JW Collins Posted February 10, 2013 Posted February 10, 2013 Hasn't some Eastern European company offered a setup like that for a few different CITV-type systems? With a .50 cal or 7.62mm MG right above the optics? When you consider the soft-kill and hard-kill active defense systems we will eventually want to integrate, it seems like we are going to want to start combining some of these systems to save space in the near future.
Max H Posted February 10, 2013 Posted February 10, 2013 Hasn't some Eastern European company offered a setup like that for a few different CITV-type systems? With a .50 cal or 7.62mm MG right above the optics? When you consider the soft-kill and hard-kill active defense systems we will eventually want to integrate, it seems like we are going to want to start combining some of these systems to save space in the near future. Like the one on the T-90MS?
JW Collins Posted February 11, 2013 Posted February 11, 2013 Similar but I think I saw it on the CV120T and some other vehicles.
Mr King Posted February 11, 2013 Posted February 11, 2013 Similar but I think I saw it on the CV120T and some other vehicles. ?
Tomas Hoting Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 Similar but I think I saw it on the CV120T and some other vehicles. Saab Trackfire RWS on a CV90120-T: The Saab Trackfire RWS (or the BAE Systems Bofors LEMUR) can also be configured to be used as a commander’s panoramic sight.
Walter_Sobchak Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 I posted some promotional materials from General Dynamics for the M1A1 and M1A2 here in case anyone is interested.
Mr King Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) Interesting, thanks for sharing that. Edit to add - Nice blog Edited April 14, 2014 by Mr King
jmcmtank Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 ^ Manic Moran said, on another forum, that the Meggit autoloader doesn't actually do the complete sequence, but takes a lot of the workload away from the loader; so I'm assuming the breech has to be closed manually?
Ben Dejo Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 The problems I see here are... 1). Getting rounds from the cell where the commander is sitting, it is going at least be very uncomfortable for him as the robotic loaders arm comes over there, honestly I'm not sure that there is room enough over there. 2). It does not save any volume, you are just as big and heavy enclosing the same loader as you do using this autoloader, and you lose the spare eyes you had with loader ( also spare hands and one more body to abuse when someone is Out Of Action). All in all, while trying to "make it fit" into the existing cell structure of the M-1, I think the rest of the world has the right idea by going with the continous belt like the Type 90 and Black Eagle did.
jmcmtank Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 You lose rear vision as well, those cylinders form two humps. On the company website their video is of a flat magazine.
Ben Dejo Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 You lose rear vision as well, those cylinders form two humps. On the company website their video is of a flat magazine.I can see where the humps are, but maybe this is a an opportunity as well, if you were going to increase top protection of the M-1, going with this solution would be a great start ( as you are going taller anyway). If you bring the roof line up to the top of the humps it eliminates the vision problem, it makes the cupola taller, but it's either that or make a taller turret cavity (and M-1 is already very heavy), after that just mirror image the autoloader door so that they are next to each other, move the commander over next to the gun, shorten the turret....this.....could.....work....
DKTanker Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 You lose rear vision as well, those cylinders form two humps. On the company website their video is of a flat magazine.There is little to no rear vision to lose. Put a duffle bag in the bustle rack and the TC isn't seeing anything but the duffle bag. As you noted on their website, the loading is completely automated to include closing the breach.
Panzermann Posted August 6, 2014 Posted August 6, 2014 We heard you liked gratings so we added gratings to your gratings?
Damian Posted August 6, 2014 Posted August 6, 2014 @jmcmtank and ben dejo I think yo two confused Meggitt compact autoloader with FASTDRAW autoloader on this drawing. This is how Meggitt autoloader for M1 looks like and operate, it's far more smaller than FASTDRAW. https://www.meggittdefense.com/index.php/compact-autotoloaderhttps://www.meggittdefense.com/images/stories/pdf/PD_120mm%20Compact%20Autoloader.pdf There is a video of this in the first link. These were completely different autoloader types and separate projects.
Sovngard Posted August 6, 2014 Posted August 6, 2014 (edited) The installation of the Meggitt™ autoloader in the turret bustle will allow to put the commander at the place of the loader and thus reducing the excess volume, which will give us a smaller fighting compartment, a smaller and thus lighter turret while keeping the same level of protection. Edited August 6, 2014 by Sovngard
Damian Posted August 6, 2014 Posted August 6, 2014 Yeah, exactly this solution gives such capability. Actually US Army is currently researching such ideas to reduce combat vehicles weight without reducing protection and survivability. Actually I belive that Meggit autoloader and a 3 men crew can give a lot of benefits. For example turret design can be perfected, with the same frontal armor thickness we can move front parts of the turret a bit to the back and lower it, thus covering the better the turret-hull joining. Also front hull protection could be improved by redesigning glacis plate, I can imagine making part of the glacis where driver hatch is flat, horizontal, and the frontal part of the glacis could be made from a thicker composite armor, thus completely eliminating any potential weak zones. So possibilities to improve overall M1 design are there if nececary... other things are money and if someone else could see these possibilities and say "hey, yeah let's do it".
Mr King Posted September 7, 2014 Posted September 7, 2014 This was listed as a M1 purposely running over an IED, but I have my doubts as the commander had his head out of the hatch? Anyone know more background on this video? http://youtu.be/aYZAXb96aVQ
JohnAbrams21 Posted September 7, 2014 Posted September 7, 2014 (edited) USMC M1A1's receive ILWS (Improved Loaders Weapon Station) which is remotely controlled. Have day and thermal sights, ammo capacity 600 rounds. Here's a pamphlet on the USMC's ILWS... I see two different systems here. Which one is correct for Marine M1A1s? One says integrated and the other improved but as far as I know, the Marines have not had a RWS for the loader until now. Edited September 7, 2014 by JohnAbrams21
Sovngard Posted September 7, 2014 Posted September 7, 2014 (edited) The BattleGuard remains my favourite RWS. It harmonizes well with the M1A2's CITV without being too bulky for the field of view of the commander's cupola. Edited September 7, 2014 by Sovngard
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now