Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

TokyoMorose

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TokyoMorose

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So, here's some pictures of the CR2E in training kit with a strange camo.
  2. The second one in particular reminds me extremely heavily of the Type 89 and Desert Warrior.
  3. I'm suspecting the new armor is only on the new turret. When they mention upgrading the family of vehicles like CRARRV they mention only mechanical changes. Which would make sense.
  4. I honestly have to agree with the soldiers here in terms of rejecting the 1-2 variants, but it's purely out of survivability concerns. A 60 ton + vehicle whose turret resists only 'medium cannon' (which at the most charitable is something like a 90mm Cockerill, probably meaning something more like a 57mm AC) and is armed with (in variant 1) a 120mm? There's much lighter vehicles that already essentially meet those requirements, and whatever deficiencies they have wouldn't take another 10-20 tons to remediate. Variant 2 is less objectionable, but the reference to 'medium cannon' as
  5. As to the 105, I know that was Big Army's dumb decision - but it was still a major selling point for the original Griffin II demonstrator. As to height, this hull certainly seems higher than the hull they were showing off earlier. This appears to be just a regular ASCOD 2 hull, the original Griffin II having had only a couple inches between the top of the roadwheels and the return track. There's no autoloader because GDLS literally just reused the Abrams design with less armor and a few dimensional adjustments.
  6. Is it me or does every time this thing shows up it manages to look worse? They ditched the low-profile hull, they ditched the 120mm and went back to ye olde 105... when GDLS first showed off the Griffon II I thought it was a much better design than the warmed-over XM8 - but now what's the selling point for it? XM8 is already somewhat familiar to the Army and has parts commonality with other Army vehicles... this is just an ASCOD 2 with a armor-less M1 turret slapped on.
  7. What he is trying to say is there is much less volume in an unmanned turret, as it has no fighting compartment inside it. As such the unmanned turret is much smaller and can carry far more armor for a given mass. The scourge of protected volume is what lead the soviets to the hilariously compact T-64. That said, Beer's explanation was quite good and you should have read it.
  8. IMHO, the army is pressing ahead with requirements that literally nobody thinks can be delivered on, and is so confident they just know better that they are going to have themselves do it. I'm in the camp who thinks the requirements are bogus, and that the army is just fooling itself.
  9. 3UBR6? Not a "APFSDS", but the mediocre performance and big hole would line up well. That said, it that looks a lot like the... (splatter? splash?) I've seen on many HEAT impacts.
  10. I fully understand, but if you get immobilized and blinded by HMG or light autocannon fire, the crew capsule is now a stationary and defenseless target for whatever heavier weapons the opposition feels to use at their leisure.
  11. The Jaguar really causes some mixed feelings for me, because while I understand it is not made to stand up to AT fire (and that would indeed be a silly requirement) there's so much exposed that seems vulnerable to ubiquitous HMGs and light autocannons - lots of what are presumably hydrualic put possibly pneumatic lines on the undercarriage *entirely unprotected*, and all sorts of electronics and sensors on the upper works. Even the armored shutters for some of them don't appear to stand any chance of stopping HMG fire closed up, they seem to be just a few mm thick. Just makes me ne
×
×
  • Create New...