The last thread rusted in Afghanistan
Airborne Orphan Edition
> What's this thread about?
As usual this thread is for the discussion and pics of tracked and wheeled AFVs of all kinds from MBTs to supertanks to self propelled AA guns. Please keep it civil and cite sources for statistics.
A successor the BMP-2 was inevitable. However, the BMP-3’s origins came out of a series of rather serendipitous accidents. During the 1970s, the VDV had requested a new air transportable vehicle to replace the aging ASU-85, while concurrently, the Army was seeking a scout replacement for the PT-76. Two vehicles, the 685 (from the BMP bureau) and 934 (from the BMD bureau) emerged to fulfil these requirements respectively. Unfortunately, cheaper, retrofitted variants of the BMP and BMD were selected for both categories, and thus these prototypes fell by the wayside. Nevertheless, in the late 1970s, the Army expressed an interest in a new generation IFV, resulting in the 688 from Kurgan in 1981, incorporating the 685’s chassis and the BMP-2’s armament. The 30 mm in question was rejected outright, as it offered no advantages over its predecessor. A new 2K23 100 system was therefore devised in Tula to be mounted on the BMP-2 turret. It sported a 100 mm 2A70 rifled gun with a 2A72 30 mm autocannon, a coaxial PKT, and an FCS and autoloader to match, along with special rammers for gun launched ATGMs. In 1986, the 688 was accepted into service, and became the BMP-3. High costs, its teething issues in Siberian testing, and the later collapse of the Soviet Union, meant only 35 were integrated into European Russian units by 1992, mostly with military training academies. Today, it is undergoing somewhat of a resurgence, as hundreds are being built until the Kurganets-25 completes its development cycle.
> Gun
Rifled 100 mm 2A70 + 30 mm 2A72
> Dimensions (l w h)
7.2 x 3.15 x 2.3 m
> Weight
18.7 tonnes
> Engine
500hp diesel
> Speed
70 km/h
>>30315529
OP: As always, feedback, suggestions wanted and appreciated. (1/2)
In western circles, there is an ongoing debate about the BMP-3’s development and its original intentions. The BMP-3 itself did not differ exceptionally from the BMP-2, or at least, not to the extent one may have expected from a new generation of IFV. Armour protection was similar, with differences being the usage of aluminum components and an extra layer of applique armour added to the front to protect against autocannons - although ERA and modular upgrade packages would be developed for the BMP-3 later in its life cycle. Neither was the BMP-3’s internals radically different; night vision remained more or less identical to the BMP-2; exports to the UAE in 1993 utilised French sights. The salient difference, of course, was the weapons suite, which would have probably offered more firepower than most tanks in the early Cold War. These details led to the question of whether the BMP-3 was intended as a comprehensive replacement to the BMP-2, or an evolutionary specialisation to supplement the BMP-2. The BMP-3’s emphasis on raw firepower over conventional IFV aspects such as armour or features for accommodation of infantry obfuscated the answer further. The addition of the turret with the 2K23 led to a very unorthodox interior arrangement, with the chief result being dismounting became even more difficult, as two sets of rear doors had to be overcome to exit, while two machinegunners sit awkwardly in the hull front on either side of the driver. A large part of this was due to the rear mounted engine, in contrast to the BMP-2/1, a response to imbalances in distribution of weight in the previous vehicles, sacrificing protection for infantry and adding to awkward interior arrangements.
>>30315533
(2/2)
The dual gun system’s absurdly outsize nature was highlighted further in Siberian weapons trials, as repeated firing and recoil led to cracks in the trunnions. Did the engineers disregard traditional dismount considerations while craving firepower? Was it intended as a fire support vehicle and its transportation became incidental during development? Was it simply a case of mismanagement and too many roles taken on at once? One theory that has been put forward is that the Soviets were going for the Bronegruppa tactic, in which BMPs were used for missions without dismounts, in operations usually forming a mobile reserve that can act in lieu of tanks while the displaced infantry emplace themselves in defensive positions. All in all, the BMP-3’s armament is a highly lethal demonstration of versatile firepower on Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Nevertheless, it appears that a substantial amount of concessions had to be made instead. Only modest improvements in mobility and armour, and a possible regression in the practical level of protection offered to riflemen within, characterise the BMP-3. Less relevant now, but certainly relevant at the time of its service, was its cost, the base alone being at least twice that of the BMP-2, and its ammunition being proportionally more expensive as well – these accumulating costs forming a dangerous background to the BMP-3’s service and maintenance in the transition period from the USSR to the Russian Federation.
>>30315549
More tank news, as per the new format.
If you have more queries regarding a news story, just point it out, and I’ll further elaborate and provide links.
Rheinmetall has unveiled its new Lynx IFV at Eurosatory, apparently aimed at the Australian market. This is occurring at a time where Rheinmetall’s Boxer 8x8 is still undergoing evaluation by the Australian military for its Land 400 procurement programme.
Rheinmetall has also lifted the lid on its new L/51 130 mm tank gun at Eurosatory. After exhibition, it will be taken to a proving ground for fire demonstration. Features include a breech vertical sliding mechanism, increased chamber volume and chrome lining, and a new tungsten sabot is expected to be developed in parallel, with the HE ABM (air-bursting munition).
France and Germany via its respective enterprises Nexter and KMW have engaged in talks for the proposition of a new next generation artillery vehicle. The time frame given is for the project to be launched between 2025 and 2030, and it is hoped this will boost interoperability amongst Franco-German forces.
The French Army’s Scorpion modernisation programme is faltering as military authorities is lobbying the government for an additional 5 billion Euros in funds to adequately finance all its projects. Said projects include a Leclerc modernisation, Griffon multirole carrier, the Jaguar and ongoing maintenance.
GDELS-Santa Barbara has shown off its artillery observation variant of the Pizarro tracked IFV. The Pizarro is equipped with a sophisticated sensor array and rangefinder, which can feed back details to artillery in the field for rapid engagement.
The UK’s Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme is now accepting contenders, with names like BAE, General Dynamics and CMI/Ricardo in the ring. The deal would involve 227 MBTs being upgraded to last until 2035.
