Modern armor internal arrays & what defeated them or might

[Pešadija]

The steering lever's the one at the left of the marches? So, how's it work? Middle is forward, while back and forth steer left and right?

Anyway, THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS IS BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTLEEEEEEEEEEEEEFRONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNT

for the 300th post of the thread.

[Damian90]

Middle is not moving, if You push one, example left forward then left track is moving forward and tank will turn right, if You turn both levers back, tanks will go back (of course You need also to use proper gear).

It looks more or less like this.

[Pešadija]

Ah, had not seen right. Well, shouldn't be too hard getting the hang of it.

[Damian90]

Sure it is not that hard, but western tanks are just easier to steer and drive.

Of course driving from point A to point B is simple, but combat driving is completely different story.

[Pešadija]

Yes. A smooth or sharp turn can make all the difference, especially if the gunner is eyeballing something.

[Damian90]

UAE informed that Russia will upgrade their BMP-3's, also by installing dynamic protection on them, most probably 4S24 cassettes.

[Pešadija]

They should upgrade them, rather, with better computers for smooth shoot on the move (like a chechnyan veteran said "pieces of **** can't move and shoot, it's the computer or something").

[Damian90]

I never heard about problems with stabilization and FCS in Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) designs, true that FCS and stabilization is not as precise as in western counterparts but it is still reliabale and good enough.

[Damian90]

4S24 on BMP-3.

[Damian90]

AN/VLQ-6 Active protection System.

AN/VLQ-7 Active Protection System.

[Damian90]

AN/VLQ-8 Active Protection System.

[Pešadija]

Eh eh... as always the americans had overestimated the Iraqi threat. Urban combat always was where the greatest damage lay.

[Damian90]

Eh eh... as always the americans had overestimated the Iraqi threat.

it was smart actually, it is allways better to overestimate and prepare for the worst situation than overestimate and have not nice suprise.

As for Urban Combat, yeah well, it is true that in 2003 they did not have any such upgrades for vehicles, but one of the reason for that was lack of experience in such type of modern warfare and use of AFV's in such envirvorment.

BTW, UAE ordered AZUR kits for their Leclerc tanks:

At the international defence exhibition IDEX 2011, the French Company Nexter announced to have received an order from the armed forces of the United Arab Emirates, for the delivery of a protection kit for the main battle tank Leclerc tank, named “AZUR”.

[Pešadija]

The Tet Offensive and Hue should have taught them. The only reason temporary successes of the Vietcong did not transform into a grave death toll in the urban assaults was because the planning had been rigid, so Charlie did not know what to do after taking several strongpoints, and died in the WW2 Japanese fashion - a bloody yet doomed to failure last stand.

So, the FRENCH are now arming what is probably in the next years another candidate for arab hammertime?

[Damian90]

US Armed Forces in Vietnam win the war actually from the military point of view, they loose politically due to Soviet sponsored pacifist movement that forced goverment to withdrawn forces from Vietnam, even after Tet offensive Vietcong was actually completely destroyed and NVA was forced back to north... the power of soviet propaganda, continued later by Hollywood in such movies like Rambo and others.

[Pešadija]

I was talking of the pure cityfight, not of the politics (which I know too well).

[Damian90]

Pure city fightings in Middle East were totally different than in Vietnam.

Vietnam still was more conventional conflict, while Iraq was very short phase conventional conflict and long unconventional conflict with they don't have any experience. This is why vehicle were not well prepared for it, however MOUT tactics for infantry were greatly improved since Vietnam.

Besides this Vietcong was still a sort of regular army while insurgents in Iraq not. And the main reason, Vietcong relied on firearms and organized units, while insurgents in middle east rely mostly on IED's and small groups, they learned that organized units have no chances in firefights with US forces that will outmanouver them, have more firepower, more informations thanks to systems like FBCB2 and UAV's or other assets.

In fact currently no Army can fight on the same rules with US.Army, while USMC can fight with any army with short period of time until US.Army will not arrive.

And while other armed forces are reduced in personell and equipment, or don't have much modern equipment and can't manufacture it becose of cost like PRC, US have big armed forces and plenty of modern still upgraded equipment + many not fielded upgrades and weapon systems, but they got know-how and can if needed field these weapon systems and upgrades.

[Pešadija]

Not in the storming of baghdad, they didn't!

Thought we were talking 2003, first impact, when picatinnys were still not king, a tusk was a pachyderm appendix only, and soldiers didn't ride in birdcages, the slat.

[Damian90]

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — U.S. Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli thinks the M1 Abrams tank is a good model on which to base the service’s upcoming Ground Combat Vehicle, since the Abrams has remained relevant and useful across a range of scenarios even though it has been in service for more than 30 years.

The Abrams “has had incremental builds” while remaining “a platform that still shows great potential for growth,” Chiarelli said Feb. 23 during a speech at the Association of the U.S. Army symposium here.

