Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Beer said:


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. 

But those are 2 very different things (having the vehicle be remotely operated vs having an AI "commander"). However for an IFV its the most efficient use of the interior volume. You get to have a full sized squad being the only people actually sitting inside the vehicle in combat. In addition, you can have no more than 2 people of said squad doubling as assistant crewmen, but meant to dismount with the rest of the squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

But those are 2 very different things (having the vehicle be remotely operated vs having an AI "commander"). However for an IFV its the most efficient use of the interior volume. You get to have a full sized squad being the only people actually sitting inside the vehicle in combat. In addition, you can have no more than 2 people of said squad doubling as assistant crewmen, but meant to dismount with the rest of the squad.


Yes, but the option with an AI commander is a sci-fi scenarion atm. First the development in AI and sensors isn't able of self commanding yet and won't be for for years to come. And the second thing and probably more important is the one that you simply can't give the AI the trigger. You can do that in a designated kill zone, i.e. for example in a defence perimeter of an ICBM base but not in the open where combatants and non-combatants mix in the weirdest possible combo and where everything you didn't think about during the design will certainly happen because such is life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


[quote]The U.S. Army is preparing a soldier vehicle assessmentof two different light tank prototypes for infantry brigade combat teams that will start in January 2021 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

The assessment will run through June 2021, according to the service.[/quote]
[quote]GDLS told Defense News in an interview ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference that it has delivered three vehicles to the Army. One is at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, going through characterization and mobility testing and preparing for firing. Another is at Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona, undergoing desert testing and preparing for soldier training.

Five more prototypes are in “some form of checkout, getting ready for their final inspection report to deliver to the government,” a GDLS spokesperson said, and the company is on track to deliver all of the vehicles this year.[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


[quote]Networked Lethality capabilities were recently tested in the Stryker Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) vehicle here by Soldiers of the 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.

During operational testing conducted by the 8th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, Soldiers validated the effectiveness of the Stryker’s Modified Improved Target Acquisition System (MITAS) under realistic combat situations against a dynamic opposing force.

Through networked lethality, crews can now pass images and cue targets between vehicle platforms.

“The network lethality upgrade is a game-changer,” said Sgt. 1st Class Joe Raynel, 2nd Platoon Sergeant, Delta Troop, 8th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment.

“The ability to create a route or develop an engagement area and share amongst the platoon increases the Stryker’s operational effectiveness.”

Ron Thomas, assistant test officer with the Fort Hood, Texas-based U.S. Army Operational Test Command (OTC), said MITAS upgrades are the first significant improvements to the vehicle’s capabilities since the Stryker Brigade Combat Team’s formation and activation nearly two decades ago.

He emphasized the engineering change is a long-awaited upgrade within the Stryker ATGM community.

The recent modification has introduced a new capability called network lethality.

Network lethality allows each Stryker to act as a sensor by transmitting situational reports and images within the Platoon, Company, and Brigade.

Other MITAS upgrades include the precision far target locator (pFTL), image enhancement, high-definition color camera, and upgraded missile launcher.

The pFTL integrates with the laser range finder, which allows for greater accuracy and precision while detecting enemy targets.

The networked lethality also enables and allows the ATGM vehicles to increase their tactical dispersion within the limits of the terrain, explained Thomas.

Optical enhancements provide the ATGM gunner with improvements for detecting, recognizing, and identifying targets at greater ranges and with more clarity.

“I was able to take images of enemy targets over 9 kilometers and cue my wingman to their location using the network lethality capability,” said Sgt. Anthony Rodrigues, Stryker ATGM Gunner for 1st Platoon, Delta Troop, Delta Troop, 8th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment.

Since July, four months into the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Soldiers and crews of “Dog” Troop have been training and gaining proficiencies on operating the new Stryker ATGM vehicle at Joint Base Lewis-McCord (JBLM).

Working through social distancing challenges, Soldiers received new equipment and maintenance training on the MITAS system.

After training and certification, the troop deployed to Yakima Training Center, which was the first time Soldiers traveled outside the immediate JBLM area since restrictions to movement went into effect from the pandemic.

“After completing the operational test, Delta Troop may be the most trained and ready ATGM crews in the U.S. Army,” said Lt. Col. Brian Caldwell, another OTC test officer.

OTC’s test team deployed early September from Fort Hood to Yakima, amid the Corona Virus Pandemic and the threatening regional wildfires in Central Washington and Northern Oregon.

Despite the environmental and health threats and risks, the testers and Soldiers of “Dog” Troop took meticulous safety precautions to protect all personnel.

“The perseverance and discipline of all involved ensured the health safety and prevention of infection at the test site,” said Caldwell. “Deploying to Yakima was a high risk because it appeared to be the location with the highest infection rates in the state.”

Before the start of the record test phase, “Dog” Troop conducted a live-fire exercise engaging static targets out to multiple distances.

Dog Troop successfully fired five tube-launched optically tracked wire guided (TOW) missiles to validate the MITAS system.

Two Stryker ATGM Platoons also conducted simulated force on force engagements under both day and night conditions.

“This was easily one of the best Stryker ATGM training events I have witnessed since being assigned to 8-1 CAV,” said 1st Lt. Alexander Windmiller, Delta Troop Executive Officer.

The operational test included a live threat that consisted of three Stryker platforms conducting reconnaissance missions.

After completing their tactical missions, every Soldier submitted feedback to OTC test officers.

“The Army’s Operational Test Command thrives on conducting independent operational testing to inform acquisition and fielding decisions based on the Warfighter’s voice,” said Col. Jason Kniffen, Director of OTCs Maneuver Test Directorate.

“The Stryker ATGM operational test provided vital data that will inform the Army’s decision to field the Stryker ATGM in the future,” he said.[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites



General Motor’s three-year-old defense division made good on its first major Pentagon contract this morning, delivering the first four production-model Infantry Squad Vehicles to the Army just four months after the $214 million award. That’s a stunningly swift pace for a military procurement, even for a vehicle derived from a civilian truck, the Chevy Colorado ZR2. The 2.5-ton ISV is built with 90 percent off-the-shelf commercial parts, but is beefed up to carry nine fully equipped infantry and to be deployable by parachute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

That's very interesting and sounds very similar to what the Chinese are doing. However i will express the same doubts that i did on the occasion of commenting on the AI assisted target detection and full AI gunnery. The latter is more difficult than the first especially in the kind of procedure described in the article (which point to a 2 man crew, driver plus commander). Why i say this? Because since the commander is busy confirming the targets offered to him by the AI and passing them over to the AI gunner (to smartly prioritize the order in which the targets will be engaged should be relatively simple), the "AI gunner" must be able to do three basic tasks in growing difficulty: calculating a fire solution, which is the simplest, but also be able to distinguish a missed shot from a successful impact (and hence apply corrections for the following shot) which might require other types of sensors other than just very fancy thermal cameras (for example a radar capable of tracking both the enemy target and the trajectory of the projectiles fired at it) and lastly the most difficult: to be able to judge whether the target has been successfully neutralized or not.  I would argue that to make this judgement is even more difficult than distinguishing a target from a non-target. In fact the process may require the commander to interrupt the recognition of targets in order to go back at an already engaged target and order the system to re engage or proceed to the next one on the list. These are just the first "bottlenecks" that i can think of relating to the system described above which in the absence of a dedicated human gunner among the crew might render the system as not much faster in practice than the systems we already have. 

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...