Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.4k
  • 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:  

On 2/15/2017 at 6:01 PM, Damian said:

It does not matter where the tank is hit, if the projectile gets inside, if there is no ammo inside crew compartment, there is no ignition of ammo, and crew members are only injured but alive in worst case scenario.

In case of direct hit in to ammo storage, well ammo storage blows up, but again crew is safe, and probably tank can be repaired.

Now let's take a tank with ammo storage in crew compartment that is not isolated, if the crew compartment is penetrated by the projectile, there is a big chance of catastrophic ammo cook off, and crew death.

So in all cases, isolated ammo storage is better, as it increases survivability of both the crew and the tank.

And honestly only a fool believes that armor will always protect him.

26.1.jpg

Another example, destroyed Merkava Mk2, with the catastrophic ammo cook off, when primary ammo storage was hit.

R0WSuuk.jpg

Another two catastrophic ammo cook offs.

There's no hard confirmation yet as to what exactly happened to the Leopards. While it is evident that at least one suffered ammo detonation at the hull, causing catastrophic kill, it may not have been caused immediately in combat. I do however think that its ammo storage is flawed.

And that Merkava 2 pic... bro... an IED hit. When several hundred kilograms of explosives detonate below you, and don't turn a tank to dust, give me a call. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Donward said:

A good friend of mine's M1 got hit by the turret of another M1 that was ripped out of its mount by the Incredible Hulk.

Abrams is worst tank in the world. 

Why is the GOVERNMENT sending our boys into battle without the weapons needed to win the fight?

Actually those are chieftains, finally we have solid proof that non-isolated ammo is a death trap!

Link to post
Share on other sites

M1A1%20SA%20tank.jpg.scale.LARGE.jpg

I heard that US Army felt M1A1 (before M1A1HA) didn't have enough protection against Russian new tanks in 1980s, so they welded 80mm RHA plate to M1A1's hull and turret front. But I hardy see any picture of it.

So, is this the 1980s upgrade welded plate ? and why they kept so ancient stuff on a M1A2 tank?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, U-47 said:

M1A1%20SA%20tank.jpg.scale.LARGE.jpg

I heard that US Army felt M1A1 (before M1A1HA) didn't have enough protection against Russian new tanks in 1980s, so they welded 80mm RHA plate to M1A1's hull and turret front. But I hardy see any picture of it.

So, is this the 1980s upgrade welded plate ? and why they kept so ancient stuff on a M1A2 tank?

I think those are just weight simulators for certain upgrades. I've never seen anything like that before unless it was just a weight simulator. Like the M1E1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, U-47 said:

M1A1%20SA%20tank.jpg.scale.LARGE.jpg

I heard that US Army felt M1A1 (before M1A1HA) didn't have enough protection against Russian new tanks in 1980s, so they welded 80mm RHA plate to M1A1's hull and turret front. But I hardy see any picture of it.

So, is this the 1980s upgrade welded plate ? and why they kept so ancient stuff on a M1A2 tank?

Where did you hear this, out of curiosity?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure this is the right place to ask, but does anyone have high-res blueprints/schematics of the M1A2? (preferably with TUSK v2) I recently started learning 3ds Max and I thought the Abrams might be a nice little guinea pig for my modeling experiments, since the tank has a lot of angles (I seem to have bad luck with curves and all that, so T-series are out of the picture for now) and details that can be duplicated (like the M32 ARAT-2 array). It doesn't matter if it's official/unofficial or even from model kits, for as long as it can be used to build a "virtual studio".

 

Just so I'm clear, I'm looking for something like this, preferably high-res, not too grainy, and with all profiles at the same scale. Oh, and of course, it should be accurate.

JAygDNdm.jpg (click to expand)

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sovngard said:

You mean M1A1 ?

According to many websites the first M1A2 was built in 1986, although it's not clear if they are talking about a prototype or not. The mass production happened somewhere between 1986 and 1992, if they are correct.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M1_Abrams.php

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was first produced in 1986, I don't know if it was "mass" produced by that time per say but yes the M1A2 first entered service in 1992.

It did have a "second generation armor package" installed on it, though I'm not sure at what point that happened in the design or production stages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Khand-e said:

It was first produced in 1986, I don't know if it was "mass" produced per say but yes the M1A2 first entered service in 1992.

It did have a "second generation armor package" installed on it, though I'm not sure at what point that happened in the design or production stages.

What did have a "second generation armor package"? The 1986 prototype or the 1992 version? Isn't the "second generation armor package" is what's on the M1A1?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chebuRUSHka said:

What did have a "second generation armor package"? The 1986 prototype or the 1992 version? Isn't the "second generation armor package" is what's on the M1A1?

Memory serve only the M1A1HC variant got the same armor package that the M1A2 did, which came after the M1A1HA/HA+.

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 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...