Jump to content
jumo213

Digital vs analogue FCS

Recommended Posts

Form my understanding the M1A1 uses a analogue FCS where the newer M1A2sep as well as the leo2A4 i think? use a digital FCS, What are the benefits of digital vs analog and are they relevant to steel beasts?

 

Thanks in advance!

Edited by jumo213

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FCS of the M1 to M1A1HC is a 16bit digital system (and the Leo 2A4's is similar) while the M60A3 used a hybrid system with a solid-state fire control computer. The last true analog FCS (i.e. mechanical) in U.S. service was the M60A1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MAJ_Fubar said:

The FCS of the M1 to M1A1HC is a 16bit digital system (and the Leo 2A4's is similar) while the M60A3 used a hybrid system with a solid-state fire control computer. The last true analog FCS (i.e. mechanical) in U.S. service was the M60A1.

Ekhhhmmm... Why people always  confusing  analog, e.g. electric systems with electro-mechanical or mechanical devices!?:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jartsev said:

Ekhhhmmm... Why people always  confusing  analog, e.g. electric systems with electro-mechanical or mechanical devices!?:D

 

I knew someone might mention that, but I didn't feel like delving into minutia (or editing my comment) merely to sharpen a point.¬¬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and, back to original topic  subject. Major advantages  of  digital electronics when it comes to  systems for ground combat vehicles, are  greater accuracy, size and weight reductions, energy savings. Most important in this list is greater  accuracy,  since digital  circuits are less sensitive to  minor deviations of supplied power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling one better than the other is a broad oversimplification.  The design is what matters.  

 

It's not really relevant for steel beasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to go the other direction, more primitive the technologies tend to be more damage resistant, that is, things like vacuum tube technology and even just stadiametric lines are either more resistant or immune to emp attacks or power disruptions, generally why soviet electronics even though lagging for decades were regarded as more survivable under select conditions. at least in terms of the latter, it is relevant to steelbeasts when gps sensors and cameras are knocked out, then you appreciate the value of secondary sights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as analog and digital communication within the FCS. Both M1A1 and SEP’s still use analog that has to do with the LOS subsystems. The M1A1 has more analog communications within its subsystems than the SEP. I agree with Sean’s statement. It’s more about the designs such as a SAHA vs DAHA or user interfaces such as a CCP vs a GCDP.

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Assassin 7 said:

 It’s more about the designs such as a SAHA vs DAHA or user interfaces such as a CCP vs a GCDP.

Never heard about these last four, what are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M1A1- Single Axis Head Assembly , Computer Control Panel

 

M1A2 SEP- Dual Axis Head Assembly , Gunner's Control Display Panel 

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

×