This modular, elastic approach is one that the GCV infantry carrier plans on adopting in everything from its armor kits to its electronics and communications systems. BAE Systems, General Dynamics and SAIC all are leading industry teams vying for the contract. The GCV is set to be fielded starting in 2017.

“I think we learned the right lessons” from the failed Manned Ground Vehicle, the GCV’s predecessor and one of the failures of the Army’s ambitious Future Combat Systems program, he says.

The GCV’s requirements sheet instructs industry to use only mature technologies to speed production and drive down cost, which is essentially the opposite approach from the one the Army followed in its MGV program.

Meanwhile, U.S. Army testing of modernization technologies at Ft. Bliss, Texas, this year will be “one of the most important things we’ve done in a long time,” since the service now has an entire brigade whose sole purpose is to test and evaluate experimental gear before it is procured, according to Chiarelli.

USMC

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/02/25/04.xml&headline=Abrams%20is%20Model%20for%20Army%20Infantry%20Carrier&channel=defense

Good news from US then... and this is one big paradox.

They get the same conclusion in 80's and in 90's to base whole family of vehicles on common components and hulls of M1 MBT and M2 IFV, and then, from nowhere someone jumped in with that whole FCS crap that was one big waste of money, FCS gained nothing and more, because of FCS many weapon systems that were ready to field and many upgrade packages for existing vehicles were scraped...

Someone in US who made then these decisions should have been taken to responsibility on wasting taxpayers money and degrading US Armed Forces capabilities.

[flamingknives]

Even the FCS was a family of armoured vehicles that would have used common chassis, drivetrain and architecture components. The difference between FCS and GCV is the stated desire regarding technology use. Where the FCS was intended to develop the cutting edge technologies with an eye to gaining significant weight and performance advantage, GCV aims to provide a platform using current (and hence low risk) technology with sufficient margin on generated power and mass budget to allow new technologies to be added at a later date.

In that sense the GCV is intended to be the same as the M1. A platform developed quickly using available technology and retaining enough margin to be upgraded in terms of armour, sensors and weapons.

[Damian90]

Even the FCS was a family of armoured vehicles that would have used common chassis, drivetrain and architecture components.

FCS MGV vehicles were stupid designed and many were based on the same hull that was not good for all roles. This was not progress in AFV designs but complete regress.

While if GCV will be based on M1 it will use different hull but same common components.

The difference between FCS and GCV is the stated desire regarding technology use. Where the FCS was intended to develop the cutting edge technologies with an eye to gaining significant weight and performance advantage, GCV aims to provide a platform using current (and hence low risk) technology with sufficient margin on generated power and mass budget to allow new technologies to be added at a later date.

FCS was no technology advanced, these were primitive vehicles compared to the designs based on M1.

In that sense the GCV is intended to be the same as the M1. A platform developed quickly using available technology and retaining enough margin to be upgraded in terms of armour, sensors and weapons.

M1 even if older, offers better upgrade capability than MGV vehicles developed under FCS.

Hopefully for US.Army Pentagon finally cancelled this stupid idea.

[flamingknives]

I think perhaps that you are labouring under a misunderstanding. The GCV will not be based on the M1.

The statement in Aviation Week refers to the way the M1 has been upgraded at least three times, with significant increase in capability each time, rather than the platform itself.

GCV will be a new vehicle, not an M1 derivative. Rather than try and shoe-horn all sorts of possible and potential technologies in at the first instance, the design will incorporate spare capacity, in terms of mass and power, to support the new technologies if and when they mature. Just like the M1 has done over the past three decades.

The FCS concepts presented were things that might have been designed by salesmen or management consultants rather than engineers or people who might know something about armoured vehicle design. The programme was based on the reliance on nascent technologies from the outset to get the weight down to what was promised. That's a very risky strategy and in this case it most certainly did not pay off.

[Damian90]

I did not misunderstanded article, GCV will not be M1 variant or derivative but new hull based on the M1 design and this is what I said.

As for FCS, it was just wet dream of some people that never educated their selfes abot AFV's designs.

They wanted in 20 tons vehicle survivability of at least 50 tons vehicle, it might be probably achievabale but with a very compact design while FCS vehicles were not compact, they were bulky still small and tight. Awfull design.

[flamingknives]

Agreed on the FCS, but you are wrong regarding GCV.

The GCV will not be based on the M1 design. Not hull, not chassis, perhaps one or two electronic components, nothing more. The General's comments highlight the US military's desire for the GCV, as a vehicle, to be based on current technology (not some pie-in-the-sky wonder tech that is just around the corner) and have room, spare carrying capacity and spare power for upgrades. Just like the M1, thirty years ago, was.

[Damian90]

Maybe we will see in the nearest future.