Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

BaronTibere

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by BaronTibere

  1. Sorry it was referred to as a white paper elsewhere but yeah its only slightly less vague than the defense review itself. At least the name Challenger 3 is finally confirmed by the government.
  2. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-army-tank-numbers-drop-to-148-from-227/ https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/warrior-upgrade-scrapped-but-remaining-in-service/ The full white paper: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-in-a-competitive-age/defence-in-a-competitive-age-accessible-version
  3. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/03/12/80bn-equipment-revealed-defence-review-tanks-jets-drones-hovering/ Looks like the defense review will be out on tuesday and the theme will be RIP warrior and "Boxers for everyone". Edit: annnnnddd no details, there is a more specific defense report coming on monday that might have them.
  4. He was spurred on this because the tank museum mislabeled the FMBTA1 as the FV4211 again.
  5. I believe earlier on (mid century) they provided more power than electric drives but seems like at least by the mid to late 80s pure electric drives were able to deliver similar speeds.
  6. Marconi IFCS (Chieftain Mk.9/10/11/Khalid, nearly identical to Challenger 1 FCS): There are more images in the entire brochure but these are the figures. Bold choice of colours.
  7. That's the only mention I've seen on the internet. Idk if he burried it in a book somewhere or not, I suppose there might be vickers archive documents about it.
  8. AFAIK the one at Greek trials still had TOGs installed but the CR2E spec at that point was to remove it, it just hadn't been done yet - I think the one on display was later on. The strange CR2E pictured above is for the South African proposal, idk much about it but it appears to be a slightly more austere version compared to full CR2E spec - euro powerpack but standard optics. In any case I believe it lost out to the Leclerc but neither went ahead. Source: Simon Dunstan,
  9. Lots of interesting details in there. New modular armour design at Porton Down (a Dstl site)? I assumed the armour would be some form of AMAP given Rheinmetall's lead on the project but I guess not. They also hint at a powerpack upgrade and indicated the weapon is at the same level as the new Leos and Abrams - seems more L55A1 than 130.
  10. He's working on a Vickers Mk.3 video next I think, and also trying to string together something on the MBT-80 but seems like a massive amount of sources to sift through.
  11. Thanks! Guess this is the wrong topic then. Seems it was a United Defense project but BAE bought them around that time.
  12. Does anyone know what the heck this thing is? Mid 2000s, turbine engine with electric drive and the hull is made of titanium.
  13. Think of it like wrapping a present. If the box is smaller, you use less wrapping paper than if the box is bigger. If the turret volume is smaller, you need less total mass of armour to wrap it to the same thickness as a larger turret.
  14. Armoured Archives youtube channel has also begun a series on the Vickers Mk.1 to 3,
  15. I believe the leclerc numbers might be projections from GIAT, there wasn't a tank to test at the time of the chieftain replacement program iirc.
  16. I wonder if this turret (which is clearly built on the LEP turret) is the additional armour mentioned in that parliamentary document linked recently?
  17. If you watch the video rheinmetall put out recently there is a glimpse of what looks like a leopard 2 sized bustle rack. So I don't think all the ammo will be in the bustle, especially given the location of the commander's sight. I expect the rest is in the hull somehow.
  18. Actually the scenario I was picturing was more the t-14 being lazed by a drone overhead or something, rather than the tank itself - although iirc the sights it uses are capable of laser designating. Also I was just spitballing what the guy might have meant. Its certainly possible he was just using the term missile to refer to the L55A1 apfsds round being developed to counter the newer soviet armour.
  19. Ignoring the problem of APS the LAHAT is designed for top attack is it not? Theoretically an Armata can be hull down with no exposed crew meaning some form of top attack would be required to hit the crew compartment.
  20. The Fire Control Computer is the CDC model that the Abrams uses (or near the same), however the entire system was contracted to Marconi and afaik Vickers and Marconi wrote the software. This is my understanding from the Hanyes Manual and the Vickers Tanks Landships to Challenger 2 book, as well as reading the relevant parts of the Jane's AFV Retrofit book referenced by SH_MM.
  21. Here is also a good if dated read, CIA Document on worldwide tank FCS from 1983 (the M1 section is completely redacted), https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84M00044R000200890001-1.pdf
  22. Marconi Centaur FCS from the Osorio and Vickers Mk.7 (and 7/2), Chieftain 2000, also apparently on several Pakistani upgrades of chinese tanks? Loosely related to the FCS on the Challenger 2 although many parts are different. Also the related Marconi 628 GCE.
×
×
  • Create New...