aurens Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 On 9/21/2016 at 4:53 AM, Damian90 said: And the same pattern will repeat itself with the 120mm smoothbore guns Rh120 and M256. Both guns are not interchangeable, you can't rearm Leopard 2 with M256 and M1A1/A2 with Rh120. The gun cradle, recoil system, gun breech and other components are different, however both guns can fire the same ammunition and have same or similiar ballistic properties, because both are based on the same technology. What are the differences between the M256 and Rh 120 L/44, other than things like breech design and recoil system? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted May 31, 2017 Members Share Posted May 31, 2017 Isn't that enough? How much more difference do you need? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin 7 Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 I always thought the gun tube itself was interchangeable. But never had the opportunity to replace a gun tube on the leopard. Just replaced gun tubes on the Abrams. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 Gun tube might also not be interchangeable, notice that for example MRS mirror is placed differently, and I would not be surprised if the gun tube mounting might be different. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 Perhaps, but I never seen even single excercises where gun tubes would be replaced to test interchangeability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade334 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Nate Lawrence said: What are the differences between the M256 and Rh 120 L/44, other than things like breech design and recoil system? http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA476340 Apparently, the M256 was also engineered to have a tougher gun barrel compared to the Rh120/L44, less susceptible/likely to fracture. Some of the differences laid in the manufacturing process (the US purchased both the know-how and the manufacturing tools from the Germans, but Watervliet Arsenal still had to conduct tests and experiments), which included novel steps such as swage autofrettage and chrome electroplating for increased lifespan. Edited June 1, 2017 by Renegade334 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted June 4, 2017 Author Share Posted June 4, 2017 M2 IFV with Iron Fist APS and M1 MBT with Trophy HV APS. Again notice that for demonstration purpose only, M1 render for some reason do not have shown composite armor installed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted June 4, 2017 Author Share Posted June 4, 2017 http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2017/armament/Bahadur19476.pdf And here how M1 will be integrated with UGV's and UAV's, notice modified loader station. And something more about the MUM-T concept.http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2017/groundrobot/Dvorak.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJ_Fubar Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Damian90 said: And here how M1 will be integrated with UGV's and UAV's, notice modified loader station. Even more of a reason to switch to an auto-loader. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade334 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) ^-- They already intend to explore that option: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/army-to-demo-robotic-wingman-vehicles-in-2017 Quote One of the efforts planned for the summer of 2017 at Fort Benning will assess whether it’s possible to give the weapons loader on an Abrams tank the responsibility to control unmanned air and ground vehicles by equipping the tank with an automatic loader, Lt. Gen. Michael Lundy, the commanding general at the Army’s Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, said during a teleconference with reporters this month. Lundy noted an automatic loader, which is a proven capability not yet fielded, would be integrated into an Abrams in order to take the burden off the weapons loader and free that crew member for unmanned systems operations duty. The plan takes what the Army has and, without introducing new force structure, should supplement the Abrams with increased situational awareness among other capabilities, Lundy said.The demonstration would then lead to a decision on whether the Army should require a product improvement to add an automatic loader to the Abrams, he said. Then more operational decisions would be made such as what a manned-unmanned teaming arrangement with Abrams would look like. IOW: we'll see first if it's feasible, then we'll see whether we should add it to the M1 development roadmap. An experiment. Edited June 5, 2017 by Renegade334 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted June 21, 2017 Author Share Posted June 21, 2017 Small news, M1A2SEPv3 weight will increase over 80 short tons, or 72.5 metric tons. Armor upgrade is more significant than I was thinking, it will weight around 9-10+ metric tons more than M1A2SEPv1/v2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavictoireestlavie Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 36 minutes ago, Damian90 said: Small news, M1A2SEPv3 weight will increase over 80 short tons, or 72.5 metric tons. Armor upgrade is more significant than I was thinking, it will weight around 9-10+ metric tons more than M1A2SEPv1/v2. Is that with TUSK I /II or just the stadard issue ? 72.5 metric tons is pretty hefty! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted June 21, 2017 Author Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, lavictoireestlavie said: Is that with TUSK I /II or just the stadard issue ? 