Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

I noticed one detail. UK tanks in Iraq use this device. What is this?

 

Spoiler

Dvp2v9inG5k.jpg

198722.jpg

HInv0xUdjhc.jpg

 

I think it is something like device which the IDF use in 1948. Egyptian(arab) insurgents(and army) used traps on the roads. They pulled the line, like fishing line, to cut off the crew's heads.
 

Spoiler

ZpF81u9L31k.jpg

L87w8w0wKS8.jpg

IrauBAfm7ak.jpg

 

Share this post


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

I noticed one detail. UK tanks in Iraq use this device. What is this?

 

  Hide contents

Dvp2v9inG5k.jpg

198722.jpg

HInv0xUdjhc.jpg

 

I think it is something like device which the IDF use in 1948. Egyptian(arab) insurgents(and army) used traps on the roads. They pulled the line, like fishing line, to cut off the crew's heads.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

ZpF81u9L31k.jpg

L87w8w0wKS8.jpg

IrauBAfm7ak.jpg

 

 

Wire cutters? Americans used them too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US tanks also occasionally have them, not just to protect the crew but also spare the topside equipment (such as antennas or even cameras) from being accidentally shorn off or damaged by low-hanging wires.

 

IWsWC5e.jpg

 

Those wire cutters are usually more commonplace on helicopters (to protect the main rotor mast), though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-defence-equipment-plan-2018

Ajax is £25m under-budget and 6 months ahead of schedule.

Warrior upgrade is £231m over-budget and 4.4 years behind schedule.

If you include the original planning then it's actually about £700m and 11 years for double the vehicles.
Even if it hits current targets then it will only have a service life of about 15 years.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, David Moyes said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-defence-equipment-plan-2018

Ajax is £25m under-budget and 6 months ahead of schedule.

Warrior upgrade is £231m over-budget and 4.4 years behind schedule.

If you include the original planning then it's actually about £700m and 11 years for double the vehicles.
Even if it hits current targets then it will only have a service life of about 15 years.
 

 

Being a cynical bastard, does this mean the Ajax will be cancelled and the Warrior LEP be forced to continue? That seems like something the British MoD would do... 

Share this post


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

Rheinmetall's strategy for Challenger 2 LEP in four words: "120 mm smoothbore gun"

jOTnG57.png

 

If they actually manage to get the 120mm Smoothbore, that'll be the most important advance in the whole Challenger family since the TOGS on the CR1 Mk 2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even without a gun upgrade Rheinmetall is almost certainly going to win.
The only thing that BAE's bid has going for it is that General Dynamics would do the actual work. Offering Iron Fist is bizarre as the UK has two separate APS programmes going and any acquisition would go through them.
No gun upgrade seems like a cynical way to lock the Army into BAE's munitions ecosystem.

Recently the MOD has signed contracts with several companies to test their ammunition in preparation for BAE's sole supplier deal ending in 2023. Rheinmetall is one of them, specifically for artillery.

Offering free guns in exchange for an exclusive supply deal would be smart.
  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, David Moyes said:

Even without a gun upgrade Rheinmetall is almost certainly going to win.
The only thing that BAE's bid has going for it is that General Dynamics would do the actual work. Offering Iron Fist is bizarre as the UK has two separate APS programmes going and any acquisition would go through them.
No gun upgrade seems like a cynical way to lock the Army into BAE's munitions ecosystem.

Recently the MOD has signed contracts with several companies to test their ammunition in preparation for BAE's sole supplier deal ending in 2023. Rheinmetall is one of them, specifically for artillery.

Offering free guns in exchange for an exclusive supply deal would be smart.

Well, apparently they're going to go with BAE and if they do that, that means any future procurement will also be given to BAE.

Rheinmetall's upgrade wasn't just a gun either, it was quite a bit more but I guess we'll see when they finally decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Challenger 2 Streetfighter Concept Demonstrator

RujIf0h.jpg

External Storage for Breaching Tools
External Storage for dismounted equipment
Turret mounted Mortar
Commanders GPMG and Loaders HMG
Enhanced Situation Awareness (Fixed Cameras, and Panoramic 360 Thermal)
Barrel cameras to see left and right at junctions without exposing the platform
Camera Feeds streamed to Dismounts Soldier Systems

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6476755319853764608

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...