Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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

Recommended Posts

I think the M26/46/47 progression counts, counting the petrol and diesel 1790's separately gets you 3.


T-80 with the diesel are another example, as are the diesel M3 lights - stretch it to include the sloped hull as on M5, and that's 3 engines on the light tank with the twin cadillac

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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:  

The late M1 prototypes (not the old XM1) were capable of mounting the AGT-1500 gas turbine and AVCR-1360 diesel, until they eventually settled for the former.

^--- The two tanks on the right showcase the different engine compartment covers.
There was even an attempt to create a transversely-mounted AGT-1500, called the AGT-1500 TMEPS, to free some space in the engine compartment.
The M1A1 CATTB was supposed to mark a return to Diesel with the XAP-1000 engine. You can see it on this picture of the CATTB, which lacks the turbine exhaust grille.
And this document here: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA267740 alleges that the AIPS diesel engine (the XAP-1000 or the LV/100 by GE/Textron-Lycoming) was successfully integrated into the CATTB in FY1992 (cf p.262 in PDF reader), so it must've at least gone past the paper or mockup stage.
However, the Thumper, a CATTB variant lacking its predecessor's turret appliques and tassel-type heat-concealing side skirts, reverted back to the AGT, as seen in this footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lqW94Gmug8&t=96
As you can see, the exhaust grille is the regular one found on AGT-1500-equipped models.
The Germans did some work adapting the MTU 12V880 (a MTU 12V883?) on the M1A2 SEP, but IIRC they had to give up some of the torsion bars to accomodate this diesel engine. Can't remember exactly.
Right now USAR is codeveloping with Achates Power a new opposed-piston, two-stroke Diesel engine for a certain range of vehicles, which includes the Abrams (there is a 1,500HP variant of the said engine).
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5.10.2017 at 1:05 AM, Renegade334 said:

Anyway, the Leopard 2 was, at one point, tested with the AGT-1500 gas turbine (according to Krapke)...and, as expected, the Maschinenbau-Kiel engineers went "ach, hölle nein!" when they realized the high fuel consumption.


Well, they never tested a proper tank. They wanted the option of swapping the diesel engine and the AGT-1500 gas turbine whenever required, which proved to be too difficult.



Btw. according to Shephardmedia's AUSA coverage, the M1A2 might get a new gun in the future. So much regarding "Abrams doesn't need a new gun, DU is soooo super!"...



According to O’Toole, the US Army has prioritised armouring vehicles, rather than arming them.

‘From a protection point of view, the trade-off is always the usual size, weight and power issue. How do you increase power without limiting speed? That means you’ve got to invest in R&D in armour, at the same time you’ve got to invest it in proportion with associated technologies like active protection systems,’ he added.

According to O’Toole, what the major programmes are geared towards is presenting a number of options to the commanders, giving the army variety within the same vehicles.

He said that the US army is exploring the use of different cannons, especially on the Abrams as it would like to move towards using some more powerful ammunitions.


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAIC/ST Kinetics/CMI have confirmed they are competing for MPF with a NGAFV hull + Cockerill 3105 turret.


IMO theirs and GDLS are weaker contenders because they are IFV hulls fitted with larger guns instead of purpose built (and thus more efficient) designs.


I am also willing to bet money the army is leaning towards a 105mm gun, based on the interest in 105mm multipurpose ammunition that I don't feel the M1128 would warrant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@SH_MM: why wouldn't anyone jump at the prospect of getting, say, an XM291 or XM360E1 over the old M256? The XM360E1 is noticeably lighter and can withstand higher pressures, and that's a welcome addition, knowing that the A2 SEP keeps getting heavier and heavier with each new version (in spite of the concurrent weight-cutting efforts) and that future shells are likely to use even more powerful propellants.


The M1 always had several gun upgrades (the XM291 in both 120mm and 140mm variants, and the XM360E1) in the pipeline, but financial issues and political turnabouts always got in the way of that.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, it can. Just a matter of guidance.


Of course, its potential would be limited to low-flying aircraft or helicopters, but it can be done. And it's not like it is unfeasible or hasn't actually been achieved already: in the early 2000s, an Israeli AH-64 claimed the first air-to-air Hellfire kill in Lebanon, when it shot down a tresspassing and non-complying Cessna. If a chopper can do it, why not a ground vehicle?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

I am also willing to bet money the army is leaning towards a 105mm gun, based on the interest in 105mm multipurpose ammunition that I don't feel the M1128 would warrant.

IMI will also present in AUSA this year a 105mm derivative of its 120mm "Hatzav" M339 shell, which was hailed as a flexible but simpler (and much cheaper) munition than the APAM.

Because seriously who has the time to choose between 2 different air burst types?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Side clearance definitely requires a closer look by the engineers - these sponson-like things look like they're begging to snag onto something while the tank's maneuvering around.


Anyway, I wonder if they can still fit ARAT-2 tiles on the turret. Some might say they're redundant, but they're meant to ward off EFPs and I'm not sure whether Trophy can perform EFP-on-EFP intercepts. Additionally, the HV adds 820kg to the turret - no wonder TARDEC has been having some concerns about turret performance and balance.


EDIT - all credits go to Damian90 on AW forums, dunno where he got the pics from in the first place


Stryker with pesticide dispensers Iron Curtain:




M2A4, ADS variant:

Stryker with Stinger missiles added to its CROWS RWS:



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.

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...