Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Yep. ;)

 

But wont be sharing them here - refer signature block.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M1A2C IMO is a great tank. The SEP V2 is a great tank also. Just lack of maintenance and sitting in the motorpool, the tank goes to crap. The V3’s made it easier for crews to do 2 level maintenance in the field while at the same time saving down time of the tank. The V3 also has faster FCS processing along with many other improvements. The CROWS-LP is also a big improvement over the previous version with FCS improvements. The Armor on the Hull and Turret has been redesigned for the lastest modern threats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, daskal said:

What about the engine - is the turbine going to be replaced?

 

Well the link says: "The M1A2 SEP V3 is motorized with an Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine."

 

So "No", at least as per the current specs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How good is the CROWS system? I remember the old CWS on the A1 was so touchy in power mode that most TC's used the commander's override to lay the 50 cal in azimuth.  Also good way to knock your loaders head in was to forget or not lock in good the crappy leaver to power after using the manual mode to lay the 50 cal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

eMiXrIa.jpg

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

aWQwiLi.jpg

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.

07wkNxf.jpg

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.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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.

vqAtNMU.jpg
syZkZma.jpg
U9PZDha.jpg

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.

iRvK1xk.jpg

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

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

PtB1aSP.jpg
oncWxc1.jpg
KdRPpAl.jpg
hwUcBTn.jpg
5mtFEej.jpg
t1CDgvv.jpg
AER1dIn.jpg

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

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 19/03/2019 at 6:13 PM, Damian90 said:


Maybe because new FLIR needs a development cycle,

 

M1a2 sep v2 or m1a2c has been in development for how long already?

 

 

Quote

 

something completely normal in real world of adults...

 

M1a2 sep v2 or m1a2c has been in development for 

 

 

Yet your entire response is that of a whiny little 6 year old child.......

 

Quote

 



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?

 

 

Yes it can but not as 3ffective within aforemention former los limitations as apposed to increasing thicker los turret or going leopard route and having the bolted on armor. atop main turret

Quote

 



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.

 

This is misleading

M1e1 was being tested even before m1ip was produced.  Until m1 with 120mm cannon was ready it was chosen to have m1ip produced as interim

 

Even Your own history of american tanks thread yourself determined at the end of the day m1a1 was still using Burlington 2. Same armor as preceding m1ip.

Quote



vqAtNMU.jpg
syZkZma.jpg
U9PZDha.jpg

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

 

 

 

"What does have to do with the price of fish? 

 

This  thread is about m1a2c . My prior question never had anything to do with  the m1a1 or other games? 

 

Seriously damien try responding without being a condescending  turd for once. And address the points with a rational thought and proofs not with a mental rant and condescending ad hominum tones. 

 

 

 

Quote


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.

 

 

 

Yes a totally uncalled for one. I think you really need to see a mental health care professional to deal with your anger issues.

 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Damian90 said:

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.

PtB1aSP.jpg
oncWxc1.jpg
KdRPpAl.jpg
hwUcBTn.jpg
5mtFEej.jpg
t1CDgvv.jpg
AER1dIn.jpg

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

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

qaS8q4v.jpg
eNoX0iu.jpg
5cMCW8o.jpg
ROI52Up.jpg
UfHafMy.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Damian90 said:

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.

 

 

I would be interested in knowing what the threat profile for the M1A1 was meant to face. Most of the documentation on APFSDS available to the USSR in the early to mid 1980s was that they performed very poorly against spaced composite arrays.  IIRC a BM-22 loses 30% of its pen ability just by impacting a thin steel plate and having 500mm of air before the next layer of steel. So against the M1 I suspect the round would have preformed poorly. The more the angle of impact of the short tungsten slug goes up the more likely it will shatter against the RHA black plate of the M1...RHA equivalence be dammed...

 

So CIA statements about the M1 400mm worth of KE protection I suspect apply against early monoblock designs M774, XM-578...  Applying it to steel W slug designs the  protection probably goes up a great deal.