And that’s all for now.
>>30315556
Addendum: I noticed a few people taking issue with my lumping of Afghanistan with the “Middle East” in the previous thread. I’ll admit that I had never really given the geographical split between South Asia and the Middle East much thought before, and just readily assumed that the country was part of the latter. There’s semantic merit to both interpretations, but at the time of writing, I wasn’t even considering the implications of each term, which was a bit careless.
Also, several anons have asked me in the past for another WWI thread, and I suppose it would be interesting to have another look at some of the battles in the midpoint of the war, cataclysmic struggles like the Somme and Verdun coming to mind, but also other actions like the Brusilov Offensive and the Isonzo Offensive that took Gorizia. I’ll certainly make a note of suggestions regarding another WWI thread.
>>30315556
What's the point in Rheinmetall offering 2 different lines of IFV? The Puma and Lynx seem very similar.
>>30315593
The tweaked Marder, I mean Lynx, is quite a bit lighter than a Puma.
>>30315674
>>30315685
>>30315593
>>30315656
From Jane's
>The concept for the vehicle, which was developed as a private venture, is to cover a wide variety of battlefield roles while "utilising proven technologies to deliver a compelling value proposition for our global customers",
My guess it's a cheapo option that offers a little more than the Marder.
>>30315691
>>30315703
>>30315717
>>30315569
This pic gives me ideas.
Maybe you treadheads can help.
/k/ often laments that we've retired the Battleship format from the US navy. Now I know tank guns are a whole other league than naval guns, but with HEAT rounds, could we park a couple Abrams' on the deck of a Wasp (for example) and do any real damage to another ship?
>>30315730
>>30315755
>>30315746
>/k/ often laments that we've retired the Battleship format from the US navy.
A vocal minority is not /k/.
>>30315746
It you're within 4 nautical miles of an enemy warship something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.
>>30315770
Fair enough.
>some assholes on /k/ often lament that we've retired an outdated concept
Still, could you use a tank as a deck gun, if you really needed to? Would it even do anything?
>>30315746
I don't think a couple of tank gun size HEAT rounds will have much effect on warships which are by and large huge. HEAT would only leave a small hole and maybe fry some systems if you hit the right spot.
>>30315790
I was thinking more like speed boats (a la USS Cole), or some smaller countries' frigates (PLAN maybe?)
>>30315799
>could you use a tank as a deck gun, if you really needed to?
Sure, if you were within range. Moving tanks up on deck and sailing your ship that close would be pretty stupid though, would would be better off pulling some M777's up.
>Would it even do anything?
An APFSDS would probably produce better results than a HEAT given the bulk and protection of a ship.
>>30315825
>I was thinking more like speed boats (a la USS Cole)
>>30315897
Could a flight deck handle the force of actual artillery though? I mean, I guess they put big fucking compensators on those things.
>>30315920
Yeah, I realized after I posed it that even the deuce could probably stop a patrol boat.
Although I'd pay to see one blown out of the water by something packing a little more punch
>>30316019
>>30315556
Apparently the 130mm gun cannot be swapped out in place of the old 120mm and would need a new turret/autoloader.
>>30316645
Yeah, a lot of the budget is reportedly going into a new turret for the gun.
>>30315549
thank thgguy
here is a webm just for you
>>30316645
This gun will the install into the Main Ground Combat System-MGCS
developed by French and German
>>30317122
so what exactly IS that?
>>30317210
Someone taking a guess at what the 130mm round looks like on the inside.
>>30317210
new MBT
or an universal chassis like the Armata
>>30315770
fairly sure its only one or two guys, both with massive mental problems and/or epic trolling skills
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm8M33dQ20A
KBP firepower upgrade for BMP-3 in the late 90 early 2000
>>30317405
That cheesy ass intro is full on '90s boneriffic.
Rooikat
Eland 90
>>30318158
New Sprut?
What changed?
>>30318147
>>30318158
>>30318167
Safferfag, is that you?
>>30318397
I am from South Africa. If there are more of us here I don't know.
>>30318459
There was a poster in previous /thg/s that would talk a lot about the South African Olifant projects
>>30315569
Verdun thread would be nice.
>>30315799
You could, but it's be fucking stupid.
I get the feeling you're getting this from the book 'Catch that Tiger', which unfortunately, rather than focusing on the interesting history, is mostly bollocks.
>>30315746
Why would you want to? Ships already have larger 127mm guns that can reach out to over 100km and fire at 20-35 rounds per minute, depending on model. They already carry something better than any tank gun in the world.
>>30318395
new (for Sprut) RWS, new optics, new thermal sleeve, that thick microwave antenna is also new, I only saw it on Armata and T-90 before
>>30315746
>could we park a couple Abrams' on the deck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_gunboat
>>30317405
>>30317937
Here's the full KBP channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/TulaKirill/videos
>>30318395
New Sprut, introduced in last year army game
all new FCS, the TC sight is the same sight in the White engle T-72B
also a new road wheels and engine
>>30318839
said T-72B, exported to nicaragua
>>30318687
Kekno. The max effective range for 127mm gun ia about 12nm (roughly 23km).
>>30318897
>Kekno. The max effective range for 127mm gun ia about 12nm (roughly 23km).
http://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/63265270/66959274/body_VULCANO_127mm_REV2013.pdf
>up to 100km range
>>30315674
Is it possible to spot an M1A2SEPv2 from the exterior?
Unrelated to above question. If the loader gets injured or killed in battle, the Commander would take his place wouldn´t he? The crew might not be able to detect things as easily because youve only got the gunner spotting things but you can still load the gun.
And if the Commander gets killed, do the rest of the crew still stay in their positions?
>>30318395
Are those the same wheels that the BMP-3 has?
>>30319170
they are
and Sprut turret can be mount into a BMP-3 chassis
>>30319218
Neato, this is what you would call modularity, right?
Also, are turrets connected to the tank by wries or are they held in by gravity or what.
