Wyatt the Odd  | 23 Jun 2009 3:54 p.m. PST |
The USMC decided that it still needed an armored breacher vehicle after the cancellation of the M1 "Grizzly" in 2001. The result is the M1 ABV of which 28 initial vehicles have been ordered. link The thought is that the Army will buy more of these now that there is a standard. Photos of the beast are here: link Wyatt |
| napthyme | 23 Jun 2009 4:08 p.m. PST |
what are all the boxes on the front top of where the turret normally sets? |
| Pat Ripley | 23 Jun 2009 4:25 p.m. PST |
the squarish boxes on the face of the turret are extra armour blocks (chobham?)…
i was wondering what the long tubes on turret rear were then saw the picture of them firing at night in the second link. |
| Wyatt the Odd | 23 Jun 2009 4:28 p.m. PST |
The tubes are the launchers for two line charges for clearing mine fields. This video shows a typical system: YouTube link The blocks are, I think, reactive armor. Wyatt |
| Pat Ripley | 23 Jun 2009 4:33 p.m. PST |
reactive armour thats the word i was looking for. the idea is they detonate the projectile before the projectile breaches the hull. They are then replaced cheaply (or more so than the vehicle hull and personnel) isn't it strange when someone edits a post as you're reading it. |
 javelin98  | 23 Jun 2009 4:44 p.m. PST |
I still think they needed to retain the 165mm breaching gun. Sure, at 900 meters it had the same or less effective range as the .50 cal, but a 165mm round could reduce a bunker or obstacle in one hit. Those smaller boxes on the rear corners are minefield-marking flag ejectors. We used to have to run down a cleared lane on foot, implanting those flags by hand. Now, the Grizzly drives down the cleared lane, proofing it to ensure that there are no undetonated mines, and while it goes, it's shooting those flags into the ground every 15 or 20 meters to mark the cleared lane for follow-on forces. Good stuff. |
| RAVEN1066 | 23 Jun 2009 5:52 p.m. PST |
Yes it needs a big stubby gun! |
| VonTed | 23 Jun 2009 6:06 p.m. PST |
Looks evil ;-) But still…. you gotta think having a gun is way more fun. |
| CmdrKiley | 23 Jun 2009 6:50 p.m. PST |
With those claws in the front, that thing would make an awesome Transformer! |
| Major Mike | 23 Jun 2009 8:31 p.m. PST |
There was a breeching vehicle test bed back in the mid to late 80's that had two arms, One with a claw and the other with a scoop, which in tests at the NTC could pick obsticles easily apart, very quickly breech a tank ditch and came with the other bells and whistles (line charge, plow, etc). I think it fell victim to the "peace dividend" at the end of the cold war.
As far as the 165mm demo gun, something to be said for a weapon that has a range equal to the danger area for the blast of the round, 1000m. As a Plt Sgt of mine once said, (originally trained to crew a CEV), "you won't laugh at my stubby gun when I lob one of my footballs at you". |
| napthyme | 23 Jun 2009 10:33 p.m. PST |
cool, there was talk of them developing a man portable version of the mine clearing rocket, but I have not heard if anyone is using it or not… |
| javelin98 | 24 Jun 2009 12:10 p.m. PST |
The Marines have a manpack version called the APOBS that was fielded as a replacement of the Bangalore torpedo. Never got the chance to see it in action, but it's a nice concept… if you don't mind being the guy running onto a hostile beach wearing 100 pounds of C4 on your back, that is! link At the NTC, we engaged some old M113's and M114's for target practice with the 165mm. Suffice it to say, there wasn't much left after a single hit. We also built a log crib obstacle using old railroad ties, and two to three hits with HEP rounds were sufficient to reduce it to the point that it could have been assaulted by armored vehicles. |
