The Armored Vehicle Thread

I do wonder what the type 10 looks like without its bolt on armor now though.

Given that that bolt on armor makes up 20% of its weight, I imagine its pretty different like the leopard is.

The picture isn’t amazing quality, but you can see the shape of the bolt on sections here. [1]

Well, that's one way to get heated seats...

Thanksies, I have also learned from talking with an SDF friend that every single one of our tank designs has had a completely different driving control setup....

This does not seem like the best idea, since it seems like it would make retraining harder. ._.;

I wanna take a tour on a tank now

Any one want to see the inside of a type 90?

Hey, you wanna see me conduct an SRB audit?!

Going to take that as a yes, any way sorry about the shitty picure quality, but as far as I know the ministry of defence still doesn't let any one talk about the type 90, so its not like the type 74 where I can get nice clean pictures of the interior.

divers cabin from behind◊

Drivers cabin from the side◊

Commanders Copula◊

And as a bonus for an apology about the poor picture quality, something a bit easier to find but no less interesting Its autoloader in action

If the commander loses the little touchscreen pen is that considered a mission kill.

Do they bail out and scuttle the tank at that point

Soon we’re going to have tanks with voice activated controls.

Is he obliged to "apologize to His Majesty"?

I have a question.

Say you have a tank, and your tank takes a substantial hit, but through dumb luck, the grace of gods, quality enginnering, or any combination of the above survives.

The problem is it now has a decently sized hole in it, or at least a crater cutting down to the deepest armour layers.

How do you fix that? I can't imagine you would write the whole tank off, but that kind of damage won't just buff out either... Do you have to rebuild that whole section of tank to fix the armor? Is it made of panels like a balistics vest so you can just replace that segment? Or is there a method to patching up tank armor?

That depends on the construction of the tank and the level of equipment you have to work with to fix it.

Some sections can absolutely just be removed and replaced by undamaged ones but some stuff like the hull means you might have to ship it back to the factory to be recycled.

If you're at a depot or the factory you can perform some pretty extensive repair.

If you're in some FOB or a field camp you might just have to weld a piece of plate over the hole and call it a day for now.

At a factory level tank repair usually looks something like taking the entire vehicle apart and then putting it back together with undamaged parts. Assuming of course the hull hasn't been compromised.

Edited by LeGarcon on Apr 1st 2019 at 6:27:48 AM

Garcon: The hull can be repaired in the vast majority of cases without going to the factory. If your tanks hull is that badly mangled it has to go to the factory it likely didn't survive whatever hit it. The hull is the general shape of the tank and is what the armor hangs on. If the chassis got mangled that would be different.

Most armor these days is as you know layers of different materials. It basically boils down to cutting the damaged armor off of the tank, mounting a replacement section, welding it in place, and then covering everything back up with the layers and painting it back over. Internals are repaired or replaced as needed. Since tanks made the transition to armor being welded, that is how it has been done because there is really no other way. The operation itself requires a hoist or crane to lift up armor sections, oxy-acetylene torches, and other materials. Armor is actually several carefully welded together sections that have the weld marks ground down even with the armor face and painted over in most cases. The actual details are a bit more involved and involve more tools but a rear echelon tank yard could do the repairs. If any major systems are hit that can be replaced or repaired in most rear echelon tank yards and maybe some of the field ones depending on how well they are kitted out.

You are unlikely to have to send it to a factory short of catastrophic damage. The bulk of the work could be done by 3rd echelon shops and a decent chunk of the work can be done by 2nd echelon shops. Patching armor is common enough that as long as nothing important or major like the engine or gun isn't taken out as well the 2nd echelon could do it.

For the curious Echelons in terms of maintenance go like this. 1st-Users-the tanks crew, 2nd-Units maintenance shop does a lot of general upkeep and most repair work that doesn't require major replacement or specialized training and tools, 3rd-Basically short of a major depot and is usually a rear area element-they can do just about everything and have special tools and training to do it with, 4th Echelon would be major tank repair locations run by the military that would be stateside repair and maintenance, and 5th Echelon is Depot/Factory level maintenance that is the folks who make the thing.

What's the difference between the proper chassis and the hull then? The hull is just the box it's all attached to, I figured if that was fucked you just needed to start over.

And I knew that you could just cut out chunks and replace them as needed but I figured that was a much more involved process and you needed to send it home for that.

