Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Damian90

History of US Tanks.

192 posts in this topic
2 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

A couple of points;

 

-Upgrading/replacing is ongoing for all nations who have war stocks, this I see as never ending given the current mindset of our leaders, the people just want to live in peace most of the time.

What is the threat to the UK, if I recall the last invasion was by the Romans or so, what/who are you afraid of? The idea the Russia would invade the EU to get to the UK is way down on the list I would think.

 

Don't forget the Spanish armada 

Plus i don't trust the channel tunnel i think the French have got something in mind. LoL.

 

But seriously

The UK may not be in direct threat but the UK government has a nasty habit of getting involved in other nations affairs

They could at-least give the armored forced the most modern and effective equipment to do the job.

In a perfect world i would agree with you 12Alfa far to much money spent on weapons for very little benefit to mankind

But its not a perfect world.

2 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marko said:

 

Don't forget the Spanish armada 

Plus i don't trust the channel tunnel i think the French have got something in mind. LoL.

 

But seriously

The UK may not be in direct threat but the UK government has a nasty habit of getting involved in other nations affairs

They could at-least give the armored forced the most modern and effective equipment to do the job.

In a perfect world i would agree with you 12Alfa far to much money spent on weapons for very little benefit to mankind

But its not a perfect world.

 

Your wise not to trust those dam Spaniards and French  (jk'ing spent a great time in both excellent countries) :)

I need to review you history again, slipping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

https://www.army.mil/article/178911
https://www.army.mil/article/178862/

 

So ladies and gentlemen, US Army is going heavy again! Increasing it's active ABCT's back to 10 + 5 ABCT's in ARNG.

 

At the moment new ABCT will receive M1A1SA's and M2A2ODS-SA's from storage, in future tough they probably convert like rest of US Army ABCT's to M1A2SEP's and M2A3's.

 

We can probably expect in future that more IBCT's will be converted to ABCT's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Damian90 said:

https://www.army.mil/article/178911
https://www.army.mil/article/178862/

 

So ladies and gentlemen, US Army is going heavy again! Increasing it's active ABCT's back to 10 + 5 ABCT's in ARNG.

 

At the moment new ABCT will receive M1A1SA's and M2A2ODS-SA's from storage, in future tough they probably convert like rest of US Army ABCT's to M1A2SEP's and M2A3's.

 

We can probably expect in future that more IBCT's will be converted to ABCT's.

 

Now the question is will the Army re-armor one of the cavalry regiments?  And no, 11th ACR at the NTC doesn't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

40 minutes ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

Now the question is will the Army re-armor one of the cavalry regiments?  And no, 11th ACR at the NTC doesn't count.

 

Good question, but I guess this is the direction US Army takes. I wish they would convert more IBCT's in ARNG in to ABCT's as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More news about M1's upgrade program.

 

They plan to add UAV/UGV control capability for M1 tanks, and the loader will change function to UAV/UGV controler. Meanwhile loading will be done by autoloader, probably the Compact Autoloader designed by Meggitt Defense. Tests are scheduled for summer next year.

 

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/army-to-demo-robotic-wingman-vehicles-in-2017

 

 

https://www.meggittdefense.com/images/stories/pdf/PD_120mmCompactAutoloader.pdf
https://www.meggittdefense.com/images/stories/pdf/PD_120mmAutoloaderMagazineNEW.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bJX3Qb3.jpg

 

Another photo of M1A2SEPv3 prototype with new armor weight simulators... jeez, US Army do not fuck with this, no compromises, now we can see more clearly thickness of these armor plates on turret and hull front, it will be significant armor upgrade.

@dejawolfSo question to you, how would you estimate protection increase here compared to M1A2SEPv1/v2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, mpow66m said:

how can the TC see a damn thing w. that monstrosity in front of him?

