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, VPZ said:


The other tanks with Tophy didn't have additional armor.


During testing it was found that Trophy imbalanced the turret enough that it effected traversing while inclined, which led to a 'ballast kit' being made.


This would explain why Trophy is so heavy in the DOT&E report.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

That's not an M1A2C hull

Nor does it appear that an upgrade to the turret would be deployed minus the hull upgrades.

Both things are not mutually exclusive. If you had the chance to upgrade your older tanks to a protection level similar to your newest and shiniest for a low cost, would you miss it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to DOT&E, Trophy on Abrams weighs 3.9 tonnes. Maybe the panels on the front of the turret assist in maintaining the centre of balance on the turret Race? 

eta: while the turret front panels may add incidental protection, I think their primary rationale is as a counterweight. 



Edited by 2805662
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats quite the bold assumption to make regarding ease of retrofit of armor package upgrades, should they even be the case.


Considering how that turret has Trophy electronics boxes on it, as well as the cheeks, but for example still only has the older CROWS- I consider it more reasonable to assume its the counterweight for a few reasons-

1. If that isn't the counterweight, what is? Considering how the Trophy installation is biased aft, youd need a counterweight fore.

2. A frontal turret armor upgrade, alone, of all the M1A2C upgrades, doesn't make much sense.

3. While trophy counterweights are known to exist, retrofit armor improvements to older Abrams aren't.

4. This turret add-on looks substantially different from M1A2C turrets seen. For a start, on those the actual armor cavity was extended forwards, whereas this lump is clearly welded on to the existing turret face, which would mean very poor actual volume for armor inside it.


5. These cheek expansions only appeared after initial Trophy testing which showed turret imbalance issues.


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...


Raytheon has delivered a ‘third-generation’ forward-looking infrared (FLIR) system capable of seeing through smoke, rain, snow and fog under a contract with the US Army signed in 2016.

Raytheon says the new FLIR system gives personnel four fields of view—wide, medium, narrow and ultra-narrow— and the ability to ‘see across long- and mid-wave IR bands simultaneously with a stabilised line of sight.’

Raytheon Land Warfare Systems vice president Sam Deneke said: “Making the leap from second- to third-generation FLIR is like moving from a standard tube television to high-definition 8K.

elRAS3 is 55% smaller and lighter than the LRAS3.

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...