Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Alzoc

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Nuclear engineering
    Military technology

Recent Profile Visitors

127 profile views
  1. WoT v WT effort-thread

    WT can into scat jokes! H39 Cambronne BR 1.3 premium tank So if you are wondering, cambronne is polite/fancy word for shit. The legend want that Pierre Cambronne, who was a general in the napoleonic imperial army, told the British to go fuck themselves (Merde!) when they asked him to surrender at Waterloo. It then passed down into popular culture as the "word of Cambronne" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Cambronne#The_hundred_days_and_Waterloo
  2. Bash the F-35 thred.

    Nothing wrong with the tranche 2 planes, just that the retrofit was afaik expensive and that a lot of involved country cut down their orders because of that (which mean higher unit costs, etc, etc). More a problem of poor management by both Airbus and the involved country. Anyway there is no doubt that low detectability is the way to go for future aircrafts/systems and saying otherwise is stupid, just as thinking that those aircrafts are basically invisible is. "Everything that is excessive is insignificant" to quote Talleyrand
  3. WoT v WT effort-thread

    Gotta love the administrator spouting BS on the front page of the comments: Smin1080p Administrator 8 hours ago Danomaly, The "Revalorisé" didn't actually exist. No tank was ever called that and its made up. If you mean the M-51 Israeli Super Sherman, then sure There are several modification under the term revalorisé (renewed/upgraded): The M4A4 T, witch ditch the Chrysler multibank engine for either a continental or a wright R 975. It also add episcopes on the commander hatch The M4A1 FL10 M4A4 canon de 75 V° 1000 M4A1E8 canon de 105mm L51 They were all designed Sherman Revalorisé, just like the AMX 10 RCR is an AMX 10 RC(Revalorisé), or the VAB revalorisé, or the Au F1 revalorisé, etc Revalorisé is quite a common term in the French army and it just designate an upgraded version of an equipement (even if they are several modifications under the designation), generally an end of life upgrade before removing it from service. And AFAIK while the M51 was the correct designation in the IDF, the Super Sherman thing wasn't official (Zuk could confirm/infirm that)
  4. Bash the F-35 thred.

    Well that would mean that Europe wouldn't have a blue water navy anymore. Possible, I just hope this won't be the case. Good point. Air force isn't really my thing, the best answer I could come up with would be opportunity targets (but UAVs are here for that).
  5. Bash the F-35 thred.

    I doubt that this program will go through anyway. I mean I'm all for European procurement but both the calendars and the needs are way too different. One of the reason we backed out the EF program and went on with the Rafale was that we needed a carrier capable aircraft which would have only increased the production cost for the country which didn't needed the capability. This hasn't changed. The Tornado certainly not. It start to show it's age but a 5+ gen aircraft with a proper ground mapping radar maybe. But you could simply send more F-35 with bombs in the closed bay to do the job anyway.
  6. Bash the F-35 thred.

    True, but couldn't the overall lower maniability be a problem at this point? I mean the whole concept of the F-35 revolve around being able to shoot before it get detected, both through stealth and advanced data-link. If you increase the RCS you could pass above a certain threshold and be shoot at before the contrary happen, and the F-35 will most likely do worse on low altitude terrain following than planes designed for it, so it won't have a good way to get in range undetected.
  7. Bash the F-35 thred.

    Problem is the Eurofighter is a poor bomber (good interceptor though) and they want it to replace the bomb truck the Tornado is? On the other hand the F-35 would most likely have to ditch stealth anyway to carry as much bombs as the tornado. Hom many change of mind from the German mod does it make now? -At some point it was supposed to be a Franco-German project led by Airbus which would have replaced the Eurofighter, the Rafale, the Tornado and the M2000 (but only by 2025) -Then the F-35 (possibly the F-18) -Now the Eurofighter What next?
  8. Modern Tank Destroyers / Gun Carriers

    VBC 90 : VAB based 90mm gun used by the Gendarmerie Mobile for inner security (Admitted it's a rather obscure one, but still went into service) VAB MEPHISTO (x4 HOT missiles in 360° turret: 12 missiles total)
  9. Why not, give a free pass on what kind of pedagogy to apply over the course of a few year, and compare result with a standardized exam at the end. Well it comes from the idea that the public service is here to serve the people, not make profit. Anyway the schools are in general more underfunded than the contrary, so any left over money is in general used on sensible purchases. No problem
  10. Isn't an heli based system much less capable than a plane based system? I am thinking about the max detection range, and the max altitude (which correlate to area coverage AFAIK). Still much better than nothing though.
  11. Well STOBAR will never have the same capability than CATOBAR, so even when the F-35B will be a thing (it will be at some point) the HMS Queen Elizabeth will merely remain a "Porte Aéronefs" and not a full fledged "Porte Avions" I can understand the reasoning that even with a reduced range or payload the aircraft launched from a STOBAR can still defend the aero-naval group and that the F-35 have a greater effective range than what the specs suggest, since it can fly straight to the objective without risking being detected. But not being able to launch an AWACS is a big blow to the credibility of an aero-naval task force, since it will be much more vulnerable.
  12. Tank Layout