 

He can, altough it will be replaced with Low Profile CROWS whish is around 50% smaller than M153 CROWS-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Damian90 said:

bJX3Qb3.jpg

 

Another photo of M1A2SEPv3 prototype with new armor weight simulators... jeez, US Army do not fuck with this, no compromises, now we can see more clearly thickness of these armor plates on turret and hull front, it will be significant armor upgrade.

@dejawolfSo question to you, how would you estimate protection increase here compared to M1A2SEPv1/v2?

 

dunno if i'd be able to. i guess one way to do it is to take the weight increase for each element, convert it to the equivalent weight in DU /ceramic by making an educated guess about ratio of DU to ceramic. 

might give you a rough ballpark figure. but that assumes the current figures are correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

12 hours ago, Damian90 said:

Another photo of M1A2SEPv3 prototype with new armor weight simulators... jeez, US Army do not fuck with this, no compromises, now we can see more clearly thickness of these armor plates on turret and hull front, it will be significant armor upgrade.

 

So you are assuming the thickness is accurate, or you know what the material is.

 

How do we know for example that its not just several layers of aluminium plate, maybe wood, or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

1 hour ago, dejawolf said:

 

dunno if i'd be able to. i guess one way to do it is to take the weight increase for each element, convert it to the equivalent weight in DU /ceramic by making an educated guess about ratio of DU to ceramic. 

might give you a rough ballpark figure. but that assumes the current figures are correct. 

 

Sure thing, I am just curious.

 

Quote

So you are assuming the thickness is accurate, or you know what the material is.
 
How do we know for example that its not just several layers of aluminium plate, maybe wood, or something?

 

These are more or less 50mm plates, and US always used steel plates for weight simulators, we could seen first example with MBT-70.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Damian90 said:

 

Sure thing, I am just curious.

 

 

These are more or less 50mm plates, and US always used steel plates for weight simulators, we could seen first example with MBT-70.

 

well these armour improvements usually happend when the need for protecting against something happends. 
this one seems to align with the announcement of the Armata. most likely USA saw the penetration figures of the vacuum rounds, and the 152mm penetration figures. 

so figures would likely be above this, +1000mm somewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

15 hours ago, mpow66m said:

how can the TC see a damn thing w. that monstrosity in front of him?

 

Honestly, just from my experience in SB, I think the .50 on the TC's hatch should be either replaced with something like the SCWS fitted to the A1, or even removed completely to be replaced with an M240 in a very simple mount for those "OH CRAP THEY'RE RIGHT THERE!" scenarios where the TC might really just want to hose something down super quick and make a whole lot of noise to keep people's heads down while he screams at the driver to back the F@#$ up right now!

 

Make provisions to mount an OHWS further back on the turret where it can be fitted, if required, to provide the OHWS functionality without blocking foreward vision.  Preferably, make it so that it will fit down into the bustle rack and not protrude out the top of the tank to make it easier to spot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

 

Honestly, just from my experience in SB, I think the .50 on the TC's hatch should be either replaced with something like the SCWS fitted to the A1, or even removed completely to be replaced with an M240 in a very simple mount for those "OH CRAP THEY'RE RIGHT THERE!" scenarios where the TC might really just want to hose something down super quick and make a whole lot of noise to keep people's heads down while he screams at the driver to back the F@#$ up right now!

When enemy infantry are so close, driving forward and running over them can be better than driving backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maj.Hans said:

 

Honestly, just from my experience in SB, I think the .50 on the TC's hatch should be either replaced with something like the SCWS fitted to the A1, or even removed completely to be replaced with an M240 in a very simple mount for those "OH CRAP THEY'RE RIGHT THERE!" scenarios where the TC might really just want to hose something down super quick and make a whole lot of noise to keep people's heads down while he screams at the driver to back the F@#$ up right now!

