Xoon
-
Posts
548 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Xoon
-
-
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:
That's essentially the same as with the Marder, with the difference that the MILAN launcher on the Marder was mounted at the commander's hatch during travel and could be used to engage heavily armored targets. Once the infantry left the vehicle, the missile launcher was carried by the AT team. For the Puma the ATGM launcher will be fixed, but both the infantry squad and the IFV will share the same stock of missiles.
I did not know this, always great to learn new things from you.
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:Can you elaborate? I've never heard of any "great powers" (USA, Soviet Union, NATO?) stopping any cooperation between the Scandinavian countries.
I am sadly not a very good at Norwegian history. I spoke with a actual historian awhile back who talked about the cooperation between the countries. We also tried to unify defense and such with Denmark and Sweden. This did not get anywhere however because of political pressure from the US and the Soviet Union. Instead Norway and Denmark joined NATO. It was also attempted again to unify the Scandinavian countries later, but this deal got killed by Denmark and Sweden joining the EU.
Norwegian history, or Scandinavian history is very hard is since it is a pain in the ass with a lot of propaganda and romanticism.
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:The Netherlands were offered to buy the Puma IFV or cooperate in the development during a very early stage. They opted for the CV9035 instead, because of their wish for a 35 mm gun, the lower cost of the CV9035 and the earlier possible introduction.
I am not sure how deep the cooperation between the Netherlands and Norway is, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be as deep as the cooperation between the Netherlands and Germany currently is - though it might have been a closer cooperation at the time the CV90 was chosen.
As far as I understand it is not nearly as deep as with Germany, it is mostly to save money on procurement.
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:At the same time Germany and Norway are buying submarines together, but the Dutch are not interested in the U212 class. So European military procurement is still in a pretty bad shape, where cooperation is limited and rarely used when it could save costs.
It's all about politics. And right now it is a mess.
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:Well, the title of the topic is a bit biased and certainly makes it look like this is a bashing topic only, I didn't have the intention to bash anything for no reason.
It was sarcastic. But I believe every choice should be properly bashed, the more popular the more bashing needed.
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:The Norwegians essentially dislike(d) all things that the Swiss also disliked on the evaluated CV9030: low troop compartment size (that's why tthe SPz 2000 has an enlarged one), bad thermal imagers (thats why the CV90 Mk II has second generation thermal imagers) and no hunter-killer capability (too expensive to fix for the Swiss Army).
____
Not very well known, but Germany actually tested an upgraded version of the CV9030CH in late 2001/early 2002. It was rejected for several reasons, which is why the Puma development was started in Fall 2002. I am still searching for more info on that, but there is an archived question in the Swiss parliament, where a member of one party questions the value of the CV9030CH in the Swiss Army based on the German critique. I.e. it appears that the CV90 in Germany was fitted with a mine protection kit, which was still found unsatisfactory. The basic conception of the vehicle has been claimed to be based on the ideas of the 70s and 80s. The weight of nearly 30 tons of the up-armored variants was too close to the weight limit of the chassis, limiting the growth potential and upgradability of the CV90 in thte future. The exact wording of the Swiss MP says that the CV90 got "the last place" in the evaluation, suggesting it was tested against other vehicles (or concepts for future vehicles). I'll try to look into that topic.
Even the Swedes realized this, hence the SEP program. Though, Norway will most likely use the CV90 for a long time, just like the M113.
-
50 minutes ago, SH_MM said:
-snip-
From what I have been told from the army, the Bradley failed the mobility trials, the Marder was too heavy. Probably the width had something with it to do too, since we have a quite a myriad of small tunnels, bridges and roads in Norway.
The lack of 8 man troop capacity did not help either.
The Norwegian army's doctrine favored mobility and firepower over armor, this can be seen with the NM-116, which was built as a substitute IKV 91, since the army could not get themselves a IKV 91. Since the CV90 was designed specifically for the Fennoscandia terrain it had a direct advantage.
Our AT doctrine does not need IFVs with ATGMs, instead we have dedicated AT teams transported inside the CV90.
