Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

I don't get what's the difference between my suggestion about backpacks stored outside, and real-life things like that:

(apart from lack of any ERA/NERA armor on this particular Bradley)


/...unfortunatelly that blue render is too small to see words written on those 8 things/

My bad. You were right considering the 3D view. 

Making such a drawing is strange because it makes it clear : this design is a no volume design. 


Hanging crew and section burden onto the armor is common, even if it’s not wise. The problem is coming from the platoon organisation.

Soldier have so much to carry, it’s impossible to pack everything into an IFV or even an APC.

The only solution is to have a dedicated truck per platoon like within the French tank troops (camion d’allègement). During the fight, the four trucks are regrouped under the logistic 2IC order. They are part of the squadron logistic support fleet (Train de Combat n°1). At rest, trucks are resupplying there troop with food, water... they give acces to the soldier’s burdens. 


Edit : does anyone knows the English for :

- Train de Combat ;

- camion d’allégement.

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:  

AFAIK backpacks were shown outside of the vehicle on renders and scalemodels of notional designs of FCS and GCV ever since mid-2000s. And although sometimes they were shown with some sort of protective covers, sometimes they were not covered on those renders by anything.








"Stowage Side Covers (2x)"





Without too much digging I can remember one design which was shown with all backpacks inside the vehcle - and that was wheeled OPC CAMEL demonstrator

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the closest they got to that FARS concept is the XM2002 RSV vehicle meant to accompany the XM2001 Crusader:


^--- That outgrowth on the front of the XM2002 is an automated resupply boom.



The XM2002 could hoard up to 110 shells and resupply a XM2001 Crusader with 48 shells and fuel in less than 12 minutes, without the need for a crewmember to step out.

^--- Note the square access panel at the back of the XM2001's turret, which mates with the XM2002's resupply boom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Karamazov said:



Isn't that the CATTB? The turret has more vertical lines than a normal M1/M1A1. The second scan implies that the FARS, with its single-shell conveyor boom, can only service tanks that have a horizontal autoloader at the back of their turrets. If the M1A1s weren't retrofitted with an AL à la CATTB, then they'd probably have to sacrifice one ammo tube in the bustle ammo rack to mount a reinforced "shell funnel" leading to the crew space, where the loader can redistribute the incoming ammunition.


EDIT: all things considered, there is a hint of an exhaust grille at the back of the hull, so this should be the Thumper and not the original CATTB (which had an AIPS diesel rather than the AGT1500).

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...