>>30319245
Overlapping rings with contained bearings form just about all turret rings
>>30319245
IIRC pretty much all tank turrets are held on by gravity alone
>>30319218
That 57 is sex
>>30318897
Where should I go for 101 redpilling about naval guns ? I'm acutely aware that a tank frame cannot hold the same machinery as a warship and a such, tank guns can't compete, but still, I can't wrap my head around naval guns capabilities. Dozens of km of range and autocannon-level rates of fire, what's up with this.
Also, /thg/ guy, suggestion : how about threads dedicated to tankers or great people of the Thread ? Knispel, Estienne, Ben Gourion, etc.
Not Whittman of course because fuck that guy, he's the Ultramarines of tankers.
>>30319092
The tall RWS is only on the SEPv2.
>>30319420
>>30319632
The extended range essentially comes from firing rocket boosted rounds, things like LRLAP for Zumwalts 155mm guns.
IIRC M982 Excalibur rounds have a 70km range with 52 caliber artillery.
>>30319708
To add, an entire Mk45 127mm gun system weighs something like 30 tons.
>>30319420
Where did you read this?
>>30319558
it is
FYI all three of them are remote control
Is anybody able to explain, in the most basic terms possible, how the molten jet forms with shaped charges? Google is only brining up wikipedia pages and the like.
>>30318967
>Ships already have
>Volcano
That thing isnt in service yet so no such thing as ships already has 100km guided ammunition.
>>30319708
>IIRC M982 Excalibur rounds have a 70km range with 52 caliber artillery.
The M982s maximum range with a 52 caliber is closer to 50km.
>>30319815
http://youtu.be/CpVVGk2OfQQ
>>30319815
The copper liner melts by the heat of the explosion and forms a high pressure jet due to the conical shape of the charge.
If you want to know about the physics behind how liquids act at high pressures you are probably better of on >>>/sci/
>>30319875
>>30319876
Thats fine lads, cheers.
>>30319889
Glad to help.
HEAT warheads is cool stuff.
>>30319847
That is from 39 caliber guns.
>>30319876
>melts
>jet
The liner is solid the whole time.
>>30319913
Are you sure? We only manage roughly 50km from our l52 Archers.
>>30319632
>he's the Ultramarines of tankers
kek.
A webm for you of the last of the US's all big-gun cruisers (oddly enough, via /tg/ I think), but the short answer is that naval artillery gets to cheat - they have massive amounts of power on tap, tons of space and a shit-ton of bulk to absorb the shock of firing.
The three guns in a single Des Moines turret weigh more than your Leclerc, at 20 tons each, and the turret itself weighs 450 tons. The charge for each shell weighs 35 kg, and can put the shells 27km down range.
Obviously there's no big guns like this any more, but the design is from 1945 and you can see the rate of fire they're capable of - modern equipment is smaller and lighter, but there's still a lot of space and weight to play with, the bigger (not biggest, I can't find the weight of Zumwalt's 155mms) guns the US and France use are 22-28 tons.
And, as the last really big guns used in combat, I should point out that the Iowa's guns weigh about 120 tons each.
>>30319921
Heat warheads usually reaches about 800°C and copper melts at 1050°C so I guess you are correct.
>>30315972
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONARC friendly regards from germany
>>30319962
Its a shame that thing never went into service.
>>30319957
>>30319708
All right, then it really comes down to space/power available and propellant. Thanks.
>>30319876
>>30319815
I heard the term superplasticity thrown around to describe how a shaped charge behave.
I used to believe it pretty much acted as a thermal lance but I've learned the error of my ways since.
Still not entirely sure what's the exact differences in penetration mechanism, and outcome when it goes through, are with a sabot. There's some info available on the internet, but not in layman's terms, and I quickly reach my limits both in English comprehension and physics comprehension.
question about the three box in the left side of T-64/T-80 turret?
anyone know what are they?
>>30319957
I always wished we could stick one of those battleship turrets with guns on one of these:
http://www.carscoops.com/2013/10/belarusian-belaz-75710-is-worlds.html
The truck itself can carry 450 tons AND weighs 810 tons (so you could probably remove a ton of material you wouldn't need for what would basically be the world's largest Technical.
>>30320264
>remove a ton of material you wouldn't need
does it involve chop the thing into obrez length?
that would make it the world first wheeled siege mortar
>>30320264
I've thought a similar thing - the ubiquitous big yellow trucks have huge weight capacity, so what (other than the giant bullseye to the air and the difficulty in moving them, which probably is the reason) is stopping very large military vehicles like that existing?
Might just be the GI-Joe style mobile command centre toys of my youth speaking, but a 2-600 ton massively oversized stryker-style vehicle based on that sort of chassis would be great. Or at least cool, but probably in the same way a battleship is cool.
Hell, you might even be able to put some AA and anti-missile systems on it, so you're not immediately blown up
Hell, they all even have MRAP-style ground clearance
>>30320225
Storage for MM-1 gas masks and other personal NBC gear
https://youtu.be/VH9yXTSMZ8c
At around 13:56 they fire a volley and the rate of fire is freaking slow for an spg. They fire shells with gps fuses and thats how slow their rpm is. Wtf another fail.
>>30320400
thank
>>30315685
>commander's tank only shot an 800
kek
>>30320382
Too heavy.
Too big.
Serves no purpose.
Fills a niche that doesn't exist.
Better to have lots of smaller vehicles.
>>30319092
Not really. Most of the improvements over the SEPv1 are internal. The CROWS is standard on all SEPv2 (but they're being taken off, thank you General Abrams (pbuh)) but as far as I know it could be added to any tank. It's pimp-my-tank shit, not a unique identifier. There's also an infantry J-box by the exhaust that I think is new to the SEPv2 but I'm not sure.
>>30320549
>but they're being taken off, thank you General Abrams
So they are going back to the usualy manned fiddy cal commanders MG like in pic related? How come?
>>30320602
its a 240 in my pic but its the same question I was asking btw fellas.
>>30320445
>the rate of fire is freaking slow for an spg
first shot is 13:56
third shot is 14:02
so 3 second per shot= 20 round per minute
that is faster than the M777 crew here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb3tfk8dxvU
and way faster than this M109
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ9bMv3thac
fastest SPG in service today is the Pzh2000 and it best rof is 12 RPM
so i have come to an conclusion that you are bating
Would any of you have stats about the M1's armor layout?
