Jump to content
Damian90

History of US Tanks.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

At the time no IFV could, especially not in the weight class of the Bradley. Back then the Aluminum hull was a sensible (if expensive) choice that offered the best compromise between weight and protection level. Aluminum, after all, offers a much higher resistance in impact situations than the equivalent mass of steel could offer. If we're talking of "today", there's basically two schools of design - the ultra-heavy concepts like Achzarit and Namer that are basically MBT hulls redesigned for infantry transport, or the most modern designs that combine nano steels and composite armor to protect frontally up to 30mm caliber and RPGs.

The question is for which battlefield do we want to tailor the vehicles, and what's the strategic mobility option. The big losses of infantry riding in vehicles in the last two decades came from mine/IED threat. Battle buses like the MRAPs were the short-term response. But they are unwieldy, relatively weakly armed, and basically only offer protection against small arms and IEDs, nothing else. As long as that is the threat and you don't expect a lot of off-road tactical and operational maneuver, they're good enough. Change any of these parameters however, and they are out.

 

Armies need to prepare for a wide range of scenarios. For the US Army, strategic mobility is an important element. But I think it's time to acknowledge that Hercules transportability is a pipe dream that cannot be reconciliated with the desire for adequate protection. The next best concept would be a German Puma that actually works. If you abandon all desire for air lifting IFVs into theater you can of course go all out and come up with a Namer plus remotely operated 40mm turret or something. But then you're very quickly breaching the next important barrier, MLC50. Even if you forfeit airlift as a requirement, you still want to use roads and bridges. The Namer is an option specifically for Israel because none of these factors are of importance to them; to pretty much everybody else, they are.

Personally I think that the Puma is a pretty decent concept that doesn't go overboard with feature creep or demands for "absolute ballistic protection". It maintains the airlift option, at least under the assumption that the A400M actually is available, which however is right between the Hercules and the Galaxy in the US's airlift spectrum, so not exactly ideal for the US right now. But as good as the Herc is, it will never be able to transport modern IFVs that offer "good" (though not perfect) protection. As soon as you make IFVs as heavy as MBTs, your ability to get them into theater (and to move them, once there) is equally limited.

i suppose then that makes sense.  Puma is another good IFV option to have brought up.

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why you are quoting me (well sort of quoting me - using a blank box), I didn't look.

 

As a courtesy to Ssnake, I merely repeated Breakthrough7's post.

 

I even used "apparently".

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G0uIbGv.jpg

7ZtNo3A.jpg

KZWMaaC.jpg

xfg4zrh.jpg

p1Ipk7B.jpg

V8SzzGl.jpg

nC3kEwz.jpg

CAodOiM.jpg

UxLHKX7.jpg

d5W2f5W.jpg

 

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.

RA4KsVP.jpg

mxzt9kI.jpg

HaiqGMd.jpg

uL29dC4.jpg

jgtXqjc.jpg

QGcKouf.jpg

LmAMdJ9.jpg

WjTDcoR.jpg

3WFOduV.jpg

tTLrVMk.jpg

412CmjV.jpg

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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

×