Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

TokyoMorose

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TokyoMorose

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 3UBR6? Not a "APFSDS", but the mediocre performance and big hole would line up well. That said, it that looks a lot like the... (splatter? splash?) I've seen on many HEAT impacts.
  2. I fully understand, but if you get immobilized and blinded by HMG or light autocannon fire, the crew capsule is now a stationary and defenseless target for whatever heavier weapons the opposition feels to use at their leisure.
  3. The Jaguar really causes some mixed feelings for me, because while I understand it is not made to stand up to AT fire (and that would indeed be a silly requirement) there's so much exposed that seems vulnerable to ubiquitous HMGs and light autocannons - lots of what are presumably hydrualic put possibly pneumatic lines on the undercarriage *entirely unprotected*, and all sorts of electronics and sensors on the upper works. Even the armored shutters for some of them don't appear to stand any chance of stopping HMG fire closed up, they seem to be just a few mm thick. Just makes me nervous that a well-camouflaged KPV or DShK/KORD would have no issue effectively disabling the thing, even if I am sure the actual fighting compartment is protected. And if those unprotected lines on the undercarriage are hydraulics, then running over a landmine on that will be a truly enlightening experience.
  4. There has already been a CAMD report linked, translated handily by Samsonov, listing both the V-2 in the T-34 and the 6046 in the M4A2 as having ~200 hours (the numbers are slightly different but well within a reasonable margin of error of a few hours) average lifespan. That was from the second guards' tank army in 1945. Your points on the other Shermans having various models of engines is of course valid, as is the various T-34 derivatives. But the posts you were replying to for the R-975 post were discussing the M4A2 for comparison's sake (it's the easiest statistical comparison to T-34s as it was operated by armies who operated enough T-34s to get good average data) and just stuck out in my mind as being very irrelevant.
  5. I hate to barge in with a late reply, and this is a side point - but why would the poor lifespan of the R-975 have any relevancy in a discussion comparing to the GM 6046 on the M4A2? All of the other sources earlier posted comparing T-34 engine life to Sherman engine life were using the 6046-equipped M4A2 as that is what the Soviets had.
  6. I was tempted to mount ye old M135 demolition cannon as a secondary mount to meet the HE requirement while being under armor. I am quite certain the 165mm HEP round would satisfy even the most ardent of rangers.
  7. Doing some numbers in my head and comparing to various guns out there, if that 7.5lbs HE per shot or salvo requirement is in terms of fill weight and not total shell weight (and I am assuming that is the case)... meeting that is going to be an interesting challenge. Some of the ideas I have are real goofy for that.
  8. What is *doubly* weird is that the Chinese gun internals are hard-chromed. The 2A46 family did not introduce that until the 2A46M - so the Chinese made the effort to modify production tooling and procedures to allow a good chroming, but didn't also copy the rather simple front-change screw mechanism that is very well known? Really is a baffling combination of gun "features".
  9. This seems to be such a terrible idea, having a bespoke chassis and systems defeats the logistical and cost reasons of using a technical (y'know being cheap and with parts available on the market anywhere) while also intentionally limiting performance compared to purpose-built buggies like the flyer. You simply can't fit a bodykit that looks reasonably like a regular civilian vehicle on one of those buggies, otherwise they'd just do that instead of asking for a new vehicle that can look like that.
  10. BD's comments from Coffman are relevant "That said, Coffman added, if a company comes in with a 30mm weapon, “they have to show us a path to 50.” " Again, the 50mm is effectively mandatory - and given the way the army works they are going to prefer the XM913 they have already paid to design and proof over the WOTAN gun to the point the XM913 may as well be considered mandatory. Same deal with the turret, on paper you could offer a different gun and turret but Army brass already have those programs deep under way. It's like the M4 replacement contests where you didn't *have* to submit a 5.56mm gun, but it'd be stupid to think the Army wouldn't choose their existing solution. I am not saying that I expect the armor levels to be identical to GCV, I am saying that the margin of armor level scale-back from that was not big enough to make the tens-of-tons difference needed to make things work. Clearly the Griffin III was not based on terribly detailed knowledge as *GD never even attempted to bid it*. I take the Griffin III to be more of GDLS demonstrating what they