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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Alzoc said:

Not sure either, the RCWS should be a 7,62 and the coax looks a bit big for an HMG.

Given that the French have history with coax autocannon I guess it could be possible.

Well, 14.5 is also quite big. Anyway, i agree that coax at least looks to be autocannon sized weapon. Although sonething like 20 mm feels like rather limited in firepower in current times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alzoc said:

Not sure either, the RCWS should be a 7,62 and the coax looks a bit big for an HMG.

Given that the French have history with coax autocannon I guess it could be possible.


Any recent autocannon developments in France? I would hope it’s a newer weapon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord_James said:


Any recent autocannon developments in France? I would hope it’s a newer weapon. 

 

Appart from the 40mm CTA, none that I can think off.

To be even remotely useful it would need to be at least a 35mm in order to have some kind of programmable ammunition.

 

It is likely that it is at least a 12,7 mm like on the Leclerc, high caliber coax have been a constant on french MBT designs since the AMX 30.

That said since the turret is likely unmanned, the problem of ammunition capacity that existed on the AMX 30 may not be a problem anymore (you could just store the ammo externally).

But on the other hand limiting the caliber to 20-25 mm exclude the use of programmable ammunition, which would be pretty stupid, and that coax doesn't look remotely as big as what is, I assume, a 40 mm on the C² version.

 

Since we are looking at what is probably artist vision there's no telling what it really is. Not to mention that it is only the French point of view (Rhm is apparently leaning toward a single platform for the MGCS).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alzoc said:

 

Appart from the 40mm CTA, none that I can think off.

To be even remotely useful it would need to be at least a 35mm in order to have some kind of programmable ammunition.

 

It is likely that it is at least a 12,7 mm like on the Leclerc, high caliber coax have been a constant on french MBT designs since the AMX 30.

That said since the turret is likely unmanned, the problem of ammunition capacity that existed on the AMX 30 may not be a problem anymore (you could just store the ammo externally).

But on the other hand limiting the caliber to 20-25 mm exclude the use of programmable ammunition, which would be pretty stupid, and that coax doesn't look remotely as big as what is, I assume, a 40 mm on the C² version.

 

Since we are looking at what is probably artist vision there's no telling what it really is. Not to mention that it is only the French point of view (Rhm is apparently leaning toward a single platform for the MGCS).


Doesn’t the new MK 30-2/Abm have airburst?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lord_James said:


Doesn’t the new MK 30-2/Abm have airburst?

AFAIK, 35 mm AHEAD on the Oerlikon millenium are already quite anaemic and it need to compensate with a burst rate of fire of 1000 rds/min.

So while airburst ammunition exist for calibres as small as 20 mm their charge isn't particularly effective as far as I know (which is admittedly not much on such small calibres)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

AFAIK, 35 mm AHEAD on the Oerlikon millenium are already quite anaemic and it need to compensate with a burst rate of fire of 1000 rds/min.

So while airburst ammunition exist for calibres as small as 20 mm their charge isn't particularly effective as far as I know (which is admittedly not much on such small calibres)


I don’t think the round has to be particularly big or powerful to be used against infantry and (unarmored) technicals. Though, maybe they’re hoping to dust off some old F2s or M621s, or ask the Germans for some Rh202s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the 3D model it looks like something of 20 mm calibre or so, definitely not 35 or 40 mm. For the larger calibre IMHO the ammo capacity is a big and real problem. TBH I don't think it's a good idea at all to place a medium calibre coax on a tank. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The reactive armor that protects the bustle sides of the Leclerc SXXI is being upgraded with new reactive kits :

 

As part of the Leclerc modernization, the 8th RMAT Materiel Regiment and the 12th Cuirassier armoured cavalry Regiment have been appointed for the fitting of reactive armor kits on 12 Leclerc tanks.

