Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

On 9/28/2020 at 11:05 PM, Insomnium95 said:

Why would you want to pack a bunch of tanks on a mountainous island with thick jungles? Most armored vehicles will have little value in places like those islands.

You don't get to choose like that.  War is chaos and a constant struggle for advantage.  Tanks have been used over and over again in "bad tank country" of every kind.  Always will be.  There is no substitute for a tank.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • 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

Recoil system of the M256:  

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

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/9/2020 at 12:06 AM, Ramlaen said:

 

Is it me or does every time this thing shows up it manages to look worse? They ditched the low-profile hull, they ditched the 120mm and went back to ye olde 105... when GDLS first showed off the Griffon II I thought it was a much better design than the warmed-over XM8 - but now what's the selling point for it? XM8 is already somewhat familiar to the Army and has parts commonality with other Army vehicles... this is just an ASCOD 2 with a armor-less M1 turret slapped on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Is it me or does every time this thing shows up it manages to look worse? They ditched the low-profile hull, they ditched the 120mm and went back to ye olde 105... when GDLS first showed off the Griffon II I thought it was a much better design than the warmed-over XM8 - but now what's the selling point for it? XM8 is already somewhat familiar to the Army and has parts commonality with other Army vehicles... this is just an ASCOD 2 with a armor-less M1 turret slapped on.

This is the low profile hull. The Army sets the requirements and they want the 105.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Insomnium95 said:

This is the low profile hull. The Army sets the requirements and they want the 105.

I still can't get over the fact that they didn't put an autoloader in it. Seems like such a waste of space for an extra crewman. 

 

As to the 105, I know that was Big Army's dumb decision - but it was still a major selling point for the original Griffin II demonstrator.  As to height, this hull certainly seems higher than the hull they were showing off earlier. This appears to be just a regular ASCOD 2 hull, the original Griffin II having had only a couple inches between the top of the roadwheels and the return track.

 

Spoiler

5c195b8faebf427e5914d22d?width=900&forma

 

There's no autoloader because GDLS literally just reused the Abrams design with less armor and a few dimensional adjustments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

This appears to be just a regular ASCOD 2 hull, the original Griffin II having had only a couple inches between the top of the roadwheels and the return track.

Both sizes are the same. 

https://i0.wp.com/militaryleak.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/general-dynamics-land-systems-unveils-new-light-tank.jpg?ssl=1

The MPF hull structure is by no means an ASCOD one. Both Griffin 2 and MPF are very different. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2020 at 9:16 PM, TokyoMorose said:

 

 

As to the 105, I know that was Big Army's dumb decision - but it was still a major selling point for the original Griffin II demonstrator.  As to height, this hull certainly seems higher than the hull they were showing off earlier. This appears to be just a regular ASCOD 2 hull, the original Griffin II having had only a couple inches between the top of the roadwheels and the return track.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

5c195b8faebf427e5914d22d?width=900&forma

 

There's no autoloader because GDLS literally just reused the Abrams design with less armor and a few dimensional adjustments.

Well with the 105 you can carry more ammo so in a way it has it's advantages. Plus it's easier to load than a 120. Right now the 105 can destroy any vehicle just short of a MBT and it's a great infantry killer with airburst ammo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Insomnium95 said:

Commonality with their Griffin III, assuming they win the OMFV contract. 

That is assuming GDLS wins OMFV which is not going to happen sooner than about 5-8 years at least. Meaning, that the contract for MPF will be awarded before that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

That is assuming GDLS wins OMFV which is not going to happen sooner than about 5-8 years at least. Meaning, that the contract for MPF will be awarded before that.

Yeah but they can still use it as leverage. Buy our light tank and now you have the option to buy an IFV with a common chasis. I think if GDLS wins MPF there's a high probability they win OMFV. Hopefully BAE wins and we get the Lynx. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Boagrius said:

Then again if it's going to be optionally manned, I suppose it will need to be able to "command" itself (?)

 

If it's going to be used as unmanned, it will be commanded by someone sitting in the command post. IMHO we are very far from an UGV being able to command itself except or some very simple tasks such as drive along a given road. 

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.

Guest
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...