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

[Mighty_Zuk]

11 hours ago, MRose said:

 

If that's the case, and you're preparing for a near peer war, the money is better spent elsewhere...

Hardly. The APS is the single most cost effective piece of tech on a tank. By a very long shot.

[LoooSeR]

Quote

The M67 tanks equipped with flamethrowers in one of the operations against the forces of the Vietcong. South Vietnam, the end of 60s

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

via Panzerblog

[Ramlaen]

M1A2C

 

[JNT11593]

Lookin' good. Is that one that's finally been delivered to an active unit? Wonder how long those mudflaps are going to stay though. I can see that going the way of the old retaining rings 

[Ramlaen]

7 minutes ago, JNT11593 said:

Lookin' good. Is that one that's finally been delivered to an active unit?

 

Yuma Proving Grounds.

[N-L-M]

CROWS-LP is really small, I like it. 

Now they just need to make the loaders's transparent shields fold and the GWOT "tower tank" look will be a thing of the past.

(Also paint them green and send them to Europe to end the decades of tan)

[Molota_477]

8 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

M1A2C

 

What is the black cylindrical device to the right of the turret?

[Renegade334]

IED Jammer.

[Collimatrix]

3 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

IED Jammer.

 

 

Do you happen to know the designation?

[Renegade334]

Nah, but Ramlaen suspects it's a new, compact version of the AN/VLQ-12 CREW Duke 3 antenna (the electronic boxes are under armor) or a replacement for it.

 

It's either that or it's an antenna for the upgraded IVIS POS/NAV system. I doubt it's for the JTRS radio, though.

[2805662]

11 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

M1A2C

 

That is a good looking tank. 

[Ramlaen]

This is a good depiction of why the RWS on an Abrams is located on the gunners sight instead of in the center of the turret like on the early incarnations.

 

[Renegade334]

Still, it doesn't look like the RWS can be manually swung sideways much unless the gunner traverses the turret or the commander climbs out of his hatch and kneels next to the CITV turret. I guess he has to button down and remote-control the RWS to accurately hit a target that stands to the tank's three o'clock or six o'clock? (without traversing the turret - let's say the gunner is busy concentrating on another target)

[AssaultPlazma]

7 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

Still, it doesn't look like the RWS can be manually swung sideways much unless the gunner traverses the turret or the commander climbs out of his hatch and kneels next to the CITV turret. I guess he has to button down and remote-control the RWS to accurately hit a target that stands to the tank's three o'clock or six o'clock? (without traversing the turret - let's say the gunner is busy concentrating on another target)

 

 

You can very much manually traverse the CROWS manually. You don't fire off the side of the tank that's a no-no for any given weapon system unless it's a emergency. If you're having to shoot off your six of clock you're probably screwed anyway..... 

[Renegade334]

1 hour ago, AssaultPlazma said:

 

 

You can very much manually traverse the CROWS manually. You don't fire off the side of the tank that's a no-no for any given weapon system unless it's a emergency. If you're having to shoot off your six of clock you're probably screwed anyway..... 

 

In an ideal scenario, yes, the gunner would traverse the turret in the direction of the threat and the commander can simply fire the forward-facing CROWS, but you can't expect every situation to be to your advantage. Urban combat, for example, can be extremely unpredictable with threats popping up anywhere at any angle because of the large amount of cover (I know you're going to argue that the tank commander should know better than roll into a locale where he can get boxed in, but for argument's sake, please bear with me). True, one would first assume the infantry would be the one to provide fire support in such cases, but again...we assume everything is going by the book and no bad surprises happen like with the T-72 below, which was hit on the right flank by a RPG-29:

Spoiler

 

 

Additionally, what happens if the CROWS' cameras are damaged/disabled and only manual operation is left? That doghouse mount becomes kind of a handicap as it restricts the manual traversing angle (without the commander climbing out of his hatch, I mean), doesn't it?

[AssaultPlazma]

You don't just turn the turret to face the threat you turn the whole tank to face the threat. Worst case scenario most TC's would just have the driver orient thank tank so he has an angle on the target. Also Taking on threats from multiple angles is why you have wing men.  Remember tanks always fight in a section as part of a Platoon (4 tanks). Each tank has a sector of fire to cover which in turn covers roughly from 10-2 on the clock. If you're getting shot by anything under that you're kinda fucked. Trying to base things off getting shot in the ass which is already bad business to begin is kinda silly. 

 

edit: Main reason why the CROWS on top of the dog house is so the TC can reach it with his hands from the TC's hatch and can load, unload and perform immediate action if necessary. 

[ZloyKrolik]

Here's one from my personal way back machine. Bon Jovi on a tank, 5/77 Armor, Mannheim Germany, 1984. We had a guy in our battalion, Terry Svejda, that was always going on about how he "knew" people in the music business. His dad owned a few music store in Chicago. He was a huge KISS fan and they were touring Europe, and he said he was going to get them to come visit our unit. Turns out he just got the opening band, Bon Jovi. 

 

 

Terry is standing on the right in the black jacket.

[Ramlaen]

A preview of AUSA next week.

 

[Wiedzmin]

[That’s Suspicious]

I think a Abrams with a Burlak style turret setup would be pretty interesting. I’ve never seen them put armor on the front of the turret before.

[Karamazov]

3 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

Who stole the armor? 

[Renegade334]

Not the first time we see this kind of graphics. Last one I saw was an Abrams with the Trophy sponsons (early concept) but no armor pack either. Not sure what's the purpose behind leaving out the HAP-3/NGAP cavities.

[Alzoc]

3 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

Not the first time we see this kind of graphics. Last one I saw was a Abrams with the Trophy sponsons (early concept) but no armor pack either. Not sure what's the purpose behind leaving out the HAP-3/NGAP cavities.

 

Showing that it's possible to stuff all kind on armor package on those emplacement would be my guess.

The image probably come from a random presentation.

[Ramlaen]

General Dynamics will present the Griffin 3 tech demonstrator and a 30mm armed Stryker A1 (Dragoons are old flat bottom hull Strykers) along with Iron Fist Light Decoupled.

 

Also

 

[Collimatrix]

OK, calling all people who actually know what they're talking about:

 

 

@N-L-M and I were debating whether the torsion bars on tanks with torsion bar suspension are interchangeable.  I pointed out that according to this article, the torsion bars of the Leopard 1 are deferentially pre-stressed.  Also, that the Tiger I had non-uniform torsion bar diameters.

 

N-L-M retorted that those are German tanks, and therefore anything silly and over-complex that they do is not necessarily reflective of other tanks generally.

 

 

 

So, anyone who knows, how interchangeable are the torsion bars on the different road wheel stations on a tank?