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

[Clan_Ghost_Bear]

7 hours ago, alanch90 said:

So, let me get this straight: the same people who refused for over half a century to even mount an autoloader in a tank

Several US designs have featured autoloaders, most notably the M8 Ridgeway, which was type-classified before being budgeted out.

7 hours ago, alanch90 said:

now want to replace the Abrams with a completely unmanned tank?

The only thing we really know about the Abrams replacement project for now is that GDLS has floated the idea of a 55 ton tank with a variety of different turrets that can be exchanged.

https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/land/special-report-army-analyzes-detailed-plans-for-future-tank-McrsL3rfUEKEkhJDJ3Lm0Q/

[Pascal]

43 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Several US designs have featured autoloaders, most notably the M8 Ridgeway, which was type-classified before being budgeted out.

 

I don't see the love for the M1128 MGS!

[Lord_James]

 

 

 

 

 

amateurs 

[alanch90]

24 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

amateurs 

And tell me, apart from all of these tanks featuring autoloaders, what do they all have in common?

[Clan_Ghost_Bear]

29 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

And tell me, apart from all of these tanks featuring autoloaders, what do they all have in common?

 

You're kind of moving the goalposts, though. You originally said that the US never mounted an autoloader to a tank because of fears over mechanical failure.

[Lord_James]

43 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

And tell me, apart from all of these tanks featuring autoloaders, what do they all have in common?

 

1. That was a joke post. 

 

2. These are your exact words: 

 

10 hours ago, alanch90 said:

So, let me get this straight: the same people who refused for over half a century to even mount an autoloader in a tank because "too many moving parts can fail" now want to replace the Abrams with a completely unmanned tank?

 

And those vehicles disproved the statement I bolded. Now, if you had stated “refused to accept a tank, with an autoloader, into service”, well, I would have had less to say, though the M1128 still disproves that. 

[XhaxhiEnver]

35 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

 

You're kind of moving the goalposts, though. You originally said that the US never mounted an autoloader to a tank because of fears over mechanical failure.

He should have been more thorough. 

 

The refusal to mount an auto-loader to an actual service vehicle (MBT other tans) was backed by the idea that AL's would increase the complexity of the tank and malfunction at some point. 

This is not "moving the goalposts", it's why the US is still fielding a 4-men crew tank. There will be exceptions that will simply confirm this viewpoint.

 

For anyone pointing the Stryker MGS... that's quite the resounding success. 

[alanch90]

2 minutes ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

He should have been more thorough. 

 

The refusal to mount an auto-loader to an actual service vehicle (MBT other tans) was backed by the idea that AL's would increase the complexity of the tank and malfunction at some point. 

This is not "moving the goalposts", it's why the US is still fielding a 4-men crew tank. There will be exceptions that will simply confirm this viewpoint.

 

For anyone pointing the Stryker MGS... that's quite the resounding success. 

Wrongly worded i admit it. But i think that my point can be understood nonetheless.
 

[Ramlaen]

Lotta memes and myths going on here, if there was a primary reason the US hasn't adopted an autoloader on a tank it would be penny pinching and budget cuts.

[XhaxhiEnver]

16 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Lotta memes and myths going on here, if there was a primary reason the US hasn't adopted an autoloader on a tank it would be penny pinching and budget cuts.

 

Abrams and penny pinching is an oxymoron. 

[alanch90]

14 minutes ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

 

Abrams and penny pinching is an oxymoron. 

US defense budget and penny pinching is an oxymoron.

[Lord_James]

12 minutes ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

 

Abrams and penny pinching is an oxymoron. 

 

A lot of the money to the M1 goes towards its engine and armor, and money was saved by not including an autoloader, among some other features. 

[Ramlaen]

19 minutes ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

 

Abrams and penny pinching is an oxymoron. 

 

Thank you for the example of memeing and/or ignorance.

[Lord_James]

22 minutes ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

 

Abrams and penny pinching is an oxymoron. 

 

7 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

US defense budget and penny pinching is an oxymoron.

 

I would argue the budget is more subject to cheeseparing than penny pinching (look it up). Lots of money was (and continues to be) put into the engine / transmission, as well as the armor. 

[XhaxhiEnver]

2 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Thank you for the example of memeing and/or ignorance.

 

I want to reply to this, but the condescending tone is a bone breaker. I hope you are being facetious. 

 

7 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

A lot of the money to the M1 goes towards its engine and armor, and money was saved by not including an autoloader, among some other features. 