 

Make provisions to mount an OHWS further back on the turret where it can be fitted, if required, to provide the OHWS functionality without blocking foreward vision.  Preferably, make it so that it will fit down into the bustle rack and not protrude out the top of the tank to make it easier to spot...

thats a good idea,they should mount it behind the TCs cupola or even in the bustle rack on a mount that can rise and lower a foot or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mpow66m said:

thats a good idea,they should mount it behind the TCs cupola or even in the bustle rack on a mount that can rise and lower a foot or two.

 

That right there would be my ideal solution.  I like the idea of having an OHWS, especially if it gives the TC the ability to engage a target without having to make the tank turn into a gigantic stationary pillbox...

 

Tell the gunner to fire freely on all positive ID hostile targets, allow him to tell the loader "LOADER, HEAT!" or "LOADER, SABOT!" as he desires, let the driver keep driving, and the TC can engage the whatever-it-is that he wants to.

 

If the mount can be raised/lowered, so much the better.  You can raise it up to give it the best arcs of fire in an urban environment or to poke it up over a hill and shoot at someone.  But if you're playing a game of hide and seek with a bunch of T-90s somewhere in eastern Europe, you can lower your big-ass CROWS mount down so that the first think you poke over a hill is a tiny little sensor instead of a big ass target indicator.

 

I can recall, on several occasions, spotting a vehicle in Pro PE because some useless feature of it was stuck up over a hill top.  I think I've probably destroyed a dozen or so T-tanks in Pro PE over the years by spotting an antenna sticking up somewhere and either calling in artillery or even lobbing HEAT rounds in to score a kill.

 

Now this is a game, and that's an antenna, and lots of things, but I have to imagine that the CROWS mount would be spotable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious about the XM1069 AMP ammunition. The various documents presenting it clearly state that it is an HE shell fitted with a programmable fuze to enable three detonation modes (airburst, impact, post-penetration). The X-ray pictures even show the AMP's anatomy, leaving no ambiguity about its contents (absence of an inverted, hollow cone - it's clearly HE, not HEAT).

 

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2013/APR_JUN/Articles/PeraltaArticle.pdf

 

Quote

Another benefit brought by AMP is reduced collateral damage. The nature of the programmable fuze, combined with a non-shaped charge warhead and full-bore design that requires no sabot petals (eliminating dangers of flying petals against dismounts or civilian populace) means that effects are delivered on the target with great precision.

 

However, this thing is even supposed to replace the M830 HEAT and M830A1 HEAT-MP. I don't have to explain how HEAT works and what are its advantages over mere HE. So, is the Army giving up on HEAT's high penetration capability (and concentrating on anti-infantry/anti-structure) or is it delegating this task to KE weaponry like the new M829A4? I'm not 100% convinced the AMP, even with its post-penetration mode, can replicate the effects of a high-pressure, superfluid jet of metal drilling through a very thick metal wall. And, yes, I know it managed to penetrate the side of a T-55's turret in tests, but I'm wondering about thicker surfaces, like a MBT's front or flanks (especially if it has reinforced skirts).

Edited by Renegade334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Sunday, January 01, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Maj.Hans said:

 

That right there would be my ideal solution.  I like the idea of having an OHWS, especially if it gives the TC the ability to engage a target without having to make the tank turn into a gigantic stationary pillbox...

 

Tell the gunner to fire freely on all positive ID hostile targets, allow him to tell the loader "LOADER, HEAT!" or "LOADER, SABOT!" as he desires, let the driver keep driving, and the TC can engage the whatever-it-is that he wants to.

 

If the mount can be raised/lowered, so much the better.  You can raise it up to give it the best arcs of fire in an urban environment or to poke it up over a hill and shoot at someone.  But if you're playing a game of hide and seek with a bunch of T-90s somewhere in eastern Europe, you can lower your big-ass CROWS mount down so that the first think you poke over a hill is a tiny little sensor instead of a big ass target indicator.

