Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TokyoMorose last won the day on April 24

TokyoMorose had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

TokyoMorose's Achievements


Newbie (1/3)



  1. So, from the same source that gave me those nice photos of the M1A2C's turret cheek extensions and how they are built-up, I can say that the ballast plates on trophy equipped non-M1A2C tonks are 1.8t and are 152mm thick.
  2. I had sort of assumed that when I saw how things were being done - no tender, no contests, not even a trial. Generally military brass are going to want to at least run a round of trials to ensure they are getting the best option. A sole-source negotiated-in-backrooms deal is usually not great for procurement. (And I am of the opinion that had the government stuck to their ludicrous timetables, even running a sham of a competition would have resulted in everyone but Abrams being disqualified - I don't see how the Leo 2 or K2 could be delivered in the numbers wanted as fast as they want them. I even doubt the Abrams can be delivered that quickly, but at least there is a chance there.)
  3. While many rounds today have the projectile extend partially into the cartridge, a telescoped round has the *entire* projectile in the cartridge - so the round is just a cylinder. Uncomfortable shades of past French "multinational" programs here. You can have a multinational project with them, so long as they are allowed to make all of the core decisions (and coincidentally or not so coincidentally those decisions are often to the benefit of French firms).
  4. This is not a real issue, you just have a bigger spare stockpile in-nation, sufficient to last a month or two. In case of non-WW3 emergencies, air cargo exists. And in a WW3 situation, the Norwegians have far worse things to worry about than how long their local spare K2 parts stockpile would last.
  5. I suppose you could bolt on a LAW in a hurry, but the RT40 according the manufacturer absolutely does not have provisions for ATGMs or hardkill APS. That is literally why they put RT60 to market, as it otherwise offers essentially nothing over RT40.
  6. And my comments on height was based totally on dragoon, yeah GDLS' proposal is just about as tall overall but the riser is baffling as to why it exists. (And as an aside I agree with Serge, the fact that RT-40 was competing and in fact considered the favorite makes me very much doubt there is a hardkill APS or ATGM reservation as part of the contest. Neither RT-20 or RT-40 have any provisions or design margins for those - with RT-60 being offered for customers who need those features. And yet RT-60 didn't get tendered.)
  7. Too much height? Both the CMI and Rafael offerings are far, far taller. There's no plans for an APS, (and I seriously doubt the Stryker has the weight margins) - nor do I see any place to put ATGMs in that turret. Furthermore, nobody else in the tender had APS or ATGM capability, and that wasn't on accident.
  8. IMHO, the updated MCT-30 was far and away the most attractive solution both aesthetically and in silhouette (the CMI and Rafael turrets are so tall!). Either Rafael has some really amazing tech promises or they went really aggressive with pricing. Updated MCT-30 in the spoiler below for reference
  9. Nobody has replied here, because there is an entire dedicated thread to IDF vehicles - including lots of in depth photos of all key areas. The hull protection ranges from an absolute joke (Merk I/II - directly inferior to the M60A1) to merely sub-par (IV). Nobody is going to copy over hundreds of posts documenting this into this thread.
  10. How could it possibly be 'safer'? The Jaguar was not designed for maximum efficiency - it was designed to strike a balance between capability and low cost. There are several subsystems and design features that were chosen specifically for cost and logistics/maintenance reasons.
  11. You can find 95-25 and 95-26 publicly available. It does not specify multiple grades in terms of any physical, ballistic, or chemical properties. The specs listed in that image are the sole acceptable bounds.
  12. Compare with data from http://btvt.info/5library/vtp_1953_bronja_m26_m46.htm - in particular this chart. DEF STAN 95-25 grade castings have hardly changed material formulation and quality from WW2 era US castings. Which the Soviets lambast heavily in that piece.
  13. The quality for DEFSTAN 95-25 CHA is really impressively poor, it's on par with that used for making the pattons.
  14. Getting rid of hydraulics is nice, and a certain safety feature. But it doesn't necessarily imply better performance - the very hydraulic stabilizer of the M1A2 was consistently called out for praise as the best stabilizer in the Greek trials (the electric system on Leo 2 improved being #2 ahead of the electric systems on LeClerc and CR2).
  • Create New...