Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Yes, but isn't it simply that since MBT are rarely sent in UN peacekeeping missions we are not used to see them like that and so it feel off?

 

I mean the Leopard 1 and the T-72 looks off too:

 

Spoiler

1280px-UN_forces_in_Somalia.JPEG

5003327017_04d62dbf6c.jpg

5597.jpg

 

Share this post


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

UN-white Leclercs just look off

 

IIRC one of the veteran writers in a military forum who is very familiar with this incident and those involved, said there's quite a lot of misinformation there. I'll try to investigate. 

If anyone's interested, it's supposedly about a bunch of Spike missiles left in Lebanese territory that the IDF wanted to retrieve. The French didn't know why Israeli tanks were entering the territory, but then they backed off and announced that they will not interfere with a tech retrieval mission. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leo 2 in Afrin

8o0w652a6im01.jpg

 

Expected Urban combat, but Kurds/PYD/YPG decided that running away is superior strategy to defeat Turkey. They had number of TOW-2 and 2As, Kornets and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Xoon said:

General question, has there ever been AFVs or tanks built for fighting in mountainous terrain? 

Wasn't the Chinese ZTQ designed for this (I see Serge posted about it before I finished typing)? I also believe much of Japan's modern AFVs considered the country's hilly terrain in their development. Wouldn't be surprised if the Swiss Panzer 61 and 68 also took this into account 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define mountainous. Because it is possible to say that for the last 20-30 years any Israeli AFV of the types we discuss on this forum, was built for such places. Not for the ease of transport but for protection while driving in valleys surrounded by hills that are typical for the south lebanon region.

 

Other than that, probably not much. Though I guess the US M8 (or anything that wins the MPF but we all know it's going to be the M8) will be the first candidate to go to such places if required, and Russia recently put out a series of AFVs designed for the arctic climate that may be suitable for mountainous areas because of suitability for lower oxygen density environments (or so I've heard) and the mobility requirements that are probably harsher in the arctic environment. Light weight and great off road, all terrain mobility makes arctic vehicles suitable for mountainous areas. Now here's where I may be wrong, but the Armata family was or is planned to have arctic derivatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Barys" and "Alan": new Kazakhstan armored cars.

 

 

Quote

- Recently, "Barys" has been tested at a test site in Spassk. What are the results?

- We are generally satisfied with the tests. The system is also able to fire at night, in contrast to the optical systems that are installed on previous samples. In the exercises you count the target on the principle of "hit-not hit", that is, from 10 shots it is enough to hit one shell so that you count this exercise as done. For today, for example, a low-flying helicopter target at night at a distance of 1300 meters, 6 out of 10 shells fell directly to the target. This result is very high.

https://informburo.kz/stati/barys-i-alan-novye-kazahstanskie-broneavtomobili-dlya-silovyh-struktur-fotoreportazh.html?_utl_t=fb

Photos of factory and vehicles in the link (a lot of them)

 

“Барыс” и “Алан”: новые казахстанские бронеавтомобили для силовых структур. Фоторепортаж - Informburo.kz

 

Quote

   Barys 8x8

  • Crew - 2 + 1 + 8;
  • Weight - 19 000 kg;
  • Clearance - 450 mm;
  • Wheelbase - 2 300 mm (in front), 2,550 mm (rear);
  • Combat weight - 28 000 kg;
  • The maximum speed is 100 km / h;
  • The diameter of the turn is 22-24 m;
  • Range - 800 km.

 

   Armament:

  1. 57-mm remote-controlled combat unit AU-220M;
  2. Remote-controlled combat module of the KAE company with a 30-mm cannon 2A42;

The engine - turbodiesel, 550 hp;
Transmission - automatic transmission
Brakes - pneumatic, disk with АBS;
Tires - 16.00 R20;
Air conditioning - 12 kW as standard with climate control system;
Electrical system - 24 V;
   Ballistic protection STANAG 4569 level 3 5.56 x 45 armor-piercing and incendiary (BBZ), 7.62 x 39 armor-piercing (BB), 7.62 x 51 (BBZ), 7.62 x 54 (BBZ), 12.7 x 9 9 NATO cartridge;
   Mine protection STANAG 4569 level 4 b Explosion protection 10 kg under the hull, 10 kg under each wheel and 50 kg from the side, at 5 m.

