Damian90

@dejawolf You remember DFI and the talk about Arjun Mk1/Mk2 and it's "Kanchan" armor? Well, we now know what it is exactly... and not very impressive at all.

http://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Achates-Power-OPES_TARDEC_Brendle.pdf

More about ACE engines development and technical details.

6 hours ago, Breakthrough7 said:

@Damian90  If the chain of custody of Iraq's old tanks ever becomes relevant to your writing/research; that tank was kept near the north gate of Camp Fallujah in 2006 [there was another nearly pristine batch lined up at the south gate], and someone must have had a plan for them that precluded being towed to the boneyard or gunnery range.

Thanks.

8 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

what is the more questionable designation is the term 'monkey model' that was thrown around for awhile, as if to say that the soviets supplied the iraqis with scrap rather than the 'real' version of the t-72. that sort of designation needs clarification

or ought to be thrown out altogether, since the export models that the iraqis received aren't 'lemons' but rather export models without certain features, but at least as good as t-72a models used by warsaw pact.

 

monkey model - likely a description used to somehow imply the t-72's lackluster performance was due to the fact that iraq didn't receive 'real' t-72s

lion of babylon- local iraqi designation for the t-72, much the same way allies in world war 2 may have given their american manufactured vehicles their own names

There was never such thing as T-72 "Monkey Models".

Export T-72M or T-72M1 have exactly the same protection levels, firepower, mobility as Soviet T-72 or T-72A. There are minor difference in communication equipment, NBC protection etc. But in essence, a T-72M1 is exactly the same as T-72A.

Assad Babil might indeed be a local name for T-72, but otherwise, these tanks were made in former WarPact member states, Iraq never produced them, and there are serious doubts they even assembled some from knock-off kits.

So Achates Power and Cummins developed the Advanced Combat Engine. It's a two stroke, opposed piston diesel engine or rather a family of modular engines. The first variant and a prototype is a 1000hp one which is intended for use in tracked IFV's, APC's, SPH's etc.

As we can see on the graphic it reduced the space it takes inside Bradley engine compartment by ~50% compared to currently used engine.

Prototype will be tested this year or 2020, and next step is 1500hp variant for MBT's.

18 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Smart Alec option: One with a M Kill.

 

Simple Option: A T-72 variant.

 

More likely option: Asad Babil variant.

 

Khem khem. Assad Babil variant is kinda a myth.

Iraq never produced T-72's on their own. Their tanks were either early T-72M, late T-72M or T-72M1, purchased in Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia. I guess if we would have theirserial numbers, and then dig in to archives, we could know where and when these tanks were made.

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

This sort of skepticism would be understood if discussing a current service vehicle. Not so much for something that's retired, and found in scrapyard or  private museums.

 

 

Why would the cia waste time creating a disinformation document  ( public for release in 2014) on a vehicle considering brl1 armor  package is obselete and the tank itself no longer in any form of military service ( foreign or domestic)

 

 

Considering that russia already have implemented nera type armor since cold war and that political foes can and have resort to espionage or hacking, more likely than not this is old news or simply not of interest given it's not around.

 

 That is legit document that was made public via foia.

Perhaps because NERA or NxRA types of armor might differ in efficency due to different polymers used as their reactive layer. Who ever said that M1's NERA uses rubber instead of some more energetic polymer material? And who said it is NERA? Why it can't be NxRA for example? Burlington program in UK and Starflower program in US was much wider in scope than most people realize, it included also such things as ERA builded in vehicles armor, similiar in concept to Soviet Kontakt-5 etc.

It's very easy to say, oh it's old, so documents must be true!

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

If you did read the ip thread before it was closed down I dont know how you could have gotten such an impression  this wasn't the case here.

I readed it, and I actually know many sources of these revelations, these are as credible as Bible for example.

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Now whilst there are such people you describe , there certainly are many that arent like that.

 

I would also add that in any discussion  be it internet , article or formal academic papers the proper etiquette is to address the arguments and not attack or dismiss point made simply by character alone.

