Jump to content


Photo

Myths Of Modern U.s. Afvs


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#21 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 0409 AM

2017/2018, from documents about ordered armor packages quantity, we can assume around 2000 tanks will be upgraded, in the first batch, more batches can be ordered later for ARNG, maybe even USMC.


  • 0

#22 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,175 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 0446 AM

2017/2018, from documents about ordered armor packages quantity, we can assume around 2000 tanks will be upgraded, in the first batch, more batches can be ordered later for ARNG, maybe even USMC.

 

Interesting thanks :)


  • 0

#23 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 0951 AM

 
It also probably is the most digitized MBT today.
 


Having had the (very fortunate) opportunity to get hands-on with a project reference vehicle for the Merkava 4 back in 2008, I'd say that the M1A2 SEP v.2 is edged out in the 'most digitised MBT' front. Even assuming zero enhancements since 2008, the digital backbone of the Merkava 4, and the functionality it offered the crew, was unlike any armoured vehicle I've seen before or since.
  • 0

#24 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 0959 AM

Why you assume that M1A2SEPv2 can't be on the same level? Especially that Americans worked on vehicles digitization for far longer time and have far greater experiences.

 

In fact after a second tought, M1A2SEPv2, Leclerc SXXI, Merkava Mk4M, K2 and Type 10 all are most likely the most digitized MBT's in service right now, soon probably Altay can be added, maybe some modernized Leopard 2 variants with BMS added, dunno about Challenger 2 tough.

 

T-90SM also have BMS, however don't know how comparable it is to other systems.


Edited by Damian, 17 June 2015 - 1008 AM.

  • 0

#25 Edmund

Edmund

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,550 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 1118 AM

Why you assume that M1A2SEPv2 can't be on the same level? Especially that Americans worked on vehicles digitization for far longer time and have far greater experiences.

 

In fact after a second tought, M1A2SEPv2, Leclerc SXXI, Merkava Mk4M, K2 and Type 10 all are most likely the most digitized MBT's in service right now, soon probably Altay can be added, maybe some modernized Leopard 2 variants with BMS added, dunno about Challenger 2 tough.

 

T-90SM also have BMS, however don't know how comparable it is to other systems.

 

Chally is so awesome it doesn't need fancy electric things.  Except for something to make tea. 


  • 0

#26 sabotready15

sabotready15

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 34 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 1143 AM

2017/2018, from documents about ordered armor packages quantity, we can assume around 2000 tanks will be upgraded, in the first batch, more batches can be ordered later for ARNG, maybe even USMC.a

Which documents? are you allowed to shared them here?


  • 0

#27 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 1202 PM

These are open for public documents that are avaiable on DTIC internet archive, I can search that specific document and share it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://asafm.army.mi...forms//wtcv.pdf

 

Here page 125 in Acrobat Reader or page 109 of the document itself, we have ordered quantity of ECP modiication kits, 1605 kits total. Should be enough to equip all active ABCT's in the US Army and of course more can be ordered after the initial order.

 

At page 126 in Acrobat Reader or page 110 in document itself, there is mentioned also ordered quantity of ECP1 Next Generation Armor Packages, also 1605 in total.


Edited by Damian, 17 June 2015 - 1222 PM.

  • 0

#28 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 1501 PM

Why you assume that M1A2SEPv2 can't be on the same level? .


Fair question.

The two examples I can give are the Weapon Intgrated BMS (weapon orientation & target handoff from off board sensors) and the way in which any of the turret crew (including the loader) can conduct a target engagement sequence. From the loader's position, I identified a target with the commander's independent viewer, slewed the turret to align with the target, switched to the gunner's primary sight, ranged to the target and could've fired, had ammunition been loaded. The ability of any screen in the vehicle to display imagery from any camera on the vehicle, plus the ability for to operate the turret from the commander's, gunner's, and loader's positions, should that be required, indicated (to me) a high level of digitisation.
  • 0

#29 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 1511 PM

 

Why you assume that M1A2SEPv2 can't be on the same level? .


Fair question.

The two examples I can give are the Weapon Intgrated BMS (weapon orientation & target handoff from off board sensors) and the way in which any of the turret crew (including the loader) can conduct a target engagement sequence. From the loader's position, I identified a target with the commander's independent viewer, slewed the turret to align with the target, switched to the gunner's primary sight, ranged to the target and could've fired, had ammunition been loaded. The ability of any screen in the vehicle to display imagery from any camera on the vehicle, plus the ability for to operate the turret from the commander's, gunner's, and loader's positions, should that be required, indicated (to me) a high level of digitisation.

 

 

It's nothing unique, there are modernized Leopard 2 variants with the same capabilities, probably Turkish Altay can do the same just like their Leopard 2NG. M1A2SEPv2 do not have digitized flat screen for loader yet, but in case of ECP1 upgrades he might receive this.

Tough for me such capability is not necessary, it's nice of course.

 

By the way, what are the zoom levels for Merkava Mk4 commander and gunner sights in day and thermal channels?


  • 0

#30 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 1745 PM

Good to hear other western tanks have similar capabilities. Remember though, this was a vehicle in 2008 with fielded capabilities, not a demonstrator.

The utility, I believe, is during silent watch tasks, for example, when the commander may be issuing orders via the BMS. The driver could remain closed down & still cycle through or split screen camera feeds from around the vehicle, the gunner could scan his arcs using the different channels of his sight & the loader could use the independent viewer to scan arcs not visible to the gunner. Either the gunner or loader could commence engaging a target without having to wait for the commander to get his head in the game, or could assist the commander by creating a digital range card of the engagement/over watch area. It just adds versatility.

WRT your specific questions regarding zoom & the like, I wasn't briefed on that. Probably couldn't share the specifics, regardless.
  • 0

#31 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 1845 PM

Well the idea is kinda realized in M1A2SEPv2 as well, tough only kinda. Because CROWS-2 RWS was added, the tank in reality right now have a kind of two panoramic sights for commander. So commander can use CITV automatic scan mode and in the same time use CROWS-2 as his second directly controlled panoramic sight with integrated remotely controlled MG. It is possible because commander in a single display unit have in fact integrated two displays one for CITV and second multifunctional. The CROWS-2 itself have very good opics, with very high zoom levels, own laser range finder, day and thermal cameras and full stabilization.

 

I can imagine adding a simple control display for loader to make him able also use CITV or CROWS-2. There were also some tests made to replace loader pintle mount MG with RWS. I know USMC also made some attempts to purchase some sort of RWS for their M1A1FEP's to replace loaders pintle mount MG.

 

100_3851.jpg

nowyobrazmapybitowej2ea.png

rws_m1a2com.jpg

 

Also driver received rear view camera (this camera can be installed on any M1 variant actually, and it's hidden under the rear right light). It might be possible for him to also use his rear camera display to observe situation from other sensors but this is merely speculation from my end.

 

Truth to be told I am incredibly surprised that up to this day, Merkava Mk4 do not have any kind of RWS installed, tough I seen that on one of the prototypes, there was RWS tested.


Edited by Damian, 17 June 2015 - 1852 PM.

  • 0

#32 tankerwanabe

tankerwanabe

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,504 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 1939 PM

Such a loaded question yet incomplete. Best offensive tank? best defensive? Best desert? Best urban? IMO it has seen a ton of action, so it is the one most upgraded. On the other hand most of what I see is for urban warfare vs Foot soldiers. In tank v tank, I believe that armor has significantly overtaken guns, kind of like body armor over taking bullets technology. So we cannot really destroy each other in the frontal arc engagement. But one way of looking at it is that we (USA) can bring more Abrams to a fight than any one else bringing theirs, supported by some of the most well trained crews, and supported by some of the most deadly air, artillery and infantry.
  • 0

#33 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 1956 PM

Well the idea is kinda realized in M1A2SEPv2 as well, tough only kinda. Because CROWS-2 RWS was added, the tank in reality right now have a kind of two panoramic sights for commander. So commander can use CITV automatic scan mode and in the same time use CROWS-2 as his second directly controlled panoramic sight with integrated remotely controlled MG. It is possible because commander in a single display unit have in fact integrated two displays one for CITV and second multifunctional. The CROWS-2 itself have very good opics, with very high zoom levels, own laser range finder, day and thermal cameras and full stabilization.
 
I can imagine adding a simple control display for loader to make him able also use CITV or CROWS-2. There were also some tests made to replace loader pintle mount MG with RWS. I know USMC also made some attempts to purchase some sort of RWS for their M1A1FEP's to replace loaders pintle mount MG.
 

