Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • 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. 

1 hour ago, Dan said:

T-90 A

No, that's right, this is a deep modernization of the Yugoslav M-84 in Serbia with the assistance of Russia.

It is easy to distinguish it from the T-90A in the lower glacis part
The 90A have lgp like this:
On the T-90A there are mounts for engineering mechanisms, but on the M-84 they are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Karamazov said:

By the way, is there a difference between M-84AB1 and AS? or the difference is only in the name?
I remember that the "AS" has a panoramic sight over the main sight. But "AB1" - not


I don't know. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can answer that. 

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

3D visualisation of the new TITUS variants for Czech army can be seen in this article: https://www.armadninoviny.cz/titus-novinka-pro-ceskou-armadu-ziskava-konkretni-podobu.html


62 pieces will be delivered by Eldis - chassis, final assembly and except first few pieces also the cabins will come from Tatra Defence, electronics from Retia and the first few cabins will come from Nexter. 


TITUS KOVS (command post)





TITUS MKPP (artillery support coordination center) 



General schematics of the drivetrain


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Serge said:

K2 ?

According to this https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/7635ac0d48d44fc180fac57f58be7518/faf-2019-2026-english---final.pdf

"The Norwegian Army shall maintain three mechanized battalions, all which is to have av modern main battle tank capacity. A concept study is ongoing, which, amongst other, will evaluate the number of vehicles and their combat capability"

"New Main Battle Tank (MBT) and new Combat Service vehicles on Leopard 2 chassis(Recovery, Bridge layers and Engineer vehicles)"

"Cost estimate: 4000-8000 mill. NOK"

Not sure if @SH_MM has a different source but this seems to be it.
But not sure how they are getting the 250 number. 3 pure Tank Batallions have 44 Tanks each. If you add training and reserves you are maybe at 160 Tanks.

Also switching the type while maintaining  a fleet of support vehicles on the same chassis seems like a waste.

Together with all the training and spares you would waste by going to a completly new type.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the 250 figure was wrong. I had seen it on twitter, but I cannot find the tweet that included it anymore.


But the Norwegian military plans to have four tank batallions/mechanized maneuver brigades:


"Dette innebærer at Brigade Nord videreutvikles med fire mekaniserte manøverbataljoner med høy oppsettingsgrad og tilhørende taktiske og logistiske støtteavdelinger. Manøverbataljonene i Brigade Nord tilføres nye stridsvogner for å gi brigaden nødvendig slagkraft." -  Proposisjon til Stortinget (forslag til stortingsvedtak) Vilje til beredskap – evne til forsvar Langtidsplan for forsvarssektoren

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I can shed some light on this...


That 250 figure might have been correct if the government had opted for alternative A of the Chief of Defence's advice on the future structure of the armed forces, but to no one’s real surprise, they ended up choosing the least ambitious alternative instead, which means that there will likely be a total of 4 mechanized battalions and 1 partially mechanized cavalry battalion in the future Norwegian Army.


Now, currently, a Norwegian mechanized battalion only has a single tank squadron of about 14-18 tanks, but even if they decide to bring back the second squadron in these units to match the number of mechanized infantry squadrons (generally agreed upon to be the optimal ratio), that’s still a lot less tanks than the 250 figure.


Finally, the Inpector General for the Army, Eirik Krisoffersen, actually stated that he had been promised 84 tanks in an interview last year, but it's uncertain if he was aware that the army would receive a fourth mechanized battalion at that point.


Also, for those who are interested there has been some debate on what will be the best tank for Norway in the last issue of Offisersbladet. It starts on page 52, where Christoffer Westermoen, who was assigned to the earlier Leopard 2 upgrade project, takes the Leopard 2A7V in defence after the editor of Offisersbladed wrote an article that seemed to favour the K2 as the more modern and interesting alternative. Then on page 54, Mogens Rasmus Mogenssen, the representative of various South Korean defence companies in Scandinavia, argues against some of the points Westermoen made, while also directing some criticism towards the Norwegian Army for apparently being too focused on the German alternative. There is also a contribution by Major general (retired) Terje Antonsen and Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Lars J Sølvberg on page 58.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they bought Leguan, Wisent 2 ARV and Wisent 2 AEV. It seems a bit stupid to complain about "being too focused on the German alternative" If all support vehicles are based on Leopard 2. 

One main point I see why 2A7V could not be an option is weight. Driving in heavy snow with ~70t could be tricky (not mentioning transport on roads).

Besides that I do pretty much agree Mogens Mogenssens article.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Norway has clearly stated to go for 2% NATO goal which means there will be more money available (currently 1,7%).

The Leo 2A4NOR is much too old to cancel that program.


I don't think that EMBT is an option since this is has no launching customer yet (and smaller NATO countries always try to avoid that risk) which is true for CV90 with 105mm as well. It will be K2 or Leo2 for sure.


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...