Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, JNT11593 said:

So this is pretty random thought I had. Do Stryker A1s actually have a numeric designation? Because I'm curious if it'd be M1126A1, M1256A1, or M1296A1? Or are they just sticking to XXXX-A1?


Should be M1256A1 for the standard infantry carrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2020 at 5:33 PM, Ramlaen said:



The revised requirement priority for the Bradley replacement / OMFV. Turreted Namer I choose you!





It reminds me this :

1. Extreme mobility
2. Anti-armor capability
3. Anti-aircraft capability
4. Survivability and protection
5. Strategic mobility
6. Easy maintenance
7. Development potential

The CV90 priorities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2020 at 3:05 PM, Karamazov said:

What is you mean? False information or test specifics?

During this period, the Leclerc MBT was not mature enough. 

But, French engineers who followed the Swedish tests came to the conclusion they were unfair. 

Swedish army tried to « destroyed » the tank. 

When you look at the mobility results, it’s tricky. It’s not possible to argue the Leopard’s got a good mobility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This time around, “the Army is not requiring any bid samples prior to contract award,” yesterday’s release makes clear. “The Army is still drafting the M&S [Modeling & Simulation] test plan which may require vendors to build early surrogate platforms” (emphasis ours), but any “surrogate” will be only “a low-level mockup (e.g., digital, wood, etc.),” not anything nearly as expensive as an actual drivable vehicle.



Sheeesh, paper tigers

There should be enough mostly real, very current options available now to test, (and americanise) including





All of these probably have significant surviveability vs other IFVs and infantry.  And are either real, demonstrable or approaching demonstration


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

*same turret as the first 81 x Stryker Dragoons.

The US Army completion for fitting a 30mm turret to its DVH Strykers is ongoing, with MOOG, EOS, Kongsberg, & Cockerill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

*same turret as the first 81 x Stryker Dragoons.

The US Army completion for fitting a 30mm turret to its DVH Strykers is ongoing, with MOOG, EOS, Kongsberg, & Cockerill. 


I mean if we want to split hairs it could very well be the A1 turret or another variant altogether, it will need to handle salt water after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2020 at 5:00 PM, Karamazov said:

Does anyone have more or less reliable information on the cruising range of the M1A2 tanks?
This became interesting against the background of unverified information that in Iraq they were refueled every 150km.
Black Knight' troops deliver accuracy on range | Tanks mane… | Flickr


It refers to M1 Abrams, but it's interesting nonetheless.






Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Force protection kit could include any combination of ECM (Duke, etc.), APS, belly armour, plus TUSK 1 & TUSK 2, most likely. 


Given that the list includes FPK + APS, one can assume that the APS is not included in the FPK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Ashley M. Calingo, a spokeswoman with MARCORSYSCOM, told Marine Corps Times in an emailed statement that BAE — the manufacturer of the ACV — had selected a version of the Kongsberg medium caliber turret, or MCT-30, for a variant of the new amphib vehicle.

"BAE has also informed the Marine Corps that the MCT-30 version for the Marine Corps will be a lighter weight version of the Stryker system and use the Mk44 gun which is common with US Navy applications instead of the XM813 gun used on Stryker,” Calingo said.


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...