Also driver received rear view camera (this camera can be installed on any M1 variant actually, and it's hidden under the rear right light). It might be possible for him to also use his rear camera display to observe situation from other sensors but this is merely speculation from my end.


Great improvements, undoubtedly. But the components aren't integrated and shared. Kinda comparing chicken nuggets with a chicken - same, but different. Can anyone, other than the driver, access the feed from the reversing camera? Remember, the loader can aim & fire the main armament from his position if required - this is far more than a simple 'monitor only' screen (as useful as that would be).

I'm a huge fan of the M1 series of tanks, but I'm not sure it can be said that it has a comparable level of digitisation to the Merk 4.
  • 0

#34 bigfngun

bigfngun

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,720 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 2043 PM

Such a loaded question yet incomplete. Best offensive tank? best defensive? Best desert? Best urban? IMO it has seen a ton of action, so it is the one most upgraded. On the other hand most of what I see is for urban warfare vs Foot soldiers. In tank v tank, I believe that armor has significantly overtaken guns, kind of like body armor over taking bullets technology. So we cannot really destroy each other in the frontal arc engagement. But one way of looking at it is that we (USA) can bring more Abrams to a fight than any one else bringing theirs, supported by some of the most well trained crews, and supported by some of the most deadly air, artillery and infantry.


The question I posed refers to hole punching meaning anti tank and hole preventing meaning protection against any kind of AT weapon.
But learning about the levels of digitization is very interesting. Abrams may have some room to improve.
  • 0

#35 rathi

rathi

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 2332 PM

No modern tank has ever fought a peer opponent. Hell, no modern piece of anything has ever fought against a peer opponent. Nobody has a clue what a high intensity war would be like, assuming there even is one during the service of current munitions. You can do a decent job of analyzing WW2 gear because you have fully understood technology backed by copious records with vast samples of combat experience. Current stuff is classified, fully of marketing BS or defense contractor shenanigans and has only been used against vastly unequipped opponents. You can try and estimate performance, but its reliably in somewhere in the wild speculation category.
  • 0

#36 M48A5K

M48A5K

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 543 posts

Posted 18 June 2015 - 0109 AM

Current stuff is classified, fully of marketing BS or defense contractor shenanigans and has only been used against vastly unequipped opponents. You can try and estimate performance, but its reliably in somewhere in the wild speculation category.


Not all estimations are far from reality. For example protection level of K1A1 was once leaked on the net(but can't write it here as it is still classified), and it was almost identical to estimated one.
  • 0

#37 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 18 June 2015 - 0402 AM

Such a loaded question yet incomplete. Best offensive tank? best defensive? Best desert? Best urban? IMO it has seen a ton of action, so it is the one most upgraded. On the other hand most of what I see is for urban warfare vs Foot soldiers. In tank v tank, I believe that armor has significantly overtaken guns, kind of like body armor over taking bullets technology. So we cannot really destroy each other in the frontal arc engagement. But one way of looking at it is that we (USA) can bring more Abrams to a fight than any one else bringing theirs, supported by some of the most well trained crews, and supported by some of the most deadly air, artillery and infantry.

 

There is no such thing as "best", every vehicle have stronger and weaker points in their design. Tough of course there are design solutions that are preferable.

 

Tough I can agree that due to todays armor protection, from the frontal arc, if we exclude obvious weak zones like gun mantled, most modern MBT's are most likely immune to all AT threats. The problem is, battlefield is not static, and threats are not always faced with strongest armor.

 

 

 

Great improvements, undoubtedly. But the components aren't integrated and shared. Kinda comparing chicken nuggets with a chicken - same, but different. Can anyone, other than the driver, access the feed from the reversing camera? Remember, the loader can aim & fire the main armament from his position if required - this is far more than a simple 'monitor only' screen (as useful as that would be). 

I'm a huge fan of the M1 series of tanks, but I'm not sure it can be said that it has a comparable level of digitisation to the Merk 4. 

 

Electronics can always be quickly integrated if necessary. As for view from driver camera, dunno yet, tough there are more and more informations that US plan to have a prepositioned stock of M1A2SEP's and M2A3's in Poland, so if there will be some sort of open day with vehicles displayed for public, I will go there, see them myself, and if possible ask soldiers as it is certain there will be some tank crews. Actually there are these vehicles here right now, but I had no time to visit proving grounds during open day.

