Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 10/6/2019 at 11:03 PM, LoooSeR said:

Dardo IFV and Freche APC (or how it is written in capitalist...)


Singular is Freccia, plural would be Frecce going by regular grammar, but I don't know if a vehicle name gets changed like that or it it remains Freccia

 

Have some Ariete - Centauro II mix in the meantime

unknown.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Singular is Freccia, plural would be Frecce going by regular grammar, but I don't know if a vehicle name gets changed like that or it it remains Freccia   Have some Ariete - Centauro II mix

I didn't say anything about penetration either.     See?  That's what I said.  I never claimed that HESH is impotent because it cannot penetrate.  I am saying HESH is impotent because

2 hours ago, Roshindow said:


Singular is Freccia, plural would be Frecce going by regular grammar, but I don't know if a vehicle name gets changed like that or it it remains Freccia

 

Have some Ariete - Centauro II mix in the meantime

unknown.png

 

 

My initial reaction to the above was that it's a photoshopped image.  However, the lighting on it seems consistent across the vehicle.  Image searching doesn't bring up anything for it.

 

Assuming then that it's real, I don't really see what the point of it would be unless it was for some reason done just to test if it was even possible.  I suspect the Centauro 2's turret armor isn't anywhere close to the Ariete's, and the tank already has a 120mm.  I guess this would mean that the two vehicles have the same turret ring diameter.  Please share if you know more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Scolopax said:

 

 

My initial reaction to the above was that it's a photoshopped image.  However, the lighting on it seems consistent across the vehicle.  Image searching doesn't bring up anything for it.

 

Assuming then that it's real, I don't really see what the point of it would be unless it was for some reason done just to test if it was even possible.  I suspect the Centauro 2's turret armor isn't anywhere close to the Ariete's, and the tank already has a 120mm.  I guess this would mean that the two vehicles have the same turret ring diameter.  Please share if you know more.

 

It's from Leonardo HITFACT MK2 (essentially the Centauro II turret) brochure, I suppose it is an exaple of use for the product

https://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/20142/8863233/BROCHURE_2018_HITFACT+MkII.PDF

 

While it is true the Ariete turret already has a 120mm and more armor, this wouldn't be too bad in terms of optics, the Ariete still has no thermal mode  on the commander periscope and merely a 240p resolution gunner thermal, all managed by an Intel 8086 derived processor (+ 8087 coprocessor, gotta give it that). The HITFACT II turret also has a 12 round autoloader, and the 120/45 might fire higher pressure rounds compared to the 120/44.

 

Not that it matters much anyway, this was a promotional shot and the actual Ariete upgrade program shows the same turret with minor upgrades (including, speculation, the same optics as on the HITFACT MK2 turret)

68978174_2547708531946905_14615610499530

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the indended updates to the Ariete, not all though, there are 7 slides that "leaked"

-unchanged performance
-replacement of Halon 1301 with FM200

-removal of ITAR/EAR/Dual use components

-solving of obsolescence problems [duh]

-maximum logistical compatibility with the new armored car Centauro II

-all components are made in Italy with MIL-STD-1275D, MIL-STD-461F qualifications

-programmable digital electronics

-obscurable light warnings [I think?]

-battery power with timer to preserve battery charge

 

Spoiler

68978174_2547708531946905_14615610499530

68821911_2547708548613570_90883392615009

facebook_1568032787987.jpg

facebook_1568032720430.jpg

69234865_2547707071947051_81186316643530

69057477_2547707405280351_58828347184240

facebook_1568032336497.jpg

 

The general gist of it is modified engine with common rail tech to bring it up to 1600hp, new transmission, suspension and brakes to go with it (apparently even now the brakes could break "easily"), new optics for the commander, gunner and driver, replacement of the hydro system for the turret trasverse with an electric system, some other various systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Scolopax said:

So will this mid-life upgrade package produce a new variant name?  I would ask about the C2/Mk 2, but in looking this up I had come across some of you posting on the War Thunder forum regarding the matter.


C2/Mk2 I think was always just an "internet" name, the usual feature of this supposed variant are the turret addons, but those were supposed to be on all production Ariete since almost the start (it was discussed in a specialized magazine already in 1996), which is why all have the mounting points, those bolt looking things on the turret front. 200 of the turret front addons, named WAR, were bought but due to them not being up to specs (Protection? Weight?) the installation was cancelled and the contract was changed to reduce the price, same for the 30 side turret and hull addons, named PSO, the price was reduced for those too. The addons were still bought and are presumably in some warehouse. The WAR addons seem to be for KE protection, while the PSO addon seems to be intended for urban/asymmetric warfare.

This update is called either Ariete AMV or Ariete MLU, the first is the acronym for the Italian Aggiornamento Mezza Vita, which is the direct translation of MLU, Mid Life Update/Upgrade. AMV was in some budget documents, MLU is in these recent slides.

It's 3:30 am and my connection is unstable for some reason, I can post some of the documents and photos of the various addons tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2019 at 11:51 PM, LoooSeR said:

   Nigerian MRAP "Ezugwu"

10318145_screenshot2019092823145915697089855311569709064340_jpeg8c7a2ac80765778c2c27587b078c562c

 

  Reveal hidden contents

WzN34Pb.jpg

 

 

u3s9y45.jpg

 

Spoiler

10454837_fbimg1572018313939_jpeg58a26bd522025dce78904623fd71e588

 

10457432_fbimg1572018096145_jpeg7a20220c26c521677f6c409a62b661d7

 

10454836_fbimg1572018292123_jpege4c734411e37953b0dde0a8f2f224bcf

 

Quote

MRAP Ezugwu is equipped with a 615 hp diesel engine, thermal imagers and a system of all-round cameras. The Nigerian army plans to purchase 130 armored vehicles of this type.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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 SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • 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?
       
       

×
×
  • Create New...