Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

On 2/11/2019 at 3:15 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

And here is an article from International Defence Review on Bradley -
which was reprinted in 1982 in Volume 13 "Tracked armoured vehicles" (of The International Defence Review Special Series) - a compilation of articles which appeared in IDR in late 70s.BfBEOLc.jpg



Where can I read  the rest of this document ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of relatively fast options - somewhere not online, I guess. Well, if we exclude option of buying on Ebay or somewhere else.

It seems to me that in English-speaking countries large public libraries definitely should have IDR issues of 1970s. In non-English-speaking countries one probably have to look at largest of public libraries, or some very specialized libraries.

For example for me personally it would require 500 mile trip to get to RSL aka Leninka (which is simply largest Russian public library) in Moscow.


Even though I got this on Google Books, it took me smth like half a dozen man-hours to get a single article, and then sometimes they are only partly available.

The thing is, in order to protect copyright and avoid been sued by publishers again, Google now by default puts everything on Google Books in that snippet view mode. One actually can ask them to review copyright status, to put any book in full view - which I did for about 400 other magazine issues and books over last 14 months - but in this particular case they would definitely deny such request. With recent news of books from 1923 going into Public Domain this January, this IDR's book could be put in full view somewhere in - what, 2078? 

Although judging by Popular Mechanics and Life magazines, sometimes Google makes a deal with publishers of some important magazines, in order to allow full view but not downloading (=no "download pdf" option. One still can, obviously, manually save all pages)  - of those magazines which are still not in Public Domain. But I have no idea whether anyone in - whoever is a copyright holder for IDR right now - would be interested in doing that, even if someone asks them. Anyway, I don't think they will listen me on historical importance of old issues of their magazines been freely available.


Alternatively one might hope that some day Internet Archive's scanning project would include IDR issues, and that they would become available under their "borrow" option.

Unfortunately currently they work on much smaller scale than Google did, and they do not use whichever scans are available at GoogleBooks and Hathitrust, and judging by what they usually endorse - defense and military oriented publications are definitely not their top priority, so this also seems rather far from now.


It's pity that even though people in different countries have scanned - unofficially - a whole bunch of different magazines from the past - IDR, Jane's Defense Weekly, Soldat und Technik, Military Technology and many others - are not among them. People obviously have different priorities - even those which definitely have access to such magazines and from time to time do upload articles from older issues, translated into Russian, to their blog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Tons of articles about Stryker rollover problems. Just one example:


The vehicle's center of gravity is higher compared to other vehicles in its class, this causes these issues.



>driver training issue


You can do better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I was thinking about. 

Both ballast are too much well integrated onto the turret. This is a little bit too much for a simple weight simulation. 


On the other hand, this new volume can help to have new sides cover to better integrate external options. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marines want vehicle mounted kamakazi drones. Although according to this article it could also be a missile (like Spike NLOS).


Organic Precision Fires-Mounted (OPF-M)





The Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps seeks ideas and information regarding an Organic Precision Fires-Mounted (OPF-M) capability for potential contract for prototype efforts actions, which may include traditional Federal Acquisition Regulation based contracts, Other Transaction Authority opportunities, or both.


The Program Manager Fires (PM Fires), Portfolio Manager, Ground Combat Element Systems (PfM GCES), Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM), seeks industry input to help identify potential sources for an OPF-M system capable of attacking targets at ranges exceeding the ranges of weapons system currently in an organic infantry battalion: (7km) and up to 100 kilometers. PM Fires plans to develop future acquisition strategies that may include a Family of Systems or tiered capability identified by systems attributes and requirements. In the near-term, the PM Fires intends to conduct a limited Field User Evaluation using an OPF-M prototype to inform concepts of employment and capability requirements.


The OPF-M should have the following characteristics:


a. Ease of Command and Control (C2) during flight up to and including impact; 
b. Accept and integrate with Government-owned C2 systems and architectures;
c. Controllable from a common tablet (T) and the Target Handoff Systems v2 (O);
d. Able to loiter mid-flight while performing ISR / target recognition;
e. Able to perform Positive Identification (PI) or target identification;
f. Able to engage and attack a variety of targets, to include personnel, armored vehicles, and facilities;
g. Mountable on multiple Marine Corps vehicles using government-furnished or a specified mounting platform
h. Operable and storable in accordance with MIL-STD-810
i. Transportable via commercial air


PM Fires also seeks industry input regarding OPF-M payloads that may perform aerial reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) and perform communications retransmit requirements in order to achieve greater ranges. Small businesses and non-traditional defense contractors with only partial capabilities of this requirement are encouraged to submit their capabilities statement demonstrating the portion of the requirement they are capable of providing.


Vendors currently working with other Government organizations should identify those efforts as well as the Government Points of Contact information.


Any Government Agency that is performing similar or complementary efforts are encouraged to attend the Industry Day and share their insights with our project team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2019 at 3:45 PM, Scolopax said:

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 during an amphibious assault.




Short range American TOS-1 "Flamethrower" anyone?



Link to comment
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...