Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #AFVaDay
Most recents (15)
Lots of people note that hard kill APS rarely have more than 2-4 rounds available on each aspect, ever wondered why? A(nother) thread!
When you look at projectile APS, most have 2-4 rounds (either ready rounds like an Iron Fist, or reloads like a Trophy). There are some exceptions, QuickKill had 8+ but that single pod covered all aspects, versus 2 or 3 per aspect on more traditional systems. So, 2-4 is the norm. 
Even non projectile systems tend to trend around here. StrikeShield/ADS has 2 per pod with adjacent pods able to defend one another, so again in the 2-4 window, give or take.
A few tweets recently had people raise usual objections around the point of #Boxer’s modular ‘pod’ design, with separate mission and drive modules, so I thought an educational journey on some of what this approach brings to the table that other vehicles don’t might be interesting
(𝟭) 𝗨𝗽𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀: Users should be continuously enhancing their kit through life to maintain capability. Some might be full platform upgrades (MLU type stuff) but most are smaller component level or variant specific. Maybe a new transmission, or a new set of IFV sights
So when that upgrade comes along, you normally end up expensively (rime + money) requalifying a staggering number of often notionally irrelevant components and systems because of their adjacency in the vehicle.
A few thoughts on belly loading. No, not our collective plans for the xmas period, a primer on the science behind allowing the belly of a vehicle to contact the terrain, and the implications therein to mobility (spoiler: its always bad) #AFVaDay #miltwitter #tanktwitter
Usual disclaimer - this is Twitter, I don’t have much space and so some things are simplified or omitted for simplicity. This is a hugely complex science; I’m just giving a flavour of the considerations inherent in AFV design. With that out the way…
Another outwardly unexciting concept, but actually quite critical to off road performance. Belly loading is the condition where the tracks have sunk in terrain to the extent that the belly of the vehicle is now partially or fully resting on the terrain
Having done mobility concepts to death of late, I thought it interesting to do a short thread on vehicle armour, specifically statistical armour (bar and mesh mainly) and tackling a few tropes around it. #miltwitter #tanktwitter #AFVaDay
Usual disclaimer - this is Twitter, I don’t have much space and so some things are simplified or omitted for brevity. This is a hugely complex science, I’m just giving a flavour of some of the considerations inherent in AFV design. With that out the way…
What is bar armour? Also called slat/cage/mesh/net armour, its one of a range of methods collectively called statistical armour, so called as it presents a statistical likelihood of defeating a specific projectile type
Part 7 of my Running Gear series, today looking at track types. The series is looking at all the bits of tracked vehicle mobility and started here (bit.ly/30596QZ) if you want to follow the threads. Hope its interesting.
Usual disclaimer - this is Twitter, I don’t have much space and so some things are simplified or omitted for simplicity. This is a hugely complex science; I’m just giving a flavour of the considerations inherent in AFV design. With that out the way…
Track comes in two flavours – single pin and double pin. Broadly speaking, double pin is the contemporary norm for most of the world, though there are plenty of single pin examples in service, especially in Russia where two pin is relatively new still
Part 6 of my Running Gear series, today looking at tracked suspension. The series is looking at all the bits of tracked vehicle mobility and started here (bit.ly/30596QZ) if you want to follow the threads. Hope its interesting.
Usual disclaimer - this is Twitter, I don’t have much space and so some things are simplified or omitted for simplicity. This is a hugely complex science; I’m just giving a flavour of the considerations inherent in AFV design. With that out the way…
Whilst there have been many historic suspension designs, contemporary AFV almost exclusively use either torsion bar or hydro pneumatic (hydrogas) systems, so I'm looking at those here. Historic stuff perhaps another day!
Part 4 of my Running Gear series, today looking at sprockets. The series is looking at all the bits of tracked vehicle mobility stuff and started here (bit.ly/30596QZ) if you want to follow the threads. Hope its interesting.
Usual disclaimer - this is Twitter, I don’t have much space and so some things are simplified or omitted for simplicity. This is a hugely complex science; I’m just giving a flavour of the considerations inherent in AFV design. With that out the way…
The sprocket is the toothed wheel that transfers drive from the transmission and final drives to the track itself. Teeth on the sprocket engage with the track links at each end – holes in the body of the track for single-pin, and between the end connectors for double-pin.
Part 3 of my running gear series, today looking at track return rollers. The series is looking at all the bits of a tracked vehicle mobility stuff and started here (bit.ly/30596QZ) if you want to follow the threads.
