Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Tied
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Insomnium95 said:

For the love of god no more Bradley variants. Why is BAE even wasting their time with this nonsense. 


Because, despite the army being a huge money sink, they’re very cheap when it comes to their equipment, and will go with what’s less expensive 9/10 times. Many nations are like this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AssaultPlazma said:

If they want to use the Bradley chassis that bad why not just stick that 30MM Stryker turret on it? It's already been made and means ammo commonality....

 

To replace the Bradley, we must become the Bradley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

If they want to use the Bradley chassis that bad why not just stick that 30MM Stryker turret on it? It's already been made and means ammo commonality....

Ideally, using the AMPV hull, which also has mine protection improvements and a revised internal layout among others.

But on the whole, if you're sticking with a "medium weight" IFV, you could do much worse than a Brad derivative with a RWS 30mm (especially one that's already in service!) and the improvement offered by newer options like the Lynx may not be a sufficient gain to justify their cost.

With the AMPV, latest M109s, and the like, the US Army is committed to the Bradley automotive components for the next 40 years or so. Makes sense to me to at least try and leverage that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Ideally, using the AMPV hull, which also has mine protection improvements and a revised internal layout among others.

But on the whole, if you're sticking with a "medium weight" IFV, you could do much worse than a Brad derivative with a RWS 30mm (especially one that's already in service!) and the improvement offered by newer options like the Lynx may not be a sufficient gain to justify their cost.

With the AMPV, latest M109s, and the like, the US Army is committed to the Bradley automotive components for the next 40 years or so. Makes sense to me to at least try and leverage that.

I keep forgetting that's the AMPV  and the Bradley hull. Seems like a easy enough solution. But alas funding and money n stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2021 at 1:01 PM, AssaultPlazma said:

If they want to use the Bradley chassis that bad why not just stick that 30MM Stryker turret on it? It's already been made and means ammo commonality....

 

Isn't that a single man turret?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2021 at 12:57 PM, AssaultPlazma said:

I'm shocked MPF hasn't been canceled yet.... Even if it passes trials I wonder if in the end the Army will actually buy them.

And they came up with those "medium tank" concepts... Seriously, whats wrong woth these people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entries all seem somewhat phoned-in but that doesn't really surprise me considering how many failed programs to replace the bradley have preceded this one. BAE's entry seems lazy but perhaps the easiest to implement; GD's perhaps the most capable and at least the chassis has been well developed and paid for by other nations. The Lynx seems like Rheinmetall isn't even trying and i don't know enough about the other 2(?) options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the image for the last,most relevant bit, cut in half? The paranoid amongst us would suspect we're being had by a bait-and-switch.

Even if we assume that weight includes a factored-in Trophy system just in case it's fitted, that's still only around 2.5-3 tons including the ballast on the turret front (which is effectively built in on the M1A2C). Where is all the extra weight coming from, if we assume this is genuine?

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.

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.

 Share

  • 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...