TokyoMorose

I realized it was big... but 42t and taller than Abrams?
 
What uh, is particularly mobile or light about this thing anymore?

It's a quite and dirty google translation, but it would seem that yet again, ASCOD 42 is pure bone hurting juice when driving. There is something fundamentally wrong with the vehicle.

It's a quite and dirty google translation, but it would seem that yet again, ASCOD 42 is pure bone hurting juice when driving. There is something fundamentally wrong with the vehicle.

ASCOD and ASCOD-2 are far from being the same. 

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.)

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.

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.

Nah, they'll be in the FV432.

What a trainwreck, WCSP dead and now quite possibly Ajax dead. This is some brilliant procurement.

There needs to be a Godwin’s law for this: 
 
The longer a company exists, the more likely they are to produce a PL-01 clone as a concept. 

It should be noted, the US *has* exported DU rounds in the past - even some 829A3s were exported.
 
The lack of DU exports and the existence of the KE-W line seems to be reluctance from the importing nation, not a fundamental refusal to sell DU rounds to close allies.
 

Gee it's awfully funny that all of the personal combat logs whine about panzerfausts, and German records recall there being literally hundreds of them in the AO - but the fact that they didn't report the losses as being to them must mean it never happened. And yes, the losses to fausts were so low that the Soviets didn't improvise bedspring armor in a desperate attempt to do something against them, and that the soviets most certainly didn't bother capturing and reverse engineering them. Not at all. I think it is far more likely someone on the soviet side simply messed up (records are hardly faultless on any side!) with recording the losses rather than all of the combat logs being wrong and the hundreds of panzerfausts in the area apparently doing absolutely nothing despite being in a perfect situation.
 
And yes, Norge's *nominal* AT assets are quite sad. But given the condition of the battlefield I would bet money at least some bigger AT guns were attached to them ad-hoc from other battered units. Nobody records every ad-hoc attachment, look at the utter mess of ad-hoc formations during Bagration and Zitadelle - these are well known to exist but their exact composition is never going to be fully known.

Gee it's awfully funny that all of the personal combat logs whine about panzerfausts, and German records recall there being literally hundreds of them in the AO - but the fact that they didn't report the losses as being to them must mean it never happened. And yes, the losses to fausts were so low that the Soviets didn't improvise bedspring armor in a desperate attempt to do something against them, and that the soviets most certainly didn't bother capturing and reverse engineering them. Not at all. I think it is far more likely someone on the soviet side simply messed up (records are hardly faultless on any side!) with recording the losses rather than all of the combat logs being wrong and the hundreds of panzerfausts in the area apparently doing absolutely nothing despite being in a perfect situation.
 
And yes, Norge's *nominal* AT assets are quite sad. But given the condition of the battlefield I would bet money at least some bigger AT guns were attached to them ad-hoc from other battered units. Nobody records every ad-hoc attachment, look at the utter mess of ad-hoc formations during Bagration and Zitadelle - these are well known to exist but their exact composition is never going to be fully known.

Gee it's awfully funny that all of the personal combat logs whine about panzerfausts, and German records recall there being literally hundreds of them in the AO - but the fact that they didn't report the losses as being to them must mean it never happened. And yes, the losses to fausts were so low that the Soviets didn't improvise bedspring armor in a desperate attempt to do something against them, and that the soviets most certainly didn't bother capturing and reverse engineering them. Not at all. I think it is far more likely someone on the soviet side simply messed up (records are hardly faultless on any side!) with recording the losses rather than all of the combat logs being wrong and the hundreds of panzerfausts in the area apparently doing absolutely nothing despite being in a perfect situation.
 
And yes, Norge's *nominal* AT assets are quite sad. But given the condition of the battlefield I would bet money at least some bigger AT guns were attached to them ad-hoc from other battered units. Nobody records every ad-hoc attachment, look at the utter mess of ad-hoc formations during Bagration and Zitadelle - these are well known to exist but their exact composition is never going to be fully known.

Ugh. I’d rather that Körner claim all of the kills than the quislings of that regiment.
 
--------------
 
But anyway, it looks like FFG has finally added a page on the ACSV G5 to their website. There is some info there, as well as higher quality versions of photos which have already showed up here and elsewhere + some new ones I haven't seen before.
 
Production of the ACSV G5 is set to start next year, with system integration and final assembly being carried out at Ritek in Levanger. By then they should be mostly finished with the 12 additional CV90RWS combat engineering vehicles and 8 multi-role vehicles, which were ordered last year. The initial contract is for 44 vehicles, but this number is expected to grow to several hundreds over the next years.

See, I get the feeling that just like Critical Mass - you only read bits and pieces.
 
If you read the whole comment chain, there were other units that likely had AT guns attached - in particular the Norge PanzerGren regiment. Which does have organic AT in their TO&E, and probably had supplementary AT attached (largely because as the German army slowly disintegrated, attaching stragglers from wiped out units to surviving ones was extremely common.)
 
Also I highly doubt that with over 600 panzerfaust in the area, that they did little damage. Soviets spend time whining about panzerfausts, and we know from German records that about 1,300-,1400 men armed with at least 600 panzerfausts were in the area. The whole crux of the argument rests on the soviets saying "projectile impact" - but who is to say the local Soviet commander didn't count Panzerfausts as projectiles? They certainly are projectiles.

See, I get the feeling that just like Critical Mass - you only read bits and pieces.
 
If you read the whole comment chain, there were other units that likely had AT guns attached - in particular the Norge PanzerGren regiment. Which does have organic AT in their TO&E, and probably had supplementary AT attached (largely because as the German army slowly disintegrated, attaching stragglers from wiped out units to surviving ones was extremely common.)
 
Also I highly doubt that with over 600 panzerfaust in the area, that they did little damage. Soviets spend time whining about panzerfausts, and we know from German records that about 1,300-,1400 men armed with at least 600 panzerfausts were in the area. The whole crux of the argument rests on the soviets saying "projectile impact" - but who is to say the local Soviet commander didn't count Panzerfausts as projectiles? They certainly are projectiles.

See, I get the feeling that just like Critical Mass - you only read bits and pieces.
 
If you read the whole comment chain, there were other units that likely had AT guns attached - in particular the Norge PanzerGren regiment. Which does have organic AT in their TO&E, and probably had supplementary AT attached (largely because as the German army slowly disintegrated, attaching stragglers from wiped out units to surviving ones was extremely common.)
 
Also I highly doubt that with over 600 panzerfaust in the area, that they did little damage. Soviets spend time whining about panzerfausts, and we know from German records that about 1,300-,1400 men armed with at least 600 panzerfausts were in the area. The whole crux of the argument rests on the soviets saying "projectile impact" - but who is to say the local Soviet commander didn't count Panzerfausts as projectiles? They certainly are projectiles.

For one the turret stock is 22 - which both the official documents and captured examples show, 2 racks of 11. Furthermore, while the official claim was 86 (where in gods' name did you get 84?) rounds stowed - examination of actual, captured field issue tanks shows that the standard fitting was in fact 70. It would seem that not all of the official racks were actually issued, probably for ergonomic reasons. And yes, I will happily take what was found issued in tanks over what they say they will have issued any day.
 
 
TO&E doesn't magically change based on short-notice intel, and the German intelligence apparatus was notoriously insufficient in any case. How would this German unit *know* they were about to get slammed by nothing but armor and not some other mix of forces, and thus load only AP?
 
 
How do you propose that the artillery managed to penetrate the drive sprocket covering the final drive housing and the final drive housing itself without also penetrating the sides of the tank and causing more direct issues? The total LOS thickness on the sides to strike the final drives is roughly 40mm thick give or take a few mm. And from the front, it'd have to penetrate both the track and the housing for a pretty similar LoS.
 
You also seem, in your wanking of frontal armor here, to wantonly ignore Hoak directly whining in the report that the armor was frequently penetrated by anti-tank *and* tank fire. While simultaneously 100% trusting him that it was totally the arty that blew up his final drives.

For one the turret stock is 22 - which both the official documents and captured examples show, 2 racks of 11. Furthermore, while the official claim was 86 (where in gods' name did you get 84?) rounds stowed - examination of actual, captured field issue tanks shows that the standard fitting was in fact 70. It would seem that not all of the official racks were actually issued, probably for ergonomic reasons. And yes, I will happily take what was found issued in tanks over what they say they will have issued any day.
 
 
TO&E doesn't magically change based on short-notice intel, and the German intelligence apparatus was notoriously insufficient in any case. How would this German unit *know* they were about to get slammed by nothing but armor and not some other mix of forces, and thus load only AP?
 
 
How do you propose that the artillery managed to penetrate the drive sprocket covering the final drive housing and the final drive housing itself without also penetrating the sides of the tank and causing more direct issues? The total LOS thickness on the sides to strike the final drives is roughly 40mm thick give or take a few mm. And from the front, it'd have to penetrate both the track and the housing for a pretty similar LoS.
 
You also seem, in your wanking of frontal armor here, to wantonly ignore Hoak directly whining in the report that the armor was frequently penetrated by anti-tank *and* tank fire. While simultaneously 100% trusting him that it was totally the arty that blew up his final drives.