 

Facts arent any less true just because it originates from a site you may or may not like or if its stated from a person who isn't doing it for a living.

Let's say I know exactly what kind of people mostly talk about such subjects, and it ain't pretty.

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Whilst you might have a different view on this. I personally like to share whatever I can.

 

Humanity has progressed because of the spread of knowledge. Not because everyone keeps to themselves.

 

Factual based Discussion and education is a healthy thing. 

Who says entire humanity needs to progress? I definately do not want some humans to progress over our western civilization, especially the ones that are hostile to it.

Besides with my background in military, I rather preffer to keep things to myself, and you should also. Did ever sad gentlemen from counterintelligence visited you? I know some people that had such visit due to various reasons, sometimes it's better to keep silent than say too much.

But I digrece from topic.

2 hours ago, marques said:

I hope that whoever made the mistake can correct it on time, this thread alongside with the one from russian tanks are one of my favourites and contains a wealth of information.

Seems like everything is ok now, there are no "classified" stuff here from what I seen.

2 hours ago, stormrider_sp said:

I agree. When I saw that declassified document from the CIA spec'ing details about the Abrams armor... What's the chance?

 

The general layout or rather type of armor is true. However these drawings are not technical drawings, just generic information ones, so assume lots of stuff is off the scale, geometry is wrong, and even proportions might be wrong.

And there is one more aspect. Disinformation, who says that some documents are not released to public on purpose and are on purpose modified with certain information.

I can say one thing, a lot of such people that treat these documents as gospel, would be very, very surprised about the truth, and that's all I have to say.

1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Which I must admit is why I (and I think Grenny too) wonder why this ongoing pursuit of almost unreachable data?

 

If what we have now is "good enough" for most defence customers training needs (i.e. the effect generated is in line with what is desired) then anything else is pretty much in the realm of white coated "boffins".

 

If we accept that, then surely if its good enough for the Defence customer, its good enough for the Civilian user too?

 

Personally as a user of the platform, I don't really care if a given round is meant to penetrate 100mm of RHA or 101mm of RHA, if the general effect is that say hitting a vehicle X from Y aspect at Z range is a Kill then the maths is not my concern.

 

Let alone the minutiae of round 1 fails to penetrate (due to some variation in propellant, quality of manufacture, target aspect at the time of hit, or one of a bunch of other reasons), but round 2 that hits 10cm to the left on the same plate, does penetrate due to the effect of round 1 on the armour, etc.

 

"Best is the enemy of good enough" - Sergey Gorshkov

 

And I fully agree.

The problem tough is different, and fueled by some... let's call them "circles" of internet warriors fighting for "their country is the best and rest sucks".

As a researcher and military journalist I decided some time ago to leave these people, I made the same mistake, making discussions about the subject, which is pointless with this kind of people.

It's just waste of time. And if I get to know something through my own research, I tend to mostly not share it with other people, my own curiosity is fullfilled.

46 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

this statement contains both an internal contradiction (ensure estimations are factual), and entails the very thing you would want to avoid per opsec (ensure secret data is factual)

 

in other words, estimations by definition aren't verified facts and secret data is forbidden as such.

 

 

The problem is that the actual data, is also an estimation more or less, because various armor types will interact differently with different types of ammunition, heck if we fire two different APFSDS rounds in to a same armor module, this armor module might interact differently with each round depending on armor and round design and implications this comes with.

Same with shaped charges, there is no single and same shaped charge warhead, more newer shaped charges use wave shapers, have better explosives that propels shaped charge jet faster which have it's own implications on the armor performance.

This is a very complex subject.

Interesting project from late 1970's and early 1980's to develop a heavy IFV based on M1 tank chassis. There is some more data about these designs.

Important! These are unclassified documents, I hope they do not violate forum rules.

First and foremost, before posting some "estimations" or "secret data" for armor protection, be sure these are actual facts and are real.

For example Swedish docs about M1A2 protection.

