Sturgeon
-
Posts
16,291 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
176
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Sturgeon
-
-
Pardon, the 786 figure I was remembering was from something different (US SEPv3 procurement). Been rather busy the last few days, I'll take that one on the chin.
I still think Abrams is good for Poland and the negative reaction is basically Polish people's natural skepticism of their own milproc. Which is healthy. -
-
1 hour ago, Żółć said:
With all due respect, I cannot agree. Taking into account the current state of the Polish Navy, mechanized force or even air defence, I would argue that in those sectors, Poland has many more pressing issues. The acquisition of Abrams tanks, or any other tank, is not the most needed one right now. To put it simply, Poland does not require additional tanks, not in the first place at least. The whole situation is also rather unexpected, especially if we were to look upon the current "technical modernization plan", in which the "Wilk" program - new MBT, is meant to be procured after 2025.
As far as I'm aware, and I'm conceding right off the bat that I'm not an expert, the tanks Poland has are either obsolete or inadequate in number. Poland is acquiring well more than 5 times the number of Abrams as they have Leo 2s on the upgrade path. First thing to note, these tanks exist and are ready to go (American tank production/conversion facilities are well under capacity by design) in short order. Second thing to note, these tanks share full operational compatibility with the largest tank operator in Europe.
I don't think these factors can be ignored. Polish authors are very quick to say "we have more pressing concerns", but do you? Your tanks are not in a good place! This doesn't seem like a bad buy to me. -
All the people trying to argue that Poland adopting the most proven and solid main battle tank on earth is a bad thing just because it's American is really giving me a laugh.
No, it's not the only worthy tank on earth. I'm not Damien. Maybe the K2 would have been better. But Poland needs assets and now. It's funny to me how the arguments revolve around effectively toenail clippings. -
2 hours ago, ADC411 said:
More like X-32ski, if current rumours are true.
I was ribbing our Russian fellows.
-
-
-
3 hours ago, unreason said:
Did I miss something?
I'm being dead serious: this is a bannable offense and you have 3 hours to change it.
-
3 hours ago, unreason said:
The Hungarian contract includes everything needed to introduce an entirely new vehicle to their armed forces, from training to spare parts. Its cost isn't quite applicable to Leo 2 here.
K2's disadvantage regarding Norway is precisely that they don't have to pay for anything beside the upgrade itself if they decide to keep Leopard, while K2 would require expensive changes in crew training and supply management.Leopard 2's mantlet never became better protected, just smaller, by integrating part of the moving mantlet area from 2A4 into the rigid turret cheeks in 2A5.
Since Leclerc's and K2's cheeks are much lower than their mantlets, this solution isn't available to them. The French never got around to it on their uparmouring projects.Are you really sure that Turkey will be able to get it done? Russia's economic situation might be bad and progress on Armata glacial at best, but work on Altay is in a much worse state.
Moreover, the Turks are actually developing a domestic powerpack. Funny thing: The company involved is called "British Motor Company" somehow.
Their chances don't look too good if even Korea struggles in that area, but they might not be available as regional parts suppliers. It really seems like the plan was for Poland to assume that role.Their next president might also make a lot of budget cuts to certain prestige projects, and confuse Altay for one of those.
How much of an advantage is such weight reduction when Norway doesn't deploy its tanks overseas and the even heavier Abrams operates in the tank traversable parts of Norway without issue?
Consider that their Swedish neighbours find no problem in making their Leopards even more obese. They didn't consider Leclerc's lower base weight much of an advantage in trials, either.Marketing should always be taken with a grain of salt, especially for armaments, but that also applies to Armata, so consider that just the Smart 155 projectile alone is heavier than a whole 12 cm cartridge.
KSTAM might thus not have quite the same penetration power as the artillery shell.No, they aren't, but limiting oneself to just one option to deal with a threat runs at risk of losing that option soon. What if the Russian military decides to implement an APS with coverage against top attack? Such systems already exist, like AMAP-ADS or APS or whatever the Rheinmetall thing is called.
That would leave only conventional AP projectiles as an option, and there are serious concerns that the 12 cm gun with just those might become less of an option even against newer T-90s. There's a whole history of Russian tank armour being badly underestimated, so it can't hurt to plan for the future early on.
Even the Koreans are working on K3 already, and the Challenger 2 with the 13 cm gun showed that K2 could also accept such a weapon. It already has an autoloader to cope with cartridges too long and heavy for human handling, although the turret would have to be extensively modified to make room for a larger bustle rack, or might need to get its shell replaced entirely, at which point one might as well buy a new tank - unless you're British.I only read this before joining, and there was nothing about profile pictures in there. Did I miss something?
Yes you missed the rule about no anime avatars which this forum has had since 2014.
-
9 hours ago, unreason said:
Why? What does K2 really add to justify the added expense of retraining and changing the stock of spare parts when both tanks are rendered obsolete by Armata?
At this point, it should be pretty obvious that the Norwegian and Polish programs aren't so much about acquiring a cutting edge tank for the next 20-30 years as they are about just barely keeping pace with the neighbours until a western tank with an unmanned turret becomes available.Hmmm, I see you've run afoul of the forum's "no anime avatars" rule...
-
-
The fuck is that rollbar thing?
-
20 minutes ago, Lord_James said:
Dont know how much I can get done: never got this far so I dont know what I'm doing and I am disorganized.
That's a good thing. Just put in a good effort to get something together that the judges can sink their teeth into, is my advice.
