Lord_James

40 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

That thing is incredibly ugly. 

It’s on par for a BRDM 

Where is the line drawn between “suicide drone” and “loitering ATGM/munition”? 

I (personally) preferred all the links and videos that collimatrix included with the posts; was much more layman friendly. 

5 hours ago, Toxn said:

I knew the basics about Object 140, but the details are fascinating:

 

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2021/08/object-140-promising-loser.html?m=1

 

It's a mechanical design tour de force, the sort of thing that usually gets made by the obsessives when all the low-hanging fruits have been plucked and engineers are trying to squeeze the last few percent gains in performance out. Which is wild considering how quickly things were moving at the time - if it had been put into production it would have become instantly obsolete.

That engine sounds like hell. 

3 hours ago, Stimpy75 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

What are those twin launchers on the turret top? Some new APS? 

2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Interesting patent here for D-shaped ERA blocks from South Korea.

 

Interesting that it’s mounted on the curved side, with the flat side facing the projectile. 

4 hours ago, Beer said:

  

I would expect India to send well equipped soldiers for an excercise abroad but these are equipped like in 1980'. 

More like US troops in Vietnam. Could probably put a grainy filter over it and most people couldn’t tell the difference. 

11 minutes ago, Serge said:

Yes. 
but can they developpe a tracked chassis fully compatible with the Boxer mission module standard ?

15 minutes ago, Willy Brandt said:

Doubt it will look like this. KMW wants to get away from RHM and the Boxer Drive Module ist still partly intellectual property of RHM.

Should be easily, they have the Puma and her decoupled running gear. They could easily slot in a chassis that can accept boxer modules and still have it somewhat compatible with existing products. 

48 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/elbit-systems-progressing-new-sigma-155-mm-artillery-system

 

 

 

Previously posted on Israeli AFV thread: 

18 hours ago, Jackvony said:

 

Many images:

  Reveal hidden contents

Frontal armor: 

Side skirt:

Dat booty:

Turret serial number:

Gunner and Commander seats:

Loader's new display aka Abrams IPad (its removable):

Back deck opened up:

King of the world:

Periscope: 

Django, love that movie:

Some photos on the road:

 

 

 

 

 

What’s that rod /tube thing on the last 2 photo’s? 

1 hour ago, Sheffield said:

Hi, wanted to ask if anyone has got any details on weight distribution of the Leopard 2A4; i.e how much turret shell/empty turret, hull shell/empty hull and if possible composite armour weight.

 

Thanks.

@Laviduce, that’s your hobby, IIRC. 

52 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

@Lord_James I think his argument was that you do not deploy tanks by themselves, but rather mix them together with mechanized infantry, anti-air vehicles, mortar carriers etc. in combined arms formations. So X number of tanks, let’s say 2000, might actually be too many if you cannot raise/fund enough supportive elements for more than half that number.

I may have misunderstood what @SH_MM was trying to argue. If I did, I’m sorry. 
 

You may now return to your regularly scheduled armored-kielbasa-carrier discourse. 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Tanks alone are useless on the modern battlefield with combined arms doctrine. Tanks alone were already useless in WW2.

I disagree. Tanks (and specifically MBTs) are still exceptionally useful assets on a battlefield for pier vs. pier engagements. Unlike counter-insurgency, the enemy is (or is nearly) equal to you, and probably has the same capabilities, which would make having tanks necessary for success. 
Let me elaborate: 

Let’s say 2 first world, pier nations hate each other enough to actually wage war. Each deploys it’s armies to fight on the front, in essentially the same combined arms format that everyone is familiar with. Well, how do you counter their armored divisions?
With your aircraft? No, they’re your pier, and probably have their own aircraft loaded to shoot your aircraft down because they know it’s a threat.

Helicopters? No, again they’re your pier and probably have manpads or shorad close to their armored divisions to counter such threats.
ATGMs and ATGM launch vehicles (M1134 or Shturm-S)? Maybe, but both are nullified somewhat by APS, ERA, and other such countermeasures, if not by the brute force of the MBT’s base armor. 
Ok, so how are you to route an opponents tanks? With your own! In a similar fashion to using a shield, a tank is a necessary piece of equipment for a well equipped military and adds another capability to your force that the enemy MUST account for if they even want to hope to be successful. 
 

I took a lot of liberties with my argument, for the sake of brevity and because I don’t want to derail this topic more, but I’m open to continuing it somewhere else. 

1 hour ago, unreason said:

 

I only read this before joining, and there was nothing about profile pictures in there. Did I miss something?

Did you miss the SNCA section? 

4 minutes ago, unreason said:

Electronic subsystems like that can be refitted to existing vehicles without significant weight gain, and present no inherent advantage of the base platform. K2 also happens to use a much lighter and more sophisticated APS.
Why the Germans would decide on Trophy with even domestic alternatives that outperform it is just puzzling.

 

Which K2 achieves by leaving its sides completely unarmoured and copying the Leclerc bulge, which comes at the cost of a gigantic gun shield weakspot, as weight in armour forward of the gun trunnion is inherently limited by the need to have it balanced for stabilised fire.
When viewed from anything but 12 o'clock ahead, the unprotected bulge even presents a third of the turret target area, part of the reason why Leclerc fared as poorly as it did in the Swedish trials regarding protection.
 

Engine and transmission are of similar design, but the K2 uses much more compact and newer types compared to Leopard 2, especially if they intend to sell the new Doosan engine and the domestic gearbox, although both of those are taking their sweet time.
 

