Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Militarysta said:

My all dear friends,

first of all - polish MoD mr Błaszczak is lying when he only open his mounth. The same PiS (Law and Justice party) goverment. This is faritails propose only by parlement election this outum in Poland. They will be no new tank in possible to recoginze future in Poland - 2PL, 2A5 after small upgrade and just refresh T-72M1 and thats all. Poland will take Finish 2A6 and Protugaleese if those countres will sell those tanks. And thats all. You must understand that this goverment is lying whole time and sucht "declaracton of interest" is only bubble talks to deluge all around - german partenrs, EU industry, polish soliders and...people before parlament election. Whole goverment narration is about "building strong army" whit 4th division, unit deploy to est, taking US forcet to Poland and tehnical modernisation of the Polish Army. Inn all aspect is low-cost shit. Sorry for talk this straight. In case tanks - all buble talk about "super duper IVgen German-French=Polish tank"  is only to deluge that will be done more then...to small refresh 230 T-72M1 and 148 Leopard 2PL (and this program is totall disaster right now). 

Comprehensive answer @Militarysta! Giving a credible picture what's going on in Polish MoD. Do they really have a chance to get 2A6 from Finland or Portugal and are they able to pay for?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 316
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

*Damian on suicide watch*

https://ir.rheinmetall.com/download/companies/rheinmetall/Presentations/191120_CMD_2019_Unterluess_CEO_online.pdf

Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :   The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.  

47 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

 Do they really have a chance to get 2A6 from Finland or Portugal and are they able to pay for?

No idea :) There was a some talks on rather low level industry-industry and army-industry  but whole talk was rather "if we then you can..". More or les low level claimed that 2A7V will be more cost effective solution then upgrade 2A6 and possible both countries will sell their tanks if they will buy new Leopard 2A7. As I know they are some aditional law resons why both countries may be forced to sell 2A6 and buy new 2A7 but I don't know details.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

First concept works of MGCS will start soon. A total of nine parts of concept studies will be developed, three by Rheinmetall, three by KMW and three by Nexter. The will be managed by a 18 men project team, lead by Germany. A new company will be formed for the MGCS development, 50% owned by German companies (Rheinmetall and KMW by equal amounts), while the other 50% will be owned by Nexter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

First concept works of MGCS will start soon. A total of nine parts of concept studies will be developed, three by Rheinmetall, three by KMW and three by Nexter. The will be managed by a 18 men project team, lead by Germany. A new company will be formed for the MGCS development, 50% owned by German companies (Rheinmetall and KMW by equal amounts), while the other 50% will be owned by Nexter.

 

Damn was just about to post it^^

 

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/paris-et-berlin-proche-de-debloquer-le-programme-mgcs-char-du-futur-828951.html

 

On that note Rhm apparently officially presented it's 130mm as a part of the MGCS program at AUSA 2019:

 

http://forcesoperations.com/une-premiere-brique-identifiee-pour-le-mgcs/
 

Quote

Lighter than the 120mm L55 the 130mm L51 will use ammunitions a little over 30kg while providing a 50% increase in kinetic energy.

Rhm announced that they are working on an unmanned turret demonstrator using the 130mm and an associated autoloader.

 

Hard to tell what each of the 9 parts will hold precisely but looking at the strong points of each contractor it is likely that Rhm will take the turret, the gun, probably the APS and possibly the ammunitions (though each country might produce some specialized ammo independently).

Nexter likely has a claim on the FCS and the BMS possibly the propulsion if they haven't lost all know how since the V8X alternatively they might also work on the armor.

That would leave things like the general architecture, automotives in general and integration for KMW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only part of MGCS

 

Quote

Rheinmetall is also developing an unmanned 130mm demonstrator turret featuring automated ammunition flow. This system will be compatible with the European Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) project and can serve as a combat performance upgrade to all Leopard 2 user nations. The development also matches key developmental priorities in the US Army NGCV program.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

New generation? K-2 isn´t enough?

 

Yes, Hyundai has realized that K2 is currently too cramped for Korean tankers. The last generation of Korean conscripts has grown a lot (circa 3 inches in 10 years) and now they need an interior space similar to one in European and American vehicles. AFAIK from people who were in K2 said the tank was similar in these terms to T-72.

