Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Ran across an older book on some tanks, and found some that didn't instantly recognize when flipping through it. See if your guessing is as good as mine. Model names and country are listed in the spoilers below each picture:

Bx13TCm.jpg

Spoiler

Fiat Tipo 2000 (Italy)

 

1CxLy2u.jpg

Spoiler

Ford three man tank Mark I (USA)

 

oVBhfM8.jpg

Spoiler

A3E1 (UK)

 

zihSN4R.jpg

Spoiler

Vickers 6-ton (UK; shown in Chinese service)

 

tW9WtMi.jpg

Spoiler

AMR 33 / Renault Type VM (France)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years ago, Belgium ordered a modernization for the Pandur 1 AFV, so that they would provide sufficient protection for deployment as part of Belgiums contingent for peace-keeping missions in Africa scheduled in 2021 (although deliveries are currently expected by 2022). Main focus was increase mine protection and ballistic protection to sufficient levels. The value of the contract was €31 million.

 

The Belgian Green Party has now cited an official report mentioning that the upgraded Pandur 1s (7 out of 44 already delivered) are considered not suited for operation, as only soldiers up to a height of 1.7 m (5'5'') actually fit into the vehicle. The main problem is the driver's seat, but also the entry in the vehicle is through the obstructed. Furthermore the mobility of the vehicle is degraded.

 

2a5642aa-20ef-11ea-abcc-02b7b76bf47f.png

306b88d0-2108-11ea-a18f-1a690bb82c5d_web

29cf1149-20ef-11ea-abcc-02b7b76bf47f.png

 

The Belgian army responded to the claims that they haven't yet paid much of the agreed contract, that some performance/ergonomic losses are expected with upgrades, that the problems would not be that relevant and that they want to make use of warranty if required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jebus. The steering wheel was the first thing replaced on Australian special operations forces’ Landrovers - in 2002 - when the Survival Enhancement Kit added blast mitigation inside the footwell (driver’s side was 20mm thick, commander’s side was 40mm thick). 
 

Smaller diameter steering wheel meant that the vehicle could still be effectively driven with the SEK added. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2019 at 4:14 PM, SH_MM said:

A few years ago, Belgium ordered a modernization for the Pandur 1 AFV, so that they would provide sufficient protection for deployment as part of Belgiums contingent for peace-keeping missions in Africa scheduled in 2021 (although deliveries are currently expected by 2022). Main focus was increase mine protection and ballistic protection to sufficient levels. The value of the contract was €31 million.

 

The Belgian Green Party has now cited an official report mentioning that the upgraded Pandur 1s (7 out of 44 already delivered) are considered not suited for operation, as only soldiers up to a height of 1.7 m (5'5'') actually fit into the vehicle. The main problem is the driver's seat, but also the entry in the vehicle is through the obstructed. Furthermore the mobility of the vehicle is degraded.

 

The Belgian army responded to the claims that they haven't yet paid much of the agreed contract, that some performance/ergonomic losses are expected with upgrades, that the problems would not be that relevant and that they want to make use of warranty if required.

 

The Pandur is an old design, difficult to upgrade and it was never meant to serve until the 2020s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spain voids production contract for Piranha V:

https://www.ejercitos.org/2019/12/23/defensa-declara-desierto-el-contrato-del-vcr-8x8/
https://www.ejercitos.org/2019/12/24/vcr-8x8-requiem-por-un-sueno/ 

Proposal found unsatisfactory on all fronts:

  • Non-compliance with technical requirements
  • Failure to comply with the deadlines
  • Lack of integration of industrial components required for hull or the turrets under study
  • Lack of financial guarantees for possible cost overruns in respect of the amount approved as the program's expenditure ceiling

 "From the aforementioned DIGAM report it seems that the contract will be submitted to public tender"
Article mentions that Iveco Freccia could be considered the favourite. VBCI and Boxer other contenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2020 at 2:07 PM, LoooSeR said:

   Serbian M-80A during trials.

1KxlVMA.jpg

 

  Reveal hidden contents

byTW5Sk.jpg

 

fM2G6AD.jpg

 

ocDCKOb.jpg

 

 

   A bit more about BVP M-80A

Quote

   Full details of the M-80A IFV modernization project are not given, but it is reported that the vehicle received enhanced protection, a more powerful engine and a new unmanned turret with weapons in the form of a 30-mm automatic gun (apparently, M-86 type), two 7.62 -mm machine guns (one coaxial with a gun and one in a RCWS on the roof) and two launchers of modernized ATGMs of the Serbian production "Malyutka-2T5" (with semi-automatic radio command guidance) and "Malyutka-2F / 2T" (with semi-automatic wired guidance) . The possibility of installing a 30-mm automatic grenade launcher on the turret is also claimed. The turret is equipped with a modern fire control system and optics, including a thermal imaging sight.

   The Yugoslav infantry fighting vehicle M-80A was mass-produced at the FAMOS enterprise in Khrasnitsa (Bosnia and Herzegovina) from 1981 to 1991, about 900 units were manufactured in total. In 2016, the Serbian army had 323 M-80A infantry fighting vehicles, of which, according to the announced plans, it was planned to upgrade 220 units starting in 2020.