Usual disclaimer - this is Twitter, I don’t have much space and so some things are simplified or omitted for simplicity. This is a hugely complex science; I’m just giving a flavour of the considerations inherent in AFV design. With that out the way…
Track can be supported or unsupported as it transits the top run. If supported, several track return rollers (or top rollers) are used. They prevent track bouncing/slapping and help to avoid lateral movements that could see a de-track incident via engagement with the track horns
Part 2 of my Running Gear series, today looking at roadwheels. The series is looking at all the bits of a tracked vehicle mobility stuff and started here (bit.ly/30596QZ) if you want to follow the threads. Hope its interesting.
Usual disclaimer - this is Twitter, I don’t have much space and so some things are simplified or omitted for simplicity. This is a hugely complex science; I’m just giving a flavour of the considerations inherent in AFV design. With that out the way…
An AFV is really a wheeled vehicle, it just brings its own road with it to run on. Roadwheels bear the weight of the vehicle and are the primary interface with the track and thus terrain
What started as a brief thread on running gear rapidly got out of hand, so instead I’m doing a series of short threads on the major elements of tracked vehicle running gear design and the component parts, what variance there is and why. First a short introductory thread on tracks
Usual disclaimer - this is Twitter, I don’t have much space and so some things are simplified or omitted for simplicity. This is a hugely complex science; I’m just giving a flavour of the considerations inherent in AFV design. With that out the way…
Continuous track dates to 1830s with one of the first patents being the ‘universal railway” invented by Sir George Cayley. In 1832 a tracked steam ploughing engine was built by British textile manufacturer John Heathcote and was moderately successful until it sank into a swamp.
The first 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV howitzers have been delivered for trials according to TASS: bmpd.livejournal.com/4035026.html If the capabilities of this SPH are as claimed it will become the most capable system in service once accepted. A true monster of an artillery piece.
Here is some info from @JonHawkes275 #AFVaday thing from last year. There is a lot more to a vehicle than it’s tech details, it is the totality of the battlefield that matters. But the Russian recce assets are good, and the doctrine around arty frightening
And that together with the 2S35s technical details will make it a thing to be respected and accounted for.
As suggested by @tungmetall and after some good points from @EliLea, a few of the negatives/discussion areas building on my thoughts (bit.ly/2ONNIdl) on unmanned turrets yesterday
Most of these are a case of theory vs current reality, the latter lagging behind the former. One hopes the next gen of AFV catch up a bit as they should have bespokely designed and integrated designs.
(1) An easy one is size. Whilst the potential for very low profile turrets exist, most to date have been quite dumpy and offer no major silhouette advantage over manned options. (Pic: Unmanned CV90CZr left, manned CV90CZ right)
A few thoughts on the discussion of the blurring delineation of APCs and IFVs in recent years. #AFVaDay /1
Many remotely operated turrets that have zero, or near zero, deck penetration are widely available. Using unmanned turrets bring a range of benefits to designers and users from integration to operation. /2
Moving the turret crew out of the turret and into the hull improves survivability - the turret can be lower profile, and if it is hit the damage can be isolated to that component and may not propagate down into the vehicle interior where personnel are located. /3
1/ #AFVaDay Following the #Carmel news last week it seems there remains much confusion. Some defence media reporting it is a modernisation programme, or a platform agnostic upgrade package have really confused things and are wrong, so todays #AFVaDay is to clarify things.
2/ Carmel is a new AFV for the IDF, born out of the cancelled Merkava Mk5 programme. Previously dubbed Future Manned Combat Vehicle (FMCV) it is a medium weight AFV family, seeking < half Merkava Mk4 weight via use of soft/hard APS in place of physical armour as much as possible.
3/ As with all IDF AFV, it is being designed for combat in confused and dense urban environments, requiring high survivability, relatively small size and very high situational awareness.
AFV Weight and size - a thread. A few of my recent #AFVaDay have dwelled on weight and size of contemporary AFV, thought it worth a longer note.
AFV weight is relentlessly increasing - since the 60s Western MBT are up >40%, IFV/AFV are >50%. We dont mention it much, but this is an issue for Russia/China too - whilst lighter in all cases they are very closely matched in trend.
Look at Warrior in original (24t) and today (~42t). Contemporary IFV like Lynx are similarly huge by comparison (34-50t). Russia on a similar trend - compare BMD-1 (right, 7.5t) with BMD-4M (left, 13.5t) or BMP-1 (12.5t) with Kurganets (25t)
