,

Can't speak for UAE but Australia definitely does not have this gun on any LAND platform and I am pretty sure, no AIR or SEA platforms either.  We do have the R400S Mk2 D-HD-3X remote which is claimed to be able to carry that gun.  The remote will be on BOXER and whatever wins L400 Phase 3 (REDBACK or LYNX)

Share this post


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

Can't speak for UAE but Australia definitely does not have this gun on any LAND platform and I am pretty sure, no AIR or SEA platforms either.  We do have the R400S Mk2 D-HD-3X remote which is claimed to be able to carry that gun.  The remote will be on BOXER and whatever wins L400 Phase 3 (REDBACK or LYNX)

You “quoting” me in that manner is misleading. I was quoting - and correcting - @Kal . I *did not* say that either country used the M230LF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

You “quoting” me in that manner is misleading

My apologies, pure scroll, click error - I did read your reply as a reply and I was trying to reply to @Kal (backs from room while repeatedly banging forehead on floor)

Share this post


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

My apologies, pure scroll, click error - I did read your reply as a reply and I was trying to reply to @Kal (backs from room while repeatedly banging forehead on floor)

 

Use the edit button, that isn't a missclick error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just adding some stuff I've found on the Abrams export packages offered to Sweden and then Greece and Turkey. I will paste the second one in a spoiler with the citation as it is behind a academic log in wall. 

wBi04s4.gif

 

Spoiler

"By Vago Muradian

General Dynamics [GD], with the blessing of the U.S. Army, has offered Greece and Turkey a highly-sophisticated armor package to entice the countries into buying the company's M1-series tank.

The new armor, developed by the Army, offers the same level of protection as the depleted uranium armor used by U.S. forces, but without using the controversial material.

"At the time we adopted depleted uranium, it was the only material that gave us the level of protection we wanted," Peter McVey, vice president for international business at GD's Land Systems Division, told sister publication Defense Daily International during a telephone interview last week. "The new armor we are offering for the first time to Greece and Turkey offers similar protection through a combination of metals and geometry without using heavy metals. We're confident that after testing the new armor package, Greece and Turkey will be very pleased with it."

GD and the Army are pulling out all the stops in the bid to win the Greek and Turkish competitions for more than 1,200 tanks, recovery vehicles and bridging equipment. While Turkey has traditionally bought American tanks, Greece's fleet includes Leopard-series tanks built by Germany's Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, a newer version of which is competing against the M1A2 in both countries. The Leclerc by France's Giat Industries and the Challenger II by Britain's Vickers are competing against the M1A2 in Greece for about 250 tanks, while the competitors for the Turkish order for as many as 1,000 tanks includes a diesel-powered version of the M1A2 System Enhancement Package, the Leclerc, the Leopard 2A6 and the T-84 by Ukraine's Kharkov Design Bureau.

The Army launched the effort to develop the new armor package after GD in 1993 lost the competition to supply Sweden with a new tank in part because of the U.S. government's refusal to allow export of the depleted uranium armor package. Sweden chose the Leopard 2 Improved tank equipped with a new armor package that did not use heavy metals, but was superior to the U.S. armor offered at the time. The composite armor developed by Sweden, dubbed the Swedish armor package, has become Krauss-Maffei Wegmann's export standard and has been offered to Greece and Turkey.

"The new armor is a much better package than provided in Sweden because we and the Army are smarter than we were then," McVey said. "We have learned how to use materials and geometry to improve the armor protection from previous generations without having to get into the DU [depleted uranium] material. We have passed along technical details to both customers through classified channels, and I would say we are equal, or better than, the competition in terms of protection."

The armor is referred to as the third-generation package because the protection system is the third type fitted to the M1-series since its introduction nearly three decades ago. The first versions of the M1 were equipped with composite Chobham armored developed by Britain, which at the time was considered the best in the world. The British armor was succeeded by the DU, or heavy armor, which equips front-line versions of the M1. The third-generation armor, however, is intended for export because the Army sees no need to assume the cost of replacing the DU armor in existing tanks with the new protection package.

McVey added he is confident GD is offering not only the best protection, but also the best price and industrial package in both competitions. In Greece, GD has offered a comprehensive workshare package to Greece's state-owned armored vehicle-maker, ELVO, while in Turkey the company is allied with BMC, part of Turkey's Chicarova Group and Nurol.

The question is politics, which is a factor in every overseas weapons competition, he said, adding that the dynamics are different in Greece and Turkey.

Greece in particular, as a member of the European Union, has in the past come under intense pressure from fellow members to buy European, lobbying pressure that has successfully cost U.S. contractors.

For example, in 1998 senior Greek defense officials promised their U.S. counterparts that Northrop Grumman [NOC] would be awarded the country's order for four airborne early warning aircraft. But less than a week after Greek political leaders were confronted by E.U. leaders who challenged why Greece continued to buy American, the radar plane order was shifted to the Erieye by Sweden's Ericsson and France's Thomson-CSF.

Several months later, in early 1999, E.U. lobbying pressure convinced Greek officials to embrace the multinational Eurofighter combat jet over the F- 15 fighter by Boeing [BA]. The loss of the Greek order, coupled with Israel's decision to buy more F-16 fighters by Lockheed Martin [LMT], doomed production of the F-15.

