Damian90

18 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Just IMHO: "optionally manned" is one of the dumbest design decission you can make for an AFV.

It combined the downsides of a highly-automatized vehicle with the downsides of having to provide crew protection

I think this is a bit misleading terminology. To better understand the idea is to name it, optionally unmanned. Which means that normally vehicle operates manned, with crew inside. However if it is necessary, crew can get out of vehicle, and control it via terminal they take with themselfs.

This gives more flexibility to vehicle and used tactics.

Recently Secretary of the US Army published photos from his visit at GDLS HQ. These photos presents GDLS prototypes for MPF (Mobile Protected Firepower) (light tank) program and OMFV (Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle) (new IFV) program.
 

MPF prototype:
 

OMFV prototype:

I would want to report a bug. It seems that CITV in autoscan mode is not compensating to turret counterotation as it should IRL. I have the latest version of SB Pro PE.

It seems we can see first M1A2SEPv2 tanks upgraded with series production, Trophy HV active protection system, heading for Defender Europe 2020. We can see armored boxes on turret roof, that probably contains electronics for Trophy HV. Also notice additional plates, which are most likely counterweights to better balance the turret, when Trophy HV is mounted. These plates might also serve as additional armor, M1A2SEPv3 does not need these additional counterweight/armor plates on turret front, cause it have already, thicker, reinforced front turret armor. These vehicles are in long range transport, so this is why modules containing Trophy radars, launchers and spare interceptor magazines with autoloaders are not seen, these are transported separately.

Fresh M1A2SEPv3's from factory.
 

AFAIK 9M133 Kornet ATGM penetration for newest versions will range from 1100 to 1300mm RHA depending on steel target characteristics, for example hardness, and also it's design (homogeneus, spaced, composite, passive, NERA/NxRA).

I understand the purpose of it's characteristics in SB, but it might be overestimated.

Quote

T-14 Spriggan Is a beast and i understand BMP 3 has them fitted these days....

It's not, 9M133 Kornet is a 152mm calliber, BMP-3 uses 100mm gun-launcher to launch it's ATGM's which are of different type and with lesser capability.

APFSDS should do the trick.

So US Army officialy admitted that under guise of M109A7 modernization they developed a completely new 155mm SPH. There won't be M109A8, now it will be designated as M1299 (XM1299 during R&D phase).

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2019/armament/Musgrave.pdf

Official weight for T-14 and T-15 provided is 55 metric tons. Obviously this means that due to smaller internal volume at such weight, T-14 have superior protection over T-15.

I have interesting observation. The US Army M1A1SA and some M1A2SEPv1/v2 tanks, have serial numbers ending with letter M on their turrets. What does that mean?

It means that the M suffix is a code for the NGAP or Next Generation Armor Package, as the same M suffix can be seen on the newest M1A2SEPv3 tanks.

Ok, so what is the difference? Well, the M1A2SEPv3 have turret and hull front armor thicker than previous generations. My theory is that NGAP armor have two generations. 1st gen. NGAP was an upgrade for M1A1SA (possibly also M1A1FEP) and M1A2SEPv1/v2. Pic. M1A2SEPv2 and M1A2SEPv3

While 2nd. gen. NGAP armor is an improved variant for M1A2SEPv3/v4, that is designed not only to protect against current modern threats but also possible future threats, by not only using improved armor composition, but also making it significantly thicker and heavier.

https://военное.рф/2019/ФорумАрмия64/

So it seems that during Army 2019, Anatoly Tarnayev, chief engineer at Plant no.9 in Yekaterinburg (this plant developes large calliber artillery weapons), said that all research and development work on 152mm high pressure smoothbore tank gun 2A83 had been... cancelled. T-14 MBT's will be armed only with 125mm smoothbore gun 2A82.

Wasn't XM827 WHA rod? Or at least one of variants tested?

29 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

Did I say "Yes"?

 

No. I know as much as you do.

 

I just said be carefully what you wish for.