 

I can recall, on several occasions, spotting a vehicle in Pro PE because some useless feature of it was stuck up over a hill top.  I think I've probably destroyed a dozen or so T-tanks in Pro PE over the years by spotting an antenna sticking up somewhere and either calling in artillery or even lobbing HEAT rounds in to score a kill.

 

Now this is a game, and that's an antenna, and lots of things, but I have to imagine that the CROWS mount would be spotable...

The enviroment in SB( and pretty much all computer games) do not provide enough "clutter" and movement. So it is very easy to spot Antennas or RWS.

 

IRL thats much much harder. You'll not be able to see it before its too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

I'm curious about the XM1069 AMP ammunition. The various about it clearly state it is a HE shell with a programmable fuze to give it three detonation modes (airburst, impact, post-penetration). The X-ray pictures even show its anatomy.

 

http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2013/APR_JUN/Articles/PeraltaArticle.pdf

 

 

However, this thing is even supposed to replace the M830 HEAT and M830A1 HEAT-MP. I don't have to explain how HEAT works and what are its advantages over mere HE. So, is the Army giving up on HEAT's high penetration capability (and concentrating on anti-infantry/anti-structure) or is it delegating this task to KE weaponry like the new M829A4? I'm not 100% convinced the AMP, even with its post-penetration mode, can replicate the effects of a high-pressure, superfluid jet of metal drilling through a very thick metal wall. And, yes, I know it managed to penetrate the side of a T-55's turret in tests, but I'm wondering about thicker surfaces, like a MBT's front or flanks (especially if it has reinforced skirts).

Against tanks, sabot rounds are first choice anyway, and the M830 would not be very usefull against modern armour. So going for HE is a good move IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Grenny said:

Against tanks, sabot rounds are first choice anyway, and the M830 would not be very usefull against modern armour. So going for HE is a good move IMO

 

Maybe. It's true that with the growing prevalence of ERA and spaced/NERA armor on such tanks, HEAT might have less of a chance compared to specially-tipped APFSDS, but I hoped they'd keep HEAT around for a bit just in case.

 

1 hour ago, Hedgehog said:

I'd have a Extendable Mast Pod, like on the Fennek

 

 

That'd be a bit tricky considering how cluttered the top of the Abrams turret has become over the years.

 

There are (tentative) plans to mount the Trophy launchers on top of the lateral storage boxes, the (optional) 360° Shields for the unbuttoned crew require a little free space to turn around, the back of the turret must (preferably) remain unencumbered so that the ammo rack's blast doors can be properly expelled without any impediment and the bustle rack (and its bustle rack extension) is usually half-filled with an APU or Meggitt's vapor compressor system unit (VCSU) cooler and supplies/personal effects. And then there are the radio antennas (which have now been complemented with a cylindrical IED jammer, which can be seen on Damian90's previous post).

 

Not a lot of free space left to mount a (heavy or girthy) telescopic mast on. It's better left to scouting units like the Bradley or AMPV. Besides, given that TARDEC is now toying with the idea of placing an autoloader inside the turret and having the loader become an UAV/UGV controller/EWO, the crew could just use a drone instead of a mast, to peek around.

 

Edited by Renegade334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XM1069 AMP changed designation to XM1147 AMP.

 

As for CROWS, problem with CROWS size was solved with CROWS-LP.

 

oyVeXIK.jpg

It seems US Army is very happy with it. Now they are working on solving some problems with M829A4 accuracy, it seems that it is some software bug than hardware bug and perhaps it's solved now. And also also further working on new armor and other improvements.

 

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/army/2016m1a2sep.pdf

 

As for Trophy HV, this is how it will be most likely installed.

 

5hL9m2g.jpg
AQRzzid.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/8/1308.pdf

 

Interesting, it seems that ERA used by many vehicles, among them US M2 IFV's, M1 MBT's and Stryker FoV, provides protection against 30mm APFSDS rounds.

 

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/5/1155.pdf

 

And there brochure about Trophy active protection systems.

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now