Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

US Army News and updates general discussion

Discussion in 'Army & Security Forces' started by Ranger25, Sep 11, 2015.

Share This Page

  1. Ranger25

    Ranger25 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
  2. Rimasta

    Rimasta Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Does anyone know if the Army tank plant in Lima, Ohio still produces brand new factory made tanks? I’ve looked it up and several sources would indicate that Congress has indeed allocated funds to produce new M1A2’s at Lima but despite this I’m having a discussion with a colleague that is quite insistent that they are merely upgrading older tanks to the newest standard. I trust you guys immensely and I was wondering if anyone could put this to bed. Does the US still build new tanks?
     
  3. barney41

    barney41 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Manila
    The videos I've seen show a tired, beat up Abrams being stripped down to the bone, all the rust knocked off the hull and turret by being media blasted with steel bearings and emerging all shiny and pristine. Then the latest tech including a new engine new engine are installed and what emerges is a zero-miles tank which should qualify as "new" IMO.
     
  4. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    121
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Yes, I have seen the video and the resulting remanufactured tank is essentially a new tank. As to whether new tank hulls are being made, don't know.
     
  5. Ranger25

    Ranger25 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
    Without looking up data to support, I believe there is still a small number of new tanks built there. Congress, like someone mentioned, has mandated to keep the ONLY MBT assembly line in the US open for wartime imperatives.

    That said, most work is upgrades, wpkomg toward SEP IV now I believe.
     
  6. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,130
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Last edited: May 12, 2018
  7. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,130
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    In the rum store
  8. Chaldry

    Chaldry New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2018
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    In regards to the acquisition of a new caliber weapons system, could this be a way to bring the LSAT weapons into a preferable position when its time to pick candidates for the carbine selection?
    If I recall correctly, there were a previous statement which emphasized telescoped ammunition as an almost guaranteed requirement to secure the reduction in weight.
     
  9. barney41

    barney41 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Manila

    M-2 weighs in at 84lbs vs. 24lbs for LWMMG that packs a similar punch. Amazing.
     
  10. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,130
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    In the rum store
    I don't know. I have a strong emotional attachment to the M2 :D:D:D
     
  11. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    121
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    The 1911 and the M2, sort of like wine, they get appreciated as they age. The Norma 338 cal is probably a good compromise for a LWMMG but the M2 isn't going away, probably ever. The SAW/carbine new calibre choice will be the interesting next development.
     
  12. Beam

    Beam New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sydney

    Not to be too pedantic, but a 6.8mm round = .270 cal, not .338, unless I'm missing something.
     
  13. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    121
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    There are two ongoing programs, a possible 6.8 mm SAW and carbine (which you correctly point out is 270 cal) and a Norma 338 cal machine gun. The latter is seen as a 7.62 mm and M2 replacement. As I and others suggest, the M2 will likely be staying around. If the 338 can be made light enough, it could also be a SAW alternative.
     
  14. FormerDirtDart

    FormerDirtDart Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    8
    No. That is realistically not possible. Your basic.338 Norma 19.44 gram bullet (sans case & powder) weighs around 60% more than a 11.93 gram 5.56mm M855A1 complete cartridge.
    Which is also the reason the .338 Norma LWMMG isn't likely to completely replace any 7.62mm GPMGs. No matter what you do to reduce the .338 Norma's overall cartridge weight it's still not going to get down to a reasonable everyday carry weight.
     
    Cadredave likes this.
  15. StevoJH

    StevoJH Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,733
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Central NSW
    Why .338 Norma instead of the .338 Lapua Magnum that is already in service?

    Admittedly only in specialised roles, but it is already in the logistics system.
     
  16. Ranger25

    Ranger25 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
    the US Army is expanding its plans to fit APS to its Armor BCTs Originally planed for 3 BCTs, the program is now planned to fit all 9 with APS. Intitial kits should be fitted and deployed by 2019. Still considering plans for the 5 NAtional Guard BCTs

    Next up will be systems similar to Iron Curtain APS for Bradley and Styker teams.

    Most likely will be the last upgrades for the M1family, after SEP IV, until a new ground combat vehicle Family is procured.

    All Armored Brigades To Get Active Protection Systems: Gen. Milley
     
  17. FormerDirtDart

    FormerDirtDart Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    8
    1. That article clearly states that only 4 ABCTs are scheduled to receive APS for their M1s.
    Intent is not programmed. Intent is not funded. The US Army's other SIX (6) active ABCTs have no more expectation of receiving APS than the National Guard ABCTs. And, I'll believe the M2/M3 Bradleys will be getting fitted when they actually complete development of their modified system and it's fitted to the first battalion of Bradleys.

    2. When US Army generals state "total force" they are specifically emphasising the inclusion of the Army National Guard and Army Reserves in whatever they are discussing.

    3. Sydney Freedberg is a complete hack. In my experience of reading his articles, he's barely capable of regurgitating press releases without screwing it up. Any time he attempts to add context to a story, in an attempt to prove he's informed on the subject, he fumbles. The US Army currently has 10 active duty ABCTs. 2nd ABCT, 3rd ID completed conversion last fall. Hell, one of it's tank crews just won the Sullivan Cup. And, this year the IBCT assigned to 4th ID (2nd Bde) was designated to convert to the 11th active ABCT.
     
  18. steve33

    steve33 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
  19. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    If they are currently chambered for 5.56 x 45 mm, then they possibly could be re-chambered to take the new round, but IMO it would be a good bit of work and might just be better to develop or purchase a new weapon designed for the new round. After all not only would the existing weapons need to be re-bored due to the larger round, the new round would require a new action able to handle both higher chamber pressures but also a lighter, non-metallic case.
     
  20. steve33

    steve33 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    For a country of our size just having purchased all the new Lewis machine tools carbines to replace the Steyr the Army couldn't turn around and say to the government we need new weapons it just wouldn't fly so it looks like our army will be staying with the 5.56mm if the existing weapons can't be re chambered for the 6.8mm round.