N-L-M

And I think you're focusing on the solution and looking for a problwm it can solve.
Except that with retrofit-level tech MBTs can be made entirely immune to such autocannon bursts.
Fact: diverse isn't always superior. And when you're giving up internal volume to a system that is inferior in every important respect to the alternatives it displaces, that's a no-go.
Weight and volume better spent on electrical systems and 130mm ammo, not superfluous coax autocannon.
No, a coax MG exists to provide suppressive firepower against enemy troops whose location is not known precisely and to offer a close in self defence option with a large ammo reserve.
Anything larger than "jihadyota" is "worthy" of 120/130mm MPHE.
At the cost of displacing 130mm MPHE, which is a price not worth paying.
The rationale is that you're basing your entire concept of effective gunfire vs an opponents MBT on your ability to first land effective hits with your autocannon. This means your effective range is limited to the effective range of said autocannon. Unless you don't think the autocannon is needed to ensure effectiveness, in which case why install it in the first place?
Also, you seem to be greatly underestimating the bulk of an autocannon and associated ammo and feeding. You are displacing quite a few main gun rounds, which are significantly more effective, and consequently only harming the vehicles effectiveness. And the argument of saving rounds is a result of you completely ignoring alternative counter-APS approaches that do not involve multiple main gun shots.
So you'd trade the long range firepower of stowed 130mm rounds for the ability to pepper enemy MBTs at close range with small frag which they can easily resist. After admitting that the ability to counter APS exists regardless, as you use it at longer ranges. Yeah no.
What I'm saying is that the line infantryman shouldn't be packing a pistol and 9mm ammo in the first place, but an equivalent weight in 5.56mm ammo, because 9mm is low energy, sad, short ranged and innaccurate and won't go through the enemy's body armor. Particularly not when the metaphor breaks down, as tech has been pushing the effective engagement ranges ever further out, so why the hell would I take a 9mm when I intend to fight the enemy at 800m?
No it isn't. There are options that do not require sticking around after announcing your presence like that.
What is leading the target
Who let the target get within 3km
Confirmed for not understanding how ballistics or time work.
Protip-30/35mm fullbore rounds take a lot longer to reach 3km because the MV is low and the shells lose velocity quickly.
And all this extra time is time for the target to disappear and time you leave yourself exposed after announcing your presence, which is just asking to get nailed by someone who doesnt waste their time with autocannon bursts.
Better but still not as good as just not bothering with the small caliber shit in the first place. For a start as Bronez pointed out that solution is very sensitive to so many environmental conditions that its a non starter.
Again, the alternative does not have to be firing multiple rounds from the main gun. But even if we assume for a moment that it is, well then you'd design your gun and autoloader for that purpose. And pre-selected ammo flick rammed 120mm guns can reach 120rpm. It's been done. Much faster than waiting for slow autocannon shells to cross the distance.
The point of such shutters is that you close them for a very short amount of time to protect the soft portions from frag and then open them again. They dont have to be closed for any longer than 0.1 sec per fragmentation round sent the way of the protected vehicle.
Servomechanisms powerful enough to move STANAG 3 level shutters at high velocity are established tech.
Really fucking fast. Its a matter of how fast you want them to move, and building an appropriate servo mechanism. Servos are insanely fast.
And yes these shutters could also protect the system from small arms fire.
Protective covers are not shutters. If you need to manually remove them before action they aren't the kind of system I'm talking about. Shutters as their name implies *shut*. Watch the vid LooSeR linked.
Yes, because you can carry 10k linked rounds for a machine gun as 7.62 rounds are tiny and because you want an emergency backup weapon that can prevent you from getting overrun by squishies and practically speaking eint run out of ammo. The MG is not however considered a primary weapon system substitute for any target.
No. 120 or 130mm MPHE shits all over 35mm HEAB against all squishy targets. And to top it off the multiple smart fuzes on the multiple HEAB rounds you need to send downrange to provide a similar effect means the autocannon option is more expensive.
And thats without getting into how at long ranges the 35mm just cant reack and suffers such poor dispersion that significantly more rounds are required.
35mm cannot compete in the big league with the big boys.
M. P. H. E. 
If you dont want to bring down the building you set it to SQ or PROX. Will bring down part of the wall and anyone behind it but not the building. If you want the building to come down you use PDD. You don't need autocannon rounds for this.
There are many upsides too. Most of them involve the multipurpose selectable destructive effect of MPHE rounds. And you're going to have autocannon equipped IFVs around anyway, in case you happen to run into a contrived situation which somehow only an autocannon can solve but a 120mm MPHE can't (or that a RCWS with a 40mm AGL with high elevation also won't solve). Still not a reason to install a coax autocannon on a tank.
100% of released future concept "tanks" with autocannon have no main gun to cut down weight and save cost, not because it provides complemetary firepower on the same platform.
I like the way you ignored all the other targets I listed. But just to make the point clear- the autocannon does not provide any additional AP capability against them either, as they will be immune. So again it is redundant.
This is just grasping at straws. 130mm ammo vs 120mm ammo requiring lengthened racks 'may cause problems' despite such work having already been done for the old 140mm systems? Last time I checked most countries are satisfied with current ammo capacites. And the shrinking of crews as you point out frees up volume, so what prevents you utilizing that volume for effective useful 130mm ammo?
 
