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.

daskal

M1A2 SEP V3

49 posts in this topic

In the hatch no change, out of the hatch easier to see over. As far as maintenance easier to replace parts unlike the CROWS II. IMO I'm not a fan of the CROWS, seen too many of them broke either by crew error or out in the field. I enjoyed the flex 50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Assassin 7 said:

In the hatch no change, out of the hatch easier to see over. As far as maintenance easier to replace parts unlike the CROWS II. IMO I'm not a fan of the CROWS, seen too many of them broke either by crew error or out in the field. I enjoyed the flex 50.

 

My concern would be the restricted view, it looks like it obstructs the commanders view in the unbuttoned mode.I like to see the ground to my front when in hatches open peeking over the hatch ring.

Edited by 12Alfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

 

My concern would be the restricted view, it looks like it obstructs the commanders view in the unbuttoned mode.I like to see the ground to my front when in hatches open peeking over the hatch ring.

Agreed

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

On 9/30/2017 at 11:51 PM, Ssnake said:

 

...unless the fewer parts have a higher likelihood of failue than the many parts combined that they may be replacing ;)

 

p(fail) = 1-((1-p1(fail)) x (1-p2(fail)) x (1-p3(fail)) x ... x (1-pn(fail)))

 

That's not a happy equation to think of when flying on a commercial airliner. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The V3's are making easier for maintenance personnel and crew-members. So instead of removing a LRU, the soldier can easily insert a replacement card that would only take minutes. Removing certain LRU's can be time consuming due to their location and weight. After the LRU is removed, it is sent testing and could take hours if not days for a turnaround. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Yes I know about sitting and not being used causing issues, that's true for most machines of this type, then add the outside issue and it can cause problems. I was thinking operational reliability, extra weight and all, thus my original query.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Posted (edited)

On 9/27/2017 at 2:45 PM, 12Alfa said:

 

Trying to understand how a new V3, that is just about to enter service, could be more reliable without a history in a maintenance world.

 

It seems to me, and others I'm sure, that any "more reliable" statement would be made after some time to prove/record such data.

 

Maybe the V3 is not subject to such criteria. I will did deeper.

 

But good on the US army for upgrading their MBT's :)

This is your first Query which states about the maintenance. The operation of the vehicle has been a success so far but time will only show results. The Government is happy with the results and that's all that matters in this case given that they are the ones who make the final decision.

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Well if they are happy, and the crews are happy, then all is well. Your statement" been a success so far but time will only show results " is the root of my query. So we will have another discussion in a few years to see what has transpired on this matter. I think this is a time based issue that need more time/data . Glad to hear new equipment is reaching the troops:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

12alfa in here troll'n on 20" rims.   It's ok though, he's old and lives in a dome.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

23 minutes ago, RogueSnake79 said:

12alfa in here troll'n on 20" rims.   It's ok though, he's old and lives in a dome.   

If one can't express a opinion, ask questions here like everyone else, then what has this site become? Is free speech only when it supports a certain narrative, or can we all ask and, receive answers in a civil manner ( as up to now was the case) with being called a troll, and old.

This could be considered a personal attack by some, and therefore would not encourage people to openly discuss topics post here in the forum, is this what we want?

 

Of course I may be wrong. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Posted (edited)

On 10/2/2017 at 3:40 PM, Assassin 7 said:

You were not trolling

 Well I could have structured my queries better. And I failed to thank you, so I have some faults that need work.

Edited by 12Alfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Hi

I tend to agree with 12Alfa point as the previous version that cause problems prolly was also tested and everybody was happy before that was put in use, and in the history of armour how many times have there been an upgrade where there where put too much weight on something and things began breaking because its to heavy, this i think has happened to quite a few new vehicles as well that was designed that way from the outset.

 

But i might also be wrong. But let us wait and see when we have 20/20 hindsight O.o.

 

Best regards

MD

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2017 at 1:16 AM, Damian90 said:

 

The weight increase in majority of % comes from new armor package that replaces the currently used one. In fact M1A2SEPv3 by pure armor mass is the heaviest MBT curently in the world.

 

In case of other components, it actually should be lighter, for example new electronics are more compact, lighter and energy efficent. We can safely assume that in case of M1A2SEPv3, the primary reason why it weights 73 metric tons and not less than current 63.5 metric tons of M1A2SEPv2, is because of new armor.

 

Heck even new CROWS-LP RWS is around 50% smaller than M153 CROWS-2 RWS, which also means less weight for this component.

This statement is wrong, the correct weight of the vehicles is:

production weight:

V2 = 65.5 

V3 = 67.7 

 

combat weight:

V2 = 71.09

V3 = 73.4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

I want to know why they went with CROWS again instead of something like the SCWS?

 

The SCWS seems like the perfect solution to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

I want to know why they went with CROWS again instead of something like the SCWS?

 

The SCWS seems like the perfect solution to me...

 

There is no space left for CWS/SCWS cupola drive inside, well in theory it could be done, but it was probably more expensive and time consuming than CROWS system. Besides CWS/SCWS have smaller vision blocks and have less of them than ICWS cupola that is also simpler.

 

There was idea to modify ICWS cupola in similiar way CWS was modified in to SCWS but I guess, again it might had been more expensive and time consuming.

 

otvaga2004_chobitok_12.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that setup better than the CROWS setup.

 

IMHO the CROWS setup was slapped on when we were fighting in an urban environment against dismounts, which was fine, but it's NOT what I'd want advertising my location in a tank-on-tank fight...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CROWS have it's advantages tough, with good optics etc. Besides CROWS-LP is lower, and it's even replacing CROWS-2 on some M1A2SEPv2's right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3.10.2017 at 8:29 PM, Assassin 7 said:

This statement is wrong, the correct weight of the vehicles is:

production weight:

V2 = 65.5 

V3 = 67.7 

 

combat weight:

V2 = 71.09

V3 = 73.4

 

I am very confused. I was under the impression that the weight of the M1A2 SEP V2 is 63.1 metric tons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No, these are based off of New Technical Manuals to the SEP's. I spend most of my day reading through them due to actually working on the vehicles. Also these are measured in US tons.

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

10 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

No, these are based off of New Technical Manuals to the SEP's. Which I do not have my own copy. I spend most of my day reading through them due to actually working on the vehicles.

Did they give the weight of the vehicle also in metric units or just US imperial units ?

 

 

Also i found this:

 

b4f7cede60bc0.jpg.70265f424705bb6a413f503145b961a7.jpg

 

Is this for an M1A2 or an M1A2 SEP ?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

Did they give the weight of the vehicle also in metric units or just US imperial units ?

 

 

Also i found this:

 

b4f7cede60bc0.jpg.70265f424705bb6a413f503145b961a7.jpg

 

Is this for an M1A2 or an M1A2 SEP ?

 

 

 

 

 

This is for the M1A2, 

 

"Did they give the weight of the vehicle also in metric units or just US imperial units ?" They just used US tons

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

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