Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Jackvony said:


Many images:

  Reveal hidden contents

Frontal armor: 


Side skirt:nVaRYfx.jpg

Dat booty:ChD70ix.jpg

Turret serial number:yqi4Ncz.jpg

Gunner and Commander seats:yBRdaKX.jpg

Loader's new display aka Abrams IPad (its removable):xSk76RF.jpg

Back deck opened up:


King of the world:gKi9frQ.jpg

Periscope: lCNmSpr.jpg

Django, love that movie:m8cIu8G.jpg

Some photos on the road:UHxja3z.jpg








What’s that rod /tube thing on the last 2 photo’s? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



M1A2 SEPv3 being used to test a new German railcar to support increased weights.


However, interesting to note is that this particular tank came from the prepositioned stocks in Mannheim, Germany. Therefore it seems that at least some portion of US prepositioned armor in Europe is made up of SEPv3 tanks (in a gorgeous three-tone paint job).



Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beer said:

Why not to test the heaviest possible configuration? I mean Trophy or TUSK equipped vehicles are heavier than this one. 


I guess that since TUSK (and maybe Trophy) can be removed for transport so it may not be relevant.

It is also possible that the Abrams with TUSK mounted may exceed the maximum width on European railways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
7 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Evolution of the Lynx & Lance for OMFV.



One thing I don’t like about this turret is the placement of the CITV. They should wrap the RWS around the CITV and put it towards the back of the turret. Seems kind of dumb to put both sights right next to each other and directly in the way of the RWS. I like Raytheon’s battle guard design. The turret appears to have high gun elevation and room for the larger 50mm ammo. Missile launcher on the right side with both a javelin and tow launcher that flips upwards. I wonder what APS this turret can handle besides iron fist. 11351568360_4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trophy is fake, btw. This is an Abrams tank borrowed from an US Army unit, the Trophy APS is a plastic mock-up, hence its odd mounting (attached to the storage racks) and the lack of a counter-weight at the turret front.


The same tank a few hours before the photo with "Trophy" was taken:




Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Trophy is fake, btw. This is an Abrams tank borrowed from an US Army unit, the Trophy APS is a plastic mock-up, hence its odd mounting (attached to the storage racks) and the lack of a counter-weight at the turret front.


The same tank a few hours before the photo with "Trophy" was taken:




They fixed the mountings, dummy or not, and finished assembly. 

Attachment of the live units uses mounting blocks on the stowage racks, similar to TUSK2. 


Here’s the display-ready one:




Link to comment
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.

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 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...