 

And now they start working on XK3

 

Oh, and the proof of Korean 130mm.

CLMb8vj.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Here is a German news article about the MGCS and possible European partners (it is mostly talking about Poland, but uses it as example for problems that can be found with most of Eastern Europe):

 

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/ruesten-fuer-europa-huerden-fuer-den-gemeinsamen-kampfpanzer-16439321.html

 

Interesting parts:

  • Poland backed an Italian alternative program to the MGCS, which then was apparently canceled - France has not forgotten that and thus doesn't like Poland as partner for the MGCS
  • Industrial capabilities of Eastern European countries are limited and often focused on upgrading old Soviet vehicles. Due to the fact that industry is often inter-woven with politics, they are considered unreliable (illustrated by Poland canceling a contract buyiing French helicopters in 2016 just because some politicans wanted to appease their American partners)
  • big holding companies like PGZ are deemed to be bad for innovation, making Poland a less attractive partner, as they lack competition while being state-owned/state-driven
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:
  • big holding companies like PGZ are deemed to be bad for innovation, making Poland a less attractive partner, as they lack competition while being state-owned/state-driven

At this point it really amuses me this "free-enterprise creed". Because not only state owned monopolies have demonstrated that they can be superior both in development and mass production of military equipment  to whatever the "free enterprise" western countries had (USSR, anyone?). But also this "free enterprise" in reality is a mirage, private military manufacturers are critically reliant on state  support, to get public funds for R&D or to get critical intel, etc. There are truly no "free enterprises" in the military industry, only openly state-owned or  "covertly" state-funded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Because not only state owned monopolies have demonstrated that they can be superior both in development and mass production of military equipment  to whatever the "free enterprise" western countries had (USSR, anyone?).

 

When and how did they demonstrate that?

 

Also note that the Soviets (whose military industry was did not demostrated to be superior than the free market) did have competitionm between the different design bureaus, while PGZ and other defence industries complexes owned by Eastern-European countries are not exactly competing against themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

When and how did they demonstrate that?

 

Also note that the Soviets (whose military industry was did not demostrated to be superior than the free market) did have competitionm between the different design bureaus, while PGZ and other defence industries complexes owned by Eastern-European countries are not exactly competing against themselves.

Not saying that soviet industrial model was perfect, but the criticism based on the false opposition of public vs private has more of a political sense than actual interest into looking at which one would be the most efficient way to develop and produce military equipment. I mean, things like the EFV program, the Future Combat Systems program the F-35 program are all product of the private industry model and from whatever political or economic POV you have, those programs are a catastrophe (in terms of wasted time, public funds, etc.) and a much bigger one than the worst program ever undertaken by the USSR. And yes, the soviets had a higher production output while maintaining technological lead in several fields over NATO until the 80s while at the same time the USSR had a GDP far ,far, far smaller than NATO. The way i see it, thats efficiency. We could discuss about the effects of this model on the rest of the economy and society, but that is another question entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Not saying that soviet industrial model was perfect, but the criticism based on the false opposition of public vs private has more of a political sense than actual interest into looking at which one would be the most efficient way to develop and produce military equipment. I mean, things like the EFV program, the Future Combat Systems program the F-35 program are all product of the private industry model and from whatever political or economic POV you have, those programs are a catastrophe (in terms of wasted time, public funds, etc.) and a much bigger one than the worst program ever undertaken by the USSR.

 

The programs you mentioned are not failures because of them being handled by the private industry, but mismanagement on the government's side.

 

The negative difference between state-owned industry complexes and private industry can be summarized with one example: the army wants a new tank, so they tell the industry to design a new tank. In case of a state-owned industry complex, the tank designers will have to utilize components and technology from the state-owned industry complex - there are no alternatives and there is less technology available overall (why should the state-owned industrial complex design a second gunner's sight, when they just had designed a new one?). They end up with one offer and one component for every aspect.

A privatized military industry meanwhile competes against each itself; this forces innovation (evolution works just like that), every company tries to beat its competitors out in terms of technology, reliability or price. This means that there are multiple components or designs form which the military then can choose the best - whatever "best" means in that case. As there is no state-owned competitor, there is no benefit of choosing an inferior product just because it is made by a state-owned company (i.e. no money to gain from choosing worse parts). For the Leopard 2, competition of private companies meant that there four different FCS from which the military then could chose the one that best fits it needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2019 at 5:08 PM, SH_MM said:

 

The programs you mentioned are not failures because of them being handled by the private industry, but mismanagement on the government's side.