72.5 metric tons is pretty hefty! Standard without addon armor as I assume. Here is quote from the committee that discused this. Quote The committee encourages the Army to continue development and procurement of a heavy equipment trailer solution to be used as part of the Heavy Equipment Transport System (HETS) for current and future combat vehicles. The committee notes the current heavy equipment transport (HET) trailer is rated for 70 tons, but the most modernized M1A2 Abrams main battle tank configuration, the M1A2 SEPv3, will weigh in excess of 80 tons. The committee understands the current HET trailer will be unable to transport modernized M1A2 SEPv3 tanks, or future M1A2 SEPv4 configurations. The committee believes the Army will require a more capable means of transport organic to the service. The committee encourages the Army to begin to plan and resource the modification of all 192 existing HET trailers, as well as develop ways to accelerate the new Enhanced HETS developmental program. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2017, on the Army's strategy for upgrading current HETS and HET trailers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade334 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) Considering the fact that it concerns the weight of an Abrams sitting on a HET trailer, I believe it implies no add-on (TUSK belly armor or ERA layers), no ammunition, no crew and the fuel tanks filled at a bare minimum for maneuvering. Edited June 21, 2017 by Renegade334 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Renegade334 said: Considering the fact that it concerns the weight of an Abrams sitting on a HET trailer, I believe it implies no add-on (TUSK belly armor or ERA layers), no ammunition, no crew and the fuel tanks filled at a bare minimum for maneuvering. Well our trailers are there to transport combat ready tanks sans crew /ammo. I guess the US HET should fit the same slot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted June 29, 2017 Author Share Posted June 29, 2017 Meanwhile, M1 TTB is being slowly restored to it's original condition by the National Armor and Cavalry Museum personell. It's great to see it finally in better shape than it was few years ago. All vehicles in NACM collection will be eventually restored and preserved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirzayev Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 On 6/29/2017 at 0:44 PM, Damian90 said: Meanwhile, M1 TTB is being slowly restored to it's original condition by the National Armor and Cavalry Museum personell. It's great to see it finally in better shape than it was few years ago. All vehicles in NACM collection will be eventually restored and preserved. That is great to hear! Some of the vehicles at the NACM were looking a little rough when I visited it last year. Still, there is nothing quite like seeing an MBT 70 prototype in person. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 25, 2017 Author Share Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) Some more informations about M1A2SEPv3/M1A2SEPv4 upgrades. I can only say wow, this will be one hell of an upgrade. And these are only some basics from ECP1A and ECP1B phases, there is a separate program to install hard kill active protection system + survivability upgrades here + new armor. But FCS upgrades are also impressive, I mean, even current M1A2SEPv1/v2 is amazing machine in this regard, but here, well US Army do not fuck around these days. I guess this time they want to squeeze maximum from M1 upgradability before replacement will be avaiable. Edited July 25, 2017 by Damian90 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin 7 Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) Here is more from that PDF: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2017/armament/Dean.pdf and here is where I found it: https://aw.my.com/en/forum/showthread.php?97769-History-of-US-AFV-s&p=1550841#post1550841 Edited July 25, 2017 by Assassin 7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 30, 2017 Author Share Posted July 30, 2017 Some more photos of M1 TTB that is being restored in The National Armor and Cavalry Museum in Fort Benning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 With it painted in that colour, squint and you might see an Armata. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted September 7, 2017 Author Share Posted September 7, 2017 News are that GDLS will complete and deliver first batch of M1A2SEPv3's to the US Army to the end of this autumn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted September 29, 2017 Author Share Posted September 29, 2017 https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1328736/ Among many things, US Army awarded contract to equip first entire ABCT with M1A2SEPv2's with Trophy HV APS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin 7 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 "General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, Michigan, has been awarded a $59,223,559 firm-fixed-price contract for new improved fire control electronics units (IFCEU); repaired and upgraded IFCEUs; and repaired and upgraded improved commanders display unit to support the M1-A2 System Enhanced Package Version 2 Field Modification program. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 28, 2022. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity (W56HZV-17-D-0098)." This is good to see, thanks for the information Damian 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted September 29, 2017 Author Share Posted September 29, 2017 Aye, so there is FCS upgrade for M1A2SEPv2's, Trophy APS integration for single ABCT for brigade level test and evaluation and also it seems they will modernize M1's transmission, probably the same modification is used on M1A2SEPv3 to compensate for a greater weight of vehicle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.