We're having people claiming its rear armor is equivalent to 470mm RHA
>>30320549
>>30320602
>but they're being taken off
The fact that the article in question had no citations and Kongsberg is continuing to make CROWS-LP should tell you something.
>>30320445
The PzH 2000 fires at 10 rounds in 56 seconds, or a burst mode of three rounds in nine seconds, which is considered one of the fastest firing SPGs. Since the gun fires at 3:56 and at 4:00, and we suppose it fires a 3 round burst, the time would be of 12 seconds, only 3 seconds slower than the PzH 2000. It's not slow at all.
>>30315755
>>30315730
>>30315717
>>30315703
>>30315685
>>30315674
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sb6QIXZBXg
>>30320602
THe CROWS is fucking trash and has an unreasonably high profile. The .50 jams enough; we don't need the electro-mechanical unreliability as well. Last gunnery my TC literally stood atop the turret and manually fired the .50. Cool as fuck but not combat applicable. As for the profile, that's another 3 or so feet deeper you/the engineers need to dig down in a battle position. As a loader I've spotted CROWS behind berms nearly a kilometer out using shitty privately owned pocket-sized binoculars.
Someone could say that it provides a nice vantage point for its camera. I could say that the CITV already exists, and doesn't have the massive profile to go with it.
I've also seen an RWS that was basically a motorized traditional .50 mount. Looked good as fuck but I can't find the picture online
>>30320682
Like any tank, weak as fuck in the rear. Could you penetrate the crew compartment from the rear? Probably not. But the engine's fucked.
>>30320759
Well, I'm sure you guys will delect over this level of intellect.
>>30318822
>>30318833
>>30318859
>>30318883
>>30319087
>>30319326
>>30319945
>>30320665
>>30320711
Take a look if you have time to cringe.
>>30320635
It can fire fast, but comparing maximum rate of fire in a burst (likely using light charges) vs steady rate of fire or casual rate of fire is a bit disingenuous.
>>30320798
That's the same RoF than on the PzH 2000 you idiot.
>>30320714
What article?
>>30320775
for what i have read
Abrams only have little RHA in the side and rear( red arrow) the rest are structure steel
so just claim it have 470mm EQUIVALENT of RHA all direction are bullshit
>>30320824
It could just be trolling
>>30320835
more like damage control
>>30320798
> but comparing maximum rate of fire in a burst (likely using light charges) vs steady rate of fire or casual rate of fire is a bit disingenuous.
the Slav developed a water cooling system for the barrel that spay liquid strait into the chamber
sound retard but it could increase steady rate of fire
still that video show that it max ROF is comparable to the PZH 2000
>>30320817
And your point is? The max rate of fire on a PzH2000 is only useful for MRSI.
>>30320824
>>30320896
People always leave out the first few side skirts are actually a composite then there's that big ol space then side hull.
>>30320818
http://taskandpurpose.com/army-trying-kill-life-saving-weapons-system/
Note it is from April 19, whereas this is from a month later.
http://www.kongsberg.com/en/kps/news/2016/may/kongsberg%20has%20signed%20orders%20to%20the%20crows%20program/
>>30320775
jesus christ
>>30320824
Keep in mind that the M1A2 has DU as well as its Chobham armor. You can see the extra thickness covering the crew compartment. The skirts are also extremely thick over the crew compartment.
And RHA (rolled homogeneous armor) is an EQUIVALENT. It changes from round to round. For example, the following bit I C&Pd from wikipedia:
>For the M1A1HA, Zaloga gives a frontal armor estimate of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT in M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982–1992, nearly double the original protection of the Abrams.[8] In M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural, he uses different estimates of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 700 mm vs HEAT for the front hull and 800 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT for the front of the turret.
Also the skirts are effectively spaced armor. Any warhead that hits the skirts wastes a couple feet of its cone on dead space before hitting the actual armor
>>30320947
I hope T&P is right as far as taking it off the Abrams. It works well enough I guess on MRAPS and Strykers.
>>30320941
>>30320970
didnt know Abrams have NERA side skirt like the Leopard
>>30320824
>>30320896
>>30321030
Not on its base package, no. But it has pimp-my-tank shit in the newer versions of the TUSK I think. The skirts are just regular, non-reactive armor. But there's these scale looking things that I think are NERA
>>30321039
>>30321052
You really exemplify the meme of soldiers not actually knowing the details of their equipment.
>>30315529
thanks to the thg guy on very intresting read on the bmp 3, theory and opnion here, the BMP may have been fileded largely to sumplment firepower in regards to lakc of dedicated Atgm system on board and the fact the Russian would have difficulty in fielding an effective vehicle bourne atgm system, likewise they simply may been steping up armament to counter likely NATO developments (the Bradley Warrior and AMX-10P, and maurder, plus the intelligence of the upcoming cv-90 may spurred more action, no doubt if they cold war gone on the United States as well as many other NATO nations would have fielded 40mm to 50mm NATO armed IFV'S
>>30320759
they do look a little silly with all that shit up there
>>30321068
Nigger my tank never had that shit. Base model SEPv2. Of course I don't know about it. The closest I got to TUSK was another unit's shit with the TC/loader hatch shields and the pintle .50 mount.
>>30320970
Theres a few different versions of CROWS, sint there? There is the original one which is really boxy. The Protector RWS is different though.
Are they all shit and jam a lot? In terms of how clear the image itself is, they seem more than capable.
>>30321093
Which is why the low profile configuration is being made.
>>30321093
What are the tubes surrounding the commanders MG? Ive seen that a few times on vehicle mounted fiddy cals.
>>30321125
Tanks are armed with the ones with those big-ass shields on the side. Standing next to it, the top of the .50 is about at my belt line.
And the ones in my company all suck. We've had 2/14 tanks with fully capable CROWS. It's not that the equipment fails, just that the cables can deteriorate and if your software isn't on point you're fucked. And then to reload or otherwise fuck with the .50 you need to stand on top of the turret. You can only charge and release the firing pin.
