Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sturgeon

General AFV Thread

Recommended Posts

Rheinmetall transfers first of two Survivor R vehicles to the Saxony State Police

15-survivor-750x530.jpg

 

Quote

The Free State of Saxony ordered the two vehicles from Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles (RMMV) in February of this year. Forming part of an extensive anti-terror package, the vehicles will be used to equip special police units in Saxony.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The text just says 𝕾𝖕𝖊𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑𝖊𝖎𝖓𝖘𝖆𝖙𝖟𝖐𝖔𝖒𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖔 𝕾𝖆𝖈𝖍𝖘𝖊𝖓 (Spezialeinsatzkommando Sachsen, "(police) special force unit of Saxony").

 

The problem is not the text itself, but how it is presented. First of all the Fraktur (old German scripture, also used in Norway for some time) has not been used since the Third Reich, although aesthetically pleasing (at least better than Comic Sans MS), most of the times it is being used by neo-Nazis. The Fraktur script was officially abandoned during the WW2, because people in occupied/conquered countries had a hard time reading it (and one of the most popular fronts apparently was designed by a jew). Given that the state of Saxony has the highest amount of Nazis relative to its size (at least the neo-Nazi party has gotten the best results in Saxony), people are worried about the special forces (i.e. the Saxon equivalent of SWAT) using text commonly associated with Nazis.

 

The logo only supports the worries, because it consists of three parts:

  1. the center part is a variant of the coat of arms of the Kindgom of Saxony, which is not being used anymore. The new coat of arms was adopted in 1990,  before that were 45 years of socialist/communist rule, where such evil imperialistic signs weren't used. So the last time a similar coat of arms was used was... during the Nazi reign, before Hitler decided to restructure Germany and remove all states in favor of a Gau-based system.
  2. the center is surrounded by oak leaves (Eichenlaub). While today still in use with the German government (for example on several Euro cent coins imprinted in Germany, aswell as the beret insignia of the German military), it was even more common during the Nazi rule of Germany. E.g. most military decorations such as the Iron Cross included oak leaves in the higher versions.
  3. for some people the "wings" are too reminiscent of the Nazi variant of the Reichsadler

Please note that this is not the official logo, neither is it common within the police to use Fraktur script. So essentially a lot of people are accusing the "SWAT of Saxony" to either be Nazis or to support them. The Ministry of Interior of Saxony has released a statement, claiming that this is an internal logo created in 1991 by a West-German police officer who switched to Saxony, while the font for the text wasn't officially approved (originally there was no text planned, but Rheinmetall offered to stitch a text of the police unit's choice onto the seats free of charge).

 

Overall it is hard to say what is the truth. There have been cases of Nazis getting suprisingly far within the German police, specifically in the state police (resulting in a police special forces member being fired for having Nazi tatoos, who then sued the corresponding state but failed). On the other hand it could be a lot of (random) incidents; none of the criticized aspects is actually a proof of them being Nazis.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the text had been any other font no one would have noticed the Coat of Arms. But with the different font and the Coat of arms looks very dubious.

I am not so sure about the wings they are on some Bundeswehr Activity Badges and i think i have seen them in Police spots or with GSG9.

But i cant find more about them in Wikipedia.

@SH_MM

Share this post


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

I am not so sure about the wings they are on some Bundeswehr Activity Badges and i think i have seen them in Police spots or with GSG9.

But i cant find more about them in Wikipedia.

 

20609333yh.jpg

 

Well, most of them look a little bit different, only some have "wings".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3022536.html

Kuweit-specific version of Abrams in in development.

Quote

   As reported by Jane's Defense Weekly in Jeremy Binnie's article "Kuwait to get 'unique' Abrams tank variant", on December 19, 2017, the US Department of Defense issued General Dynamics's General Dynamics Land Systems division a contract worth $ 24.3 million to develop and the construction of a prototype of a new "unique" modification of the Abrams tank, designated M1A2-K and intended for serial shipments later to Kuwait as part of the "modernization" of the M1A2 tanks of the Kuwaiti army. The contract must be implemented by December 31, 2019.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

India’s not-quite-ready Future Ready Combat Vehicle

 

Quote

   The Indian Army has had to revise overly ambitious requirements for its Future Ready Combat Vehicle and issue a second request for information for a more achievable family of heavy armour.

 

   Twenty-four months after the Indian Army released a request for information (RFI) for its Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV), it has had to walk back overly ambitious requirements and issue a second RFI for a less grand but more achievable family of heavy armour.

   The June 2015 RFI has been superseded by the document released in November 2017, which makes changes to a programme aiming to replace the Indian Army’s nearly 2,000 T-72M1 tanks with 1,770 FRCVs. The 11 variants from the 2015 RFI, for example, have been whittled down to five. Most notably, the ‘wheeled version’ included in the 2015 paperwork has been consigned to the dustbin, even if the ambition for a ‘Light Tank’ remains. The 2017 RFI also alludes to a ‘self-propelled base platform for other arms’.