Nobody is talking about Poland anymore. That ship's just sailed.

 

That's assuming that they were so utterly stupid as to not mount any armour on the roof, which might well be the case for the North Korean glorified live targets that K2 is designed to fight, but even Strv-122 does that, and T-14's crew hatches are suspiciously thick. Such a small EFP launched from a distance shouldn't be relied on.
That you even have to think of such a creative way to approach the problem just shows how close the 12 cm gun really is to the end of its upgrade potential.

You’re embarrassing yourself

48 minutes ago, unreason said:

Why? What does K2 really add to justify the added expense of retraining and changing the stock of spare parts when both tanks are rendered obsolete by Armata?
At this point, it should be pretty obvious that the Norwegian and Polish programs aren't so much about acquiring a cutting edge tank for the next 20-30 years as they are about just barely keeping pace with the neighbours until a western tank with an unmanned turret becomes available.

“What does Armata add to justify the added expense of retraining and changing the stock of spare parts when it’s about to be rendered obsolete by new NATO 130/140mm guns?” 

Is the Freccia not amphibious? 

35 minutes ago, delete013 said:

I see you had a bad break up with an anime girl, hoho. I never gave much thought to Nazi ideology before I got invested in the online forums. Europe is very calm with it being swept on the wasteland of history.

 

Well, you ought to understand it. Not every white settler was a racist during the Apartheid.

I'm not sure where the "racism" came from, unless Nazi's are a race? Highly doubt it, but if you think any of us are being racist towards Germans, we're not. 

Anyway, I added pictures and some more data on the Brahman. She's overweight and underpowered, but the armor is amazing. Dont know how much I can get done: never got this far so I dont know what I'm doing and I am disorganized. 

Tracked Combat Vehicle 2247 (TCV-47) "Brahman" 

Table of basic statistics:

* 2 of the .30 MGs are placed in the hull sponsons as "Docings" (Driver Operated Close IN Gun System), with 500 rounds each. 

Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.

Vehicle feature list:
Mobility:

1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

2.     Engine- V-12 diesel (based on MB 838), displacement, 1100 hp, liquid cooling, forced air over the cooling surface

3.     Transmission - 5-speed automatic, arrangement, "flip gear" allows for using all 5 gears in forward or reverse

4.     Fuel - diesel, volume available, stored in engine bay (2 tanks) and hull sponsons (2 tanks) , estimated range, neat features.

5.     Upper front plate flips up (via hydraulic pistons) to provide normal access to the engine and transmission. Entire upper plate can be lifted off the tank (7+ ton crane required) to lift engine and transmission out of the engine bay. 

6.     Suspension - Torsion bar, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.

Survivability:

1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

2.     Link to Appendix 2 - Turret front: 72.9 inches LoS (66.6 inches at 66*) 

                                           Upper front plate: 49.1 inches LoS (8.9 inches at 10.44*) 

                                           Lower front plate: 28 inches LoS (25.4 inches at 65*)

3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks - low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.

Firepower:

A.    Weapons:

1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

2.     Main Weapon-

a.      Type

b.      Caliber

c.      ammunition types and performance (short)

d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.

e.      FCS - relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.

f.      Neat features.

3.     Secondary weapon - Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.

4.     Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached.

B.    Optics:

1.     Primary gunsight - type, associated trickery.

2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.

C.    FCS:

1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.

2.     Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.

Fightability:

1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.

Additonal Features:

Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.

Free expression zone: Let out a big yeehaw to impress the world with your design swagger! Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.

Work in progress

Merkava? Never heard of it  

The full name of this combat vehicle is: TCV-47 "Brahman" (Tracked Combat Vehicle)

No, it's not done, i took a very long break; burned myself out. But since then, I have added commander's and loaders cupolas', vision slits, drivers hatch, turret roof applique, 12.4 tons of hull armor, and 7 tons of turret armor plus a 4.6 ton turret wedge a la Leopard 2A5. Still needs turret storage boxes, hull roof applique, and side skirts. Ammunition and velocity is going to be similar to that used on the M551 of yore, including a gun launched ATGM based on the BGM-71. 

7 hours ago, delete013 said:

I uploading the Appendix 3 in the next days. Not yet finished.

Ahh! I see metric units! My poor American eyes! 

This looks interesting 

https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com 
 

Build your own navy, from torpedo boats to battleships. Won’t be surprised if you see a lot of G3, Super Yamato, and Montana like ships (or stuff from the ship bucket alternate universe page). 

19 hours ago, ADC411 said:

But Indian procurement being what it is, expect the most reasonable option to be the last one they consider.

Oh I know it’s highly unlikely they will make a sensible option, but it is important to give a suggestion that is on-the-mark so as to gauge how far off-the-mark they choose to go. 
 

14 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

IMHO the 100 mm gun would be especially helpful against fixed fortifications and buildings in the hard mountain terrain where most of Indias troubles happen. With some variant of BMP-3 there is little need for a light tank (if own MBTs can't go there, the opponent's ones can't most likely too and for the rest the 100 mm gun/GLATGM is enough). 

Not only, the lightweight and amphibious nature of the BMP-3 would also be a benefit when crossing rivers and poorly constructed bridges/ roads. Sprut or Dragun 125 might still be a good choice, considering China does have that Type / ZTQ-15 (or whatever it’s called), which it would most definitely see in the mountains.