Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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

Recommended Posts

I swear, there's something wrong with me today on the cognitive plane...I got the tank names wrong. TWICE. Gimme the dunce cap, I deserve it. I'll stop posting until I can properly read and identify tank names...or else I'll end up posting highly improbable pictures of the Bob Semple tank standing next to the Kugelpanzer.


EDIT - Ramlaen, you once asked for a pic of the "Gavin" (*washes mouth with bleach and aqua regia*) and a Bradley for size comparison...and there's this CG here that shows the difference in size between the AMPV (close enough, right?) and a M113:



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:  

3 minutes ago, AssaultPlazma said:

I still feel they should keep the M113 around (obviously after some modernization of course) 


In what role exactly? Because other than the Robotic Wingman project, I can only see them used as utility vehicles. But the AMPV is already fulfilling this job ans should enter service in the thousands.

And when funding becomes available, it will expand to be an incremental upgrade to the Bradley.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, skylancer-3441 said:

just a picture from Army magazine, 1973-05


That's probably where Ukraine got that retarded idea of putting two guns separately in the same turret, mounted coaxially on the horizontal axis, but separated on the vertical axis. Only useful if you're fighting against Giraffes and need to hit the torso and score a headshot at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Solomon posted a response he got about the AAV-SU stop work order.



Pretty clear you only got one side of the story on this whole SAIC AAV-SU program. You either talked to a disgruntled former employee or one of the three morons celebrating getting laid off this week.

So here’s the truth about the Stop Work: It’s a 90 day stop work for CONVENIENCE, not cause. That means it is not related to any lack of ability to deliver tracks on time. It looks like the Corps is waiting to see how the ACV Sea State 3 swim tests go next month and will possibly be transferring the funding from AAV-SU over to ACV. The ACVs swam better than they were ever supposed to and seem to be more capable of replacing the aging AAV fleet sooner than expected.

Now for the other fallacies your source has led you to believe. SAIC didn’t run off its SMEs and replace them with Joe Schmoes off the street.

1) Six Marines left the project. So when your source says “all” realize they’re talking about six people out of a project that employs 300+. There were still Marines and trackers who were tech writers, analysts, integrators, engineers, quality assurance, logistics, FSRs, and test directors.

2) The guys that left were never Subject Matter Experts to anyone except themselves. The handful who left all had an enlistment or two of Amtracking experience. There is still over 300 years of Amtracking experience on the project’s payroll. Two retired trackers added after EMD had more combined experience then the combined lot of the six guys who left.

3) The guys who left were going to take paycuts because all they did during ACV was bitch and moan. For the entire year that ACV went on they never once bothered to learn how the vehicle was assembled or properly operated. They let other assembly technicians come in and replace them on the production line so they could become “test drivers”, a position and task not required under the PCM AAV-SU contract. The guys who built AAVs during EMD and ACVs got promotions and pay-raises when PCM started up because they were experienced, had the tribal knowledge, and hadn't spent the last year complaining and refusing to work.

4) ZERO Subcontractors were cell leads. In fact, every one of the cell leads on the production floor were there for the EMD build.

5) 80% of the work force brought in was either former military or guys with overseas contracting experience. It was an exceptionally low-blow to read that you only believe former Amtrackers care about the lives of Marines. Those of us who work in Defense Contracting, especially us veterans, take great pride in knowing our time away from our families is for the noble cause of helping our brothers and sisters on the front lines return safely to their loved ones.

The entire reason SAIC was instructed to build four PCM vehicles was because the “SME’s” as your source has labeled them couldn’t build two vehicles that were the same during the EMD phase. The only reason SAIC got the win was because of a very strong team of experienced FSRs who received vehicles with hundreds of quality hits against them and worked out all the kinks so they could perform well during the Operational Assessment phase of government testing. The “SME’s” used mis-matched hardware and put “dick slots” in bolt holes to make the parts fit. Then they never bothered to document the changes or correct the work instructions so SAIC could build more vehicles when they won the next lot. These guys built million dollar combat vehicles with zero professionalism or understanding of production. That’s why the Program Office put the PCM asterisk on the awarded LRIP contract, and demanded new management be put in place. They wanted to see SAIC improve HOW it built the vehicles because the “SME’s” EMD build was FUBAR.
Did the new management always make sound decisions? Absolutely not. However, the program isn’t behind schedule because of the management or the laborers. There were several issues including procurement, staffing, tooling, design changes, bad parts, etc. . The government dictated certain design changes be made and the project never stopped changing the design even after parts were procured. So parts were ordered based on drawings that were 3 or 4 revisions old by the time the parts arrived. The government also had part sourcing and delivering problems for the legacy components. Certain systems were terribly engineered, other parts just didn’t fit. Workers had to be brought in by the dozens to meet the schedule demanded by the customer. Luckily experienced integrators were laid off from BAE and Boeing in the area and were able to come over to SAIC. It all compounded into a nightmare of a project in which most of us realized the company was just sprinting to failure.

Hopefully now that you’ve received the facts you can come out with a nice post about how disgruntled former employees are a terrible source of information. The "Old Team" is still on the team, minus six guys. Those six guys were a huge part of the reason SAIC almost didn't win the project and was given four more vehicles to prove their processes on. When you look at the facts, it looks like the Corps is just reassessing the need for a band-aid on a 50 year old platform when its replacement is ahead of schedule.

No attach on you, your posts can only be as good as the information you received. Unfortunately, your source sucks.


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...