Jump to content

Future US AFV development


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Lmao uh what? This myth that the Abrams is completely useless because it "guzzles gas like a typical Murican abomination" seriously needs to die. 

Sweden bought the Leopard 2 over the Abrams because it was significantly cheaper than the Abrams, and the Abrams variant Sweden would have gotten did not have the full armor suite. This ridiculous notion that Sweden bought Leo 2s because "muh gas" and "muh armor" is absurd. The Leo 2 was cheap, plain and simple. 

Ahh yes, I forgot that the US Army only ever trains for the best possible case scenario. Nevermind all that stuff Panzer said about NTC being "hard." What does he know anyways? :rolleyes:

I think the solution here is obvious; the US Army needs to get rid of all these gas guzzling tanks and replace them with the latest model of Prius. Just slap some 4x4 tires on em and have an infantryman riding shotgun with a Javelin. Boom, problem solved. It can drive half way across Europe on one tank of gas, and has perfect anti-tank capability thanks to the Javelin. Hell, put another infantryman in the back seat with a Stinger. Now you're protected from those dreaded KA-52s you mentioned! Check and mate, pesky Russians. Remember, the only thing worse than a WW3 scenario, is a WW3 scenario that also is heavy on carbon emissions!

Is there a problem of having a discussion on a Mature level here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 9/8/2017 at 9:30 AM, MikeyD said:

Just for fun, here's the American 'Armata' circa 2002. based on the Abrams. Crew-in-hull, overhead gun, autoloader. It looks like the ammo was still stored in-hull and God knows what it was using for optics.

zvetn.jpg

Indeed, TTB had a carousel autoloader in the turret basket, holding 44 rounds (see first picture), and the sight assembly consisted of three electro-optical sight groups (presumably similar to the regular M1's gunsight): two on the sponsons near the front, and one on the turret. Said sight units are visible on the second photo.

lM3XvSk.png

x8hZENy.png

Anyway, iirc the concept died (and the tank ended up forgotten in some yard) because a robotic turret with 1980s technology didn't work too well: having to rely solely on low-res, narrow FOV, cameras as your only means of observing the outside was slightly detrimental to situational awareness, for one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Armorgunner said:

Is there a problem of having a discussion on a Mature level here. 

Your arguments are being given all the consideration they deserve. :^)

1 minute ago, Armorgunner said:

Be more specific. Incorrect assumption on What? 

To be honest, turning this into a spaghetti-posting feast to address all the points where you're wrong individually would just be a waste of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IICptMillerII said:

Yes, when you continually refuse to acknowledge the very valid points brought up to literally every single one of your "complaints" it goes from a 'mature discussion' to bashing your head against a wall. Frankly, its time to stop.

So when someone doesent say what you want to hear, you become a little Child. And want to bashing heads? I know for sure what Im speaking about. But im not native english speaking, so maybe there can be some missunderstanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

Is there a problem of having a discussion on a Mature level here. 

You may think that @IICptMillerIIis joking, but assault Priuses are the way of the future.

As you can see from this mockup:

image.jpeg.a784bded05557a25e5933bc5ce89de93.jpeg

Your average suburban vehicle can easily be turned into a killing machine. These are the vehicles that we will drive into Moscow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Armorgunner said:

So when someone doesent say what you want to hear, you become a little Child. And want to bashing heads? I know for sure what Im speaking about. But im not native english speaking, so maybe there can be some missunderstanding.

Mirror much? Every single point you have made in this thread have been addressed, yet you refuse to accept any of the explanations given, while flat out ignoring others. I'm not the one being a 'little child' over things I don't want to hear. That would be you. 

The Abrams does not have an exhaust port that the Rebels can exploit with X-Wings to catastrophically blow it up. The Abrams does not consume all of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves every time it drives to a battlefield. Your opinions are wrong, and you clearly do not know "for sure" what you are talking about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Armorgunner said:

So when someone doesent say what you want to hear, you become a little Child. And want to bashing heads? I know for sure what Im speaking about. But im not native english speaking, so maybe there can be some missunderstanding.

You're wrong, and more importantly you're bullheadedly obstinate about admitting you're wrong, even when obviously more knowledgeable people are telling you that you are. There's no point in dissecting your posts into spaghetti to address every single point and explain why it's wrong, because going by just this thread you'll just ignore any attempts to tell you why you're wrong, shrug off any evidence that doesn't fit your viewpoint, and keep asserting your asinine claims. In short, it's debating in bad faith.

