Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

N-L-M

Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

    535
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by N-L-M

  1. No, definitely a 1 or 2. The merkava 3, 4, and Namer have individual swing arms, the mounts for which are these large bases built into the hull side. The lack of such mounts means it must be a Merk 1 or 2, where the arms are attached to the bogies which are mounted to the hull. This is a Namer hull, but the idea is the same. There are a few pics of merkava 3s with the swing arm ripped off where you can see it more clearly but my Google fu is weak. In the pic posted earlier there's no sign of these swing arm hub bases.
  2. After review of firing trials, the Rangers approve cutting that spec significantly, to 1.6 lb or 26 oz HE fill, approximately the fill of a so called "75mm" 3 inch M48 HE shell of old. We apologize for the inconvenience.
  3. You are correct. Can be a single big shot, or a burst of indeterminate length, or any other special tricks you come up with! The Rangers are very open minded when it comes to getting HE delivered to targets.
  4. Many missiles are axi-symmetric. In particular those which spin in flight have to be. Therefore, in order to generate lift for horizontal flight they must fly at a positive angle of attack. Examples of such missiles include SS.10, SS.11, Swatter, Sagger, Spigot, Spandrel, Metis, Kornet, HOT, MILAN, and others. The TOW also has entirely horizontal wings, but as it does not spin in flight the horiz tail is canted at 2 deg down to raise the nose for positive AoA, and can then vary from +2 to -6 deg, unlike the vertical tail which goes symmetrically from -4 to +4 deg.
  5. If that's what you feel best suits the needs of the Lone Free State, go for it.
  6. Size is essentially unrestricted, axle load must be below 10 tons (per axle ofc)
  7. Yeah that's the new suspension test bed Note the 5 in arm hydro pneumatic stations as opposed to 6 torsion bar stations on the regular Brad. In testing now IIRC. Also note the weight simulators on the turret cheeks.
  8. Which is presumably why ARAT-2 is a thing on the turret too, yes. But the basic point I was making was that it appears that the turret side is broadly equivalent in protection to the hull side with ARAT-1, which is presumably good enough to stop certain threats. And I think you'll agree that ARAT-1 skirts and therefore also the turret side give a damn sight better protection from the side than the thin steel flanks of a T-64 style turret.
  9. The Lone Free State of Texas needs YOU! The year is 2255, and the Lone Free State is still recovering from how hard it got hit during The Big One. The geography and politics of the local area are such that borders are very hard to draw, movement ranges are long and points of contact may shift at any time. The Lone Free State Rangers require a new family of vehicles capable of keeping the peace and moving forces safely in the presence of both light irregular forces and thin skinned improvised armored vehicles. More details to follow soon.
  10. 5km is approx 16000 ft. At that altitude, good luck hitting anything without a fire director. In WW2 manual aiming was used only for short range close in air defence, anything longer ranged than a Bofors 40mm was directed, and even those got mk 51 directors by 1944. The need to accurately calculate lead and drop on a moving target is essential, unless the target is within tracer range- typically less than 5k yd.
  11. 5000m is beyond the effective range of non-directed gunfire.
  12. Thats quite the bold assumption to make regarding ease of retrofit of armor package upgrades, should they even be the case. Considering how that turret has Trophy electronics boxes on it, as well as the cheeks, but for example still only has the older CROWS- I consider it more reasonable to assume its the counterweight for a few reasons- 1. If that isn't the counterweight, what is? Considering how the Trophy installation is biased aft, youd need a counterweight fore. 2. A frontal turret armor upgrade, alone, of all the M1A2C upgrades, doesn't make much sense. 3. While trophy counterweights are known to exist, retrofit armor improvements to older Abrams aren't. 4. This turret add-on looks substantially different from M1A2C turrets seen. For a start, on those the actual armor cavity was extended forwards, whereas this lump is clearly welded on to the existing turret face, which would mean very poor actual volume for armor inside it. 5. These cheek expansions only appeared after initial Trophy testing which showed turret imbalance issues.
  13. That's not an M1A2C hull Nor does it appear that an upgrade to the turret would be deployed minus the hull upgrades.
  14. @LoooSeR lel a M-60T did indeed get whacked, but not like we expected
  15. Late 2021 IOC seems a lot more reasonable than earlier claims we've heard, great news. I can only hope they get them in large numbers, to get rid of the huge quantities of M113s the IDF still operates.
  16. @Sturgeon Behold: the electric wheeliebob! Now still 100% incapable of climbing a flight of stairs!
  17. Seems like theyre actually looking for industry feedback on the requirements. IMO biggest deal would be relaxing the protection-transportability requirements as we've discussed previously.
  18. Footage from the IDF 'women in tanks' trial. Low energy and sad.
×
×
  • Create New...