Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

i am really exhausted my feet are killin me first i will try google pics if it doesnt i have to upload them to imgur feel free to share them(except for tanknet.forum! F.U. tanknet!

drinkin my turkish coffee and make me fresh and up i go to IDEF after uploading all the pics(may take a while) will share them here  

  • 4 weeks later...

   The Turkish company "Otokar" donated armored wheeled vehicle "Arma" to the Armed Forces of Kazakhstan for military trials.


   As part of the monitoring of the world market of armored wheeled vehicles, the Ministry of Industry and Infrastructure Development organized a practical study by the specialists of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan of the combat capabilities of the Arma with an 8x8 wheel formula manufactured by the Turkish company Otokar.


   The vehicle has high mobility, maneuverability and a sufficient level of ballistic and mine protection that meets NATO standards. There is a possibility of overcoming water obstacles up to 1.8 meters deep and by swimming. The speed when afloat is up to 8 km / h. The design makes it possible to adapt the Arma platform for various conditions of use and to install modern combat modules with a caliber of weapons ranging from 7.62 mm to 105 mm.


   The following modifications of vehicles were proposed for testing: a fire support vehicle, a reconnaissance vehicle with the installation of equipment at the request of the customer, a command and staff vehicle, as well as engineering, medevac and amphibious options.


   Initial tests were carried out in March 2020 at a training ground in the Karaganda region during the day and at night on a 6 km route with overcoming typical obstacles, as well as snow cover with a depth of 30 to 65 cm.Fire tests were carried out by performing practical shooting day and night.

   The working group confirmed the compliance of the presented armored wheeled vehicle with the declared characteristics.


   In order to comprehensively study the tactical, technical, fire and operational capabilities of the armored wheeled vehicle, the Otokar company transfers it free of charge for experimental military operation in various climatic conditions of Kazakhstan, including testing for overcoming water obstacles.


   Also, the company "Otokar" expressed its readiness to assist in the installation of any combat module to the AFV that meets the requirements of customers.







Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
3 hours ago, Stimpy75 said:

M113 UGV. an autocannon equipped version will follow



It really does amaze me what you can do with the M113; It might just have more variants and spin-offs than the M4 Sherman, by now. 

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.

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 SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.

      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.

      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.

      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.

      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
    • By Belesarius
      Cobra's on the hunt again.
    • By Belesarius
      Someone who was once regarded as a moderate reformer getting an ego and arresting 16 year olds as political prisoners.
      Power corrupts.

  • Create New...