1. Sweden did not tested US armor in M1A2, heck they didn't done ballistic tests on actual M1A2 at all.

2. Sweden ballistic trails contained only models of hull and turret front with Swedish made armor, not US made armor.

Tough I know there are people that like to make conclusions based on this, that M1A2's armor was weaker than other estimations imply.

@lavictoireestlavie You know what an actual researcher do? Admits that without an actual direct documents from US DoD, GDLS, TACOM, TARDEC etc. he does not know protection levels. Simple as that.

What I can conclude? I seen a video from Iraq where export M1A1M with Export Armor Package was capable to withstand on turret front, hit from Metis-M ATGM, Metis-M is known to penetrate ~900-950mm of RHA, so we can conclude that front turret protection provided by Export Armor Package in Iraqi M1A1M, is greater than ~900-950mm RHA, but we know that Kornet ATGM capable to penetrate ~1100-1200mm RHA is capable to pierce it, so we can conclude also that Export Armor Package provides less protection than that vs CE.

We also know that US M1A1/M1A2 tanks were hit by RPG-29 in the lower front hull armor module, most likely these tanks were protected by 2nd or 3rd generation Heavy Armor Package. We know that RPG-29 can penetrate ~650-750mm RHA, so we can conclude that 2nd/3rd generation Heavy Armor Package can provide protection vs CE greater than that.

Also some people meassured one M1A1 in museum, so we know it's front turret and hull armor thickness. Which means that my estimations were more or less correct.

So turret front armor both left and right is ~700+mm 30. degrees from turret longitudinal axis and ~800-900+mm at 0. degrees from turret longitudinal axis. Front lower hull armor is ~600-700+mm thick from weld to weld.



However these meassures are done by this person (dunno who he was) from weld to weld, and do not include full thickness of the turret and hull front backplates that are ~100mm thick.

Altough I am quiet happy, than once more my estimations were confirmed by real meassurements.

Anyway I would be very carefull with lots of these estimations. Not to mention that outside a few people that know how US armor evolved, nobody would tell how it changed, and it changed a lot compared to a bit inaccurate drawings from CIA.

These were not done in Sweden, this is first thing, and neither Swedes exactly knew what was inside these models. And as you can see it clearly says about "Swedish armor" in these test modules, not US armor, be it Heavy Armor Package or something else.

First 5 Leopard 2PL are in Poland + 1 prototype, so 6 in total.

A real GDLS Griffin II prototype.

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

because Namer is substantially more armored than the Bradley.  Its not just a matter of extension to accomdate more troops Its basically a MBT chasis turned into a Carrier.

So? Namer is larger yes, have more armor yes, is heavier yes, what's the point comparing a 60+ tons heavy vehicle with 30+ tons heavy vehicle?

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

T15 on the other hand is a quite impressive and it certainly would fall under IFV, but weight gain is  more than just extra room for troops.  its because of new armor arrays, and ERA compared to the BMP., but obviosuly not definitive due to lack of open source data to make it a fact.

And again, so? T-15 is larger, heavier, have larger engine than Bradley, look at it's engine compartment lenght, it alone is larger than in Bradley.

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Ive otherwise refused to compare BMP's of the cold war time period to the Bradley because Soviet design philosophy  was different, as well as their attitude/ mentality towards the life of human beings at the time. and Yes Bradely would have higher tech optics, and FCS, but BMP had the lower profile, so in that regard it would be better for Recon.

Really? A BMP would be better for recon? So in your mind recon is more efficent when you have problems detecting enemy and the enemy can detect you easier because he have thermal sights for example. Not to mention other factors like ergonomics of the workplace, if you would be inside such a recon variant of a BMP and inside a for example M7 Bradley which is a proper modern recon variant, you would appreciate the M7 more.

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Yes and something we can agree, on but that doesnt remove the fact that the  M2 bradley isnt an M113 replacement but entirely different class of vehicle. The NAMER is a super armored Armored personnel carier but using MBT chasis. Either way  us still had a requirement for replacing the M113 , after realizing the M2 bradley couldn't despite working for what it was intended to be.

