Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

TokyoMorose

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TokyoMorose

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. There has already been a CAMD report linked, translated handily by Samsonov, listing both the V-2 in the T-34 and the 6046 in the M4A2 as having ~200 hours (the numbers are slightly different but well within a reasonable margin of error of a few hours) average lifespan. That was from the second guards' tank army in 1945. Your points on the other Shermans having various models of engines is of course valid, as is the various T-34 derivatives. But the posts you were replying to for the R-975 post were discussing the M4A2 for comparison's sake (it's the easiest statistical comparison
  10. I was tempted to mount ye old M135 demolition cannon as a secondary mount to meet the HE requirement while being under armor. I am quite certain the 165mm HEP round would satisfy even the most ardent of rangers.
  11. Doing some numbers in my head and comparing to various guns out there, if that 7.5lbs HE per shot or salvo requirement is in terms of fill weight and not total shell weight (and I am assuming that is the case)... meeting that is going to be an interesting challenge. Some of the ideas I have are real goofy for that.
  12. What is *doubly* weird is that the Chinese gun internals are hard-chromed. The 2A46 family did not introduce that until the 2A46M - so the Chinese made the effort to modify production tooling and procedures to allow a good chroming, but didn't also copy the rather simple front-change screw mechanism that is very well known? Really is a baffling combination of gun "features".
  13. This seems to be such a terrible idea, having a bespoke chassis and systems defeats the logistical and cost reasons of using a technical (y'know being cheap and with parts available on the market anywhere) while also intentionally limiting performance compared to purpose-built buggies like the flyer. You simply can't fit a bodykit that looks reasonably like a regular civilian vehicle on one of those buggies, otherwise they'd just do that instead of asking for a new vehicle that can look like that.
  14. BD's comments from Coffman are relevant "That said, Coffman added, if a company comes in with a 30mm weapon, “they have to show us a path to 50.” " Again, the 50mm is effectively mandatory - and given the way the army works they are going to prefer the XM913 they have already paid to design and proof over the WOTAN gun to the point the XM913 may as well be considered mandatory. Same deal with the turret, on paper you could offer a different gun and turret but Army brass already have those programs deep under way. It's like the M4 replacement contests where you didn't *have* to submit a 5.56mm
  15. Unless my memory serves me wrong, doesn't the Army designed 50mm turret have independent sights? That would mean a three man crew is essentially mandatory, as the 50mm is effectively mandatory (all 30mm entries *have* to demonstrate a path to the 50mm, and the Army is going to want its turret used). You do save on three dismounts, but you're only going to save so much weight there (I.e. comparing to GCV you would need to knock more than 10 tons off, or >20% of total vehicle weight just by removing three dismounts - I remain doubtful that the dismount reduction allows that level of savings).
  16. What we know about the protection requirement in the public sphere is that it was very high, both from industry source comments and the fact that their last IFV program just a few years ago fell apart along almost identical lines do to a combined protection rating that was absurd. They may have scaled back since the GCV slightly, but it would seem not too much. The GCV requirement specified better overall protection than even the then-current SEPv2 Abrams, and over a full 360 degree arc according to their graphs given out late in the program. 52 isn't *that* much larger, raytheo
  17. That's kind of my point, Raytheon-Rheinmetall decided not to bid and the shipping issue was merely a side effect of a conscious decision to not bid. They decided not to bid because they knew they couldn't meet the impossible requirements, and Lynx can already grow to the ~50t number that NLM posits for the GD bid. Hence my supposition of the actual amount of weight needed to meet the requirement being much larger. Supposedly, their tender was all-new. And considering their heaviest existing chassis cannot get anywhere *near* the required protection given its relatively lo
  18. Because I cannot honestly see how an IFV in the ~52t range meets the very demanding passive armor requirements. Otherwise there was nothing stopping Rheinmetall from just offering a heavier bolt-on kit for the Lynx (which Rhm states has 6t of growth capacity at its full 44t weight), and Rheinmetall made no effort in that direction at all. Instead they just quietly dropped out under shipping errors as an excuse. I find it quite likely that GD went for a radically pared-down base vehicle with virtually all of the armor being bolt-ons, and comments from industry suggest that the passi
  19. Ah yes, as opposed to rolling around in the less-armored current Bradley and getting troops killed. Furthermore, does this not allow us to basically guesstimate the full-up weight? It seems to be within a few tons of the infamous 84 ton BAE GCV IFV maximum weight. It seems the army just reused the nonsense requirement wholesale from GCV...
×
×
  • Create New...