 

As for digitization, I think the best way to describe it is that it's not the same type of digitization. In Merkava Mk4 crews shares all tank sensors and most of controls, in M1A2SEP the gunner and commander for example can use FTL and FBCB2 systems for precise artillery coordinates of targets or share informations with other tanks, other vehicles, units etc. Kinda different approach and priorities in the same field.


  • 0

#38 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,175 posts

Posted 18 June 2015 - 0409 AM

Current stuff is classified, fully of marketing BS or defense contractor shenanigans and has only been used against vastly unequipped opponents. You can try and estimate performance, but its reliably in somewhere in the wild speculation category.


Not all estimations are far from reality. For example protection level of K1A1 was once leaked on the net(but can't write it here as it is still classified), and it was almost identical to estimated one.

To some extent there is still some degree of unpredictability in armor quality such as the location of weld lines, ability to stand up to numerous hits, in other words, battle conditions that would be difficult to test. But for the most part yea..
  • 0

#39 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 18 June 2015 - 0420 AM

[quote name="Damian" post="1173607" timestamp="1434618161"]

[quote name="tankerwanabe" post="1173571" timestamp="1434587994"]


There is no such thing as "best", every vehicle have stronger and weaker points in their design. Tough of course there are design solutions that are preferable.
 
 [quote]
 
 Great improvements, undoubtedly. But the components aren't integrated and shared. Kinda comparing chicken nuggets with a chicken - same, but different. Can anyone, other than the driver, access the feed from the reversing camera? Remember, the loader can aim & fire the main armament from his position if required - this is far more than a simple 'monitor only' screen (as useful as that would be). 

I'm a huge fan of the M1 series of tanks, but I'm not sure it can be said that it has a comparable level of digitisation to the Merk 4. [/quote]
 
Electronics can always be quickly integrated if necessary.

As for digitization, I think the best way to describe it is that it's not the same type of digitization. In Merkava Mk4 crews shares all tank sensors and most of controls, in M1A2SEP the gunner and commander for example can use FTL and FBCB2 systems for precise artillery coordinates of targets or share informations with other tanks, other vehicles, units etc. Kinda different approach and priorities in the same field.[/quote]

One of the biggest challenges with integration of electronics in a turreted vehicle is the slip ring/rotary base junction and the number/capacity of data & power channels through it. If their isn't capacity to pass data (eg. Camera vision) both ways through the slip ring, integration is impossible.

I (respectfully) disagree with the FTL/BMS assertion - the Merk 4 has a FTL & is integrated to the WIN-BMS. A commander can not only see 'his' vehicles, he can see the orientation of the turrets and commander's viewers of these vehicles. He can also see the sensor fields of view for some sensors and can also digitally call for artillery, NGS & CAS onto targets he or his subordinate call signs identify.
  • 0

#40 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 18 June 2015 - 0424 AM

 

 

One of the biggest challenges with integration of electronics in a turreted vehicle is the slip ring/rotary base junction and the number/capacity of data & power channels through it. If their isn't capacity to pass data (eg. Camera vision) both ways through the slip ring, integration is impossible. 

 

Well Americans replaced slip ring when M1A2SEP was developed, and right now again they are replacing slip ring with ECP1 upgrades again due to even greater digitization and other improvements with electronics, optics and other stuff.

 

http://leanermoreagi...ms_brochure.pdf

 

Here is brochure from GDLS with the number of upgrades for M1's developed within ECP1 and also with proposed engine and transmission replacement that is currently tested by US Army.

 

 

 

I (respectfully) disagree with the FTL/BMS assertion - the Merk 4 has a FTL & is integrated to the WIN-BMS. A commander can not only see 'his' vehicles, he can see the orientation of the turrets and commander's viewers of these vehicles. He can also see the sensor fields of view for some sensors and can also digitally call for artillery, NGS & CAS onto targets he or his subordinate call signs identify. 

 

I suspect that due to close cooperation between US and Israel, both digitized M1's like M1A1SA/FEP and M1A2SEP, have in this field exactly the same capabilities as Merkava Mk4. Damn I wish we will have similiar capabilities with our Leopard 2PL's... when Leo2A4's finally be modernized.


Edited by Damian, 18 June 2015 - 0439 AM.

  • 0