U.S. Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' XM25 Rifle in Afghanistan

[burmafrd]

Actually the M1A2 is now about 74 tons. Still the fastest tank ever built.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Actually the M1A2 is now about 74 tons. Still the fastest tank ever built.

Don't think so. There was one built in the time between WW1 and WW2 as a test bed that featured the suspension system that most common tanks use today, and what you can remember on the Sherman's. It topped out at 70+, Spanish I want to say. Military Channel had a special a few years ago about tank development and mentioned it. It was never a production model, and I want to say it was developed before Hitler ever came to power. The suspension system was obviously a big hit.

Currently, there's a Limey tank that does 50+.

I swear though that the M1A1 has a governor on it. Maybe that's the HMMWV that has the governor?

 

[63echo]

Actually the M1A2 is now about 74 tons. Still the fastest tank ever built.

Dunno if they're the fastest, but I can personally attest to the fact that they can reach upwards of 80 mph if you yank the turret (and the governor) off. I can't imagine the track/final drive would be able to keep up with speeds any higher than that, though.

In any case, there's not much on earth more terrifying than 60 tons of metal, propelled by a turbine engine, coming towards you at 75 mph.

Ran across a few reports of the British doing the same thing with the camo to tanks. Problem is that the M1A1 doesn't sneak up on anybody, and our major adversaries have thermal and passive IR imaging systems. 67 tons of armor under any camouflage system is still 67 tons of armor.

I think that's why they ended up poopcanning that particular project. This was back in the early 90s (right after Desert Storm) and I'm not sure how prevalent these types of imaging systems were amongst our enemies of the time, but these things are pretty much off-the-shelf now so this project (basically a bunch of angled mirrors that reflected and projected the ground) would've be mostly worthless as soon as they were fielded. It was a really cool effect, though.

Also, I'd forgotten about rifle optics (and the accessory rails). I love my iron sights, but we started using the EOTechs and ACOGs within the last couple of years and I'm a convert. I'm given to understand that the military uses them as well and that's a huge upgrade in and of itself.

Lastly, I can't speak much on the MK14, but it seemed pretty common out in Kuwait. Of course, only MPs had them and I tended to avoid those guys in the field as well as garrison, so what do I know?

 

[burmafrd]

When the first M1's (the lighter 105 gunned version) got to Germany in the early 80's a few crazy treadheads took some out on the autobahn and the Politzei clocked them at nearly 100 mph. I have heard stories of the latest versions in Iraq that got to over 70 when the governor was disabled (treadheads tend to do that a lot in the combat zones-gee I wonder why?)

 

[ologan]

Hope they get a couple of these at FB Restrepo,in the Korengal valley of Afghanistan.
If you have a chance to catch "Restrepo" on the National Geographic Channel,please do so. It's a great documentary.

Just finished watching "Restrepo" on TIVO. I didn't know they abandoned both it and the Korengal Valley a little while back.

 

[63echo]

When the first M1's (the lighter 105 gunned version) got to Germany in the early 80's a few crazy treadheads took some out on the autobahn and the Politzei clocked them at nearly 100 mph. I have heard stories of the latest versions in Iraq that got to over 70 when the governor was disabled (treadheads tend to do that a lot in the combat zones-gee I wonder why?)

I'm surprised they let those on the Autobahn. M1s (well, any tracked vehicle) are absolute hell on asphalt.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

I'm surprised they let those on the Autobahn. M1s (well, any tracked vehicle) are absolute hell on asphalt.

What're they gonna do? Put up a road block?

I can see a 21 year old tanker with a few pints in him getting snotty and telling a German police officer that if the Abrams throws a track going over his little car, there will be hell to pay.

 

[burmafrd]

They were ticketed for unlawful use of the Autobahn. Actually moving that fast the damage would be minimal.

 

[casmith07]

Is that Casmith? lol

I WISH. That thing looks amazing. Funny that I didn't even know about it.

The Army needs to go ahead and make those uniforms standard, though. And bring back the black leather boots.

 

[casmith07]

What're they gonna do? Put up a road block?

I can see a 21 year old tanker with a few pints in him getting snotty and telling a German police officer that if the Abrams throws a track going over his little car, there will be hell to pay.

They could tow them with M1070s.

 

[casmith07]

When the first M1's (the lighter 105 gunned version) got to Germany in the early 80's a few crazy treadheads took some out on the autobahn and the Politzei clocked them at nearly 100 mph. I have heard stories of the latest versions in Iraq that got to over 70 when the governor was disabled (treadheads tend to do that a lot in the combat zones-gee I wonder why?)

Official top speed is "45mph."

Take that how you may

Put it this way...anyone seen that popular Japanese racing style "drifting?" I've seen a 70-ton M1A2 do that. All I'm saying is I'm not sure you can do that with a tank at only 45mph....

 

[63echo]

They were ticketed for unlawful use of the Autobahn. Actually moving that fast the damage would be minimal.

Heh. It's not moving in a straight line, but turning the thing that would tear some stuff up. We caused an "international incident" near Grafenwoehr when some knucklehead tanker came off the trail and started crossing the asphalt when he decided he needed to go back where he came from...he pivot-steered in the middle of the road and actually peeled a good portion of the asphalt up from the roadbed.

Good times.

Also, I'd be nervous taking one over a bridge, though I guess (?) those bridges are over-engineered and can handle 60 some-odd tons. I'd still get jumpy every time I went over one, though .

 

[burmafrd]

once again its a case of how fast you are moving; if you go fast enough the weight is not on any part of the bridge long enough to cause problems.

 

[63echo]

once again its a case of how fast you are moving; if you go fast enough the weight is not on any part of the bridge long enough to cause problems.

I'm not a physics major, so I'll have to defer to you on this. Seems like it wouldn't make a huge difference (depending on the span of the bridge and the amount the capacity of the thing is exceeded), but again, I'm not a smart guy...that's why I only fixed the tanks and didn't design them .

 

[burmafrd]

A short bridge is no problem- now a longer one, not sure about that. It would depend on the total capacity of the bridge. Really would need someone into structural stress analysis. From what I remember learning in college, it all comes down to how much for how long. A second or two, if you are not exceeding the capacity by too much, is ok. But as I said a longer bridge, maybe then you collapse it.

 

[Garland powerplay]

I know this is unrelated but good as place as any.

http://www.kansas.com/2010/12/03/1616214/faces-5-charges-in-westboro-incident.html

Some people have no decency to humanity.This is wrong ,free the man.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

once again its a case of how fast you are moving; if you go fast enough the weight is not on any part of the bridge long enough to cause problems.

Oh, not even remotely.

A 67 ton object still exerts 67 tons of pressure on the bridge for every moment it rests on the bridge.

The mistake is that you are bypassing the transfer of force from a 67 ton object going 45 mph "into" the structure of the bridge. Force = (mass)(acceleration)

Even though the tank isn't "running into" the bridge in the traditional head on collision thought process, there is still a huge amount of force transferred from the tank tread's to the bridge as an impact force to the bridge structure. And if the tank slows or accelerates while on the bridge, there is additional force transferred to the structure.

Concurrently, as perhaps nearly as important, is the amount of vibration the tank produces on the structure going at Y miles per hour.

There's a reason you walk heavy machinery over old bridges instead of going full speed into them. You want to test the holding capacity, and if it holds for a few seconds, you want to transfer as little force to the bridge as possible.

 

[burmafrd]

but isn't it more of a case of LBS per SQ INCH pressure? And amount of time? Like I said its been about 30 years since I was into this so not sure at all.

 

[Zaxor]

Things have changed drastically since I was in I was the last group to get issued the olive green uniforms had to buy my own BDU's... We still had the M16's from Nam and the MOS's ( Military Occupation Specialty) or something close to that was still called MOS...Even the AR's (Army Regulations) have all changed...I wouldn't recognize the army as being the army if I was to go back in as I would have to be retrained in everything.

 

[burmafrd]

Actually you would be better off remembering your old training. Todays PC world, even in the military, does not prepare you for real life (or war) very well.