Renegade334

So...back to experimental weirdoes? Had to blur the model number and name, which were stencilled on the side...

T-54M3 from Vietnam. You should have Photoshopped the area in front of the turret ring that displays the model number.

Yup.

Cadillac-Gage Jaguar.

Given the growing tensions on that side of Europe and the need for an appropriate counterweight, there are a lot of armor-related developments that are being fast-tracked, the most notable being the Stryker Dragoon, which was also fielded quite rapidly. EDIT: there's at least one source for this -- Edit 2: and --> https://pl-pl.facebook.com/gdziewojsko/posts/1994552590555156 ...just by searching Google Images...

Poland. Saber Strike 2018 exercise, where a few of the Trophy-equipped Abrams have been sent.

Well, nobody wants hot beer instead of cold beer. No wonder they asked for a refrigerator.

Well, that probe does act like an aerospike - it basically creates a bow shock (AKA detached shock) in front of the shell's body to reduce aerodynamic drag. You can even see the ring near the tip of the probe that helps form an optimal detached shockwave that doesn't enter in contact with the shell body.

So that's where the Aussies store their Tooheys', hm?

@Mighty_Zuk: you've probably seen the CREW Duke 3 around, it's very recognizable thanks to the "fat antenna" that Ramlaen mentioned. The Stryker in his latest post even has one.

It's certainly not one of the CREW Dukes, that's for sure. Maybe this one is more space efficient.

Isn't that the IED jammer, similar to what the Challenger 2 "Megatron" has on its turret roof? You can see it here:

Like the risk of ammunition cookoff? That's one concern I often hear whenever the G11 (and true caseless ammo) is discussed.

The CTA looks more an evolution of the H&K G11's rotating chamber concept than the LSAT LMG actually does, even though the latter is supposed to directly draw from G11's lessons (though I believe Textron primarily paid for the caseless ammo technology rather than the gun internals' patents, seeing that the LMG's rotating chamber is a bit different from the G11's --- as seen at 1:23 in the video below). Dunno whether Textron's design, scaled up to AC size, would be better. At least the ammo wouldn't be forced to pass through the trunnion and it might be a bit easier to switch calibers without changing too many components (barrel and feeding system excluded). EDIT: Didn't realize someone had posted the same video in the Small Arms thread - this is maybe unnecessary/redundant. :-/

Nope, that's not FastDraw. Meggitt's horizontal autoloader is actually more akin to the XM91 that was supposed to be included in the CATTB. GDLS' FastDraw had two horizontal bustle carousels, each equipped with its own actuator (the RALS or Robotic AutoLoader System) in order to extract and align the round with the breech. Just for reference, the vertical autoloader carousel in the TTB could handle 44 120mm rounds, whereas FastDraw could take 36 (2 cylinders containing 18 rounds each, with what looks like loading ports built in the turret sides). A hypothetical FMBT autoloader (see figure 5) could have 40 rounds in a conical vertical carousel, with 23 reserve rounds in a rear compartment (though IIRC that was a paper tank designed for some DARPA study and not an Abrams successor project meant to produce an actual vehicle). --- --- --- --- FastDraw: The XM91 (note: 140mm ammo, not 120mm): Meggitt's autoloader: Apologies for the wall-o'-pictures. Also, Tovarish here? My god...that means...the memes are coming! *dons flak vest and jumps into a foxhole*

Tridents? Aren't those supposed to be containers (AKA Virginia Payload Tubes or VPTs) containing six Tomahawks each? Like the two units currently being outfitted inside the bows of Flight IIIs and onwards? (thus replacing the twelve VLS tubes inherited from the 688s) Or have they recently decided to load Tridents on Virginias?

Any reason why the VPM's missile deck would be raised rather than perfectly flush with the rest of the hull? It's not like the tubes in the front ballast compartment protrude from the bow. Is it for structural reinforcement? (that's a long wiener we've got there) Or does it hide other cavities to stow SEAL/SF hardware...or is it a potential mount for a Dry Deck Shelter?

Is that the new Palestinian hovertank? The one that doesn't use wheels?

What about resilience to HEAT jets? Do the air bubbles help with that or is the mitigation negligible?