 

The negative difference between state-owned industry complexes and private industry can be summarized with one example: the army wants a new tank, so they tell the industry to design a new tank. In case of a state-owned industry complex, the tank designers will have to utilize components and technology from the state-owned industry complex - there are no alternatives and there is less technology available overall (why should the state-owned industrial complex design a second gunner's sight, when they just had designed a new one?). They end up with one offer and one component for every aspect.

I think its more complicated than that for USSR from what i read only monolists in Soviet Tank industry is ammo makers .For example when Soviets tested thermals for T-80U modified Agava and Nocturne from completely different NIIs are offered .Interestingly Nocturne designers claimed identification range is 3km while Agava is 2km.And thats 90'es and T-80U refurbishment rather more lucrative Leader-2005 programm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, That_Baka said:

I think its more complicated than that for USSR from what i read only monolists in Soviet Tank industry is ammo makers .For example when Soviets tested thermals for T-80U modified Agava and Nocturne from completely different NIIs are offered .Interestingly Nocturne designers claimed identification range is 4km while Agava is 2km.And thats 90'es and T-80U refurbishment rather more lucrative Leader-2005 programm.

 

Well, I already mentioned that Soviets were a different case, because they actually encourage competition between different design bureaus (but then bought nearly all products, rather than choosing the best). I have seen conflicting data regarding the layout of Agava-1/Agava-2 and Avaga-M1, while there is little to none available on the Nocturne thermal imager. Nocturne was however developed as successor to Avaga-2, so it seems likely that it had a better sensor.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with SH_MM.

 

Leo2 is in competition against other western MBT. So the industry has a will to improve which is not only forced by the current customers (that have an influence due to changed operational use of the leo2 as well). 

Further the Leo2 has competitors within 

Leo2A7 VS Leo2 Revolution

Wisent 2 VS Kodiac

Wisent 2 VS Buffalo

 

This gives constant improvements in a faster way than others do. 

 

So bringing MGCS to a similar situation should be the best for the end product.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone explain this center plot to me again? I assumed that the different colors represented the KE protection coverage offered on the Leopard 2 using 5 different armor (wedge? / insert?) types (B, C, D1, D2, D3).

 

0zK5TH9.jpg

 

Looking at the T-80U front protection coverage:

 

820329_600.jpg

 

Overlaying the D1 frontal (0 degrees) plot with the T-80U plot, Leclerc plot of the Swedes and the Leclerc plot of my model i get the following results:

 

front_coverage

These results confuse me. I used to the plot below to generate the plot for my model above. The T80U offers better armor coverage and resistance compared to the "D1" Leopard 2 and my modeled Leclerc. The D1 armored Leopard 2 barely shows any significant improvements over the modeled Leclerc and  it is overall inferior to the T-80U in terms of KE resistance from the front.   

 

 

Here is the -20 degree plot:

 

-20_coverage

 

I tried to come as close as possible to the Swedish results when i did my calculations.  Both the Swedish model and my model of the Leclerc offer inferior KE protection coverage to the export M1A2 at -20 degrees from the front.

 

My questions:

 

1) What armor combination, wedge and insert type, was used to get the following results:

 

leopard+swedish+improvements+3.jpg

 

From what i have seen and read, I do not believe that the T-80U offers better KE resistance over the front, yet the D1 plot shows the Leo 2 (D1) to be inferior.  I believe that D2 ord D3 armor technology was used to generate the diagram above.

 

2) Do you think my Leclerc plot comes "close enough" to the Swedish (FMV) Leclerc plot?