The 30mm was judged to be the best balance between firepower and ammunition capacity.Why the ASCOD lost? I can see 3 main reasons:
Cost, the army back in the day was very interested in the vehicles cost effectiveness, which can be seen with the M113, Leopard 2 and alike.
Cooperation with Sweden, during the Cold war, the Northern countries tried very hard to cooperate and unify, but pressure from the great powers stopped this from completely happening.
Industry, Norway wants to grow its domestic industry, this had a very big role to play.This probably caused a domino effect with Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands. We cooperate closely with the Netherlands and buy in bulk together to lower costs.
But since this is becoming a bash-the-British-CV90-Thread, why not add some of the Norwegian soldiers own complaints about the CV9030N:
The troop compartment is disliked for squeezing so many troops into such a smalls space, like tuna can.The lack of hunter-killer capability, apparently fixed now with a RCWS used for hunter-killer.
Lack of MGs, causing the commander sometimes to grab his HK and fire out from his hatch.And shitty thermals.
-
15 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:
So you're essentially giving up power density, adding weight, and chopping a perfectly good ricer up that could use a turbo and a honda vtech swap?
Hench the "thinking about". First of course we want to turbocharge it and mess with it to get more power, suspension and exhaust upgrades included. And tires.
Any suggestions?
-
Has anyone here tried to make a hybrid out of their car?
Me and a mate have been thinking about making a "Separate parallel hybrid" out of his Honda Civic 1996.
Idea was to take out the spare wheel, rework the rear suspension and wheels, cut out holes for the axles, add a differential and a forklift electric motor inside where the spare wheel was.
The rear seats would be completely removed, and batteries would be placed where they seats was located.
-
Two articles about the CV90 and it's development for Scandinavian readers:
http://www.ointres.se/udes.htm -
6 minutes ago, SH_MM said:
Damian called it the PT-91M2.
And a link he posted: https://katowice.tvp.pl/33765287/bum...zacji-twardego
-
-
Free Piston linear generator.
Crappy wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-piston_linear_generator
And two videos:
Not sure where to post this, but I think this could be a really good option for Series Hybrid electric AFVs.
-
Out of curiosity, why are some vehicles 3,4m wide?
Does it have to do with tunnel width?
Here in Norway, our roads are usually 2,5m, 3,1m and wider than 3,6m.
-
5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
Isn't literally every other western tracked APC/IFV? (Other than my beautiful Namer <3)
This is a box:
-
5 hours ago, MrMartin said:
Kurganets-25 with its modular side armour removed.
The Kurganets-25 reminds me a lot like a gold plated M113.
Very square.
-
-
-
As you all know, I am Norwegian. And I think we do camping a bit different from the average person from the US.
Here in Norway we have the allemannsretten law, which in simplified terms means anyone can go anywhere. No need to concern about private property when hiking.
So how most Norwegians hike, is by driving/walking to the foot of the mountain/area they wish to hike and then traveling to your destination. We have no designated camping spots in the same manner as in the US. So you have to find a good spot yourself. We also lack prepared trails usually, unless it is heavily used. We can also chop down trees and vegetation to make a campsite or a fire, as long as you don't leave a big scar.
Campfire rules are simple, don't light them between the specified months, except in mountainous terrain or besides lakes/oceans. And also try and stay at least 200m from trails or cabins.I have friends in the US that laughed at me about how much equipment I usually carried while camping, saying you could just sleep on the hood.
I find it hard however to get a truck up here:
What you see here is heavy fog obscuring a steep drop into a river, probably a 50m fall. We have a use a set of chains bolted into the cliff face to get past this area.
Here is good view of the valley further up when the fog is gone:
The weather was kinda meh this day, demonstrated by my friend:
For those that wonder, we went to a place called Molladalen, very beautiful place. You ascend about 800m I believe, so a easy trip.
I sometimes go hiking in the mountains when I am bored, usually I don't need more than a jacket or a par of sunglasses if the weather is not shitty.
Anyone interested in winter hiking? It is by far my favorite:
I love it, well as long as I remember to check my hands and feet once in awhile, almost lost my hand once.
-
What is the bustle for?
-
On 29.12.2016 at 10:06 AM, LoooSeR said:
M1128
What is that on the exhaust of the Stryker?
