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

Serge

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    975
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Posts posted by Serge

  1. On 6/20/2018 at 10:38 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

    Haven't heard any complaints so far. 

    Considering how the Namer and Eitan (and the Merkava) are built intentionally with rear sponsons around the exit, I think they prefer the added safety to the troops (sponsons shield them from fire as they exit) over a slightly quicker dismount.

    In fact, rear sponsons are of no use to protect section dismounting. 

    Spz-Puma, Namer and Eitan (even the Griffon) are representative of the trend in armored combat vehicles design. To keep gross weight reasonable while improving crew protection, vehicles are now made with a survival crew cell surrounded by separated volume. Those volumes are now part of the protection concept. 

    So, both Eitan’s rear boxes are permanent protection for the crew cell.

     

    The straight rear ramp is a complementary advantage. With rear side boxes, it’s very hard to achieve a direct hit to the ramp. 

    One can imagine himself with a weapon trying to sight the ramp and understand how close is the angle. 

    You have other advantages :

    - the hull is more rigid ;

    - the ramp is lighter so the mechanism is more compact, easier to integrate...

    - rear storage are larger. And storage volume is always an Achilles heel.

  2.  

    On 6/13/2018 at 11:52 PM, SH_MM said:

    Just think about it from KMW's perspective: why should they create their own competition and agree to take only 50% of the revenue?

    Like both Australian and Czech Army competitions ? SPz-Puma on the one hand, SPz-Lynx on the other one.

     

    The problem is not an internal competition but how close are both solutions. Chassis are the same.

    We have to keep in mind, the decision is made by the customer. 

    So, saving 2t can be good for it. Having 7 more rounds ready to be fired into a 2 men crew turret can be good for it.

     

    The very drawbacks of the E-MBT is the balistic hole between turret and chassis. Once solved, we will be able to compared the quality of E-MBT and A7...

  3. The Leclerc production facilities are closed and, it can take 3 years long to reactivate. This is why we’ve just failed new contracts last year. 

    Leclerc chassis is complex and expensive. Leopard 2 is reliable and can be improved. 

    The Euro-MBT is 6 tons lighter with 7 more rounds and 3 men crew. 

     

    By 2035, today’s tanks will be out dated. So, an interim solution for countries wich don’t want to spend to much now is needed. 

     

    As a French man, I’m not very found to see we have good technological bricks and are, in the meantime, unable to provide a tank to a friendly country.  

×
×
  • Create New...