Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV)

GTX

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
15 April 2006
Messages
8,113
Reaction score
11,728
Website
beyondthesprues.com
While this is mentioned in a number of other threads, there appears to be no thread dedicated to the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) and its developments etc. I will probably transfer a number of the comments posted to other threads to this one over the coming days/weeks.
 
To begin with, a new development:

BAE Systems unveils new version of AMPV armored vehicle

1711469115239.jpg
 
GTX said:
While this is mentioned in a number of other threads, there appears to be no thread dedicated to the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) and its developments etc. I will probably transfer a number of the comments posted to other threads to this one over the coming days/weeks.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Until there is a real revolution in vehicle design AMPV/Bradley upgrade still makes more sense than OMFV. Unless a jobs program is ur game the vehicles on offer do not justify the expenditures. This is not to mention the radical requirements for deep magazine very effective active protection & counter mine under fire.
 
defense-update.com

BAE Systems Showcases the MCWS Turret on AMPV - Defense Update:

BAE Systems’ fourth Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) prototype is being showcased at Eurosatory this week. Configured with a common top plate, also known as the External Mission Equipment Package (ExMEP), the prototype showcases the vehicle’s ability to integrate capabilities and equipment...
defense-update.com defense-update.com
 
jsport said:
Until there is a real revolution in vehicle design AMPV/Bradley upgrade still makes more sense than OMFV. Unless a jobs program is ur game the vehicles on offer do not justify the expenditures. This is not to mention the radical requirements for deep magazine very effective active protection & counter mine under fire.
Click to expand...
The Bradley should have been replaced a decade or so ago, it's an antiquated system still have relevance for Canadian Army or Ukraine, but for the US Army the next IFV must be an evolution in design and armaments, the 50mm is essential to next generation warfare and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional at best. The armor warfare landscape has changed and the Army is best to change with it or become a relic to it.
 
Wouldn't describe 50mm as essential, it doesn't offer anything that any other other autocannon doesn't also offer other than increased explosive payload. Given it's a necked-up 35mm cartridge, with a similar amount of propellant firing a larger projectile, it almost certainly has worse armour-penetrating capability than that round. Resurrecting 45mm COMVAT or using 40mm CTA seems to be a better choice, given you can have a much greater number of rounds within the same volume, with similar terminal effect, that is if someone designs a feed system for 40mm CTA capable of storing more than 100 rounds.
 
The XM913 has greater throw weight than the Bushmaster III in 35mm, allowing it to throw a heavier HE round and a heavier APFSDS dart. The case is not just necked out but also very slightly extended to pack more charge.

While total volume of the 40mm CT is less than a comparable 40mm necked round, taking advantage of it's shorter length with end-to-end storage requires a new magazine design. In a classic AFV magazine the rounds are stored side-by-side so the greater width of a CT round is working against you. You also need the CT's feed mechanism and breech, whereas XM913 is "just" an updated Bushie.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom