More pics of the transparent gun shield

Via regular commenter Skrip00 come these images of the Transparent Armored Gun Shields (TAGS), which MO noted in a tank pic a couple of weeks back.

I notice that this pic and two of the following pics do not have the metal shield below the ballistic glass. Simply an earlier model? Is the metal plating an optional add-on?

Also, here’s a quick press release from BAE Systems about the TAGS.

In a lot of ways, Murdoc thinks this sort of thing more accurately reflects the “transformation” of the US military than some of the big-dollar next-generation programs. It’s as things are used in the real world and shortcomings addressed that weapons systems truly reach their zenith.


  1. This shield has to help a lot, but ideally I think it should wrap around more. If you’re under attack from more than one direction you only have protection from the rounds coming from the direction in which you are engaging. I agree, this sort of thing is an important part of ‘transformation’. It’s part of all major wars. As they say, necessity is the mother of all invention. (Actually, I think it was Edison who said that, wasn’t it?)

  2. sorry i can’t really tell, but are the vehicles in the last photo Strykers with slat armor or AAVs with it? Also, what happened to the CROWS? is the transparent gun shield a parallel program or is it considered interim? and uh….hey Murdoc, what happened to linkzookery?

  3. oh and something covering the gap over the barel to would be good. The isrealis have little armored citadels for some of their tanks.- its all balistic glass and gunports.

  4. Aaron, the last picture looks like it shows one of those octagonal mini-turret things with one of these sticking out of it. That’s far from ideal, but at least it gives you some kind of coverage from all angles. Yeah, it’d be great to cover the gap in the middle too, but by then you basically have a turret. I’m not so sure that multiple little full turrets is such a bad idea. But then again, by that point, you might as well have a RWS like CROWS instead, so that you can be better protected within the thick armour of the body. But then you can’t see very well… It’s all a compromise I suppose. Protection with armour vs. protection with better awareness. In the case of hidden threats like IEDs, the former is probably better. Against ambushes and such, the latter needs to be considered.

  5. about the limited visibility with the CROWS, wouldnt that be fixed if the vehicle also came with that sniper acoustic detection device? im sure that if u can detect a sniper, u can also detect normal gunfire, and direct the CROWS at the target(s) also, can IR work in the daytime? cause if it can, isn’t it true that the explosives in an IED would give off more heat than the surrounding environment, leading to it’s detection? only 17 here, so forgive my lack of military understanding

  6. Livio : Maybe, the sniper acoustic device might be overwhelmed by multiple shots in quick succession, although there’s no technical reason why with enough CPU/DSP power it can’t distinguish where each shot is coming from. However, it’s also useful to have good visibility before you’re getting shot at – for example, to avoid getting into an ambush, or for more policing-type work. Ask an armoured vehicle crew member and I think they will tell you that visibility is a big problem for them, and they spend a lot of time with their heads sticking out of the vehicle for that reason, as unsafe as it may be. Yes, infra-red sensors work during the day time, for example a Sidewinder missile operates in day or night. However, I’m pretty sure explosives don’t give out heat until they’re detonated. The two main ways to detect explosives are to see a suspicious object or to detect the chemical residue (most explosives contain a lot of nitrogen containing compounds). I heard about a laser-based system but don’t know how it works. I don’t think IR can detect explosives much better than we can with visible light.

  7. All those transparent gun shields and accoustic detection devices but you still have to adjust the Head Space on the M-2!

  8. Various manufactureres now offer the M2 with a quick change barrel which needs no headspace adjustment.

  9. I wonder how this would look like in the virtual action of battlefield simulators. From a distance, in dense dust or when moving fast an approaching Abrams is easily confused with a Hummer. The angled turret frontplates of the tank are similar in reflection and surface to the jeep windscreens. It’s scary, even if you don’t see a fat barrel!