Jump to content

History of US Tanks.


Damian90

Recommended Posts

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 423
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 hours ago, Damian90 said:

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?

 

 

Guess we cant compare Russian tank because "  muh weight disqualifier."

 

I never directly compared them besides stating israelis had different requirements and the Bradley didnt suit their needs.

 

 

If it's an ifv it's still an ifv. Irregardless of weight. Just like a t72 or t90 is still an mbt class tank like the m1 abrams  series of tanks

 

Ssnake made the valid points on the different design philopshies  a couple posts earlier.

Quote

 

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.

 

I think you got the wrong idea of what I was saying. I only said bmp is better with regards to lower profile. In no other category did I say the bmp was superior to Bradley like with optics etc.

 

Recon vehicles that would have thermals and the sorts of optics that Bradley would have on a lower profile are better suited to scouting if the goal is to avoid  or reduce chances of being seen.

 

Quote

 

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?

 

 

Yes  I am aware of the different requirements and reduction might have less but it still made it a valid m113 replacement all whilst improving ergonomics.

 

The whole anti mine protection thing only became more apparent in recent wars in the middle east against insurgents using mines and ieds. This wasnt so obvious back in 1970s or even the 80s.You are looking at this with  hindsight.

 

 

And yes its quoted in various places that the some in  us army tried to force the bradley as a m113 replacement. And yes ultimately there was a capability gap due to lacking a modern successor to the m113 for so many years.

 

The point is cost. Ampv makes far more cost effective as a pure troop carrier than the m2. It's not about raw carry capacity mate today. I dont know why you are so fixated on that.

 

Requirements have changed and evolved since. Today is a different story. But at the same time the written requirements arent the bible. Nor are they cover all things. All this anti IED and anti mine stuff is based off countering threats in asymmetrical anti insurgent warfare. So much that people forget conventionL war is ever a possibility.

 

The same sort of nonsense happened when some pencil neck assumed all future aerial warfare would be shooting down bombers and  and attack mission stricktly lugging nukes. And hence there was no requirement for guns or aerial  dogfight combat training vs fighters. Remember how well that worked out? Oh yeA.....

 

 

But at the same time different nations have different requirements. Just because us does something a certain way doesnt make it a universal fact that thier way is the right way for everyone.

 

 

Quote

 

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

From a strictly technical point or view yes. But all the behind the scenes fuckery games played against  the requests of proper testing are valid story to tell, and greater completes the full picture.

Quote

 

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

 

 

 

So a more sophisticated way of articulating  you were an infantryman chauffeured via rotary winged aircraft from point a to point b instead of a  ground vehicle.

 

 

And a journalist? Wow they dont teach impartiality or to use critical thinking skills anymore? Or are you just paid by us military to parrot what thier various p.r  departments wants you to?

 

 

I'm sorry but this somehow doesnt make your opinion more factual or true. I'm still more inclined to take into greater standing the words of an ex armor officer that also had an assignment at Aberdeen proving grounds

Quote



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.

 

Well you can find m1a1s in private museums.  Basic M1a1 ( burlinton 2) is no longer in use.

Quote

 

 



 I really do not care, especially considering what I know, I do not need to get in to nonsense 

 

You know manners are a 2 way street. You may not care for politeness , but remember to not expect people to reply to you in a polite manner either if you talk to people this way.

 

 

Quote

 

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?

 

 

By that logic Then what is the point of you including images for m1 armor exposed because" hur durr we dont know the exact value".

 

Il make it easy, il tell you why because getting s visual to see how the nera arrays are composed still gives us an understanding of how it works. This is pertinent to this thread.

 

Not all nera arays will be exactly the same as what the m1 has.

 

Oh and by the way there are some figures of Burlington 1 Nera protection from the CIA

 

CM8kmPS.jpg

 

 

You're welcome

Edited by Kev2go
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 02/12/2018 at 9:47 AM, Damian90 said:

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.

 

 

 

 

then these are?

 

 

unknown.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It has come to my attentioon that this thread may contain electroic copies of documents that are marked as "Secret" (or other classification levels). I would very much appreciate if the incriminating posts get sanitized immediately, rather than having me spend the entire night finding the stuff myself. If you can't point out the changes (after you removed the stuff) within less than one day, I'll have to delete the whole thread, sorry. I would rather not having to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

I would very much appreciate if the incriminating posts get sanitized immediately, rather than having me spend the entire night finding the stuff myself.

Apparently (from the related thread):

17 minutes ago, Breakthrough7 said:

Yes, they're isolated to page 10 of that thread; March 7th to March 8th 2018.

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

 

 

 

I hope you arent referring to the diagrams of the M1 armor nera layouts.

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp91b00390r000300220014-8

 

Its directly from this link provided from the CIA's own website. IF it was classified the CIA wouldn't publish it on their site for public access.

 

In fact  at the top of the very first document page directly states " Declassified in part, Sanitized  copy approved  for release 2014/03/04 ". So in otherwords the  "Sercret" markings should be ignored 

 

Edited by Kev2go
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

I hope you arent referring to the diagrams of the M1 armor nera layouts.

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp91b00390r000300220014-8

 

Its directly from this link provided from the CIA's own website. IF it was classified the CIA wouldn't publish it on their site for public access.

 

In fact  at the top of the very first document page directly states " Declassified in part, Sanitized  copy approved  for release 2014/03/04 ". So in otherwords the  "Sercret" markings should be ignored 

 

No, I'm not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎01‎/‎2019 at 12:52 AM, Ssnake said:

It has come to my attentioon that this thread may contain electroic copies of documents that are marked as "Secret" (or other classification levels). I would very much appreciate if the incriminating posts get sanitized immediately, rather than having me spend the entire night finding the stuff myself. If you can't point out the changes (after you removed the stuff) within less than one day, I'll have to delete the whole thread, sorry. I would rather not having to do that.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

07wkNxf.jpg

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3me2wna.jpg

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...