    I will dig back the book where I found that tonight when coming back from work, but as far as I remember the explanation was the following.: Tracks themselves are inherently heavy, as well as their suspensions (be it torsion bars, coil springs, or hydro-pneumatic) so as soon a you choose to use that type propulsion you have to cope with the weight. But as you said they intrude less in the hull, which mean a smaller vehicle and so a lighter vehicle at equivalent level of protection. As for wheeled vehicles, past a certain weight (10 ton is a rule of thumb) wheels suspension need to become more complex, the wheels gets bigger to keep the ground pressure to a reasonable level. That mean that if you want to keep a decent vertical travel your vehicle will be taller and the suspensions more complex (and generally heavier). Now if you want to use high pressure gun on a wheeled IFV, you have to deal with the recoil and part of it will have to be absorbed by the suspensions. Especially when you want to fire your gun with the turret at 90° from the hull, you have to deal with a force applied on top of a very tall vehicle, suspensions will have to be rather complex to deal with the recoil and prevent the vehicle from tipping over. Tracks having a bigger ground contact area and making the vehicle lower have less problem dealing with side shot (force applied closer to the center of gravity of the vehicle and more friction with the ground). This is really a technological problem, the higher the weight of a wheeled vehicle, the more complex it's suspensions, and in that case more complexity often mean more weight. Suspensions for tracked vehicles are much less sensitive to weight change, the technology used scales up much better. In the past the rule of thumb was: m < 10 ton : Wheels 10 < m < 20 ton : Tracks or wheels, depending on the usual track vs wheel debate (Cost, tactical mobility vs strategical mobility, type of terrain, etc) m > 20 ton : Tracks But with technological advance the lines are getting blurred and the grey area is expanding, you have behemoth wheeled vehicles like the VBCI or the Centauro II using fancy supsensions and reaching around 30 ton and on the other end of the spectrum you have light IFV that start using rubber tracks (vastly reducing the inherent weight of a tracked system).
  13. General AFV Thread

    Well comparatively to the size of the country, they have a massive amount of high-end systems in every branch of their military, so technologically and numerically they are good. But the sheer diversity of the systems will just make the training and maintenance a nightmare.
  14. General AFV Thread

    I guess they are just buying everywhere for political reasons. I mean just compare the size of their army to the number of IFV they just bought. They have roughly 8500 people in the land army and even if every single one of them was an infantry men it would still make one IFV for 17 soldiers. That's just ridiculous, and I'm only counting the upcoming VBCI, not the older IFV and AFV they already have in service (VAB, AMX 10P, AMX VCI) hopefully they'll at least remove the old ones from service. Same for their air force, I'm not even sure they have enough pilots to crew all their aircrafts. I won't complain since it good source of income for our industry, but it's clear they are not thinking about practicality here. That or the recent blocus scared the shit out of them and they want to stockpile weapons ASAP.
  15. Tanks guns and ammunition.

    I just meant a tandem of an AC in combination with an ATGM, not a twin AC or something like that. May have phrased that one poorly. In general if you want to use a full pressure gun, you better use a tracked vehicle since it will save weight on the suspension, and the vehicle will also be smaller. But at the same time a tracked vehicle will often exceed 20 metric ton anyway. Tracks are more efficient weight-wise but they automatically put the vehicle above a minimal weight. The M8 is an exception since it was designed to be just light enough to be squeezed inside a C-130, and I guess that some serious compromises were made for that. Light tanks can potentially be airlifted by tactical aircrafts but have, generally, a greater logistical trail than wheeled vehicles (higher fuel consumption and no parts commonality with APC and IFVs deployed alongside them) which is also a problem for an expeditionary force. Also their effective range will be smaller. A Centauro II will barely fit in an A400M and for the US army to airlift such a vehicle would require the use of a C-17 (which is not as flexible as a C-130 in term of possible landing zone). The MGS will fit in a C-130 thanks to it's unmanned turret but it's nowhere near the capability of a Centauro II (and most likely of a B1 Centauro as well, especially in the AT department) but it's quite an old design anyway. If it were to be remade nowadays, I think it would end up heavier and larger. In the end I think that there is two school: -The European one which use heavy (25-30 metric ton) IFV-based vehicles in combination with the A400M (which is a sort of heavy tactical aircraft). The vehicles may use either a gun (which is not the best idea for wheeled vehicles) or an AC+ATGM combo -The US that use lighter and less protected wheeled vehicles (Stryker family) and if a bigger vehicle is needed will just use a C-17 and land it on a better airstrip. In the end it mostly comes down to the US having access to a heavy lift strategical aircraft and having vastly superior logistics than European country, while the European will have access to a better tactical aircraft.