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'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. 

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

So apparently Norway is finally moving ahead to replace their old Leopard 2A4 MBTs. According to their "Long Term Defense Plan" they want to equip one brigade with new tanks.

Currently the Norwegian Army operates 36 MBTs, if they want to equip an entire brigade of their maneuver bataillons that would translate to a need for quite a big number of vehicles.


The main competitors seem to be the Leopard 2 and the K2 Black Panther.



Leopard 2 upgrade proposal which was posted somewhere in this forum already



South Korean K2 Black Panther (proposal for the Polish Army)


An upgrade for the Leopard 2 would probably come out to be much cheaper than the order of a tank which does not exist in said variant. The main challenge for the german companies in winning this contract will probably be the ability to deliver the tanks on time. Right now there are over 200 german tanks that have to be upgraded, together with other orders from Hungary, Denmark etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upgrading isn't an option any more. 


Now, Hyundai Rotem has offered to manufacture the complete chassis and gun, while the turret and final assembly will be done in Norway. = jobs and some money back. This has been talked about as recently as this week, as Chief of the Armed Forces said that a lot of money disappear out of the country via investments. 


What's the possibility of Germany offerering a similar deal? 

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

What's the possibility of Germany offerering a similar deal? 

Construction of new tanks? Very unlikely. KMW or Rheinmetall could offer certain integration or part assembly/construction contracts. 

But looking at recent K2 offerings... Kind of a smoke screen according to the polish insiders i've talked to. If you look at the offer that becomes quite obvious. They offer a tank which does not exist, with some parts that are also still under development. Completing all that within the timeline of 5 years including setting up production capacities is very ambitious to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Norway sticks with the Leo 2, then we’ll probably end up with a combination of completely new and partially new/upgraded A7s (I have seen conflicting information on how much of the old A4NOs is re-usable). These I suspect will be kept as close to the German A7V standard as possible, and only include a few changes, like the installation of Kongsberg’s ICS. This is because Norway will likely want to enter into a strategic cooperation with Germany similar to the ongoing submarine project*, and also because Norway seems more interested in off-the-shelf solutions these days.


* But it’s also different because the Leo 2A7V is already a done deal and now entering production, but even if Norway had gotten involved at an earlier stage, I suspect that our influence on the A7V would have been a lot smaller than the submarine project where we’re set to be the biggest spender.


2 hours ago, Voodoo said:

What's the possibility of Germany offerering a similar deal? 


If the info in this quote by Centre Party leader Trygve Slagsvold Vedum is correct, it looks like they are offering industrial incentives that are as good if not better:


"Norway will now buy new tanks. It is mainly between buying a South Korean tank or a German tank. What type of industrial community do you think will create as many jobs as possible here in Norway? I think there is a greater chance of achieving that with German industry than South Korean industry. But if the government manages to disprove that, then it is fine, even though everything now indicates that there will be better industrial cooperation with the Germans, says Vedum."


Source: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/Qmm1yA/sp-vedums-forsvars-krav-70-nye-stridsvogner

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2020 at 10:52 AM, LoooSeR said:


At this point i would expect Norks to have some form of thermal imaging sights, even Syrians are making crappy "Viper" thermal sights from Chinese parts for their tanks.


Drozd comparison is valid, because Drozd launches a big ass 107 mm caliber HE-frag warhead to intercept incoming shell and yet each shot is covering very narrow arc. I doubt that this launchers can throw something significantly bigger. Look at angle between tubes in each "pack" - it looks like they have nearly 35-40 degrees between each other and at 20 meters range away from the tank that placement of launchers will produce big gaps in APS coverage. And tubes on the back of the turret look like have similar size to frontal ones, they look like usjal smoke grenade launchers.


Thats why i think that what we see is just North Korean version of soft kill APS on K2s.


Maybe @N-L-M could give his impression on that question.


It is possible that what we see is pretty rough mock up of planned system. 


Might be forgetting the obvious here, but these vehicles could all be just for show. The turret roof being so... poorly crafted, the fake look of all the external sights and “radars”, and the generally sheet metal look make me question if these are actual, working turrets and not just movie props. The all-in-one look kinda reminds me of some “artists” (who’s name shall not be spoken) who throw together certain aspects of tanks and claim they made a tank better than what’s currently being used or tested. 

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

Might be forgetting the obvious here, but these vehicles could all be just for show. The turret roof being so... poorly crafted, the fake look of all the external sights and “radars”, and the generally sheet metal look make me question if these are actual, working turrets and not just movie props. The all-in-one look kinda reminds me of some “artists” (who’s name shall not be spoken) who throw together certain aspects of tanks and claim they made a tank better than what’s currently being used or tested. 

   That is always a possibility with equipment shown on NK parades. Although it also could be a mock up of a new tank that they actually developing. 

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

It was basically just a demonstrator of T-34 armed with R10 dual-purpose gun which was refused in 1953 for many issues - the chassis was too small for the crew (six men) and ammo (a cart with additional ammo was needed, overall it was 200+200 rounds), the system was considered way too high and the opened turret was considered unsatifactory for a front line vehicle as well. Also the armor was considered too weak (the turret could withstand 12,7 mm ammo) but stronger armor meant less main gun ammo. Another demonstrator again on T-34 chassis followed in 1955 but was again refused. In the end the army addopted the well known PLDvK vz.53/59. 



Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Btw, why wasnt the Shilka adopted in the czechslovak army? It was a true masterpiece in its time, one of the best, most effective SPAAG ever designed. 


To be honest I have no idea. AFAIK ČSLA was the only WARPAC army not addopting Shilka but why is certainly a good question. We had one or two pieces but they were used only for training purposes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Scolopax said:

I wondered if it was a matter of manufacturing something domestically, either of foreign license or native design, but I believe all the other AA systems used at the time were purchased directly from Russia.  Worth noting that these (Strela, Osa, and Kub for example) are all missile systems though.


In the 80' and beginning of 90' there was a serious domestic SPAAG development (STROP I and II) but it didn't resulted in serial production (for the reason of the new political and economical reality). I posted more info about STROP II here


Our army kept using a lot of AAA till the beginning of 90'. It was not only the Soviet S-60 (180 pieces) but also our own 57 mm guns vz. ČS (R10 - which is the gun mounted on that T-34 based demonstrator) (219 pieces). Both were able to operate in bad weather using radar guidance. Aside of that by the beginning of 90' we still had around 700 (!) PLDvK vz.53/59 self-propelled 30 mm AAA (30x211 ammo) but those were able to fire only in good weather and in manual fire mode. The towed PLDvK vz.53 were mostly moved to reserve in late 70'. 


Our western and southern border (on the iron curtain) is all created by low mountains and it was expected to be crossed by low flying aircraft and cruise missiles. Therefore I think that the massive AAA numbers were mainly intended to counter this threat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Yooo @Toxn what were y'all smoking back in the days?


Landmines. And bush warfare. And the fumes of late colonialism. And whatever (probably radioactive) drug the cold war was. And, you know, industrial-strength racism.


Honestly, given the above, us making 6x6 mad max vehicles in the 70s and 80s seems positively sane.

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...