Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/27/2017 in all areas

  1. The running gear (suspension, wheels, etc.) are not directly fixed to the hull (by welding/bolting) except for the part necessary for the power transmission; instead they are connected to the hull only via elastomer mounting elements. The elastomer connections can negate some of the vibrations and oscillation when moving; this leads to a slightly smother ride, but mainly reduces the generated noise; according to German studies by some 20-25 dB(A). The first German vehicle to be fitted with a decoupled running gear was the M113 driver training tanks, but only for noise reduction. On more modern vehicles such as the Puma, the choice of decoupling the running gear also has other advantages: There are no penetrations of the hull bottom and sides (except for the transmission/final drive), which greatly enhances the protection agianst mines. Furthermore on the Puma the fuel tanks are located within the decoupled running gear, so that armor penetrations won't result in burning fuel leaking into the crew compartment. BAE Systems recently presented the Bradley Next-Gen prototype, on which also all fuel was moved outside of the crew area. On modular vehicles such as the NGP and the Swedish SEP, decoupled running gears allow easier integration of modules. Edit: just to clarify, the noise is only reduced inside the vehicle.
    3 points
  2. The EGS also had a torsion bar suspension. According to cross sectional drawings, there are two elastomer mounting elements: one around the support bearings, which connect the running gear module to the hull and one around the torsion bar, acting as air-tight seal. Unfortunately I am not sure if this is the correct translation of the German terms. Here is a image from a patent showing a vehicle with a decoupled running gear (and diesel-electic drive). The elastomer connection is marked as 10. On the drawings of the EGS suspension, there is another elastomer connection/seal at the torsion bar. I suspect the M113 might have a similar system.
    2 points
  3. Those drawings are an artist's impression and not related to the real Panzerkampfwagen 2000 project. It was canceled before first designs were made. The EGS and PzKW 2000 might be related, but the status of the PzKW 2000 project was a bit unclear for some time. While it wasn't part of the German Armed Forces plan (Bundeswehrplan) of 1989, which would imply that it was canceled, the project was apparently re-added to the Bundeswehrplan 1990 to 1992. Unfortunately these documents are hard to find (while some newer ones can be simply downloaded after a shorter google search)... An interessting side note of the Bundeswehrplan 1990 was the idea to replace the Marder IFV with two different non-IFV vehicles: one version armed with an autocannon (only for defence against helicopters and low-flying aircraft) that transported the infantry, while another vehicle armed with a 120 mm smoothbore would be responsible for anti-tank duty and fire support. You are speaking about reading comprehension, but end up being the one with the biggest troubles understanding the English language. NGP was not canceled, but transformed into different other programs; first all non-IFV versions were cut, then during multiple different projects the requirements were all completely transformed. The first project was called NeSPz, then it became Panther, then Igel, then Panther MMWS, SPz Panther, and finally Puma IFV. While not all nomenclature and designation changes are directly related to changes in the requirements (how could the German military dare to purchase a vehicle that bears the same name as a famous Nazi tank!), the final result of all this developments has nothing to do with the NGP. The Puma fails to satisfy any of the original NGP requirements. It is not armed with a 50 mm Rh 503 chaingun (rather a gas-operated Mauser MK-30), it has nowhere near the frontal protection and weight class of the NGP (more than 70 metric tons), it doesn't have a hardkill active protection system, it doesn't have two men crew, it carries less infantry than desired and most importantly, it is not a modular vehicle, that can be reconfigured to any specific type of combat vehicle, by swapping out a module containing the turret. This is why the Puma has nothing to do with the original NGP project. It's a single vehicle, designed for a single role. The NGP was a common family of modularily reconfigurable vehicles, not a fixed version that fails to meet any of the core requirements (aside of having a decoupled running gear). Aside of ballistic protection, a key feature tested in the EGS were stealth charactersitics of all sorts. Reducing thermal signature, reducing the radar cross section and also reducing the noise signature. That's why the engine was fitted with a muffler, similar to the one adopted on the Swiss Panzer 87 Werterhaltung upgrade. No idea on the location of the cooling vents though. A similar (or maybe even identical) muffler on the Panzer 87 (Leopard 2) after the Werterhaltung upgrade. Note that the normal air vents are still being used.
    2 points
  4. Oh hey, it's an Armata prototype.
    2 points
  5. Priory_of_Sion