 

I would appreciate your response and feedback.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laviduce said:

1) What armor combination, wedge and insert type, was used to get the following results:

 

The German Solution is based on the Type B integral armor and the Type D-2 add-on armor (see the first image posted by you). The Swedish model therefore has better armor; which one isn't exactly known. I believe that it has at least Type C base armor, potentially even Type D-1, but this is only speculation based on what it seems was used on the series production model of the German Leopard 2 (and this still isn't a 100% confirmed, because the words used by Rolf Hilmes when describing the armor solution aren't a 100% unambiguous). It is also possible that the Swedish model used some type of better wedge-armor (Type D-3?), but I personally do not consider that likely based on the visiual similarity of the Strdisvagn 122 and the Leopard 2A5 of the German Army.

 

2 hours ago, Laviduce said:

From what i have seen and read, I do not believe that the T-80U offers better KE resistance over the front, yet the D1 plot shows the Leo 2 (D1) to be inferior.  I believe that D2 ord D3 armor technology was used to generate the diagram above.

 

I don't think that the graphs can be interpreted as easily as you seem to suggest, as there are more possible combinations. First of all it seems that the graphs are not only displaying turret armor, but apparently total armor along the profile (of the crew compartment?). This leads to questions if all Leopard 2 models displayed in the graph utilize both turret and hull add-on armor or if a solution like the actual Leopard 2A5 (strong turret armor, weak hull armor) fielded by Germany and the Netherlands is included. It is also questionable wether the graph only shows combinations of Type B armor with wedge-armor (as in case of the German Solution) or includes combinations like Type C/D-1 base armor with Type D-2/D-3 wedges etc.

 

What you are calling "D-1" in your graphs seems to be identical to the German Solution (with Type B integral armor and Type D-2 add-on armor) on the left of the first image posted by you (compare the coverage of the yellow graph with the coverage of the German Solution at 0° impact angle!).

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

The German Solution is based on the Type B integral armor and the Type D-2 add-on armor (see the first image posted by you). The Swedish model therefore has better armor; which one isn't exactly known. I believe that it has at least Type C base armor, potentially even Type D-1, but this is only speculation based on what it seems was used on the series production model of the German Leopard 2 (and this still isn't a 100% confirmed, because the words used by Rolf Hilmes when describing the armor solution aren't a 100% unambiguous). It is also possible that the Swedish model used some type of better wedge-armor (Type D-3?), but I personally do not consider that likely based on the visiual similarity of the Strdisvagn 122 and the Leopard 2A5 of the German Army.

 

 

I don't think that the graphs can be interpreted as easily as you seem to suggest, as there are more possible combinations. First of all it seems that the graphs are not only displaying turret armor, but apparently total armor along the profile (of the crew compartment?). This leads to questions if all Leopard 2 models displayed in the graph utilize both turret and hull add-on armor or if a solution like the actual Leopard 2A5 (strong turret armor, weak hull armor) fielded by Germany and the Netherlands is included. It is also questionable wether the graph only shows combinations of Type B armor with wedge-armor (as in case of the German Solution) or includes combinations like Type C/D-1 base armor with Type D-2/D-3 wedges etc.

 

What you are calling "D-1" in your graphs seems to be identical to the German Solution (with Type B integral armor and Type D-2 add-on armor) on the left of the first image posted by you (compare the coverage of the yellow graph with the coverage of the German Solution at 0° impact angle!).

Thank you for your response. The top diagrams seem to show the protection of the entire vehicle, not only the turret. As you pointed out, the magenta colored plot seems to correspond to the left diagram and the yellow  plot corresponds to the diagram on the right.

 

Here is my DM33 estimate on the Leclerc S1:

 

Lec_DM_KE

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      I realized that we don't actually have a thread about the British Chieftain tank.  
       
      I posted a bunch of Chieftain related stuff on my site today for anyone who is interested.  The items include:
       
      Magazine Articles
       
      1970 article from ARMOR
      1970 article from IDR  - Chieftain-Main Battle tank for the 1970s
      1976 article from IDR - The Combat-Improved Chieftain – First Impressions
      1976 article from IDR - Improved Chieftain for Iran
       
      Government reports
       
      WO 194-495 Assessment of Weapon System in Chieftain
      WO 341-108 Automotive Branch Report on Chieftain Modifications
      DEFE 15-1183 – L11 Brochure 
      WO 194-463 – Demonstration of Chieftain Gun 
       
      WO 194-1323 – Feasibility study on Burlington Chieftain
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Bundeswehr Weasel and British Light tank Mark IV
       


×
×
  • Create New...