Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Renegade334

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    358

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    48

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Renegade334

  1. Renegade334
    Data on CATTB tests is sparse. We know it has been used to test the 140mm ATACS gun with XM91 autoloader and the AIPS diesel. I once did some dumpster diving in DTIC and found this: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA267740 Title: Descriptive Summaries of the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Appropriation. Supporting Data FY 1994, Budget Estimates Submitted to Congress, April 1993 The title and content imply the CATTB was still being tested in 1993, with projected testing for 1994, despite rumors that it was canned before then. P.246 (AKA p.261 in PDF reader): The AIPS in question is the XAP-1000 diesel engine. P.247 (AKA p.262 in PDF reader): And that's it...unless "CATTB" suddenly became an umbrella term that can be applied to any chassis or type of vehicle and not just that particular M1 variant.
  2. Renegade334
    Mmmm...I don't have any DTIC docs on the XM291 and its performance; Ogorkiewicz did however give a couple stats for 140mm smoothbore guns in his book Tanks - A 100 Years of Evolution: And: And then there was a short comparison with 120mm ETC gun performance: I tried retracing Ogorkiewicz' sources but my google-fu proved neurasthenic today. The only thing I was able to fish in a short amount of time was this study by Lanz (yes, that Lanz) that does give some 140mm stats: http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/lakowski.2006-09/Penetration_Limits_of_Conventional_Large_Caliber_Anti_Tank_-_Kinetic_Energy_Projectiles.pdf Anyway, I think this conversation would find a better home in the Ballistics Science Discusion section instead, where more competent people (Bronezhilet, for one) than me could bring you better answers.
  3. Renegade334
    I think it's the CATTB or more specifically the Thumper. The last time the latter was seen (in transit on a freight train in 2010) , its turret had a curious round piece affixed to its back, like an access panel of sorts. It could be a reload hatch for the horizontal autoloader. That system, though it would inevitably mess with the protection scheme (as it creates a weak point in the turret's rear armor) would have had its weight in gold, especially for the 140mm ATACS tests, seeing how big the XM964 round was and it could have been impractical to load them into the turret using the gunner's hatch. Though, I have to say, that grainy tank's turret in the aforeposted picture looks more like the original CATTB's (with turret side appliques) than the later Thumper's (which, as seen here, retains a gas turbine exhaust grille, whereas the CATTB didn't).
  4. Renegade334
    Isn't that the CATTB? The turret has more vertical lines than a normal M1/M1A1. The second scan implies that the FARS, with its single-shell conveyor boom, can only service tanks that have a horizontal autoloader at the back of their turrets. If the M1A1s weren't retrofitted with an AL à la CATTB, then they'd probably have to sacrifice one ammo tube in the bustle ammo rack to mount a reinforced "shell funnel" leading to the crew space, where the loader can redistribute the incoming ammunition. EDIT: all things considered, there is a hint of an exhaust grille at the back of the hull, so this should be the Thumper and not the original CATTB (which had an AIPS diesel rather than the AGT1500).
  5. Renegade334
    That Stryker with the Iron Curtain seriously look like an agricultural vehicle meant to spray insecticide on a farmer's crops. Seriously, I've never seen an APS so ungainly. Speaking of weird APSes, I remember at one point AMRDEC was studying an airbag-type APS (called ABAPS) concept for US AFVs that was only rated for RPGs (ATGMs were understandably too much). Was it ever tested in real life or did the engineers fail to go past the laughing-out-loud phase?
  6. Renegade334
    IIRC the closest they got to that FARS concept is the XM2002 RSV vehicle meant to accompany the XM2001 Crusader: ^--- That outgrowth on the front of the XM2002 is an automated resupply boom.
  7. Renegade334
    I know this is a Soviet tank thread, but since you're an Abrams tanker, Plazma, I guess the following video should illustrate just how much of a hassle it is to mount a full ERA complement on your tank...and why you don't want to do that too often: So, yeah, sometimes it's best to leave the damn things on rather than have to take them off then put back on with every even or odd mission.
  8. Renegade334
    Welcome to SH, AP. Nice seeing you here. :D
  9. Renegade334
    ... ... ...Are those solar panels on the 2035 tank?
