Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Military Thread V9, Happy birthday Malaysia & ATM ke 50 & 80

views
     
MichaelJohn
post May 9 2013, 11:52 AM

Pan Paka Pan <3
*******
Senior Member
2,514 posts

Joined: Jun 2010
From: [Confidential]

QUOTE(KYPMbangi @ May 9 2013, 11:07 AM)
The U.S. Army's New 84-Ton Tank Prototype Is Nearly IED-Proof
The new Ground Combat Vehicle weighs twice as much as the tank it's designed to replace,
and it's massive enough to survive a roadside bomb.

user posted image
The Ground Combat Vehicle U.S. Army

Heavy does not even begin to describe the U.S. Army's new tank. At 84 tons, the Ground Combat
Vehicle prototype weighs more than twice as much as its predecessor, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
The Bradley is designed to carry a six-man squad (and three-man driving crew) into combat, while
the GCV will carry a larger, nine-man squad. Both vehicles will provide covering fire and damage
enemy tanks. But the military has built the new GCV to withstand a kind of threat that didn't exist
when the Bradley was deployed in the early 1980s: improvised explosive devices.

Part of logic behind the new tank's massive size is that soldiers inside a vehicle are more likely to survive
an explosion if there's adequate space for them to wear armor while seated. The extra space also helps
distribute pressure from the blast and thus lessens its impact. Another reason the GCV is so huge is that
it's required to carry a larger gun than the Bradley does; the new tank will hold a 30mm cannon, probably
the 344-pound Mk44 Bushmaster II. Finally, the GCV's extra weight means it will need to be manufactured
from the start with a more powerful engine. (By contrast, the Bradley got heavier as the Army added
armor to it in Iraq, and its original engine wasn't powerful enough to support the extra weight.)

The Ground Combat Vehicle is pretty much the opposite of the original plan to replace the Bradley.
A high-concept proposal called Future Combat Systems aimed to make all U.S. Army vehicles lighter.
But during the long ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (in which IEDs were the top cause of fatalities),
it became clear clear that heavier, not lighter, was the better vehicle design. The U.S. canceled the Future
Combat Systems program, and work on the GCV began in 2009. The Pentagon is scheduled to award the
first contract to manufacture GCVs in 2019.
*
Fuuuu... beats the M1A2 Abrams (68Tonnes) laugh.gif
MichaelJohn
post May 10 2013, 11:46 AM

Pan Paka Pan <3
*******
Senior Member
2,514 posts

Joined: Jun 2010
From: [Confidential]

QUOTE(azriel @ May 10 2013, 09:13 AM)
The above pic is of a CV90. Here are the pics of the BAE Ground Combat Vehicle. As you can see the massive add-on armor on each side of the hull.

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image
*
fugly
MichaelJohn
post May 10 2013, 06:51 PM

Pan Paka Pan <3
*******
Senior Member
2,514 posts

Joined: Jun 2010
From: [Confidential]

Can only add poll when starting new thread only what?

I choose between the Apache and Viper wub.gif



MichaelJohn
post May 10 2013, 08:01 PM

Pan Paka Pan <3
*******
Senior Member
2,514 posts

Joined: Jun 2010
From: [Confidential]

You don't need a beautiful face to kill laugh.gif
MichaelJohn
post May 15 2013, 05:41 PM

Pan Paka Pan <3
*******
Senior Member
2,514 posts

Joined: Jun 2010
From: [Confidential]

Confirm GG liao
MichaelJohn
post Jun 3 2013, 06:50 PM

Pan Paka Pan <3
*******
Senior Member
2,514 posts

Joined: Jun 2010
From: [Confidential]

reactive armor doesn't stand a chance laugh.gif
MichaelJohn
post Jun 5 2013, 04:53 PM

Pan Paka Pan <3
*******
Senior Member
2,514 posts

Joined: Jun 2010
From: [Confidential]

user posted image

NTW-20?
MichaelJohn
post Jun 5 2013, 06:12 PM

Pan Paka Pan <3
*******
Senior Member
2,514 posts

Joined: Jun 2010
From: [Confidential]

QUOTE(kerolzarmyfanboy @ Jun 5 2013, 05:51 PM)
the rifle looks heavy as f*** with all those scopes!! a CQB with that?? u gotta be kidding me..
*
With the amount of the load a soldier is required to carry, I guess this is still normal for them.
MichaelJohn
post Aug 26 2013, 04:29 PM

Pan Paka Pan <3
*******
Senior Member
2,514 posts

Joined: Jun 2010
From: [Confidential]

QUOTE(zimhibikie @ Aug 26 2013, 10:37 AM)

Bila mau beli ni?  tongue.gif  tongue.gif  tongue.gif
*
Mau cari/beli pengganti Mig-29N dulu... sweat.gif
MichaelJohn
post Aug 27 2013, 01:30 PM

Pan Paka Pan <3
*******
Senior Member
2,514 posts

Joined: Jun 2010
From: [Confidential]

QUOTE(azriel @ Aug 27 2013, 12:32 PM)
An artist impression of the new Russian Boomerang armoured vehicle.

user posted image

user posted image

source
*
Nice design, looks kinda similar to US Stryker on some parts

Bump Topic Topic ClosedOptions New Topic
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0214sec    0.91    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 30th November 2025 - 01:21 PM