Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/21/2020 in Posts

  1. Some photos of the K2M model. These were taken at the "Korea Defense Component & Equipment Fair 2021".
    12 points
  2. Had the fantastic opportunity to PMCS, boresight, and road test a M1A2 SEPv3 from 4-9 CAV at Ft. Hood today. https://i.imgur.com/X0GEL89.mp4 https://i.imgur.com/h0McxcP.mp4 Many images: I can confirm the photo I posted previously that the turret weight of the SEPv3 31.5 tons (28.6 metric tons). I have a photo of the name plate but I haven't removed the serial numbers to upload it. I also made an extremely rough estimation of the turret armor LOS using my boot and then measuring my boot after (I didn't have a measuring tape on the tank nor did I want to piss off the crew). Using this very rough method I found the armor to be at least 1150mm LOS including the backplate. I may be able to get back on a SEPv3 next Monday.
    11 points
  3. Some renders of the AS21 for sim purposes.
    11 points
  4. Some photos from the same event that vid was taken at
    10 points
  5. SH_MM

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Based on what? Did South Korea somehow get access to better CPUs and circuit boards in 2008 than Germany did in 2014? Did they somehow produce better thermals years before Germany? How did they end up with a better BMS? The Leopard 2 doesn't have one BMS, it has nearly a dozen. While the South Korean BMS might be better than 1990s IFIS and the old FüInfoSys Heer, there are many different types of BMS integrated into the Leopard 2. Greece uses Rheinmetall's INCHINOS on the Leopard 2A6 HEL, Sweden has the TCCS (Tank Command and Control System), Spain has LINCE integrated into the Leopardo 2E, the German-Dutch Panzerbataillon 414 has tanks capable of operating either with IFIS or with the Dutch ELIAS, Switzerland has a RUAG-made BMS integrated into the Panzer 87WE, Singapore has integrated an Elbit BMS into its Leopard 2SG... the list is long. For the VJTF 2023, Germany has purchased new software from SitaWare... AFAIK the same system is used on the Leopard 2A7DK. In terms of technology, I don't see how KMW's offer should be inferior to what Hyundai-Rotem can offer. The Leopard 2A7 is fitted with a Centurion i7 and a KommServer by ATM Computer (a subsidiary of KMW)... that's already overkill for a BMS. Combined these two computers have basically 100 times (or more) the computational power found on M1A2 Abrams and Stridsvagn 122 (pre-upgrade), which already had working types of BMS. Given that Norway was one of the backers of NGVA, they probably demand a solution compliant with STANAG 4754; this would mean that both hardware and software of the current Korean BMS would be incompatible with the Norwegian requirements, whereas KMW already has a fully compliant solution. Software-wise I am 90% sure, that Norway will demand the incorpation of its own Kongsberg ISC, that has already been fielded on the recently upgraded Norwegian CV9030s. Two things would need to happen before that: KSTAM I or KSTAM II would have to enter production KSTAM I or KSTAM II would have to enter service with the ROKA While KSTAM sounds cool, neither KSTAM I nor KSTAM II has evolved beyond the prototype stage. KSTAM II btw. was developed in cooperation with Diehl Defence of Germany, which would have offered the solution on the European market, if development had ever finished. In terms of firepower, K2 is at a disadvantage. Four NATO countries have already committed to the improved L/55A1 smoothbore gun (with two having already taken delivery of tanks with it), the older L/55 gun of the K2 won't allow firing the same high pressure ammunition. The K2 also lacks an ammunition data link to fire programmable ammunition; currently the ROKA uses the K280 HEAT-MP-T round, a conceptual copy of the American M830A1 MPAT round. This cannot compete against the DM11 HE-ABM round. That is true, but only if equate "future proofing" with "weight until the GVW is reached". In reality, there are a lot of other factors to consider. Who will pay for the development of upgrades for the K2NO, if it was selected by Norway? Thanks to the LEOBEN community and the shared IP, the Leopard 2 will see upgrade options even once phased out by Germany. Rheinmetall already has showcased a new turret design with 130 mm gun and autoloader, which Germany will not adopt. Rheinmetall's Leopard 2 ATD and RUAG Leopard 2 MLU are great examples regarding how there will be upgrade options fo the Leopard 2, that haven't been paid by Germany or any other Leopard 2 user nation. Growth potential will also be dependent on user base (a larger number of user is more likely to fund upgrades or to make the market attractive for third-party upgrade options like the Leopard 2 ATD and MLU) and on compability with the existing architecture. The NGVA is a big improvement for that. In the end the weight will also depend on the configuration selected by Norway. Maybe they'll opt for a Swedish-style configuration with only a few tanks having mine protection kits (for use in peace-keeping missions) and the rest of them being 2-3 tonnes lighter. A lot of claims, but many of them are hardly relevant. Radar/Laser warning systems are available for any tank as retro-fit option, most militaries however do not consider them cost-effective (I'd personally love to see them on every AFV). There are also RWS/LWS available for the Leopard 2. Having a radar integrated into the turret has up- and downsides. A radar actively emitts radio waves that can be detected by the enemy from huge distances (depending on equipment) - that might be less relevant against North Korea, but against Russia Norway might be interested in a less emissive system. The "better placement of the radar" is also a silly argument - then you are comparing a Leopard 2A7A1 with Trophy APS to a K2 Black Panther - without any APS. KAPS is immature and unproven; it is still in the prototype stage. It also likely would fail to be fully compliant with NATO STANAG 4822 and STANG 4686. Auto-tracking is being incorporated into the Leopard 2Ax's FCS (it is also already available on the Leopard 2 ATD), it will be available in time of the Norwegian tank procurement program. I doubt that the hydropneumatic suspension of the K2 offers better recoil dampening than the hydraulic shock-absorbers of the Leopard 2, specifically given that the latter tank has greater suspension travel. The funny thing about the EuroPowerPack is that it might have "Euro" in its name, but it is not used in Europe. There are no spare parts for it in Europe, they would be build-to-order. The Merkava 4's EPP is built in the United States (so that it can be paid with the money of American tax payers), the UAE's Leclerc tanks (contract finished more than a decade ago) and the South Korean K2 tanks (contract handled by an Asian MTU subsidiary) do not warrant a production line of the EEP in Europe. The latest K2 batch still keeps a Renk transmission btw. That is not true, electronic systems can have a massive impact on weight and system complexity, specifically given the usually small power budget available in AFVs. The K2 only has a - rather poor - softkill APS. KAPS development has never been finished, the system is not ready for production. Because Trophy is mature and cheap. You cannot simply look at total contract value and then assume that this is identical to vehicle price. Hungary pays a lot more money, because they also want training of their crews (something that would be cheaper when switching from Leopard 2A4 to 2A7+), spare parts (which in some regards already exist in Norway thanks to the Leopard 2A4, Wisent and Leguan Leopard 2), infrastructure (already existing in Norway), ammunition, technical documentation, used tanks for training, etc. The real costs of a tank become apparent through its lifetime. Developing upgrades, ordering spare parts, training and exercies. The Leopard 2 is the king in this regard, specifically for a country like Norway, which is part of NATO and is located next to its closest - Leopard 2 operating - allies. It might not be common in Asia, but NATO countries have very deep cooperation. Spare parts, ammunition and even new vehicles are often ordered either through OCCAR (a NATO agency) or as part of bi-/multi-national procurement programs in order to drive down costs. Training together with foreign soldiers or even in different countries is common, just like exchanging knowledge and - if required - spare parts. Buying the K2 would mean major disadvantages for Norway. Aside of the fact that KSTAM II only exists as showcase models for old expositions, it would not be able to penetrate the roof armor of the T-14. The T-14 does not have "soft ERA" on the roof. SMArt 155 has a 155 mm diameter warhead and can only penetrate 120-150 mm of steel armor; many modern MBTs can be fitted with add-on armor to stop that (including the Leopard 2). KSTAM II with its even smaller warhead is easy to counter. Defeating TOW-2B is possible with light-weight add-on armor (Roof-PRO and AMAP-R). The T-14 is probably the tank with the best roof armor available today.
    10 points
  6. BAE Systems Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF)
    10 points
  7. It's rarely pointed out because it is an absolute load of bullshit, and most self respecting people have enough of a brain to not embarrass themselves in public by making such inherently absurd claims. Clearly you either have no brain or no sense of self worth if you are willing to put your name behind such an incredibly stupid line of thought. Let us take, as a starting date, the year 1943, as that is nicely mid-war. At that point in the war, the Western Allies were largely engaged in the Tunisian campaign, where other than defensive actions the entire battle of the Mareth line was decided via tactical maneuver, outflanking the defenses and thus rendering the line untenable and forcing an Axis retreat. The final battle of Tunis, in May, featured a classic tactical breakthrough on a narrow front followed by exploitation by armored and infantry forces. Following the taking of the city, roughly 240,000 Axis troops, who had been defeated by maneuver, surrendered to the Allied forces there. They had been quite firmly defeated by being outmaneuvered, cut off, rendered irrelevant to the Allies achieving their objectives, and left with the choice of either dying pointlessly or surrendering. In fact, more surrendered than were killed fighting. Following the Allied victory in North Africa, the invasion of Sicily was a 6 week affair, in which the Allies continuously advanced and took critical key objectives, forcing the Axis forces there to retire or be cut off, you know, as one does in maneuver warfare. Many times tougher than expected resistance was met, and rather than turn the battles into a slogfest, effort was shifted to where it could give the best results, and the results speak for themselves. The Axis were systematically and quickly evicted from the island. In Italy, the landscape precluded maneuver warfare to an extent, but even there, after concentrated attacks on defensive positions (which did also feature maneuver on the allied side, but on a generally smaller scale) what happened? yep, exploitation maneuver by infantry and armored units forcing the enemy to retreat or surrender. One would notice that despite being on the offensive throughout all these campaigns, the Allies suffered lower casualties on the whole than the Axis did. How did they achieve such low losses? By utilizing their combat abilities better than the Axis did, and by exploiting successes to force axis retreats and surrenders at all levels. By mid 1944, Italy had surrendered and was in allied hands, and it wasn't a result of sitting around with thumbs in uncomfortable places. What else happened in mid '44? The largest amphibious invasion of history. And how was this invasion used to further the Allied goal of cleansing the Continent of the Nazi menace? Though maneuver warfare, primarily. The whole reason we hear so much about the Bocage and the attempts to break out of it was that the Allies didn't want to fight that kind of fight at all. Yes, they were better at it than the Nazis were, and yes their armored vehicles were better for such close range fighting as many big cat apologists like to point out to cover for the really sad showing the Nazi metal boxes gave in Normandy, but as far as the Allies were concerned it was a bad way of conducting war. And what happened when they broke out of the Bocage? again, again, maneuver warfare. The Falaise pocket was a result of highly effective maneuver warfare, and decisively kicked the ass of the Nazis at what they considered their own game. Even the Nazi troops who escaped the pocket did so without their heavy equipment, which was irreplaceable as Nazi production was entirely incapable of keeping up with war losses. The following high speed chase to the German border was, again, brought about by maneuver warfare of the highest order, capturing several more Nazi units in various pockets, such as the Mons pocket and the Colmar pocket. In addition to the maneuver battles, there were also some battles, such as Hurtgen, which were not battles of maneuver, but those were A. not as common, B. not preferred, and C. Occasionally unavoidable, as previously discussed. They were, however, followed by an exploitation, as a rule, where at this point in the war the main limits on the Allies rate of advance wasn't the German resistance, as much as it was the logistical hurdles of supplying fast armies across a country where most of the transportation infrastructure had been wrecked. Following the Nazi winter offensive, which failed to achieve any of its primary goals, the Allies proceeded to, you guessed it, maneuver their way into the low countries and the Rhine. Including taking cutting off pockets of Axis troops at many locations. To conclude, the idea that the Western Allies didn't use tactical maneuver as a tool is not only wrong, it is farcical, and paints you, personally, the person bringing this up as an idea, as an absolute idiot without a shred of common sense nor the brainpower to think before you open your mouth. The hilarious thing here is that the Cletrac controlled differential on the Sherman, or the Merrit-Brown gearbox on what really is a wide range of British tanks, were hands down superior to what the Nazis were using in the vast majority of armored vehicles (Pz 3 and 4 and variants) they produced. And they had the reliability to go halfway across the continent on their own power, not break down after a measly few hundred km and need rail transport for any real movement. Likewise, your other point is wrong on not one but two counts. The first is that the idea of cruiser tanks and infantry tanks was confined to the British, not all or even most of the Western Allies. The second is that by the mid war even the British were mostly out of that line of thinking, what with them operating very large numbers of American medium tanks (M3s and M4s in various variants) and effectively abandoning the development of infantry tanks in favor of ever better protected and armed cruiser tanks - with the introduction of the Cromwell, they had a tank which was a medium in all but name, with sufficient armor and firepower to go up against the common Nazi vehicles and win, while also being much more mobile. dividing up the weight of the vehicle by adding roadwheel stations reduces MMP at the cost of more weight, which is an issue all Nazi vehicles suffered from extensively. As for taking bumps, the greater unsprung mass resulting from having more mass of wheels is a net detriment, and beyond 4 or so roadwheel stations per side there's damn near no extra ride smoothness to be achieved by adding roadwheel stations, the springs, whether torsion or something else, do that work. Also, as has been previously noted in this thread, words have meanings and you are misusing them. Faster off road speeds which never seemed to materialize owing to drivetrain unreliability, maneuverability which was forbidden in the manuals for fear of breaking the transmission, a general failure to use these theoretical abilities to do anything much, a repeated set of losses to allied maneuver operations, losing more vehicles than they could afford despite being on the defensive, all the way back to the Rhine. AKA, a piss poor combat record. There are several good reasons to believe the solution was not the best, for example the entire rest of the world examining it and deciding it wasn't a good idea. The French even went the extra step of building a few of them, before discarding the idea into the dustbin of history, where it rightly belongs. Everyone else was clearly capable of making tanks which weren't absurdly heavy for their combat ability and which could actually get to the battlefields and do their jobs. The extreme weight of the big cats is a detriment, not a positive. Also, by dint of not being excessively heavy, most Allied tanks had a much better power to weight ratio and could go faster, in addition to being much more reliable. As did literally everyone else, yes. Shitty German steel would be a reasonable excuse for accepting reduced performance, not for creating horrible monsters which were entirely unsuited for fighting the war they were in the middle of. That anyone can make excuses for a """medium tank""" with the size and weight of a heavy but none of the performance thereof is absurd. Usually, when one is guessing blindly, one shouldn't brag about being an absolute idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, and listen to those who do. This statement is entirely false. The overlapping wheels offer reduced ground pressure, at the cost of a whole host of other deficiencies, which are the reason nobody uses them any more. Various napkin drawings of for the most part imaginary tanks do not imply they would ever have seen production. Especially not when such a change would require refitting entire factories to produce tanks which are only slightly different to ones already in production, and the need for said vehicles is acute. In general, the square cube law favors larger tanks, but that doesn't apply when your tanks are made needlessly huge and heavy for no good reason. The overlapped suspensions, especially that of the Panther, came at a net weight penalty compared to other simpler suspension types, which means they come at a detriment to payload capacity, not an improvement. lol. None of the operational analysis we have from WW2 supports this claim of yours. This is just pure fantasy on your part, which appears to be aimed at convincing yourself the Nazi tanks were superior... for some reason? One does wonder why you'd have such a fanatical devotion to the creations of the regime whose sole truly groundbreaking invention was the industrialization of mass murder. you really have no clue how torsion bars work, do you? Here's a hint: double length torsion bars and overlapping roadwheels are entirely independent design choices. Both of them are bad choices. The 8.8 was quite a good gun as ww2 tank guns go, 100mm vertical is approximately equivalent to the armor of most medium tanks of the time, nothing to write home about when your tank weighs twice as much as a medium and that's all you get for your troubles. Freezing mud and the like led to many big cats being flat out abandoned and not seeing combat, which means the combat effectiveness of those vehicles was a net negative. Again, hardly anything worth white knighting over. The Allies, I would remind you, won the war. And they did so, on the whole, with lower casualties than the Axis suffered (in the West at least), and the general consensus among all of them was that there was very little to be learned from the Nazis about tanks. Before you go crying "victors", remember that the Allies were not above Operation Paperclip'ing any and all scientists they thought would be useful, and the Nazi tank designers didn't make the cut. The Allies didn't think they were worth stealing. With overlapping wheels, you either get horrible track torsion loads or the maintenance nightmare of interleaving wheels. The only alternative is this: The above also applies, in general, to the entire Nazi war effort. For a Panther aficionado, you are extremely poorly informed about it. All Panthers had that 4 row interleaved roadwheel setup, with the outer wheels and inner wheels on opposing swing arms. While this layout is slightly better than that of the Tiger, it still requires the removal of an awful lot of roadwheels to get to any inner one, and still allows freezing mud to immobilize the vehicle. wrong again. Even today, interleaved roadwheels would help reduce ground pressure, which for MBTs is reaching rather extreme values. But unlike then, nowadays everyone has the good sense to not mess around with unworkable ideas like that. Single torsion bars with dampers and bump stops gave a very good accounting for themselves in WW2, so your second point is also wrong. Or, in other words: The Nazis correctly identified that vertical travel is important for high cross country speed, but instead of being sensible about how much vertical travel they needed they went with a value far in excess of what was actually useful at the time, and paid a horrendous price in design terms in order to achieve it. There is a reason that even the postwar fast MBTs didn't have a vertical travel as large as that of the Panther, which was only done on the later NATO box tanks with much more powerful engines - below that point, it's just not very relevant. Improvising by creating the most overcomplicated and resource intensive solution is not a very sensible answer when your problem is lack of resources. Funny how even with very heavy tanks being used nowadays, many of which exceed 60 tons by a wide margin and have since they were designed, and in a wide range of extremely heavy engineering equipment, not only does nobody use overlapped or interleaved wheels, but literally nobody is even considering it as an option. perhaps, just perhaps, it is because the whole world knows it is a terrible idea? Fortunately, this forum has an abundance of mechanical engineers, at least some of whom have experience with automotive systems. Perhaps you should cease being so aggressively wrong when you yourself admit you have no clue what you're talking about. If you made any, sure. For a start, you must first read the relevant literature, because as of now your arguments from ignorance only serve to accentuate your stupidity. The T30 heavy tank features the CD-850 crossdrive transmission, which is a triple differential unit capable of both pivot turns and neutral turns. It also features a fuckoff huge torque converter, which allows a much easier driving experience as one only needs 2 gears forwards and one reverse to cover the entire range, and is in fact still in service today on a variety of vehicles. Which is more than I can say for any Nazi WW2 equipment. I would like my million bucks, along with a punitive extra 1 mil for you shifting the goalposts from suspensions to transmissions yet still being horribly wrong. and yes longer vehicles are harder to steer, but the magic number for tread-to-length is 1.5-1.8, and all Allied tanks of the late war period were perfectly fine in that regard. As Beer rightly notes. You've gone straight into denialism. Tell me, do you also not believe the Allied reports on what they found in certain camps in Poland? Regardless of what you choose or do not choose to believe, the Allies pretty much plowed through the Nazis in Europe, with the Nazis not achieving any great successes for all the divisions of brand spanking new tanks they threw into the grinder. In conclusion, you are a total idiot blindly "defending" the products of a tyrannical regime despite lacking some very basic knowledge on the subject in general and of your specific favorites in particular. I diagnose you with a extremely bad case of Dunning-Kruger, the only known cure to which is this: Your SNR is a net negative and the only reason you haven't yet been kicked off the forum for being a waste of electrons is that some people here still find your brand of idiocy amusing.
    10 points
  8. A new K2 variant has made it's debut at IDEX 2021, the K2M. From what I all can see it's an offshoot of the K2PL though with minor changes, the hard-kill APS has been replaced with the soft-kill APS system (similar to that of the normal K2, you have the soft-kill radar and the rotatable smoke grenade launcher). You also have additional cage armor applied to the turret bustle. Hopefully more and better images pop up.
    10 points
  9. Hi, Just a head's up of a new book just published by the Tank Museum at Bovington. It is Richard Ogorkiewicz's autobiography which he had just completed before his death and which was brought to publication thorough the determination of David Willey, Curator of the museum. I received the book out of the blue as a gift, through I think, the good offices of Richard's wife. The book is entitled "Observer of Cold War tank development", it is 78 pages long and richly illustrated and is full of interesting facts and personal anecdotes. Once available for general sale, it looks likes it will be a purchase well made. Cheers Marsh
    10 points
  10. 9 points
  11. The possible K2NO Fitted with Trophy radars and Norwegian camo. It's said that this K2 will be spotted at the upcoming ADEX 2021 (along with the Desert K2 we've seen at expos in the past) so we may get more pictures and details then.
    9 points
  12. Scout

    Israeli AFVs

    Removable modular special armor packages (NERA/SLERA) of hull side of Merkava Mk4 MBT.
    9 points
  13. M1 turret
    9 points
  14. Object 219M with Burlak turret, without APS
    9 points
  15. Posted on otvaga, found docs about Armata soft-kill APS. System type is reffered as SPN (anti-targeting system). Kit have 4 integrated sensors (multispectral) of working rocket engines and laser illumination detectors. 4 detectors combined create full coverage of upper hemisphere of vehicle. SPN was designed to not give away vehicle when it was turned on and working, so it uses only passive sensors. On scheme 1 is detectors, 2 are PPU (rotatable launchers) and 3 are 2 vertically aimed PUs (stationary launcher).
    9 points
  16. AS21 rollout:
    9 points
  17. 8 points
  18. 8 points
  19. Even more pics. The green screen interior ones are from the interior demonstrator to test different layouts.
    8 points
  20. Laviduce

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Regretfully, I have not done a full CAD model on the Leo 2 (yet), so I can not tackle the volume/mass distribution from that angle in any meaningful way. Here are numbers coming from German and Swiss sources/publications (some of them are somewhat contradictory): This is for a Leopard 2 with B-Technology special armor, as far as i know: Total Combat Weight: 55,15 t / max: 55,55 t Hull without ammunition, equipment and crew: 37,80 t / max: 38,16 t Hull Shell: 12,1 t Turret with armament but without ammunition, equipment and crew: 16,0 t / max: 16,99 t Turret Shell: 8,91 t Main gun with breech: 1,97 t (1,995 t is also given) Main gun without gun mantlet: 3,10 t Main Gun Tube: 1,20 t Engine (dry): 2,71 t (with air filters) Transmission with cooling unit (wet): 2,97 t Powerpack including cooling unit (wet/dry): 6,05 / 5,61 t Tracks: 2,70 t Mass of fuel: 1,03 t Mass distribution in %: Electronic Equipment, Equipment, etc: 7% --> 3,86 t Armament and ammunition: 8% --> 4,41 t Powerpack with fuel:15,5 % --> 8,55 t Running gear/Suspension System/ tracks: 21, 5% --> 11,86 t Turret and Hull Shell: 48% -->26,47 t (this is odd) For the Swiss Panzer 87: Combat Weight: 56,5 t Turret weight with gun: 16 t Powerpack (wet/dry): 6,12 / 5,57 t Engine: 2,86 t Transmission (wet/dry): 2,45 / 2,17 t Suspension arm with / without damper: 0,226 t / 0,182 t Torsion bar: 0,059 t Return Roller: 0,025 t Idler Wheel: 0,034 t Idler Wheel arm: 0,11 t Bump Stop: 0,012 t Track link mass: 0,033 t Tracks: 2,75 t More on the gun system: With mantlet: 3,655 t (max 3,8 t) Without mantlet: 3,015 t Mantlet: 0,640 t Gun, Total: 1,905 t Gun Tube: 1,150-1,175 t Gun breech: 0,683 t Gun breech block: 0,110 t Bore Evacuator: 0,0135 t Thermal Shroud Front: 0,0135 t Thermal Shroud Back: 0,0128 t I might find more, but this is it for now.
    8 points
  21. Persson Engineering Solutions and Brewing, Main Battle Tank, MBT-01, "Gigan" FINAL Table of basic statistics: Parameter Value Mass, combat 82 tonnes/180779 lbs Length, combat (transport) Hull 26.25 ft. Total 37.15 ft (to gun crown at 0°) Width, combat (transport) 13.091 ft Height, combat (transport) Turret Roof 7.111 ft. Maximum permanent height 7.718 ft (to highest permanently fixed feature.) Total height 10.281 ft (to top removable feature) Ground Pressure, zero penetration 1967 psf Estimated Speed 40-43 mph Estimated range 470 miles (38 mph on road) Crew, number (roles) 3 (driver, gunner, commander) Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) 5" L50 rifled gun. 42 rounds total (18 in autoloader, 24 in 4x6 hull storage bins) Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) 5 machine-guns, 4 being independently moved: 2X.50" HMG (1 coaxial, 1 for commander.) 3X.30" GPMG (1 on commander's periscope, 1 for gunner, 1 on the bustle for dismount troops.) 1000 rounds for each HMG, 2000 rounds for each GPMG 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: Turbo Diesel V12, 2904 cu in, similar to the old MB 873 found in the archives of the pre-happening world. Rated for 1500 to 1800 HP. Longitudinally mounted on the rear. Liquid cooled, heat exchangers located under the engine bay cover. 3. Transmission: Double differential, 10 speeds (5 forward, 5 in reverse), neutral steering capable. Similar to the RENK HSWL 295TM found on the archives of the pre-happening world. Transversely mounted on the rear. 4. Fuel: Diesel, or kerosene, jet-fuel or bio sourced analogue, or any high cetane number fuel given correct tuning and adequate lubrication properties. 680.50721 US and A imperial Gallons, in 4 internal tanks. Provision for extra fuel tanks inside the bottom double hull at the user's discretion (normally no installed.) 5. Other neat features in the engine bay. 6. Suspension: "Dumb" hydro-pneumatic suspension, suspension elements located on housing units bolted externally to the sides of the hulls and connected to the suspension arms via a gearing system, this is done in order to reduce the unsprung mass of the suspension as well as to reduce the size of the arms, keep the hydro-pneumatic elements further away from obstacles while still keeping replacement and field service easy. 14 sprung road wheels, 2 idler/track tensioner wheels on the front, 2 driving sprockets on the rear, 14 return rollers. 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: a. The rear hull ammo stowage units are located in water tanks, containing 56.5 gallons of water each, those can double as energy replenishment for the heat exchanger of the engine, or for emergency drinking water for the crew. b. The backup shared optical range finder allows for the commander to fire the gun in case the gunner is unable to do so c. Turret features a large cargo rack that allows for more than enough capacity for pioneering equipment, camping equipment, crew belonging, extra equipment like smoke grenade launchers, add-on/ad-hoc spaced armor, spare parts, or a place for dismounted troops to do things. d. Tank is equipped with two long range radios and two large antennas, guaranteeing redundancy and simultaneous communication with other tanks and a base for example. e. The crew compartment in the turret is set up as low as possible in the hull, with the commander and gunner siting in a semi-reclined position. f. Turret crew compartment is separated on the middle by the gun compartment, with armored bulkheads on both side, with a interconnected part on the front of the compartment. This allows for redundancy of the crew and the change that a side penetration will not kill/incapacitate the whole turret crew. g. The diver is surrounded by large fuel tanks on both sides, adding an extra layer of protection. h. The turret is a combination of the "cleft" and "wedge" concepts, it offer a very low silhouette in normal conditions and the angled roof further reduces the silhouette in a hull down position with the front raised. Due to the aforementioned separated gun compartment a dead-on penetration of the mantle, while obviously a mission-kill event, will probably not affect the crew. I. The turret can be rotated electrically or manually by all 3 crew members. This is to extend the fighting endurance in case of the loss of crew and systems, and to allow the possibility of the driver to escape from his main hatch. Firepower: A. Weapons: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Main Weapon: 1X Modified Co-Developed G46 gun a. Type: Rifled, L51 automatic loading. b. Caliber: 5"x33" Texan (127x840mm), unitary, steel non combustible case. Provision for future semi combustible unitary cases. c. ammunition types and performance: APDS (24" of RHA penetration at muzzle), HE (175.45 oz of composition B explosive), HEAT (15.75" of RHA penetration), experimental APFSDS. Above, ballistic data for the APDS round. Above: Detail of the APDS, it's a capped DU penetrator with a ballistic cap and wobble cap (also DU), in an aluminum sabot. Above: Penetration data for the APDS Above: Detail of the HEAT, high pressure. Above, detail of the HE munition. d. Ammo stowage arrangement: 42 rounds total. Primary/ready stowage, 18 rounds in belt type auto-loader on bustle, selectable ammo and capable of changing/unloading rounds, capable of being internally re-stocked from both the commander and gunner postions. Secondary stowage, 24 rounds in 4X6 sealed bins, two in front and to the sides of the turret basket inside the fuel tanks, two on the sides and rear of the turret basket inside water tanks. Primary stowage has blow-off panels on the roof and blast door separation it from the crew compartment. Secondary stowage is in individualized sealed bins surrounded by fluid. e. FCS: Primary FCS: Ballistic computer connected to active 2 axis stabilizer, laser range finder, day gunner sight and IR gunner sight, automatically adjust elevation and point of impact after a range measure is "locked". Secondary FCS: Gun Slaved to backup optical range finder f. Neat features: Muzzle Brake, provision for extra coaxial MG, or optic sight, insulation thermal sleeve, growth potential. 3. Secondary weapon: 3x GPMG, .30 caliber, one on the gunner's cupola track, one in a the rear bustle for dismounted troops, one remote controlled on commander's periscope/panoramic sight. 2x HMG, .50 caliber, one coaxial on the main gun mantled, one on the commander's cupola track. Exact gun type and total number installed varies and is up to the user. This is more to exemplify the total installation points. a. Type: HMG DShk or M2 or similar. GPMG M240 or similar type. b. Caliber: HMG .50 BMG or similar. GPMG .308/7.62x51mm NATO or similar. c. AP, API, tracer, etc... d. Ammo is stored internally from a single stowage of 1000 rounds belt for the coaxial gun and 2000 rounds belt for the panoramic sight gun. Other guns are fed from externally mounted boxes/pouches contained belts of 100 to 200 rounds. Other boxes/pouches stored internally on the crew compartment on the turret next to the blast wall. e. Coaxial gun is slaved to the main gun and its FCS. Commander's periscope/panoramic-sight gun is remote controlled and stabilized on 2 axis. Other guns are manually controlled and non stabilized. Possible provisions for remote control weapon stations are possible in the future. f. Dismounted troops have access to their own gun on the bustle. Commander has two gun options, one allowing him to fire from a closed hatch. HMG coaxial offers better anti material capability than the usual .30 coaxial on most tanks. Has grow potential for more remote controlled weapon stations an extra coaxial if so desired. 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 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached. B. Optics: 1. Primary gunsight: Gunner has access to a daytime stabilized optic with a 0-10 magnification, a stabilized IR night sight with IR floodlight (located on top of the mantled) with a 0-10 magnification, a laser range finder and a back-up optical rangefinder located on the rear of the turret and shared with the commander. Commander has access to it's own panoramic sight/periscope with day time and IR modes, 0-8 magnification, and the shared backup range finder. 2. Other optics: Gunner and Commander have access to an array of fixed periscopes on their hatches giving a 360° field of view (not counting obstacles.) Driver has access to 3 periscopes giving a wide field of view. C. FCS: 1. List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture. a. Gunner primary sight, located on the left side of the turret rooftop, enters the crew compartment via a hole behind the armor modules. Daytime optic, connected to ballistic computer, laser range finder and backup optic rangefinder. Stabilized on 1 axis b. Gunner secondary sight, located on the same housing as "a", IR, same functions. c. Commander panoramic sight. Optic and IR combo on same rotating and extensible housing, on the same location as the gunner's sights, but on the right side. Not connected to the FCS per-se, but it's able to "lock" a direction and then command the turret to rotate to that position. Stabilized 2 axis d. Laser range finder and IR illumination unit, located above the mantle, parallel to the gun bore. IR and Visible laser receptors/emitters, 2 IR floodlight on the sides. Permanently fixed to mantle and passively stabilized vs the gun stabilization. e. Backup optical rangefinder. Mounted on the back of the crew compartment, above the blast door and extending to the sides of the turret, outside. Slaved to the gun and its stabilizer. f. Ballistic computer. Based on the electronics of the flight computer of the new crop of guided missiles. Provides adjustment and coordination of the above components, depending on vehicle speed, distance, ballistic behavior of ammo type, vehicle inclination, activelly tries to compensate or dampen vehicle movement, updates reticle for adequate POI and adjust gun and turret position for a "point and shoot". Can be manually overridden. Currently the R&D department is investigating the feasibility of accounting wind and thermal mirages. Computer is located under the gun compartment in the front of the turret basket. 2. Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system. Fightability: 1. Very low profile, smaller target, less change of not only hitting the vehicle but also hitting a vital component. 2. Even lower profile in a hull-down, inclined position with basically no vital components exposed. 3. Great ride quality, guarantees crew comfort, less stress on sensible equipment, less work of the stabilizers and better control of the vehicle in rough terrain. 4. Hunter-Killer capability allows for more efficiency of the crew, better situational awareness and quicker reaction times. 5. Good crew survivability, guarantees the safety of investment in terms of money and money spent on training a professional crew as well as safeguarding the data they collected even in the case of a defeat. 6. Good offensive capability and flexibility when dealing with multiple unarmored targets. 7. Good serviceability/repairability on the shop or on the field. Even complex to repair or single-use systems can be replaced on the field as a "Plug and play" affair. 8. Great endurance in terms of crew livability and ammo/fuel/supplies. Guarantees longer top-performance period for the crew as well as increased survival changes in case of being removed from the logistical supply chain. 9. Multi fuel capability in a known and well understood engine format, features that facilitate logistics and possibly foraging. 10. While not a currently widespread threat, laser guided ATM are a possibility and the design team considered prudent to not just rely on passive defenses but take a more pro-active aproach and include a IR dazzle feature in the two IR flood lights. 11. The auto-loader design allows for the replenishment of the ammo supply from an external source without the need for the crew to leave the interior of the vehicle. While not ideal, and somewhat cumbersome it offers the possibility to do so while the crew remains in a near-ready condition. Additional Features: 1. As previously mentioned the modular nature of the composite armor modules allow not only for easier repairs and potentially avoiding the need to refurbish a whole macro component (turret and hull), but also allows to tailor the protection to the needs faced on the theater of operation. For example the arrays can be changed from light NERA to heavy NERA, a combination of both, or a combination with ERA. This also means that long range transport can be facilitated as the tank can be broken down into the tank proper and some armor modules in case there is a weight limitation. 2. The vehicle has growth potential as one of its mission goals. The modular armor, the multi-fuel system, the large caliber gun, etc. There have been some interesting researches into smooth bores and APFSDS, semi combustible cases, higher operating pressures and exotic materials, and while the design team felt those new technologies aren't mature enough to be incorporated into the current entry, nothing stops the user to request a upgrade of the weapon's system's in the future, without major changes to the rest of the vehicle. The same goes for the Free expression zone: This project is dedicated to one of our best engineers that passed away recently due to "circumstances". The project is also dedicated to our chief engineers Dr. Eneas PS: If necessary the blueprints for the vehicle or any component can be provided to the competition judges.
    8 points
  22. More pics of the Redback. Suspension unit. Note the spacer between roadwheels to accommodate the Soucy track. SA cameras. Sadly, this (blast test hull) was displayed without its coat rack fitted. Marketing bumpf: Information on the power pack: The engine for the RMA Redback.
    8 points
  23. Wiedzmin

    Britons are in trouble

    CR1
    8 points
  24. LoooSeR

    French flair

    Pics of Jaguar stolen from twater
    8 points
  25. History of Marder as per Rolf Hilmes, published by Rheinmetall: https://rheinmetall-defence.com/de/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/vehicle_systems/armoured_tracked_vehicles/marder50/index.php Translated with google translate, so there are quite a few errors.
    8 points
  26. This news is a bit old but posting now I have time: UK outlines future anti-armour requirements Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO) - Long Range ATGM Proposals by Thales, MBDA and Lockheed Martin using Brimstone missiles: Thales: "Dstl also showed a concept developed by Thales showing an Ares vehicle equipped with a remote turret that does not protrude into the vehicle’s hull and carried eight missiles." MBDA: "During a presentation on the capability, Dstl showcased concepts from MBDA detailing an Ares vehicle carrying eight Brimstone missiles on a swing launcher as well as a Boxer module carrying 16 Brimstone missiles on one side of the vehicle as well as its previously shown concept of a TheMIS UGV carrying a Brimstone launcher." Lockheed Martin: "As well as devising the Boxer module, Lockheed Martin has also developed a concept for an ISO container filled with VLS tubes and carried on a MAN SV truck. This MAN SV-based system would be able to carry 50 plus missiles." - Boxer module can carry 16 missiles CCAAW – mounted and dismounted effects Javelin ATGM replacement. Supposedly Spike 2 has been earmarked for this. The Army was waiting to see what the US did with Javelin. Sources: https://www.army-technology.com/features/lockheed-martin-uk-unwraps-future-anti-armour-concept/ https://www.army-technology.com/features/lockheed-martin-uk-unwraps-future-anti-armour-concept/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UK Warrior upgrade cancellation makes sale of CT40 cannons likely Source: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-warrior-upgrade-cancellation-makes-sale-of-ct40-cannons-likely ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pretty much what I thought would happen. The Army dumping CT40. Not even keeping them as spares for Ajax is a telling sign. I can see Rheinmetall pushing a British-ised Lance turret.
    8 points
  27. I believe these are new (for here) photos of Numba One MBT of World in construction. This CAD drawing also shows glorious thickness of hull protective scheme.
    8 points
  28. Spoilering it because it's huge, but here's a good image showing how the armor was added on the M1A2C.
    8 points
  29. The 2A6M has just extra mine protection in the form of new decoupled seats and a mine protection plate on the belly. The 2A6A3 is a sort of Ersatz-2A7V its trying to get to the same level as the A7V but with a few discounts. Mainly the extra frontal hull armor, the improved final drive and the APU. But the FCS, controls and optronics will be the same as the A7V. "In March 2019, KMW received an order from the BAAINBw to upgrade a total of 101 Leopard 2A6 tanks. Besides other changes, the operating concept, sight system, fire control system and the chassis will be brought to Leopard 2A7 level. Furthermore, the vehicles should be equipped with the SPECTUS (SPECtral Technology for Unlimited Sight) driver’s sight device at the front and rear. After the upgrade, the vehicles will be designated Leopard 2A6A3." Yes the 2A6A1 have different mountings for Radios and BMS because those are for Bataillon Commanders. The 2A6A2 is for the dutch german tank bataillon 414. It has a BMS and Radio which compatible with the dutch one. "As the Leopard 2A6A1 is mostly used by the commanders of Tank Battalions, it features a different radio equipment consisting of the SEM 80/90 VHF radio system and the SEM 93 VHF radio system." "The Leopard 2A6MA2 main battle tank is an upgraded version of the 2A6M fielded with the Bundeswehr in 2004. Beginning in April 2018 the Leopard 2A6Ms were equipped with the Dutch Battlefield Management System ELIAS (Essential Land based Information Application & Services) and the related radios. Optionally also the German C3I system Führungs- und Informationssystem des Heeres and the related SEM 80/90 VHF radio system can get installed. Furthermore the vehicles get equipped with the multispectral driver’s sight device SPECTUS. Panzerbatallion 414 from Lohheide received the first vehicles during a handover ceremony on 11 April 2018. After the upgrade the vehicles will be designated as Leopard 2A6MA2s."
    8 points
  30. Wiedzmin

    Israeli AFVs

    8 points
  31. A bunch more pictures have been posted from ADEX K2NO Long Range Precise Attack System Multipurpose Light Vehicle I-UGV
    7 points
  32. Some photos from the ROK Army Tank Competition currently under way. This competition is being held by the ROK Army Armor School with various vehicles (M48A5K, K1E1, K1A2, K2, K21, and K200) and the winning team will participate in the US Army Sullivan Cup.
    7 points
  33. Evolution of the Lynx & Lance for OMFV.
    7 points
  34. K1A2 tanks of the Capital Mechanized Infantry Division during a live fire exercise at Nightmare Range.
    7 points
  35. The full name of this combat vehicle is: TCV-47 "Brahman" (Tracked Combat Vehicle) No, it's not done, i took a very long break; burned myself out. But since then, I have added commander's and loaders cupolas', vision slits, drivers hatch, turret roof applique, 12.4 tons of hull armor, and 7 tons of turret armor plus a 4.6 ton turret wedge a la Leopard 2A5. Still needs turret storage boxes, hull roof applique, and side skirts. Ammunition and velocity is going to be similar to that used on the M551 of yore, including a gun launched ATGM based on the BGM-71.
    7 points
  36. Brownsville Armour Engineering Systems FV601 “Cossack” for Main Battle Tank 2247 [FINAL] Isometric, left side, front and top view of the FV601. On the right is the base configuration, on the left the FIBUA configuration 3D model freely available at https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/9907c803-fb6e-434f-be49-4eb79f7b9c6b/FV601-Cossack Parameter Base configuration FIBUA configuration Mass, combat 126600 lbs 143000 lbs Mass, armour 53200 lbs (42 %) 70500 lbs (49.5%) Length, combat 38’1” 31’7” Length, transport 32’3” 26’6” Length, hull 22’6” (without drop tank) 24’8” (with drop tanks) 24’11” Width 12’2” 13’5” Height (at minimum ride height) 7’8” (turret roof) 8’3” (top of periscope) 9’7” (top of machine gun) Ground clearance Adjustable between 18” and 22” Ground pressure (psf) 1746 NGP, 4295 MMP 1972 NGP, 4834 MMP Speed 45 mph on road 30 mph off road Range 558 mi on internal fuel 658 mi with drop tanks 558 mi on internal fuel Crew 4: commander, gunner, driver, radio operator Main armament 5” L/55 smoothbore gun, 5x24” unitary cartridge 16 rounds autoloader + 16 rounds stowed 5” L/40 smoothbore gun, 5x24” unitary cartridge 16 rounds autoloader + 16 rounds stowed Secondary armament (1) coaxial 0.30cal Medium machine gun (900 rounds) (1) 0.30cal Medium machine gun (450 rounds) on gunner’s skate mount (1) 0.50cal Heavy machine gun (100 rounds) + (1) 0.30cal Medium machine gun (450 rounds) on commander’s ring mount (1) 0.50cal Heavy machine gun (100 rounds) on auxiliary mount (900) 0.50 rounds stowed (8100) 0.30 rounds stowed BAE Systems’ FV601 “Cossack” is a fighting vehicle intended to not only meet all the requirement, but also exceed them, especially mobility requirements. The design also emphasises ease of maintenance and upgradability, making it the ideal vehicle for the current as well as the next fight. The FV601 is offered in two configurations: a base configuration, which was designed to achieve every requirement and counter the current threats of the battlefield while offering ample room for upgrades; an add-on FIBUA (Fighting In Built Up Areas) kit, to be installed on vehicles deployed in an area of operation where heavy urban fighting is to be expected. The FIBUA kit can be added to any base configuration “Cossack” in the field in a few hours, not requiring more than hand tools (except the installations of the barrel, requiring light engineering support). I Mobility 1) Link appendix 1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gc4sadYGZEAemXzOxyERPgLGvRF2rgSr/view?usp=sharing II Survivability 1) Link appendix 1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gc4sadYGZEAemXzOxyERPgLGvRF2rgSr/view?usp=sharing 2) Link appendix 2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wSJriDjGY9EeamhG7TuZ2EJRvt5aVtg9/view?usp=sharing Summary table: Unless specified otherwise, protection angles are given in degrees from centerline “elev” = elevation Base configuration FIBUA configuration Threat Estimated penetration Turret Hull Turret Hull 6in HEAT projector 8” 180°, 10° elev 90°, 10° elev 180°, 10° elev 180°, 10° elev 4in/54 HVAP 12” @1200yd 50° 47° 61° 62° 8” @2000yd 63.75° 57° 79° 80° 3.6in RPG 14.4” 60°, 45° at 10° elev 40°, up to 10° elev 90°, up to 10° elev 90°, up to 10° elev 4in/54 APFSDS (*) 12” @ 2000yd 34° 32° 50° 53° 5in APFSDS (*) 20” @ 1000 yd 23° N/A 30° 33° 18” @ 2000 yd 26° 23° 33° 36° 2in/4in tandem RPG 10”/20” N/A N/A 25° 41° NUB tandem missile (*) 10.8”/26.4” N/A N/A 16° N/A (*) estimated future threats (*) estimated future threat III Firepower View of firepower elements: main gun, autoloader, optics, fire control systems, secondary weapon stations, ammunition storage 1) Link appendix 1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gc4sadYGZEAemXzOxyERPgLGvRF2rgSr/view?usp=sharing 2) Main weapon: L1 Gun (L1A1 Gun for FIBUA configuration) 3) Secondary weapons: 4) Optics and fire control system 5) Link to appendix 3: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_t4XFbeko5CRqf4QwJDEQIdXiBQM3sMh/view?usp=sharing IV Fightability 1) Ergonomics a. Comfortable and adjustable crew seats b. Every tasks can be accomplished seating c. Fume extractor 2) Communications 3) Crew sustainment 4) Other a. Self-recovery kit with tow bar and tools b. Frontally removable gun for easy maintenance, as well as easily removeable powerpack c. Possibility to fix a dozer blade for clearing operations or self-entrenching d. Infantry telephone for better coordination in combined arms operations e. White light and IR headlight for night driving + possibility to mount IR spotlight over barrel f. Ammunition loading hatch in turret rear to ease reloading the autoloader from the outside, in addition to the ability to reload the autoloader from the inside through the reloading hatch by elevating the barrel g. (4) crew members for easier maintenance and day-to-day operations V Upgradability
    7 points
  37. New from Hanwha:
    7 points
  38. Wiedzmin

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Leopard 2FK turret
    7 points
  39. SH_MM

    Britons are in trouble

    Apparently British tank designer's solution for more KE protection is using more steel. According to the following excerpt, the cast steel shell for the Challenger 1 turret had a weight of 7,500 kilograms. In case of the Challenger 2, the contractor for the turret shell, i.e. William Cook Defence, claims that it is a single piece casting with a weight of more than 9,000 kilograms! The casting also nicely showcases the weakspots caused by the gunner's sight and the loader's sight.
    7 points
  40. A very nice photo of the K21-105
    7 points
  41. Just a gif ofT-14 firing and ejecting spent case, stolen from otvaga
    7 points
  42. Already before WW2 Czechoslovak industry rutinely produced heavy extremely thick armoured cast pieces, especially observation cupolas and firing posts for the fortifications. To my knowledge at least three companies were supplying them in hundreds (Steel works in Vítkovice, Třinec and Škoda in Plzeň). They had a lot of experience from working on armoured parts for Austro-Hungarian fortresses and navy (basically all heavy machinery of A-H Empire was enherited by Czechoslovakia). The mass-produced armoured cupolas for Czechoslovak interwar fortiffication had 150-300 mm thickness (per object resistance class), the weight was 20-65,5 tons (300 mm heavy cupola for twin-HMG). They were later largely removed and reused on Atlantic wall by the Germans. Due to Münich treaty this thing was never installed but parts were built by Škoda including at least one turret. The Armor of the turret was 300-350 mm, the fixed armor around the turret is 175-450 mm thick. The weight is roughly 120 tons for the retractable turret and 180 tons for the surrounding armor (there are two full-size semi-automatic 105 mm howitzers inside hence why the size). Source of the pixture is book of Eduard Stehlík: Lexikon tvrzí československého opevnění z let 1935–1938 Here is something from a recent research done with one of one of the cupolas produced in Třinec in 1937 (200 mm thickness): Chemical: C 0,28; Mn 1,15; Si 0,44; P 0,026; S 0,023; Cr 0,35; Cu 0,27; Al 0,01 Ferrite-pearlite structure with measured hardness 177 HV 30 which shall be equivalent to 169 HB, i.e. rather soft. It is not much known about the original requirements, incomplete sources say the steel had to have tensile strength between 550-700 MPa and ductility 14-17%. Based on that the steel used on this cupola was probably close to the lower strength limit. Source is here. Anyway starting with early 50' the new armory in Martin, Slovakia was producing quality cas turrets for T-34/85 and later T-55 and T-72 in thousands.
    7 points
  43. Video of the AS21 Redback with the Elbit Systems MT30 turret test firing the Spike LR2
    7 points
  44. SH_MM

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    In the past days, there have been a lot of discussions and news regarding the integration of the Trophy active protection system into the Leopard 2 tank. The short version: The purchase and integration of Trophy has been approved by the German parliament (as the contract has a volume above €25 million, approval was required). The price of the systems (including spares, training equipment, dummy rounds, etc.) is supposedly €40 million, total cost (including integration into the tanks) is more than €100 million. Trophy is purchased for 18 tanks (one testbed and 17 tanks). Rumors say that the system weighs more than 3,5 tonnes, which seems quite plausible given the weight increase of the M1A2 SEP v2 Abrams when fitted with Trophy. Trophy has passed a number of German tests including performance in cold environments, resistance to shock and vibrations, and safety tests. Firing trials are still to be made. Also it has been stated, that Germany has no access to the source code and algorithms used by Trophy, which is deemed as bad. German companies are required to disclose the source code of their systems (not only APS, but in general) and to meet certain ISO norms (with certification). Trophy is purchased as a "black box". Trophy will not be integrated into the Leopard 2A7(V) tank, but instead into the Leopard 2A7A1 tank. These are based on the Leopard 2A6A3 turret with newly-made hulls, as the old Leopard 2A6 hulls are unfit for Trophy (e.g. they lack an APU and thus have very limited electrical energy, but it seems that there might be other modifications required). There seem to be two options here: either the Leopard 2A6A3 was chosen in order to free the Leopard 2A7V tanks for the VJTF 2023 or Trophy requires so many/deep changes, that the Leopard 2A7V hull would not be suited for Trophy (which would mean no future purchases of Trophy for Germany). One side effect is that Germany will have 17 more Leopard 2A7 tanks. No Leopard 2 tank with Trophy will be ready for the VJTF 2023, i.e. the only reason why Trophy was purchased at all. Delays in the program will result in a delivery between 2024 and 2025. Instead of 17 Leopard 2 tanks with Trophy, Germany will send 30 Leopard 2A7V tanks for its participation to the VJTF 2023. There are apparently voices in Germany arguing (following the issues with Trophy) that the government should declare (active) protection systems a "national key technology", which would lead to more money being invested into homegrown systems and national solutions being prefered to foreign offers. https://soldat-und-technik.de/2021/01/mobilitaet/25410/entscheidung-fuer-trophy-bleiben-abstandsaktive-schutzsysteme-nationale-schluesseltechnologie/ https://soldat-und-technik.de/2021/01/mobilitaet/25620/abstandsaktives-schutzsystem-trophy-fuer-leopard-2-erst-ab-2024/ It seems that Trophy really isn't suited for fast integration into further platforms.
    7 points
  45. 7 points
×
×
  • Create New...