On 23.6.2017 at 11:42 AM, LoooSeR said:
What is the name of this vehicle?
-
22 hours ago, roguetechie said:
Xoon,
Thank you very much for this PDF! It's extremely useful, thought provoking, informative, and the focused comprehensiveness in it's coverage of hybrid vehicles for military use without the extraneous stuff that doesn't apply.
(like self congratulatory smug preachiness, moral exceptionalism, and the other bullshit topics about hybrid anything attract)
As I'm reading it, I am actually gaining clarity on stuff that resources like technology of tanks only managed to confuse and frustrate me about even further.
There are several people off this site I'd like to pass a copy of this to if you are OK with my doing so.
Feel free to share it as much as you want, anything I find for that matter. It's not mine anyways.
Found it at Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt's site (Norwegian Military Science Institute).
-
It just struck me, but, does AFVs use ABS?
-
Should this be categorized as misinformation or just very bad research at the topic?
Also, the amount of inaccurate depictions and misconceptions is staggering. Pretty sure the artist just reused old assets.
-
Good points, just wanted to add my two cents.
-
19 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:
Did it work in practice? Yes and no.
The egg-shaped hull definitely provides more armor relative to the internal volume, and this is geometrically provable. A circle has more area relative to its perimeter than a square does, and the egg-shaped tanks will have more internal volume relative to their surface area for the same reason.
But the T-54's hull does a better job of utilizing volume close to the ground, which means it has a lower profile even if it pays a little extra weight for it. Given that there weren't effective countermeasures to HEAT warheads at that time, making a slightly less efficient shape that was easier to hide and just got hit less was probably a better idea than making a more efficient shape with a higher profile.
Also, not all internal volume is created equal. A tank's turret looks to have all sorts of internal volume, but it's hard to utilize that volume in practice because the turret is divided down the center by the gun breech. The egg-shaped hulls forced rather shorter turret baskets than one would expect for a hull of that height because they were forced to fit into the funky-shaped envelope.
I see what you are saying. But I feel the egg shape falls flat because of this:
Yes, a circle provides the most volume alone, followed by the hexagon when grouped together.
But the thing is, most equipment is usually square, some with rounded edges. Radios, engines, ammo racks, seats, the turret basket/floor in the horizontal plane. This makes it really hard to use the extra volume created by a circle, as visualized above. All this volume becomes wasted and may add more weight to the vehicle. You could, of course, use fuel tanks, hydraulic lines, cabling or specially made equipment to better utilize the volume. Though this is not very optimal. The egg shape also removes some useful volume where it angles inwards, before it angles out again.
Considering the wasted volume, the need for casting for because of the complex shapes and the added height of the vehicle, it is really hard to say if this shape really pays off. The angled side can be thinner, but it also has to be thicker than a similar RHA plate, since it is cast. And with the lost volume, you might end up finding the flat RHA plate lighter.
It is a little unfair to compare the bottom of the hulls, since the egg shape could still be flat, at the cost of less blast mine protection. But it still shows off the amount of wasted volume.
I feel the Russians really nailed with their shape, combing the best of both worlds, (The green is optional to show protection against blast mines):
-
Felt like sharing this gem:
http://www.ffi.no/no/Rapporter/08-01220.pdfA report on hybrid electric vehicles.
A neat idea here is to use the hybrid electric system to power a ETC gun. This could solve the power issue, at the cost of no or reduced mobility during firing.
-
3 hours ago, Collimatrix said:
The US egg-hulled tanks (M48, M103, M60) were, IIRC designed with ellpitical curved hulls that provided decent ballistics shaped plus a high volume to surface area ratio, to keep them light relative to the volume they protected.
The problem with this is that the hulls end up being rather tall.
I see the the reasons why, but did it really work out that well in practice?
Does it provide any more protection than the T-54s hull shape, for the same weight?
-
7 hours ago, Xlucine said:
I like the hull shape, they've copied the cross section of the US elliptical cast hulls but without actually casting the hull
What is the advantage of this hull cross section, say over the IS-7s hull cross section?
General cars and vehicles thread.
in Open Discussion
Posted
Now, where do I find a gas turbine starter?