  10. Renegade334
    The Brandon? I didn't know the US would stoop so low as to give one of their AFVs a name worthy of a TV soap opera character. :-)
  11. Renegade334
    Late stage meiosis, mayhap? (can't be mitosis - I refuse to believe the guy has the right number of chromosomes)
  12. Renegade334
    Is this his brother-in-law?
  13. Renegade334
    So TB 2019 will be sponsored by Aeroflot or Smirnoff? ... ...That said, I'm surprised those Evel Knievel shenanigans are still allowed in the biathlon given the structural toll they impose on those hulls. The crews should be told "you break it, you pay for it" from the get-go or forbidden to listen to hardbass while driving around.
  14. Renegade334
    It can easily be argued that the ACT3205 would be more lethal than an Abrams just by virtue of its main gun, the XM360, which can accept higher pressure ammunition (meaning, it can shoot more powerful/heavier rounds) than the Abrams' M256. USAR has been meaning for quite a while already to replace the M256 with the XM360E1, but several setbacks such as the FCS cancellation and other budgetary constraints got in the way of that (not to mention, when the FCS program was still alive, the plan was to mount the XM360E1 on the Abrams once they finalized the A3 version...and we have no idea whether we'll ever see a M1A3 or merely get another sarabande of SEPs and ECPs instead). As for protection, since it doesn't have a crew, it frees up space for electronics and/or stuff like spaced armor to protect the said digital vitals. Of course, one can argue that a remote-controlled tank brings its own caveats (see the multitude of troubles the Russian Uran UGV went through in Syria, such as intempestive disconnects and reduced visibility/attack range), but it has also its own perks (not risking any crew).
  15. Renegade334
    So...are they bringing back some of its tech for the ERCA? (the Crusader's autoloader was quite different, though, so I doubt we'll be seeing some of that back) Or is it just one of these "lemme show you what we did in the past" guided tours for visiting politicos and Pentagon officials?
  16. Renegade334
    So...a blown-up BAE Black Knight with Buford steroids, eh?
  17. Renegade334
    Doubtful. Those simulators have four welded plates per turret "cheek", which is consistent with the simulators added to the Trophy-less M1A2 SEP v3 preproduction units: Looks like USMC is looking to add NGAP/NEA to its M1A1FEPs.
  18. Renegade334
    http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-admits-defeat-su-57-not-going-into-mass-production-2018-7?r=US&IR=T Alright...I guess it means the Monino Museum will get a new outdoors exhibit. *blink* what is this excuse I don't even ...Seriously, is this piece of news accurate? BusinessInsider isn't exactly my go-to source of military information and I'm wary of such clickbaity articles.
  19. Renegade334
    Had a quick glance around and those two vehicles are surprisingly averse to being seen together (and yet I'm pretty sure there must be a picture out there showing them side by side, in one of these typical "the evolution of our hardware" photo shoots). I even tried Hunnicutt's Bradley - A History of the American Fighting and Support Vehicles or turning to Desert Storm footage, but nothing turned up for me. The only pic I found that kind of illustrates the difference in size between the two was lifted from a modelling site, and even then it must be taken with a ULCC-sized dose of salt. That said, while looking around I found some rather exotic stuff such as this German StuG-like conversion of the M113. Would've been perfect for the "Name that AFV" thread except I don't have an official name to slap on it.
  20. Renegade334
    *sigh* At this point, I wonder if they can even afford new bearskins for the Trooping the Colours. What's next? Putting HMS Victory (remember, it is STILL officially in commission) back to sea as cost-saving measure for the British armed forces?
  21. Renegade334
    Soccer ball delivery system in case there's an emergency at the stadium.
  22. Renegade334
    Well, you can find that picture on p.216 of Armored Car. So, you see, you actually had it all along. :)
  23. Renegade334
    You have even more neat pictures of the Lockheed XM808 Twister in Hunnicutt's Armored Car - A History of American Wheeled Combat Vehicles, but pretty much everything penned by Hunnicutt, reprint or not, is rather pricey nowadays. I'll pass the baton to someone else for the next picture, I'm kinda short on hard-to-recognize vehicles ATM.
  24. Renegade334
    First thought was that it was the VK4501 in its testing days, but that's a Bergepanzer Tiger(P), right? The recovery crane is not visible or installed yet.
  25. Renegade334
    Right on the money.
×
×
  • Create New...