 

# See armored multi purpose Vehicle.

Yeah, AMPV is direct replacement for M113, the IFV M2 was never intended as a direct replace for M113.

By the way you know what AMPV APC variant will as per US Army requirements, carry only 6 dismounts? So what it is again inferior to M113 or perhaps you will finally realize that US Army might have different experiences and requirements than some armchair experts?

You see more dismounts not necessary mean a better decision, there are other factors that you need to take in to account, like ergonomics, seats design even, if you replace simple benches with safe seats that protect soldier from effects of mine blasts etc. You will have less room for less soldiers, with benches you might have 11 spots for 11 troops, with safe seats this is reduced to 6. But that was a requirement and a priority.

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

And this is what i said... It took long road of evolution for the M2 to become that vehicle. By the time it did these other competing  IFV design were on the market.

Really? So you think CV90 didn't needed evolution? And I honestly still think CV90 is not that great, considering it's limited firepower.

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Again making assumptions here on what you think other people know. Far from the truth. Only a portion of my knowledge is based on the Pentagon wars , and i was referring to the book not the movie, which is taken from the horses mouth so to speak, far more in depth and not dumbed down like the film. 

 

For me a proper book about M2's development is Hunnicutt book, everything else is not worth time and money.

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Perhaps you shouldn't dismiss everyone as an internet Expert for challenging what you know or expressing different opinions . Your not the only "expert" out there. (FyI not referring to myself but quotes from other people who are in the business) .

 

what your resorting to is called "AD Hominum" now

 

 Otherwise it comes off as being egotistical on your part.  AS i said if you don't agree with others opinion thats fine, but no reason to make it out like your opinion  is gospel, and insulting those who dare say anything otherwise or that try to offer a debate or discussion.

 

I of course meant sharing information that is "open source" not opsec, but i don't see why a Polish ex tanker would happen to know M1A2 armor composition anyways given that US weren't willing to share such information with Swedes who would have been a potential customer .

1. I am not an ex tanker. I am an ex AirCav soldier. But I work as military journalist now.

As for my knowledge, let's say I have friends in US, we share information, we talk about stuff, some other stuff I take from various sources. What I know is not necessary thing I want or I should share. Oh and believe me, there are people in Poland that actually seen for example M1A1 armor arrays.

Of course you can say what you want, I really do not care, especially considering what I know, I do not need to get in to nonsense dialog.

And yes yes, about me, I know I am an example of an absolute evil for some people, I am not nice etc. yes I know that for a long time.
 

11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Heres something to contribute to the M1 Abrams  history with regards Burlington 1 ;  Diagrams of the NERA from a  unclassified CIA report.

 

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91B00390R000300220014-8.pdf

 

 

 

 

But whatever you can probably disregard it because im not a "professional" researcher doing this for a living like Damien.

And the point of posting these drawings is? By the way I posted them here long time ago, but still want to know what is the point? Did M1 had NERA? Yes, do we know it's exact protection? No, and if someone know this, such person will definately not share it. So again what is the point?

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

UM i very much know the difference between the two. IFV is supposed to fight alongside troops, but IT nonetheless replaced the M113. So taxing troops is part of an IFV's job. Its the backbone of modern mechanized infantry.  Just becuase other IFV's dont hold 11 troops doesn't mean the US should have made that compromise if aiming to create the "best" IFV , that Left a capability gap if there is only the antiquated M113 ( which US wished was replaced by the m2)  and IFV option. US neglected to have a proper Troops carrier replacement for the M113 all these years instead forcing the M2 Bradley to entirely fill that void.

No, US didn't need to have an IFV carrying as much troops as M113. And there are reasons for this. To have a quiet well protected vehicle with turret that have heavy armament and capable to carry so many dismounts + crew, it means vehicle would have very large internal volume and would be insanely heavy. Jesis look at Namer or T-15! Namer carry only 3 man crew + 9 dismounts and weights above 60 metric tons, T-15 carry 3 man crew + 8 dismounts and also weights most likely way above 50 metric tons. Do you imagine how heavy an M2 would be if it would carry 3 man crew + 11 dismounts?!

