Serge
-
Posts
977 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Serge
-
-
VBMR-Light :
-
New French universal pattern :
-
The French RTD company changes its name. Call it Arquus now.
https://www.lopinion.fr/blog/secret-defense/industrie-rtd-devient-arquus-149544
-
-
Game of thrones season 8 spoiler ?
-
Swedish CV90 begins 120mm mortar fire trials
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/swedish-cv90-begins-120mm-mortar-firing-trials/
-
-
On 4/16/2018 at 8:16 PM, Collimatrix said:
It might be that the bottleneck in the CTA is designed to be disposable. The portion of the bore closest to the burning propellant usually takes the most damage, so if the cartridge case takes some of the damage instead of the bore throat, it could allow higher propellant burn temperatures without sacrificing barrel life.
At at the front of the 40CTA, you have a lubricant past to protect the bore when firing.
On 4/16/2018 at 8:16 PM, Collimatrix said:The design does have the advantage that it has no exposed case material, while the rimless ammunition used in small arms has a fair amount of exposed area. The rimmed ammo used in tank guns has close to no exposure though, so the so-called "cased telescoped" ammunition only enjoys an advantage vs. small arms ammunition in that respect.
The CT ammunition has the disadvantage that the cartridge case is completely cylindrical with, so far as I can tell, no taper to aid in extraction. That could make getting the rounds out of the chamber at higher pressures harder. On the other hand though, they are being pushed out of the chamber rather than pulled, and that may be a more positive way to get the spent case out.
The main problem was a sealing default. It’s now solved.
-
-
-
Which configuration is the final one ? Tandem or side-by-sided ?
-
Does anyone know the pilot position of the final Kurganets-25 configuration ?
-
-
Milrem to support Estonia’s CV-9035 :
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/bae-systems-milrem-support-estonias-cv9035/
-
On 4/19/2018 at 10:51 AM, LoooSeR said:
- Bow gunners are questinable decision in a first place. I guess i can live with 1 such gunner with control of AGS in RCWS in frontal part of BMPT with ~200 degrees arc. But having for example commander equipped with RCWS would make that additional gunner kind of less usefull.
Having one or two gunners is very different. Two men can concentrate on two directions. One man can only have one of them under control.
With an improved AG travers, it can become very interesting because it’s possible to cross both arc of fire.
If you transfert one bow gunner task to the tank commander, you will burden its job. Never forget that, into a troop, one of the tank commander is a troop commander too (even a patrol commander too).
Having a 5 men crew is a big advantage.
-
On 4/19/2018 at 2:22 AM, alanch90 said:
Hi im new to this forum and i found the debate on the BMPT very interesting. I think that in this debate there are two levels or aspects that should be discussed separatedly. From now on i will refer to BMPT concept as Tank Support Fighting Vehicle (TSFV).
Firstly, the theoretical need for such a dedicated vehicle and the economical and logistical cost of it. So far, two armies have recognized the need for a specialized tank support vehicle which are Russia and Israel based on their experiences in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Lebanon and Gaza in asymmetrical type warfare. In that sense a TSFV should provide defense primarily against enemy infantry in the same way a SPAAG provides air defense, i like to think about it as a "bodyguard" for tanks. It has been said that Infantry and their IFVs can fulfill this role very efficiently, which is true (BTW, in the conflicts aforementioned, tanks suffered casualties when they were in poor and often non existent coordination with infantry), by definition infantry is one of the most multipurpose units for ground warfare. However, mechanized infantry also has its limitations: in case of an ambush the moment infantry dismounts they instantly become easier targets to enemy than tanks, in case the infantry doesn't dismount and chooses to fight from within their IFV they can´t be nowhere near as effective with their weapons and also IFVs have lesser protection levels than tanks. In both theoretical cases, we would end up with 3-4 tank crewmen, 7-9 infantry dismounts plus 3 IFV crewmen in danger for a total of 13-16 possible cassualties. If you replace the IFV with a TSFV you get not only less people involved but also better protected and with superior firepower. From that perspective and for that specific mission, a TSFV makes sense and is preferable over mechanized infantry.Fully agree.
QuoteSecondly, about the specific BMPT to be adopted for Russian army. In general, i like it but i think that its far from perfect, i´ll make a list of the things i would change and/or improve:
- To navigate either urban or mountainous terrain you need high maneuverability as well to be able to escape ambushes. This means to be able to NEUTRAL TURN and GOOD REVERSE SPEED, which are two things that T-72/90 can´t do. So BMPT should have had a different transmission system to allow this.
If the BMPT’s task is to support T90 squadrons, it’s not a problem.
It would have been a problem if it was suppose to support a more mobile tank.