 

30/40% of the cost was the engine and transmission. However the intial cost bracket per unit was calculated as a little more than 500K USD. Even in constant USD, the price implosion was above the inflation rate (120%) at over 2.1 million USD. And that wasn't a Mission capable unit.

Thermal sights and FCS cost almost as much as a the initial M60.

[Ramlaen]

12 minutes ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

 

I want to reply to this, but the condescending tone is a bone breaker. I hope you are being facetious. 

 

 

30/40% of the cost was the engine and transmission. However the intial cost bracket per unit was calculated as a little more than 500K USD. Even in constant USD, the price implosion was above the inflation rate (120%) at over 2.1 million USD. And that wasn't a Mission capable unit.

Thermal sights and FCS cost almost as much as a the initial M60.

 

I'm being condescending because, using this post as an example, you talk about the cost of thermal sights while ignoring that the original Abrams had an inferior thermal sight to what the M60 had for the purpose of saving money.

[N-L-M]

So, seeing as some people need a refresher:
You really should read Hunnicutt's Abrams book, but the 10 minute version of the story is as follows:
MBT-70 was going to be the best tank that anyone had ever made. Ever. It was going to have all the bells, a double serving of whistles, and bully the hell out of any Soviet tank in every respect. At least, that was the idea. The MBT-70 proved to be a very problematic beast and got stuck in development hell for the better part of a decade, and by the time it was cancelled there was very little time and even less budget to get a working tank into service, and Congress was not happy with funding another ambitious development project. The Abrams was therefore most definitely a budget option compared to the state of the art at the time, though it was designed with some inherent growth features built in for later upgrades (notably, the CITV on the M1A2 was planned for pretty much from the get-go).

The US was fully willing to have an autoloader in their fancy tank, and by all accounts the autoloader on the MBT-70 worked just fine; but it was not easily adaptable to the Abrams, and there was no time or budget to mature a new one- the Abrams was almost criminally late to the field as it was! All Abrams variants prior to the M1A2 are in one way or another budget versions, and only in the A2 did the US Army really get all the features they initially wanted (plus a bunch more that had cropped up and matured in the mean time).

The US has designed several vehicles with autoloaders and even type-classified quite a few, with the Stryker MGS actually seeing service. Other than memes which as far as I can tell derive from wikipedia- tier sour grapes, there's no actual evidence that the US Army does not like the idea of autoloaders, much the opposite.

[XhaxhiEnver]

15 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

I'm being condescending because, using this post as an example, you talk about the cost of thermal sights while ignoring that the original Abrams had an inferior thermal sight to what the M60 had for the purpose of saving money.

First, the M60 had no Thermal sight designed until 1977. Then it was fielded starting 1978. That was the M60A3 (TTS). 

 

This goes against everything that has been said, under oath, about the TTS vs the Hughues. Capabilities of both systems were equivalent (with a higher margin for the Hughues) this coupled with a digital computer, Yag laser and the initial CRT display (vs fishbowl) just made the Hughues the better sight. 

 

Shall I post Congressional hearings now?

 

 

 

 

[Ramlaen]

Go for it, while you are at it feel free to post comparisons of their actual performance.

[XhaxhiEnver]

21 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

So, seeing as some people need a refresher:
You really should read Hunnicutt's Abrams book, but the 10 minute version of the story is as follows:
MBT-70 was going to be the best tank that anyone had ever made. Ever. It was going to have all the bells, a double serving of whistles, and bully the hell out of any Soviet tank in every respect. At least, that was the idea. The MBT-70 proved to be a very problematic beast and got stuck in development hell for the better part of a decade, and by the time it was cancelled there was very little time and even less budget to get a working tank into service, and Congress was not happy with funding another ambitious development project. The Abrams was therefore most definitely a budget option compared to the state of the art at the time, though it was designed with some inherent growth features built in for later upgrades (notably, the CITV on the M1A2 was planned for pretty much from the get-go).

The US was fully willing to have an autoloader in their fancy tank, and by all accounts the autoloader on the MBT-70 worked just fine; but it was not easily adaptable to the Abrams, and there was no time or budget to mature a new one- the Abrams was almost criminally late to the field as it was! All Abrams variants prior to the M1A2 are in one way or another budget versions, and only in the A2 did the US Army really get all the features they initially wanted (plus a bunch more that had cropped up and matured in the mean time).

The US has designed several vehicles with autoloaders and even type-classified quite a few, with the Stryker MGS actually seeing service. Other than memes which as far as I can tell derive from wikipedia- tier sour grapes, there's no actual evidence that the US Army does not like the idea of autoloaders, much the opposite.

