Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Kal

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kal

  1. 'firepower with 30-40mm high performance cannon, 30mm lightweight cannon, and up to two 7.62mm GPMG' https://www.eos-aus.com/defence/ so 4 guns + missiles can be on T2000 turret for a single mission. (actually its more, there is piccy out there where the EOS R400 has whats looks like M230 LF + 7.62 GPMG + MK 47 all installed together)
  2. not a chance that Rheinmetall will walk away from the 133 Lance turrets on order, but DOD may have a lot more room for negotiation for remaining turrets, particularly as EOS will be common between MRAP , APC, IFV and Tank for ADF. the T2000 turret is a 2 man turret, but just do a quick visual between the Namer turret (page 12 ) and the T2000 turret. hmmm, re arrange/expand the layout for 2 man operation, throw an EOS R400 where the mortar sits, and drop one of the sights because its redundant due to EOS fire control system (FCS), sensors, and user interface from the EOS Remote Weapon Station (RWS). the T2000 looks new, but is a nice optimum of battle tested components between EOS, Elbit and ATK https://www.defence.nioa.com.au/supply/view/6/8/supply/weapon-systems/orbital-atk-medium-calibre-chain-gun-systems
  3. it seems to me, my 2 favoured options are proceeding to the next round. some thoughts the EOS T2000 turret seems quite wide, probably wider than lance turret. also the EOS R400 can be configured with combined M230 LF/ 7.62 GPMG https://www.eos-aus.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/EOS-Brochure-R400S-Dual.pdf although considering main turret weapon is also 30mm cannon, its kinda redundant to add a M230 LF up top, but it could make sense, if it can quickly return fire to ATGM teams. (to be clear, M230 is not default on land 400 phase 2 or 3.) both the lynx and the redback seem very competent upgrades for Australia, especially compared to what they are replacing. getting an 'Australian' turret would be a major boost for local industry, although I suspect it has a lot of Israeli and Korean supervision, it should provide aussie ownership for additional growth without paying eurpoean companies whatever they think the upgrades are worth (as opposed to whatever the upgrades cost) also, logistically useful that the redback has commonality with the Abrams transmission and the K9's engine. since the K9 is coming to Australia (on again, off again, on again) and Australia has Abrams, thats a plus. i do wonder if 8 lynx will be priced like 9 redbacks, ie same price per dismount, but more bang per firepower buck from redback, vs 9 dismounts from lynx.
  4. thanks for Toxn's simplification, MBT 456 (45.6 tonne) Turret front: KE: 120mm gun (500mm) (statistical OK) CE: ATGM (360/960mm) (FAIL main charge) CE: ATGM (300/600mm) (FAIL, hmmm, not satisfactory) Turret sides: KE: 105mm gun (247mm) (curent fail, but pass if 25mm Texto replaced by 25mm HHA) CE: ATGM (255/679mm) (tandem charge fail) Turret rear: KE: 155mm HE (45mm) (OK) CE: DPICM (160mm) (FAIL) Turret, roof: KE: 155mm HE (45mm) (OK) Hull belt front: KE: 120mm gun (500mm) (OK) CE: ATGM (360/960mm) (OK) Hull front upper glacis: KE: 120mm gun (500mm) (significantly OK) CE: ATGM (360/960mm) (significantly OK) Hull rear: KE: 155mm HE, (45mm ) (OK) Hull floor: KE: 3x10kg mines (~50mm) (OK) Ammunition 48 x 120mm, loaded. (1 tonne) 2,400 x 30mm HEDP, loaded. (1 tonne, inclusive links) also cost effective, novel, hybrid 120mm ammunition, to deal with the Norman menace.
  5. Hull casting is 13.5 tonne, 100mm thick Magnesium, 2 internal 100mm Mg bulkheads, enclosed hull volume is 34m3, 3 tank variants from same casting. amphibious light tank (rear engine) 33 tonne (ERA only) Main battle tank (rear engine) 45.6 tonne (ERA and NERA combo) Heavy Tank (dual engine, rear and front) 65.6 tonne (lots NERA)
  6. wouldn't conscript training from decades ago stop this type of 'accidental' discharge?
  7. with a longer barrel, the m789 seems to exit at 850m/s the M230LF, sad, but acceptable if there is follow on rounds. Obus G was reportedly 1000m/s, and accurate to 3000m, since M789 is better documented (in english) I'll scale back to 850m/s Obus G projectile weighs 10.85kg (for 105mm round), scaled down to 30mm that would be 253grams, M789 projectile is 229grams 9% difference, proposed 120mm series projectile are 14.656kg to match M789 (229grams x4x4x4) m789 is a 30mm round with a proportionally large fuze, 120mm rounds's fuze is proportional much less significant.
