Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • 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. You sure about that? According to that Army chart it's called the "1M2A4" - I'm not sure I even trust them to manage the Bradley. (But that chart is a comedy of goofs - at least one typo, magical 100mm Kornets, not bothering to account in potential ammunition advances for guns, no counting of protection at all, magic 8-balling the optics on T-15, really confusing TOW nomenclature...)
  2. TokyoMorose

    Polish Armoured Vehicles

    All I want to add in here, for my two cents, is that manufacturing cassettes for armor is substantially less complex than welding together large complex assemblies of aluminum or titanium. That said, cast titanium is certainly an... *interesting* choice from LUBAWA.
  3. Ah, but the AVDS-1790 isn't a 50s design. It's a 40s design, they were first tested in 46 (in their original gasoline form as AV1790). With that said, the advantages of a newer engine do probably outweigh that of updating the AVDS... they almost certainly have lower maintenance requirements, better fuel economy, and other such niceties. I'm also disappointed if not surprised in using the X1100 transmission, even though it really isn't that great - if they want to stick with Allison the newer 5043 MXH covers the same power ratings, more compact, lighter, and better performing. This is also a good time to bring up that not putting the Abrams ARV into production and continuing on with the M88 to save money in the short term was a mistake. (And this addendum is unrelated: but boo Caterpillar, go Cummins!)
  4. TokyoMorose

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    Don't forget that the TH-301 was basically an improvement of their work for TAM. I don't understand the sudden IFV-cum-Tank fetish. (I understand the money, and the idea of TDs... but trying to replace the MBT with a lightly armored vehicle will end in pain)
  5. I really, really want to know the genius behind FCS who decided that for large-caliber weapons the only protection needed was the world's most complicated APS. They never did get Quick Kill working to a satisfactory level did they?
  6. @Bronezhilet - I have to admit, I'm very curious as to why they didn't simply mount the 120mm mortar system instead of converting the 105mm gun.
  7. TokyoMorose

    Polish Armoured Vehicles

    Gun, at some point, every tank manufacturer was not a tank manufacturer. There's always a first design for a company, and there have been several times when these first designs were good. EE-T1 Osorio comes to mind, for its goal (cheap reasonably modern tank for third world nations on a 40t weight limit) it was a fantastic design from a firm with no previous tank work, in a country with no tank industry.
  8. Is the new quad mortar system still autoloaded like the originally planned twin-barrel AMOS?
  9. Again, Spike ER II is not Tamuz. Tamuz is 70kg, it's more than twice the 34kg weight of the Spike-ER II. I have no idea why you insist Spike ER II is Tamuz.
  10. Tamuz has already been exported under the Spike-NLOS name. This is a much smaller missile than the Tamuz.
  11. It's not really due to size or age, its purely due to the engine design. Diesels with better sealing and higher engine temperature don't smoke as much as lower-temperature or poorly-sealed engine (the smoke is unburned or partially burned fuel/oil).
  12. TokyoMorose

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    I'd also like to point out, it is exceedingly unlikely for the Australians to need to road march 1000km as hypothesized, Australia themselves have a good railway network, and on their continent that will take care of long-distance logistics for the most part. Most heavy-vehicle combat theaters in SEA are pretty short-ranged. The only places where you could conceivably need to move a heavy mechanized or armored formation 1000km for the ADF are on Australia itself (hence railway), or on the Chinese mainland itself (Which, as an understatement, is a remarkably optimistic battle planning assumption; and they have a great rail network as well...) - pretty much everywhere else in SEA mountains or water bodies will be far more of a limitation for distance than the vehicle's speed or autonomy.
  13. TokyoMorose

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    Final drives gave out after 150km on average, transmission excluding 3rd gear was ~1500km. (Governed) Engines were also around ~1,500km. The French also found that pivot steering greatly accelerated wear on the final drives, to the point of having cases of the drives breaking mid-turn, and they gave strict orders to avoid pivot steering it.
  14. TokyoMorose

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    AFAIK, the 3rd gear wasn't any particularly weaker than any other gear in the AK 7-200, but it was the most common gear used (by mileage) and thus wore out the fastest. If I remember the French postwar numbers right, they averaged 1000 km before busting the 3rd gear, while the transmission on average overall lasted 1500 km. The difference IMHO, is that in particular with regards to the AVDS-1790 improvements and the advanced torsion bars developed by TCM, these were literal drop-in upgrades. It's only the more complex transmission replacement or suspension overhaul that took any actual real modification work, it's purely the army being stubborn.
  15. TokyoMorose

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    To further muddle the waters, by the late 60s/early 70s, several drivetrain improvements and improved suspension components were developed for M60 that would have made up the performance gap had the army actually bought them. (Thinking of the XT-1400 and RK304 transmission options, various improvements to the engine culminating in the 1200hp versions, and the different torsion bar replacements)