There were a few already mentioned in this thread, had you bothered to read it. The additional length and greatly increased muzzle energy of the 130mm give a lot of room to play around with while keeping a reference long rod going at the desired velocity. Decoy darts, segmented programmable rods that break apart before entering the APS intercept zone, RCS reduction of the dart (and matching of any decoys), EW methods, AHEAD-tipped darts to try and hit the APS munition itself first, and many others.
All of these are more future proof than trying to spray the opponent with light frag, and none of them require the entire vehicle to be designed around them.
 
So again, in conclusion, you're obsessed with this solution and are desperately looking for a problem to justify it despite it objectively being a poor one.

@Collimatrix look what I found!
 
https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-mark-i.9558/page-309#post-1378368

So only thing they had to "deflect" criticism of their beloved Arjun is insults. DRDO should use their skulls as Arjun armor, it will be first MBT impenetrable for direct nuclear warhead hit.

Another lithium SSK joins the east-asian arms race:
https://www.janes.com/article/85421/south-korea-completes-preliminary-design-for-second-batch-of-kss-iii-submarines
 
With the japanese launching one this year, I'm sure it won't be long before china gets one in the water (wouldn't be surprised if lithium batteries were fitted to that weird sub with a tiny sail that showed up recently). The battery chemistry would suggest an order of magnitude increase in submerged range is possible, and given that batteries can be refilled underway I expect to see lithium based subs (SSL's?) replace AIP systems quickly. Not having to store strong oxidisers on board the submarine is another plus, those things have a long history of being lethal to the wrong side.

And I think you're focusing on the solution and looking for a problwm it can solve.
Except that with retrofit-level tech MBTs can be made entirely immune to such autocannon bursts.
Fact: diverse isn't always superior. And when you're giving up internal volume to a system that is inferior in every important respect to the alternatives it displaces, that's a no-go.
Weight and volume better spent on electrical systems and 130mm ammo, not superfluous coax autocannon.
No, a coax MG exists to provide suppressive firepower against enemy troops whose location is not known precisely and to offer a close in self defence option with a large ammo reserve.
Anything larger than "jihadyota" is "worthy" of 120/130mm MPHE.
At the cost of displacing 130mm MPHE, which is a price not worth paying.
The rationale is that you're basing your entire concept of effective gunfire vs an opponents MBT on your ability to first land effective hits with your autocannon. This means your effective range is limited to the effective range of said autocannon. Unless you don't think the autocannon is needed to ensure effectiveness, in which case why install it in the first place?
Also, you seem to be greatly underestimating the bulk of an autocannon and associated ammo and feeding. You are displacing quite a few main gun rounds, which are significantly more effective, and consequently only harming the vehicles effectiveness. And the argument of saving rounds is a result of you completely ignoring alternative counter-APS approaches that do not involve multiple main gun shots.
So you'd trade the long range firepower of stowed 130mm rounds for the ability to pepper enemy MBTs at close range with small frag which they can easily resist. After admitting that the ability to counter APS exists regardless, as you use it at longer ranges. Yeah no.
What I'm saying is that the line infantryman shouldn't be packing a pistol and 9mm ammo in the first place, but an equivalent weight in 5.56mm ammo, because 9mm is low energy, sad, short ranged and innaccurate and won't go through the enemy's body armor. Particularly not when the metaphor breaks down, as tech has been pushing the effective engagement ranges ever further out, so why the hell would I take a 9mm when I intend to fight the enemy at 800m?
No it isn't. There are options that do not require sticking around after announcing your presence like that.
What is leading the target
Who let the target get within 3km
Confirmed for not understanding how ballistics or time work.
Protip-30/35mm fullbore rounds take a lot longer to reach 3km because the MV is low and the shells lose velocity quickly.
And all this extra time is time for the target to disappear and time you leave yourself exposed after announcing your presence, which is just asking to get nailed by someone who doesnt waste their time with autocannon bursts.
Better but still not as good as just not bothering with the small caliber shit in the first place. For a start as Bronez pointed out that solution is very sensitive to so many environmental conditions that its a non starter.
Again, the alternative does not have to be firing multiple rounds from the main gun. But even if we assume for a moment that it is, well then you'd design your gun and autoloader for that purpose. And pre-selected ammo flick rammed 120mm guns can reach 120rpm. It's been done. Much faster than waiting for slow autocannon shells to cross the distance.
The point of such shutters is that you close them for a very short amount of time to protect the soft portions from frag and then open them again. They dont have to be closed for any longer than 0.1 sec per fragmentation round sent the way of the protected vehicle.
Servomechanisms powerful enough to move STANAG 3 level shutters at high velocity are established tech.
Really fucking fast. Its a matter of how fast you want them to move, and building an appropriate servo mechanism. Servos are insanely fast.
And yes these shutters could also protect the system from small arms fire.
Protective covers are not shutters. If you need to manually remove them before action they aren't the kind of system I'm talking about. Shutters as their name implies *shut*. Watch the vid LooSeR linked.
Yes, because you can carry 10k linked rounds for a machine gun as 7.62 rounds are tiny and because you want an emergency backup weapon that can prevent you from getting overrun by squishies and practically speaking eint run out of ammo. The MG is not however considered a primary weapon system substitute for any target.
No. 120 or 130mm MPHE shits all over 35mm HEAB against all squishy targets. And to top it off the multiple smart fuzes on the multiple HEAB rounds you need to send downrange to provide a similar effect means the autocannon option is more expensive.
And thats without getting into how at long ranges the 35mm just cant reack and suffers such poor dispersion that significantly more rounds are required.
35mm cannot compete in the big league with the big boys.
M. P. H. E. 
If you dont want to bring down the building you set it to SQ or PROX. Will bring down part of the wall and anyone behind it but not the building. If you want the building to come down you use PDD. You don't need autocannon rounds for this.
There are many upsides too. Most of them involve the multipurpose selectable destructive effect of MPHE rounds. And you're going to have autocannon equipped IFVs around anyway, in case you happen to run into a contrived situation which somehow only an autocannon can solve but a 120mm MPHE can't (or that a RCWS with a 40mm AGL with high elevation also won't solve). Still not a reason to install a coax autocannon on a tank.
100% of released future concept "tanks" with autocannon have no main gun to cut down weight and save cost, not because it provides complemetary firepower on the same platform.
I like the way you ignored all the other targets I listed. But just to make the point clear- the autocannon does not provide any additional AP capability against them either, as they will be immune. So again it is redundant.
This is just grasping at straws. 130mm ammo vs 120mm ammo requiring lengthened racks 'may cause problems' despite such work having already been done for the old 140mm systems? Last time I checked most countries are satisfied with current ammo capacites. And the shrinking of crews as you point out frees up volume, so what prevents you utilizing that volume for effective useful 130mm ammo?
 
There were a few already mentioned in this thread, had you bothered to read it. The additional length and greatly increased muzzle energy of the 130mm give a lot of room to play around with while keeping a reference long rod going at the desired velocity. Decoy darts, segmented programmable rods that break apart before entering the APS intercept zone, RCS reduction of the dart (and matching of any decoys), EW methods, AHEAD-tipped darts to try and hit the APS munition itself first, and many others.
All of these are more future proof than trying to spray the opponent with light frag, and none of them require the entire vehicle to be designed around them.
 
So again, in conclusion, you're obsessed with this solution and are desperately looking for a problem to justify it despite it objectively being a poor one.

