DIADES Posted September 30, 2020 Report Share Posted September 30, 2020 On 9/28/2020 at 11:05 PM, Insomnium95 said: Why would you want to pack a bunch of tanks on a mountainous island with thick jungles? Most armored vehicles will have little value in places like those islands. You don't get to choose like that. War is chaos and a constant struggle for advantage. Tanks have been used over and over again in "bad tank country" of every kind. Always will be. There is no substitute for a tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaronTibere Posted September 30, 2020 Report Share Posted September 30, 2020 Think of it like wrapping a present. If the box is smaller, you use less wrapping paper than if the box is bigger. If the turret volume is smaller, you need less total mass of armour to wrap it to the same thickness as a larger turret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted September 30, 2020 Report Share Posted September 30, 2020 People, you are wasting your time with those explanations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted October 9, 2020 Report Share Posted October 9, 2020 https://www.gd.com/Articles/2020/10/08/gd-at-ausa-2020 Clan_Ghost_Bear, 2805662 and Laviduce 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted October 11, 2020 Report Share Posted October 11, 2020 On 10/9/2020 at 12:06 AM, Ramlaen said: https://www.gd.com/Articles/2020/10/08/gd-at-ausa-2020 Is it me or does every time this thing shows up it manages to look worse? They ditched the low-profile hull, they ditched the 120mm and went back to ye olde 105... when GDLS first showed off the Griffon II I thought it was a much better design than the warmed-over XM8 - but now what's the selling point for it? XM8 is already somewhat familiar to the Army and has parts commonality with other Army vehicles... this is just an ASCOD 2 with a armor-less M1 turret slapped on. Clan_Ghost_Bear 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarshipDirect Posted October 12, 2020 Report Share Posted October 12, 2020 1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said: Is it me or does every time this thing shows up it manages to look worse? They ditched the low-profile hull, they ditched the 120mm and went back to ye olde 105... when GDLS first showed off the Griffon II I thought it was a much better design than the warmed-over XM8 - but now what's the selling point for it? XM8 is already somewhat familiar to the Army and has parts commonality with other Army vehicles... this is just an ASCOD 2 with a armor-less M1 turret slapped on. This is the low profile hull. The Army sets the requirements and they want the 105. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarshipDirect Posted October 12, 2020 Report Share Posted October 12, 2020 5 minutes ago, Insomnium95 said: I still can't get over the fact that they didn't put an autoloader in it. Seems like such a waste of space for an extra crewman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted October 12, 2020 Report Share Posted October 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Insomnium95 said: This is the low profile hull. The Army sets the requirements and they want the 105. I still can't get over the fact that they didn't put an autoloader in it. Seems like such a waste of space for an extra crewman. As to the 105, I know that was Big Army's dumb decision - but it was still a major selling point for the original Griffin II demonstrator. As to height, this hull certainly seems higher than the hull they were showing off earlier. This appears to be just a regular ASCOD 2 hull, the original Griffin II having had only a couple inches between the top of the roadwheels and the return track. Spoiler There's no autoloader because GDLS literally just reused the Abrams design with less armor and a few dimensional adjustments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted October 12, 2020 Report Share Posted October 12, 2020 Live fire video of Leonardo/Moog turret competing for the fleet wide 30mm turret upgrade. Scolopax, Zyklon, skylancer-3441 and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted October 12, 2020 Report Share Posted October 12, 2020 18 hours ago, TokyoMorose said: This appears to be just a regular ASCOD 2 hull, the original Griffin II having had only a couple inches between the top of the roadwheels and the return track. Both sizes are the same. https://i0.wp.com/militaryleak.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/general-dynamics-land-systems-unveils-new-light-tank.jpg?ssl=1 The MPF hull structure is by no means an ASCOD one. Both Griffin 2 and MPF are very different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarshipDirect Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 On 10/11/2020 at 9:16 PM, TokyoMorose said: As to the 105, I know that was Big Army's dumb decision - but it was still a major selling point for the original Griffin II demonstrator. As to height, this hull certainly seems higher than the hull they were showing off earlier. This appears to be just a regular ASCOD 2 hull, the original Griffin II having had only a couple inches between the top of the roadwheels and the return track. Reveal hidden contents There's no autoloader because GDLS literally just reused the Abrams design with less armor and a few dimensional adjustments. Well with the 105 you can carry more ammo so in a way it has it's advantages. Plus it's easier to load than a 120. Right now the 105 can destroy any vehicle just short of a MBT and it's a great infantry killer with airburst ammo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 Is there any actual reason for the Army to choose GDLS's proposal over the XM-8, apart from GDLS being GDLS? Because i dont see one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarshipDirect Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 40 minutes ago, alanch90 said: Is there any actual reason for the Army to choose GDLS's proposal over the XM-8, apart from GDLS being GDLS? Because i dont see one. Commonality with their Griffin III, assuming they win the OMFV contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Insomnium95 said: Commonality with their Griffin III, assuming they win the OMFV contract. That is assuming GDLS wins OMFV which is not going to happen sooner than about 5-8 years at least. Meaning, that the contract for MPF will be awarded before that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarshipDirect Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, alanch90 said: That is assuming GDLS wins OMFV which is not going to happen sooner than about 5-8 years at least. Meaning, that the contract for MPF will be awarded before that. Yeah but they can still use it as leverage. Buy our light tank and now you have the option to buy an IFV with a common chasis. I think if GDLS wins MPF there's a high probability they win OMFV. Hopefully BAE wins and we get the Lynx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted October 13, 2020 Report Share Posted October 13, 2020 4 hours ago, Insomnium95 said: Commonality with their Griffin III, assuming they win the OMFV contract. And with the Abrams (turret) to some degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted October 14, 2020 Report Share Posted October 14, 2020 13 hours ago, alanch90 said: Is there any actual reason for the Army to choose GDLS's proposal over the XM-8, apart from GDLS being GDLS? Because i dont see one. Less (re)training due to the similarity with an Abrams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted October 14, 2020 Report Share Posted October 14, 2020 The sped up segments really stand out due to the rate of fire. https://player.vimeo.com/video/447621339 https://player.vimeo.com/video/447276551 https://gdlsvirtualbooth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Abrams-M1A2SEPv3-v3.pdf https://gdlsvirtualbooth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Stryker-A1-30mm-MCWS-v3.pdf https://gdlsvirtualbooth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/IM-SHORAD-v3.pdf https://gdlsvirtualbooth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/DE-MSHORAD-v2.pdf https://gdlsvirtualbooth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/AJAX.pdf https://gdlsvirtualbooth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/TRX-v3.pdf Serge, Jackvony and Clan_Ghost_Bear 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted October 14, 2020 Report Share Posted October 14, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarshipDirect Posted October 14, 2020 Report Share Posted October 14, 2020 20 hours ago, Ramlaen said: Less (re)training due to the similarity with an Abrams. Not much similarity beside interior layout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted October 14, 2020 Report Share Posted October 14, 2020 Scolopax 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted October 14, 2020 Report Share Posted October 14, 2020 AI as commander? That's even more daring than having AI replacing a gunner or a driver in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boagrius Posted October 15, 2020 Report Share Posted October 15, 2020 Then again if it's going to be optionally manned, I suppose it will need to be able to "command" itself (?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Posted October 15, 2020 Report Share Posted October 15, 2020 4 minutes ago, Boagrius said: Then again if it's going to be optionally manned, I suppose it will need to be able to "command" itself (?) If it's going to be used as unmanned, it will be commanded by someone sitting in the command post. IMHO we are very far from an UGV being able to command itself except or some very simple tasks such as drive along a given road. Boagrius 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan_Ghost_Bear Posted October 15, 2020 Report Share Posted October 15, 2020 14 hours ago, alanch90 said: AI as commander? That's even more daring than having AI replacing a gunner or a driver in my opinion. Don't think there's any indication of that other than this dude saying so with no source on twitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.