Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Insomnium95

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Insomnium95

  1. 43 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

    Variants 1-2 have no turret hatches so unmanned turrets and the hulls seem to point to 2 man crews. The document tells that 2 man crews were proposed to soldiers and instantly rejected while they could be somewhat open to 3 man crews while 4 men was the preferred. After all thats how they are accostumed to do stuff, thats why tanks arent usually designed by crewmen. 

    So the engineers kindo off gave up and hence drew Variant 3 the way the soldiers said the liked. But now they have to come up for stuff for the not-loader to do in order to justify his presence in the vehicle. I think that isolating gunner and TC is a bad idea and giving each individual tank its own drone also overloads the TC even more as he has to command both the tank itself (driver+gunner) and the drone (emergency loader/operator).

    Look closer, you can see periscopes. Like you said they rejected two man crews, hence the extra crew spaces. The TC would not control the drones, the extra forth crewman would. Switchblade drones are small flying munitions perfect for tanks. The Griffin IFV demonstrated carrying these. 

  2. 4 hours ago, alanch90 said:

    Variant 1 and 2 have the most potential. They could make the same hull but interchangeable turret/gun and make most of the armor modular so that the tank can be scaled from low 50 tons (or preferably even lower) to almost 60. The developmental risk here is the 2 man crew and more difficult manual loading backup. 

     

    Variant 3 i think it's pointless (most conservative/compromised of the 3) BTW why does it have 2 crewmen in the hull and 2 in the turret? Are those 2 in the turret TC and manual loader (=gunner and driver in the hull, TC and loader in the turret)? However given soldier feedback this is likely the most favored option. Why develop a next generation tank that is philosophically the same as you current one in service? Besides starting from a projected weight of 65t doesn't bode well for the future.

    Now that I look closer tank 1 and 2 might not be 2 man crews. The first one appears to have four and the second three. You can see the gold colored periscopes on the turret, looks like the crew is sitting below the turret ring. 

  3. On 11/12/2020 at 3:12 AM, DIADES said:

    They have not - this uses the pop up Supashock launcher instead of the side mounted type.  As to 30mm - its all about stowed kills.  The 35mm simply cannot carry enough rounds and against the defined targets, 30mm gets it done.

    30mm won't get it done in the long-term.  

  4. 2 hours ago, alanch90 said:

    Variant 1 and 2 have the most potential. They could make the same hull but interchangeable turret/gun and make most of the armor modular so that the tank can be scaled from low 50 tons (or preferably even lower) to almost 60. The developmental risk here is the 2 man crew and more difficult manual loading backup. 

     

    Variant 3 i think it's pointless (most conservative/compromised of the 3) BTW why does it have 2 crewmen in the hull and 2 in the turret? Are those 2 in the turret TC and manual loader (=gunner and driver in the hull, TC and loader in the turret)? However given soldier feedback this is likely the most favored option. Why develop a next generation tank that is philosophically the same as you current one in service? Besides starting from a projected weight of 65t doesn't bode well for the future.

    Variant 1 and 2 have the least potential. Let's face it, a two man crew is not realistic in the field. Tank 3 still allows a lighter turret with autoloader and keeps a 4th man for UAV operation, operating the 2nd RWS, and other duties. I would assume the gunner is still in the turret with the TC and would be the backup loader since the TC can take control of the main gun from his station using the TC primary control handle. If you look closely you can see the gunners auxiliary sight on the left side of the gun mantlet. This would indicate that the gunner needs to be there to use it, unless they swaped out the old design for a digitalized version. 

  5. 1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

    That is assuming GDLS wins OMFV which is not going to happen sooner than about 5-8 years at least. Meaning, that the contract for MPF will be awarded before that.

    Yeah but they can still use it as leverage. Buy our light tank and now you have the option to buy an IFV with a common chasis. I think if GDLS wins MPF there's a high probability they win OMFV. Hopefully BAE wins and we get the Lynx. 

  6. On 10/11/2020 at 9:16 PM, TokyoMorose said:

     

     

    As to the 105, I know that was Big Army's dumb decision - but it was still a major selling point for the original Griffin II demonstrator.  As to height, this hull certainly seems higher than the hull they were showing off earlier. This appears to be just a regular ASCOD 2 hull, the original Griffin II having had only a couple inches between the top of the roadwheels and the return track.

     

      Reveal hidden contents

    5c195b8faebf427e5914d22d?width=900&forma

     

    There's no autoloader because GDLS literally just reused the Abrams design with less armor and a few dimensional adjustments.

    Well with the 105 you can carry more ammo so in a way it has it's advantages. Plus it's easier to load than a 120. Right now the 105 can destroy any vehicle just short of a MBT and it's a great infantry killer with airburst ammo. 

  7. 1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said:

     

    Is it me or does every time this thing shows up it manages to look worse? They ditched the low-profile hull, they ditched the 120mm and went back to ye olde 105... when GDLS first showed off the Griffon II I thought it was a much better design than the warmed-over XM8 - but now what's the selling point for it? XM8 is already somewhat familiar to the Army and has parts commonality with other Army vehicles... this is just an ASCOD 2 with a armor-less M1 turret slapped on.

    This is the low profile hull. The Army sets the requirements and they want the 105.

  8. 1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said:

     

    What he is trying to say is there is much less volume in an unmanned turret, as it has no fighting compartment inside it. As such the unmanned turret is much smaller and can carry far more armor for a given mass.

     

    The scourge of protected volume is what lead the soviets to the hilariously compact T-64.

     

    That said, Beer's explanation was quite good and you should have read it.

    His response has nothing to do with what I said. He just wants to argue and I'm not interested in that. 

  9. 4 hours ago, Beer said:

     

    No. 

     

    I really can't see how to explain that to you if you don't understand the most basic math. 

     

    Let's try. If you have a square garden of 100 square meters, how long fence do you need around it? 40 meters, right? Now make the garden 400 square meters for your three dogs. How long fence you have now? 80 meters, right? You have the very same fence. Which one is heavier? The second, right? It is twice heavier but it's the very same fence offering your dogs the very same protection. You can add twice thicker fence to the first small garden to have the same weight of the fence. Do you understand now? 

     

    Sorry but if you don't understand this basics than there is no discussion possible. 

    Didn't even read what you wrote. 

  10. 2 minutes ago, Beer said:

     

    Come on, you don't need to give up any armor. You don't need to protect x cubic meters of internal space for the crew. Do you understand what makes the difference? You can even add much more armor on the unmanned turret and still save tons of weight compared to the manned one. 

    It's not just about protecting the crew but your life line which is your firepower. If you add armor to the unmanned turret wouldn't that defeat the purpose of keeping weight down?

  11. 8 hours ago, alanch90 said:

    Well, places like JAPAN or TAIWAN are still islands on the Pacific, and at least the first one is a place where a  a tank weighing more than 50 tons can´t be deployed on 70-80 percent of its territory. And then you start connecting dots and realize that the Chinese must have pretty good reasons to develop a lighter 2 man next gen MBT which from what we got until now seems to be in the 40-50 ton class.

     

    8 hours ago, alanch90 said:

    Well, places like JAPAN or TAIWAN are still islands on the Pacific, and at least the first one is a place where a  a tank weighing more than 50 tons can´t be deployed on 70-80 percent of its territory. And then you start connecting dots and realize that the Chinese must have pretty good reasons to develop a lighter 2 man next gen MBT which from what we got until now seems to be in the 40-50 ton class.

    Why would you want to pack a bunch of tanks on a mountainous island with thick jungles? Most armored vehicles will have little value in places like those islands. Taiwan has no value to America, why would anyone want to fight to save them from China? Any fighting with China won't be on an island but on the sea and in the air. 

×
×
  • Create New...