>>30321134
It's shorter, but it's also on top of the fucking GPS and blocks the forward vision of the TC.
>>30321125
I think everything in the US Army currently uses the M153, except Strykers which use the M151 and M1A1's which use the Stabilized Commanders Weapon Station.
>>30321183
dunno, heres a better pic though
>>30321203
>>30315593
Puma is a common vehicle with KMW. I bet they're super butthurt about them telling them to fuck off when they tried to merge with them a few years ago and prefering going to Nexter. But yeah, fucking good job of Rheinmetal stepping on shared KMW turf on this instead of differenciating their products or seeking further common partnerships. And then germans complain their weapons industry is slowly dying.
>>30315656
The Lynx 41 is very much within Puma dimensions and armor apparently. Though it seems Puma only carries only 6 dismounts (like Lynx 31) while Lynx 41 seems to carry 8. So at least there's that.
>>30321194
>but it's also on top of the fucking GPS
That antenna is on the back of the turret on SEPv2.
>and blocks the forward vision of the TC.
But much less so than the current version, and does not require you to exit the tank to service the gun.
>>30321183
>>30321203
BFA for the .50
>>30321197
The SCWS is what I was thinking of. I wish we had those things instead of the CROWS
>>30321203
>>30321183
MILES
>>30315556
>The French Army’s Scorpion modernisation programme is faltering
Not really, first phase seems well on tracks, and both first deliveries of Jaguar and Griffon are funded, but our ground combat forces will grow by 11000 personnel in the coming years and that demands further funding for equipment and vehicles which is not yet taken into account. And frankly i'd say our naval forces would need a couple more frigate hulls than what is planned so far. So, yeah, faltering might be a strong word.
>>30321230
Apparently, its the German government fucking over german defense contractors and making it hard for them to sell stuff, forcing them to merge with other european contractors. Possibly something to do with that whore Merkel trying to integrate everythingin Europe with each other.
>>30321256
>That antenna is on the back of the turret on SEPv2.
the fuck are you on about
The damn thing is mounted on the GPS, right in the TC's face.
>But much less so than the current version, and does not require you to exit the tank to service the gun.
But more so than a motorized normal mount. And he still has to half-climb out instead of just lean forwards.
>>30321258
They are made for M1A1 cupola's.
>>30321093
>>30320759
Oh, would you look at that, guess who's jumping on the CROWS bandwagon...
Nexter are in denial. About a great many things.
>>30321341
The M1A1 and M1A2 have identical cupolas...
>>30320759
>As a loader I've spotted CROWS behind berms nearly a kilometer out using shitty privately owned pocket-sized binoculars.
Which means it was already watching you.
>>30321353
No, they don't.
>>30321226
>dirty deuce
Goddamnit USA how the hell does your naming policy work ?
>>30321354
Seeing but not spotted is better than seeing and spotted. And that's assuming the opposition is mounted literally charging blindly at the target area like we were and not some scout with high powered optics lazily scanning the horizon for giant, blocky shapes.
Also the CITV exists. As I've said.
>>30321352
I don't hate the idea of an RWS, just the specific application of the CROWS II on the Abrams
>>30321385
Usually, tanks are named after their company. EG. a D Co tank being Danger Zone or Deadlined, or a C Co being Circle X
>>30321317
Oh, I thought you were talking about the GPS tracker not the gunners primary sight.
The original CROWS was placed between the GPS and CITV, but someone decided the commander needed to be able to manually fire it.
>>30321352
Since it is not a CROWS, what's your gripe with this model of RWS?
>>30321293
I saw an expanded report elsewhere on that, damned if I can find it again though.
The shortfall was stated to have been caused by the complexity of networking systems more than anything, getting the whole thing to actually branch out turned out to be exponentially more expensive than was invisioned, and the concern is about future deliveries, and whether the funding will be hardcapped before they can get everything they want into it. It's definitely going to happen and be delivered, but the question was for a "long route" thing down the line and on whether any sudden cost spikes or changes might result in funding running short on acquiring the full amounts required.
In effect, the only "immediate" effect is it probably puts the aspirations of upgrading an extra 20 Leclercs into the background and maintains it at 200 tanks.
So not a HUGE worry at current. Possibly worry tomorrow. No-one knows for certain.
>>30321393
I'm ok with a RWS but I'm not sold on adding such a clunky bunch of optics in principle. Feels redundant with the CITV, as you said (or equivalent), looks very easy to take out, adds unecessary height to the tank, and you'll have to be 100 freaking meters behind the ridge to be in a turret-down position.
Regarding the names, ok, but apart from that you're free to name them however you want ?
>>30321421
To be honest, once it works it will be quite worth it. The whole threat identification, any sensor on any vehicle able to determine which vehicle is a target and activate its soft kill defenses, categorize the threat and offer bearing to best suited weapon in range makes my peepee very very hard.
>>30321399
Oh, makes more sense. Yeah. I'd say doghouse but I don't think most people here would know what I'm referring to.
>>30321363
I haven't been on an A1 so I have to ask, what is the difference, and why couldn't it be overcome with a slight modification?
>>30318395
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSv3B67Ytlk
This thing, gives me a special kind of erection
>>30321457
>>30321457
>Yeah. I'd say doghouse but I don't think most people here would know what I'm referring to.
You'd be surprised.
Any kind of CROWs should be integrated with the CITV.
Like the Russians did.
>>30321452
P much. There's a bumper number (eg. D11 for D Co, 1st platoon, 1 tank) but the barrel names have no regs.
>>30321503
So are you saying it's impossible to modify the design?
>>30321408
See >>30321452 though obviously the Leclerc rénové RWS looks smaller than the CROWS.
But as a whole, I'm kind of pissed off by Nexter atm so I'm not totally unbiased.
Eurosatory anecdote from a good source :
>be source, talking to Nexter dude in front of a Jaguar
>be asking very precise questions
>Nexter dude tongue-in-cheeking pretty hard
>source's irritation over 9000
>questions increasingly embarassing
>Nexter poor sod shifts to full damage control mode, frequently looking over source's shoulder
>source ends his pain, turns around
>motherfucking CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF with all his court right behind him
>why hello there, very, very interesting questions you have, Mr Source
He got out of here as fast as he could. Dunno how the Nexter dude, who was like head engineer or something, fared afterwards.
