Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

These pics I took at Land Forces 18 may be of use:

 

s3yuE9c.jpg

 

9c3v8vu.jpg

 

9j3gJyt.jpg

 

 

Good pics - sure as hell look like windows in the armour to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

UK is considering a new SPG:

https://www.janes.com/article/87623/uk-releases-rfi-for-new-self-propelled-howitzer'

 

Boxer with Donar turret, maybe?

Maybe, but unlikely. Rheinmetall has pushed this concept for a while, but there are other options as well. For example, a Caesar or ATMOS on a MAN HX truck. I also heard a version of the Archer was offered, although I am not particularly fond of the Archer concept to say the least, as I believe a manual backup is a crucial aspect. 

The AGM is also an option, and here I would like to mention that it's called AGM, not Donar. The Donar is a version mounted on a Bradley platform.

There are 2 main reasons why the option of a Boxer-mounted AGM are less likely:

  1. The real power holder in the UK is Rheinmetall. The AGM is a KMW product. What it stood to profit from the Boxer+AGM idea is an additional sale of boxer drive modules. It could profit just as much from any of the other abovementioned options.
  2. A truck-based solution, for example the MAN HX, allows for more optimized pressure distribution, and provides more flexibility to install various platform stabilizers. They're also not limited in payload, when compared with a Boxer. They have a few turreted, and a few un-turreted options, for example the Caesar or Brutus not using a turret, or the ATMOS, Archer, and AGM using a turret, with the ATMOS being offered in both configurations actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RFI is a formality. AGM on Boxer is the plan. It was one of the reasons why Boxer was selected for MIV. Get as many drive modules as possible then order required mission modules when the money is available.
KMW is working on a remote re-supply module.
The program for a new SPG has been going for a while and had numerous names, at one point it specifically had 'Wheeled' in the title.The Regiments selected are 2 x AS90 and 2 x 105mm in the Armoured and Strike Brigades.

Boxer acquisition is being done through OCCAR so Artec is the prime contractor. KMW already have a manufacturing base in the UK with their ownership of WFEL, hence why Rheinmetall created Joint-Venture with BAE.
Drive module fabrication - WFEL-KMW
Mission module fabrication - Pearson
Final assembly - BAE-Rheinmetall

The requested numbers aren't enough to entirely replace AS90 and a recent BAE bulletin had an article on improving the range of the L15A4 round when used with a 52 calibre barrel as part of a AS90 capability upgrade:
https://t.co/LpopfR4d2H
I wonder if this is an upgrade of the original L31 gun or an entirely new one (like the cancelled Braveheart upgrade)?
BAE owns the M777, it was designed and is manufactured in the UK, a L52 version has been worked on. However Rheinmetall's 155mm L52 is fitted in the Polish Krab SPG that uses the AS90 turret.
Interesting to see if AGM and AS90 will end up with the same gun.
 

On 4/3/2019 at 8:15 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

I also heard a version of the Archer was offered


h8bjPNE.jpg
 

On 4/3/2019 at 8:15 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

The Donar is a version mounted on a Bradley platform.


ASCOD
I think the M993 was used early on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2019 at 3:33 PM, David Moyes said:

However Rheinmetall's 155mm L52 is fitted in the Polish Krab SPG that uses the AS90 turret.

 

Currently, Rheinmetall has started to be only a subcontractor for 155mm L52 in Krab.

Forgings for barrels still have to be imported from Germany but the final assembly is now made in Poland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Suspect the pressure will be on to go for a wheeled solution, given the way the SP artillery market has gone in recent years."

 

Are they going with the herd then? I think this western wheeled artillery concept is a big big mistake. Basically, the problem isnt the wheels. The problem is that they install these artillery systems on low offroad capability trucks. Im a heavy equipment operator, so I saw quite a few trucks stuck in the slightest amount of mud. This is no different. That Archer above on the MAN HX chassis is a disgrace of the original. Maybe its cheaper, but has zero offroad mobility compared to the Volvo chassis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AssaultPlazma said:

 

How many of those 3,000 are considered up to date/modern? 

I believe plans were to modernize all of them. But Russia's definition of 'modern' is not a particularly good one. 

It's mostly a "produced after year X is modern, even if shit standard". The T-72 was the first to hit the modernization effort. First batches of T-72B3 were rolled out in 2013, but until 2017 lacked panoramic sights, which has been standard equipment on western tanks for decades.

And apparently thermal imagers aren't even a standard equipment in Russian AFVs yet. That is, not nearly widespread enough yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I believe plans were to modernize all of them. But Russia's definition of 'modern' is not a particularly good one. 

It's mostly a "produced after year X is modern, even if shit standard". The T-72 was the first to hit the modernization effort. First batches of T-72B3 were rolled out in 2013, but until 2017 lacked panoramic sights, which has been standard equipment on western tanks for decades.

And apparently thermal imagers aren't even a standard equipment in Russian AFVs yet. That is, not nearly widespread enough yet.

 

 

Thermal Imagers as in thermal's for the gunner sight? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I believe plans were to modernize all of them. But Russia's definition of 'modern' is not a particularly good one. 

It's mostly a "produced after year X is modern, even if shit standard". The T-72 was the first to hit the modernization effort. First batches of T-72B3 were rolled out in 2013, but until 2017 lacked panoramic sights, which has been standard equipment on western tanks for decades.

And apparently thermal imagers aren't even a standard equipment in Russian AFVs yet. That is, not nearly widespread enough yet.

Until 2017? What kind of panoramic sight are you talking about?

 

All B3 have Sosna-U with thermal imagers, 90As, BMP-3s and BMD-4s with Sodema sights, 80BVM, soon even BTR-82s will get them. It is not a small number of vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

Until 2017? What kind of panoramic sight are you talking about?

 

All B3 have Sosna-U with thermal imagers, 90As, BMP-3s and BMD-4s with Sodema sights, 80BVM, soon even BTR-82s will get them. It is not a small number of vehicles.

Don't know its name, but referring to this one:

xwd51p1iyqz11.jpg

 

About what vehicles have thermals, maybe I was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

How many of those 3,000 are considered up to date/modern? 

By world standards, probably not a single one.

Lots of completely obsolete T-72Bs, T-80BVs and some T-80Us.

T-72B3 is end of 80s level. It has lots of problems: 1960s level commander's station (OU-3GK searchlight in 2019? Seriously?), no armor (Kontakt-5 is hopelessly obsolete), no modern communication systems, no navigation systems, huge maintenance problems (doubtful durability of engine, and its change takes half a day), some mobility issues (very slow reverse), inadequate gun, ergonomic problems with using Sosna.

T-80BVM is the same except: It has modern Relikt ERA (so has decent protection at least), reliable engine with good durability,  much easier engine extraction, and no ergonomic problems with using the thermal sight. 

T-90A, same as T-72B3, except it has no ergonomic problems, and has better commander's station (still inadequate, although better than what the Challenger-2 commader has)

So yes, the first tank that will be really modern by western standards, is the T-90M, although it still has the engine problems shared with all recent T-72 variants. Hopefully they start producing it soon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Don't know its name, but referring to this one:

 

Spoiler

xwd51p1iyqz11.jpg

 

 

   Your ability to see equipment that tanks don't have is strange. Maybe you can see ghosts of dead people or tanks from the future?

 :ian:

 

 

20 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

How many of those 3,000 are considered up to date/modern? 

   Here is a list:

 

Quote

The numerical and qualitative composition of the tank forces of Russia (from the most obsolete machines to more advanced):

 

   Most obsolete machines:
T-72A / AV / AK - 150-200 (in the Central Military District and Higher Military Training with replacement by other tanks);
T-72B / B1 / BK / B1K - 1000-1100 (in all districts, they are delivered to the newly formed units, in others they are replaced by T-72B3);
T-72BA - 700 (in all districts, replaced by T-72B3).

 

   Outdated MBTs:
T-80BV - 100-220 (in the Arctic brigades and in VVO, replaced with T-80BVM);
T-80U - 200 (in the Kantemirovskaya division, with subsequent replacement by T-14).

 

   Modern tanks:
T-72B3 - 800 (in all districts, the state of the modernization program to the base model is unknown);
T-80UE-1 - 20 (in Kantemirovskaya division, with subsequent replacement with T-14);
T-80BVM - 30-150 (in the Arctic teams and in the VVO, replace the T-80BV);
T-90A - 200 (in Western and South Military District, replaced with T-72B3 UBKh);
T-72B3 UBKh - 120 (all districts).

Total: 3510-3660 tanks.

   So over a 1000 of those 3500 tanks are "modern", with bulk of them being given to units in Western/S-W part of Russia. Also, there are more T-90As or T-72B3 UBKhs than Challengers 2, kek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×
×
  • Create New...