 

   Options:

  • Winch;
  • Systems of protection against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons;
  • Auxiliary power supply.

 

Новый боевой модуль для бронетранспортера “Барыс”, разработанный компанией "Казахстан Аселсан Инжиниринг"

 

Spoiler

Тепловизор, оптическая система и лазерный дальномер работают в комплексе

 

10.jpg

 

226.jpg

 

24.jpg

 

21.jpg

 

18.jpg

Quote

   Barys 6x6

  • Crew - 2 + 1 + 8;
  • Weight - 17 300 kg;
  • Clearance - 430 mm;
  • Wheelbase - 2 300 mm (in front), 2,240 mm (rear);
  • Combat weight - 22 500 kg;
  • Construction - bearing body (not based on the chassis);
  • The maximum speed is 110 km / h;
  • The diameter of the turn is 24.5 m;
  • Range - 1000 km;
  • The engine - turbodiesel (336 kW, 450 hp, 1627 N / m);
  • Transmission - automatic transmission;
  • Brakes - pneumatic discs with ABS;
  • Tires - 16.00 R20;
  • Air conditioning - 12 kW with climate control system;
  • Electrical system - 24V;
  1. Ballistic protection of the crew compartment - (standard) B7 Stanag level 3;
  2. Ballistic protection engine compartment (standard) 5.56 x 45 armor-piercing incendiary (BBZ), 7.62 x 39 piercing (BB), 7.62 x 51 piercing (BB) (except the grille), 7.62 x 54 armor-piercing incendiary (BBZ) (except radiator grille), 12.7 x 99 NATO cartridge (except the radiator grille);
  3. Mine protection - protection against explosion 10kg under the hull, 10 kg under each wheel.

 

   Options:

  • Tire inflation system;
  • Armored inserts for the continuation of traffic with flat tires;
  • Walkie-talkies, intercom;
  • Additional armor - active and passive;
  • The combat management system;
  • Cargo winch;
  • Towing rod of the NATO standard;
  • Loudspeeker system;
  • The system of fire-fighting equipment (engine and crew compartments, wheel arches, etc.);
  • A ceiling hatch and a variety of turret/RCWS gun systems;
  • Systems of protection against biological and chemical weapons;
  • Tracking system for the location of the vehicle;
  • Additional set of armor (for side mirrors, door hinges, windows);
  • A system of cameras installed at the rear and front, connected to the display on the driver's panel and showing the corresponding rear and front view;
  • Updated ballistic protection of the engine grille;
  • Interior lighting - LED centralized directional light with a choice of white, green / blue and red
  • Winter package to operate at temperature ranges from - 50 ° C to 50 ° C.

 

Alan is basically a SandCat

 

Spoiler

3.jpg

 

Quote

The main characteristics of the BKM "Alan":

  • The crew is 6 + 2 + 1;
  • Weight - 6700 kg;
  • The weight of the combat vehicle is 8845 kg;
  • Wheelbase - 3429 mm;
  • Construction - frame chassis;
  • The maximum speed is -160 km / h (electronically limited - 120 km / h);
  • Turning radius is 6.9 meters;
  • Range - 500 (plus or minus 50 at steady movement of 80 km / h);
  • The engine - turbodiesel (220 kBt, 300 hp, 900 Nm at 1600 rpm);
  • Transmission - automatic transmission;
  • Distributing box - two-speed, electrically controlled;
  • Steering gear - with hydraulic booster;
  • Brakes - with ventilated discs on 4 wheels, with ABS blocking system;
  • Tires - 285/70 R19,5;
  • The payload is 2,000 kilograms;
  1. Ballistic protection - level 3 (STANAG) 7.62 mm x 54RAPIB32 V-854 (plus or minus 20 m / s);
  2. Mine protection - level 1 (STANAG) 2 hand grenades DM51.

