Jump to content


Photo

History Of Us Army Afvs

Cold War US Army upgrades history M60 M1 Abrams M113

  • Please log in to reply
868 replies to this topic

#861 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,635 posts

Posted 03 December 2019 - 0640 AM

The kind of accidents that anti-skid paint prevents tend to be at the low end of reportable incidents, unless they happen to result in a fall from height or perhaps if they occur when handling live munitions.

From a UK legislative perspective (I know you're discussing US gear), it would be very difficult to argue against using this type of textured surface coating because it would not be possible to argue that it wasn't unconditionally better, and the marginal cost would be negligible.

In other words, it won't cost enough extra over the original coating compared to the expected reduction in minor injuries, with some outliers up to and including death that could conceivably have been prevented
  • 0

#862 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,472 posts

Posted 11 December 2019 - 1305 PM

Why some M1s from early 80-s have welding line on the right rear hull plate and some not?

fdcbeeb3821a.jpg


  • 0

#863 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 668 posts

Posted 24 April 2020 - 0629 AM

New MPF photos from GD. The chassis is taken from an ASCOD, I believe, but the hull is newly made to reduce the profile.

49810078662_adbd3834c5_k-1.jpg

 

https://twitter.com/...561720003387392


Edited by Mighty_Zuk, 24 April 2020 - 0630 AM.

  • 0

#864 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,219 posts

Posted 24 April 2020 - 0856 AM

What I have never got is how is that better than well modernized T-72 considering it is practically same weight class?


Edited by bojan, 24 April 2020 - 0857 AM.

  • 0

#865 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 668 posts

Posted 24 April 2020 - 0923 AM

What I have never got is how is that better than well modernized T-72 considering it is practically same weight class?

38 tons seems to be the maximum weight allowed for that thing. I don't think it weighs any more than 20-25 tons in the configuration shown above. With close to 20 tons in add-on armor, it should have far better overall protection than the T-72.


  • 0

#866 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 939 posts

Posted 24 April 2020 - 0946 AM

It certainly will weigh more than 20 short tons in that configuration. It is physically larger than a CV90120-T, while at the same time being fitted with bolt-on armor. The CV90120-T starts at 26 metric tons without bolt-on armor and reaches more than 30 metric tons when fitted with applique armor.

 

 

Note the steel tracks. At less than 30 metric tons it most likely would come with rubber-band tracks.


Edited by methos, 24 April 2020 - 0947 AM.

  • 0

#867 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 668 posts

Posted 24 April 2020 - 1103 AM

I didn't use short tons, they don't even exist IMO. I always use metric tons. 

Second, I said 20-25 ton range. 

Third, it's not larger than the CV90120. The CV has 7 wheels and its hull is only slightly modified and does not have a low profile. The Griffin has 6 wheels and uses a new low profile hull on ASCOD chassis.

Fourth, rubber tracks can be used on anything at around 40 tons, and soon even on around 50 tons, but there's no point in designing automotive components for a 20-25 ton vehicle when its upper limit is requested to be 38 tons. The M8 indeed looks smaller, and it doesn't even fully reach 20 tons in its basic configuration, but can get quite beefy with extra armor. I'm not sure though if the M8 can grow to 38 tons, and I'm also not sure it will remain physically as small if it were to accommodate new automotive components that will push its weight limit to 38.


  • 0

#868 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,395 posts

Posted 24 April 2020 - 1522 PM

double tap. 


Edited by DKTanker, 24 April 2020 - 1523 PM.

  • 0

#869 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 939 posts

Posted 25 April 2020 - 0346 AM

I didn't use short tons, they don't even exist IMO. I always use metric tons. 

Second, I said 20-25 ton range. 

Third, it's not larger than the CV90120. The CV has 7 wheels and its hull is only slightly modified and does not have a low profile. The Griffin has 6 wheels and uses a new low profile hull on ASCOD chassis.

Fourth, rubber tracks can be used on anything at around 40 tons, and soon even on around 50 tons, but there's no point in designing automotive components for a 20-25 ton vehicle when its upper limit is requested to be 38 tons. The M8 indeed looks smaller, and it doesn't even fully reach 20 tons in its basic configuration, but can get quite beefy with extra armor. I'm not sure though if the M8 can grow to 38 tons, and I'm also not sure it will remain physically as small if it were to accommodate new automotive components that will push its weight limit to 38.

The number of road wheel pairs is a misleading metric, as spacing and diameter are not constant factors. The original Puma IFV design had five pairs of road wheels, the series production model has six pairs - yet the length of the hull remained the same. The Lynx IFV - despite being significantly larger than a CV90 and a Puma IFV - has only six roadwheels.

 

The Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle from General Dynamics is tall - very tall. It is taller than an Abrams main battle tank. The new low profile hull barely reduces the profile compared to an ASCOD hull and the tall turret leads to a greater overall height.

 

DUyDf9u.jpg?1

 

Just compare the height of the men in front of the ASCOD and in front of the MPF vehicle offer from General Dynamics to the relative hull height. It is a reduction of maybe ~200 mm height at most - i.e. in the ballpark of the CV90120-T's hull height.

 

The M8 AGS is smaller and reaches its lower weight by being made of aluminium alloy armour rather than being a steel construction. General Dynamics' MPF vehicle is meanwhile based on a modified steel hull from the Griffin III prototype, which weighs 38 short tons with armor to withstand medium caliber rounds only while having an unmanned turret. It is impossible for the MPF vehicle to have 20 tons of weight reserve for add-on armor and to reach the T-72's protection level.


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Cold War, US Army, upgrades, history, M60, M1 Abrams, M113