Quote- Better stations for bow gunners. I think that having bigger crews is a good idea, 5 pairs of eyes see a much more than 3 provided the have the correct tools and the right crew layout. In this case, the bow gunners hatches should have have been rotatable (like old school commanders cuppola) and/or the grenade launchers should have been mounted differently on fully rotatable RCWS. I can imagine several simple solutions to this. Currently the bow gunners and grenade launchers in the BMPT are mostly wasted potential.
The limited travers of AG17 is a point to improve. But the current design offers the best protection and is very affordable.
Quote- At last i would have made a slight modifications to the ATGM mounts: perhaps some sort of hard point mounts (like on the wings of attack helicopters and airplanes) to mount not only ATGMs but also MANPADS, rocket pods, flamethrowers, recoiless guns, etc depending on the mission. This way you can give the vehicle much greater flexibility and utility in any scenario outside its specific purpose of providing defense against enemy infantry using guerrilla type tactics.
Russian companies are always producing missiles with different warheads. So, it can already provide what you call for.
Manpads are specific.
If you want to improve the AD capability, you must transfert your BMPT to the AD artillery C2.
An other option could be to adopte ISTAR kit to be mounted in place of the Attaka launchers with dedicated operators in place of both bow gunners.
Mixted with classical BMPTs, units can provide both close in fire support and close in EW support.
Quote
About the discussion of main armament: I think that 30mm autocannons are currently the best compromise. Firstly you have logistics commonality with the rest of the armored fleet. Secondly, you can fire up to four types of ammunition. Thirdly, you can carry much more ammo than, lets say a 57mm autocannon. Fourth and very important: the 30mm autocannons don´t protrude much from the vehicle which is a VERY important aspect for urban warfare often overlooked, actually one of the reasons the israelis kept the 120mm L44 gun is because it almost doesn´t protrude much from the Merkava and doesnt hinder as much its ability to take sharp corners in dense cities (or traverse its turret to actually use the gun).
TLDR: I think that the concept behind the BMPT has solid foundations but the actual BMPT to be adopted, while overall good, can be improved a lot.Yes.
-
This catalog shows the gap between companies proposals and the real Army purchase policy. For instance, we have been suffering from decades a deep lack of armored maintenance and repair vehicles in spite of there availability.
Don’t know if it was already shown, the Leclerc T40 NEXTER proposal.
It was made as a first entry capable ISTAR platform.
-
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
So will they be scrapped or just sent to get dust in some remote long term storage?
I think scrapped.
They will be very old. The upgrade capability is poor and the barrel is not NATO compatible. It fires a light 105mm shell.
-
SEPAR kit is so heavy, 10RCR is beyond its limits.
It was designed during Afghanistan but it’s no more used.
-
And you have to take into account the terminal effect of calibres.
If it takes you a 3 12,7mm rounds burst to knock out a vehicle, how many 7,62mm will you use ? And once you have the number, you have the volume consumed.
-
I propose a new topic to regroup information about French AFVs.
Days after days, information is overwhelmed under the inflow of photos about anything and everything.
It can be interesting to try to have dedicated topics to ease the quality of exchanges.
So, if you have already posted interesting photos, documentations and view about French AFVs, you can quote them here.
-
Yes.
12,7 HMG integration is not so cumbersome
-
1 hour ago, Sovngard said:
I've heard that this is especially the case regarding the commander's seat (in terms of lack of comfort).
Both commander and gunner’s seats are identical.
The only difference is the commander adjustment’s got a rear stopper to reduce the setting by 3 cm. Why ? To avoid to pierce fuel tanks. Without the stopper, the seat can protrude from the turret basket.
My goal is to protect the crew from shrapnel. So, I would have manufactured seats with ballistic materials.
We have to remain that in France, people above 185cm were not permitted to become tankist, but tank commanders.
So my knees suffered a little bit against the gunner’s seat.
QuoteFor what purpose ?
More tools ?
More space for the crew personal equipment ?
Or just fitting the tools currently mounted outside (towing cable, entrenching tool, sledgehammer, ...) inside ?
Look at any tank at war. You never have enough place.
The only external storage you have (on the RC standard, not the RCR), is a basket designed to carry 4 of the old butyl waterproof tank crew pack. During the Gulf war, crewmen stored MREs between the hull and the add-on armor.
In the French troop, you have a truck per troop to carry burden. But, in the real life you must be as autonomous as possible.
My solution would have been a mixt between the TML-105 storage for the front and the sides and a Merkava like rear basket.
QuoteSo, it would be a kind of lightened version of the SEPAR kit ?
SEPAR is too much heavy.
I’m just thinking about internal layer on some dedicated places. AMX-10RC can’t be burdened. It’s very dangerous considering its steering system.
In 2002, Australian SAS LRPV received 4cm thick anti-mine composite floor plates. This kind of solution would have been acceptable.
-
5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:
Lovely
A tool which worth a fil of its own.
United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
I don’t know companies uninterested in producing for customers.
I may be wrong but...