Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV)

GTX

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
15 April 2006
Messages
9,749
Reaction score
17,397
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.
 
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.
 
I'm not convinced. The Tower of Bradley illustrated there suffers in some characteristics compared to a newer IFV design. AMPV itself will be great as a support vehicle in all of the roles its intended for, medical vehicle, command vehicle, mortar carrier, etc. Yet I don't believe turning it into an ersatz IFV would be a great choice.

If that somehow was a necessity, I think it would make more sense to direct a lot of the AMPV improvements back into the M2A4 hull and work from there. In effect trimming the vehicle back down to the height of the IFV design it originated from. The extra height/volume of the raised main compartment is great for all of those support roles, but more of a negative for an IFV that will very often be risking direct enemy fire.
 
isayyo2 said:
AMPV 30mm delivered to the 1st Cavalry Division for testing and solider feedback.
(Do we actually need XM30?)

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/9651156/1st-cavalry-division-tests-prototypes-new-ampv-30mm
Click to expand...
Dont go around bad mouthing xm-30, you'll be hunted down.
These new contraptions just aren't enough of a capability boost.
Only a fire tm @ their drones may be risked per vehicle in the future.
An APS which doesn't exist yet will be the definer..
Individual dismount mobility may need to become preeminent. The Russians may not be completely wrong on Individual infiltration.as the PLA has shown signs of this realization.
 
jsport said:
Dont go around bad mouthing xm-30, you'll be hunted down.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm just naive jsport :D

But I’d rather spend the lion’s share of XM30 funds on pushing drones/aerials swarms/UGVs/loitering munition down to the Platoon level by any means... AMPV with band tracks, a remote 30/50mm turret, uprated suspension, Iron Fist APS, and increased troop bay volume (thanks to remote turret) while leveraging all the institutional knowledge of Bradley and heaps of spare parts sounds like the winning combo. Add an "effects platoon" to each Cavalry Troop, Tank Company, and Mech Infantry Company with 120mm NEMO mortars and loitering munition launchers - M914 30mm cannons with prox-rounds should replace the .50 cal wherever possible etc etc
 
Last edited:
isayyo2 said:
Maybe I'm just naive jsport :D

But I’d rather spend the lion’s share of XM30 funds on pushing drones/aerials swarms/UGVs/loitering munition down to the Platoon level by any means... AMPV with band tracks, a remote 30/50mm turret, uprated suspension, Iron Fist APS, and increased troop bay volume (thanks to remote turret) while leveraging all the institutional knowledge of Bradley and heaps of spare parts sounds like the winning combo. Add an "effects platoon" to each Cavalry Troop, Tank Company, and Mech Infantry Company with 120mm NEMO mortars and loitering munition launchers - M913 30mm cannons with prox-rounds should replace the .50 cal wherever possible etc etc
Click to expand...
IMHO APS tech is barely out of the Model A & into the Model T stage to use an auto development analogy.. Much more development risk must to assumed by the government.
The amount of 'droneage' various operational scenarios require has yet to be worked out & quadcopters like toilet paper is not sustainable in high intensity maneuver warfare. Again the government must assume development risks, as opposed to COTs crap thrown over the transome. COTs crap works for the static current front but will prove self defeating if believed to be a panacea.
 
Last edited:
Although the AMPV is likely the best base vehicle for the drone dependant future infantry, emphasis must focused on the ill-fated dependance on quadrotors (toilet paper ie 70 drones per one vehicle destroyed). Any western armed forces looking survive a peer or near peer scenario. Dependance on the never ending de/evolution of quadcopters spawning from the current front"s extremely short term struggle for survival is a fool running toward a cliff.
Drones which destroy vehicles must be capable of reliable lethal ordinance delivery.
Dismount individual RISTA-mapping need to be reliable all weather, complex environment operating systems. Black Hornet & quads of currently available don't fit the requirements. Army unit labs r again a waste. These must be seriously digitally engineered systems.
 
jsport said:
https://share.google/images/bWPVSCDuCYKiCXmj3
Why isn't there development of a new Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW) w
optional 12.7mm HMG, 30mm autocannon (ASP), & 40mm HV grenade AGL receivers?
Click to expand...
Because the old OCSW was a 25mm HV grenade launcher doing about 265rpm cyclic. It also did about 265rpm with the .50cal barrel installed, and the Army was not impressed with that. Even though the sustained rate of fire was the same as the M2 .50cal, it's still very useful to have an emergency 400rpm rate of fire.

30x113 or 30x173 are not things you can easily make man-portable or tripod firable.
 
jsport said:
https://share.google/images/bWPVSCDuCYKiCXmj3
Why isn't there development of a new Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW) w
optional 12.7mm HMG, 30mm autocannon (ASP), & 40mm HV grenade AGL receivers?
Click to expand...
I notice the original source there seems to be Combat Reform - that's one of the sources where you really want to quintuple check any claim it makes.

WRT a common receiver for everything from 12.7mm to 40mm HV, that's going to be considerably larger and clunkier than purpose designed weapons.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Because the old OCSW was a 25mm HV grenade launcher doing about 265rpm cyclic. It also did about 265rpm with the .50cal barrel installed, and the Army was not impressed with that. Even though the sustained rate of fire was the same as the M2 .50cal, it's still very useful to have an emergency 400rpm rate of fire.

30x113 or 30x173 are not things you can easily make man-portable or tripod firable.
Click to expand...
Understand & knew all the above, but a light weight 30mm should be a R&D focus as ASP was only too heavy & recoil can be dealt w if there is sufficient intent by the USG. INCs will not take the risk wo the USG. 30mm is necessary for close combat defense & offense & of course counter drone @ an acceptable interval. 40mm hv is not the best against vehicles but also necessary while the 50 goes wo saying...
 
DWG said:
I notice the original source there seems to be Combat Reform - that's one of the sources where you really want to quintuple check any claim it makes.

WRT a common receiver for everything from 12.7mm to 40mm HV, that's going to be considerably larger and clunkier than purpose designed weapons.
Click to expand...
ASP was a thing,
which upper receiver one takes on a mission is up to the planner. These diameters do have different missions, though the 50 does pretty good @ all:) but has many issues moder development could fix. IMHO the alleged rpm issue related to the "out of battery' could have been resolved if the USG had intent on OCSW. It has been decades since there has been an appetite for creatures like the Dover Devil which was ready to go up 20mm.
 
jsport said:
Understand & knew all the above, but a light weight 30mm should be a R&D focus as ASP was only too heavy & recoil can be dealt w if there is sufficient intent by the USG. INCs will not take the risk wo the USG. 30mm is necessary for close combat defense & offense & of course counter drone @ an acceptable interval. 40mm hv is not the best against vehicles but also necessary while the 50 goes wo saying...
Click to expand...
For sake of argument, let's stick a 30x113 mount on there, and arm it with programmable AB in one feed and a second feed with SAPHEI.

No reason for 40mm HV grenade, the 30mm has comparable frag and better armor penetration.
Not much reason for .50cal, the 30mm has better range and even has PAB for AA work.

No reason for the extra complications of changing barrels and bolts and recoil springs (or it's a chain gun design with the added expense involved there).

The OCSW did have some logic, but I think it was a little too early. Couldn't pack the smart fuze into a small enough container to have a useful explosive and frag load, and the .50cal version really needed the increased rate of fire.
 
Scott Kenny said:
For sake of argument, let's stick a 30x113 mount on there, and arm it with programmable AB in one feed and a second feed with SAPHEI.
Click to expand...
Gonna have to define :S:. APs aren't AB able methinks
Scott Kenny said:
No reason for 40mm HV grenade, the 30mm has comparable frag and better armor penetration.
Not much reason for .50cal, the 30mm has better range and even has PAB for AA work.
Click to expand...
Fifty as a general purpose fire & even precision anti material.
Scott Kenny said:
No reason for the extra complications of changing barrels and bolts and recoil springs (or it's a chain gun design with the added expense involved there).
Click to expand...
Dover was pretty simple w max interoperability.
Scott Kenny said:
The OCSW did have somgonne logic, but I think it was a little too early. Couldn't pack the smart fuze into a small enough container to have a useful explosive and frag load, aand the .50cal version really needed the increased rate of fire.
Click to expand...
A guided payload 50 rd will eventually be a SOF choice so why not get ahead of the game.
 
The big problem with what people are ignoring here is that the 'floor' has risen. Again. People forget that anything more well-built than US suburban housing laughs at anything less than 35mm, and that caliber is the equivalent of a video game's minimum specs. It's part of the reason why the USSR/Russia went with a demo-gun coax for the BMP-3, because Afghanistan (and later, Grozny) taught them that 30mm guns are actually useless at their job as infantry support (HE didn't explode or got buried so hard that they're useless, the decently built rural huts laughed at 30mm rounds, that sort of thing).

There's also the fact that tooling is far more complex now than it has been, and will continue to be until we crack nanofabrication on the level of Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising's Creation Engines, meaning that future vehicle designs are going to need to start looking like the Nazi E-series of tanks, but across a lot more vehicle types. Like you've got one set for APCs, IFVs, and other light-end vehicles, you've got one set for MBTs, SPGs, SPAAGs, and other heavier vehicles, and then you've got your really heavy set for engineering and whatnot.
 
jsport said:
Gonna have to define :S:. APs aren't AB able methinks
Click to expand...
Dual feed system. One feed has PAB rounds loaded. And a second feed loaded with SAPHEIs. Like changing belts on an MG, but designed in so you can do it at the flip of a switch.


jsport said:
A guided payload 50 rd will eventually be a SOF choice so why not get ahead of the game.
Click to expand...
In an MG? Plus it looks like SOF is swiveling to .338 MGs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Dual feed system. One feed has PAB rounds loaded. And a second feed loaded with SAPHEIs. Like changing belts on an MG, but designed in so you can do it at the flip of a switch.



In an MG? Plus it looks like SOF is swiveling to .338 MGs.
Click to expand...
Not even sure what "semi'armor piercing" means looking online
Carlos H used a ma deuce for precision shots. Contemporary metallurgy allows precision MGs. H&K r known for precision rifles which can also function as LMGs.
Fifty ain't going nowhere. All tha LMag stuff is so SOF can carry heavier firepower on patrol.
 
jsport said:
Not even sure what "semi'armor piercing" means looking online
Click to expand...
SAPHEI is things like Raufoss .50bmg, PGU-28/B 20mm, and some 30mm that I'm not able to find the ID for.


jsport said:
Carlos H used a ma deuce for precision shots. Contemporary metallurgy allows precision MGs. H&K r known for precision rifles which can also function as LMGs.
Fifty ain't going nowhere. All tha LMag stuff is so SOF can carry heavier firepower on patrol.
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean it needs to still be used if say 30mm airburst is better suited for AA or anti-infantry work and SAPHEI is better for armor.
 
Scott Kenny said:
SAPHEI is things like Raufoss .50bmg, PGU-28/B 20mm, and some 30mm that I'm not able to find the ID for.
Click to expand...
Raufoss has been around so long it should standard sniper rds for even conventional units & it is .338..Mag either.A pure APDS would be better against tanks. Raufoss for afvs.

Scott Kenny said:
Doesn't mean it needs to still be used if say 30mm airburst is better suited for AA or anti-infantry work and SAPHEI is better for armor.
Click to expand...
30mm would be way too often be too much for overall hearts minds effects. A long time ago.. remember explaining ifvs need to climb an proportional engagement escalation ladder. Coaxial 7.62, then
50. then autocannon, then maybe up to 50mm depending the urban setting & threat. Minimal use of force.
 
Scott Kenny said:
SAPHEI is things like Raufoss .50bmg, PGU-28/B 20mm, and some 30mm that I'm not able to find the ID for.



Doesn't mean it needs to still be used if say 30mm airburst is better suited for AA or anti-infantry work and SAPHEI is better for armor.
Click to expand...
There was something about being intended for AA and anti-drone, so maybe airburst would be the most important ammo for it. Being a remite controlled turret, its not increasing risk to the human cargo.
 
jsport said:
Raufoss has been around so long it should standard sniper rds for even conventional units & it is .338..Mag either.A pure APDS would be better against tanks. Raufoss for afvs.
Click to expand...
Raufoss is limited issue, for when the dude with a Barrett light 50 needs to light up a vehicle.


jsport said:
30mm would be way too often be too much for overall hearts minds effects. A long time ago.. remember explaining ifvs need to climb an proportional engagement escalation ladder. Coaxial 7.62, then
50. then autocannon, then maybe up to 50mm depending the urban setting & threat. Minimal use of force.
Click to expand...
That's for COIN operations, not frontline combat.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Raufoss is limited issue, for when the dude with a Barrett light 50 needs to light up a vehicle.
Click to expand...
Raufoss was expensive 20yrs ago & is likely to be even more so now. So ..was being fascious.

Scott Kenny said:
That's for COIN operations, not frontline combat.
Click to expand...
All AFVs require optional kit for all ground ops.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom