Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

Just now, Ramlaen said:

I wouldn't get too caught up on concept art, remember the stuff for the T-14?

I acknowledge that this is just sketching, people brainstorming, very early conceptual work just to figure out the requirements. Among all existing 4th gen tank programs the US is the one which is the most behind in terms of schedule, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. However based on the type of american responses to the concept of the fully isolated crew layout, i'm inclined to think that the americans might find this solution as an optimal compromise between the ´revolutionary´ and the traditional layout.

Bottom line, the first thing they have to figure out is if they are more interested in a 40-50 ton tank to fight the Chinese on Pacific islands and/or continental SE Asia or if they prefer a 50-60 ton design to be ready to exchange blows with the Russians in Eastern Europe Cold War Style. You can't do both and expect to be succesful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

AAV-P7A1 CATFAE (Catapult launched Fuel Air Explosives).  Troop carrying capabilities were exchanged for 21 fuel-air ordnance launchers for the purpose of clearing minefields and other obstacles durin

About two and a half years ago i've stumbled across some russian book about western IFVs, which apparently was a mere compilation of articles from western magazines translated into russian. There was

Recoil system of the M256:  

1 hour ago, VPZ said:

 

Quite similar to Merkava 3D turret.

That was my impression too. Very Merkava (4) looking. It points to them switching to NxRA for decreased armor weight (and/or increased protection effectiveness) in exchange of decreased multi hit capability. Makes sense for an unmanned turret that will have its ammunition on a bustle autoloader. Makes even more sense if the crew sits below the turret turret ring during combat but also may be  occasionally popping their heads through the turret hatches for everything non-combat/patrol stuff. Also the whole mantlet and central structure looks just the same as the RCV-H concept and appears to be derived from XM-1202. The gun seems like an XM-360, i guess they will consider either 130mm or ETC technology closer to the date of introduction of this thing, circa 2054 XD

 

20191010_R45519_images_d148086cef54714af546ebc4211661affc127863.pngCaesar on Twitter: "US experimental XM360E1 turret for XM-1202 MCS ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, alanch90 said:

That was my impression too. Very Merkava (4) looking. It points to them switching to NxRA for decreased armor weight (and/or increased protection effectiveness) in exchange of decreased multi hit capability. Makes sense for an unmanned turret that will have its ammunition on a bustle autoloader. Makes even more sense if the crew sits below the turret turret ring during combat but also may be  occasionally popping their heads through the turret hatches for everything non-combat/patrol stuff. Also the whole mantlet and central structure looks just the same as the RCV-H concept and appears to be derived from XM-1202. The gun seems like an XM-360, i guess they will consider either 130mm or ETC technology closer to the date of introduction of this thing, circa 2054 XD

 

20191010_R45519_images_d148086cef54714af546ebc4211661affc127863.pngCaesar on Twitter: "US experimental XM360E1 turret for XM-1202 MCS ...

 

I thought that next US tank will have manned turret.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VPZ said:

 

I thought that next US tank will have manned turret.

The turret of the newly published concept does have at least 1 hatch on the roof. My take is that they are projecting a Black Eagle-like solution, with the crew sitting in the basket but below the turret ring, a sort of a compromise between a T-14-like layout and a traditional one. This way you can afford to have lighter armor modules on the turret (please note the 2 Iron Fist launchers) but also you get under armor access to service the weapons as well as allowing the TC to peek out from the turret roof. In theory it's not as weight-efficient as a "T-14-like layout" but is technologically safer. And also multiple american TCs stated multiple times that they prefer to have top-down view instead of being in a capsule in front of the hull.

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

Another possibility is the two man crew efforts.

For an IFV makes a lot of sense if you absolutely want a 9 man squad. Current Bradley crews already consist of 3 men. For tanks, the americans have always been more conservative, always preferring the lower risk options. Although at this early stage, 2 man crews for tanks should not be discarded at all.

 

Eeeb2oyUMAE-eho?format=png&name=900x900

XM1202, is it you? XD

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

The turret of the newly published concept does have at least 1 hatch on the roof. My take is that they are projecting a Black Eagle-like solution, with the crew sitting in the basket but below the turret ring, a sort of a compromise between a T-14-like layout and a traditional one. This way you can afford to have lighter armor modules on the turret (please note the 2 Iron Fist launchers) but also you get under armor access to service the weapons as well as allowing the TC to peek out from the turret roof. In theory it's not as weight-efficient as a "T-14-like layout" but is technologically safer. And also multiple american TCs stated multiple times that they prefer to have top-down view instead of being in a capsule in front of the hull.

 

I read in some article that M1A3 will have both auto-loader and loader mainly for controlling robots. It was only one of variants, or another tank? Maybe this one (on the picture) is completely new, while the other is just an upgrade of Abrams. But this chassis on the picture looks like from Abrams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

I read in some article that M1A3 will have both auto-loader and loader mainly for controlling robots. It was only one of variants, or another tank? Mayby this one is completely new, while that just an upgrade of Abrams. But this chassis on the picture looks like from Abrams.