 

I'm very happy to wait 5 or 6 weeks to find out for certain, rather than make wild arse guesses and fuel speculation.

 

Roger that.

Low magnification makes finding targets easier, cause you see more, your vision is not reduced to a very narrow FoV.

It's like Nick Moran explained why in general during WWII American tank crews in M4's had better situational awareness than their German counterparts. In German tanks, gunner vision was reduced only to a narrow FoV of his telescope sight. In M4 medium tank, gunner had a periscope sight combined with unity sight, and later both periscope sight, unity sight and telescope sight.

If I can be frank, I really dislike Leopard 2's day sight, even tough it have a very good double axis stabilization for it's mirrors, I preffer M1/M1A1 sight, even if it only have single axis stabilization of it's mirrors.

19 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Just careful what you wish for.

 

Nearby friendly Infantry may not share your joy at this feature.

 

Meh, crunchies... which sounds funny to me, in the army I was a crunchie, in the Air Cav.

BTW so your answer means yes?

Ha so I was not wrong that Active Protection Systems are implemented in SB Pro PE!

Will also NATO vehicles receive them? Like a Trophy HV module for M1A1/M1A2?

6 hours ago, RSanders said:

I've come out of lurking and created an account to ask where one could find such sources.

 

Cheers!

Claessen, Luitenant-kolonel A.H.J., Tanks & Pantserwagens — De Technische Ontwikkeling, Blaricum, 2003, p. 96

Allegedly this source claims that Challenger 2 might use Tungsten as part of it's "Dorchester" armor.

Yeah I recall it was mentioned on TankNet years ago.

Did I seen it right, is Afganit active protection system on Kurganets-25 functional, or am I just seeing things?

@dejawolf

Ok I have now solid confirmation that M1A2C front hull armor is thicker than in previous versions.

This is M1A1M, it have same hull and turret dimensions as all M1A1's and M1A2's previous to M1A2C, notice where front lights and their bushguards are placed, just next to the edge where upper front hull plate joins with lower front plate.

And now M1A2C, it's clearly visible that the edge where upper front plate and lower front plate are welded togheter, is much further to the front compared to lights and their bushguards.

I think I confirmed that hull front is thicker

On this photo we can see that anti slip coating pattern is different with additional strip in front just above the edge of the armor, also front lights are moved forward and large space without anti slip coating left behind them, compared to the older prototypes and tank variant

Here the old hull anti slip coating and lights placement relative to it is even better visible.

Ah yes true. In US protection is always provided for angle of impact 30 deegres from turret/hull longitudinal axis, not at 0 degrees, so protection will differ.

Another proof that M1A2C turret front armor is thicker.

33 minutes ago, EasyE said:

According to the document bellow a version of the armor "technology"  in the XM-1 offered protection against a 115mm  DU APFSDS fired at a velocity I suspect is above 1600m/s across 25 deg arc, when fitted to an IFV. So in is possible that the M1 production model was protected against such ammunition. So we know that the M1 armor could have been tested against DU apfsds. What round? M774 with a increased propellant?  Basic  pen calc suggest suggest that would do around 380-420mm at 0 at close range.

 

Makes the CIA docs seem somewhat close, and referring to a DU monoblock round as the baseline for the RHA equivalence.

It is possible, a threat assesment through ballistic tests can be adjusted through changing distance and propelant charge.

The thing is US is very reluctant to release true data even for the basic M1... despite the fact that this variant is not in service for decades now and it's armor protection can be considered as obsolete.

58 minutes ago, EasyE said:

 

 

I would be interested in knowing what the threat profile for the M1A1 was meant to face. Most of the documentation on APFSDS available to the USSR in the early to mid 1980s was that they performed very poorly against spaced composite arrays.  IIRC a BM-22 loses 30% of its pen ability just by impacting a thin steel plate and having 500mm of air before the next layer of steel. So against the M1 I suspect the round would have preformed poorly. The more the angle of impact of the short tungsten slug goes up the more likely it will shatter against the RHA black plate of the M1...RHA equivalence be dammed...