-
32 minutes ago, delete013 said:
The overlapping road wheels and nomenclature are there obviously AS A JOKE. Since you already tossed me into the nazi corner, I might as well make fun of it.
I did laugh mightily at the interleaved road wheels.
-
36 minutes ago, delete013 said:
That is no problem. I accept that the technical talk cannot be separated from the political context, in this case. I think I've been plenty accommodating and reiterated numerous times that I have no sympathies for the Nazis, their ideology or crimes. But you can't sell me arguments against axial-flow jet engines or Death traps under disguise of anti-nazism.
Sure they exist, you are right to be vigilant. But you lot also got very comfortable in abusing anti-racism to push your national bias around. Perhaps you haven't noticed, your overblown claims are the primary ammunition of neo-nazis. Stick to the objectivity and there is no space for politics or racial theories.
I find all of this very amusing since I didn't mention anything about the Nazis from whom that designation system comes, just that the chronology and geography didn't make sense.
-
22 minutes ago, delete013 said:
You really ought to read something on German history.
German history? Including the history of a designation system used exclusively from 1933-1945? What period of "german history" is that, pray tell?
-
4 minutes ago, delete013 said:
I deliberately threw in a bunch of easter eggs to spice up the commission's work. But it's all a joke.
That's a healthy attitude; most submissions include jokes and easter eggs.
-
3 minutes ago, delete013 said:
I felt that Sturgeon was really upset
.
Very perceptive. I won't try to get things by you again!
-
20 minutes ago, Beer said:
While I'd choose different name for marketing something in Texas I'd also choose not to be oversensitive about this particular thing because there is nothing Nazi about it. It's pure technical acronym which the Germans simply love by nature.
VK = Versuchskampfwagen = research combat vehicle, the first number stands for the weight and the number behind the decimal point stands for the particular variant
That's actually not the case, the nomenclature he's using is distinctly Nazi, not just German:
I am not the foremost expert on German armored vehicles, but I am not aware of any post-war tanks using this designation system. This makes sense because, you know, the Nazi tank design bureaus were liquidated and sent to France. A domestic armored vehicle wouldn't be created in Germany until the 1950s, and by a completely different group of people. The nomenclature, understandably, didn't survive this transition.
As for why I'm prodding him about it, I want to see how far he's willing to take this. We've got a German nomenclature system that was extinct in 1945 which has somehow time-traveled to 2247, and spatially across the Atlantic. This is very interesting! The explanation is of course that delete is an inveterate wehraboo who can't pull his head out of his ass, but I'm highly amused that he doesn't even have a compelling conceit for this. It's just "tanks get Nazi designations". Because of course they do, in his mind. (They also get interleaved roadwheels, for the same reason.) The Texas-German thing was an obvious copout (nevermind that Texas-Germans have different vocabulary - all of their machine-words are English loans - since it comes from peasantry that were imported in the mid-19th Century, 100 years before Nazi Germany existed).
I don't remember who suggested that he ought to just say "wehraboos still exist in 2247" as his answer, but I liked that one. It would have made me laugh.
-
27 minutes ago, delete013 said:
Why don't you tell me what bothers you?
Maybe they crawled from Argentina or somehow washed ashore, does it matter? I though adding another national flavour to the competition would make it interesting..
U touched my pee pee
-
Also it's been canon for a really long time that they don't have contact with the Atlantic States, much less Europe.
-
59 minutes ago, delete013 said:
After the nuclear war they only got normal people that fled the insane globalist Meinungsdiktatur.
They got... Nazi design bureaus from 1945 after the nuclear war in 2029? Which are still around 218 years later?
-
1 hour ago, delete013 said:
German Texans got influx after the war.
I've been to many German Texas cities, and not only do they not have Nazi-style panzer design bureaus, they don't even have many of those words.
-
The extension has been okay'd by a judge. @A. T. Mahan @Dominus Dolorem @Lord_James you have a reprieve. No new timeline has been set, please let us know when you think you might be able to complete.
.
Polish Armoured Vehicles
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
You've got a long way to go, I agree, but you gotta start somewhere. Maybe US milproc has just made me very low expectation, but I think it's a little weird not to take the wins when you get them.
I wanted to address a couple of other things:
1. Nobody said anything to the contrary (and I appreciate you for not going there), but obviously my enthusiasm for the Abrams here is primarily that they will be available much sooner than Leopards. If the situation were reversed, I'd be in pretty much the same position. As I like to say:
2. "Poland has a tank development project". OK, but, give me a break? Poland's government is wrong when it's procuring tanks from the US, but it's right when it's got some slush project to develop a new tank that won't see service for 15 years? That's a little bit of dissonance, I think, unless I'm missing some key ingredient to the idea. Not that I have anything against Poland creating domestic tanks, but if your entire military industrial complex is riddled with grifters and cons, then maybe putting your eggs in the "buy tanks from the Americans" basket makes more sense than the "undertake a big long development project where all the incentives are there to stretch it out as much as possible to milk the Polish taxpayers for cash".
3. I'm not sure I understand the objection that there's no involvement of domestic Polish industry. Poland will be purchasing the tanks and maintaining them. No, they're not making them themselves, but that's because they need the tanks right now (again, for the sake of argument ignoring that there may be other military priorities that are more pressing, you need tanks). Also, the complaint that you're running multiple types of tanks is... A bit weird considering the tanks in question. Abrams and Leopard are sister tanks. They share most of their wear parts like roadwheels, tracks, etc.