 

I don't know what all this has to do with "penny pinching". Penny pinching can regard the T-80's details(T-80U's pintle mounts for the Utyos is penny pinching), but producing a tank that costs 6 times the price of the M60 in its mission capable form, is not. Take the dozer blade cost that started as a simple sub 15K equipment piece and ended up costing upwards 70K. These are cost elements on the M1 that simply reflect a cost overshot because of how the XM-1 was created. That wasn't out of penny pinching but due to the US government letting the development entirely on the contractor. 

 

Nevermind what they were not happy with, they ended up funding a MORE expensive program. You are arguing about intention, I'm talking about facts.

 

I think Chrysler would have happily obliged with a system if that was desired. We are contending that the US wanted an AL but was pressed by time, yet the very initial price of the M1 has now doubled (at a minimum) and the US STILL doesn't have an auto-loader. The US has killed a plethora of systems that "lost usefulness" post CW (VIDS for instance) but in the mean time only few attempts have been made to get the M1 to have an AL. 

 

 

 

[skylancer-3441]

article on CATTB from IDR 1990-12

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

and also clippings

from IDR 1989-12 on MTAS

Spoiler

 

 

 

and from IDR 1990-05 on 140mm gun 

Spoiler

 

and render of CATTB from US Army's Weapon Systems Handbook of 1992:

 

and pic from Soldat und Technik 1992-01:

 

and pic of testbed w/XM291 gun - also from SuT 1992-01:

[Lord_James]

58 minutes ago, skylancer-3441 said:

 

and pic of testbed w/XM291 gun - also from SuT 1992-01:

 

Isn’t that the M256E1 120mm L/55 test bed? 

 

 

1 hour ago, skylancer-3441 said:

 

and from IDR 1990-05 on 140mm gun 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

And since we’re on the topic of automatic loaders, the CATTB is said to have one, and may even have 3 conveyor type loaders if this drawing is correct. 

[N-L-M]

38 minutes ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

I don't know what all this has to do with "penny pinching"

It has to do with the Abrams development mostly evolving from a cut down MBT-70. Ending up more expensive than the M-60 is mostly irrelevant because by that time the M60 was entirely obsolete, and therefore could not fill the role required, nor could any vehicle of equivalent cost. For the defined role, the Abrams as designed was a very austere design with few exceptions, and if you think for some reason that the Abrams wasn't designed under some pretty strict cost limits you are sorely mistaken and are more than invited to re-read Hunnicutt.

Also penny pinching in general is a figure of speech for cost cutting, not only the cost cutting associated with small low value details. But choosing a 1-axis gunner's sight stab over 2-axis because it's $3000 cheaper is indeed penny pinching when it comes to a tank.

43 minutes ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

they ended up funding a MORE expensive program.

Not than the MBT-70, to which the comparison must be made.

44 minutes ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

US STILL doesn't have an auto-loader. The US has killed a plethora of systems that "lost usefulness" post CW

Yes, also killed were the FCS, GCV, and some other programs which were supposed to replace the Abrams with an autoloaded vehicle. The fact that these projects all got cut and ate up most of the budget, leaving fuckall for Abrams upgrades, is a separate issue.

46 minutes ago, XhaxhiEnver said:

You are arguing about intention, I'm talking about facts.

Also talking facts here, bucko. Compare the estimated price of the MBT-70, M60A1 and M60A3 to that of the Abrams in then year dollars.

Had you bothered to open a copy of Hunnicutt, you'd see that he provides the following numbers in equivalent 1972 dollars:
$422k final Chrysler proposal
$507k RFP design goal
 

$526k XM-1 1978 estimate (including GFE) (from here)

$339k M60A1

$432k M60A3

$611k XM803 (MBT-70)

 

So yeah, Definitely a budget conscious development.
(now if you're going "wait those numbers can't be right how come it's so much cheaper than the design goal", the answer is "competition". Chrysler's bid was $196M to GM's $232M).

[skylancer-3441]

15 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

Isn’t that the M256E1 120mm L/55 test bed? 

No idea. I had no other thing to rely on except SuT's caption for this photo:

Google Translate GER->ENG

Quote

Picture 4: Trial XM 1 mod. from 1988 with the experimental cannon XM 291; here equipped with a 120 mm tube.

...
can't add another pic to previous post, for some reason, so this one goes here - photo of what is described as XM291, from IDR 1990-12

[Walter_Sobchak]