>>30321565
>>30321452
Something like that around the HL 120 would certainly beat that Leclerc's RWS, or your CROWS.
>>30321352
>Nexter are in denial. About a great many things.
Mind sharing, or something your not supposed to talk about?
>>30321581
Man, I'd feel bad for him in that situation if he hadn't been being a dick to begin with
>>30321581
Mmmmmmmh... any chance you can get more specific about the question?
>>30321576
>So are you saying it's impossible to modify the design?
IIRC the company that makes the SCWS is offering a version for the M1A2 cupola, but the SCWS is much less capable than a CROWS which is probably why the army has passed on them.
>>30319695
Op where can I get tanks schematics or blue prints? Esp ww2 era
>>30321565
>>30321629
I fully agree.
>>30321638
>>30321648
Nope guys, I'll have to leave it at that.
>>30321581
>>30321735
At least we can infer Source thinks there is something shitty with the Jaguar and Nexter has no answer to that.
>>30321835
>"Nexteranon, the first concept arts looked so cool, why does it look so butt-ugly now?!
>Aaaaah! Sorry moi pas speaking french!!!"
>>30321858
What role is the jaguar meant to fill anyway? They must be the only real military inthe world with a 6x6, apart from maybe China (unless they took all the WZ551s and its variants out of service).
>>30321893
Long range reconnaissance/fire support in place of the AMX-10RC and near-antique ERC 90. It's not a perfect vehicle but it has to cope with quite a lot of contradictory requirements, for no small part fit into an A400M without savaging its range too much.
>>30321893
It replaces the Sagaie and 10RC, so, light cavalry/light armour stuff. Heavy recce and medium support. It's good for low intensity environments where you need good operative mobility, like, for example, Africa.
Of course, once a couple 10RC or, soon, Jaguars, blow up because RPG-29, our higher-ups *might* realize that because our enemies don't have tanks doesn't mean they aren't able to destroy them, but until then the Wheel maffia will continue to jerk itself off to paratroopers and shit like this.
>>30322001
I'm not certain the trend of other countries that "if it doesn't weigh 60 tons it wil blow up the second you look at it funny" is much saner. Sure you have armor but what's the point when your deployability is so shit? Case in point the germans in afghanistan who took Leos on patrol. Up to a certain point, low logistical weigh and superior communications trumps armor, and the frogs are sure as shit on point on these matters. Though i do agree that your heavy formations around Leclerc tanks could use a heavy tracked IFV with near-MBT armor. So yeah that would be what, 200 vehicles? In these past decades of low intensity warfare and shit defense budget i'm not surprised it never happened. Who knows what the next decade will bring.
>>30322001
>Wheel maffia
Because a 30 ton tracked vehicle has more protection than a 30 ton wheeled vehicle.
>>30322177
Well the thing is we do follow the trend of heavier vehicles : compare the Griffon and the VAB, the Jaguar and the 10RC, or the newest VBCI version. But we do not follow that logic to the end, because we keep to wheeled vehicles.
Now you raise a good point, with deployability : the A400M isn't suited for heavy lifting.
And one could say it's all coherent : we keep to medium vehicles, transported by medium lifting assets, because we operate in light-to-medium environments (regarding armour. Not fight intensity).
But it shows poor long-term planning. We're supposed to prepare for tomorrow's fights, and they may very well be high-intensity.
>>30322193
Sorry Anon, I don't see your point ?
>>30322427
>our higher-ups *might* realize that because our enemies don't have tanks doesn't mean they aren't able to destroy them
>Wheel maffia
>>30322462
Right, I meant to imply that being able to destroy tanks = able to completely wreck light wheeled armour.
>>30322427
>French vehicles getting heavier and heavier with more powerful air transports.
So... You're on the right tracks.
>>30322542
Carlos!
>>30319632
Navweaps.com has a lot of good information of naval guns of old and new. You can compare easily how different weapon systems evolved. They also have neat archive of technical articles
>>30322542
YEAAAH!
>>30320321
You could do that but I was referring to removing the giant dump bucket and hydraulics, aka probably litterally hundreds of tons of weight that can be removed.
>>30322177
Don't you mean the Canadians in Afghanistan? Unless the Germans brought Leopards too.
QUICK, /thg/, NAME YOUR TANK
>>30324450
Big Boned
>>30324450
John Cena, because it's more effective than any camouflage.
>>30324002
Didnt the Canadians get into trouble for using theirs in Afghanistan because the leased them from Germany?
>>30325408
Why would the Germans care? They specifically helped out with a 2A6M mine package for conditions in Afghanistan.
>>30325408
We traded the leased ones for Dutch leo's we already had. Just had to update them to 2A6 before handing them over to the Germans
>>30315533
>exports to the UAE in 1993 utilised French sights.
Why was the UAE such an early export partner? Wouldn't it have preferred western alternatives?
>>30324450
Hot Coffee
>>30321735
Are the wheelmafia being paid by Nexter?
>>30327837
Everyone is.
>>30320635
>first shot is 13:56
>third shot is 14:02
>so 3 second per shot= 20 round per minute
They edited the footage bruh. But it is likely its that fast or even faster; its meant to fulfill a requirement previously filled by 2 guns afterall. Probably made possible once materials improved and that cooling tech. was introduced. If it is that fast though its MRSI fires would be devastating; pretty much vaporizing anything in a 50 m radius.
>>30326753
Looking at a list of the UAE Army's inventory is like complete and utter logistics gore, there's even fucking Italian prototype export MBTs (OF-40) and a random lone group of BMP-3s from Russia, Swiss AFVs and a good deal besides from major western countries like the UK, US, France and Germany.
>>30328705
>having a look at the wiki page
>Urutu - Brazil
>buying Brazilian
>ever
I mean, even the Brazilians don't buy Brazilian, if you look at their imports.
>>30321297
I feel Nexter and KMW could have worked on projects without having to undergo a full merger.
do you like cute girl tanker?
