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

Recoil system of the M256:  

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

7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

What would be the point of that if the Trophy they're buying, and plan to integrate on all the Army's fleet, already has such a radar system? 

Sounds like they’re intended for different roles? Trophy for short-range threats, MTAS (if that’s what it is) for surveillance & target acquisition...seemingly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Sounds like they’re intended for different roles? Trophy for short-range threats, MTAS (if that’s what it is) for surveillance & target acquisition...seemingly. 

We don't know the max range of the EL/M-2133, but we do know it puts all existing ATGMs well within its surveillance range. A typical Kornet missile will have a range of 5km, while higher end missiles have a typical range of 8km. 


So if I were to guess, I would assume this is meant for foliage, where typical radars would have a hard time discriminating a target, or an air search radar to warn against artillery, UAVs, or helicopters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I'm fairly confident that it's a CREW antenna and the electronics were moved under armor. Especially since you can see the same thing on the (now called A4) Bradley, which also received a CREW as standard equipment. It would also make sense then if the black bar next to the drivers hatch on the SEPv3 was also a CREW antenna.



Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Mind explaining what a CREW antenna is?


(C)ounter (R)emote control improvised explosive device (E)lectronic (W)arfare/Duke, the IED jammer.


On a SEPv2 there is a box in right side of the bustle rack for the CREW/Duke that has a small pedestal for the antenna, which is similar in size to the meteorological sensor sticking up next to it.




Anecdotally most of the time the box is/was empty. If a CREW/Duke is installed you will see one of those fat antennas.



Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the Tri color woodland, but a solid olive is nice too, certainly better than desert tan. That tank looks like it's finally the tan sandblasted off too, so the green looks much better. If they did paint over the tan they did a much better job than the some other Abrams I've seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also seems like the 2018 SETC starts tomorrow, anybody got any details on the participates this year? 


Just from some casual googling it looks like it's going to be Austria, America, UK, France, Sweden, German, Germany, Poland, and Ukraine. 

Edited by JNT11593
added info
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Karamazov said:

when the photo was taken?


An US tank type type 'M1A2 SEP' arrives for the friendship shooting of several nations during the exercise 'Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2017' at the exercise area in Grafenwoehr, near Eschenbach, southern Germany, on May 12, 2017. Platoons from NATO nations France, Germany, USA and their partners Austria and Ukraine take part in this exercise. / AFP PHOTO / Christof STACHE
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2018 at 9:54 AM, Ramlaen said:






Anecdotally most of the time the box is/was empty. 



Interestingly (well, to me) the CREW box power is supplied via a power adapter adjacent the cross-wind mast. That power adapter was first developed to meet the Australian requirement for a refrigerator. 

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...