Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by N-L-M

  1. 13 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

    but if it´s true that the system is useless, then why are the russians buying new ones?

    The system is supposed to be a lower cost and higher stowed kill anti-PGM system AFAIK, and theres a need for both of those in any modern military. The system has not quite lived up to expectations and so until it properly matures its not likely to replace existing systems but even in its limited state it fills a useful function.

  2. 22 hours ago, VPZ said:

    The one on the Mk.2 has muzzle-loading

    Ok, what prevents you from muzzle loading the one on the other merks? Unless you mean muzzle loading only, in which case, no, the Merk 2 mortar can also be loaded from inside the tank, it has all the necessary mechanisms.


  3. 1 hour ago, Beer said:

    Which generations of Merkava have this turret mortar? Has it been used often? 

    Merkava 1 has an external mortar.

    I believe that particular mortar fitted in the Namer turret is the same one as is in use in the Merk 4, which is slightly different from the one used in the Merk 2 and 3, pictured separately in LoooSeR's post.

  4. Thanks for posting, I would appreciate it if you could kindly edit out the various video game references.

    11 minutes ago, Jackvony said:


      Hide contents



    Regarding the above, the numbers for the M60 and vanilla M1 are both high, as is the number for the T-62. The rest of the Soviet numbers appear to be similarly made up, so expecting the late model (at the time) Abrams numbers to be anywhere near accurate is... hopelessly optimistic.

  5. 1 hour ago, Pascal said:

    Towed artillery is the stuff for real kind of war.

    Towed artillery would get counterbatteried 10 ways to hell so fast it'd make your head spin. Fire systems incapable of dodging or surviving counterbattery fire will have fuckall survivability in a big boy war. Doubly so for towed guns with substantially less range than enemy artillery, such as say the M777 compared to pretty much anything modern on the opposite side.

    Fire-finding radars are everywhere since the 1990s, and the gun's survivability has to be evaluated under the understanding that the enemy is going to shoot back. 

    Given that, the ability to shoot and scoot before enemy fire arrives is a critical survivability measure.

  6. 4 minutes ago, DIADES said:

    fire on the move from a heavy tracked platform

    I suspect that that is entirely not the goal, for a few reasons:

    1. The main difficulty in firing on the move is stabilization of the gun. Howitzers, for reasons of easy loading, have the gun out of balance with the trunnions very far aft to minimize the breech drop inside; however the recoil impulse with a good muzzle brake is not significantly in excess of that of a NATO 120mm or Russian 125mm, which have been mounted on vehicles as light as the Sprut with no brake.

    Reducing recoil impulse does not help all that much with needing to keep the breech high off the floor for loading and therefore needing to keep it out of balance in the cradle.

    2. The US Army for some reason still has a lot of towed howitzers in service, which I'm sure you'd agree need to be replaced with some kind of SP system cause as they are theyd get creamed in any real kind of war. Unfortunately the budget is not infinite (SAD!), and therefore replacing them all with M1299s is less than doable in any reasonable time scale. And replacing them is a much more pressing concern than firing on the move from a tracked platform. 


    The rest of the world has either gone or is going the route of wheelyboys for various reasons, which bring with them their own host of issues, which ideally need to be worked out separately before you start full scale design and development. This is in my opinion what Brutus actually is. Brutus being FMTV based may be down to the fact that its a platform the Army has available for this kind of testing, and not due to it being intended to see service in this config. The total lack of any serious systems integration work shown so far makes me less than convinced that this platform is intended to eventually actually see service.


  7. 1 minute ago, DIADES said:

    Point is of course, that any old lightweight chassis can't carry a decent armoured cab

    Sure they can, see FMTV.

    1 minute ago, DIADES said:

    BTW, where does the ammo go?

    Presumably in a fragproof box on said "real vehicle". Because again, the Brutus itself appears to be an expedient for tech testing, not a system for fielding in and of itself.

  8. 3 minutes ago, DIADES said:

    and I am seeing a vehicle

    Yes, and I believe you are in fact missing his point entirely- which is, as far as I can tell, that Brutus is a demonstrator for the weapon system, not a proposed system for fielding. Once the weapon system is developed, theres nothing preventing you from say plonking it on an armored FMTV chassis, or doing the same thing to the new 58 caliber barrel and gluing it on top of a LVSR.

    Yes Brutus isnt a fieldable weapons system thanks to not being frag proof, but thats not its point.

  9. That last intercept is a long rod.

    Last time IMI (as it was at the time) included that capability in a promo vid for Iron Fist was quite a long time ago, cca 2009 IIRC. Pivot to high intensity conflict, anyone?

    (It is of course also possible that they only got the thing to actually work reliably in that mode recently, which would explain the absence between the OG dev pitch and the current sales pitch).

    I also note that the radar showcased there is quite different from the one theyve been using up to now- I wonder what's behind that change.

  10. Coverage does indeed look very good for single layers, but I'm not sure I get how the snd pulse is supposed to help. If all it does is propel the heavy strike face of the array with a delayed pulse that could work, but if the individual flyer plates of the explosive sandwich are also supposed to have an effect, we run back into a coverage problem- very little of the array is covered by both layer at once. 

    The system seems to me to be optimized vs KE, (heavy flyer plate with enough delay to break a rod at the center, not the tip, to maximize effects, but depending on how long the delay is (and how thick the face plate is), this system may also have marginal effects vs tandems, with a fast moving flyer plate already in motion when the main jet arrives, but which hasnt moved too far out of the way yet thanks to the built in delay.

  11. On 11/2/2018 at 10:19 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

    it turned out that there is a report about SAIFV, which is readily available on the internet there http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16635coll14/id/56079/rec/1

    It appears that, approximately one year later, that link no longer works. If anyone happened to have saved the file while it was available, a rehost would be greatly appreciated.

  • Create New...