As far as i know "M1A3" is not planned. But whatever, if this new concept operates they way i think (crew in turret basket, under the ring, etc, etc.), they will have to make some changes to the hull anyways. Although it's a good idea if you want to recycle existing tanks to save money. For example, by replacing the suspension with the in-arm hydro designs they are testing on the bradley, they could free enough space so that gunner and TC can sit in the same way as the driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about ammo stowage of that concept? It looks to have a relatively small rear portion of the turret which seems to be occupied on top by the APS, wind sensor etc. (no blow-off panels anymore?). It doesn't look like it could take a large portion of ammo anyway but if the TC and gunner sit at the bottom of the basket there is no space for any other autoloader option. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Beer said:

How about ammo stowage of that concept? It looks to have a relatively small rear portion of the turret which seems to be occupied on top by the APS, wind sensor etc. (no blow-off panels anymore?). It doesn't look like it could take a large portion of ammo anyway but if the TC and gunner sit at the bottom of the basket there is no space for any other autoloader option. 

 

probably a TTB style autoloader in the basket

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

 

probably a TTB style autoloader in the basket

Unlikely, such a carrousel type doesn´t leave space for the crew in the turret. Both TTB and XM1202 had the crew encapsulated forward in the hull. The difference between those 2 is that the latter was modified to, presumably, provide a "corridor" so that 1 crewman could access the weapons compartment for emergency servicing of the gun from the forward crew capsule.

 

Abrams TTB:

TTB%2BTurret.jpg

 

XM1202

qXu2Tqa.jpg

 

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

Unlikely, such a carrousel type doesn´t leave space for the crew in the turret. Both TTB and XM1202 had the crew encapsulated forward in the hull. The difference between those 2 is that the latter was modified to, presumably, provide a "corridor" so that 1 crewman could access the weapons compartment for emergency servicing of the gun from the forward crew capsule.

 

The turret as depicted doesn't leave much room for ammunition in the bustle either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

   Maybe it is somewhat similar to one of Kharkovite creations in 80s, with half of space under turret dedicated to autoloader, and other half for 2 crew members placed in 2 line.

   490A layout:

img006.jpg

 

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

 

The turret as depicted doesn't leave much room for ammunition in the bustle either.

True. Although we can't get a good look on the actual projected bustle size either. My bet is that you could easily fit 22 or more rounds back there, i think that was the exact capacity of an old Meggitt designed mechanized bustle ammo rack. The rest of the needed ammo might be in another compartment inside the hull. For example if they managed to make an engine that was shorter (ala Europowerpack), the freed up space could serve to store ammo. Actually such a solution would also be very good for 130mm rounds (stored perpendicularly).

 

Jon Hawkes on Twitter: "6/ MTU's MT883-based EuroPowerPack has 10 ...

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

How about ammo stowage of that concept? It looks to have a relatively small rear portion of the turret which seems to be occupied on top by the APS, wind sensor etc. (no blow-off panels anymore?). It doesn't look like it could take a large portion of ammo anyway but if the TC and gunner sit at the bottom of the basket there is no space for any other autoloader option. 

 

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Maybe it is somewhat similar to one of Kharkovite creations in 80s, with half of space under turret dedicated to autoloader, and other half for 2 crew members placed in 2 line.

   490A layout:

img006.jpg

 

The M8 AGS has a similar design but for this concept it doesn't appear to be the same. If you look at the gun it appears to be sealed up like on the STRV 2000. The autoloader is probably behind the breech sealed up with the gun. http://imgur.com/gallery/znFrKzr

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 8/5/2020 at 11:01 PM, Pascal said:

Very interesting book for me, as it quotes reports on Bradley ASTB (Advanced Survivability Test Bed) aka Col. Burton's Minimum Casualty Baseline Vehicle,

EexG7UiWkAE2-Hm?format=jpg&name=large

which (reports) seem to be unclassified but still are unavailable on the internet.

 

EexN-sbX0AA51HM?format=jpg&name=large

Spoiler

 EexKgncXoAYM-ph?format=jpg&name=medium

EexKi-5WAAE5VUw?format=jpg&name=large

EexKqNRWsAEsPPi?format=jpg&name=small

 

EexKywFWoAQerJp?format=jpg&name=large

EexLFvzWsAEHUPf?format=jpg&name=small

 

EexLu5WXkAA1sZu?format=jpg&name=small

EexL7PWWkAI5l1u?format=jpg&name=large

EexMAeZX0AI4T6i?format=jpg&name=large

EexMD23XkAA-GPh?format=jpg&name=small

 

EexN7r3XoAkFmb-?format=jpg&name=medium

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2020 at 3:54 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

Very interesting book for me, as it quotes reports on Bradley ASTB (Advanced Survivability Test Bed)

 

If i remember right i found it after reading on soviet possible 'fixes' for fuel cells in crew compartment on btvt, one of which were quick-reaction fire suppression, so i started googling for fuel cells, survivability, quick-reaction etc. Thanks for your scans too!

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...