 

So CIA statements about the M1 400mm worth of KE protection I suspect apply against early monoblock designs M774, XM-578...  Applying it to steel W slug designs the  protection probably goes up a great deal.

 

I suspect that the M1A1 was designed with protection against more advanced APFSDS designs in mind as well as tandem warheads. The thought was that the next gen of  125mm apfsds would pen around 450mm (0 deg?) at normal battle ranges. The the need for the beefed up protection.

 

Whatever the armor array of the M1A1 is, it was almost certainly tested against M833 and M829.

 

M833 DU long rod, is slightly heavier then the BM-42 W, the M833 a bit slower at normal combat range, however the monoblock DU design is probably better against complex arrays. "If" the M1A1 stopped the M833 it probably has a decent chance against Bm-32 and 42 from most normal engagement ranges.

 

That said I don't think there were many if any BM-42s delivered to front line units before 1988.

 

From what I can tell and rough back of the envelope calculations suggest that if  BRL-2 (or whatever it is called) has around 530-550mm vs KE and around 1000mm vs CE it has slightly higher TE efficiency against CE and slightly lower against KE as German C-tech which we have a reasonable measure of.

 

Cheers

 

The problem is that people misunderstand the very beginning of this story, which is protection requirements for the M1 which... we do not know. Often mentioned requirements like 115mm APFSDS at 800m is not for M1 but for XM1 before it got BRL-1 armor package. This requirement was for the US spaced armor that used steel and aluminium layers. However during development of the XM1 in to the M1 armor design was redesigned several times. Heck the FSED phase vehicle wich we can consider very late prototypes or pre production vehicles also changed, the early FSED XM1 had a slightly different armor design especially on turret to the late FSED XM1 and the production M1.

Another thing is the steel used for M1 production. Often mentioned steel is RHA but M1's armor is also made from HHS, and hardness ranges from over 300 to over 400 BHN and from over 400 to over 500 BHN, most of the estimations tough seems to use only most standard RHA.

Another thing is that NERA type armor do not always have same performance, it can be adjusted both vs KE and CE by use of more energetic reactive layers, for example simple NERA uses rubber between steel plates, while more advanced variants can use polyurethane or other more energetic materials. Same goes with steel plates, as both softer and harder plates can be used.

Another factor is simply how much armor volume M1 have at the front. In case of M1 front hull and turret protection was equall, as both have the same thickness of ~750mm. In case of M1IP, M1A1 and M1A2 turret got thickness boost up to ~950mm while hull front remained the same. Of course internal armor composition also changed becoming more effective. IMHO M1 series are simply underestimated considering that by pure armor volume they have the thickest composite armor of all tanks.

And M1A2C seems to have slightly thicker armor at the front.

And so if we compare pure composite armor thickness with other tanks.

Leopard 2 series on avarage have ~650mm on the turret front and ~600mm on the hull front, as considered by current estimations and meassurements.

Challenger 1 had on avarage ~460mm on turret front and on hull front ~330mm per current estimations.

Challenger 2 had on avarage ~670mm on turret front and ~330mm on hull front per current estimations.

Keep in mind I talk here only about physical thickness or armor volume. But then again, even if we consider that all of these vehicles use only NERA type arrays, and these NERA arrays are comparable in performance (and why they should not be?), why the heck M1 series are underestimated and other MBT's are overestimated is beyond me.

And then again we also know that at some point NERA type arrays were hybridized with a passive composite arrays. Adding steel/ceramic/steel layers, or stee/depleted uranium alloy/steel layers, or even layers of armor grade titanium alloy.

We know US did that with M1's where all above improvements were added. Challenger 1 was never improved in that regard, while Challenger 2 is unclear, some sources claim DU was added to it's Dorchester armor, some says Tungsten.

What about Leopard 2? Was some dense metal added? Or perhaps something like titanium? Or perhaps it's only still NERA type with more efficent steel plates and reactive layers.