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:  


   On October 30, 2019, the U.S. Army issued General Dynamics Corporation (a division of General Dynamics Land Systems - GDLS) a contract worth $ 162.404 million for the supply of 624 small robotic wheeled transport platforms Multi-Utility Tactical Transport (MUTT) under the Small Multipurpose Equipment Transports (SMET) program. Deliveries should begin in the second quarter of fiscal year 2021 and be completed by October 29, 2024.





   The ordered crewless transport platforms comply with the concept of the so-called "robotic mules" and are intended for the transport of goods and equipment as part of infantry units at the squad and platoon level. The selected MUTT platform developed by GDLS is an 8x8 wheeled vehicle with an electric hybrid drive.


   The US Army’s SMET requirements include optional human or remote control, autonomous mobility, transportation of up to 1,000 pounds (454 kg) of cargo (9-man unit property), 72 hours of operation, 60 miles range, 1 kW silent power generation in movement mode and 3 kW when stationary, the ability to recharge soldiers' equipment (radios, night vision goggles, tablets). With full-scale production, the cost of one platform should not exceed $ 100 thousand.


   The GDLS specifications of the MUTT platform in the 8x8 wheel configuration are maximum weight with a payload of 3,500 pounds (1,589 kg), payload mass of 1,200 pounds (545 kg), length 116 inches (2947 mm), width 60-70 inches (1524-1778 mm), 60 miles range (with 5 gallons of fuel), remote control is provided at a range of up to 200 m with a simple remote controller by one hand, it is possible to provide movement on water. GDLS also developed the lighter MUTT variants with 6x6 (900 pounds load) and 4x4 (last optionally tracked, 600 pounds load) wheel configurations.












Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SH_MM said:

M1A2 SEP v1 and M1A2 SEP v2 were not renamed to M1A2A and M1A2B.

US army should really consider dropping their idiotic designation systems! 

Look at the air force. Those guys did it right. From the first letter, you immediately know the general type of aircraft. Then model number, and a letter for variant (A,B,C..etc), and finally sometimes sub-variant, for example F-16C Block 52... Also for army M1 means a tank, a truck, a rifle, a helmet, socks, pants, everything... crazy. No such thing at air force. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Because of TUSK.

Australia has had TUSK since 2011. Because TUSK is a theatre/operation-specific appliqué, the MLC isn’t updated unless it’s carried. 

Trials with the amphibious ships & the landing craft led to the tanks being weighed via weigh station. This activity led to a reclassification of their MLC. 


Future upgrades via Project Land 907-2 will likely result in armour upgrades. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The protective cover for the wire to a low profile antenna. (not installed)


The easy differences to spot are;

-larger turret face

-pedestal for an antenna on the left rear of the turret

-enlarged tow hooks

-APU exhaust on the left of the hull rear

-low profile antenna next to the drivers hatch

-new mud flaps

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i made a rough estimation of the LOS height and length increase/decrease of the M1A2C turret compared to M1A2. Firstly i had to make sure that the scaling was good, after all the two pictures were not taken from exactly the same angle and distance, and in addition the picture resolution is not the best for this kind of comparison. In short, whoever put the two pictures together made an excellent job, the scaling is pretty much on spot.





In terms of LOS length, M1A2C is about 87 pixels longer but in terms of LOS height, its about 11 pixels shorter. Now if anyone could tell me the exact measurement of one element present in the turret (for example, the height of the armored glasses on the commander's cupola) i could make a rough conversion of pixels to centimeters.

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...