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Just look at the Isrealis. they had the right idea for  the M113 replacement . the Namer, and it could be turned into an IFV with some modifications.  

Namer is larger and heavier vehicle than M2, and it carries only 2 dismounts more than M2A3, it's 9 vs 7 total, altough in practical terms, M2A3 carry 6, while Namer probably would carry 8 if we count soldiers equipment and other stuff that is needed to be stored inside.

And these vehicles were designed for different requirements and doctrine. It's like comparing apples with oranges.

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

i respectfully disagree with you opinion that the M2 . ITs not the bEST IFV. The M2 has barely any export sales going for it. Israel had droppeda Custom modified bradley in its trials instead adopting Achzarit in the 80s.  an if there are people within the US military even to day that dislike it. AS provided with earlier example it is by no means a universal opinion speaks volumes.

It is best IFV in it's weight category, which is around 30+ metric tons.

Of course amateurs will compare a 30+ tons vehicle with 60+ tons vehicle, because fuck logic right?

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

High tech, sure, It was an ambitous project ( but you can still call it feature creep) but The M2 when it came out had plenty of problems, that would have made it less than ideal for service Only over time has it evolved into a decent vehicle.  All the quotes you proved and the images you show are of the Modern M2 Bradley  family.

Oh wow, and other vehicle designs do not evolve eh? They are perfect from the start? Jesus Christ, come on.

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

IT was quite idiotic to store ammunition and Fuel directly inside the crew compartment. Based on COL Burton's suggestion to store them on the exterior the Bradley became a safer and more survivable vehicle by the time of the Gulf war. Given its  thin Aluminum armor it could not even expect to withstand shots from  Anti Infantry weapons like RPG's , It took up armoring and ERA of newer models to make it protectable to the threats it would have encounted even in its IFV role.

Oh I get it, you base your knowledge about M2 development on this idiotic film "Pentagon Wars" that is nothing more than a lie?

The reality is that all IFV's designed in that era, BMP-1, BMP-2, BMP-3, Warrior, Marder, CV90 store ammunition and fuel inside. By the way US Army actually tested M2 variant with external isolated ammunition and fuel storage in the 80's, but there were other more important priorities, and budget is not from rubber. And the idea returned with Bradley NG chassis.

Oh and by the way, just like Ssnake said, at that time no IFV was well armored... well actually there was, I will remind you that M2A2 which was uparmored variant and yes ERA for it was developed in the 80's, so M2A2 was actually that Bradley protected vs 30mm APDS and perhaps also APFSDS and with ERA vs RPG's, ATGM's and tank HEAT rounds.

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

And if yo want to argue about the semantics about Scouting vs Force Recon, then in that case that makes his point even more valid. 

No, there are simply different recon tactics and different vehicles will fill the role. By the way you realize that Warsaw Pact also intended to use BMP's and their variants for force recon?

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

and  i assume you would at least you have  source(s) that provides more accurate estimates than that if you dismiss it?

No, for several reasons. First is that I ended any discussion with people in the internet about this subject. I might or might not know some things, and if I know something, I will definately not share this with you or anyone else. Especially considering that I know that NATO counterintelligence agencies started to be interested in such people that share such informations here and there. And I definately do not want a small talk with sad gentlemen from my countries counterintelligence agency, because I told too much to some random guy in the internet. Not matters if what I said was truth or not. I speak only about non OPSEC stuff.

Besides these discussions in the internet among armchair "experts" just make me laugh these days.

 

10 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Damien i think you can update the section on M1 abrams.

 

have you seen the Swedish tank trials PDF?

 

 

sheds some light on the M1A2  Du-less export model  ( but also Leopard 2a5 and Leclerc)   protection levels . 

I seen it and I disregard it. Sweden never tested M1A2 armor, even without DU, what is in this PDF is simply Swedish estimates based on some incomplete data they received from US. In general US was not very willing to share such data, and general consensus was that if Sweden would choose M1A2 these tanks would be builded with Swedish made composite armor.
 

10 hours ago, Kev2go said:

he makes quite a bit of good points with regards to M3 variation of the M2  not ideally suited for scouting. 

M3 is not your traditional scout vehicle. M3 was designed for combat recon, or force recon, or recon through fight.

10 hours ago, Kev2go said:

M1 has a lower profile, and he noted better optics.  the Turbine engine is less noisy than a Diesel , and Of course as a MBT it has way more firepower and survivability, meaning that if a scouting mission goes wrong itl pack a bigger punch.

Again, no. Current M1A1SA/FEP and M1A2SEP series of MBT's as well as M2A2ODS-SA and M2A3 (as well as M3A3ODS-SA and M3A3) have same quality 2nd gen. FLIR. However in the 80's it was M2A2 and M3A2 that had better thermal sight than M1's.
 

10 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Bradley is a mediocre vehicle, if you look at its original specification , its production models have far deviated what it was supposed to have beem . The bradey should be made a staple example of what happens if you " feature creep" into a design, and how to avoid it,.  Its honestly at best  Jack of all trades master of none . IT holds less troops than the vehicle it replaced ( m113 had 11 vs 7 riding in  Bradley ) , and its too tall to be  ideally suited for Scout role, and later variants due to weight increases were no longer Amphibious, further removing one of the intended requirements which was a feature creep on its own. 

 

Ultimately for the greater firepower and  protection  against infantry based weapons)   offered the bravely sacrificed troop carry capacity, all whilst being more expensive and requiring more of them to be purchased for the smaller troop carrying capacity.

No, M2 is not mediocore. When M2 was first fielded it was the most advanced IFV in the world. Look at Warrior or Marder, both had unstabilized armament, no integrated ATGM's, no LRF or any FCS, same with BMP-1 and BMP-2. The M2A2 in late 80's was not only most advanced IFV but also best protected one.

Heck I dare to say that even these days M2A3/M2A4 with it's uparmor kits is better armored, more survivable than CV90's for example.

As for M113 vs M2, again I think you are one of these people that do not understand the concept of the APC vs the concept of IFV. IFV is not APC, it's not battle taxi designed only to transport troops, IFV is par of squad, it transport troops but also fight with the troops, providing them with increased firepower.

Besides this show me IFV that transports 11 dismounts? M2 have 6 or 7 depending on variant, CV90 have on avarage 7, Puma have 6, BMP-1 have 8, BMP-2 have 7. M2 is not worse in this regard than other IFV's.

As for amphibious capability, it's useless anyway, it's a Soviet and later Russian folly. IFV is designed to fight in the first line supporting MBT's and infantry. This means it needs increased survivability, if not against tank guns APFSDS, at least at minimum against 30mm APDS/APFSDS rounds.

And M2A2 and newer variants meets this criteria.

Honestly if I would have to choose an medium weight IFV, I would take M2A3 or new M2A4 over things like Warrior, Marder or CV90. M2A3/M2A4 have FCS with comparable capability to M1A2SEP FCS. Firepower still can be improved, standard TBAT-II turret can be upgraded with 30mm Mk44/Mk44S or M813 30mm chain guns replacing 25mm M242 chain gun. Mk44/Mk44S and M813 chain guns also can be quickly upgraded to 40mm calliber if needed.

Survivability can be also further improved. US is allready testing increased passive armor on the Bradley NG chassis increasing layers of high hardness steel plates. I would dare to say that Bradley NG chassis with additional modular passive armor and ERA modules provides protection similiar to new German Puma IFV.


Chassis and turret upgrades considered by the US Army.


Experimental Bradley NG chassis being tested with additional passive modular armor protection. Such protection can either consit of 3x layers of ~30mm high hardness steel plates, or for example the array can use steel/ceramic/steel configuration bolted to the base hull chassis.


