Xoon

Side view of Europanzer, a failed Franco-German tank project, predecessor to the Leopard 1 and AMX-30. Same tank that Zuk posted.

According to this guy, that wrong call already came. Thoughts @Alzoc? Also, does anyone have a link to the new directive he is talking about in this video?

So we are not phasing out the old M113 in the near future?

Won't having two different platforms cost more in the long run?

Why not use the CV90 as a platform instead?

Having fun are we?

So anything from SMGs, automatic pistols, assault rifles, HMGs?

What counts as a machine gun in the UK?

Visegrad group is certainly working on that part, being a huge thorn in the EU's back.

Not sure if anyone has posted this: https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=a9Xm2_1527726253 Can't manage to embed it. It is a video of the parkland shooter planning his attack. I think it is pretty easy to see what motivates school shooters.

If you are referring to me, then my point was not to defend against Russia, just to simply ease up the growing pressure from the EU and NATO on Russia. For North Europe, Turkey and the middle east is not really relevant.

Here in Norway we have a famous case of a woman going on a nacht (after party, party) with 2-3 other guys and getting high on MDMA. They had intercourse, and the woman later accused them of rape. This case got huge media coverage. The media and the people siding with the woman. The court found the men not guilty however. The woman did not like the verdict and doxed the men. This caused them to receive a massive wave of harassment and being forced to isolate themselves. They got their life ruined. Which is why the identity of the person is protected.

Does this actually have to do with protection, or is it just for fashion? Because I feel a lot of armored car producers try to make their vehicles cool over practical in some cases:

Does the vehicle have a reason to look so funky?

There is really no point in having a transmission for a series hybrid electric tank. The PWM motor controller works as the gearbox, the gearbox would only cause a drop in efficiency and take up considerable space. All motors should be geared, as it is more efficient than adding poles to reduce the RPM and increase the torque. This is accomplished by the final drive. For wheeled death traps, it can be a pretty huge thing. Being able to remove the drive shafts under the crew compartment would mean a much lower vehicle. Being able to move the motors outside the chassis and inside the wheels would greatly increase space. Also, the vehicle can effectively torque steer. However, it comes at a cost. You can only fit a so and so big motor and reduction gear inside the wheel, limiting power. The motor and reduction gear is also more exposed to damage and the outside environment, leading to more wear and tear. Cooling can also be a issue. I would not expect more than 600hp combined. So no super heavy wheeled death traps.

I guessed it was Volvo Penta, since they had produced engines for tanks in the past, IKV 90 for example. The CB90 and CV90 shares engines by the way, as a example. But a Renault engine makes a lot more sense.

Is the engine, the Volvo Penta D9-500?

I am curious, why do we see so many tanks in cities?

"This obligation of mutual defence is binding on all EU countries. However, it does not affect the neutrality of certain EU countries and is consistent with the commitments of EU countries which are NATO members." I believe this is why Sweden signed it. Not sure what this line entails, but the only way of not affecting the neutrality of a nation, is that they can't promise to help. I am honestly not sure what the British were thinking with the "Norway model". They won't really get to take advantage of leaving the EU without another model. Unless they wanted to reduce immigration. Hopefully the EU will continue this development. A constitution better be made openly for people to critique and improve. There are so many ways a constitution can be exploited and used for evil. Simply copying the US constitution won't work this time. Part of the problem is the lack of protectionism for the member states. In my area for example, it is very common for a huge German business to sweep in and buy up a local company with a revolutionary new technology. Then move the company abroad, to Germany or Eastern Europe for cheaper labor. Then the local company is gone, the workers lose their job, and country loses another income source it has spent lots of resources developing. This really kills any industry development in the region, forcing us to import from abroad, which again, Germany which is one of our biggest trade partners, profit from. For the Eastern European countries, they get all their factories bought up by foreign companies. Essentially having everything bought up and dictated by foreign investors. A huge fear in Norway is that, large European companies could sweep in at buy up critical infrastructure like the energy sector and jack up the power cost. Ironically, the EU is extremely trade protectionist against outside members, meaning it conserves the companies that reside inside it, meaning the bigger companies in the more industrially advanced and technological advanced countries eat up the smaller ones in the smaller members without any competition from similar sized or larger companies outside the EU. As you said, nothing is free. Free trade creates large profits for the companies in the joining member initially, then it gets eaten by a bigger foreign company, killing local business. This is what the workers fear. While this is true, the US has a very good reason for keeping military presence in Europe. It makes a collective or regional less attractive (Nordic Defence Union, European Army). They provide protection for favorable trade deals and political support. It gives them political leverage in the countries in the affected countries, just watch when the US goes on another War on Terrorism or similar, right behind is the countries they provide protection for. We like to call them the coalition. If a country refuses, the US can pull out its military support, making the country vulnerable, and at the mercy of other regional powers (Russia for example, in the case of Europe). The fear is that the region loses any saying in laws and politics, and suffers economically as a consequence. This is a very sad truth. It would ease the tension in the Baltic sea and the killzone up in Svalbard. Though, the arctics are becoming increasingly more valuable and more and more nation are arguing over their claims. The idea was not to make them buffer states, but a large Neutral Union would make the Russians more at ease. Being trapped in the Baltic, or in at the Danish strait, or in North Sea encourages them to invade their neighbors to secure their core. Here is NATO's border with Russia. As you can see, they are completely boxed in: Blue= NATO. Light Blue= Possible Future NATO member. White= Neutral Orange= Russian Allies not forced to join a war with Russia. Here is the EU border with Russia, they in-boxing is even worse: Green= EU Yellow= EFTA/possible future EU members. Nordic Union, Russia suddenly has some breathing space in the North (economically), and the front line is only Latvia: Neutral= White Green= EU Orange = Russian Allies. Light Blue = Possible Future NATO. This is a great idea. This sounds like a good start. The biggest issue is the fear that the member country will lose control over the immigration into its borders. As long as the country can reliably handle it. Taking in too many only results in poor integration, which leaves many with poor language skills, poverty or homelessness. Also, refugees, as in people fleeing war, needing a asylum until the war or event in question is over, should not travel past several countries that give them asylum just to get to the richer welfare states. Equipment commonality is a good start. Fighters, ships, AFVs, infantry equipment etc. Probably the US or China.

I am honestly very skeptical of the European Union. I love the idea, but it has several weaknesses that I can't ignore. Why hasn't anyone considered Sweden or Finland? Sweden has always been strictly neutral (ignoring their trade of course). They refused to join NATO, so why would they approve a European Army Alliance? Most EU members are a part of NATO, which are obliged to help any other member that is attacked. I assume the same would be for a European Alliance. This would break one of Sweden's core policies. Same goes for Finland, which will not join NATO, unless Sweden does, and I assume the same of a European Alliance. Post-war, Norway, Sweden,Denmark and Finland almost entered a Scandinavian Defense Alliance. However, because of Soviet influence on Finland, American influence on Norway, and Swedish neutrality, this failed. So I am not sure if EU will succeed. Though Norway is not part of the EU, we are part of the EØS/EFTA. Anti-EFTA and Pro-EU sentiment is growing. Some people want to leave EFTA, since they claim it controls too much of our trade and that we can benefit from controlling our own trade. Some people also feel it removes our sovereignty, because EU law supersedes national law. Simplified, it is a Brexit/Norxit question. On the other side, people want to join the EU, because they feel EFTA is basically like being a EU member without having a saying. They claim by becoming a fully fledged member, we can become more influential and profit even more from the trade with the EU. But most do not care, and are happy with the current situation. I for one am not very sure. The EU lacks unity, a proper leader and a solid economic system. Common issues people have seems to be: -Too much power around Germany/France. -Richer countries profit off poorer countries. -Lack of unity, no group identity, no nation building, people seem to scattered. -Lack of a known head of state, or government. People have no idea who leads the EU. The closest figure is Merkel. -Lack of consistency from politicians between countries. People don't trust politicians when they make grand promises in, for example France, while much milder suggestions in Eastern/Northern Europe. -Fear of imperialism. The EU for some feels like a power grab by larger European powers. People are afraid that agreeing will eventually lead to loss of sovereignty and and all power. -EU Immigration policy. -In the case of Norway, we have been the Danish sphere of influence until 1397-1814, the Swedish sphere of influence from 1814-1905, the English sphere of influence from 1905-1918, the German sphere of influence from 1918-1945, and currently under the American sphere of influence. Being transferred to the EU sphere of influence would not really be that attractive. I fun though experiment would be if Sweden,Denmark and Finland left the EU, and joined in a Nordic Union with Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Åland, Faroe Islands, Gotland and Svalbard. With combined economy, military and politics. Regarding the Baltic states (Lithuania, Estinoia and Lativa), I am not sure. Estinia has really tried to make itself a Nordic country, but it might crash with a European Union Army. Why this would be a fun though experiment is that a Nordic Union could declare Neutrality, acting as a huge (in size) buffer-state, and as a bridging state, improving relations between Russia and the EU. The same may be for the US and Europe, considering how relations are souring. Though not sure if this would ever happen. I wish for the EU to succeed, as long as it does not become the Franco-German union diplomatically annexing Europe.

Yes, it was what I was thinking. But wouldn't the electric motor give a much faster spool up time? Also, hooking it up the the main battery of the vehicle, it could use excess energy to power the motors, or use regenerative breaking the power equipment. Not necessarily, combining the power of the electric motor, with zero turbolag would be the best. Idea was to eliminate turbolag. But a electric compressor is also a great way of getting short bursts of power. What about a electrically assisted hyperbar turbo engine, with a electric starter/generator/regenerative break/electric motor. When the driver presses the accelerator, the electric motor in the turbo spools the turbo up to optimal RPM istantly, while the starter motor on the crankshaft provides high torque while the motor reaches its optimal RPM. The turbine helps the motor keep the turbo at optimal RPM. When the vehicle slows down, the excess energy in the turbo is scavenged, and the regenerative break recovers some of the energy and stores it in the battery. A exhaust scavenger system could also be used. When on overwatch, the turbine would power the equipment, and when one wants to silently change position, one can use the electric motor and battery for short, slow and silent movement.

Just out of curiosity, doesn't hybrids with electrically assisted turbochargers make the hyberbar engine obsolete?

I was thinking about the fact that filling the wheels with water would reduce the effectiveness of the wheels, and the sandbags would weigh down the vehicle. Also about the psychological part, if the troops feel safe, then it is good enough makeshift measure. Reminds me of how the Norwegian Armed Forces used to sometimes fill the empty cavity in the doors of their cars with sand for extra bullet protection in the middle east.