Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

VPZ

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    277
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by VPZ

  1. 2 hours ago, alanch90 said:

    Well we have seen both sides of UFP modules and there are no "warning-eplosives" signs. Makes sense to not have explosives right above the engine. Besides Mighty_Zuk (BTW, why was he banned??) confirmed that to me.

    Too bad. He was the only insider in this thread, and one of the best on this forum.

  2. 6 hours ago, alanch90 said:

    For the Mk4 should be Lebanon 2006, the only confirmed instance of losses of Mk4s. IIRC,  about 5 Mk4 were totally destroyed back then, half of them from IEDs.

     

    No. It's nice that there is the article about loses in 2 Lebanon war, but it's in Russian.

  3. 32 minutes ago, DIADES said:

    yes there are.  They are drivers cameras that have the FoV a driver needs.  There are no cameras on the turret, no flank cameras anywhere.  So, not Iron Vision which uses stitched together camera images to mimic seeing through the hull and turret.  The video tries to show the turret moving with the operators head movements.  But he can't see anything cos - no situational awareness cameras.  So, PR puffery.

     

     

    Yes, this vehicle lacks of side and rear cameras, it really doesn't have see through armor.

  4. 1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

    The turret of the newly published concept does have at least 1 hatch on the roof. My take is that they are projecting a Black Eagle-like solution, with the crew sitting in the basket but below the turret ring, a sort of a compromise between a T-14-like layout and a traditional one. This way you can afford to have lighter armor modules on the turret (please note the 2 Iron Fist launchers) but also you get under armor access to service the weapons as well as allowing the TC to peek out from the turret roof. In theory it's not as weight-efficient as a "T-14-like layout" but is technologically safer. And also multiple american TCs stated multiple times that they prefer to have top-down view instead of being in a capsule in front of the hull.

     

    I read in some article that M1A3 will have both auto-loader and loader mainly for controlling robots. It was only one of variants, or another tank? Maybe this one (on the picture) is completely new, while the other is just an upgrade of Abrams. But this chassis on the picture looks like from Abrams.

  5. 3 hours ago, alanch90 said:

    That was my impression too. Very Merkava (4) looking. It points to them switching to NxRA for decreased armor weight (and/or increased protection effectiveness) in exchange of decreased multi hit capability. Makes sense for an unmanned turret that will have its ammunition on a bustle autoloader. Makes even more sense if the crew sits below the turret turret ring during combat but also may be  occasionally popping their heads through the turret hatches for everything non-combat/patrol stuff. Also the whole mantlet and central structure looks just the same as the RCV-H concept and appears to be derived from XM-1202. The gun seems like an XM-360, i guess they will consider either 130mm or ETC technology closer to the date of introduction of this thing, circa 2054 XD

     

    20191010_R45519_images_d148086cef54714af546ebc4211661affc127863.pngCaesar on Twitter: "US experimental XM360E1 turret for XM-1202 MCS ...

     

    I thought that next US tank will have manned turret.

×
×
  • Create New...