What's new

The U.S. Army's New 84-Ton Tank Prototype Is Nearly IED-Proof

selvan33

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
1,267
Reaction score
0
Country
India
Location
India
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.

GCV.jpg


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.
An earlier version of this piece misstated the transport capacity of the GCV as a six-man squad, instead of the correct nine-man squad. The 84 ton weight of the GCV only refers to the prototype, and the weight may easily change in the next six years of development.
The U.S. Army's New 84-Ton Tank Prototype Is Nearly IED-Proof [Updated] | Popular Science
 
.
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.

GCV.jpg


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.
An earlier version of this piece misstated the transport capacity of the GCV as a six-man squad, instead of the correct nine-man squad. The 84 ton weight of the GCV only refers to the prototype, and the weight may easily change in the next six years of development.
The U.S. Army's New 84-Ton Tank Prototype Is Nearly IED-Proof [Updated] | Popular Science

I think Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE, Oman, Jordan and may be Yemen should join in with Germans and Ukrainians to develop Tanks, Howetzers and APC in JV and with Germans small arms and big Guns.
 
. . .
80-T..omg! How will be the ground performance? like speed, mobility fuel consumption etc etc? slower means more susceptible to mobility kills. Also, heavier may also pose deployment problem in current and imminent conflict area (roads etc). Nazis tried building bigger and heavier tanks and failed miserably... all this and "nearly" ied proof?? not good enough...
 
. . .
God damn it... we needed this 10 years ago


This is almost always true.


This prototype will most likely be rejected.

These tank designs are on the death bed just like manned fighter bombers.

this is the time to think 30 years from now.

That means drones, drones, drones.


On land, on sea and in the air.


Robotics and drone tanks is the way to go. This will reduce the amount of armor protection, thus drastically reducing the weight. increase fuel efficiency, and work more quickly and efficiently.


Some of you may laugh at it. But that is the future.


peace
 
.
As a cavalry officer myself. I know for a fact that the role of IFV (This is not a tank or strictly speaking, armor) is to keep up with the MBT, so when the MBT in difficult terrain, the IFV can unload the troop and fight alongside the tank.

With 84 tons, I don't care how big the engine is going to be, it will most likely to get left behind by the Abrams. Then what good will it be to have an IFV?

IFV design must be light and agile, cause they also served as the recon element of any Armored Warfare.
 
.
As a cavalry officer myself. I know for a fact that the role of IFV (This is not a tank or strictly speaking, armor) is to keep up with the MBT, so when the MBT in difficult terrain, the IFV can unload the troop and fight alongside the tank.

With 84 tons, I don't care how big the engine is going to be, it will most likely to get left behind by the Abrams. Then what good will it be to have an IFV?

IFV design must be light and agile, cause they also served as the recon element of any Armored Warfare.

Maybe they're thinking of it being more of a High-Low mix between a heavier category IFV like this which would operate independently in counter-terrorism or counter-insurgency missions with some other lighter type being used in conjunction to the cavalry to be inducted later on ? :unsure:
 
.
Maybe they're thinking of it being more of a High-Low mix between a heavier category IFV like this which would operate independently in counter-terrorism or counter-insurgency missions with some other lighter type being used in conjunction to the cavalry to be inducted later on ? :unsure:

They are replacing Bradley vehicles with this monstrosity..
 
.
Maybe they're thinking of it being more of a High-Low mix between a heavier category IFV like this which would operate independently in counter-terrorism or counter-insurgency missions with some other lighter type being used in conjunction to the cavalry to be inducted later on ? :unsure:

Maybe, but if they are going to run these "New Tank" individually, they will need a gun a lot bigger than 30 mike mike.
Even if these IFV are loaded with Missile(Which they didn't say), they would be too slow (Mind you, an Abrams only weight 60 ton) and will be made mince meat by the Enemy tank, depend on armor composition, they may not be even effective against a dude with RPG-7.....

Chance of these IFV design go solo is really low......

That's my opinion tho, by no mean they represent anything but my view :)
 
.
They are replacing Bradley vehicles with this monstrosity..

Thats what it says but what if they're thinking of evolving the role of an IFV ? I would imagine that if we - mere forummites can point this out - the guys at Pentagon & the Arms Manufacturers are exponentially more qualified to know this as well !
 
.
They are replacing Bradley vehicles with this monstrosity..

I cannot think of anyway this can be used to replace Bradley, Bradley is a very top notch IFV, I commanded one myself, using this to replace Bradley IMO is a step down.

Sounded like they are more to replace Humvee with this prototype where IED is the top concern.
 
.
Maybe, but if they are going to run these "New Tank" individually, they will need a gun a lot bigger than 30 mike mike.
Even if these IFV are loaded with Missile(Which they didn't say), they would be too slow (Mind you, an Abrams only weight 60 ton) and will be made mince meat by the Enemy tank, depend on armor composition, they may not be even effective against a dude with RPG-7.....

Chance of these IFV design go solo is really low......

That's my opinion tho, by no mean they represent anything but my view :)

Hmmmn....fair points ! But could it be that its going to equip elite Counter-Terrorism units in the future because obviously you're not going to come across an MBT when fighting the Taliban or terrorists elsewhere where there is some sort of US Strategic Interest ? Maybe this is supposed to be just an IFV packed with just about enough firepower & crew protection to take on anything smaller than an MBT & well protected enough to serve in a glorified Humvee meets a Bradley kinda role independently !

Or maybe I'm just talking utter nonsense ! :cray:
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom