Teledyne Expeditionary Tank

[Guest]

 

History

The Armored Gun System requirement was set in the 1980’s with the goal of replacing the aging and inadequate M551 Sheridan light tank. Three companies participated: Cadillac Gage, United Defense, and Teledyne. Cadillac Gage entered the Stingray, United Defense entered the CCV-L, and Teledyne entered their Expeditionary Tank.

 

Teledyne began the development of the Expeditionary Tank in 1982, with the chassis of the first prototype completed by December 1983, with the completion of the turret coming in mid-1984. The chassis underwent durability trials in Nevada, and after the successful completion of said trials the turret and chassis were united in April 1985. It was displayed in public for the first time at the US Army Armor Conference at Ft. Knox.

 

 

The AGS competition concluded in 1992 with United Defense declared as the winner; their CCV-L would later become the XM8, then the M8 in 1995. The reason that the Expeditionary Tank wasn’t chosen was due to it being 2 tonnes heavier and 300 mm taller than the CCV-L. The larger size would have made it harder to transport by C-130.

 

After the end of the AGS competition, Teledyne continued to offer the Expeditionary Tank to the export market through 1996, when Teledyne was taken over by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) which continued to offer it for export. No nation chose to procure the Expeditionary Tank, and it was eventually removed from the market. The M1128 Stryker MGS was the vehicle that replaced the Expeditionary Tank on offer for foreign customers.

 

Design

 

The Expeditionary Tank was designed with crew protection in mind. One of the most prominent features is the External Gun Turret (EGT). The hull features a long, shallow sloped upper plate, and there is a very clean appearance to the tank due to the flat rooflines. The engine is located in the front of the hull, and the crew is housed in an armored compartment in the rear of the hull. The drive sprockets are at the front, and the idler wheels are at the rear. There are five road wheels, but it is unknown how many return rollers there were due to the sideskirts.

 

The main gun housed in the EGT is the 105 mm/L52 M35 low-recoil-force (LRF) gun. The ammunition is fed through a nine-round autoloader, with 26 more rounds stored in the rear of the hull. Secondary armament consists of one 7.62 mm M240 machine gun mounted on the turret, but it is not coaxial. 4,000 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition are carried, with each belt containing 400 rounds. The turret is not stabilized. 

 

Due to the weaponry being mounted externally, maintenance was frequently needed, and for the maintenance to be carried out the crew had to stand on top of the roof. Additionally, the autoloader was prone to jamming.

 

 

The fire control system was advanced for the time, with an M21 fire control computer, AN/VVG-2 laser rangefinder, and AN/TAS-4 thermal imaging system. An AN/VVS-2 (V) starlight periscope was also provided to the driver to allow operation in low-light conditions.

 

The armor of the Expeditionary Tank was made from high hardness steel, and it provided protection from machine gun rounds and artillery shrapnel. Sideskirts are fitted as standard, and appliqué panels can be equipped in the field without special tools. An NBC protection system is fitted, and an automatic fire-suppression system is as well. The crew sits in an armored capsule in the rear of the tank.

 

The tank weighs 19 tons without any appliqué armor. It is powered by a Cummins VTA-903T diesel engine, producing 495 horsepower. The transmission is a General Electric HMPT-500, with three forward and one reverse gear. The maximum attainable speed is 80 kph. The suspension is of the torsion bar type, and hydropneumatic struts are also used.

 

Side Note: The turret from the Expeditionary Tank was later used on the M1128 Stryker, but with heavy modifications done, especially to the autoloader.

 

 

Specifications

Spoiler

 

Basic

• Crew: 2

• Length (Gun Forward): 7.49 m

• Width: 2.69 m

• Height: 2.8 m

• Combat Weight: 19 t

Mobility

• Engine: Cummins VTA-903T diesel V8

  • Power: 495 hp

• Transmission: General Electric HMPT-500

  • Gears: 3 Forward, 1 Reverse

• Suspension: Torsion Bar, Hydropneumatic Struts

• Max. Speed: 80 kph

• Range: 480 km

Armament

• 1 x 105 mm/L52 M35 low-recoil-force gun - 35 rounds

  • Autoloader: 9 Rounds

  • Horizontal Traverse: 360°

  • Vertical Traverse: -10° to +18°

  • Fire Rate: 10 rounds / minute = 6 second reload

• 1 x 7.62 mm M240 machine gun - 4,000 rounds (belts of 400)

Fire Control System

• Stabilizer: Not Equipped

• Fire Control Computer: M21

• Laser Rangefinder: AN/VVG-2

• Night Vision Equipment

  • Gunner: AN/TAS-4 thermal sight

  • Driver: AN/VVS-2 (V) starlight periscope

Armor

• High Hardness Steel

• Armored Capsule for Crew

• Applique Armor (See Below)

 

 

Appliqué Armor

An appliqué armor kit could be equipped by the crew in the field in as little as 15 minutes. It increased protection significantly, but almost doubled the weight of the vehicle.

 

Spoiler

 

Approximate Appliqué Weight: 11 t

Total Weight With Appliqué: 30 t

 

 

Sources

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/expeditionary_tank.htm

https://tanknutdave.com/the-us-expeditionary-tank/

https://thetrove.is/Books/Twilight%202000/Unofficial/pmulcahy.com%20Archives/Vehicles/Twilight%202000%20-%20Best%20Vehicles%20that%20Never%20Were.pdf

Edited February 5, 2021 by Guest

[leroyonly 4,311]

Open for discussion. 

[Borotovas 4,500]

+1

[stuka2689 314]

In the tech tree:After the HSTV-L maybe?

+1

Edited August 24, 2021 by police2689

[Milocat 4,854]

Very interesting tank, +1 from me.

[eleks12 1,079]

+1

[MCmaddawg 341]

There was a similar project based on an abrams hull. And if this one was to be a regular tree version, that one could be an event premium version.

Good suggestion, one of the rarer ones!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MCmaddawg said:

There was a similar project based on an abrams hull. And if this one was to be a regular tree version, that one could be an event premium version.

Good suggestion, one of the rarer ones!

Do you have any information/sources on that project on the Abrams hull? If you did that would be great!

[Insanous-player@psn 10]

more weird and whacky tanks for the USA!,      +100 

[MCmaddawg 341]

On 03/11/2020 at 23:52, CobraKingII said:

Do you have any information/sources on that project on the Abrams hull? If you did that would be great!

It was called the M1 TTB.

http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2015/05/m1-tank-test-bed-ttb-with-unmanned.html?m=1

 

I'm sure you'll find even more info on it if you dig a little deeper. I was thinking of making a suggestion on it, but I have very little time on my hands nowadays.

It's a cool concept, but in WT it would be more of an interesting hangar queen than a viable tank in battle.

 

EDIT: I take back my words on it being bad. I misread it's reload speed and for a hot minute there I thought it said the reload time was 12 seconds, while infact it's 12 shots a minute.

Thats 5 seconds for a 120mm cannon, so pretty darn good.

Edited November 4, 2020 by MCmaddawg

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MCmaddawg said:

It was called the M1 TTB.

http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2015/05/m1-tank-test-bed-ttb-with-unmanned.html?m=1

 

I'm sure you'll find even more info on it if you dig a little deeper. I was thinking of making a suggestion on it, but I have very little time on my hands nowadays.

It's a cool concept, but in WT it would be more of an interesting hangar queen than a viable tank in battle.

 

EDIT: I take back my words on it being bad. I misread it's reload speed and for a hot minute there I thought it said the reload time was 12 seconds, while infact it's 12 shots a minute.

Thats 5 seconds for a 120mm cannon, so pretty darn good.

I have heard of that one, but haven't really looked into it before. Thank you, I'll add it to my list!

Edited November 5, 2020 by Guest
A bit hard to find sources, but I should be able to make due. Expect to see a suggestion soon!

[modern_primat 182]

this tank would be good before stryker in tech tree

Edited November 11, 2020 by modern_primat

[Orphican 82]

+1

[Smash_Femboy_Ass 57]

These weird ones are so niiiice!!! ♥

[qpranger 1,887]

Voted Yes, because it is not another Sherman.

[MCmaddawg 341]

FYI the thing had three crew members, in the picture of the vehicle you can clearly see three hatches. So it had commander, gunner, driver.

I also doubt the source that says it didn't have a stabilizer. Usually these light tanks had very strict requirements on fire on the move capabilities. 

I had found a few pictures of the internal layout of this thing when researching the M1 TTB, I'll try to find them again.

 

EDIT: That journal got the crew count wrong. And wikipedia based their crew count on the journal. 

 

The journal got their crew count wrong, because they only looked at the side view of the vehicle.

Edited March 1, 2021 by MCmaddawg

[MCmaddawg 341]

Found some pictures:
 

Spoiler

 

 

The second picture from the bottom talks about the fire control "system" (as in the whole system, gun included) being stabilized. Other pictures talk about various things, including 3 crew members.

 

More pictures:

Spoiler

 

 

It's essentially exactly the same turret as on the Stryker MGS. Just with a different autoloader.

@CobraKingII

Edited March 1, 2021 by MCmaddawg

[Guest]

4 hours ago, MCmaddawg said:

It's essentially exactly the same turret as on the Stryker MGS. Just with a different autoloader.

@CobraKingII

I think the first Stryker MGS literally just put this turret on it:

Notice it looks way more similar.

5 hours ago, MCmaddawg said:

EDIT: That journal got the crew count wrong. And wikipedia based their crew count on the journal. 

 

The journal got their crew count wrong, because they only looked at the side view of the vehicle.

FYI I did not use Wikipedia as a source.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Guest

[MCmaddawg 341]

3 minutes ago, CobraKingII said:

I think the first Stryker MGS literally just put this turret on it:

Notice it looks way more similar.

They did. The turret (and the gun) is called LPT105 (might also go under different names) and it was used on many chassis'. It was tested by teledyne, general dynamics, etc. The initial version of the stryker MGS used exactly the same turret and gun. Later variants (currently the one we have in-game) have minor differences in outward appearance and the autoloader was changed, because the one that was initially in the system jammed frequently.

 

Anyhow, I thought I'd let you know so you could edit your suggestion a bit (specifically the crew amount and the "no stabilizer" part), because if gaijin ever wounds up adding it and they take your suggestion at face value, it'll take another 10 years for the bug reports to pass through, not to mention until they actually fix it.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MCmaddawg said:

They did. The turret (and the gun) is called LPT105 (might also go under different names) and it was used on many chassis'. It was tested by teledyne, general dynamics, etc. The initial version of the stryker MGS used exactly the same turret and gun. Later variants (currently the one we have in-game) have minor differences in outward appearance and the autoloader was changed, because the one that was initially in the system jammed frequently.

 

Anyhow, I thought I'd let you know so you could edit your suggestion a bit (specifically the crew amount and the "no stabilizer" part), because if gaijin ever wounds up adding it and they take your suggestion at face value, it'll take another 10 years for the bug reports to pass through, not to mention until they actually fix it.

Of course, I'll fix it when I have time (probably this afternoon) 

[_Awston 196]

It is coming boiiiiiiiiissssssssssss

[DMYEugen 688]

10 minutes ago, _Awston said:

It is coming boiiiiiiiiissssssssssss

nut

[EL337GH0ST 195]

I hope to god it's not an event vehicle. US actually needs 8.0-9.7 tanks and all we're getting are event tanks that should've been in the tree (XM8, AMBT...)

[DMYEugen 688]

6 minutes ago, EL337GH0ST said:

I hope to god it's not an event vehicle. US actually needs 8.0-9.7 tanks and all we're getting are event tanks that should've been in the tree (XM8, AMBT...)

I'm not too worried if it comes in as a event vehicle or not. While I do agree that the US needs some more top-tier light tanks, I'm not of the mind that this vehicle should be one of them. The US still has plenty of light tanks left to choose from. The Stingrays, RDF/LTs, or Sheridan M68 would fit much better as tech tree vehicles.

[EL337GH0ST 195]

17 minutes ago, DMYEugen said:

I'm not too worried if it comes in as a event vehicle or not. While I do agree that the US needs some more top-tier light tanks, I'm not of the mind that this vehicle should be one of them. The US still has plenty of light tanks left to choose from. The Stingrays, RDF/LTs, or Sheridan M68 would fit much better as tech tree vehicles.

Yeah I agree, the Stingrays would be the optimal 8.7 (St 1) and 9.3 (St 2) light tanks for the US since they were built in numbers in are actually used. 

 

The thing I'm worried about is that they're going to make them premium or event vehicles, which is especially worrying because of the XM8 which should have been in the tree, and the AMBT to a lesser extent as well.

 

F-11 Tiger is also a prime example and the M8 Greyhound. It's so sad not being able to trust a developer whether they'll place a tank in the tree or as an event vehicle, especially looking at the German tree which is getting it's FOURTH light tank that wasn't even used by it, but the US is getting the second high tier light tank that they were supposed to use IRL as event vehicles.

Edited December 5, 2021 by EL337GH0ST