Damian90

Some photos from JSMC factory during President Trump visit. Some interesting details of M1A2C (M1A2SEPv3).

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

 

Ah see? Now this is the sort of response that would have been appropriate  without all the unessary drama. and shows there is indeed los thickness increase and not just a nera revision with different layers or materials.

It was not a drama but few words of truth about some idiotic communities and products that pretend to know something. And who says there is NERA inside at all? You know what is inside? Heck I have no idea how frontal armor of the M1A1 looks like.

As for few other things. Who said I was right that M1A1 used BRL-2, and one more thing, BRL is not short for Burlington, BRL is short for Ballistic Research Laboratory, and BRL-1 was a test module designation considered to be one later used in M1, while BRl-2 was a heavier test module suspected to be used in M1IP. Does M1A1 used BRL-2? Maybe yes or maybe not, there are sources claiming that M1A1 armor was something completely else. And I actually have information from a credible source that seen M1A1 armor modules for turret and hull, who said it clearly, it's not NERA only, there are steel/ceramic/steel layers there as well, or this is what he described.

Of course there is possibility that M1IP armor was also not pure NERA, perhaps BRL-2 was exactly that, NERA layers + steel/ceramic/steel layers.

Our knowledge about the subject is not written in stone and is constantly evolving, besides there is a lot of researchers that are privy to some informations, but are not willing to share them, I support such stance, and I do it myself.

Speaking about M1A2C, from informations I gathered and comparing photographs with M1A2B, I estimate that M1A2C turret front and hull front is thicker by ~100mm or something around that.

3 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

Love how they are carefully avoiding any connotations with the 5TDF and L60 series of opposed piston engines that went before.....

And their reliability issues in the early years.

 

I am also curious as to when the US Army is going to give up calling it the M1A2ABCDEF etc and call it the M1A3.

Opposed piston diesels are better than V type diesels. The problem is you need to design them properly.

As for designation. It's simple, simply it's still M1A2 platform and system, M1A3 most likely will have a new turret, that is being designed by GDLS, it will be a new platform and a new system.

Ok I noticed something. M1A2C turret had changed, I mean geometry is slightly different at front and armor is thicker.

https://www.toledoblade.com/politics/2019/03/16/abrams-titan-tanks-plant-lima-ohio-defense-spending-army
 

Watch video under this link.

And now the photos.









Ok, it's confirmed, both turret front and hull front are thicker.

23 hours ago, Kev2go said:

lots of interesting and needed upgrades, although im scratching my head that M1A2C wont have newer flir, it will only come with M1A2D another few years down the line and only 3rd generation FLIR at that, when there is already 4th Generation Flir technology.

 

 

I am also sceptical about how much the armor can really be improved without increasing LOS thickness of the turret. There are only so many times you can revise NERA with DU inserts within the current existing Turret Length and expect any significant results. There will simply have to be noticeable LOS increase in turret for it to believable for "significant" armor improvements.

 

 

Maybe because new FLIR needs a development cycle, something completely normal in real world of adults...

As for armor, of course it can be upgraded, NERA efficency can be increased by changing reactive layer to more energetic one, with plates made from better steel or different metals with better properties. And who says there is NERA or NxRA left in the armor? What if it's a completely different design?

But yes I am perfectly aware that some people are completely oblivious to such simple truths... but hey Gaijin was incapable to even properly model M1A1 armor considering how realistic they pretend to be. On the other hand not surprising considering that this is not necessary non secret data, but people that know had a good laugh.

Tough it's funny they even ignored fact that M1A1 have improved front hull protection, even tough M1E1 prototype have a weight simulator on hull front, clearly implying armor was improved there.





Of course I know this obvious evidence would be ignored as it's contradicts the narrative of the Russian company the Gaijin is.

So in regard of vehicle protection, SB Pro PE is far closer to the truth, even if it's not intended to be for obvious reasons.

Just my little rant here.

On topic tough, here is a photo of a fresh new batch of M1A2C's in JSMC facility.



Interesting that it seems US Army returns to woodland camouflage pattern as standard.

It's worth to note that the end of connection line next to a CITV mounting point (used of course in M1A2 series), have two connector plugs. My guess is these can be used for AN/VLQ-6 and AN/VLQ-8 "soft kill" active protection systems, which is mounted around there on M1A1 series).

On 7.03.2019 at 11:19 AM, Batura said:

Excellent information, very interesting too see. I also like the fact that a friendly nation in our rear is bolstering its military. Given the current state of affairs, it might be a deterrent for further escalation in the east. (mods, remove post if considered political).

Thanks.
 

From 11th Armored Cavalry Division facebook fanpage.

In general M1A2C is 1st step in a very major modernization. It focuses both on electronics, new APU, improvements in FCS and also significant, significant improvement in armor protection.

Next step will be M1A2D, and here it will be more focused on FCS, CITV will be replaced, GPS will be replaced with new designs that have 3rd gen FLIR, new day color cameras, new laser range finders and laser pointers... yes commander CITV or rather ICITV will have now a day color camera and laser range finder besides 3rd gen FLIR, same for new gunner IGPS.

ECP1A is M1A2C (M1A2SEPv3), and ECP1B is M1A2D (M1A2SEPv4).



So in general, lots and lots of improvements.

As for engine, transmission and also suspension, there is a lot of development work, but nothing is decided yet.

In terms of suspension I guess US Army would be happy to replace torsion bars with hydropneumatic suspension system, that is developed and ready for M1.

In terms of engine and transmission, well the variant with MTU MT883 diesel and Allison 5250MX transmission was designed, integrated and tested but, again replacing engines in the entire fleet is expensive + US Army have other priorities as AGT1500 is simply good enough.

Besides US Army invested a lot of money for Cummins and Achates Power opposed piston two stroke modular diesel engines called ACE (Advanced Combat Engine), ACE is lighter, smaller and overall better performing than MT883. This is because opposed piston two stroke diesels, in general have for example better heat rejection characteristics than V type diesels, opposed piston two stroke diesels also have better power density. They did not get popular because they are difficult to design properly, but currently with CAD, simulations and new materials, it is possible to design a reliable two stroke opposed piston diesel.



The first variant designed is ACE1000 generating 1000HP, it is meant for vehicles in 30-40 metric tons weight. On the grahics you can see how much space ACE1000 engine takes in Bradley IFV engine compartment compared to it's current V type diesel. Now imagine how much less space next in development ACE1500 variant generating 1500HP designed for platforms in 50-70 metric tons weight will take in engine compartment of MBT like Abrams.
 

Yuma Proving Grounds presented M1A2C (M1A2SEPv3) with Trophy HV APS mounted... but there is something more interesting on that photo. Turret front seems to receive addon armor plates, these are around ~100mm thick. We can assume that hull front could receive similiar addon armor.

All M1A2SEPv2's have the M153 CROWS-2 variant being replaced with new CROWS-LP variant that is +/- 50% smaller. Also new M1A2SEPv3/M1A2SEPv4 will use this new CROWS variant.

23 minutes ago, EasyE said:

 

I think too much certainty is being drawn from it. It gives us some good insight into German armor packages against monoblock rounds (also the T-80U).  However if that is vague. B-level and C-Level are rather clear armor inserts.  Where I find confusion is the nature of the D armor packages. D-1/2/3, what exactly are these referring to? Are these inserts? Or Inserts plus NERA Wedge armor. Or differnt combos of each. D-1 say is B-Level plus wedge D-2 C level plus wedge, and D-3 a new insert plus wedge? Or different inserts more optimized more against CE? 

 

Seems to be that B-level tech is rough equal to  about BRL-1,  C is BRL-2,  HAP-1/2 around D-2./3... EAP around D-2. 

 

Seems to be a rush for answers by those on the internet.. rather then to figure out what questions to ask first..

 

First and foremost, people that draw absolute conclusions from Swedish documents, rush in to them, and do not even question, how accurate these documents are, and on what they are based on.

But hey, it's typical for the internet.

3 minutes ago, Marko said:

Nice addition the polish armored forces. 

Any idea how many vehicles per battery 

Not at the moment I am affraid. It's said however that 18 vehicles will be operational and 2 used for training.

Polish MoD announced that at wednesday they will sign contract with US, for 20 M142 HIMARS MLRS with GMLRS and ATACMS missiles and logistics equipment. It can be expected to be the first batch, and probable follow on batches will use Polish Jelcz trucks instead of FMTV ones.

Contract cost is said to be 414 mln USD.

3 hours ago, EasyE said:

 

The claim has been made that the Swedes had planned to have a wedge type armor on the turret of their M1A2. That the Export Armor package which is also claimed to be the equivalent to HAP-2 was not able to get sufficient protection over 700mm across the frontal arc with out the addition of the wedge type armor.

 

I don't see any evidence of this.  Is there anything to support this claim.

 

IMHO It doesn't appear to be the case as the protection profile of the M1A2 with the Swedish armor was worse then the Leo-2 with it, with greater LOS on the passive armor 860mm vs 930-950mm LOS.

 

 

As far as I know, Swedes never actually got real data from US, nor from France. Heck Frenchmen claims that Swedes just madeup armor data on their own, at least for Leclerc.

