Leaderboard

If it doesn't count as spam, there are some pictures of the spaced-out suspension on a hybrid M4 here.

Soviet evaluation of Pershing in summer 1945 gives some light to the previously discussed terrain speed of Panther and Pershing. The result didn't favour Panther... http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/03/pershing-heavy-by-necessity.html This is the measured average speed in comparison with other tanks on the same terrain track. Pershing was the fastest of them in this test mainly thanks to its torque converter. T26E3 - 18,9 km/h T-44 - 17,5 km/h M4A4 - 16,5 km/h Panther - 15,8 km/h IS-3 - 14,6 km/h Fuel consumption on the same track however showed that the torque converter made it also very thirsty, basically same as Panther. IS-3 - 373 l/100 km T-44 - 378 l/100 km M4A4 - 503 l/100 km T26E3 - 585 l/ 100 km Panther - 595 l/100 km

Great idea It is so silly to put parasitic mass into design, why do not use zero-mass sabots instead? And why waste so much energy on muzzle blast? All energy should go into penetrator, it must be easy task.

Ideally, using the AMPV hull, which also has mine protection improvements and a revised internal layout among others. But on the whole, if you're sticking with a "medium weight" IFV, you could do much worse than a Brad derivative with a RWS 30mm (especially one that's already in service!) and the improvement offered by newer options like the Lynx may not be a sufficient gain to justify their cost. With the AMPV, latest M109s, and the like, the US Army is committed to the Bradley automotive components for the next 40 years or so. Makes sense to me to at least try and leverage that.

I think it has to do with the drive sprockets meshing with the end connectors, which are also the guide teeth. You'd need an all new incompatible concept of track link design to fill both those functions while also being wider. Such a concept is the track with central guide teeth used on the HVSS Shermans.

That entire site of yours is an absolute goldmine. I even got my profile pic from there.

If they want to use the Bradley chassis that bad why not just stick that 30MM Stryker turret on it? It's already been made and means ammo commonality....

For the love of god no more Bradley variants. Why is BAE even wasting their time with this nonsense.

K1s and K1E1s of the 5th Infantry Division conducting training at the Darakdae Training Center.