The Armored Vehicle Thread

Ajax is pretty beefy it is hitting 38 metric tonnes vs the M2's 27.5 metric tonnes. That is a heavy beast. The M3 Bradley basically puts in some observer seats and converts the passenger space into ammo stowage. This is the scout variant of the Bradley and has similar armaments but greater capacity for stowed ammo and other systems.

I'd feel better if we had some newer gen reactive armor as well.

An APS is absolute must though

^ We have Trophy coming online. We'll probably end up with that on everything that can fit it.

Last I heard only select Abrams detachments were going to get fitted.

But I could see it going either way.

They are starting with what is heading to Europe and the it would bleed over to the rest. They are also interested in iron curtain again for smaller and lighter vehicles.

Iraqi Armored Brigade Ditches US M1 Abrams Tanks For Russian T-90s.

Mr Trevithick seems to be under the mistaken impression that lighter = inferior. The T-90 weighs 48 tons because it is smaller and has less need for massive armor for the same protection. Also Abrams is the less advanced vehicle, still running on 1940s logic of manned loaders.

In a 1 on 1 fight with an Abrams vs a T-90 it's going to come down to who has the better crew and who hits who first. T-90 is for all practical intents and purposes just as "advanced" as any Abrams.

That is a fair enough assessment. The T-90 might also be cheaper for them to run and maintain especially its automotive parts. The T-90 runs a diesel engine while the Abrams is still using its turbine.

In a 1 on 1 it depends on the terrain and who can see who first more than anything

With it's ATGMs the T-90 has almost twice the engagement distance of the Abrams. It just needs one hit to the side and the Abrams is toast.

edited 10th Jun '18 7:31:02 AM by LeGarcon

Garcon: Penetrating a tanks side armor with modern HEAT or long rod penetrators is not exactly an outstanding feat on its own. You could say the same about pretty much any modern tank. Given pretty much all tanks have thinner side armor in several places that can be defeated by even some older generation AT weapons.

True but it's more about the massive range the T-90 has over the Abrams more than anything.

Why we never went full in on gun launched ATGMs I will never understand.

Garcon: The US keeps toying with Gun Launched Missiles of one variety or another. Most of them were actually some form of guided kinetic projectile and a couple were explosively based. The Israelis LAHAT can supposedly be mad to work with the Abrams provided it has a targeting system for the missile. Which if they ever get their shit together the next iteration of Abrams and future tanks will so they can leverage the new smart ammo like AMP shell which effectively requires such a system to leverage all of its built in capabilities.

Ok we have seen X-rod, STAFF, and MRM XM-1110 for the long range kinetic options. They all shared the same general trait. Long range fire and forget guided rocket boosted kinetic penetrators. Basically a tank fired KKV. They showed some promise but they all got cut in budget battles.

The Shillelagh made for the Sheridan was a failure in both missile and gun design which I think soured the US on the concept for a while. The last US attempt which did rather well was also part of the MRM (Medium Range Munition) program XM 1111 which managed to take out a moving T-72 tank target at about 8km. This was a fire and forget top down attack missile IIRC.

It isn't that the US hasn't tried or that it stays dead but it can't survive the political environment long enough to get put into production.

edited 10th Jun '18 10:34:16 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Somehow this reminds me a lot of Mc Nair battle need doctrine and the focus on extended range for US tank cannons been seen as something not needed at the moment.

The thing is, the US keeps coming back to saying yes they need it but it always ends up on the sacrificial slab as an easier to let go program. It is about politics as much it is anything else. We saw something similar in our mobile artillery programs. They keep killing artillery the army says it needs to be better. Rumsfield claims about it and his justification for cutting it were utter bull shit. It was one of the sacrificial items axed to fund the war on terror.

edited 10th Jun '18 12:32:02 PM by TuefelHundenIV

So this is a thing. The Strong Europe Tank Challenge.

Naturally the US didn't win. (Nor have we won any of the three done so far.)

Makes me wonder, what if we invited Russia to join in on the fun of this? And in return we give it a shot at their Tank Biathlon? What's the harm in that? I'm pretty sure there's nothing either of our intelligence agencies doesn't already know about the other side's stuff so espionage concerns are minimal.