   Options

  • The ventilation system of powder gases;
  • Frontal thermal camera;
  • Complex of internal lighting devices;
  • Rear View Camera;
  • Loud-speaker device;
  • Light-signaling device (LED lamps, built-in front, rear of the machine, blue and red);
  • A winch with a pulling force of at least 5 tons;
  • Metal grilles to protect the armored glass windshield and radiator of the power plant, in the side and rear armored windows, the front and rear lights;
  • Engine preheating;
  • Portholes for weapons;
  • Metal protection of vital machine systems;
  • Self-supporting rims to ensure the ability to continue driving after puncturing tires;
  • Protection of the radiator;
  • Nozzle for the exhaust system to protect against unauthorized access;
  • Protective cover on the car.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Serge said:

Chinese last light tank. 

 

18 hours ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

Wasn't the Chinese ZTQ designed for this (I see Serge posted about it before I finished typing)? I also believe much of Japan's modern AFVs considered the country's hilly terrain in their development. Wouldn't be surprised if the Swiss Panzer 61 and 68 also took this into account 

I guess the Chinese ZTQ fits this.  And maybe the Type 10.  Though I can't really find anything extraordinary about the Panzer 61 or 68.

 

 

17 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Define mountainous. Because it is possible to say that for the last 20-30 years any Israeli AFV of the types we discuss on this forum, was built for such places. Not for the ease of transport but for protection while driving in valleys surrounded by hills that are typical for the south lebanon region.

 

Other than that, probably not much. Though I guess the US M8 (or anything that wins the MPF but we all know it's going to be the M8) will be the first candidate to go to such places if required, and Russia recently put out a series of AFVs designed for the arctic climate that may be suitable for mountainous areas because of suitability for lower oxygen density environments (or so I've heard) and the mobility requirements that are probably harsher in the arctic environment. Light weight and great off road, all terrain mobility makes arctic vehicles suitable for mountainous areas. Now here's where I may be wrong, but the Armata family was or is planned to have arctic derivatives.

47834711-trollstigeveien-meandering-road

 

Heddersfjell%20ved%20Gausta_Tinn_Telemar

 

 

aa3c8734-fb92-42f7-9b15-7ebbca4dc0e7.jpg

 

colourbox4718455.jpg

 

the-longs-peak-summit.jpg

 

 

585049e0b96c70375a9d8eda.jpeg?original=1

 

 

In short, a AFV capable of traversing rocky fields at a practical speed, capable of climbing steep slopes and driving at angles. It needs to preform well in swamps, mud or snow, being able to traverse terrain common MBTs can not. It needs to be small, it has to be able to use the old infrastructure and poor roads of the mountains.  This pretty much excludes all Israeli AFVs since they tend to be large and heavy, the opposite of what you want. 

 

Being amphibious or having the ability to ford small rivers on the move is advantageous. 

 

The idea is to have the mobility to outmaneuver and ambush enemy forces which are forced to use main roads and predictable paths. 

 

13 hours ago, Scolopax said:

I randomly recall the Romanian MLVM as a mountain-oriented vehicle.

 

ASVgt9e.jpg

 

What makes it stand out? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Xoon said:

 

What makes it stand out? 

Not sure besides the fact that its supposed to be for special mountain troops.  I can't find too much info outside of wikipedia, which itself hardly says anything on the matter.  I imagine its weight of 9 tons plays a role. The roadwheels certainly appear to be light.

 

mlvm07.jpg

Share this post


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

 

Though I can't really find anything extraordinary about the Panzer 61 or 68.

 

 

 

They had somewhat less width than the Centurion and Leopard 1, apparently good for going through alpine tunnels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i completely forgot about what North Korean tanks with all their grenade launchers and ATGMs launchers on top of their turrets reminded me until today...

799446_original.jpg

 

T-100_MBT.jpeg

 

G7aBr8l.jpg

 

But hey! It goes even deeper!

HesP98i.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Well, i completely forgot about what North Korean tanks with all their grenade launchers and ATGMs launchers on top of their turrets reminded me until today...

799446_original.jpg

 

T-100_MBT.jpeg

 

G7aBr8l.jpg

 

But hey! It goes even deeper!

HesP98i.jpg

 

Thats from Endwar right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could literally just steal the tech from the Sabra's armor and copy and paste it on the regular M60A3. But no, they just had to find a way to actually reduce the armor coverage AND make it ugly.

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 
          
×