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

Serge

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    976

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Serge

  1. Serge
    Generaly speaking, I never answer to such a question because it’s the start of unrealistic discussions of technology fanboys unknowing real. But, I can say : - never forget AMX-10RC is a very 80’s light tank. So, any improvement must be cheap provide. - the world famous Serge AFV belief is : an AFV chassis push, carry and tow. - having a good AFV is good, but without its environment, it’s useless. FCS, sights, weapons were good. So, I would have : - modified the seats to have something more confortable and armored. Maybe an harness to sleep ; - introduced a new TC hatch with an umbrella opening (my priority) ; - rearrange external storage to increase them ; - suppress river crossing (both useless and dangerous) to have more storage ; - add spall liner and mine proof plates under pilot seat and turret floor. Considering chassis, I would have add : - 2 rear fuel drop barrels like the Leclerc ones. Fuel drums are compulsory ; - front tools connector to push mine rollers... Considering it’s environment, I would have : - add a fourth 10RC per troop (In France, reccon tanks troops are 3 tanks troops. Leclerc : 4 MBT troops) ; - adopted AMX-10RTT as command post and ARVs instead of VAB and ARV based on trucks. With diminution of 10RC number, I would have transformed some of them in general purpose vehicles able to carry dedicated teams for special tasks such as EW.... When dimounting the barrel and ammo racks, you have plenty of room.
  2. Serge
    Type-74 is the size of AMX-30. when you look at the photo, it’s small.
  3. Serge
    Yes. The Leclerc MBT barrel is very rearward compared the manualy loaded turret. This way, artillery is naturally balanced. Yes. Leclerc MBT was the first tank designed to achieve fire on the move at hight speed. Firing off road at 40km/h to a mobile target is basic. Maybe Type-10 and K2 are better today. Maybe. Yes. Aluminium tracks can’t last as long as classical steel ones. They were found too much expensive to support for peace time. You have such a mechanical link. I don’t know the exact purpose. I was AMX-10RC tank commander. I never served with Leclerc MBT. So, I can’t help for very detailed data. In France, you have Leclerc, Darklabor, Totochez, Rescator. They are not bullshiting.
  4. Serge
    This turret is in active service today in the Russian AFV fleet ? Do you have photos ?
  5. Serge
    Before answering, read the subject. T15 is just parading on the Krasnaya ploshad. Like 57mm, it does not exist yet.
  6. Serge
    No. This is the contrary. It’s easier to train because tasks are easier. Did you train tank crew ? I did. This is why Merkava is a 4 men crew in an outnumbered country ? It make me laugh to read such a thing when talking about Russian AFV. Russian tanks are 3 men crew and... are zippo too. With a big ammo rack in the middle of the crew compartment. So, your analyses are funny. When a Txx is hit, it’s « earth, wind and fire ». BMPT have no big ammos in the crew compartment. It’s far safer than any other Russian AFV today. So, survivability of its crew is better, far better. Decreasing the crew increases tiring. Did you fight in urban area ? I was trained to and I trained too. Your logic is an internet one. BMPT was designed for this purpose and, considering Russian standards, it works. No. BMPTs are complementary to tanks. They are no supposed to replace them. How Shilkas performed in Grozny ? Just a question. This is is not the question here. Because BMPTs with tanks can manœuvre with infantry too. BMPTs are the only AFV to watch in 5 directions and to fire at 3 of them.
  7. Serge
    Which Russian AFV can deal with RPG-29 today ?
  8. Serge
    They have to work with.
  9. Serge
    The Soviet/Russian view considers it’s important to have suppressive fire-power on the front arc of any AFV. But, in the real world, this is a lure because fire-power is only achieved when you can hit what you want to hit. So, considering BMP-3, BTR, BMD, there bow machine guns are useless. They will spray in the wild. They are even sources of problem because they’re : - balistic weakness for low protected vehicles, - complexity for a no result tactical capability ; - consuming precious storage space. BMPT-1 and 2 are quite another story. Bow gunners have : - dedicated observation assets ; - a dedicated sight ; - a dedicated FCS ; - a dedicated AGS launchers which are outside the crew cell and so, protecting it ; - a large ammo band.
  10. Serge
    AGS are dedicated to cope with infantry from 5m to more than 800m. This is a very good choice.
  11. Serge
    Can you propose a simple design which won’t interfere with turret and RWS ? What is the most important sector for an AFV ? What are you doing with this sector in the fight, even in defensive manœuvre ? Which one ? Remind : AFV are working at least as pair team, a « patrol » for some of us. Which is very good because they can work faster and better when it comes to resuply, to watch at night, to repair, to rescue a wonded crewman... Which is worst with a classical MBT. It don’t have 2 grenades launchers keeping a 120deg arc under suppressive fire. Can you describe the fight in Grozny Russians lived ? Did you heard about where anti-tank firing where coming from ? When you are on the left of the hull, are-you keeping the left field of the tank ? Is there a trick in the streets ? No, definitely NO. BMPT is maybe the most important innovation for the Russian armored units.
  12. Serge
    M46
  13. Serge
    You can have thickness to have vacuum for air intake to cool the plate avoiding problems with the thermal sight and improving thermal signature.
  14. Serge
    This photo was taken in 1989. So it’s a Block-I. The following picture shows a Block-III :
  15. Serge
    The ammo drum of the turret floor clearly appears.
  16. Serge
    Ok. This part deals with the differences between Siman 2 and 3. Block I and II are Siman 3A This is is Siman 3B which first appeared in 1994. I think I have what you’re looking for. There is not so much change for the UFP. But tomorrow.
  17. Serge
    The first deep change in armored package occurred in 1994 with Siman-3 B. The loader hatch is now circle. Turret left armored module is larger. The half front roof received add-on armor. And maybe, pilot protection improved.
  18. Serge
    If I have time, I will post modular part of the hull tomorrow. At the front, you only have 4 modular blocks. The LFP can’t be modified.
  19. Serge
    I don’t talk about sponsons. The first Merkava generation hull (Siman 2) was designed with batteries and CBRN filters compartment at the rear. Both compartments were integrated into the hull. There were fuel tanks into the rear sponsons. With the Siman 3, a main change occurred. The crew compartment was more designed as a survival cell. So, fuel tanks were moved at the rear under separated armored boxes. Some sources explaine that the rear fuel tanks are not only self sealing, they can be ejected under certain conditions to avoid fire propagation. This design got more avantages. With rear baskets, it makes very hard to achieve direct hits on the rear clamshell door. It was too heavy. They had to make choices.
  20. Serge
    War rules.
  21. Serge
    It clearly shows the rear fuel tanks introduced by Mk3. The shape is different from the former Mk2 battery/CBRN filter compartment. Adding chains-balls is just an hour welding job, same for the side armored plats bolted on the sides. It doesn’t change the tank design. Even the new mortar position is a very light modification. Look at the Dor Dalet standard. It’s a little bit more complex change, isn’t it ? With the Merkava program, you have only 3 generations of tanks. The same thing occurred with the South-African G6. Prototypes were send to battle in Angola.
  22. Serge
    Mk3. External fuel tanks are vertical. Mk1 was not an initial batch of the so called Mk2 ?
  23. Serge
    Yes, but the question is « how large ? ». Is it large enough for the fins to pass through ? I don’t think so. DU is self sharpening while you have a mushroom effet with tungsten.
  24. Serge
    Hy Marsh. This is exit hole. You don’t have the mark of the fin star or the copper circle.
  25. Serge
    That’s life.
×
×
  • Create New...