 

   BMP-80A modernization projects have been developed in Serbia more than once since the 1980s, revolving mainly around the installation of a new turret with a 30-mm M-86 gun instead of the old single-seat turret with the M-55 cannon (projects M-80A1 and M- 80 / M98A Vidra, as well as the Yugoimport-SDPR variant, presented in 2017 version M-80AB1), but not one went further than the prototypes. As far as one can judge, the current version of modernization repeats the M-80AB1 in the hull, but is equipped with a completely new unmanned turret with a modern fire control system.

 

   Turret during assembly

216956_105175675_kupola%202.png

 

gCtvdoG.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More trouble in Belgium:

 

Quote

 

The Belgian cannot deploy 18 anti-tank vehicles against other tanks, even though that was exactly what they were bought for. The problem is with the 90-millimetre cannon (DF90) with which the Piranha-vehicles are equipped.

 

The results of the last tests with armour-piercing ammunition, that took place in November 2019, were negative, according to internal correspondence at the Defence department.

 

“In view of the fact that the problems (…) have still not been solved after about 10 years of use, COL (chief of staff of the land component) has decided that there will no longer be any investment in the vehicle as a fully-fledged anti-tank capacity,” the report said, reports De Morgen.

 

(...)

 

The Piranha’s Direct Fire 90 millimetre cannons have a lot of issues when firing the armour-piercing ammo, including screws coming loose, breaking valves and disintegrating wires due to the heat.

 

https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/belgium-all-news/88013/armoured-belgian-anti-tank-vehicles-unable-to-fire-anti-tank-ammunition-pirahna-df90-armour-piercing-ammo-defence/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Laser Shark said:

 

Well, firstly, the DF90 was never intended to replace the Leopard 1A5BE,  the purpose of the DF90 is to support infantry combat operations and, if necessary, providing an anti-tank capability.

 

Secondly, no miracle is to be expected from a medium-pressure 90 mm gun against a modern Main Battle Tank.

 

Thirdly, taking into account the additional weight, the running gear of the Piranha IIIC is push to its very limits.

 

Indeed, there was this one rumor with the loosening screws and bolts moving between the hull bottom and the anti-mine double-floor of the Piranha IIIC but as usual, it's overly exaggerated by the press.

 

Finally, I would say that budget cuts and wheels go well with each other. The Land Component believed until the last minute that they will get second-hand Dutch Leopard 2A5/A6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sovngard said:

 

Finally, I would say that budget cuts and wheels go well with each other. The Land Component believed until the last minute that they will get second-hand Dutch Leopard 2A5/A6.

 

That was their mistake. Had they prioritized differently, like the Canadians ended up doing eventually, they could probably have gotten 20-30 second hand Leo 2 for the sum they spent on the DF90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2020 at 5:41 PM, Laser Shark said:

That was their mistake. Had they prioritized differently, like the Canadians ended up doing eventually, they could probably have gotten 20-30 second hand Leo 2 for the sum they spent on the DF90s.

 

I was making reference to the tankers themselves.

 

Main battle tanks were seen by the Directorate General of Material Resources (DGMR) as heavy, fuel-hungry, Cold War relics which doesn't comply with a very tight budget.

 

It's good to still have main battle tanks, but if you cannot even deploy them abroad, there's not much point in having them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spanish 8x8:

https://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas/2020-01-14/defensa-blindados-ejercito-contrato-europa_2409572/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=BotoneraWeb

  • Spain looking into joining Boxer OCCAR
  • Industry thinks Boxer ticks the most boxes
  • Won't buy American. Want full sovereignty and autonomy on parts
  •  VBCI and Iveco other contenders
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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      @Toxn
      @Dominus Dolorem
      @Lord_James
      @A. T. Mahan
      @delete013
      @Sten
      @Xoon
      @Curly_
      @N-L-M
      @Sturgeon
       
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Saturday the 24th of July at 23:59 CST.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.

      PLEASE REMEMBER ALL ENTRIES MUST BE SUBMITTED IN USC ONLY
       
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name
       
      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here]
       
      Table of basic statistics:
      Parameter
      Value
      Mass, combat (armor)
       
      Length, combat (transport)
       
      Width, combat (transport)
       
      Height, combat (transport)
       
      Ground Pressure, zero penetration
       
      Estimated Speed
       
      Estimated range
       
      Crew, number (roles)
       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.
      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.
      3.     Transmission - type, arrangement, neat features.
      4.     Fuel - Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.
      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.
      6.     Suspension - Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.
      Survivability:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Link to Appendix 2 - armor array details.
      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks - low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.
      Firepower:
      A.    Weapons:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Main Weapon-
      a.      Type
      b.      Caliber
      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)
      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.
      e.      FCS - relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.
      f.      Neat features.
      3.     Secondary weapon - Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.
      4.     Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached.
      B.    Optics:
      1.     Primary gunsight - type, associated trickery.
      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.
      C.    FCS:
      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.
      2.     Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.
      Fightability:
      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.
      Additonal Features:
      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.
      Free expression zone: Let out a big yeehaw to impress the world with your design swagger! Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.
       
       Example for filling in Appendix 1
       Example for filling in Appendix 2
       Example for filling in Appendix 3

      GOOD LUCK!
    • 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 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. 
       
×
×
  • Create New...