Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts



According to British tabloids/newspapers, the upper side boxes serve for storage of ammunition.




The lower boxes (not always fitted) also appear to serve for storage tasks (at least in some places).




Naked Scout-SV Ajax/Ares? (Note the arrangement of the headlights - that is not a standard ASCOD 2 hull).




Note two things: the frontal hull armor is too thin to stop RPGs; on the right side is an Ares without modular armor at the sides and LFP: the armor modules appear to be usually mounted ontop of the storage boxes.


The ASCOD 2 tested in the Czech Republic also had all ammunition stored externally (outside the crew compartment) according to General Dynamics... and it looked like this:



My guess is that the thick boxes mounted at the hull side are mostly storage boxes, which however needs to be armored (otherwise a bullet from a machine gun can set the most of the main gun ammo on fire).



Share this post

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

Edit: So the idea is that the storage boxes are sandwiched between layers  of armor?


Yes, I believe that this would be the side armor arrangement.


1 hour ago, Willy Brandt said:

So how much ammo is ready in the vehicle and how much would be in the "side armor"?


You can see an early Ajax vehicle with storage boxes not covered by applique armor in the third video embedded in an article from Forces.tv.







Here is the side armor without storage boxes/additional armor layers:


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, SH_MM said:




Yeah I remember now seeing this picture a while before. It doesn't make sense to use the entirety of the hull's size, on both sides, for storage. That's just a ridiculous amount of equipment they're carrying there. I definitely wouldn't want to be the guy that loses all his gear because some dude with an AK decided to have a little fun.

Share this post

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

But I guess they now officially confirmed (for the second time), that the "side armor" modules are in fact storage boxes; otherwise there wouldn't be a need to adopt the net-based Tarian's RPG armour at the sides.




The storage boxes are only on the very upper right side. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


More photos of VT-4



Claims that this is antena for Friend-or-foe system










Cooling fan


























































Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

   As the Iraqi newspaper Al Ghad Press reported on January 28, 2018, the American General Dynamics corporation ceased the program of technical and service support of the M1A1M Abrams tank of the Iraqi army at its technical base at Al Matan airport in Baghdad from the end of 2017. This was in response to Iraq's revealed violations of the contractual agreement on the receipt of these tanks, expressed primarily in the transfer of at least two Abrams tanks from the Iraqi army to the pro-Iranian Shiite militia "Hashd al-Shaabi" ("People's Mobilization Force"). It is reported that General Dynamics has previously repeatedly informed the Iraqi government of the inadmissible from its point of view the transfer of Abrams tanks to armed groups that are not part of the Iraqi army.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EnsignExpendable said:

Any idea what this could be? The only Vickers light tank of the era I can think of is the Mk.VI, but why bother testing it in 1945?



The Harry Hopkins? 


Testing may have less to do with the current tank and more about learning how to improve future vehicle designs. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By 2805662
      The following is derived from various wanderings, discussions, & tyre kicking, and covers an opinion on the forthcoming Land 400 Phase 3 Request for Tender, and is as per June 2018.
      General: Phase 2 will significantly shape participation in Phase 3. Costs for the two bidders that weren’t short listed for the Risk Mitigation Activity (GDLS & Elbit Systems) ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Costs for the losing BAE bid could rightly be assessed as double that. Combined with Rheinmetall’s Phase 2-driven “perceived incumbency”, nobody wants to waste money to be a stalking horse on the Commonwealth’s behalf. There is a plausible risk that only Rheinmetall will bid. 
      Reorganisation of infantry sections: When Land 400 was conceived, Australian infantry sections consisted of two fire teams of four. This drove the initial “eight dismounts” requirement that has subsequently been relaxed. Now comprising three fire teams of three, one of those teams will be the vehicle crew, the other two will dismount, for a total of six dismounts. Recent operational experience has highlighted the need for temporary attachment of specialist personnel, so a platform that has some spare seating could still count for it. 
      GFE Turrets: One possible tactic that the Commonwealth may seek to use is that of mandating that the Lance Turret, as used on the Phase 2 Boxer CRV, be used as Government Furnished Equipment (that is, purchased from Rheinmetall and provided to suitably configured hulls by competitors). This would simplify the turret training and offer spares commonality across both phases. Perceived savings for “buying in bulk” were (apparently) unable to be realised as Rheinmetall was reluctant to discount its turret. 
      Costs aside, if an offerer has a GFE turret, who owns the systems integration risk? Who does the customer turn to solve potential issues between the turret and hull when they, the customer, has mandated that particular turret? Commercially, this is a high risk proposition. 
      Unmanned turrets: Only GDLS offered an unmanned/remote turret for Phase 2, the Kongsberg MCT-30, as has been adopted in small numbers (81) by the US Army to meet an immediate operational need. A bias against unmanned turrets is unlikely to manifest itself in Phase 3 due to the likely presence of the PSM Puma IFV. Of course, that’ll likely to open the door to GDLS bidding the ASCOD fitted with Elbit’s optionally manned/unmanned MT-30 turret....should they decide to bid at all. 
      Likely bidders: This brings us to the inevitable list of potential bidders and their platforms. 
      BAE: Unlikely to bid. If they win SEA 5000, that may get them off the bench, as would a requirements set that looks a lot like CV90. In the event that they do bid, the CV90 Mk4 is the most likely platform. 
      GDLS: More likely to bid than BAE, but still waiting to see what the RFT looks like. (Tellingly?) Their ASCODs at Eurosatory were painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australia disruptive pattern. 
      Rheinmetall: likely to offer the Lynx and maybe also the Puma. With the reorganisation of Australian infantry sections (see above) the eight dismounts of the KF41 version of the Lynx are less relevant. Still, the modularity of the KF41 demonstrated at Eurosatory 18 definitely left an impression. 
      PSM: As a JV between KMW & Rheinmetall, Puma may be offered separately (unlikely if the Boxer =\= ARTEC in Australia model is followed). In the event that is is offered separately, it’s high unit cost, without the associated modularity of Boxer, may be a disadvantage. Also, PSM has no experience with industrial partnerships in Australia: a significant disadvantage. 
      Hanwha Defense Systems: Korea has been a bit “off” Australian defence opportunities, largely due to the cack-handed way in which the cancellation of the K-9/AS-9 was handled in 2012. The AS-9 was viewed as a loss leader, primarily as Australia has a reputation of being a discerning (aka difficult) customer. If Hanwha bids their K21, it’ll be interesting to watch. 
      Whilst by no means exhaustive, the above outlines some less-obvious factors currently at play for the 450-vehicle opportunity that is Land 400 Phase 3.  
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.

      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!

      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont