Jump to content


Photo

Us Army Now Fitting Trophy Aps System To Some M1A2S


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 TOW-2

TOW-2

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 October 2017 - 1953 PM

http://www.thedrive....otection-system



#2 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,143 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 October 2017 - 2207 PM

About time, wonder if it will actually get adopted?



#3 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2017 - 0158 AM

https://imgur.com/gallery/rEdpy

Horstman suspension upgrades for Abrams.

Edited by 2805662, 11 October 2017 - 0159 AM.


#4 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2017 - 0200 AM

https://imgur.com/gallery/qjskc

Trophy models - including Stryker.

#5 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 October 2017 - 0710 AM

That's going to exceed width limits for railway transportation.



#6 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2017 - 0800 AM

So, is that official confirmation of fuck-up of domestic APS programs?

#7 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 11 October 2017 - 0900 AM

So, is that official confirmation of fuck-up of domestic APS programs?

 

I don't think so. They now buy a few systems to fill the urgent requirement for units at the front and hope to bridge the time until the american system matures and is ready. But interim solutions last the longest.



#8 TOW-2

TOW-2

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2017 - 1134 AM

Wait, Panzermann?  Matures?  b-b-but the reports were that Trophy was the immature system and what Raytheon was going to field would be so much better than Trophy!

 

/sarcasm



#9 TOW-2

TOW-2

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2017 - 1135 AM

That's going to exceed width limits for railway transportation.

 

Yeah; unless it is field-expedient to remove and bolt back on.  I was thinking along similar lines (transportation issues with those big snoopy ears).



#10 TOW-2

TOW-2

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2017 - 1136 AM

About time, wonder if it will actually get adopted?

 

I can only hope.  Seeing at least 1 M1 deadlined and its crew injured by a simple off-angle RPG-7 shot back in Iraq in 2003 should've been a wakeup call that the Army needed a system back then, not almost fifteen years later.



#11 TOW-2

TOW-2

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2017 - 1137 AM

Also I wonder if this is a step towards readiness for a war with NorthBest Korea.



#12 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 October 2017 - 1217 PM

 

About time, wonder if it will actually get adopted?

 

I can only hope.  Seeing at least 1 M1 deadlined and its crew injured by a simple off-angle RPG-7 shot back in Iraq in 2003 should've been a wakeup call that the Army needed a system back then, not almost fifteen years later.

 

 

Tanks don't need to be invulnerable to succeed. In fact, the nigh-invulnerable ones may be much less useful than compromise designs.

T-34, and Shermans were quite easily penetrated and knocked out in '43-'45 and still very useful (more useful than the heavy tanks that could have been had at the same budget instead) - and the Panzer III/IV and Pz. 38(t) of 1939-1941 were little more than bulletproofed, easily penetrated by all weapons calibre 25 mm and bigger - that was during the high tide of the German tank arm successes.

 

Really good anti-MBT munitions are really heavy, and should rather not be carried ion infantry missions where hostile MBTs are not expected. Protection against lesser shaped charge threats (such as RPG-26, M136) does not require APS.

ATGMs (other than the few mmW-guided ones) can be defeated pretty well with multispectral smoke that deploys in less than a second, so there's no real need for hard kill APS to defeat ATGMs either.

 

I liked the idea of hard kill APS  A LOT for years, but I'm moving towards KISS. Modern MBTs are already complicated electronic wonders with all those communications, engine control, sensors, warning devices and displays without any additional APS.

 

 

What I do advocate is all-round double redundancy panoramic (LL)TV vision, complete with automatic detection of possible threats (vehicles and missiles, to be confirmed by a crewmember) and "see-through-armour" HMDs. This could also be awesome if the backwards acceleration and speed is high, so the front-seated driver could drive backwards at high speed with little risk of accidents (compared to battlefield threat risks).



#13 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,143 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2017 - 1247 PM

 

So, is that official confirmation of fuck-up of domestic APS programs?

 

I don't think so. They now buy a few systems to fill the urgent requirement for units at the front and hope to bridge the time until the american system matures and is ready. But interim solutions last the longest.

 

 

Well that logic makes sense, but in that case we should have had it 10+ years ago -- but NIH and all that.  Which is a fickle thing since we sometimes use stuff that's NIH.

As far as I can tell this is just a "look what we can do for you" which of course may not go anywhere


Edited by Burncycle360, 11 October 2017 - 1305 PM.


#14 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,218 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 16 October 2017 - 0132 AM

Is there any reason you couldn't remove the stowage boxes on the sides of the turret and move the whole APS package a bit closer to the turret? Might help keep trees from eating it.



#15 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 October 2017 - 0241 AM

Is there any reason you couldn't remove the stowage boxes on the sides of the turret and move the whole APS package a bit closer to the turret? Might help keep trees from eating it.


Crew stowage & vehicle equipment still has to go somewhere.

#16 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,218 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 16 October 2017 - 0314 AM

Crew stowage & vehicle equipment still has to go somewhere.

True but could other positions for that be found?

Not to move this discussion off-topic but how do other nations handle crew stowage in their MBT designs? You don't usually see that "gypsy wagon" look on the Challenger 2 for example.



#17 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 October 2017 - 0441 AM

CR2 has integral stowage bins as part of the bustle. Helps if you only deploy tanks once every decade or so, too.

Regardless, Abrams as designed, has had the turret bins from the outset.

#18 Tim Sielbeck

Tim Sielbeck

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Tanks, Steel Beasts, WW1 aviation, Epees

Posted 16 October 2017 - 1939 PM

The original M-1s did not.



#19 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 October 2017 - 0516 AM

The original M-1s did not.


They were smaller, but definitely there. M-1, not XM-1.

#20 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 17 October 2017 - 0755 AM

 

The original M-1s did not.


They were smaller, but definitely there. M-1, not XM-1.

 

 

Differences_between_Abrams_versions.jpg






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users