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
    I know this theory. The hight cost of the Type-90 comes from its very low rate of production.
  2. Serge
    Because you don’t have space to put armor modules at the front of the engine. ??? With tracks it’s useless. It’s even dangerous because you have a diving trend wich reduces the mobility on soft ground. Yes. Compared to a Mk3, not compared to another tank chassis.
  3. Serge
    With the engine at the front, the overall hight of the chassis is superior. So, both the volume and the weight of chassis are higher.
  4. Serge
    Maybe, there are other points than FIBUA compatibility. For exemple : One priority for designers was the compactness into the turret. An other point is : can they design an efficient 55cal barrel ?
  5. Serge
    No. It’s older and not Russian specific.
  6. Serge
  7. Serge
    Maybe an evolution.
  8. Serge
    So, infantry battalions have FO and cavalry regiments don’t ! And why can an Atlas kit can be mounted on the front of the TC hatch.
  9. Serge
    I know this theory. But are the FO still not under armor ? How are- they working now ?
  10. Serge
    If so, why this tank is isolated and without regimental rings ?
  11. Serge
    The question is : why such a large sight ? So, it’s not a basic tank.
  12. Serge
    I don’t know what is that exactly but it’s clearly not a TC sight : - Tsahal is used to use its tanks as FO. Which is a very good point. Remember the former Atlas kit with its large binoculars. - this tank is not marked like belonging to a cavalry regiment ; - and at last : if this a new TC sight why is it lonesome ? Why can’t we see a full squadron fitted with ? How can REME maintain in the field one isolated sight among a fleet of a standardised sight ?
  13. Serge
    Not exactly.
  14. Serge
    Because this tank is not a part of a cavalry regiment.
  15. Serge
    Artillery forward observer.
  16. Serge
    To deceive an APS, you must first work on the path of flight of the aggressor.
  17. Serge
    Ah the very beginning of the Krab program, the barrel was French.
  18. Serge
    Yes. They have MRAP, but they HMG, mortar and ATGM on wheels too.
  19. Serge
    Budget.
  20. Serge
    Yes. My bad.
  21. Serge
    No news about the GD Griffin 3 MPF proposal ?
  22. Serge
    Misfired ammo canister.
  23. Serge
    I still don’t understand two points : - did the US Army take a clear decision about the armoured platoon organization it wants ? Does it wants a classical « 1 section per AFV » system or can it accept to go for a 2 AFV to carry a section ? - what is the interest in having an optionally maned IFV ? I can understand the need for an UGV, but what kind of task can one give to a vehicle without its crew ? Today, when considering the autonomous car, the industry knows it’s impossible to reach the level 5. It’s far too complexe. So, because land combat situations are the most complexe situation, the idea of having an optionally maned plateforme sounds strange.
  24. Serge
    Strange. When I was introduced to the SPz-Puma in 2003, I can’t remind the protection level was low. And the name was not Puma yet.
  25. Serge
    It was the trend for Nexter during this period. Look at the Vextra.
×
×
  • Create New...