Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, ZloyKrolik said:

For how long did the Mexicans use the M8?

They still use them apparently.  37mm switch for a 20mm, along with with cosmetic work.

 

m8_greyhound_by_weirdraws-d4q1eye.jpg

 

KeeSTTr.jpg?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2018 at 6:55 PM, Scolopax said:

They still use them apparently.  37mm switch for a 20mm, along with with cosmetic work.

 

m8_greyhound_by_weirdraws-d4q1eye.jpg

 

KeeSTTr.jpg?1

Wow. I wonder what is the longest active service AFV?

Share this post


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

Wow. I wonder what is the longest active service AFV?

The only one that comes to mind in competition with the M8 is the T-34.  SU-100 is up there too, but still just a year younger overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2018 at 1:42 PM, Lord_James said:

How does the M551 based “Elke weapon test bed” reload? I saw it has a crew of 2, so unless they’re going the 1930s France route of tank design, it must have an autoloader... right? 

 

Edit: This thing. 

 

Image result for elke weapon test bed

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Related image

Related image

 

 

The ELKE test bed like many of its experimental cousins mounted the ARES "Super 75" 75mm main gun. This was an impressive gun with performance above and beyond what was expected from it's size. Here are a few pics of the Super 75 APFSDS round being live-fire tested against a fully loaded T-54...

 

Super%2075_75mm%20DU%20APFSDS_vs_T-54_1.

 

Super%2075_75mm%20DU%20APFSDS_vs_T-54_2.

 

Super%2075_75mm%20DU%20APFSDS_vs_T-54_3.

 

  

Share this post


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

 

The ELKE test bed like many of its experimental cousins mounted the ARES "Super 75" 75mm main gun. This was an impressive gun with performance above and beyond what was expected from it's size. Here are a few pics of the Super 75 APFSDS round being live-fire tested against a fully loaded T-54...

 

Super%2075_75mm%20DU%20APFSDS_vs_T-54_1.

 

Super%2075_75mm%20DU%20APFSDS_vs_T-54_2.

 

Super%2075_75mm%20DU%20APFSDS_vs_T-54_3.

 

  

I would expect it personally to do more than that.

The 60mm developed by IMI+OTO  could already pierce the T-54/55 at either 500m or 1km, don't remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know the weight of the Japanese WW2 75mm long barreled tank gun used on their prototype tanks like Chi-to, and the later model Chi-nu? I think it is said in one of these pages but as i don´t read Japanese i am not sure.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/405888152176427009/463661179831844864/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/405888152176427009/463662056063762453/unknown.png

Share this post


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

I would expect it personally to do more than that.

The 60mm developed by IMI+OTO  could already pierce the T-54/55 at either 500m or 1km, don't remember.

 

Well, you're right to a point...the IMI 60mm gun was a capable gun as well. The Super 75, however, fired a DU SABOT round that enabled these light platforms to knockout MBTs from the front, at normal combat ranges...there was no need to close to 500-1000 meters. These formerly classified pics show the result of such a hit with a penetrator the size of a standard pencil. The T-54 burned for three days...    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

 

Well, you're right to a point...the IMI 60mm gun was a capable gun as well. The Super 75, however, fired a DU SABOT round that enabled these light platforms to knockout MBTs from the front, at normal combat ranges...there was no need to close to 500-1000 meters. These formerly classified pics show the result of such a hit with a penetrator the size of a standard pencil. The T-54 burned for three days...    

My only point was that I would be surprised if the 75mm wouldnt get these results, not surprised that it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2018 at 12:56 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

My only point was that I would be surprised if the 75mm wouldnt get these results, not surprised that it did.

 

 

Wooooowwww.....

 

I don't know that I can really say anything else here but just.... WOW

 

And Iron vision is the first time ANYONE EVER thought to apply that tech to an AFV too right?

 

Holy fucking shit...

 

3 shot burst in 3 WHOLE SECONDS *quakes in terror*

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, roguetechie said:

 

 

Wooooowwww.....

 

I don't know that I can really say anything else here but just.... WOW

 

And Iron vision is the first time ANYONE EVER thought to apply that tech to an AFV too right?

 

Holy fucking shit...

 

3 shot burst in 3 WHOLE SECONDS *quakes in terror*

 

 

 

Wrong thread, and what?

Sorry but I don't really understand what you're trying to convey here. Can you rephrase?

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 
          
×