History Of Us Army Afvs

[Peasant]

Yes, the schematic is from the same document as these others you posted. https://www.loc.gov/item/2007498072/

A bit off-topic, but Am I the only one has this PDF working really slow, every page loading like 5 seconds? The file size doesn't look too big to cause this, maybe it's damaged in some way or the format is partly incompatible with modern PDF readers.

[Peasant]

Impressive accuracy:

 

Sauce: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA129905.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0317307.pdf

Edited June 16 by Peasant

[Harkonnen]

some same ideas

[Peasant]

Interesting video, never heard of this tank before:

 

 

It was, essentially, an american T-62.

Edited June 30 by Peasant

[Bichri001]

Why weren't light tanks like the M24 and M41 equiped with smoke grenade launchers from the get go?

Seems like reconnaissance light tanks like this would benefit greatly from them. Germans and Brits seemed to use them on some lighter vehicles

[Renegade334]

Well, well, well...look who resurfaced at the Sierra Army Depot...

Credits go to Cleb on SH.

Remarkably good state, I must say. But hey - the last time the Thumper was spotted was in 2010 and the place's dryness is perfect for preserving equipment.

Edited July 17 by Renegade334

[Harkonnen]

it is also now a part of history

 

[bojan]

Isn't covering of blow-out panels by anything detrimental to their function?

[DB]

57 minutes ago, bojan said:

Isn't covering of blow-out panels by anything detrimental to their function?

One would suspect so, although I imagine that if whatever was on top was lower weight than the panel itself, you'd probably be fine - it would depend on how close to the worst case the propellent deflagration was and how much slower the panel would open to vent. An interesting problem that might also be dependent on the temperature of the rounds, and so on.

[Peasant]

 

Link: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0396608.pdf

[Renegade334]

We've seen this glacis before:

https://i.imgur.com/W0zMf1Z.jpeg
https://i.imgur.com/ZfIpg4v.jpeg
https://i.imgur.com/YJVYGtX.jpeg

Edited August 30 by Renegade334

[Mighty_Zuk]

42 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

We've seen this glacis before:

https://i.imgur.com/W0zMf1Z.jpeg
https://i.imgur.com/ZfIpg4v.jpeg
https://i.imgur.com/YJVYGtX.jpeg

The entire NGCV program needs to be accelerated to create capacity in Europe.

[DKTanker]

On 8/7/2024 at 6:22 AM, bojan said:

Isn't covering of blow-out panels by anything detrimental to their function?

I don't see anything on the  blowout panel.

[bojan]

Sorry, my mistake, looked at first sight that they have aranged ARAT tiles on it.

[TrustMe]

US army plans to buy next generation Bradley IFV ...

 

https://defence-blog.com/us-army-buys-next-gen-bradley-fighting-vehicle/

[Damian]

I have an interesting observation. Recently US National Armor and Cavalry Museum received M1A2SEPv4 PV09. We can see that it still have a turret serial number with letter M, indicating it is using NEA/NGAP armor package. M1A2SEPv3 uses the same armor package in turret and hull. While newer M1A1SA's and M1A2SEPv2's, also have letter M next to turret serial number, also indicating, they might use an older variant of this new armor package.

Some time ago, museum received old M1A1HA, this tank used HAP or Heavy Armor Package, which contains layers made from Depleted Uranium alloy. Before museum could receive this tank, DU armor had been removed. HAP is mounted only in turret of this version of the tank.

This allows me to conclude that the newest special armor package, designated with letter M, used in newer M1A1SA's, M1A2SEPv2's and M1A2SEPv3's, definately do not use DU in it's structure, but some other, different material, not deemed dangerous to environment.

[Mighty_Zuk]

@Damian much appreciated analysis!

[TrustMe]

I read somewhere on this site that the Moroccan M1's use a tungsten composite armour package. Maybe that's what replaced the DU armour. 

Can anyone confirm that?

Edited September 28 by TrustMe

[Damian]

8 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

I read somewhere on this site that the Moroccan M1's use a tungsten composite armour package. Maybe that's what replaced the DU armour. 

Can anyone confirm that?

There are different Export Armor Packages, also called FMS Armor Packages.

There is original FMS Armor Package, and there are also various Improved FMS Armor package variants, which can use different materials and internal configurations. So nobody knows what is inside these.

I can only tell, that M1A1FEP's purchased by Poland, received some variant of Improved FMS Armor Package for NATO members. Our M1A1FEP's weight around 62-63 metric tons, so they have similar weight as when they served in USMC.

Australian M1A2SEPv3's weight around 66 metric tons, so they have exactly the same weight as US Army M1A2SEPv3's.

26 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

@Damian much appreciated analysis

Thanks. I am awaiiting to see our first M1A2SEPv3's for Poland. I know that first batch is ready, so it will be interesting to analize how much different they are from US Army M1A2SEPv3's, if there will be any difference at all.

Edited September 28 by Damian

[TrustMe]

12 hours ago, Damian said:

There are different Export Armor Packages, also called FMS Armor Packages.

There is original FMS Armor Package, and there are also various Improved FMS Armor package variants, which can use different materials and internal configurations. So nobody knows what is inside these.

I can only tell, that M1A1FEP's purchased by Poland, received some variant of Improved FMS Armor Package for NATO members. Our M1A1FEP's weight around 62-63 metric tons, so they have similar weight as when they served in USMC.

Australian M1A2SEPv3's weight around 66 metric tons, so they have exactly the same weight as US Army M1A2SEPv3's.

Thanks. I am awaiiting to see our first M1A2SEPv3's for Poland. I know that first batch is ready, so it will be interesting to analize how much different they are from US Army M1A2SEPv3's, if there will be any difference at all.

Cool thanks.

[Mr King]

Are the armor packages inside the M1 turrets designed to be relatively easy to remove and swap out, or is it a major undertaking?

[Tim Sielbeck]

Definitely a major undertaking.

[Rick]

If I'm understanding correctly, the "best" armor is made from depleted uranium -- the same material as the kinetic main gun rounds-- followed by tungsten, then followed by traditional R.H.A.?

Where does the "ceramic/non-metal" come into play?

Thanks.

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

If I'm understanding correctly, the "best" armor is made from depleted uranium -- the same material as the kinetic main gun rounds-- followed by tungsten, then followed by traditional R.H.A.?

Where does the "ceramic/non-metal" come into play?

Thanks.

Composite armor is called such because you're designing an armor typically around a certain set of interactions, rather than individual materials. 

If DU happens to be heavier than an alternative then this might limit how you install armor elsewhere so it's not inherently better.

Aside from keeping the composition a secret, an export variant may be different simply because of different user requirements. Or the user may simply accept some downgrades like a slightly higher weight or volume, or just relying on a less standard supplier.

I seriously doubt any such alteration in armor results in any meaningful downgrade.

By the way, DU is very rarely used. It and tungsten are difficult metals to process, and their niche use means few companies are offering services. So in wartime or other peak demand times, they may be even a point of vulnerability.

Edited Tuesday at 11:53 AM by Mighty_Zuk

[TrustMe]

What armor type do Egyption M1's have and how do they compare to the Merkava 4's?