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

2805662

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    688

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 2805662

  1. 2805662
    Any sources/pics for this? Was this VBCI?
  2. 2805662
    The name may be to calm the horses - it’s not a tank, it’s a tank killer. Like the pre-war combat car/tank naming convention.
  3. 2805662
    Industry feedback on the draft timeline is due this month, with an industry brief the day before Land Forces 2018 (first week of September). RFT is due last quarter of this year. Rumour has it there may be a sub-Phase that incorporates an amphibious vehicle in the offing.
  4. 2805662
    some more on the XM360 and the effect of a muzzle brake.
  5. 2805662
    https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2006/garm/tuesday/smith.pdf
  6. 2805662
    Another image of the catchily-named ACT3205 Unmanned Tank Killer Concept:
  7. 2805662
    Ah, makes sense. Trying to find the Watervleit Arsenal report for this year. It talked about production of XM35 tubes, but would be good to see whether the XM360 tubes were being produced.
  8. 2805662
    Interesting. Is the pepper pot muzzle device indicative of a 105mm? XM35?
  9. 2805662
    That it does. Nice pic - that vehicle has very clean (but realistic) lines.
  10. 2805662
    Thanks @Ramlaen - shame the original presentation can’t be found. That link is a couple of years too early.
  11. 2805662
    That would be excellent - especially with the dimensions!
  12. 2805662
    So, apart from the APS trial pics (US Army & USMC), and the US Army 1BDE/1 Cav pics in Poland, are there any other pics of Trophy fitted floating about?
  13. 2805662
    Hard target at an Iraqi range.
  14. 2805662
    Yep, the Stabilised Commander’s Weapon Station is another indicator (though there are some National Guard tanks with this, too).
  15. 2805662
    I believe they were AH-1S (single engine), not AH-1Z (twin engined, not operated by Israel).
  16. 2805662
    A USMC M1A1 fitted with Trophy: as seen on @Damian twitter account. Also here: http://www.candp.marines.mil/Programs/Focus-Area-4-Modernization-Technology/Part-3-Ground-Combat-Tactical-Vehicles/M1A1-Vehicle-Protection-System/ “The M1A1 Trophy TD phase is complete. The USMC project is partially funded to procure (48) of (56) systems as a special mission kit for four tank companies.”
  17. 2805662
    If retrofitting HPS to an vehicle currently fitted with torsion bar suspension (Abrams etc.), then you have the possibility of using the now void space to improve under-belly protection, without requiring a belly plate, which has the added benefit of restoring ground clearance.
  18. 2805662
    Using Morocco’s 2012 notification for 200 x M1A1 (http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/morocco_12-28_0.pdf) with all equipment listed included as a basis, it equates to $USD5.075 million per tank (£3.4m in 2102 £). I don’t see either an Abrams-turret, or complete Abrams as a CR2 upgrade/replacement as necessarily “more expensive” than 200 x Leopard 2A7V.
  19. 2805662
    No argument about the expense; this is aimed more at providing a fig leaf of national pride, whilst delivering a system that can leverage someone else’s money in terms of planned, ongoing investment (APS, FCS, up-armouring, TUSK, CROWS-LP, ECM etc.) in both design and large-scale production (I’m looking at you, Leopard 2A7V). My proposed Abrams turret option (over any other western turret) is more about providing a useful ammunition load (38 vs. 15 rounds of the Leopard 2) without having to touch the existing hull ammunition stowage, or changing RAC doctrine by adopting an auto-loader (Leclerc, for example). Also, it meets US “spend more” pressure, can be done without a lengthy tender process (FMS), and avoids EU entanglements. ...all of which is moot against no apparent desire by the UK Government to invest seriously in heavy armour.
  20. 2805662
    Chuckled at the “popped collar” - knew exactly the bit you meant.
  21. 2805662
    🤷🏿‍♂️ No idea. Abrams is 85”/2159mm....the French & Germans seemed to make their demo work.
  22. 2805662
    Just go to my album; https://imgur.com/gallery/rEdpy
  23. 2805662
    https://i.imgur.com/k1ySr9e.mp4 My video of the CROWS LP from AUSA 17. Does this require a different mounting plate to the conventional M153 mounted on the SEP v2?
  24. 2805662
    I’d like to see them drop an Abrams turret on the Challenger 2. Takes care of the ammunition stowage (38 compartmented rounds), simplifies the integration, benefits from continued US investment in the Abrams, and joins them to the Abrams user community. Would likely be cheaper, too.
  25. 2805662
    If I recall correctly, the proposed re-engining of the Abrams with the Crusader engine involved replacement of the torsion bar suspension in the last two stations with some form of HSU due to engine height.
×
×
  • Create New...