And trying to debate against someone who does that is a profound waste of time. Hence why people are unwilling to engage with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Mirror much? Every single point you have made in this thread have been addressed, yet you refuse to accept any of the explanations given, while flat out ignoring others. I'm not the one being a 'little child' over things I don't want to hear. That would be you. 

The Abrams does not have an exhaust port that the Rebels can exploit with X-Wings to catastrophically blow it up. The Abrams does not consume all of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves every time it drives to a battlefield. Your opinions are wrong, and you clearly do not know "for sure" what you are talking about. 

I think I adressed almost every single point here. But before panzersaurkrautwerfer had a chance to answer. The Childrens, or drunks came in, and took it to a very low, not werthy of the cm forum level.

Edited by Armorgunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rinaldi said:

It's true. I hear that the US Army is also maintaining the hunter-killer concept; the battle prius's escorting IFV:

1418894208-m113-gavin.jpg

Fuel efficiency at its finest right there! Legend says Putin himself goes to bed every night, cold with fear over this majestic beast.

Sweden did not purchase it unfortunately, due to complaints about its lack of ability to swim underwater and torpedo enemy merchant vessels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Fuel efficiency at its finest right there! Legend says Putin himself goes to bed every night, cold with fear over this majestic beast.

Sweden did not purchase it unfortunately, due to complaints about its lack of ability to swim underwater and torpedo enemy merchant vessels.

Nice picture :D is it from your room, at your parents house? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Armorgunner said:

Nice picture :D is it from your room, at your parents house? 

 

7 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

I think I adressed almost every single point here. But before panzersaurkrautwerfer had a chance to answer. The Childrens Came in, and took it to a very low, not werthy of the cm forum level.

Now you're hating on the children? Is nothing sacred to you?

And FYI, I do have a poster of the M113 helotank, signed by Stormin Norman and McMaster, as well as a challenge coin from each. McMaster signed it "Logistics be damned, on to Moscow!" Truly inspirational to be honest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Armorgunner said:

I think you are a little damaged, of fighting lowintensive wars for to long. On the march to Bagdad,  you, or your supplychain was attacked exactly zero times by Iraqi interdiction aircrafts. You had 99.8% air superiority. And everything you say, i hear that you are not living in a world when that is not so.

But if we go back to "a potentional war with Russia". And you dont have 99.8% air superiority. And you in you tank potentionally can meet Ka-50 Hokum choppers. And your supplychain can be attacked by Su-24 Fencers, Su-34 Fullbacks, and heavy rocket artillery bombardment. Then maybe only 20% of the fuel might reach your unit. And if you after refuling,  can drive only 40 miles, or in the Leopard case 82 Miles. With the delivered fuel. Thats not relevant to You? 

Our supply lines were hit by other methods though, most notably suicide bombers and stay-behinds in cities. That maybe stalled the 3rd ID for a few days, while the 1st MarDiv went right on ahead with even more AFVs, including their Abrams.

But more to the point: it isn't as if our potential opponents' logistics have been hit by aircraft either. There have been exactly zero high intensity conflicts between top-line armies in the last few decades. Obviously since they all have nukes, something that the Russians have been pretty open in their belief will stave off any sort of serious military defeat if facing NATO, rather than their conventional forces.

It's a weird double standard, that somehow not facing a peer opponent makes American "a little damaged," whereas the Russians fighting a much weaker Ukraine (and not even at a particularly full tilt either) to a frozen conflict stalemate means they are right up there with the best...

Edited by Apocal
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Apocal said:

Our supply lines were hit by other methods though, most notably suicide bombers and stay-behinds in cities. That maybe stalled the 3rd ID for a few days, while the 1st MarDiv went right on ahead with even more AFVs, including their Abrams.

But more to the point: it isn't as if our potential opponents' logistics have been hit by aircraft either. There have been exactly zero high intensity conflicts between top-line armies in the last few decades. Obviously since they all have nukes, something that the Russians have been pretty open in their belief will stave off any sort of serious military defeat if facing NATO, rather than their conventional forces.

It's a weird double standard, that somehow not facing a peer opponent makes American "a little damaged", whereas the Russians fighting a much weaker Ukraine (and not even at a particularly full tilt either) means they are right up there with the best...

You are quite right there, that the US was not in a walk the park there. And you will most probably hit the Russians harder from the air,  than they will hit you. But it was just for an example, what could happen. When the US is not in total control of the skyes. That consumption could be a matter, in some Circumstances.