@LoooSeR and @Bronezhilet mentioned a lot of downsides, but there are even more. This idea is not a good one.
For a start, you're willingly throwing away the ability to destroy the enemy at extreme ranges; There's a reason every MBT designed since the 1980s has a LRF with a range of at least 4 km, and that's because effective ranges increase with time, and the Gulf wars already had armor engagements at around 4-5km. limiting yourself by concept to 2km range is just flat out stupid.
Secondly, properly crewed MBTs are fleeting targets. Sending a burst of autocannon ammo downrange and waiting until its almost arrived before firing your main gun greatly increases the exposure time needed to nail a target, and leaves you exposed for longer than is ideal, particularly as much of this exposure is after you've announced your presence in a less-than-subtle manner.
Thirdly, 35mm KETF just isn't that impressive against armor. ~5mm dia tungsten fragments just don't go through all that much armor at all. so small motorized shutters tied in to the APS radar can effectively 100% counter both that and PROX artillery threats at very little additional cost. Such a shutter system could probably be retrofit on to existing tanks with APS within half a year of such a threat materializing. and protip- if your basic design concept can be subverted by an afterthought retrofit you should get better ideas and better taste.
Another major point against such a layout is that the single greatest advance in tank ammunition in the past 30 years has been MP HE rounds, capable of reaching out to 5+km and destroying any target other than current-gen MBTs in one shot. small bore autocannon simply do not have the range with HE rounds, nor can they fully fill the MP role- 35mm HEAB will not bring down buildings or penetrate and wreck IFVs. Likewise, 35mm HEAB has a hard time reaching out to extended ranges to counterfire on ATGM teams- more rounds are required, dispersion is worse, and time to target is significantly worse. Displacing fullbore MP HE rounds for less capable autocannon rounds is a non-starter.
And on a further note, future threat IFVs are likely to be immune to 35mm APFSDS, at least at extended ranges, as that is the current standard armament for many NATO IFVs. This means that the coax 35mm will be almost completely useless and redundant and therefore does not belong on future MBTs. (and for the ones that wont be immune to 35mm APFSDS, 120/130mm MPHE on PDD will destroy them more thoroughly and faster than a burst of autocannon APFSDS).
And on a final note, why would a switch to the new 130mm mean lower ammo capacity? the base diameter is the same as the NATO 120, and most stowage is horizontal. Extend the bustle of an Abrams and it'll hold just as many 130mm rounds as it holds 120mm rounds today (seldom used hull rack excluded).
 
So in conclusion, this seems like a bad idea all around.

...
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/87mv/NGc3PoEpo/ "The TARDEC Story: Sixty-five Years of Innovation 1946-2010", downloaded via some means from GoogleBooks, and ... welll, it lacks some 50 pages (out of 3 hundreed) which they do not show
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/KL5T/U8pbM6iL7 "The Bradley and how it Got that Way: Technology, Institutions, and the Problem of Mechanized Infantry in the United States Army", which GoogleBooks also has, - it also lacks about 50 pages (out of 2 hundreed)
 
Also, Archive.org has a some sort of online library, which allowes to borrow some of their scanned books - so one user could see that book, and enyone else willing to do the same at the same time should wait in line, as if it was not a bunch of .img/.png files but a real physical copy of the book. Anyway, among some things thay show that way,  there is a scan of Burton's Pentagon Wars https://cloud.mail.ru/public/A1qi/Yem6Npsi8
 
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/ES1e/pSRmx6NzH several dozens of articles and small notes (predominantly in english) on Bradley and tracked APCs and IFVs in general, and how they should be employed, which appeared in 50s-80s in those  magazines which I was able to find on the internet - mostly in Army, Armor, Infanry, Military Review, Soldiers, - and also some articles from newspapers like New York Times on scandals around Bradley development and acquizition
 
...
more books there https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Jjk9/mHuYG7piH

...
Now there are I guess about 40 volumes of Infantry available in full view on the same link,
and I've asked them about Army magazine and got 69 volumes so far https://books.google.ru/books?uid=115590142161999487031&as_coll=1006 - also they've denied my requests for 13 volumes (which are available on Hathitrust anyway).

Apparently they've also scanned some Soviet and Russian magazines - like this one https://books.google.ru/books?uid=115590142161999487031&as_coll=1010 (Soviet Miitary Review, english language edition of soviet propaganda magazine about Soviet Army) - also it seems to me that in this case copyright status is confusing and noone knows for sure whether it's in Public Domain or not, which is why my requests on that were mostly denied.
 
those and other "bookshelves" (folders) are available there https://books.google.ru/books?uid=115590142161999487031

@LoooSeR and @Bronezhilet mentioned a lot of downsides, but there are even more. This idea is not a good one.
For a start, you're willingly throwing away the ability to destroy the enemy at extreme ranges; There's a reason every MBT designed since the 1980s has a LRF with a range of at least 4 km, and that's because effective ranges increase with time, and the Gulf wars already had armor engagements at around 4-5km. limiting yourself by concept to 2km range is just flat out stupid.
Secondly, properly crewed MBTs are fleeting targets. Sending a burst of autocannon ammo downrange and waiting until its almost arrived before firing your main gun greatly increases the exposure time needed to nail a target, and leaves you exposed for longer than is ideal, particularly as much of this exposure is after you've announced your presence in a less-than-subtle manner.
Thirdly, 35mm KETF just isn't that impressive against armor. ~5mm dia tungsten fragments just don't go through all that much armor at all. so small motorized shutters tied in to the APS radar can effectively 100% counter both that and PROX artillery threats at very little additional cost. Such a shutter system could probably be retrofit on to existing tanks with APS within half a year of such a threat materializing. and protip- if your basic design concept can be subverted by an afterthought retrofit you should get better ideas and better taste.
Another major point against such a layout is that the single greatest advance in tank ammunition in the past 30 years has been MP HE rounds, capable of reaching out to 5+km and destroying any target other than current-gen MBTs in one shot. small bore autocannon simply do not have the range with HE rounds, nor can they fully fill the MP role- 35mm HEAB will not bring down buildings or penetrate and wreck IFVs. Likewise, 35mm HEAB has a hard time reaching out to extended ranges to counterfire on ATGM teams- more rounds are required, dispersion is worse, and time to target is significantly worse. Displacing fullbore MP HE rounds for less capable autocannon rounds is a non-starter.
And on a further note, future threat IFVs are likely to be immune to 35mm APFSDS, at least at extended ranges, as that is the current standard armament for many NATO IFVs. This means that the coax 35mm will be almost completely useless and redundant and therefore does not belong on future MBTs. (and for the ones that wont be immune to 35mm APFSDS, 120/130mm MPHE on PDD will destroy them more thoroughly and faster than a burst of autocannon APFSDS).
And on a final note, why would a switch to the new 130mm mean lower ammo capacity? the base diameter is the same as the NATO 120, and most stowage is horizontal. Extend the bustle of an Abrams and it'll hold just as many 130mm rounds as it holds 120mm rounds today (seldom used hull rack excluded).
 
So in conclusion, this seems like a bad idea all around.

@LoooSeR and @Bronezhilet mentioned a lot of downsides, but there are even more. This idea is not a good one.
For a start, you're willingly throwing away the ability to destroy the enemy at extreme ranges; There's a reason every MBT designed since the 1980s has a LRF with a range of at least 4 km, and that's because effective ranges increase with time, and the Gulf wars already had armor engagements at around 4-5km. limiting yourself by concept to 2km range is just flat out stupid.
Secondly, properly crewed MBTs are fleeting targets. Sending a burst of autocannon ammo downrange and waiting until its almost arrived before firing your main gun greatly increases the exposure time needed to nail a target, and leaves you exposed for longer than is ideal, particularly as much of this exposure is after you've announced your presence in a less-than-subtle manner.
Thirdly, 35mm KETF just isn't that impressive against armor. ~5mm dia tungsten fragments just don't go through all that much armor at all. so small motorized shutters tied in to the APS radar can effectively 100% counter both that and PROX artillery threats at very little additional cost. Such a shutter system could probably be retrofit on to existing tanks with APS within half a year of such a threat materializing. and protip- if your basic design concept can be subverted by an afterthought retrofit you should get better ideas and better taste.
Another major point against such a layout is that the single greatest advance in tank ammunition in the past 30 years has been MP HE rounds, capable of reaching out to 5+km and destroying any target other than current-gen MBTs in one shot. small bore autocannon simply do not have the range with HE rounds, nor can they fully fill the MP role- 35mm HEAB will not bring down buildings or penetrate and wreck IFVs. Likewise, 35mm HEAB has a hard time reaching out to extended ranges to counterfire on ATGM teams- more rounds are required, dispersion is worse, and time to target is significantly worse. Displacing fullbore MP HE rounds for less capable autocannon rounds is a non-starter.
And on a further note, future threat IFVs are likely to be immune to 35mm APFSDS, at least at extended ranges, as that is the current standard armament for many NATO IFVs. This means that the coax 35mm will be almost completely useless and redundant and therefore does not belong on future MBTs. (and for the ones that wont be immune to 35mm APFSDS, 120/130mm MPHE on PDD will destroy them more thoroughly and faster than a burst of autocannon APFSDS).
And on a final note, why would a switch to the new 130mm mean lower ammo capacity? the base diameter is the same as the NATO 120, and most stowage is horizontal. Extend the bustle of an Abrams and it'll hold just as many 130mm rounds as it holds 120mm rounds today (seldom used hull rack excluded).
 
