Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

GDLS shown for the first time (?) the model of its new IFV, proposed for the Australian Army Land 400 Phase 3; this clearly leverages from the Ajax family .

The new vehicle for Australia is fitted with a GDLS-designed two-person turret armed with a stabilised 30mm dual-feed autocannon. 

Hull and turret are fitted with a modular passive armour package and an APS to provide a high level of protection. 

Crew of commander, gunner and driver plus six dismounts.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, rob89 said:

GDLS shown for the first time (?) the model of its new IFV, proposed for the Australian Army Land 400 Phase 3; this clearly leverages from the Ajax family .

Jane's article was more precise with words - "for the first time in the Middle East"
because apparently it's third time this model appears at exhibitions, and second time it looks like this - all desert-ish


Share this post

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


More like South-African, given that they hired South-African engineers to design it.

Yes, but the very first thing it made me thing was the Lasar APC. 

And latter I found Petar Radulovic

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mbombe 4 at IDEX-2019 






   Paramount Group showed a new MRAP "Mbombe 4" with a 4x4 wheel formula, positioning it as part of a family of armored vehicles that includes the already known Mbombe 6 (with a wheel formula 6x6) and Mbombe 8 (8x8). It is stated that all three machines of the Mbombe family have up to 70% commonality of parts.

   The starting customer of Mbombe 4 was the UAE Ministry of Defense, which announced on February 17, the first day of IDEX-2019, that a contract for the purchase of four cars of this type (apparently for evaluation tests) was signed, contract is $ 2.7 million. Paramount Group stated that in the summer of 2019 Mbombe 4 will be tested by another two potential customers.






   Mbombe 4 has a total combat weight of 16 tons and a payload weight of up to 2,700 kg. Can carry eight people, including two crew members, vehicle is equipped with a stern ramp. An all-welded armored case, as stated, provides ballistic protection for the STANAG 4569 Level 3 (with additional protection can be enhanced up to Level 4). Mine protection measures, including the V-shaped bottom, provide the stated level of protection against IEDs of STANAG 4569 Level 4a and 4b.


   The Mbombe 4 is equipped with a 336-kW Cummins 6-cylinder turbo-charged diesel engine coupled to an Allison six-speed automatic transmission. The maximum speed on the highway is 140 km/h, the cruising range is up to 800 km. Independent suspension, with non-automatic locking of the differentials of both axles, wheels with 16.00 x E20 tires with a centralized pressure control system. MRAP is equipped with a 14 kW powerful air conditioning system.









Share this post

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


For the 8x8 on the right, is that a 57mm derivatsiya turret? 

No, but gun is similar, this is Baikal prototype (AU-220M as Serge said). Derivatsiya is SPAAG system that uses a bit different/modified turret.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 10:34 PM, Lord_James said:

Quick (probably stupid) question: 


what is the LLLTV component of the PZB 200 sight for? 





its #2 in these pics. 

Low Light Level Television camera: https://books.google.com.my/books?id=isPvCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT22&lpg=PT22&dq=pzb+200+llltv&source=bl&ots=tWo9fQQnMs&sig=ACfU3U0t3hkImCKXbiSJvP7NdO6S5a1r7A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi39Nu9iOHgAhVLrY8KHSpgDiYQ6AEwD3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=pzb 200 llltv&f=false

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.

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 LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;

      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:

      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
    • 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 
  • Create New...