 

Edited by Armorgunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Armorgunner said:

You are quite right there. And you will most probably hit the Russians harder from the air,  than they will hit you. But it was just for an example, what could happen. When the US is not in total control of the skyes. That consumtion could been a matter, in some cercomstances.

I cannot understand that last sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apocal said:

 

It's a weird double standard, that somehow not facing a peer opponent makes American "a little damaged," whereas the Russians fighting a much weaker Ukraine (and not even at a particularly full tilt either) to a frozen conflict stalemate means they are right up there with the best...

I think you missunderstood what i meant there. The Russian have inferior equipment, they know it to. Thats why the speach of using nukes comes up from them, every time Sweden, Finland, or some other non NATO country, are to have an exercice with the US. 

But even if the Russians equipment is inferior in General. They have very strong EW, superior artillery ( in numbers and ranges, not in precision ) and their airdefence is also very strong. So they might have A2AD in some areas. And since part of their army is conscription, they have a huge number of badly trained reserves, around 10 milion people.

What I meant was,  that even if inferior. They are much more capable, both in numbers and technology. Than anything the US have been fighting since ww2, or Korea. So that the never ending supplytrain might not be as regular, as the US forces are use to. And to that, the threat from tanks, with not only better armor (inferior to US) but better FCS and ammo (inferior to the US) than anything the US have been fighting since ww2.

Edited by Armorgunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

Except for not having any form of APS. I dont think the problem is really coming down to budget. 

In theory, you can make your tank protected from all threats. From all aspects. The problem is, that that tank. Wount be mobile. And you already have one such tank. Its called NORAD, in the Cheyenne Mountains. And it is still trying to move from Colorado spring without success.

what i mean was that the 20 years of uncon warfare, maybe. Has colored of, in the places you put the armor on. With about the same weight on two tanks. And one has much better side armor. It probably sacrificed armor on some other part of the whehicle.

In regards to APS:

The US has had a long running APS program that hasn't delivered yet.  It is deeply budgetary as it became second or third priority to counter-IED problems.  As the case is now the way ahead looks more like:

1. Acquire an interim fielding "off the shelf" APS to improve protection in the near term (Trophy is being tested by both the Army and Marine Corps at this time).
2. Continue to pursue the "quick-kill" APS system which offers a much better standoff and some other interesting capabilities to maturity before fielding

As to "sacrificing armor" on other parts of the vehicle, I originally typed "you are an idiot" here but that was impolite.

The "COIN" armor package for the M1 consisted of the "TUSK" armor, which was provided as a kit that could be added, and removed from tanks as required, without impacting the base vehicle (in theory it could be mounted to any M1A1 1988 edition on, and every M1A2).  It included a "boat hull" strapon armor array to better protect the lower hull from mines, protective shields for the commander/loader's hatches, and ERA arrays.  Some of the crew shields became standard on the late model M1A2s (mostly the loader's gun shield), and the ERA is available without the rest of the TUSK.

Basically no armor has been sacrificed anywhere.  The TUSK adds a few tons to make the vehicle quite heavy, but this isn't a big problem (or basically the mine plow every fourth tank carries anyway has little performance impact, and the TUSK kit isn't much heavier than that).  

So really that assertion is just silly to the point where I'm hard pressed to take you seriously.
 

 

2 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

I think you are a little damaged, of fighting lowintensive wars for to long. On the march to Bagdad,  you, or your supplychain was attacked exactly zero times by Iraqi interdiction aircrafts. You had 99.8% air superiority. And everything you say, i hear that you are not living in a world when that is not so.

But if we go back to "a potentional war with Russia". And you dont have 99.8% air superiority. And you in you tank potentionally can meet Ka-50 Hokum choppers. And your supplychain can be attacked by Su-24 Fencers, Su-34 Fullbacks, and heavy rocket artillery bombardment. Then maybe only 20% of the fuel might reach your unit. And if you after refuling,  can drive only 40 miles, or in the Leopard case 82 Miles. With the delivered fuel. Thats not relevant to You? 

Sorry going to be a little mean here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nm5jl7aM08

Firstly as to "damaged" by COIN:

I spent about four years in a Cavalry squadron (Bradley and HMMWV equipped) doing Iraq rotations.  My last six-ish months there was spent building a training program to move away from an Iraq focus to preparing for conventional conflicts.  I then went to our course for captains preparing to take infantry/armor company command/staff primary positions, and the additional course for cavalry troop commanders (as is common for Armor officers).  This was mostly simulator/map exercises (it's not like they have companies laying around for us to command in training), of the ten scenarios we had to work with though, only two of them were "low intensity" (one being basically Grozny with Strykers so I don't think that fully counts, the other being a Battalion staff exercise focusing on relief in place/transfer of authority).  Then I went to Korea where I worked as a Battalion planner getting ready for a DPRK invasion/ROK offensive north, and then as a tank company commander doing the same.