>>30329602
cute Russian tanker
>>30328323
Over under was not about speed but heat. They used a different tactic to lengthen barrel life and lessen the heat so the over under became repetitve.
>>30329602
>>30329609
I dont recommend that you post worst korean north african cave paintings on /thg/ thread with it being untranslated. Sure dutchko draw shit with good details and know her homework but she also forgot that the driver would be alive and try to bail.
>>30329629
look like the PG29V hit the turret ring close to the driver hatch
so she is head anyway
>>30329648
serisouly. fuck off
>>30329662
shut up subhuman scum
>>30329648
Considering how the T-72B obr 1989 got spall liners (the anti radiation liner) and the driver sits in a L shape and not in a place where the PG29V would have a modest chance to wound the driver then no.
But the gunner would have a bad day.
>>30329749
the anti radiation liner are outside the tank isn't it
so it have no effect with spalling inside the tank cause by shaped charge
>>30317342
No, its the new Reihnmetall 130mm smoothbore gun
>>30329749
T-72M1s are pretty much export T-72As right? And the T-72Ms were as bad a T-72 Urals.
>>30329783
The anti radiation liner was first inside the tank starting with the T-64A.
It was only in later models of the T-72A and early models of T-72B (or any late model T) that they started to put it outside due to intelligence of nuclear bombs with high radiation being developed in the US.
>>30329811
Yep
>>30319632
>Ultramarines of tankers.
What he's a Mary Sue?
>>30329783
Antiradiation cladding is on the inside of the tank and also on the outside (for tanks produced or refitted after 1983), but only on areas where the metal is (relatively) thin, so turret/hull roof, hatches etc.
They are not spaced from the metal structure, so probably not quite as good as dedicated spall liner.
>>30329811
T-72M1 = T-72A pretty much yes, some small differences
T-72M = Would only equal late model T-72 Ural (addition of laser rangefinder), again some small differences
>>30330022
Stop reading Matt Ward's bullshit.
>>30319632
Ben Gurion wasn't a tanker! He could do a Kahalani or a Tzvika Greengold thread, though.
>>30330040
Not as good but quite good.
According to swedish tests the radiation liner was quite good in catching fragments. Reduced the number of fragments and the area where fragments would penetrate the liner. So with that in mind then the driver would have no serious wonds or damage.
https://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ointres.se%2Fryska_strf_till_sverige.htm
>>30330147
I had this preconceived idea that he was armour. Probably because there was a tank named after him, oh well.
>>30330022
More like the shiny, infuriatingly seemingly perfect poster boy.
Knispel was unkept, unshaven, an all-around cool bro who did not adhere to the whole nazi shit and was frighteningly efficient so... space wolf I guess.
>>30322177
Afghans were light infantry using old weaponry
Imagine if Russia had supplied them with hundreds of modern ATGM's, how many lost vehicles would we be looking at there?
Always gonna need tanks or their equivalent, ESPECIALLY in counter insurgencies
>>30328705
Theyve got a fugton of BMP-3s though, 598 BMP-3s is nothing to sneer at, especially considering the Russian only have 20 ish more.
>>30329484
How come rheinmetal and KMW didnt work on a new project together, was it somethng to do with internal politics between the 2 companies?
>>30315529
damn, those rollers look weak as fuck.
how different are they on American tanks?
>>30321352
Yeah... It's a scale model though... But apparently RTD will make it this ugly and that big... :/
The "UAE" ATO was waaaaayyyy slick and compact.
Nexter is still trying to sell their RWS for Scorpion but DGA is on the Nononononono song at the moment.
>>30321581
>But as a whole, I'm kind of pissed off by Nexter atm so I'm not totally unbiased.
You're pissed? What the topic that piss you off?
>>30322427
Yes. Now the time will be to talk about the "EBR employable" and the "VTT employable"... After all this bullshit about the "char employable" and how the Leclerc was overkill for FR Army... *pissed*
>>30330447
Apparently there was some strong political encouragement for a Rheinmetal/KMW merge but KMW thinks they will simply be chocked to death and assimilated if it ever hapens so it was a big no-no for them. Also french exports are on the rise and if the germans gvt keeps tightening the export rules (tight for everyone but israel, which show the hypocrisy of it) they can now play the card of "fuck you we relocate to France". Considering how TKMS bought Kockums Naval Solution just to let them rot and kill a submarine manufacturer, there is ground for concerns.
>>30329484
So far they only have the same parent company but both entities are independent. It will take quite some time to make a common line of product and vehicles so you can still expect both to sell their own stuff for nearly a decade. First common project is a new artillery system and the early draft of the post-2030 Main Ground Combat System. Expect some Aravis versus Dingo or VBCI versus Boxer competition in the years into they have a common line of products, which will certainly be the cause of some frictions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK7NKU5yC1o
Would a T-55 survive this VBIED?
>>30332082
The shockwave probably ruined some fragile elements. Starting with the crew.
>>30332082
How damn hard is it to hit a car driving straight at you?
A T-55 should have no problem hitting a car at ranges less then 100 meters. Is it so damn hard?
>>30332351
I think they were being bumrushed by several VBIED.
>>30332082
if hatches were closed should be 0 dmg inside
>>30332818
>video game logic
>>30316019
>>30316038
Warm and snuggly tank is so warm and snuggly. What is that, an IR-blanket with a sun umbrella on top?
>>30319420
why is this such a common maymay?
I have a question for /thg/. How would you guys design an air-portable light tank? What features would you give it?
Pic semi-related, as it's kind of how not to design one.
>>30332082
>we drift into c&c generals more with each passing day
>>30334856
30mm Bushmaster mk.II with .50cal coaxial. Top of turret Low Profile Protector turret with 40mm GMG. Twin Javelin pods on both sides of the turret.
Hull aluminium with easy to attach slat armor sockets ready. Armor rated to AP 7.62. NBC spall liner inside.
Basically light as possible and fast glass cannon. Javelins can engage everything heavy and Bushmaster/.50cal everything lighter.
>>30334952
>Implying that is a bad thing
>>30334856
You see the M8 AGS? Essentially that. A few minor changes, but that's essentially it.