And no, Export Armor Package definately is not equivalent to Heavy Armor Package, neither 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation.

But yeah it seems that the entire thing is very, very fishy... I would say extremely fishy.

M109A8 turret during firing trails.

10 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Well, I didn't explicitly state to put those in, but I naturally expect that they would be part of a blow out panel upgrade.

 

I expect that the cost, time, effort, etc required to get a smaller power pack and rebuild the interior is going to be more than most are willing to invest.  I'm aware that many parts of the Leo2 can be considered weak or poorly designed, but the idea of a catastrophic T-Tank style turret launching explosion is what bothers me the most about that design.  Even if it required a reduction in the size of the stowage area, I'd rather have blast doors than what's in there now if I were having to crew it.

IMHO the best for entire NATO would be to abandone European designs that have such flaws, and either work with US to further upgrade the M1, what I would want to see in M1A2D (M1A2SEPv4) is a new powerpack with diesel, for example either the new US ACE-1500 diesel, or MT883 (the latter was integrated and tested allready, altough ACE-1500 is more future proof design), hydropneumatic suspension system, and a proper dep water fording kit allowing for underwater driving + perhaps a new turret with autoloader and new gun (be it US XM360E1 or Rh120/L55A1) and voila.

Or upgraded Challenger 2 Mk2 with that new turret and upgraded hull.

19 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Blowout panels on the hull...  Leo 2 needs hull blowout panels and suddenly it's even closer to perfection.

It's immposible to fix hull ammo storage problem in Leopard 2, and Leclerc without completely redesigning these vehicles.

Blow off panels alone won't help if you don't isolate ammunition storage with blast proof armored sliding doors or bulkhead.

Much easier solution in such case would be to use more compact engine, and move hull ammo storage in to a compartment between powerpack and turret. In such case lot's of space would be made free in hull front, I would then move the driver station to the hull center axis, in my interactions with Leopard 2A5, I noticed that due to wedge armor, it's very difficult to use driver hatch to get in and out.

If driver could be moved to the center axis of hull, then especially if gun is elevated, it's much easier to get in and out using driver hatch. I noticed during my familirization with M1A2SEPv2, that due to driver station placement in hull center axis, it's rather easy to get in and out, especially if main gun is elevated.

I would also try to eliminate weak zones in turret frontal projection like the gunner sight weak zone.

Leclerc would be much more difficult with such modification. Honestly I would completely remove hull storage, and simply move driver station to the center axis of the hull + modify the turret to eliminate it's weak zones like in Leclerc variant proposed for Turkey.

Tough it's far easier to upgrade M1 or Challenger 2, due to their inherently better designed turret and hull shells.

 

More photos:

Hit in the TC cupola base should do the trick in some way, at least killing TC. Cupola base is ~100mm thick.

So my estimations about 2000 M1A2SEPv1/M1A2SEPv2 tanks in US military service were correct. Now the numbers of the M1A2 tanks will grow with M1A2SEPv3/M1A2SEPv4 as they will be builded through rebuild of stored M1A1's. M1A2 fleet may grow to ~4000-5000 in the end depending how many M1A1's will be upgraded in the end, but at the moment, first batch of more than 400 M1A1's being upgraded to M1A2SEPv3 were contracted.

13 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Well, as RM has taken over 55% of BEA land...is there a difference between the BEA and the RM offer? ;-)

Good question!

Rheinmetall just presented their proposal for Challenger 2 Mk2, and I must say I am impressed.
 

It's a completely new turret, made from welded rolled plates + probably a new modular special armor on top of it, I wonder if hull special armor will be replaced as well?
 

Armament is 120mm smoothbore Rh120/L55A1 gun, and it's said ammunition is stored in the rear turret bustle, probably isolated with blow off panels.
 

Really impressive, IMHO a better upgrade than BAE proposal.

58 minutes ago, Marko said:

 I thought the Indian military licence built the t-90.

(Or may be its assemble it from kit not sure on that)

But surly this would  At-least give them the relevant information about newer and better types of Armour used by the Russians

Or its even possible they could have purchased something like Chobham armour theirs not a lot you cant buy on the open military market if your considered a friendly Nation. 

From what I heard, Indian build T-90S uses "Kanchan" and not Russian NERA type armor. This means that T-90S made in India have worse protection than Russian made T-90S.

As for building tanks from kits, it would mean that hulls and turrets are made in Russia, so Indian do not have access to armor technology.

18 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Waaaaiiit.....

 

Isn't this what the Soviets did for the T-64 and the West Germans in the welded turret Leopard 1's?

Like fifty years ago!?!!

Exactly, they literally made a copy of a 50 years old composite armor.