Then I left active service, working as a Brigade planner in the National Guard for a time preparing variously for my unit's "domestic" mission of disaster response, but also our templated part in a European contingency I'm not going to describe in detail.  I've been "off" the combat arms trail for about 7 months now for some other reasons (I found a "fun" field to work in within the Guard, and I'm too senior to do much of the combat arms stuff I liked, so less appeal there), but of my "armor" time, only about four of the ten years were strongly COIN focused with the rest being very conventional focus.

So yeah I think I can speak with some authority here in regards to "conventional" conflict.

The push to Baghdad had plenty of attacks, and hangups.  More interestingly though it was only possible through a massive logistical thrust of the type that literally no one else on earth can do.  Which is part of the reason I eyeroll so hard when people talk about some massive Russian offensive simply because their logistics are comically inept/corrupt/inefficient/not up to the task.  In Korea we practiced a lot of stuff intended to make it difficult to engage our logistical elements difficult to acquire, engage or even locate.  The same goes for NTC/JRTC rotations in that the logistics elements like see more combat than the units they're supporting.  

Firstly if the Russians are destroying all but 20% of my fuel, then we're done anyway.  No logistics chain, combat unit, whatever can survive 80% losses.  Secondly if it's coming down to a 40 mile radius of action then I'm boned.  

Like, if I'm at 50% fuel (or ammo, "class I" etc) I'm already well into "resupply immediately" realms.  Which is getting to the silliness of the noble last 40 KM of Leopard 2 roadmarching, basically if it's coming down to the last fuel in the bottom of the tank you're already into the realm of "welcome to defeat, population you."

Basically you're describing the Russians accomplishing a level of interdiction the US military would consider a profound and massive success beyond our wildest expectations, using less resources, less capable platforms, while fighting the largest air force in the world, a wide variety of over the horizon threats, etc, etc.

As to "Red Air," NTC gives every advantage to the enemy.  Like in so many words, we get to fight as if we're not backed up by the world's largest air arm, but there's a lot of absurdity to the idea of SU-24s really getting much mileage (between AWACs vectored F-22s, F-15s, and then PATRIOT, basically if the USAF's odds of getting a F-16 over Russian formations is low in a high intensity war, the Russian Air Force's odds are not even measurable at that point).

Re: BATTLE PRIUS
Funny story.  I responded to a wild fire as part of my duties in the National Guard (basically as a liaison to the civilians in charge of the fire fighting/officer in charge for the National Guard assets deployed to that particular complex of fires). I was given a rental car to get to the fire area and to do whatever driving I needed in the area.

I was given a Prius to this end.  And boy let me tell you, my confidence in my survival was not that great. About a week in I wrote "DERP" (Disaster, Emergency, Response, Prius) in the ashes that had accumulated on the car and simply accepted that at least it wasn't the Fiat the Prius had been parked next to at the rental lot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

Before i read more of your post. What is NTC that you and the drunk/chiled ones speaking about all the time?

You are displaying an extreme level of ignorance regarding US training and capabilities. No offense, you are in Sweden and it isn't likely high on your list of Saturday morning over coffee readings.  However if you are going to toss out comments on US potential weaknesses in training it would reflect better on you if you did take the time to understand what actually is the US training program.  The National Training Center is a unique training facility that is a key to understanding what the US actually does do regarding training. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

Before i read more of your post. What is NTC that you and the drunk/chiled ones speaking about all the time?

It's Fort Irwin in Nevada (National Training Center -NTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Irwin_National_Training_Center

A lot of large exercises happen there from ground training to the Red Flag aerial exercises.

Edit: sburke beat me, and Micheal almost did! Haha!

Edited by HerrTom
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

Before i read more of your post. What is NTC that you and the drunk/chiled ones speaking about all the time?

See, if you don't know something as central to US Army training and preparedness as that, you shouldn't be sounding off so assuredly as you obviously like to do. NTC stands for National Training Center and is what might be called the post graduate course for soldiers. It is very (you might say "extremely") rugged and demanding and passing the course is far from easy. Its focus is on preparing active units to fight against a prospective first-class OpFor using the equipment and tactics of that OpFor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Irwin_National_Training_Center

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...