So in conclusion, this seems like a bad idea all around.

With a single disk, the problem is balancing lift on both sides where one is advancing and the other retreating. The retreating has to have a higher AoA to compensate, and therefore stalls first.
With contra disks, you can have a different swashplate for each rotor set. The retreating blades on each side can get a 0 AoA and therefore wont stall.

The 64 has narrower knife wheels, which remained intact and effectively 'cut' the track. The 219 has wider wheels, the outer one of which got wrecked. The wider wheels support the track more against uneven loading, and the energy spent on breaking the wheel prevented it from breaking the track.
 
Again, this is just informed conjecture.

Single-pin tracks are much harder to break by torsional forces on the track, thanks to the large number and size of points where the pin is subjected to shear forces under such a loading.

Double-pin tracks are easier to break by loading like this as they only have the center guide connector and end connectors.

That in my opinion is the case. I Don't have any hard evidence to back it up right now.
This is also in my opinion why single-pin tracks are preferred for hard, broken ground where the track is liable to ride on large rocks unevenly, applying torsion to the track.

Link works, thanks!

Now that's how you design an oppression tower. Just needs some more spikes and barbed wire, an ominous smoke generator, and hidden speakers for playing theme appropriate music and it's good to go.

Thank you very much Sovngard !
 
Here is the file (hopefully): https://docdro.id/zvIkXJz

I thought they got their first A7Vs in 1917

Griffin II
 

 

I thought they got their first A7Vs in 1917

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control on 14 November conducted a successful initial ballistic flight test of its new M-SHORAD Future Interceptor from a Stryker Maneuver SHORAD Launcher (MSL) at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Lockheed Martin conducted an initial ballistic flight test of its new M-SHORAD Future Interceptor on 14 November 2018. (Robin Hughes)Lockheed Martin conducted an initial ballistic flight test of its new M-SHORAD Future Interceptor on 14 November 2018. (Robin Hughes)  The M-SHORAD Future Interceptor leverages Lockheed Martin and government technology investment in a 6 ft-class hit-to-kill interceptor designed to defeat unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, and cruise missiles.  "The 5 inch diameter interceptor fits in the same envelope as the AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missile currently being integrated on the MSL for the US Army's Stryker-based interim manoeuvre SHORAD [short-range air-defence] capability, and provides significantly more range and manoeuvrability," a Lockheed Martin spokesperson told Jane's .
 

My personal experience was that the early Panzer IVs kick ass if you know how to use them. PzGr. Rot is a mini nuke, and there isn't much that can resist it. What can resist it is usually small vehicles vulnerable to crew losses from Hl 38B/C. The large internals and 5 crew members mean fairly good survivability if you aren't ammo-racked.
37mm guns are generally suffering.

Norman Friedman is the Hunnicutt of naval technology books. Every single book he's published is A. The gold standard of books on that topic and B. Worth every penny.
As he is still alive at this time, I unironically reccommend buying his books even if there is a PDF available, as he deserves every penny he gets from it.

Brits paying for new turrets? 

More likely they end up buying surplus M1A1 turrets (from those vehicles converted to CEVs and bridgelayers or whatever) and upgrade them.
Also, weekly reminder that Drummond is a hack.

Brits paying for new turrets? 

More likely they end up buying surplus M1A1 turrets (from those vehicles converted to CEVs and bridgelayers or whatever) and upgrade them.
Also, weekly reminder that Drummond is a hack.

Brits paying for new turrets? 

More likely they end up buying surplus M1A1 turrets (from those vehicles converted to CEVs and bridgelayers or whatever) and upgrade them.
Also, weekly reminder that Drummond is a hack.