 

Source : Twitter

 

UwCdrIC.pngkJrG5dm.png

9qW3izD.png

IRaAI2F.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sovngard said:

The reactive armor that protects the bustle sides of the Leclerc SXXI is being upgraded with new reactive kits :

 

As part of the Leclerc modernization, the 8th RMAT Materiel Regiment and the 12th Cuirassier armoured cavalry Regiment have been appointed for the fitting of reactive armor kits on 12 Leclerc tanks.

 

Source : Twitter

 

UwCdrIC.pngkJrG5dm.png

9qW3izD.png

IRaAI2F.png

 

Original link please ? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
3 hours ago, Serge said:

Another result of track-phobia?

 

" The vehicle proposed by CNIM/Texelis is fitted with a full-width front bucket  capable to build a 100 meters-long defensive firing position in 20 hours. "

What kind of position is this? honestly, 100 meters in 20 hours is pretty miserable performance... Ancient soviet MDK-2M can do it in probably less than a hour. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Another result of track-phobia?

 

I was there for the presentation, Texelis apparently cares a whole deal about strategic maneuverability in the Sahel, so it had to be wheeled. But then the same presentation had some figure about engineer casualties that had a couple of Frenchmen upset at me on Twitter instead of the presenter, so I'm skeptical about their reasoning in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not really understand the point of the 4 in 1 bucket on a military vehicle. A big, heavy, adjustable dozer blade, like on soviet and russian engineer vehicles (IMR, BAT, UBIM) is much better, much more useful. In military environment, you do not need precision work. You do not need to load trucks. You do not need to grade. Also the position of the excavator arm is quite too far back, and the front bucket limits its movement greatly. Why not do it like on the Wisent-2, or the russian UBIM? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I do not really understand the point of the 4 in 1 bucket on a military vehicle. A big, heavy, adjustable dozer blade, like on soviet and russian engineer vehicles (IMR, BAT, UBIM) is much better, much more useful. In military environment, you do not need precision work. You do not need to load trucks. You do not need to grade. Also the position of the excavator arm is quite too far back, and the front bucket limits its movement greatly. Why not do it like on the Wisent-2, or the russian UBIM? 

 

I do get the feeling that the bucket choice and location, along with the location of the excavator arm were determined by the chassis used as the base. Wheeled vehicles aren't the best for a massive solid dozer blade, there might be stress and balance issues...

 

IMHO, it seems they chose the platform first (and was probably chosen due to low cost & high strategic/road mobility) and then did what they could to make a viable engineering vehicle from it. Also, their obsession with road mobility in the Sahel would suggest they think the future use is going to be overwhelmingly in non-combat or counter-insurgency ops. Note how they directly mention trailer coupling ease / capability as a plus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

I do get the feeling that the bucket choice and location, along with the location of the excavator arm were determined by the chassis used as the base. Wheeled vehicles aren't the best for a massive solid dozer blade, there might be stress and balance issues...

Not necessarily. Wheel dozers do exist. For example, the Cat 824. A bit heavier, true (30 tons), but still carries a quite decent sized blade. 

https://www.cat.com/en_GB/products/new/equipment/dozers/wheel-dozers/18591262.html#

 

Anyway, this new french vehicle is not a well thought out design in my opinion. Both its working attachments are in a very unoptimal postition and configuration, no wonder that its performance is that low (the 20 hours required for a 100m long firing position, I bet a good skid steer operator can do it in less than half that time). I think they either need a good tracked vehicle, or if the mobility requirements rule out tracks (even rubber tracks), then something like the JCB HMEE, which is a very nice design: has high mobility, excellent performance with its attachments, possibility of mounting add-on armor, and is based on proven technology. 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord_James said:

They probably chose the chassis based (almost) entirely on its ability to keep up with the fastest combat vehicles in service. 

Yes this is interesting. But according to JCB, their HMEE can reach 96 km/h max speed, which is faster. But we'll see how it turns out in the end for the MAC.

https://www.jcb.com/en-gb/products/defence-products/high-mobility-engineer-excavator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...