For one the turret stock is 22 - which both the official documents and captured examples show, 2 racks of 11. Furthermore, while the official claim was 86 (where in gods' name did you get 84?) rounds stowed - examination of actual, captured field issue tanks shows that the standard fitting was in fact 70. It would seem that not all of the official racks were actually issued, probably for ergonomic reasons. And yes, I will happily take what was found issued in tanks over what they say they will have issued any day.
 
 
TO&E doesn't magically change based on short-notice intel, and the German intelligence apparatus was notoriously insufficient in any case. How would this German unit *know* they were about to get slammed by nothing but armor and not some other mix of forces, and thus load only AP?
 
 
How do you propose that the artillery managed to penetrate the drive sprocket covering the final drive housing and the final drive housing itself without also penetrating the sides of the tank and causing more direct issues? The total LOS thickness on the sides to strike the final drives is roughly 40mm thick give or take a few mm. And from the front, it'd have to penetrate both the track and the housing for a pretty similar LoS.
 
You also seem, in your wanking of frontal armor here, to wantonly ignore Hoak directly whining in the report that the armor was frequently penetrated by anti-tank *and* tank fire. While simultaneously 100% trusting him that it was totally the arty that blew up his final drives.

For one the turret stock is 22 - which both the official documents and captured examples show, 2 racks of 11. Furthermore, while the official claim was 86 (where in gods' name did you get 84?) rounds stowed - examination of actual, captured field issue tanks shows that the standard fitting was in fact 70. It would seem that not all of the official racks were actually issued, probably for ergonomic reasons. And yes, I will happily take what was found issued in tanks over what they say they will have issued any day.
 
 
TO&E doesn't magically change based on short-notice intel, and the German intelligence apparatus was notoriously insufficient in any case. How would this German unit *know* they were about to get slammed by nothing but armor and not some other mix of forces, and thus load only AP?
 
 
How do you propose that the artillery managed to penetrate the drive sprocket covering the final drive housing and the final drive housing itself without also penetrating the sides of the tank and causing more direct issues? The total LOS thickness on the sides to strike the final drives is roughly 40mm thick give or take a few mm. And from the front, it'd have to penetrate both the track and the housing for a pretty similar LoS.
 
You also seem, in your wanking of frontal armor here, to wantonly ignore Hoak directly whining in the report that the armor was frequently penetrated by anti-tank *and* tank fire. While simultaneously 100% trusting him that it was totally the arty that blew up his final drives.

I apologize for reading the Tiger B as JT (I was very, very tired) - not that the Tiger B was known for having really any better mobility. And if he, good boy that he is, was following orders by this point in the war - his Tiger B wouldn't be carrying much more ammo than a JT. With the turret stowage verboten, he gets only 48 rounds per tank.
 
And since this is a *tank* unit and not a *TD* unit, it means that a good chunk of his ammo is gonna be HE which is not going to do much to the IS-2s frontally to say the least. And even with 48 rounds of AP, with every shot a killing hit, *you still don't have enough ammo for all of the kills he claimed*. This is far and away the logically hardest argument in favor of him talking shit - it is physically impossible for them to have knocked out more tanks than they had ammo for.
 
And yes, Artillery can cause immense problems - often of the 'oh god the front plate caved in' sort the ML-20 was famous for. But you'll note he didn't claim artillery knocked out the tanks, just that somehow it only broke track links and final drives. Track links are somewhat understandable as pressure and shrapnel from near bursts can blow off links - but the final drive is such a tiny target that is covered from most angles that nobody else in the war recalls final drives being destroyed by arty to be an issue. You don't even see other Panther/JgPanther units trying to blame arty for their final drives exploding.

Karl Korner using the cosmic power of the universe to claim all 200+ kills on the front for the day, 19 April, 1945 (colourised):
 

Because, as I stated in my sarcastic suuuure line, the final drive is a very small target (and it's only exposed from some angles!). You'll note other armies have a conspicuous lack of 'oops all our final drives were hit by arty what a shame'. So either the man is bullshitting as to why the final drives broke, or the allies are actually putting their very best marksmen on artillery teams - with strict orders to aim only for final drives.
 
It's rather comparable to exclaiming that the enemy was scoring nothing but headshots on your infantry.
 
 
You'd think the Germans would realize that it's a wee bit unlikely that Karl and Ko destroyed *more tanks than they carried ammo combined*. Seriously, each JT carries 40 rounds at 100% stowage. Where did the ~30 extra kills come from, repeatedly limping into them with the JT's famous agility?
 
 
Thankfully, we have the soviet combat logs - Körner was ran over in a few hours, and they don't even bother to record meeting the vehicles in their logs. They spend more time whining about Panzerfausts.
 
https://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/05/cheating-at-statistics-7-korner-conjurer.html