Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

BaronTibere

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    97

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Everything posted by BaronTibere

  1. BaronTibere
    https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2024/04/british-army-s-most-lethal-tank-prototype-rolls-off-production-line?utm_source=BritishArmy_X&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Modernisation
  2. BaronTibere
    10x10s are back on the menu boys. They made one up with the RCH-155.
  3. BaronTibere
    Good view of the UFP pack: And looks like this one has the roof applique roughed in, but empty (maybe its just spaced once again).
  4. BaronTibere
    This is attributing things to this document that it cannot say, while ignoring what it does say. This document was rather popular on the war thunder forums among people looking for sources for buffs they wanted, instead of evaluating the document for what it is. "In this quick study" Not a roadmap of planned changes, a study of potential improvements to the platform. That there is a II and III and that the dates are similar does not really prove anything except that they spaced them out in roughly 3 year intervals. I cannot remember if there are additional pages but this makes no mention of TOGS. The Glacis protection could not be improved to that degree without obvious visual changes (i.e.: thicker, way thicker) and we have later documents that peg it at ~300mm KE (350mm with the gulf war applique). The new gun would not happen until Challenger 2, same with the free gunner's sight and transmission improvements. I'm not entirely sure on the date of the document but it predates Mk.1 service (1983). You can infer this based on the wording regarding the OE ammo (L23A1) being in service in 1982, meaning the document is likely 1981 or earlier. Note L23A1 and L26A1 were already in development at this point, so predicting their service dates really just means that they managed to stay on schedule (though L26A1 would not be fielded until the gulf war). This document is a fun read, and points to how early back they were aware of Challenger 1 short comings that would be remedied on Challenger 2, but it has zero bearing on what actually did happen.
  5. BaronTibere
    This document really needs to die. It is not talking about the Mk.2. It is talking about potential major upgrades to the challenger program. Some of these ideas eventually found their way into the CR2 but none were applied to the CR1.
  6. BaronTibere
    https://vxtwitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1749478595796381994?s=46&t=VskD77pvFSopBzS65us6aA First pic of a CR3 prototype. Upper glacis seems thicker but no massive change in geometry.
  7. BaronTibere
    At a certain point in tank development you have a design freeze. CR2's ISD was 1998 but deliveries started in 1994, the 4 year delay was down to reliability and quality issues. That means it's exceedingly likely that the internal armour composition was finalized and frozen prior to 1994 by a year or so, if not more.
  8. BaronTibere
    Gaijin actually posted some images of a detail I've never noticed before which is there are two bolts running though the mantlet envelopes similar to the ones the challenger 1/2 use to mount their composites, which would align with the leaked description of the envelopes having some sort of array.
  9. BaronTibere
    This makes sense to me, the Haynes manual refers to it becoming the CR2 but from reading the docs it does seem more as you said. I think you've misunderstood me as I didn't explain this well. There is a belief that the CR2 *hull* has 500mm KE protection, based on old documents during the initial CR1 years for future improved challenger versions. As the requirement 4026 is only 350mm, and the proposed upgrade of CR1 with improved chobham is also only 350mm, and the CR2 glacis bears no major difference to the CR1 outwardly, it seems unlikely to have achieved 500mm KE.
  10. BaronTibere
    It's quite complicated as while KNDS (via KMW) owns the Leopard 2 IP, Rheinmetall is a major supplier (via itself and also acquisitions) and also by way of subsidiary acquisition has some license production rights which are disputed by KNDS. The new proposal to construct KF51s in Hungary will use a "new" hull based on the Buffel (which is itself Leopard 2 based) as Rheinmetall has rights to through the acquistion of MaK in 1990.
  11. BaronTibere
    Yeah I'm completely unsure what the difference is between the two appliques. I do wonder if 4026 and "Proposed" were able/required to reach 350/650 without an external applique via some minor internal changes - might explain why there is a 50mm difference in CE between Gulf config and 4026/Proposed. This is just speculation however. I feel fairly confident that the CR2 isn't able to reach 500mm KE as some claim based on old unspecific CR1 era proposals.
  12. BaronTibere
    Do we have a thread for the KF51 or are we just lumping it into the Leopard thread? Rheinmetal to develop KF51 EVO in Hungary Hull based on Bergepanzer 3 120mm L55A1 (ready for 130mm) Autoloader
  13. BaronTibere
    Went through my books - CR1 400 is the proposal that would ultimately become CR2. This provides a bit more context understanding the document. This is the tweet I found them in but I'm not convinced it's the original source: https://vxtwitter.com/morgz_tom/status/1714238293561250125
  14. BaronTibere
    SR(L) 4026 Documents floating around on twitter (would love the rest). 4026 is the Chieftain replacement program that would be fulfilled by CR2. Highlights are only 350KE/650CE for the front hull, a desire for 300KE on the turret roof (??), and the various proposed levels of CR1 upgrade (assuming this is prior to the culling of the CR1 fleet). CR1 400 seems like they replace the turret with a CR2 turret CR1 300, 200, 100 seems like varying levels of upgraded CR1 turret and CR1 MIN seems like basic upgrades to the existing turret only (CR2 gun control equipment seemingly optional and no other specific upgrades listed) Penetration figures are seemingly at 60 degrees, point blank.
  15. BaronTibere
    Jonathan Hawkes (of Janes) has made a very long thread about how the CR3 (and CR2) will not be getting 1500hp through the HAAIP upgrades. I'm both confused and concerned. Many rumors were floating around that haaip included a HP boost, including a soft confirmation from one of the units that would be using it. MoD would pull something this silly though. https://vxtwitter.com/JonHawkes275/status/1713890397750018557?t=qOePJCYbPW9p3TNJjbuMrw&s=19
  16. BaronTibere
    CR3 driver periscope upgrade
  17. BaronTibere
    I believe there is a manned module attached to the front in the second image, that is not on the vehicle in the initial head-on shot.
  18. BaronTibere
    I always found the stabilization system on the AMX-32 and early AMX-40 extremely odd. The gun is stabilized by slaving to the commander's SFIM 580, but this sight does not have access to the rangefinder or ballistic corrections of the FCS, so there's still not really an ability to fire on the move. Was the intention just for the commander to slew the gun onto the target while moving and then come to a stop to let the gunner go through the firing sequence? I think they later added a base stabilization to the AMX-40 but it all just seems convoluted.
  19. BaronTibere
    https://www.forcesoperations.com/la-modernisation-ulterieure-du-leclerc-parmi-les-objectifs-du-cemat/ Further Leclerc upgrades to deal with MGCS delays.
  20. BaronTibere
    Seems slightly slower than they predicted like 20 years ago
  21. BaronTibere
    https://x.com/geoallison/status/1701509917213864362?s=20 First CR3 turret base arrived at Telford.
  22. BaronTibere
    I agree with his point that Abrams X didn't cause this decision. However I suspect GDLS knew this decision was in the making and that's why they made the Abrams X. It seems far too convenient that it checks a lot of the boxes the army was looking for. I don't think the M1A3 will be Abrams X but I think many of the features will jump over and I wouldn't be surprised if the base turret is used in some form. How does this work though - will other firms bid on this or does it just go to GDLS as the abrams design owner?
  23. BaronTibere
    I wouldn't be surprised if GDLS wants to develop the AbramsX demonstrator turret into something for this.
  24. BaronTibere
  25. BaronTibere
    https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/verteidigung-deutschland-startet-neuen-anlauf-fuer-kampfpanzer-allianz/29374860.html Paywalled article:
×
×
  • Create New...