Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Its the end of an era. South korea finally retires T-80U and BMP-3:



It would be good to know what was their opinion about these two vehicles. Some sources say koreans were satisfied, others say they didnt like them... 


From what I’ve heard they really liked them in regards to size, performance and mobility, and firepower. If I can find the sources I’ll link them on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Singular is Freccia, plural would be Frecce going by regular grammar, but I don't know if a vehicle name gets changed like that or it it remains Freccia   Have some Ariete - Centauro II mix

I didn't say anything about penetration either.     See?  That's what I said.  I never claimed that HESH is impotent because it cannot penetrate.  I am saying HESH is impotent because

I'm anxiously waiting for the Turkey's K2-derived Altay to have all these teething problems which will be denied with as much vigor as the Indians defend the Arjun. 

   And a bit more was pointed out on otvaga - device on top of gun mantlet on K2 is Friend-or-Foe system antenna that sends identification request



   Same system is being mounted on K1A2



   Antenna that "answer" to Identification request (in the middle)




   Same system on K21 IFV




Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafael has redesigned their website, and have added some new brochures in the process. One of them is the Samson 30, integrating a whole bunch of elements developed internally in Rafael:



The only weird part is that although they're offering the turret with armor up to level 6, they're now not giving the full specs like they used to, and instead posted just the minimal protection level plus weight of the turret.


The next one is the Suite for Future Armored Vehicles:

https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Future-Armored-Vehcile.pdf (apparently no spelling checks?)


They're basically describing again this system:



They're also showing the roles of each operator in the OMFV. Also notice that they're specifically referring to the OMFV, perhaps pitching this technology for the US Army.


And the last one for AFVs is the Fire Weaver:





It's now pitched to the IDF and other armies as the next gen of BMS. Worthy of note is their claim that the Fire-Weaver provides accurate Geolocation of targets independently of GPS.

Link to post
Share on other sites




The new armored vehicle of chains for the sappers of the Army has a maximum weight in combat order of 33 tons, capacity to transport up to nine crew, including the driver, and the main novelty compared to previous versions of the Pizarro is the highest level of ballistic protection and anti-mine.



While presenting the Vczap in Spain, GDELS-Santa Bárbara Sistemas will show two other variants of the Ascod family, one equipped with an unmanned 30 mm torreo and another with an integrated launching system, at the IDET fair that will take place in the city of Brno in the Czech Republic.




Pizarro Phase III

As detailed by the Army, this future Pizarro should be equipped with means of situational awareness, as augmented reality, and incorporate improvements in the armament, with a tendency to increase the caliber to 40 mm, and in protection, with floating floor barges and systems of active protection, taking advantage of the current developments of the Ascod platform of Santa Bárbara Sistemas.


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

from Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sompong.nondhasa/posts/1722926777810426 - some 8x8 from Thailand



Thai people ... Armor car wheels 8x8 new step from PANUS! .... The image that is seen here is the construction and assembly of 8x8 wheeled armored vehicles by Phanat Assembly Company, which has amphibious capabilities according to the needs of the Thai Marines. Now is about to be completed .. Information and other performance, please follow here.

(Thai->En via Google Translate)


















Link to post
Share on other sites

^^imo a very nice looking vehicle, which i htink somehow show South African influence!


Rabdan UAE








what are they going to do  with the BMP-3 hulls? as far as i know the turrets will be put on the Rabdan.

they should at least use them for sth similar to Sprut like putting Cockerill turrets 105/120 mm and bam you have a very potent light/medium tank 

Link to post
Share on other sites

   We don't have Iraqi AFVs thread, so...


   Iraqi Al-Kafeel Tank, modernized T-55 of Al-Hashd al-Shaabi forces. I have Azov engineering corp vibes from it.
























Link to post
Share on other sites

From MILEX-2019 - Belarusian Zashitnik (Defender) MRAP by JSC "140th Repair Plant".





Protection of the 4th class, armor protection of glass and frontal projection of the 5th class. The bottom of the vehicle, as it should be, is V-shaped.


   MRAP is equipped with a 400 hp (294 kW) engine produced by the Yaroslavl Motor Plant (YMZ-7511), connected to the YMZ-239 transmission. Speed is up to 90 km/h. Two fuel tanks with a total capacity of 200 or 350 liters provide at least 1000 km range at 60km/h. Defender is made on the basis of commercial chassis of MAZ-631708 with an all-metal welded body mounted on the frame. A number of modifications were made to the chassis, bridges were strengthened, individual elements of the transmission, gearboxes, fuel tanks, and a power plant were protected.


   The armored vehicle "Defender" has a total weight of 19,8 tons. It can overcome the rise of a steepness of 30 degrees and a ford water obsticles with a depth of 1.5 m. Tires 16.00R20 Bel-95 are bullet-resistant with explosion-proof inserts and a system of centralized pressure control. Inside it can accommodate up to 16 soldiers: two at the front and fourteen at the rear. It can be equipped with various combat modules of various classes, both with regular and with large-caliber machine guns. Air conditioning is present, a set of video cameras are present, automatic fire extinguishing systems is present as well.



























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
      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 Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;

      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:

      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?

  • Create New...