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. 

8 hours ago, Rico said:

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"


Note sure about that. They also purchased a variant of the PMMC G5 (though one based on reworked M113 hulls), the IRIS-T SLS missile system and are planning to buy new class U212CD submarines. While these systems are not related to the Leopard 2, there might be some companies involved in making parts for all of them, which could (albeit extremely unlikely) result in a higher dependence from this company.


Personally I believe the best option is to approach the new requirements for tanks open minded, analyze all possible alternatives (regardless of them being too German or not German enough) and then make a decision, rather than deciding to (not) buy something solely based on the country of origin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Leguan and Wisent 2 are both based on Norwegian Leo 2A4 and are reworked. Same could be done for the MBT.

Leo 2A7 are old hulls with new stuff inside as well (for DK and GER at least).

So I don't see why an upgrade should be deemed.

The prices that I have seen for Wisent 2 in Norway (documents from NDMA) are ~6.5 mio €/vehicle which is much less compared to a brand new MBT (I think a new 2A7 is ~11 mio. €). That seems quite a good reason for an upgrade.

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

Distances of High Explosive bursts penetration capabilities, i figured general AFV thread is a good place for this, after all, all AFV have some sort of requirement to this regard. Some bits of M2 AP too.

  Reveal hidden contents


  Reveal hidden contents



is there full report ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a twist Spain has selected the VCR 8x8 Dragón (Piranha 5)



The Minister of Defense, Margarita Robles, under Article 346 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, has signed the commitment that will allow the incorporation of the Corporation, made up of Spanish companies Indra Sistemas S.A., Santa Bárbara Sistemas S.A., Sapa Placencia S.L. and Escribano Mechanical & Engineering S.L., for the sole purpose of executing the VCR 8x8 Program.

After this signing, a tender period begins with the intention that said contract can be signed during the third quarter of 2020.

The proposal of these companies satisfies the needs of the Spanish Army, by allowing to retain the design authority in Spain and favor a high participation of the national industry in a percentage not less than 70%.

The industrial plan of this program is going to have very positive effects on the national economy, having special incidence in Asturias, Seville, Guipúzcoa and Madrid, where the creation of 650 direct jobs and another 1,000 indirect jobs is expected.

In addition, this solution also guarantees the Army Army the maintenance of the 8x8 'Dragon', facilitating the control of obsolescence and the future incorporation of improvements to the vehicle as well as a significant workload for the national industry throughout its life cycle that does not It will be less than 40 years.



This will deal with the supply of 348 8x8 Wheeled Combat Vehicles (VCR), as well as the maintenance and support of their life cycle and the international commercialization of these. These vehicles will be delivered within an estimated period of seven years from the signing of the Program Agreement.

The objective of the four companies through this partnership is to satisfy all operational objectives and respond to all the needs of the Army and the Ministry of Defense and that the VCR 8x8 Program becomes a driving force of the national industry. Along these lines, the development of this program involves an ambitious national Industrial Plan, which facilitates maintaining the authority of design in Spain and favors a high participation of the national industry in it, in a percentage not less than 70%.


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Beer said:


Is that some radar on the turret side? 

Possibly radio-command antenna for SACLOS ATGMs.




missile launcher, 2T5 radio guided missile family and wire guided modernized 2F and 2T Malyutka anti-tank guided missiles. The 2T5 features a semi-automatic command-to-line of sight (SACLOS) guidance system and has a maximum range of up to 5,000 m at a maximum velocity of 200 m/s.



Link to post
Share on other sites

   The 4th Alpine special-purpose parachute regiment "Monte Cervino" of the Italian Armed Forces was armed with light high-passable armed tactical ATVs (buggies) ARIS LTATV designed and manufactured by a small Italian company A. R. I. S.











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...