  8. Oplot http://morozov.com.ua/en/bronetankovaya-tehnika-i-vooruzhenie/tanki/razrabotki/oplot/ again, no differential, twin gear sets. They seem to use 7 spd auto transmission, instead of emphasizing twin big pancake torque convertors
  9. T 90, engine is more conventional, but it also looks like a nil differential design, instead they split the transmission, then place the gearing afterwards. So instead of gears then differential, it is primary split/reduce then, two planetary final gearboxes and two planetary final drives.
  10. Object 432, sure looks like they simply bolted on the transmission onto each end of the opposed cylinder 2 stroke diesel. So this begat the T64 which seems to follow the same philosophy
  11. Gillette NERA + NERA Inserts and ERA around turret, with bonus heavy NERA co axial 30mm autocannon, equivalent to M230LF, rounds ballistically matched to 120mm rounds. engine is 6TDF, early 5TDF were 700 hp (522 kW ), so equivalent generation 6TDF would've been about 20% more, so 840hp or 626kW. opposed piston 2 stroke diesels can be assembled to allow power take on both ends (due to twin crankshafts), the transmission will be twin transmissions, each with lockable fluid torque convertor, and a ravigneaux planetery gearset giving 2 forward gears and 1 revers gear. there are no differentials. general principle of veering left or right is that the side to turn to, is unlocked (and can be slightly braked if desired), the side to turn from, is locked. Tank can rotate on its centre as tracks are independent. These are all compact, pancake technologies that were available back in the 50s and 60s. The outline of the motor and transmission is behind the man, it is compact, 6TDF motors are magic, if exhaust emissions are not a high concern.
  12. medium tank, 48 x 120mm rounds, (46 with 2 starter placeholders) HEAT, Autocannon rounds are now 20kg class rate of fire, sustained 30 rounds per minute. (40 rounds per minute rapid)
  13. oops, inspired by DP 27, M 789 HEDP, OBUS G and the glorious 2S7, Kal corp offers a 12 round, 240mm HEAT autocannon. (also capable of lobbing a Kleshchevina derivative: Nuclear shell, if needed. standard shell, M789 but at 240mm dia, so at 1.5x that 360mm penetration plus blast effects enhanced ported shell Obus G but at 240mm, so at 3.5x thats 840mm penetration plus blast effects mercury float HEAT shell, single charge at 5x, thats 1200mm penetration plus blast effects mercury float HEAT shell, dual charge at 5x, thats 800mm precursor + main 1200mm penetration, less blast effects each round is accurate to 3,000 metres, substantially superior to peers. (tradeoff, penetration for increased accuracy) barrel is mildly rifled, ala M230 LF & AMX 30's gun unfortunately, each shell is just a tad over 100kg, so must be reloaded at depot via crane. so despite onboard storage being plentiful, official capacity is limited.
  14. Not always, when compared to dwell armour. But for 1950s/60s only ceramics used in non military industries would be cost feasible. And the calculations become even more mangled.
  15. Whatever russia has in there, my wild guess ia that the t14 has explosive elements direct attached to the gun. Probably not much good directly perpendicular, but indicative that there is a solid hunk of metal to support it anyway.
  16. Well, a major tradeoff between engine fore and engine aft designs is that engine aft trades rear access for superior forward hull side armouring. But 2 examples of fore engine tank designs of the 1950/60s would be S tank and T92 light tank.
  17. The issue for the obus G, is not the rotation force in flight, its that the acceleration within the barrel is too much for the bearings to handle. The ports may also assist in flight rotation, but seem primarily there for launch. And reducing thrust accross the bearings.
  18. Lord James Just angle/stack the fuel tanks so that NERA can be co-located. That should give a close enough approximation as the nera has both a reactive and a slicing element. Which is comparable to how cellular fuel tanks work anyway. So instead of a giant cube of fuel. It becomes a stack of rhombus of fuel.
  19. I'm considering obus g style ammunition for premium situations. While not in obus g, i would consider a small amount of mercury would be beneficial to the obus g concept. In particular, it could transfer thrust to the shaped charge, while minimising torque transfer. Such a round would be too expensive for use against the Mormonhideen, but could be very useful against the Cascadians
  20. Can i use a small amount of mercury in the anti tank ammo? Just a teaspoon worth.
×
×
  • Create New...