Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, That_Baka said:

I think thats because ID range can interpreted vaguely.  And offcourse there is the question of the claimed performance like with MILAN maximum perforation in british tests .

Nothing vaguely, recognition range for a tank target in narrow field view is 2,6-2,8 km for Nocturne.

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.  

Seems that the turret front is much more armored than T-14. Perhaps its justified because of the ammo being in the bustle. As for the autoloader, reminds me a lot of Leclerc but the ammo count (16 rounds) is surprisingly low, that would explain the need for the bustle to be detachable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's 130mm but according to other Rheinmetall's patent the case of 130mm is only longer than one in 120mm, not wider. So it seems that turret without add-on armor could be quite small.

 

3 hours ago, alanch90 said:

On the other hand, it's unlikely that they are 140mm since those are two piece.

 

Nexter has shown turret with 140mm and autoloader in own patent. And it looks like this.

u6dDb2w.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zadlo said:

That's 130mm but according to other Rheinmetall's patent the case of 130mm is only longer than one in 120mm, not wider.

Yes. We have seen mockups both for 130mm and 140mm, both are as wide as 120mm, but 140mm is like two 120mm cases glued together

 

130mm:

newtankshells-1.jpg

 

140mm:

80d6e81ba6a190d0744a5092d27ff17c.png

 

 

8 minutes ago, Zadlo said:

Nexter has shown turret with 140mm and autoloader in own patent. And it looks like this.

u6dDb2w.png


What is that monstrosity?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a flipped-over FASTDRAW. That turret is guaranteed to have fat cheeks...

 

14 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Seems that the turret front is much more armored than T-14. Perhaps its justified because of the ammo being in the bustle. As for the autoloader, reminds me a lot of Leclerc but the ammo count (16 rounds) is surprisingly low, that would explain the need for the bustle to be detachable.

 

The XM91 autoloader on the M1 CATTB had 17 rounds and those were 140mm, though that tank was supposed to have TWO extra carousels (22 rounds, folded) inside the hull for reloads:

 

Spoiler

Xnmogun.jpg
luDepOh.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Long_Rodney said:

So is that supposed to be at least a half realistic sketch, or just another futuristic concept art?

 

There are patents for this thing, but it might not be directly related to the MGCS (as the MGCS is still in the concept stage, armament, size, crew, etc. all have yet to be decided).

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a weird and surprising concept art. Track, sprocket and running wheels are just like the Leo 2, but there are 6 instead of 7 although more separated which would suggest similar vehicle length. The layout sugfgest a forward engine placement (or perhaps is a hybrid electric type, with one engine in the front and the other in the back?), the whole vehicle seems like a leopard 2 driving in reverse. The absence of crew hatches in the front suggest an entrance through the back of the vehicle, ala Merkava. If this is the case, unless the powerpack is super compact (much more than MTU engine used in Leo 2). Its hard to speculate about a big module of passive armor on the front. Its hard to judge where the crew actually sits but they might be just under the turret ring. In fact, only if the engine is of similar dimensions as in the Euro powerpack and the crew is sitting that far back, only then i can imagine a big block of armor between the engine and the crew compartment. And yes, that is some thick side armor right there.

If the layout is as i´m picturing it, then its reasonable that all the ammo be placed in the turret bustle, as in the patents we got a couple of weeks ago. The turret seems to be almost unnaturally flat, perhaps that menas that in order to depress the gun, part of the roof hinges open. I can see a vertical slit halfway to the bustle (in the picture seems near the commanders CITV), perhaps its the for a machinegun? In the hull front i can spot optical devices very similar as those in the turret, might be cameras or laser detectors. As for the main gun itself, it should be a 130mm but doesn´t look like it, it seems too short (if the overall vehicle dimensions are as i imagine) and that muzzle break ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

That's a weird and surprising concept art.

 

I think it is most likely a vehicle design based on a reconfigured Lynx KF41 hull. The rear of the hull (which has a ramp in the center and exhaust air-vents on either side) looks almost identical.

 

6 minutes ago, Molota_477 said:

Where's this screenshot from>?

 

Yesterday's capital markets day (i.e. where Rheinmetall presents last years results and forecast for the next year to investors). Unfortunately this year's slides are of poor quality, almost as if someone took screenshots from a low bit-rate stream.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 1:46 AM, Renegade334 said:

Looks like a flipped-over FASTDRAW. That turret is guaranteed to have fat cheeks...

 

 

The XM91 autoloader on the M1 CATTB had 17 rounds and those were 140mm, though that tank was supposed to have TWO extra carousels (22 rounds, folded) inside the hull for reloads:

 

  Hide contents

Xnmogun.jpg
luDepOh.jpg

 


Do you happen to have a squarer/closer image of the top diagram? 

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

EMBT is not MGCS. Given the lack of LeClerc h/w in Europe outside france, and the plethora of L2 hardware in field, who is going to pull the trigger first to take on all that ILS risk ?  Training, modus operandii, logistics, etc etc for EMBT will all be developed on the fly and surely not a good recipe for in field sustainment ?  Bottom line - apart from the few demo systems, is EMBT arriving at an army near you anytime soon ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a real interest for that.

So far most customers that had Leo2 in service are going for Upgrade to 2A7 or some parts of the upgrade package.

Others that want to get rid of their cold war equipment aim for K2.

France and Britons upgrade their own MBT. 

Nobody seems even a bit interested in the EMBT.

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...