Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Proyas

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Proyas

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The Leopard 1 and AMX-30 lack the growth space for what? Later iterations of the Leopard 1 had 120mm cannons. And surely, both tanks could have been upgraded over time with better engines.
  2. Since the M1A2 will have titanium armor instead of steel, does that mean all the old M1 tanks made with integral steel armor won't be able to be upgraded to the M1A2 standard?
  3. With these factors in mind, what is the appropriate thickness of steel for a modern MBT? How does the steel thickness of the T-55 and M-60 compare to that? I'm curious to know how bad the "excess steel armor" problem is on the older tanks.
  4. Canada could buy newly-constructed Arleigh-Burke destroyers made in the U.S. The bigger the orders, the more that economies of scale lower the individual costs.
  5. What makes their suspensions worse?
  6. Why doesn't Canada just buy Arleigh-Burke destroyers from the U.S.?
  7. What about my idea to develop new turrets for old tanks? The turrets would be lighter weight because they would be made of modern armor, and would come integrated with other modern tech. The old tank turrets would be removed and the new ones dropped in. Is the ammo storage location in the M-60 and T-55 safe? If not, could it also be fixed by dropping in a new turret that stored all the ammo safely in the back, like in the M1 Abrams?
  8. Hi guys, I recently read about upgrade packages to old tanks like the M-60 and T-55, but kept seeing comments from people saying they would still be obsolete. Is this because the M-60 and T-55 are made entirely of steel (and not composite) armor? I have this theory that thick steel armor is probably totally obsolete, and is just dead weight in the age of lighter weight composite armor. You can bolt on upgrades to an M-60 or T-55, but you're still hamstrung by the fact that either tank will be carrying around tons of useless steel. Am I right? Also, if we wanted to upgrade old tanks like that, wouldn't the best idea be to develop a new turret--with lighter, modern composite armor and better technology inside--and just drop it into the old tanks? The hulls would still be made of heavy steel, but that could be helped a bit by adding applique armor. Here are some of the upgrades I read about: https://youtu.be/NG89Zh9qQrQ http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1907.html
  9. Assume the robot tank is a clean sheet design not intended for human crewmen.
  10. Hello everyone, I'm very impressed by the technical expertise on this forum, and so I'd like your feedback on my theories about what a crew-less, robot tank would be like. I wrote about it here, on my blog: https://www.militantfuturist.com/what-would-a-robot-tank-look-like/ I might edit the blog entry based on any feedback I get from you guys. Thanks.
  11. Are there any newer tank engines that could be easily installed in a Sherman?
  12. Might be a dumb question, but what is the difference between a normal 90mm main gun and a low-pressure 90mm main gun? Why couldn't a Sherman have a 105mm cannon? The Styker is smaller but has it.
  13. Let's say you just got the 1,000 Shermans for free, and you want to make use of them.
  14. Is there any way Sherman tanks could be upgraded at reasonable cost to still have a role on the battlefield? Assume that your military will never fight with a world-class army (U.S., Russia, China, etc.) and instead will only fight with second-rate armies using 1990s technology at best, or with terrorists, or go on peacekeeping missions. I'm thinking that the Shermans could have their turrets removed and modern autoloading turrets from other armored vehicles--like the 105mm Stryker gun, or the 40mm autocannon from the CV10, or the 30mm from the BMP-2 (would any of these fit in the Sherman's turret ring?)--could be dropped in, along with their sensors and computers. ATGM launchers could be installed as well. Explosive reactive armor bricks could be attached to the outside, as is common among modern Russian tanks. Assume that your Sherman fleet is 1,000 tanks, in various states of (dis)repair, so you have enough spare parts to last for many years. What do you guys think? Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...