I guess the depots are bigger than I thought.

Chassis is the basic framework. The hull includes pretty much everything short of the engine, armor, gun, and electronics. You would have to seriously fuck up the entire hull likely damaging the chassis in the process to have it forced to the depot. Most consider the chassis for the tank to be the lower portion that contains the drive train and automotive parts with or without the engine depending on design. The hull is the rest of the tanks basic structure mounted onto the chassis. Armor layers on top of that and the hull has the mountings for every other bit.

Armor repairs have to be able to be carried out short of front line conditions but there have been various experiments with armor patches for tanks, APC's, and IFV's. You need to be able to reasonably replace damaged armor segments without major automotive shops otherwise you couldn't do logistically viable tank combat. Most of the armor is somewhat modular making it a bit easier. You need a crane or hoist to lift off various pieces though. There are some that could feasibly be in a FOB or forward area but I don't recall even seeing them in the forward areas of exercises.

If the armor has been breached, it’s going to need to go back to a supply depot or the manufacturer. There’s going to be a lot of work that needs to be done on the interior. Forward repairs are usually for the smaller stuff, like a busted hatch or light armor damage.

Archon: That is simply not true. Armor repair is a non-issue and survived armor penetration has happened on several occasions without a tank having to go back to a depot or factory. They can do the bulk of repairs below that level and frequently do. Unless the tank got more seriously damaged an armor breach is not automatic send back home or send to depot marker. There were several tanks knocked temporarily out of action in the First Gulf War that had full on armor breaches into internal spaces but was back in action in about a week and some that were less. There were several in the recent wars that were penned by various weapons but never left the theatre and were back in the field a month or two later. The crews go down for longer than the tanks. Even the Challenger two that got that lucky hit on a weld seam was back in action in short order.

If the bulk of the internals required depot or greater maintenance the Abrams would be a damn near permanent depot queen.

The vast majority of the internals are plug and play parts that sit in various forms of mounting brackets or easily removed and maintained spaces. You would have to really fuck up the tank interior to make those non-replaceable. The wiring and tubing is easy to replace and cheaper to replace than repair, ammo stowage is racks with a simple hydraulic door. The biggest parts like the engine and the gun require a lot more work by comparison. The engine can be replaced in the field as well under some conditions. the gun requires an extra effort like bore sighting and alignment.

Yes, some tanks that have been penetrated have had to go back to depot or factory but that is not true for all of them. It entirely depends on the amount of damage done in each case.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Apr 2nd 2019 at 7:48:18 AM

Wasn't it basically a case that if a tank in WW 2 took a penetrating hit and then caught fire there was no depot level repair? Basically send the hulk to be melted down and a new tank made from it?

That is a catastrophic kill as it also tended to cook the ammo off. They regularly patched up less severely damaged tanks and had them back out in the field in less than a month. They may have had to hose out the tanks and replace some kit but it happened even then. Tanks these days are harder to slaughter at least the models used by the nations Frontline examples that are not imported.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Apr 3rd 2019 at 5:45:29 AM

General Dynamics submits the Ajax for Phase 3 of Australian Army's LAND 400 program.

For those unfamiliar, the Australian Forces Command's regular component is based around three combined arms brigades, each consisting of an armoured cav regiment, a motorised battalion, a mechanised battalion and assorted support units. The program's Phase 2 is set to replace the ASLAVs that make up the recce components of the cav regiments with Boxer CRVs, while Phase 3 is about finding a replacement for the M113AS4s of the mechanised battalions (which were often replaced by borrowed ASLAVs in recent deployments because of how obsolescent they are).

There are also several non-armoured cav regiments in the reserve forces, which operate Bushmaster PMVs.

What are they going to do with the rest of the IFV's?

The ASLAVs and M113s? Prolly gonna be donated to some other countries.

Below the Turret Ring did a comparison of the Phase 2 competitors a while back.

An article from May. The US Army is basically looking to further up-gun the Bradley/Bradley replacement to a 50mm and have passed up the 40mm CTA gun. The gun system they are looking at is a Bushmaster 50mm Variant.

On the one hand, the relative success the Russians have had with the 57mm gun for the BMP in trials shows this might be a good idea.

On the other, I don't trust them not to do something weird to the Bradley and end up with some abomination of an IFV again.