    Ancient Forests

    Sorta relevant: Researchers describe Africa's newly discovered giant (81 m) trees
    2 points
  6. Me too. I love hipsters. They're like hippies, except they fully embrace capitalism while pretending to reject it. This results in hilarious behavior, like pretending to reject or critique capitalist society while actually advertising to the audience. This video is a great example of the highest form of that, where the critique and the philosophy is the ad itself, existing for no purpose other than to sell a product.
    2 points
  7. On the earlier tanks, yes. But on the T-80UD and late T-72B/T-90 hull and turret armor follow the same technology, the shape of the inserts was just adapated to the shape of the hull. Some sources suggest so, other sources however disagree. There are at least five M1 Abrams tanks with DU armor in the hulls located in the US Army schools - but it seems possible that DU armored hulls were not adopted in US Army service (yet). From a document of the US Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command Safety Office to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    2 points
  8. Engine Proposal for Phase III of the Supersonic Transport Program Supersonic Transport Engines GE4 vs. JTF17
    1 point
  9. This picture was on tanknet. It's a bit weird if you look at it closely.
    1 point
  10. Clearly the Father of the Armata tank is Leonardo da Vinci. I mean, do you guys even WATCH the History Channel?!?
    1 point
  11. Part of a 1992 report to the US congress about the Gulf War, the only reason I dug it up was because of a debate about whether M1A1 HA was a made up designation. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a249391.pdf
    1 point
  12. General Mattis begins his consolidation of the military-industrial complex.
    1 point
  13. No it isn't, it's not German.
    1 point
  14. 1 point
  15. Your information is incorrect. The vehicle seen on this photograph is the EGS (Experimentalwanne Gesamtschutz), an armor testbed unrelated to the NGP. The EGS' development started in 1989, the first prototype was finished in 1993. In 1995/1996 the vehicle was trialed. Unlike your claims, the EGS used large roadwheels with an increased diameter of 810 mm! Weight ranged from 48 to 62 metric tons (depending on armor package), the hull length is 8.67 metres and the height is 2.71 metres. The width is 3.98 metres overall (3.5 metres width to the tracks). No NGP prototype was ever build. You apparently have little to no clue what you are talking about. Please try to check facts before spreading incorrect informations. The NGP was designed with modular armor and depending on variant a minimum weight of 51 to 55 tons. With full modular armor package mounted, the weight of the vehicle was to be 71 to 77 tons depeding on varaint. As no prototype was ever finished, exact statements to the details of the armor, armament and sensor suite are not possible. However Germany investigated to use either a 140 mm smoothbore gun or an ETC gun for the tank variant, while the IFV version was to be armed with a 50 mm gun and most likely ATGMs. The turrets were unmanned. A research project for multiple active protection systems was funded. The crew should be supported by multiple cameras and software functions like automated tracking. As engine conventional HPD (high power density) diesels and a diesel electrical drive system were considered. Armor protection included increased roof armor vs bomblets, improved mine protection and modular armor for the sides of the vehicle. The NGP project was never canceled, but it was cut back to just one version - the IFV variant, because the Marder required replacement more urgently than the Leopard 2. The program was renamed from NGP (new armored platform) to NeSPz (new infantry fighting vehicle) and then became after numerous changes in layout and requirements (and the project names Panther and Igel) the current Puma IFV. The idea was to later utilize new technology developed for the Puma (such as the newer HPD engines, the modular armor system, unmanned turret, decoupled running gear, MUSS APS, etc.) for a tank variant.
    1 point
  16. Mighty_Zuk

    General AFV Thread

    Eitan and Namer set to receive 30mm cannon soon. Turret still in development. https://zuk-armor-il.blogspot.co.il/2017/01/new-eitan-info.html
    1 point
  17. Chinese DF-41. 11-14k km range (rumored) Developer - First Academy of CASC (CALT), the final producer - Plant number 211.
    1 point
  18. Nice single sentence summary of this entire thread.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...