Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Serge

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    977

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Serge

  1. Serge
    Yes. And BMP are armorless IFV.
  2. Serge
    Because of the flotation request.
  3. Serge
  4. Serge
    About the LRIP of the VBMR Griffon, in French : http://forcesoperations.com/le-griffon-prend-son-envol/ The most important : starting from the 93rd, all Griffon will received the new brown colour with the modular camouflage (woodland, desert and winter).
  5. Serge
    It was said too much complex by PSM own representatives.
  6. Serge
    This is why GIAT Industries developed the T21 turret from the Leclerc MBT one. Changing the turret can be a good option for an upgrade.
  7. Serge
    It’s the first time I notice how an external coaxial machine gun pod interferes with crew vision.
  8. Serge
    Yes. In other IFV, chassis are higher and so heavier, easier to hit, less mobile....
  9. Serge
    Without torsion bars, you can do plenty of things.
  10. Serge
    This is why the chassis can be kept low.
  11. Serge
  12. Serge
    https://www.fnss.com.tr/content/images/zaha-haber-2.jpg
  13. Serge
    We are not used to see 12,7mm coax.
  14. Serge
    Suspension is part of the protection. This is why it’s interesting to show it. I was wrong. In fact, I used to see the Leclerc without the HMG in place, so it looks like shorter.
  15. Serge
    Gorgeous. I find the coax HMG barrel a little bit long. Do you have pictures of the suspension ?
  16. Serge
    Bradley was designed with anthropomorphic datas of the 70’s. This is why there is a lack.
  17. Serge
    70% ??
  18. Serge
    The main problem here is the minimum distance you need to see the ground. At hight speed on an open ground, it’s not tricky. But, when driving on narrow tracks, it’s better to see the ground very close to the front of the chassis. So, when considering the position of the driver, designers try to place the driver as much as the front as possible. With the front engine configuration, you have the transmission wich move the driver backward. This is not good. To compensate, they are force to raise its position or to work on the slope of the UFP and so, to lower the front protection. For exemple, with the Leclerc MBT, we are very satisfied considering this point. An other point to take into account is how easy it’s to use a doser blade.
  19. Serge
    The main problem here is the minimum distance you need to see the ground. At hight speed on an open ground, it’s not tricky. But, when driving on narrow tracks, it’s better to see the ground very close to the front of the chassis. So, when considering the position of the driver, designers try to place the driver as much as the front as possible. With the front engine configuration, you have the transmission wich move the driver backward. This is not good. To compensate, they are force to raise its position or to work on the slope of the UFP and so, to lower the front protection. For exemple, with the Leclerc MBT, we are very satisfied considering this point. An other point to take into account is how easy it’s to use a doser blade.
  20. Serge
    This point is interesting. So, do you regard Mk-1 and 2 as both different generations of the Merkava program or do you think they are the same generation ? In this case, the Mk-1 is the first batch and the Mk-2 is the first standard generation of Merkava tanks.
  21. Serge
    Do you asking about the driver field of view ?
  22. Serge
    Yes. And they have other problems such as : - complexe cooling (big problem for the SPz-Puma), - bad field of view for driver.
  23. Serge
    This mythe is simply a basic of armoured vehicle design you have to take into account. When Tal introduced the Mk3 around May 1989, it was a part of the discussion.
  24. Serge
    The hole was kept for command post use of the tank and for training too.
  25. Serge
    Sufficient is the right term. It’s not possible to integrate heavy armor modules with front engine. This is a reason why other countries never made this choice. There are others problems of course like : - the diving trend of the tank at speed ; - the problem for thermal sight ; - the pointing problem for the barrel ; - the hull down position can be dangerous. The Mk3 chassis is completely redesigned compared to the first generation. Front engine has plenty of advantages for the tank crew everyday life. It makes possible to have a modular rear volume wich is a good point other tanks lack. And, as a former tank commander, I preferre front engine even if it gives plenty of drawbacks in tank design.
×
×
  • Create New...