 

I suspect that the M1A1 was designed with protection against more advanced APFSDS designs in mind as well as tandem warheads. The thought was that the next gen of  125mm apfsds would pen around 450mm (0 deg?) at normal battle ranges. The the need for the beefed up protection.

 

Whatever the armor array of the M1A1 is, it was almost certainly tested against M833 and M829.

 

M833 DU long rod, is slightly heavier then the BM-42 W, the M833 a bit slower at normal combat range, however the monoblock DU design is probably better against complex arrays. "If" the M1A1 stopped the M833 it probably has a decent chance against Bm-32 and 42 from most normal engagement ranges.

 

That said I don't think there were many if any BM-42s delivered to front line units before 1988.

 

From what I can tell and rough back of the envelope calculations suggest that if  BRL-2 (or whatever it is called) has around 530-550mm vs KE and around 1000mm vs CE it has slightly higher TE efficiency against CE and slightly lower against KE as German C-tech which we have a reasonable measure of.

 

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Damian90 said:

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

Yeah, well, so were the L60 & 5TDF Engines.

These ACE units are likely going to have issues.

 

Higher stressed engines are going to go pop more often.

 

22 hours ago, Damian90 said:

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.

Well by your definition the M1A2SEPv3 shpuld be called the M1A3

 

New Armour arrays on the turret, a new FCS with a new FLIR system

Were these not all changes made between the M1A1 & M1A2 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, EasyE said:

 

 

I would be interested in knowing what the threat profile for the M1A1 was meant to face. Most of the documentation on APFSDS available to the USSR in the early to mid 1980s was that they performed very poorly against spaced composite arrays.  IIRC a BM-22 loses 30% of its pen ability just by impacting a thin steel plate and having 500mm of air before the next layer of steel. So against the M1 I suspect the round would have preformed poorly. The more the angle of impact of the short tungsten slug goes up the more likely it will shatter against the RHA black plate of the M1...RHA equivalence be dammed...

 

So CIA statements about the M1 400mm worth of KE protection I suspect apply against early monoblock designs M774, XM-578...  Applying it to steel W slug designs the  protection probably goes up a great deal.

 

I suspect that the M1A1 was designed with protection against more advanced APFSDS designs in mind as well as tandem warheads. The thought was that the next gen of  125mm apfsds would pen around 450mm (0 deg?) at normal battle ranges. The the need for the beefed up protection.

 

Whatever the armor array of the M1A1 is, it was almost certainly tested against M833 and M829.

 

M833 DU long rod, is slightly heavier then the BM-42 W, the M833 a bit slower at normal combat range, however the monoblock DU design is probably better against complex arrays. "If" the M1A1 stopped the M833 it probably has a decent chance against Bm-32 and 42 from most normal engagement ranges.

 

That said I don't think there were many if any BM-42s delivered to front line units before 1988.

 

From what I can tell and rough back of the envelope calculations suggest that if  BRL-2 (or whatever it is called) has around 530-550mm vs KE and around 1000mm vs CE it has slightly higher TE efficiency against CE and slightly lower against KE as German C-tech which we have a reasonable measure of.

 

Cheers

 

The problem is that people misunderstand the very beginning of this story, which is protection requirements for the M1 which... we do not know. Often mentioned requirements like 115mm APFSDS at 800m is not for M1 but for XM1 before it got BRL-1 armor package. This requirement was for the US spaced armor that used steel and aluminium layers. However during development of the XM1 in to the M1 armor design was redesigned several times. Heck the FSED phase vehicle wich we can consider very late prototypes or pre production vehicles also changed, the early FSED XM1 had a slightly different armor design especially on turret to the late FSED XM1 and the production M1.

Another thing is the steel used for M1 production. Often mentioned steel is RHA but M1's armor is also made from HHS, and hardness ranges from over 300 to over 400 BHN and from over 400 to over 500 BHN, most of the estimations tough seems to use only most standard RHA.

Another thing is that NERA type armor do not always have same performance, it can be adjusted both vs KE and CE by use of more energetic reactive layers, for example simple NERA uses rubber between steel plates, while more advanced variants can use polyurethane or other more energetic materials. Same goes with steel plates, as both softer and harder plates can be used.

Another factor is simply how much armor volume M1 have at the front. In case of M1 front hull and turret protection was equall, as both have the same thickness of ~750mm. In case of M1IP, M1A1 and M1A2 turret got thickness boost up to ~950mm while hull front remained the same. Of course internal armor composition also changed becoming more effective. IMHO M1 series are simply underestimated considering that by pure armor volume they have the thickest composite armor of all tanks.

And M1A2C seems to have slightly thicker armor at the front.

And so if we compare pure composite armor thickness with other tanks.

Leopard 2 series on avarage have ~650mm on the turret front and ~600mm on the hull front, as considered by current estimations and meassurements.

Challenger 1 had on avarage ~460mm on turret front and on hull front ~330mm per current estimations.

Challenger 2 had on avarage ~670mm on turret front and ~330mm on hull front per current estimations.

Keep in mind I talk here only about physical thickness or armor volume. But then again, even if we consider that all of these vehicles use only NERA type arrays, and these NERA arrays are comparable in performance (and why they should not be?), why the heck M1 series are underestimated and other MBT's are overestimated is beyond me.

And then again we also know that at some point NERA type arrays were hybridized with a passive composite arrays. Adding steel/ceramic/steel layers, or stee/depleted uranium alloy/steel layers, or even layers of armor grade titanium alloy.

We know US did that with M1's where all above improvements were added. Challenger 1 was never improved in that regard, while Challenger 2 is unclear, some sources claim DU was added to it's Dorchester armor, some says Tungsten.

What about Leopard 2? Was some dense metal added? Or perhaps something like titanium? Or perhaps it's only still NERA type with more efficent steel plates and reactive layers.

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surströmming... stacked cans of Surströmming from one end to the other. No self-respecting sabot is going to subject itself to that experience so they just stop on impact. God help us if we ever go to war with the Swedes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Damian90 said:

The problem is that people misunderstand the very beginning of this story, which is protection requirements for the M1 which... we do not know. Often mentioned requirements like 115mm APFSDS at 800m is not for M1 but for XM1 before it got BRL-1 armor package. This requirement was for the US spaced armor that used steel and aluminium layers. However during development of the XM1 in to the M1 armor design was redesigned several times. Heck the FSED phase vehicle wich we can consider very late prototypes or pre production vehicles also changed, the early FSED XM1 had a slightly different armor design especially on turret to the late FSED XM1 and the production M1.

 

According to the document bellow a version of the armor "technology"  in the XM-1 offered protection against a 115mm  DU APFSDS fired at a velocity I suspect is above 1600m/s across 25 deg arc, when fitted to an IFV. So in is possible that the M1 production model was protected against such ammunition. So we know that the M1 armor could have been tested against DU apfsds. What round? M774 with a increased propellant?  Basic  pen calc suggest suggest that would do around 380-420mm at 0 at close range.

 

Makes the CIA docs seem somewhat close, and referring to a DU monoblock round as the baseline for the RHA equivalence.

WYxn6dzl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, EasyE said:

According to the document bellow a version of the armor "technology"  in the XM-1 offered protection against a 115mm  DU APFSDS fired at a velocity I suspect is above 1600m/s across 25 deg arc, when fitted to an IFV. So in is possible that the M1 production model was protected against such ammunition. So we know that the M1 armor could have been tested against DU apfsds. What round? M774 with a increased propellant?  Basic  pen calc suggest suggest that would do around 380-420mm at 0 at close range.

 

Makes the CIA docs seem somewhat close, and referring to a DU monoblock round as the baseline for the RHA equivalence.

WYxn6dzl.jpg

It is possible, a threat assesment through ballistic tests can be adjusted through changing distance and propelant charge.

 

The thing is US is very reluctant to release true data even for the basic M1... despite the fact that this variant is not in service for decades now and it's armor protection can be considered as obsolete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...