   It is unclear from the RFI what kind of ‘Light Tank’ the army has in mind. Developing a smaller and lighter version of the type selected to meet the main battle tank (MBT) requirement would, even if it were in any sense achievable, complicate development and inevitably increase costs. It is more likely that the separate Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) programme, intended to replace India’s BMP-2s, would supply a vehicle to fill this role.

 

   The revised RFI calls for the baseline MBT platform to have a combat weight of between 42.5 and 58 tons, the same range as the in-service T-72M1s. This ‘essential’ characteristic is driven by the country’s geography and infrastructure. Although the RFI is open to proposals featuring a four-man crew and a 120mm gun, the country’s years of experience with three-man crews and 125mm guns on the T-72M1 and T-90S may incline India to stick with what it knows.

   The army is looking for a foreign company to supply a ‘proven Armoured Fighting Vehicle’, and then plans to collaborate with a local partner who will build it in India. The requirements appear to limit the options to designs from South Korea, Japan and Russia. All of these, however, would present challenges.

   South Korea’s K2 tank has been ordered by its armed forces in two batches of 100 but has yet to be exported. The first batch, fitted with German power packs, entered service in 2014. The second batch, with local Doosan DST engines, is stuck in testing with propulsion problems. Also yet to be exported is Japan’s Type-10. To date, it has been ordered domestically only in small numbers with a resulting average unit cost of US$11m.

 

   The T-90MS is Russia’s latest variant of the T-90. India has license-built the earlier T-90S variant since the mid-2000s, with more than 1,000 now in service. However, Indo-Russian cooperation in this area has not been straightforward, with errors on both sides contributing to years of delays and high costs. If India were to continue acquiring the T-90, it would be logical to continue manufacturing them at the government-owned Heavy Vehicles Factory in Avadi.

   Selecting the T-90MS to fulfil the FRCV requirement would mean the Indian Army choosing a largely homogenous fleet of T-90s, instead of a mixed fleet. In late 2016, India’s Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) approved the purchase of 464 more T-90 tanks, with local media reporting that these were the T-90MS variant. If this is correct, it would suggest that the army considers the T-90 to be separate from the FRCV programme, thereby making the T-90MS an unlikely winner.

   Although the T-14 Armata cannot be called ‘proven’, having yet to enter Russian service, the requirements set out in the RFI appear to make it a strong candidate. While introducing a partner into the Armata programme would be a complicating factor for Moscow, sharing the production costs and bolstering the order book would likely be welcome.

 

   India’s FRCV programme is important because it is not just about replacing the T-72 but also about the army not committing to the Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO) tank projects. India’s Arjun I project, which dates back to the 1970s, suffered from years of delays and cost overruns before production ceased in 2009, with 122 of the 124 ordered tanks built. Since then, the DRDO has been working on an improved version, Arjun II. Although the DAC approved the purchase of 118 Arjun IIs in 2014, as of late 2017 a contract had yet to be signed. This is in part due to army resistance to the vehicle, owing to its heavy weight, which is reported to be 68.6 tons. Fundamentally, the army and the DRDO are competing to convince the country’s politicians that their MBT project deserves support.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A while back I was tweeted an article claiming that you could dodge a modern AAM without a ton of asterisks involved. Which says a lot about the quality of said article. Little did I know that that was merely the tip of the iceberg.

screen-shot-2017-02-22-at-8-17-06-am.png

I am displeased to present you the defenseissues.net light tank proposal. That is a 120mm mortar and a 40mm CT autocannon side by side in the same mount, because... why not. The problems associated with direct fire mortars are apparently rectifiable using more propellant.

Quote

Standard mortar shells:

  • High explosive
  • Rocket assisted (RAP)
  • Smoke
  • Illumination
  • IR Illumination
  • Inert/practice
  • HEAT (Shouldn’t be too difficult to create)

Low velocity cannon round (similar to BMP-3 100m shell):

  • HE
  • HEAT
  • Canister/Flechette (most importantly!)

LAHAT ATGWs

STRIX Laser guided, anti-tank mortar-fired munition

 

With sufficient propellant, a mortar shell can (and will be) used for direct fire. The main reason for the addition of LV cannon shells is for using flechette shells, however this may not be necessary if a 120mm shell is developed along the lines of the 81mm Mk-120 mortar (below) used on Mk-2 Mod 0 deck mounted mortars during Vietnam. Should the LV cannon shell provide no sizeable benefit over direct fire mortar techniques, it should be deleted.

Yes, these people are real.

 

Surely the hull design is a bit more sensible, right? Surely they can't mess it up?

picture1.png

Quote

General Dimensions: Excluding turret and appliqué armour 

Height: 1.45m (4.75 feet)

Width: 2.7m (8.85 feet)

Length: 6m (19.5 feet)

Armour: 

Light tanks sacrifice a great deal of armour to earn their designation, and rely on heavy sloping and other methods of armouring such as protruding ribs, which have been seen on both the BMP-2 and STRV-103 of Sweden. The Swedes found that their STRV-103 was essentially impossible to penetrate with any then existing anti-tank weapon during it’s early operational history.

Um. I'm not seeing how the driver is going to fit inside either without a semi-recumbent arrangement.

Quote

Armour for the light tank chassis is as follows:

Front upper glacis: Sloped at 15 degrees, fitted with protruding ribs, protection from 30mm armour piercing.

Front Lower Glacis: Sloped at 50 degrees, protection from 30mm armour piercing.

Sides: Sloped at 75 degrees, protection from 14.5mm armour piercing.

Rear: Sloped at 80 degrees, protection from 7.62mm armour piercing

What you see is what you get - no suggestion of materials, thickness, composition or vintage of AP ammunition it's supposed to resist.

Quote

Power plant:

 Engine will be a V8 diesel, optimally the same Scania DSA 14 litre version used by the CV-90. This should give the vehicle a maximum speed on-road in the vicinity of 80km/h (50 mp/h), and an operational range of ~400km (250 miles). Extra fuel will be carried in external tanks that can be dropped when empty or if there is a danger of puncture, similar to that of Soviet tank designs. A recess may be designed into the rear of the vehicle to allow some amount of armouring, however a better idea may be to design the external fuel tanks with some amount of shrapnel protection. These tanks may not be mounted during operations within close proximity of friendly infantry so as to avoid.

Engine choice seems reasonable, but I'm not sure what the ban on external fuel tanks around friendly infantry is supposed to avoid.

 

...no wonder this outfit is claiming you can just barrel roll your way out of having a Meteor locked on you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn’t a mortar with more propellant pretty much a howitzer (in terms of operational performance?). In any case, that turret looks pretty small for both a 40mm autocann and a 120mm mortar, and it it doesn’t look unmanned.

 

They have also cleverly avoided saying exactly how much their thing weighs.

Share this post


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

Isn’t a mortar with more propellant pretty much a howitzer (in terms of operational performance?). In any case, that turret looks pretty small for both a 40mm autocann and a 120mm mortar, and it it doesn’t look unmanned.

 

They have also cleverly avoided saying exactly how much their thing weighs.

I'm not sure about English terminology, but in Dutch we differentiate between howitzers and mortars by their trajectory. In Dutch tank guns are "vlakbaangeschut" (artillery with flat trajectory), howitzers are krombaangeschut (artillery with medium arc) and mortars are stijlbaangeschut (artillery with high arc). So even if it has more propellant, it would still be a mortar because it retains its trajectory. And that type of trajectory can make a difference with for example reverse slope shots. So yes, it would still be different purely because of that. Although you can argue the usefulness of that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Is there a different term used when medium and high arc guns are used in a flat arc (direct fire)?

Not that I know of, but I guess "operational fuckup" could be used.

 

 

That whole post reads like one big meme, it's pretty hilarious actually.

Quote

What must be understood is that main battle tanks are the play-ground bullies of ground warfare, they are big, intimidating, and sound of a 120mm cannon thundering across a valley saps the enemy’s moral like little else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it none of you picked up on the 40mm CT autocannon that sits next to a breech loaded (but still variable charge accepting mortar) is also supposed to be TRIPLE FEED.

 

Is anyone else mentally picturing this guy and sparky welding up a surplus power Ball drawing rig from the great state of Louisiana to use as some sort of demented link less feed drum for this fucker yet?

 

Because I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they're cribbing off this thing a lot, which might not have a massively larger turret (it's hard to tell, given how chubby wheeled AFV's have got).

 

When western IFV's talk about "30mm AP" resistance, is it some kind of ancient russian APDS they're really designing against? That could be quite easy to stop with a S-tank like angled front.

 

4 hours ago, roguetechie said:

I take it none of you picked up on the 40mm CT autocannon that sits next to a breech loaded (but still variable charge accepting mortar) is also supposed to be TRIPLE FEED.

 

Is anyone else mentally picturing this guy and sparky welding up a surplus power Ball drawing rig from the great state of Louisiana to use as some sort of demented link less feed drum for this fucker yet?

 

Because I am

 

Good spot. The UK/FR CT 40mm has a linkless feed system, but feeds through the trunnions - in one side, and out the other. All the ammunition-nature-selection is handled in a Big Box of Mechanisms to one side of the trunnion, but you need a space on the other side for the empty cases to be ejected to

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

×