Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Serge

Contributing Members
  • Content count

    316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Serge

  1. the very first chassis design.
  2. I have a question about a main SPz-Puma design change : Does anyone knows why the first rear ramp design was cancelled to have a more basic one now ? Was-it a mechanical nightmare ? Was-it an fancy rear hatch concept ? Was-it a matter of cost ?
  3. Serge

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    CV90 doesn’t have ready variants ?
  4. Serge

    Israeli AFVs

    This is an Ofek, no matter with that. The new point is the outer cover of the superstructure. First photos showed raw slat armor. Now, they may have considered something a little different. If this is a simple screen cover, it can : - help cooling the vehicle ; - avoid to be hooked by tricky things ; - avoid climbing by rioters... - improve concealment by suppressing bar’s shadows
  5. Serge

    Israeli AFVs

    What is the question ?
  6. Serge

    French flair

    I propose a new topic to regroup information about French AFVs. Days after days, information is overwhelmed under the inflow of photos about anything and everything. It can be interesting to try to have dedicated topics to ease the quality of exchanges. So, if you have already posted interesting photos, documentations and view about French AFVs, you can quote them here.
  7. The Leclerc MBT kept the high speed refueling system.
  8. Yes. It was supposed to do both tasks simultaneously.
  9. One more photo of the FARV : https://m.imgur.com/XAaL90p I loved the refueller vehicle. Both robotic arms were very impressive.
  10. One component of the forward area armored logistic concept was the Forward area rearm vehicle :
  11. Serge

    Israeli AFVs

    You can find Namer APC with both types of tracks.
  12. Serge

    Israeli AFVs

    Look at Merkava, they are only firing in the barrel direction.
  13. Was-it already published here ?
  14. CAMEL was a MRAP like demonstrator ; a kind of 2015 US Casspir.
  15. My bad. You were right considering the 3D view. Making such a drawing is strange because it makes it clear : this design is a no volume design. Hanging crew and section burden onto the armor is common, even if it’s not wise. The problem is coming from the platoon organisation. Soldier have so much to carry, it’s impossible to pack everything into an IFV or even an APC. The only solution is to have a dedicated truck per platoon like within the French tank troops (camion d’allègement). During the fight, the four trucks are regrouped under the logistic 2IC order. They are part of the squadron logistic support fleet (Train de Combat n°1). At rest, trucks are resupplying there troop with food, water... they give acces to the soldier’s burdens. Edit : does anyone knows the English for : - Train de Combat ; - camion d’allégement.
  16. No, because it’s the best way to loose your kit after the first ride. And no company can seriously make such a proposal.
  17. The importance of the direct fire capability is stressed to provide MRSI and self protection. Of course, SPGH can be used to destroy strongholds with hit and run drills. This is why armored artillery is necessary. But considering the general use of artillery and mortars, it’s an exception. One point today is the fact that western countries realized clear FEBA no more exists. So, each element of land forces must self protect itself without the help of infantry. A very good exemple is the French fleet of Carapace trucks. Half of them have RWS for FARP just for self-protection.
  18. Definitely no. Having a direct fire capability doesn’t mean the mortar carrier can be used this way. Mortar carriers can’t go into the same ground as IFV or MBT because there very nature call them on the best place to provide indirect fire support. To provide fire support, mortar carriers are using on dedicated firing positions, dedicated axes, with a dedicated tempo ruled by half planed rang concern and the request of the « availability » of tubes. The main interests for under turret mortars are : - MRSI capability ; - low profile pattern of fly to hit very specifically building areas ; - and self defense, of course. Problems are : - the cost ; - heavy weight so lower armor ; - more difficult deception.
  19. Serge

    Israeli AFVs

    The first is based on Merkava chassis. The second on the Namer one.
  20. It’s interesting for self defense in brigades where there is no so much firepower.
  21. Serge

    Israeli AFVs

    You’re definitely right. The shear factor is superior with wheels than with tracks.
  22. Serge

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Many thanks for that point. I better understand how deep is the problem. Having a MBT squadron alone into a regiment means you can’t do anything. Releif tasks must be nightmare. Spreading assets is the worst to do. Because of this organization, I think a tracked or a wheeled choice are both very close to each other. The best would have been to have a real armored brigade with two medium brigade. But, it’s another story. The only rly point is to keep the Lance turret.
  23. Serge

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Such a comparaison does not exist (unless for poor countries). The choice is made at the brigade level. Do you want an armored brigade on wheels or on tracks ? Both choices are too much different. Once this choice is made, the next question is « wich AFV chassis is the best plateforme to achieve the request mobility we want ? » So, because of the Boxer selection, if the ADF wants a wheeled brigade, they have better to continue with it. If they want a heavy armored brigade, the choice is larger (just a little bit larger) : KF41 Lynx, ASCOD-2 and CV90 Mk-4. And, because the Lance turret is mounted onto the Boxer CRV, they have better to keep this turret.
×