Ok I did some poking around for what they are looking to put into Abrams SEP V.4 which some chuckle heads are calling "Super Abrams".

There is a lot of data and sensor upgrades going into this future variant. The gist of it is this. Sep. v2 and v3 which the Army has already started receiving v3 are laying the ground work for the sum total of upgrades for v4.

The list is at best tentative as the exact details of the vehicle are classified to the general public and some of these changes will require changes not openly listed.

Newer laser rangefinder technology, color cameras, integrated on-board networks, new slip-rings, advanced meteorological sensors, ammunition data links, next Gen FLIR/Thermal systems with higher definition resolutions, rearward facing cameras and sensors are on some lists, and laser warning receivers. Other changes are automotive improvements, APU improvements, new ammo in the AMP round, integration of APS systems possibly both hard and soft kill, more ERA options, and changes to armor material.

This is basically the all the possible bells and whistles variant of the Abrams and these suckers won't be cheap.

The possible armor changes after some digging around in DTIC, ARL, think tanks, and university work on armor is likely to be some sort of new armor composite. It has a strong chance to be a new carbon fiber and ceramic composite with some possibility of a new base layer armor being Composite Metal foam. All of these options have about ten years of active inquiry, tests, and research into their use as vehicle armor for all vehicles including tanks.

Some of the unlisted changes will be obvious changes and upgrades for the targeting computer systems to be able to fully integrate all the new sensor data, new ammo info, and the new laser/ammo data link systems. It may also integrate some of the APS data as well but that is purely speculative.

But like I noted we won't actually know any ion depth details just the speculative ones based on what info is available. That will be the case until sometime down the round with the active testing starting in the early 2020's unless the project gets accelerated.

This will also likely be the last variant upgrade of the Abrams as various designers and engineers have pointed out the tank is effectively running out of upgrade options. From the sounds of it the work on the V4 will help inform the design and technology applications of the next gen US tank which is looking increasingly like it will be lighter vehicle in one way or another.

edited 14th Jun '18 5:15:39 PM by TuefelHundenIV

It's just getting too damn heavy is the problem.

Still, that we've finally got modern reactive armor and APS options is good news.

Too heavy, too big, too specialized (a Cold War tank intended to fight many tanks, it's a poor fighter at anything else compared to earlier tanks), too dependent upon the logistics chain (that turbine engine is really problematic for many reasons), and more.

Frankly it's also getting technologically obsolete in every way with new improvements to armor, sensors, reliable autoloaders that aren't Russian, new engines, remote controlled turrets, and more.

A future successor to Abrams should be no heavier than 50 tons fully kitted out (ideally even less, closer to 40 tons), be a lot smaller in profile, reduce the crew to three using autoloaders, and ideally a remote controlled main turret.

That's what I've been saying <.<

I think 40 is a bit unrealistic to expect though, as long as it's under 60 I think we'll be ok.

edited 14th Jun '18 6:43:42 PM by LeGarcon

The Japanese presently field a tank that weighs 44 tons, the Type 10. With a few more improvements, particularly improvements in materials sciences such as graphene armor, that foam stuff Tuffel was talking about and next generation APS, you could easily have a 40 ton tank be as survivable as an Abrams or better.

Anything over 50 tons risks being too fat.

Only in it's least armored variations though. And even at 48 tons which is it's heaviest armor loadout it lacks ERA, active protection, and things like an EW suite and other goodies.

ERA and APS aren't very heavy, it's why they were developed. The amount of armor (composite or otherwise) needed to stop modern HEAT rounds and KEP munitions has been becoming increasingly weight-prohibitive.

Nobody wants a tank that weighs 100+ metric tons outside of Games Workshop.

In the Type 10 example, it wouldn't surprise me if you fitted modern ERA and a Trophy system to it and it still comes in under 50 tons.

So I say we take the Sherman design and kit it out with the latest bells and whistles and gee-whiz egghead armor, maybe strap a couple of anti-tank missile tubes to it.

^ Would it still require 2 drivers?

Assistant Driver position has been redesignated as the "DJ", and is responsible for cuing up sweet Butt Rock tracks to play during combat, or Taylor Swift tracks to jam out to during patrols or movements.

. . . why Taylor Swift tracks of all corny pop music?