>>30334953
>using an autocannon for the light tank role
>.50 caliber coax
>GMG RWS
Good luck with that. There is so much wrong with this I don't even want to address it.
>>30335008
Please adress whats wrong with it. It is just that I don't intend it to slugfest with MBTs, but act more like air dropped IFV. Semi-silly to get 105mm guns against potentially modern MBTs.
I do agree that GMG is tad silly and could be changed to 12.7, but HMG coaxial stays purely from my love of heavy coaxial weapons
>>30334953
>autocannon
>aluminum armor
I said light tank, not AFV. And we all know how great of an idea aluminum armor turned out to be.
>glass cannon
This isn't World of Tanks. That's not how armor works.
>>30335008
Is the M8 designed to be extracted from low-altitude like the Sheridan was, or was it supposed to be parachuted like the slavs do?
Also, with the M8 and its bolt-on additional armor, would it be a stupid idea to parachute the tank and the additional armor seperately (assuming with the armor it's too heavy to safely drop), and then re-attach it in the field?
>>30334856
>put 3 abrahams + platoon of infantry
>make very tough parachutes and rocket retarding landing
>>30335057
>12.7
>.50
..you know they're fundamentally same fucking thing, right..?
>>30335091
Sorry for being a cunt and reading too much TVTropes and using common gaming terms that shouldn't twist your dick into knot.
Aluminium only because it is light, wouldn't choose otherwise.
Autocannon because it can destroy all IFV and Javelins to deal with MBTs/heavy shit.
>>30335144
Yes, I know. I prefer to use proper terms if possible, but phone wants to be a dick when dealing with dots.
>>30335221
You don't seem to have any comprehension of how armored vehicles are actually used in warfare.
They don't go zipping ahead hunting down and blasting away enemy armor. That's a great way to get nailed by the infantry supporting the armor with anti-tank weapons.
>>30335057
Let's stop and think for a moment. Does the autocannon actually do what you'd want a light tank for- IE killing armor and destroying structures and fortified positions? The answer is no. The autocannon provides very little capability that infantry and other airdroppable systems can't already do. The explosive filler in the rounds isn't enough to effectively and efficiently take on fortified positions or even a concrete building. An actual cannon does do it. And yes, this cannon does give capability against MBTs. No, a light tank isn't as strong as an MBT in a direct fight and one should avoid ever attacking into enemy MBTs with them, but they act almost as effectively as an MBT on the defense, where they can better make use of terrain.
On to the coaxial .50. This is an absolutely terrible idea for a great many reasons. Let's just stop for a moment and think about what the coax does which the main gun doesn't. The answer- provide sustained fires against infantry and unarmored vehicles. The .50 does poorly in this role. It can't sustain fire on infantry due to a significantly lesser sustained rate of fire than a system firing a full size rifle round, a la 7.62. It also carries far less ammunition than such a system. Further, the .50 is less effective against area targets due to the above reasons. And then here's another important part- it's significantly heavier. We're making an airborne vehicle, and you want to weigh it down with an unnecessary boost in size. The use of it is even less ideal in the system you described, as you already have an autocannon, which behaves as a strictly speaking better HMG.
The GMG is another bad idea. Fairly niche role, large rounds, short range.
>>30335091
>Is the M8 designed to be extracted from low-altitude like the Sheridan was, or was it supposed to be parachuted like the slavs do?
The Sheridan did normal paradrops as well.
>Also, with the M8 and its bolt-on additional armor, would it be a stupid idea to parachute the tank and the additional armor seperately (assuming with the armor it's too heavy to safely drop), and then re-attach it in the field?
That was literally the plan.
>>30335369
Two things I was never aware of. I've only ever seen the Sheridan being dropped by low-flying C-130s.
Good to know, thank you very much.
>>30334856S
Spurt-SD with armata turret
>>30335091
>Also, with the M8 and its bolt-on additional armor, would it be a stupid idea to parachute the tank and the additional armor seperately (assuming with the armor it's too heavy to safely drop), and then re-attach it in the field?
slav do the same thing with their BMD-4 and Spurt
that they are rarely seen with module armor
>>30334856
Start off with the concept of a Scimitar light tank, but change the gun to a LAHAT/20mm coax.
If at all possible make it 2 crew members.
>>30335861
>If at all possible make it 2 crew members.
Why in God's name would you ever want that? Did you learn nothing from history?
Anyone have any information on what the South Koreans thought of their BMP-3?
Know that they got a number of them from Russia as part of a debt payment. I would think that an amphibious troop carrier with both an autocannon and a 100mm for fortifications and obsolete armor would have been an enticing option. Obviously the South didn't like them as they something was wrong with them as the South didn't continue to take them as debt payments but I have never found why.
>>30335899
>South didn't continue to take them as debt payments but I have never found why.
they was more interested in rocket and SAM technology
ify they retired the T-80U but keep their BMP-3
and K-21 suck dick as a amphibious vehicle
>>30335352
>what you'd want a light tank for- IE killing armor and destroying structures and fortified positions? The answer is no.
Basically you are pigeon holing it into a specific role even though 90% of what you would use it for is better served with an autocannon/ATGM.
>>30335948
IIRC they sent them back to Russia in trade for parts for the other
>>30335893
30,000 lb weight limit.
>>30336100
i thought they sent back the T-80 for more BMP part
>>30336214
I actually thought it was the other way around?
>>30336144
>DSHK
>no armor
That's barely worth even considering an IFV/AFV at all. It's just a Ripsaw with a HMG stuck on it.
You'd be better off with a Humvee or MRAP than that peice of shit.
>>30336067
>Basically you are pigeon holing it into a specific role even though 90% of what you would use it for is better served with an autocannon/ATGM.
I'm looking at what you'd want an airborne light tank for. I'm also looking at why the US Army wants one. I notice you have absolutely no arguments for your system, by the way.
>>30336144
That's flat out retarded.
>>30335571
I have a question: could the BMD-4 fill the roles of a light tank and an IFV?
I'm not sure if the cannon is big enough to really do the same jobs that a designated light tank might need to do.