M2A2/M2A3/M2A4 have also efficent and effective ERA modules kit, providing increased protection vs medium calliber KE threats and RPG's, ATGM's and tank gun HEAT rounds.
 

M2A2/M2A3 was allready integrated and tested with Mk44/Mk44S 30/40mm chain gun as a quick and easy replacement for 25mm M242 chain gun, such swap demands minimal changes in turret subsystems.
 

Unmanned turret with 30/40mm M813 chain gun can also be mounted with relative easy, also freeing up additional space for more dismounts.
 

Cummins with Achates Power is developing new family of opposed piston two stroke diesel engines. First 1000HP variant will soon be tested as possible replacement for current Bradley engine. 1500HP variant is now developed for MBT's and considered as possible replacement for AGT1500 gas turbine for future M1A2 upgrades.

So as you can see there is a lot of life and upgradability left in M2 just like in M1. Even tough their replacements are being designed as well, altough... hmmm perhaps future might surprise people a bit with possible alternative routes choosen for NGCV program.

M109A7 armed with M284 L39 155mm gun, compared to a future M109A8 turret armed with M907 L58 155mm gun mounted on a modified M109A6 chassis test bed.

8 hours ago, kgb613 said:

There is still a lot of M1A1 SA in US Army. Generally speaking, US Army use a lot of M1A2 SEPv2 when ARNG use a lot of M1A1 SA but there is both tank version in both branch.

 

I know that USMC is introducing hunter-killer feature on their M1A1 FEP. Damian, do you know if US Army is trying to introduce it on SA versions or they think that it will be replaced by M1A2 SEPv3 more quickly ?

M1A1SA and M1A1FEP allready have hunter-killer capability. However AIDATS system for M1A1FEP is simply there to further improve SCWS cupola capabilities.. As for US Army, I think they decided they want to go pure active fleet of M1A2SEP series, and ARNG seems to want to ride the same horse.

It does not mean M1A1SA's disappear being upgraded, no they gonna go to reserve, while older M1A1's from long term storage are being upgraded first to the M1A2SEPv3 standard and later M1A2SEPv4.

12 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

Depends who you ask. 

 

 

 

It's not the problem with the design, but about how you use a specific design. And ATGM's on IFV are always usefull, it's further increase of firepower.
 

12 hours ago, Kev2go said:

as a question Is it true that theres only a SIngle BAttlation in the US Army left thats still using M1A1 i ( and its in the Reserve) , whilst the Rest are all M1A2's family?

 

Do any  those M1A1's in Army service have Crows?

Yeah, it's not reserve it's in NTC. And no, M1A1's do not need CROWS, US Army and ARNG uses M1A1SA with SCWS (Stabilized Commander Weapon Station), which is also a quiet good panoramic sight for TC. It have good day and thermal optics with 3x, 6x and 9x zoom for both + SCWS have capability to display view from gunner primary sight in to the SCWS display so TC does not need to use GPSE. And of course SCWS still have remotely controlled MG.

Both welded turrets for T-90A and T-80UD/T-84 are developed from the same general NII Stali welded turret design.

However special armor inside is different, T-90A uses NERA arrays, while welded turret for T-80UD/T-84 uses metal/ceramic/metal arrays.

Also something interesting. My friend found a US patent from 1971 about titanium and ceramic armor array for tanks. He noted it is extremely similiar to a 1992 Polish CAWA-2 armor. So he started to dig in. As he is a student at Military Technology Academy (WAT - Wojskowa Akademia Techniczna) and he studies various armor technologies, he asked about it one of his proffesors. It appears that this proffesor was in US few years ago and become privy with basic M1A1 armor, and he said that besides NERA arrays in armor, ceramics were also added, and there was some cooperation between US and Poland in 1990's for development of metal/ceramic armor arrays, and this is why there is such similarity between a US titanium/ceramic armor and Polish CAWA-2.
A US 1971 patent.

A Polish CAWA-2 armor design.