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:  

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
12 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:


I'd assume from Argentina being flat broke, or is it something different?

You are falling short with that description. But its not only that. Militarly a vehicle like that doesn´t make any sense for its weight and terrain crossing capabilities. Our tanks don´t weight more than 30 tons for good reason and they are tracked. Besides the strykers are going to be impossible to maintain, just buying enough parts for more than 2 years would be a historical achievement. Most likely in 5-10 years if the Strykers are brought here, they are going to be cannibalized for parts or for the black market. "Big" weapons/equipment acquisition, even for civilian use, from overseas has always been problematic and riddled with corruption. 
Besides, its going to be very difficult for the government to sell this to the public and many more things are more important and urgent than military expenditures. Things are really really bad here.

Just as a reminder/example: the contracts for the TAM modernization program have been signed almost a decade ago and no single tank has been updated. Fishy stuff going on behind the scenes. The last government (which was a particularly shitty government if i might say so) tried to buy junk Super Etendards from France and it didn´t go well. Most likely this is going to end just the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick update on the Argentina-Stryker thing: as i suspected from the beginning, its not gonna happen. Turns out that it was the previous, shitty M*cri administration (not gonna write his name, brings bad luck) which during literally its final hours requested the Strykers. The current Fernandez administration (which has not yet proven themselves  to be any less shitty) stopped the whole thing. Word now is that the government wants to buy chinese VN-1 instead which are more modern than the Stryker while costing a fraction of its price. Perhaps there is a chance for some local manufacturing of parts.



Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

OMFV continues on

Two man crew?  Please no.  We know this does not work.  OK, great sensors gee whiz computers Hooray!  But, the three man crew with the same sensors etc will kill  two man crew.


Then, as so many forget, the crew maintains the vehicle.  Track.  Not like a helicopter, Armour is maintained by crew, wherever, whenever.  Two cannot keep a tracked AFV in action.


I know I am preaching to the converted, just ranting!


Seriously.  Gotta wonder if the powers that be are deliberately sabotaging any hope of Bradley replacement. 


Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, three times means enemy action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's worth noting that a Stryker has a 2 man crew. Pretty sure the Dragoon likewise. Counting the commander as one of the dismounts is a thing you can do fairly easily with a remote turret, if you're willing to have the gunner step in as commander as well when the commander dismounts for an assault.

Most tank operators' doctrine provide for fighting a tank undermanned in case of casualties, this wouldn't be too different.

For maintenance of an IFV, you have the whole dismount squad to call on for help.

Big question then is where is the commander more useful- staying inside commanding the IFV or with the dismounts on the assault.

Or perhaps it'll be left to his discretion.

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

this wouldn't be too different.

Yes, it would be very different.  In the OMFV case, two is the maximum crew and subject to AI miracles, the minimum crew.  So a single crew casualty = no can fight.


Yes, two can maintain a wheeled vehicle.


No, two cannot do the same for a tracked vehicle as the effort and tasking are radically different.  That said, M113 has two man crew.  So more accurately, two cannot maintain a heavy tracked vehicle,


But that is secondary, perhaps there are clever sub-system things that can be done to ease that load.


The real issue is cognitive overload - just not enough brain and eyeball to fight the vehicle.  I guess the idea is that since full rate production is in 10 years time, the performance envelope needs to suit what they think they will be fighting after that.  Very high dependence on rate of progress in AI development.


One thing is clear, this puts PUMA back in the frame.  Well an evolved PUMA anyway.  Up gunned and down crewed!



Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DIADES said:

No, two cannot do the same for a tracked vehicle as the effort and tasking are radically different.

You still have the dismount squad to help you out, and if you have the commander but count him as a dismount, well he's also available for maintenance and operating the vehicle when on board.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N-L-M said:

Big question then is where is the commander more useful- staying inside commanding the IFV or with the dismounts on the assault.


Russians from their first BMP and BMD to their latest iterations had the IFV commander also be the squad leader for their dismounts and from a book written be a soviet ground vehicle designer the designers of the BMP-3 wanted a 3 crew permanent for the vehicle but the army didn't budge with their 2 crew. I guess the designers wanting a permanent commander means its quite important.

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...