can have ready in the short term with existing components or components already in development. It was not aimed at the OMFV requirement or GD would not have bid a totally clean-sheet solution. The Army does not have to be dumb as a whole to write a totally dumb specification. The DoD has done this many times before. And again, I never said the Puma would meet the US's requirements. I am saying it is the *closest* to meeting the requirements. There is in fact no IFV in the world that meets their requirements which is why they had to restart. They could always try to restart their efforts to Americanize the Puma that they had going with SAIC years ago... (and for full pedantry, the American Harrier II is very similar to the UK Harrier IIs, but I do get the fact that the Harrier II vs Harrier Is is pretty much totally different planes) Come on Ram, Zumwalt was loaded down with so many "transformational" ideas that most of them had to be cut out to fit the budget (composite deckhouse, AN/SPY-4, pretty much all of the flush-mounted electronics that are now replaced with scabbed-on systems) and suffers crew fatigue from the 'transformational' manning scheme. And you could write entire novels on how the LCS has failed to deliver on its promises.
  11. Unless my memory serves me wrong, doesn't the Army designed 50mm turret have independent sights? That would mean a three man crew is essentially mandatory, as the 50mm is effectively mandatory (all 30mm entries *have* to demonstrate a path to the 50mm, and the Army is going to want its turret used). You do save on three dismounts, but you're only going to save so much weight there (I.e. comparing to GCV you would need to knock more than 10 tons off, or >20% of total vehicle weight just by removing three dismounts - I remain doubtful that the dismount reduction allows that level of savings). I use the GCV for comparison because it is the closest requirement that matches the OMFV reqs, and because it was designed with essentially the exact same technology/industry base. As to the Puma, as much as I genuinely believe that would have been the most satisfactory solution, the Army disputed CBO's reckoning about the Puma's survivability (they are likely using different matrixes for calculating scores) and it needed more equipment added on to meet specs anyhow (particularly now with the 50mm). Griffin III was never bid, and simply does not have the protection to meet the requirements or GD would have bid it. Honestly, Griffin III is just a tarted up system almost as old as the Bradley (good ole ASCOD). Transformational change is how they got LCS, Zumwalt, and EFV or did they memory hole that?
  12. What we know about the protection requirement in the public sphere is that it was very high, both from industry source comments and the fact that their last IFV program just a few years ago fell apart along almost identical lines do to a combined protection rating that was absurd. They may have scaled back since the GCV slightly, but it would seem not too much. The GCV requirement specified better overall protection than even the then-current SEPv2 Abrams, and over a full 360 degree arc according to their graphs given out late in the program. 52 isn't *that* much larger, raytheon/rheinmetall may well have invested in efforts to try to shave weight off here and there if they felt they were only 2t away from meeting the threshold protection and weight requirements - but they didn't, they consciously decided not to bid at all - like everyone else but GDLS. After all if they win by default on a multibillion dollar contract, even the costs of redesigning things to scrape out every last gram of weight are worth it. (Such as replacing steel interior fittings with titanium - a very expensive option but one of those 'we gotta kill weight at any cost' things) I mean, I didn't say the skeletonized hull was a foolproof surefire success (it reminds me of some of the more crackpot aspects of FCS all too well) - it just seemed to be the only way to cut the gordian knot of the contradictory requirements. The army may well have liked growth margin, but if the only vehicle that meets requirements has low margins and the competition is held under normal rules, it wins by default. Now if there was a mandatory growth margin tonnage or percentage in the detailed sections of the requirements that's a different story but only making the weight requirement even more hopeless (as the margin means an inherently heavier hull with overbuilt mechanicals as I'm sure you know). Timing sort of ended up as an excuse as that was the official reason given both by the DoD to the public and to other government groups when they were questioned for going ahead sole-source, and the official reason given by Rheinmetall when they were asked as a corporation; I fully understand the reason for the shipping failure was a conscious decision not to bid weeks beforehand but as far as the award decision stated Raytheon/Rheinmetall were officially DQ'd for failure to ship test articles, not failure to bid.
×
×
  • Create New...