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

Britons are in trouble


Mighty_Zuk

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Serge said:

 

"In the imagery the Warriors appeared to be fitted with plates along the length of their hulls to defeat high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warheads, which British Army sources said is designated Operational Equipment Standard 3 (OES3)." - so the British army only needs mounting plates to defeat HEAT warheads? ;):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
8 hours ago, David Moyes said:

"Streetfighter II"
/.../
XNDgoJP.jpg
 

  Reveal hidden contents

LP6i5sh.jpg
zZuOako.jpg
Y3biZRi.jpg
h8L2QjW.jpg
3eoiZvB.jpg

 

 

   Why T-54B is photographed with it? It is 60+ years old tank after all, lol. Also, its still looks like something a field unit personal would do to a tank if sended to conflict zone and left without much supervision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 

   Why T-54B is photographed with it? It is 60+ years old tank after all, lol.


Used in demonstration. Still runs.

 

3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 

   Also, its still looks like something a field unit personal would do to a tank if sended to conflict zone and left without much supervision.


Basically is.
It's just a test platform for the tankers to try out ideas. Nothing official.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, David Moyes said:

Used in demonstration. Still runs.


Basically is.
It's just a test platform for the tankers to try out ideas. Nothing official.

   Syrians made a better "streetfighter" with their Adra modification of T-72s, heh, and it was made by field unit with steel bars and stones. IDK what purpose this vehicle serves, all useful mods from it (cameras, dozer blade) should have been easy task to work out (or should have been designed during tank development, in the first place), everything else doesn't look practical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Syrians made a better "streetfighter" with their Adra modification of T-72s, heh, and it was made by field unit with steel bars and stones. IDK what purpose this vehicle serves, all useful mods from it (cameras, dozer blade) should have been easy task to work out (or should have been designed during tank development, in the first place), everything else doesn't look practical.


You need to look at the add-ons individually rather than as a complete package.
They're ideas that are quickly bolted-on to try out in various scenarios and to evaluate their effectiveness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Vickers Mk.4 Valiant (1982):

wTHANs5.jpg
 

Spoiler

zS41yJj.jpg
29C0qzM.jpg
TK7WCB8.jpg
1He2lPS.jpg

 

Quote

'Britain's Chief of the Defence Staff, Field Marshal Sir Edwin Bramall formally opened the world's biggest and most modern privately-owned armaments factory. Sir Edwin unveiled Newcastle's new £7m Vickers plant, to be known as the Armstrong Works. Military top brass from 40 nations attended the ceremony. Pictured is the Vickers Main Battle Tank (MTB). 24th November, 1982. (Photo by NCJ Archive/Mirrorpix/Getty Images'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2020 at 9:02 AM, Sovngard said:

 

The glacis layout of the Valiant seemed so much better than the one of the Challenger 1 & 2.

 

The decision to use an aluminum hull is also quite brave, the thing is only 47t despite mounting much of the same mechanical components as CR1/CR2 (and the whole universal turret assembly which was the forebear to the CR2 turret). Considering that it was the NERA modules that provided the real protection, I do wonder why Vickers totally ditched their hull design and opted for others.

 

It is exceedingly unlikely this is carrying 20t less armor than the CR2, so this seems to be mechanically a better hull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mk.4 had problems with the aluminium hull wearing out. British testing found this out with MBT-80 but the hull was considered a replaceable part.
Vickers then quickly partnered with KMW for the Mk.7 for the Egyptians. 

Challenger 1's layout is a result of being based on the Chieftain. Challenger 2 is similar because Vickers didn't have the time or money to develop a new hull that would have to compete with the Leopard 2 & M1.

CR1 was expected to serve alongside CR2 and having a hull that could share equipment and upgrades was seen as preferable. Also Cheaper.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...