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:  

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

This was BAE's contest to lose, and they appear to be *trying* to lose it.

Apparently coronavirus is affecting production. I doubt it will be a major issue, timelines change quite often. BAE has delivered at least one prototype back in December. 

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

Apparently coronavirus is affecting production. I doubt it will be a major issue, timelines change quite often. BAE has delivered at least one prototype back in December. 

 

Although John did not disclose which company produced the delivered prototypes, a GDLS spokesperson confirmed that the company delivered its 12th and final prototype to the army at the end of December 2020. GDLS’s delivery completion means BAE Systems has delivered only two ballistic hulls to the service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm hearing now is that the US Army isn't going/wasn't going to evaluate both MPF candidates at the same time, so BAE Systems has time to get their MPF prototype sorted for shipping https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/02/17/bae-systems-respond-to-mobile-protected-firepower-trial-no-show-reports/

Link to post
Share on other sites

   Who needs it in 2021?

Quote

   At the IDEX-2021 defense exhibition in the UAE, the American corporation AM General presented a new promo video for the new generation NXT 360 army SUV - the successor to the famous HMMWV 4x4 vehicle built on its chassis

image

 

Spoiler

image

 

image

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 90 mm gun T54 was in response to the PITA of loading the separate projectile/propellant case of the 90 mm gun T15E2 found in the T26E4 Pershing. The 90 mm gun T15E2 was in response to the PITA of loading the unitary ammunition for the 90 mm gun T15E1, which was fitted to the first T26E1 pilot and sent over to Europe during World War II, and whose adventures can be read in Hunnicutt's Pershing and Irwin's Another River, Another Town. The T54 gun went back to a unitary round, but the propellant case was shorter and wider, which eased handling in the confines of the tank but kept the chamber volume and ballistics equal to the gun T15E2. Two M26 pilots were armed with the T54 and designated M26E1; forty-one 90 mm rounds were stowed, with five in the loader's ready rack and the rest in the hull floor bins. Tests were conducted from 1947-1949, and the T54 was deemed the best extant US tank gun. Then nothing else happened with it... MV with AP-T was 3,200 ft/s (4.9" RHA penetration at 1,500 yards and 30 degrees); HVAP 3,750 ft/s (7.7" RHA at 1,500 yards and 30 degrees).

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/03/01/us-armys-newest-tracked-vehicle-will-undergo-initial-operational-test-in-early-2022/

 

The Army said in a recent statement to Defense News that, overall, the 2019 test was a success and the fixes included “minor movement of mission equipment packages to reduce interference” and in the medical evacuation variant, “improvements in operating the litter lift system and medical treatment table.”

The design updates “were determined to be quick wins and have either already been incorporated into the first low-rate initial production AMPVs or will be implemented prior to the First Unit Equipped,” the Army program office said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://sdquebec.ca/fr/nouvelle/soucy-international-inc-defense-division-awarded-contract-to-integrate-segmented-composite-rubber-track-on-to-u-s-army-omfv-technology-demonstrator

 

Soucy International Defense Division, has been awarded a contract to manufacture and deliver prototype Segmented Composite Rubber Track (SCRT) systems for the U.S Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC) as part of the Platform Electrification and Mobility (PEM) project

 

Soucy will refine existing SCRT technology as part of the OMFV Demonstrator within the PEM program that is aimed to achieve its goal of silent mobility, reduce track system weight compared to conventional steel tracks, reduce rolling resistance, and ease maintenance and logistical burden. One of the major technical objectives of the PEM project is to provide silent mobility for a 50-ton tracked vehicle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 9:31 AM, Jackvony said:

Does anyone have any information detailing the steel applique armor added on the M2/M3A2 upgrade? I know it's said its believed to stop 30mm fire in the frontal arc. 

 

I don't have my sources handy, but it's a simple thin plate of HHA spaced out by an inch or so. It mostly works on the same principles as Ye Olde Schurzen, with the high hardness steel tilting the round and forcing it to impact sideways on the base plate. And by 30mm fire, they mean the old 3UBR6 APBC, which is hardly a terrifying round.

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...