What exactly impresses them?Originally Posted by GI Zhou
What exactly impresses them?
Puma IFV
They are particularly impressed with the turret as a whole; the vehicle ergonimics of the vehicle and modular arnmour upgrading. The fire control system, especially the commander's independent sight along with the sensor system itself; the smoke grenade dischargers at the rear of the turret enabling modular uparmouring; and the location of the Mk-30-2 automatic cannon and co-axial 5.56mm MG4 machine gun come in for special mention.
The armament is nothing special, rather weak indeed. A CV9035 has clearly superior firepower.
The MK30-2 uses only two cartridges;
* ABM, air burst munition - AHEAD type. Minimal bursting charge.
* APFSDS
There we have two munitions, both with serious issues. ABM has no explosive power to eat its way through a wall, for example. It can only defeat exposed soft targets.
APFSDS has the old problem of discarding sabot ammunition for IFVs; the discarded SABOTs create a dangerous zone, so it's tricky to have infantry ahead.
Modular armour: Looks fine.
Electronics and sensors; up-to-date, but I would argue that an IFV does not need a CITV at all. That's gold-plating.
Mobility: As far as I know the engine has its issues with lack of torque at low rpm.
Dismount element: Too small.
The only really, really good thing about the Puma (except probably the modular armour) is that vibrations and noise inside have been reduced by 10 dB thanks to a decoupled suspension (the suspension is mounted on a longitudinal element that's itself mounted on the hull with dampeners).
[QUOTE=Fuchs;105765]The armament is nothing special, rather weak indeed. A CV9035 has clearly superior firepower.
The MK30-2 uses only two cartridges;
* ABM, air burst munition - AHEAD type. Minimal bursting charge.
* APFSDS
There we have two munitions, both with serious issues. ABM has no explosive power to eat its way through a wall, for example. It can only defeat exposed soft targets.
APFSDS has the old problem of discarding sabot ammunition for IFVs; the discarded SABOTs create a dangerous zone, so it's tricky to have infantry ahead.[QUOTE]
We use a third type, FAPDS, as a middle ground. It still has the discarding sabot but it can eat through things.
A double v-shaped hull Stryker with tracks instead of wheels might be something to consider for a future GCV.
A heavy-light mix, air deployable HBCT consisting of the CV90 family of vehicles, namely CV90120, CV9030, and CV90 APC Armadillo.
Sea deployable HBCT with M1, M2 and the Namer. A mech infantry platoon would have two brads and three Namers.
It seems to me we are trying re-invent the wheel and/or a one size fits all - the capabilities are out there and can be had now. Unless the future GCV has a cloaking device, we should look at Brad upgrades, CV90, and the Namer.
Question: Can older M1 tank chasis be utilized to build something like the Namer or is this prevented by the location of engine?
I really like the idea of a tracked Stryker - a design that is battle tested.
I wouldn't worry about the position of the engine as much as the engine itself. The Temsah's engine was so complex (due less to sophistication and more extant the level of technology) that they simply decided to turn the rear into the front. The Temsah essentialy drives backwards. What concerns me more (yes I have thought about the idea myself) is the type of engine installed. The choice of a turbine was, IMO only, plain dumb but understandible. US doctrine saw tanks making rapid tactical advanced from potion to position rather than operational movement (strategic movement was essentially a question about sealift). A gasoline guzzling engine was thus een a s a favourable tradeoff for the tactical manouevrability it afforded the M1. You don't need that now (didn't even need it then IMO). You can talk about armour and armament all you want (I have and do, more so when slightly inebriated
) but it's the powerpack and drivetrain that are as, if not more, important. Remember the trinity , no not Clausewitz' although one could spin it that way philosophically speaking, for armoured (indeed most warfare); Protection, Mobility, Firepower. The Leo 1 traded (physical) protection for mobility on the (correct) assumption that moving about the battlefield was a better idea than sitting around presenting a large target (it was a dual purpose decision and highlights the relationship between the "armour trinity" and doctrine/employment). Nowadyas there is really only one calibre (120mm) for tanks (140mm being a still immature round in all but conventional for which there are 120mm rounds than can match it).
For a HAPC I can't see why the conversion of an M1 into a HAPC with a RCWS could be done but with the U.S. Congress penetrated by vested industrial interests and congressmen on the payroll I don't see that happening anytime soon. Sorry, if this post rambles, just had chocolate bar and got all tingly at the thought of armour (are tankers the armour encased equivalent of leather-clad fetishsists?)
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 08-29-2010 at 05:46 PM.
How realistic is this? I envision a transverse-mounted 4'x 8' diesel engine compartment in front. Behind it would be batteries, electric engine, fuel tank, and driver sitting in the next 3' x 8' behind the diesel engine. So with 7' of vehicle length accounted for, you now decide how big a turret you want. Obviously a 4' turret with just a gunner is adding less length to the vehicle than a 6' or bigger turret...and much less turret armor weight.I wouldn't worry about the position of the engine as much as the engine itself. The Temsah's engine was so complex (due less to sophistication and more extant the level of technology) that they simply decided to turn the rear into the front. The Temsah essentialy drives backwards
For a HAPC I can't see why the conversion of an M1 into a HAPC with a RCWS could be done but with the U.S. Congress penetrated by vested industrial interests and congressmen on the payroll I don't see that happening anytime soon. Sorry, if this post rambles, just had chocolate bar and got all tingly at the thought of armour (are tankers the armour encased equivalent of leather-clad fetishsists?
So engine(s), driver, and turret in my assumed GCV are just 11' in length with a four foot turret. Because the interior is 8' wide, you have space to put a vehicle commander and dismount squad leader next to the offset 4' circumference turret to share common displays/radios and plan where to dismount. Now add 6' to 8' of length for dismounted troops dependent on the 3-row Marine or Army version and you have a 17' to 19' long vehicle.
Where did I err? Why does this vehicle need to be even the 21+ foot length of a Bradley let alone the 30' foot of an EFV?
The other reason a Abrams made sense was multiple forward-positioned divisions and infrastructure in Germany and equipment/supplies for many more in POMCUS and in bunkers. Same thing in Iraq the second time around with equipment in Kuwait. Where is that equipment going to be in the future? My bet is it will be both in the U.S., Diego Garcia, and other places pretty far from the battlefield. Facing unreal numbers of Soviet tanks, nobody decided the Bradley needed to be tank-sized.
Last edited by Cole; 08-29-2010 at 06:44 PM. Reason: Added section comparing Cold War forward deployment to future
A real HE-frag with electronic time fuze and with point detonation (enough delay for 5cm of wall), similar to the OCSW ammunition would have been more versatile.
That Ahead design seems to be optimised against exposed soft targets, including probably small UAVs. The ammunition load isn't great either - it restricts to a kind of 30mm sniping if it needs to last for a whole day of fighting.
The Jordanians converted rear engine vehicles to HAPCs, but the amount of effort you need to put into rebuilding would likely not be affordable in the U.S..
Last edited by Fuchs; 08-29-2010 at 04:40 PM.
We could outsource it to China and India like everything else. Or, we can build Mexican laborer armament factories. I know that was not pc.
You could do a lot. You could also simply employ some unemployed directly or even send unnecessary staff members to an army depot for a course in welding and for rebuilding those vehicles.
That's not how things work, though. Profit-driven companies would attempt to suck as much money out of the system for some welding works as possible, and they would succeed. It's the American (Western) way of military procurement.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks