Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Heck, the block II AGS would have packed a 120mm as well as a number of other upgrades and still managed to retain air mobility and the 3 man crew. 

 

I guess it would have been successful so we cancelled it only to need something similar 15 years later. I remember how excited the Sheridan guys got about the thought of that thing being replaced by something that actually worked..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What that really shows is that the Canadian army needed an assault gun and had to resort to deploying what they had readily available in order to fill a the need, which was basically an infantry support role. Something a vehicle like the M8 would have filled perfectly.  In low intensity conflicts when the threat from enemy armor is close to 0, vehicles like the M1128 or the defunct M8 program are easier to deploy and support yet pack the punch needed to deal with any potential threats.  The M1128 has some pretty serious design flaws but the concept is pretty sound. 

 

I do not foresee the large tank and tank battles being the typical future conflict. 

 

While im a big fan of something like the M8, i think his point was at the end of the day, you will always need an armored box

 

Stuff like the M8, Sprut, etc. are great for infantry support where you wouldnt have a tank normally

 

But your always gonna need something that can go jungle busting and laugh at the type AT weapons your average Islamist group is touting

 

Which is why it will be a good Idea to keep a number of Leopard 2s around 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FCS was going to replace all the tanks with AIRMOBILE MODULAR GAVIN-BASED WHEELED TRACKED WHEELED TRACKED BOXES WITH NO ARMOR AND BIG FUCKING GUNS; M8 was basically the equivalent of a Sprut and was never intended to replace the M1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bits and pieces of FCS have been recycled, an exhaustive list of which was and was not reincorporated would take some time.

I think some subsystems of the FCS AFV series were being reincorporated into Ground Combat Vehicle, which has been canned and replaced by Future Fighting Vehicle, which I don't think even has a development program yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FCS was going to replace all the tanks with AIRMOBILE MODULAR GAVIN-BASED WHEELED TRACKED WHEELED TRACKED BOXES WITH NO ARMOR AND BIG FUCKING GUNS; M8 was basically the equivalent of a Sprut and was never intended to replace the M1.

 

I was respounding to Belesarius's point about the need of still having something to shrug off AT munitions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I know the M8 wasn't supposed to replace the M1. I'm saying that huge expensive fleets of MBT are not necessarily relevant to the types of warfare modern armies will be facing in the years to come. Not to get rid of them altogether or stop development of them because there will always be a need for similar vehicles.  

 

 

  I got out of the army before any of that FCS nonsense got started but I was part of the "pre" fielding brigade of 4ID doing the Force XXI enhancements in the late 90s 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just worried the FCS was so messed up that it has stunted any growth that could happen after the Abrams. Besides UGVs and fatass IFVs, I'm not sure the Abrams will ever be replaced until it is hilariously obsolete. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was bummed when they cancelled the XM2001. Was kind of glad to see that some of it was picked up by the FCS system for use in the XM1203 then bummed again when it was cancelled. I was really hoping for the M109 to be replaced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anything useful come out of FCS? I know there are some parts are apparently being incorporated into other new AFVs programs, but I don't have good hopes for those projects.

The army made some hilariously awful videos promoting FCS.  So at least it gave us that.  

 

Check out this bad sci-fi movie bullshit.

 

 

I just noticed that at 4:20 in this video, they say:

 

Networks showing SSLM3
 
I see it.  Depleted Uranium Sabot, shoulder fired.  
 
All red elements, check your threat profile, got a new ATGM.  Check for type and countermeasures.  
 
Seriously?  Shoulder fired DU rounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tandem rod penetrator looks more reasonable that the split or tube designs from a layman's perspective. I would guess the biggest improvements in the short term is just more massive penetrators moving at a higher velocity. I think we are a ways off from more exotic weaponry being used as a main armament on an MBT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HneSOyT.png?1

 

APFSDS ammunition today uses sabot design "d".  Sabot design "b" looks like it could have significantly lower parasitic mass, but does not work with current LRP designs because they are too flexible.

 

However, those trefoil penetrators from the paper might be stiff enough to pull it off.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • By Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
       
       
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
       
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.
    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      Does anyone know of any military studies that analyzed the reload speeds for different tanks? The question occurred to me when I watched this video tour of the T-55's interior: 
       
      https://youtu.be/TEDhB9evPvw
       
      At the 10:00 mark, Mr. Moran demonstrates how the loader would put a shell into the tank's cannon, and the effects of the turret's small size and of the loader's awkward seating make it clear that the process would be slow. My question is: how slow? 
       
      Side question: Am I right to assume that storing the tank shells all over the inside of the turret like that is an inherent design flaw of the T-55 that makes it inferior in that regard to modern tanks? 
       
      Thanks in advance. 
    • By N-L-M
      ATTENTION DUELISTS:
      @Toxn
      @LostCosmonaut
      @Lord_James
      @DIADES
      @Datengineerwill
      @Whatismoo
      @Kal
      @Zadlo
      @Xoon
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name

      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here)



      Table of basic statistics:

      Parameter

      Value

      Mass, combat


       
      Length, combat (transport)


       
      Width, combat (transport)


       
      Height, combat (transport)


       
      Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal)


       
      Estimated Speed


       
      Estimated range


       
      Crew, number (roles)


       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       

       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.

      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.

      3.     Transmission- type, arrangement, neat features.

      4.     Fuel- Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.

      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.

      6.     Suspension- Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.

      Survivability:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Link to Appendix 2- armor array details.

      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks- low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.

      Firepower:

      A.    Weapons:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Main Weapon-

      a.      Type

      b.      Caliber

      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)

      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.

      e.      FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.

      f.      Neat features.

      3.     Secondary weapon- Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.

      4.     Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated performance and how these estimates were reached.

      B.    Optics:

      1.     Primary gunsight- type, associated trickery.

      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.

      C.    FCS:

      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.

      2.     Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.

      Fightability:

      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.

      Additonal Features:

      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.

      Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.


       Example for filling in Appendix 1
×
×
  • Create New...