Clan_Ghost_Bear

1

https://www.janes.com/article/85132/brazil-transfers-m41c-light-tanks-to-uruguayan-army
 
CHAFFEE IS ETERNAL

indonesian Leopard 2RI , Leo 2a4 and marder IVF  after training exercise 

A few designs for the LVT(X) program. Any other info on these guys would be appreciated! 

South Korea KAAV-II

Three types of chassis are proposed.
Variant 1 has basic armor with turret at rear half, dimension is (LXWXH in meter) 9x3.6x3.1, turret dimension would be 2.2x1.6x0.6, Crew 3 and 20 infantrymen, engine will have 1500HP. It will bend bow flap and engine will be located on the forward and waterjet on the side of the vehicle.
Variant 2 and 3 are similar to each other but with minor difference. Variant 2 use composite armor and use Vshape bow flap while Variant 3 use basic armor bend shaped bow flap. Dimension for 2 and 3 is 9.4x3.5x3 and turret dimension is 1.8x1.7x0.6, with crew of 3 and 20 infantrymen and engine hp will be 2700. Turret will be located on front half and engine will be located in the rear and waterjet in the interior.
 

Proposed turret from left to right, K21, CTA manned turret, and CTA unmanned turret

hell that's a lot of seats
also boasted MT-883 to 2700hp, yeesh
 

The Brits way the Brits modeled things, any non-kinetic parts of ammo that are hit are likely to kaboom and take out the machine, and so ignoring the fact that the ammo is separated in an armored compartment, ignoring that in frontal hits that the rear of the turret is the hardest thing to penetrate in a tank (as you have to punch through the *entire* turret) the Brits said that hull-bottom stowage for live ammo segments has the least chance of being hit. This is technically true comparing the amount of frontal area in which it is theoretically possible to hit the ammo, but this is ignoring the facts that the hull is less armored & that they can't separate off the ammo storage behind bulkheads with their stowage arrangement.
 
Due to the ammo separation it's virtually impossible to K-kill an Abrams by hitting the ammo, while a Chally 2 was K-killed when a friendly HESH shell hit an open hatch... and the blast detonated the hull ammo stowage.
 
TL;DR - The Brits judged purely by amount of frontal area ammo is stowed in, irrespective of how armored or safe that area is. By that logic, T-72s have the safest ammo stowage of any modern tank...

This isn't new news, or really hard hitting news, but for Americans my age who watched TV, it's pretty weird.
 

 
 
I thought this was just some bullshit meme shit. 
 
But nope. He's got permanent memory loss.
 
 
 

This is a snipplet from "Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank Owners' Workshop Manual: 1998 to Present" by Lt. Col. Dick Taylor of the RTR.
 
Apparently the M1A1 HA's DU armor results in about 15% better protection against APFSDS ammunition compared to the Challenger 2, but offers a lot lower protection against HEAT munitions. Given that the M1A1 HA's turret appears to have approximately 600-660 mm vs KE (estimated 30° arc and direct from the front), that would put the Challenger 2 at 510-560 mm vs KE (this figures would match the earlier documents form the Challenger 2 design phase asking for 500 mm vs KE on turret and hull). The Challenger 1 was designed to reach a protection level of 500 mm vs KE on turret and 275 mm vs KE on the upper hull front, but according to a footnote in the same book reached only 480 mm vs KE on the turret and 340 mm vs KE on the hull.
The Leopard 2 was apparently not only offered with the B armor configuration (as tested in the UK), but it was at least proposed with the C and D armor generations aswell (protection level of the latter armor type not being disclosed to the UK). It seems that the text on the right mentions protection figures in milimeters for the Leopard 2A4 with Type B and Type C armor configurations, but that is unfortunately cut off. The Leopard 2A4 (with Type B armor) was rejected for its poor armor, worse than the Chieftain with Stillbrew vs KE.
 
Does anybody have this book? I wonder if it is worth the read, because other snipplets I've seen seem to feature quite a lot of bias (i.e. tests of Challenger 2E in Greece).
 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a237212.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a237212.pdf

Let us open a topic dedicated to the Optionally maned  fighting vehicle. 
 
What we know now is that we don’t know so much.
 
What is sure, the US Army :
- wants 9 men strong dismounted section ;
- doesn’t want to continue to share an IFV between two sections when mounted ;
- is awared that it’s complicated to fight with an IFV carrying a 9 men section.
 
Platforms showed available at AUSA 2018 were :
Griffin III from General Dynamic

 
CV90 from BAE

 
Lynx from Rheinmetall

 
Maybe a proposal from SAIC ?
 
 
My point here is the following : I have the strange feeling that there’s a misunderstanding. 
During last years, US Army spend lots of money to study new manufacturing process, new designs... and today, when we are looking at news, all we see is old concept. 
 
The Lynx is optimized to be a cost effective platform with proven components. But what is its upgrading capability to stay in services until 2070 ?
CV90 is very good but it got limitations too. It need a deep reworked of its hull. 
The Griffin was introduced as the response to the Army call but in fact there’s no other tracked other platform in the GD catalog. 
 
I may be wrong but I can’t see any real disruption.
What about monolithic forged hull ?
What about decoupled running gear ?
Are torsion bars still a solution for suspensions ?
 
I think, this is the very beginning of the story but it’s very strange. 

speanking of TH-495 variants

and from romanian magazine "Știință și Tehnică" 1993-06:

Forecast International's old report on the TH 495 mentions an AGS version in the section "variants":
 
I don't think that they ever made an AGS prototype, but the six-wheeeld TH 495 prototype was fitted with two different medium caliber turrets.

Hey Fellas,
on Page 33 of this document on the AGS competition, a bid from Thyssen-Henschel is reported as the "TH-459L". Any clues on what this might be?

Don't think I've seen this posted here before- An alternative proposal for the IFV component of ASM:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a234077.pdf

Don't think I've seen this posted here before- An alternative proposal for the IFV component of ASM:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a234077.pdf

Don't think I've seen this posted here before- An alternative proposal for the IFV component of ASM:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a234077.pdf

Don't think I've seen this posted here before- An alternative proposal for the IFV component of ASM:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a234077.pdf