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

2805662

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    689

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 2805662

  1. 2805662
    Depends on a variety of factors. Can be either. Barrel only is faster & more convenient.
  2. 2805662
    Fitting & removing the gun takes minutes. We used to do the same on ASLAVs when in the compound or in transit. Hardly a permanent state of affairs.
  3. 2805662
    Ukrainian Bradleys.
  4. 2805662
    Some images of ex-Canadian C1s turrets that were bought by Australia to harvest for spare parts. Any guesses on the diameter of that trunnion?
  5. 2805662
    Thanks to the Defence Trade Controls Act of 2012, these vehicles remain subject to Australian-government imposed end use controls until they’re scrapped. Good times.
  6. 2805662
    Found this one…somewhere.
  7. 2805662
    Not saying that it is a great argument, just that the design hasn’t changed since inception. In terms of “high & forward”, the M8 is very similar to Leopard 1 & 2, location wise, but at least this is compartmentalised & tested for crew survivability. From my understanding - it’s been a while since I dived into M8 - the hull stowage passed its testing (i.e. the driver survived ammunition deflagration of each of the hull stowage locations), but the turret stowage required redesign, testing, & qualification which was completed prior to type classification as the M8 in the 1990’s.
  8. 2805662
    That’s been the design since the CCVL days in the 80’s. Three compartments of ammunition; ready (i.e. turret) & either side of the driver. Replenishment of the ready ammunition requires the driver to get out as you say. Regarding compartmentalisation, this configuration passed crew survivability qualification in the 90’s. There’s some footage on YouTube of the testing, similar to the Abrams stuff with artillery air burst & shaped charges.
  9. 2805662
    It’s compartmented.
  10. 2805662
    Today’s The Australian newspaper:
  11. 2805662
    Both Redback & Lynx are at Avalon 2023, an Australian “air show +”, both in overall OD. Notable for Redback is the pop up poster that details Elbit’s “30mm Redback turret”.
  12. 2805662
    Apparently a turret illustration of a C1 turret. Any clearer versions out & about?
  13. 2805662
    After some research & googling, I’ve drawn a blank on some specifics of the Leopard 1. Some questions: what is the turret ring diameter? What is the distance from the hull front to the centre of the turret ring? What is the height of the hull roof for the fighting compartment & the engine deck? Thanks for any help you’re able to provide.
  14. 2805662
    AbramsX 3D model: Cults 3D
  15. 2805662
    I guess AJAX is off the hook?
  16. 2805662
    Puma fails. Again.
  17. 2805662
    Labor being Labor. As simple as that. The defence strategic review may green light a small buy of IFV to save face, but I’m not hopeful.
  18. 2805662
    Would also question whether this is 38 short tons or 34.4 tonnes.
  19. 2805662
    Interesting. Would be useful to know whether the Korean crew were military or civilian, & qualified on the MT30 turret. Almost a 180 degree difference to the Australian experience, where the AS21 performed very creditably & army is a huge fan of it.
  20. 2805662
    As per the Senior Vice-President International Business from EOS - not a defence aggregation website - the key external difference between the T2000 & the MT30 is the sensors. Here’s the MT30 (yes, with R400 Mk2 HD RWS fitted): Here’s the T2000: You can see that the T2000 has the same sensor package housing as that fitted to the R400 RWS. Internally, the FCS & HMI are completely different.
  21. 2805662
    Quite the opposite from what I’ve heard. The EOS T2000 had a fire control system from EOS. The turret on the Polish test was the Elbit MT30. They have a common ballistic shell, so telling them apart is tricky. Have to look at the sensors. Anecdotally, the Polish tests did not have any contractors present to zero, boresight, or train the crews.
  22. 2805662
    Delay of decision to proceed *at all* now formalised.
  23. 2805662
    Interview with the AMPV product manager & walkaround.
  24. 2805662
    Looks like some kind of driver viewer equipment.
  25. 2805662
    I’m betting against L400-3 getting up at all, thanks to the DSR.
×
×
  • Create New...