So apparently they've been looking into composite metal foam (CMF), which is a spongy form of metal that offers increased resistance to heat and fragments, at a mere fraction of the weight of its RHA equivalent. Which would be a boon for IFVs and other lightweight vehicles in search of protection. How well does it hold up against an APFSDS, I wonder. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a20601/metal-foam-stops-bullets/

@SH_MM: haven't gone over the stats sheet, but here's the translation for the articles you just posted. Still a bit sleepy, so please cut me some slack if some sentences appear a bit awkward. *yawn* The AMX32's protection The use of dual hardness steel plates particularly efficient against kinetic projectiles allowed the AMX32 to be protected from the front against high-caliber armor piercing ammunition such as the tungsten-cored 75mm PCOT and the 57mm AP fired by the guns of the Soviet paratroopers' ASU assault vehicles. These plates formed the external part of the armor compartments, creating a ballistic space, such as the gun mantlet or the hull's fore end. Likewise, the turret sides used the same spaced armor principles to provide protection against medium caliber armor-piercing ammunition. The particularly thick turret roof protected the crew against shells fired by fighter-bombers at an angle of 30°. Compared to the AMX30, which is protected against 20mm shells, the AMX32 represented a tangible improvement of tank protection for this era, without noticeably increasing vehicle mass/volume. --------------- Note: obus =/= bomblet. It refers to a cannon shell. The Leclerc's armors: Given that the Chobham Armory imparted its name to the first British composite armor, History could have christened "Satory" the armor of the Leclerc tank. It's indeed in the weapons department AMX-APX built on the Versailles plateau that were carried out all of the configuration and integration studies for the new ballistic protection concepts. AMX-APX took full advantage of the fundamental research studies carried out by the ETBS from Bourges and the Central Technical Establishment of Armament in Arcueil. During the Sixties, the first tests on ceramics integration et the behavior of various materials (glasses, special steels, lightweight alloys among others) during penetration, were carried out. As an anecdote, some natural materials such as granite were also tested. The Seventies witnessed the development of the first multipurpose composite armors. While the British Chobham protecting the Challenger was optimized against shaped charges, the efficiency of the French armors against shaped charges and arrow-type penetrators was demonstrated from the get-go. In the following decade, the headway that was made in the field of materials and research on the optimization of geometrical configurations, allowed the creation of armor solutions that could be integrated into the Leclerc. However, a decisive step was to be made with the completion of the first add-on/applique armors. The latter ones would allow the Leclerc to regenerate its protection, in relation to technological developments and threat nature. Protection level was achieved through the compactness of the tank and weight reduction. Indeed, the Leclerc and Leopard 2A4 have the same mass, around 56 tons. Yet, the Leclerc is 850mm shorter, which translates to a mass of 4 tons (850mm of structure and skirts, those suspension elements, two roller wheels and four times 850mm' worth of tracks). Compared to the German tank, the recovered mass allowed the increase of protection over the frontal arc, the protection of the turret sides against infantry-carried antitank weaponry and the increase of protection over the hull sides, thanks to external/precursor (applique?) armor covering a widened frontal arc. The Leclerc therefore offers a more balanced protection that no longers exclusively concentrates the armor on the tank's front. As such, the third-generation French tank boasts applique armor that is evolving, multipurpose, compact, lightweight and industrially reproducible (easily and economically). This technological and industrial mastery has made it possible to keep the Leclerc's mass well below the levels of foreign tanks (Leopard 2, M1A2, Challenger II), whose significant weights (around 63t) are disadvantageous for repair operations (recovery, towing and turret removal become true "combined operations") and for the sappers/engineers who have to deploy technical assets that are expensive and complex. Maintaining a relatively low mass is an essentially criterion in the eyes of the French Army, whose modes of engagement favor agility and tactical deployment speed. The Satory teams continue their research and are already proposing armors designed to counter future threats. Thanks to the modularity of its protection, the Leclerc Series 2+ is ready to receive them. Text on the lower left, under the picture: One of the numerous armor testing caissons after a live fire session. The fore plate shows three entry holes: in the middle, an arrow, recognizable thanks to the white, star-shaped mark left by the penetrator's aluminum fins that desintegrated upon impact; on the left and right, two high-caliber shaped charges easily identifiable thanks to their red color, typical of the copper deposits left by the perforating jets. The aft plate is slightly deformed as the caisson was installed without a rear support. When integrated into a tank's front armor compartement, this caisson would keep its geometrical integrity. EDIT: godd*****. I must be doing something wrong with the code, because my perfectly separate quotes always result in nested quotes, like a frickin' matriochka. Will leave formatting as is, for now.

Yep, old stuff from AW.

Nothing new about the STK Terrex for ACV 1.1, or is the USMC leaning more towards the SuperAV derivative?

There are several reasons commonly cited for this choice: 1. Turrets are the part of the tank anatomy most frequently targeted (assuming your FCS or guidance system is precise enough to guarantee a direct hit on the spot aimed at) by the enemy. 2. Placing half or most of your ammo in the hull lightens your turret (better traverse speed and whatnot), frees up space for more freedom of movement for the crew and provides potential growth room for turret armor. 3. It plays well with hull-down tactics, as it means most of the ammo will be out of sight and reach in these conditions. Then again, the Leopard 2's turret allocates half of its turret bustle to hydraulics and a computer, so they have no choice but to stuff the rest in the hull.