Greek officials downplay the importance of E.U. pressure, adding that the Erieye and Eurofighter were selected on merit, not politics.

That said, McVey continues to closely watch political developments in both Greece and Turkey.

Greek officials have indicated that before the winning tank is selected, the country must first gain formal entry into the European Monetary Union. That is expected to happen on June 19. The European Parliament recently approved Greece's membership in the Euro group of nations. Second, a new armaments director must be appointed to replace Toannis Sbpokos. Until Sbpokos is replaced, it is unlikely a winning tank will be selected, sources said. Analysts and executives have said, however, they expect a winner to be announced during the Defendory 2000 sea-air-land exposition to held in Athens Oct. 3-7."

 

"GD, U.S. Army Sweeten M1 Offers to Greece, Turkey With New Armor Package." Defense Daily, 30 May 2000. Gale General OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A62968489/ITOF?u=nysl_se_usma&sid=ITOF&xid=1c5e6a6f. Accessed 28 Oct. 2019.

 

Share this post


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

error.

Seriously?  Obviously when  I made the error (select text to quote) I chose the wrong post.  I did not realise that until 2805662 responded.  You seriously want to quibble on an apology?  You want me to edit my post then 2805662 to edit his post as it obviously won't make sense after I edit mine?  Need to point score much?

Share this post


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

Seriously?  Obviously when  I made the error (select text to quote) I chose the wrong post.  I did not realise that until 2805662 responded.  You seriously want to quibble on an apology?  You want me to edit my post then 2805662 to edit his post as it obviously won't make sense after I edit mine?  Need to point score much?

 

Quoting Kal by accident won't change the name to 2805662, you did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The below work is not mine but instead a nice synopsis made by a user on the War Thunder forums. As you may know, they are adding the M1A2 to the game and this was part of a discussion on its armor protection. 

 

"Well the armor is rated for being slightly stronger than the Challenger 2's from some British military report comparing the Challenger 2 to other NATO MBTs of the time.

Spoiler

AcRjFB3.jpg

And as Jackvony said, it had additional armor to protect against the projected Soviet threat of the time. It would have more armor protection than the "M1A1 now in production," and in this 1989 document, would mean the M1A1 Heavy Armor. So it should be an improvement over the M1A1 Heavy Armor.

Spoiler

riLph5I.png3oXxH6Y.png

And we know the export version of the M1A2 to Sweden's armor values are:

Spoiler

fmeffFA.png2Ef2c8q.png

 

But according to duckmartin's reference, PB 7-90-1 (Infantry magazine), the M1A1 Heavy Armor has armor almost matching (albeit the export M1A2 still is a bit worse than the export M1A2 in chemical protection) the export M1A2 Abrams given to Sweden. The basic M1 Abrams, for which we have the Material Need requirements for, also matches.

Spoiler

860BOCv.pngjOquDab.png

 

So without a doubt, it should at least have more than 600mm of RHAe over a 60-degree frontal arc, as the older and less protected M1A1 Heavy Armor "only" had 600mm RHAe over a 60-degree frontal arc. This also agrees with one of those books you stated. Now, what did the United States believe the Challenger 2's frontal armor to be, considering the M1A2 supposedly had slightly better protection? Well, that would be 650mm RHAe over a 60-degree arc.

Spoiler

UAeK0fX.pngzqItDcv.png

So more than 650mm of RHAe over a 60-degree frontal arc would be a realistic amount for the turret of the M1A2 Abrams to have. I'll try finding more, but I doubt I will considering the M1A2 is a little classified and still in US service."

 

In addition, here is a document discussing the upgrades (and problems) done to the block II Abrams, aka M1A2, also talks about armor upgrades:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/220/212127.pdf

 

If anyone else has some documents about M1A2 armor, us fellas on the WT forum would greatly appreciate it.

Edited by Jackvony
Removed references to WT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting, I would appreciate it if you could kindly edit out the various video game references.

11 minutes ago, Jackvony said:

matches.

  Hide contents

860BOCv.pngjOquDab.png

 

Regarding the above, the numbers for the M60 and vanilla M1 are both high, as is the number for the T-62. The rest of the Soviet numbers appear to be similarly made up, so expecting the late model (at the time) Abrams numbers to be anywhere near accurate is... hopelessly optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 12:10 PM, Sovngard said:

Enhanced 105 mm gun with the longer XM24 gun tube (L/66) , this project was initiated in March 1983 and abandoned in the late 1980s.

 

1572192508-screenshot-2019-10-27-annual-

 

1572192512-screenshot-2019-10-27-descrip


lol, this would imply M829 has had 4 generations of upgrades, while M900 has not been touched, since it was introduced. 
 

We really needed that smoothbore 105 like 2 decades ago, at least... or the 75mm ARES. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 7:26 AM, Ramlaen said:

Quoting Kal by accident won't change the name to 2805662, you did tha

Please go back and reread - I absolutely did not change the name.  I quoted text that 2805662 quoted thinking I had quoted Kal directly.  The name was autopopulated as normal.  I simply selected the wrong text.

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...