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

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:  


8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Turret seems to already integrate every major aspect of what the US Army wanted from it (50mm gun, very high elevation, APS).

This turret was made by the US-Army. 

8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The 35mm system the CV90 and Lynx could take is also compatible with the 50mm gun and ammo, but if they want to impress, they have to show it in real life, not just say they can do it.

The real difficulty is the US-Army seems to call for a « never seen before » elevation. 


Just to remind :

BAE’s got another turret available for the CV90 :


Of course, this is a 40CTA, but, maybe the US wanted 50mm can be integrated. 

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


How do you know the turret is made by the US Army? I try to read every message in this thread but I seem to have missed this.


The following video has the GDLS rep clearly stating that the turret is designed by GD (1:21 mark). The 50mm gun, OTOH, is being integrated with ARDEC's help (1:13 mark) and the 85° elevation capability is their answer to a request/requirement by USAR.



Link to post
Share on other sites

And here :

The nearly 40 ton Griffin III features a remotely-operated turret the U.S. Army’s own Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) developed, which is armed with a 50mm cannon from Orbital ATK, now part of Northrop Grumman. This weapon is substantially larger than the 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.


The Army has also developed the turret with modularity in mind, which could allow the service to install smaller guns in a portion of the fleet depending on the intended role. Not surprisingly, it can already accommodate the 30mm XM813 cannon found on the service’s up-gunned Stryker Dragoon wheeled armored vehicles.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Sparks argument #225: the all-purpose Gavin will keep your children safe and deliver them to school when school bus drivers are on strike and courting the devils of socialism. Stupid Abrams can't even do that. #back2gavin #whatwouldjesusdrive


Yes, I know it's a M59 and not a M113. Just let me fill my daily quota of cringey attempts at humor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a possibility, though that hulk is lacking the two "grooves" on the turret cheeks. Also, I don't think they ever put that M60 cupola on the AX's commander hatch.






Additionally, the back face of the turret on the hulk is canted, whereas the back of the AX' turret seems flat. If anything, the hulk's turret has more of an early M1 turret vibe (with the short storage boxes on the sides and a pedestal for the wind sensor on the back) than an AX... It could however be some intermediary step between the two, a precursor to the M60-2000.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

Credits owed to Damian90 on the AW forums. Since there is some uncertainty as to what this truly is, I haven't posted it in the vismods thread (yet).


it's posted by Jon Bernstein





Armor Modeling and Preservation Society Social Group on FB



Two similar, but ultimately different projects. The M60-2000 used a modified M60 turret, which I was inside when I took these photos as part of my job. The 120S mounted an M1A1 Abrams turret on an M60 hull. Similar concepts, different execution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, most image queries will be polluted with well-known pictures of the 120S (many of those pics will be screenshots from Armored Warfare; the devs have erroneously used the 120S pics to model their premium "M60-2000"), the Super M60/M60AX, the Magach and/or the Sabra.


EDIT - an interesting detail: another AW forum member, Jarink, suggested the vehicle seen in the background here could possibly be a M1015 Electronic Warfare Shelter Center (based on the M548 chassis) due to the presence of a grounding rod on the front.





^--- M1015 with ELINT-gathering AN/MSQ-103 "TEAMPACK". Note the grounding rod at the front.



^--- M1015 with AN/MLQ-34 "TACJAM" communications jammer. Note the more modern grounding rod with square box, similar to the one in the first picture.

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...