Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Or maybe it will fall through. I doubt it though besides nationalism both nations want thr same box tank

 

 

You Russians and your nationalism.  You don't know how good you lucky bastards have it.  You can still make tanks.

 

The UK, despite inventing the damn things can't design or make them anymore.  Yes; it's sad, especially since in eighty-something years of tank development they never made one that was particularly good.  Yes; the UK, despite having a larger GDP than Russia, cannot make tanks or fighter aircraft on its own anymore.

 

The time is fast coming when NATO will have to standardize on a Europanzer, because they won't be able to sustain cute little boutique national MBTs that are materially identical to Leo 2s (I'm looking at you Ariete!).  If they do have a boutique national design, it'll probably be designed in South Korea or something.

 

Hell, in a few years the new KANT product, whatever improved abrams emerges and the Altay may be the only tanks in production in NATO.  The only alternative may end up being Poland or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think times changing and some European may actually push actual project to make something new. Maybe it will not be something groundbreaking (well, when last time France, UK, Italy and Germany made something grounbreaking in tanks? In WW1 UK and France did but this is all i remember), but it could be new. I just hope to see how Leclercs perfoms in Yemen to know what is actual level of European/French tank design school. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, they were claiming the design would be finished around, or after 2025. One can still try to guess the features though, and I think we will see;

- Modular AMAP armor.

- AMAP APS.

- Bustle-loader, probably from the French.

- 1800 hp diesel.

- Pneumatic suspension.

Etc etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That will be not very impressive for 2030...

I suspect something just a bit creative. Maybe French designers will manage to push unmanned design based on one of Leclerc proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That will be not very impressive for 2030...

I suspect something just a bit creative. Maybe French designers will manage to push unmanned design based on one of Leclerc proposals.

Well, we are talking about Europe here.  :P They'll stick to what they are good at, and add a few things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh damn, i wanted to say unmanned turret proposals for Leclerc :-( Anyway, between France was more creative than Germans in tank field, i just hope for something actually new and not Leotard 2 version number 10 or 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What that really shows is that the Canadian army needed an assault gun and had to resort to deploying what they had readily available in order to fill a the need, which was basically an infantry support role. Something a vehicle like the M8 would have filled perfectly.  In low intensity conflicts when the threat from enemy armor is close to 0, vehicles like the M1128 or the defunct M8 program are easier to deploy and support yet pack the punch needed to deal with any potential threats.  The M1128 has some pretty serious design flaws but the concept is pretty sound. 

 

I do not foresee the large tank and tank battles being the typical future conflict. 

The Assault gun, Sryker 105mm or M-8 is fine - until it hits a mine.  Lessons of AFG and of Vietnam - if the enemy can get explosives, he will focus on mine warfare.  It is low risk, for the insurgent, and offers the promise of catastrophic kills.

I am not aware of any example in history of AFV crews taking armour off their vehicles (less turret removal on things like Rolls Royce armoured cars to allow viable armament to be carried).  These is no shortage of examples of people up-armouring their vehicles - officially or unofficially.

When commenting about AFV design, remember the people inside it.  They decide how effective it is.

Prior to the 1967 war, the most popular tank in the Israeli Armoured Corps was the AMX-13.  Reliable and fast, it was a fun machine.  The least popular tank was Centurion - slow and demanding a lot of heavy duty maintenance with plenty of hard to reach bits.  By the end of the war, the most popular tank was Centurion.  Much more bounced off it than penetrated.  When penetrated, the electric turret traverse and elevation mechanism did not burn, like the hydraulic system on the M-48s. The AMX-13 proved prone to catastrophic turret explosions to the point that there were combat refusals by AMX-13 crews.

If you want a crew to take a vehicle into action, you must ensure that the crew are confident that the vehicle gives them the best possible chance of survival.

 

Grumpy comment complete.

B   

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.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • 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 Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
       
       
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
       
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.
    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      Does anyone know of any military studies that analyzed the reload speeds for different tanks? The question occurred to me when I watched this video tour of the T-55's interior: 
       
      https://youtu.be/TEDhB9evPvw
       
      At the 10:00 mark, Mr. Moran demonstrates how the loader would put a shell into the tank's cannon, and the effects of the turret's small size and of the loader's awkward seating make it clear that the process would be slow. My question is: how slow? 
       
      Side question: Am I right to assume that storing the tank shells all over the inside of the turret like that is an inherent design flaw of the T-55 that makes it inferior in that regard to modern tanks? 
       
      Thanks in advance. 
    • By N-L-M
      ATTENTION DUELISTS:
      @Toxn
      @LostCosmonaut
      @Lord_James
      @DIADES
      @Datengineerwill
      @Whatismoo
      @Kal
      @Zadlo
      @Xoon
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name

      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here)



      Table of basic statistics:

      Parameter

      Value

      Mass, combat


       
      Length, combat (transport)


       
      Width, combat (transport)


       
      Height, combat (transport)


       
      Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal)


       
      Estimated Speed


       
      Estimated range


       
      Crew, number (roles)


       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       

       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.

      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.

      3.     Transmission- type, arrangement, neat features.

      4.     Fuel- Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.

      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.

      6.     Suspension- Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.

      Survivability:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Link to Appendix 2- armor array details.

      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks- low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.

      Firepower:

      A.    Weapons:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Main Weapon-

      a.      Type

      b.      Caliber

      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)

      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.

      e.      FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.

      f.      Neat features.

      3.     Secondary weapon- Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.

      4.     Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated performance and how these estimates were reached.

      B.    Optics:

      1.     Primary gunsight- type, associated trickery.

      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.

      C.    FCS:

      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.

      2.     Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.

      Fightability:

      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.

      Additonal Features:

      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.

      Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.


       Example for filling in Appendix 1
×
×
  • Create New...