- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,042
Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology
- Thread starter Rage
- Start date
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,042
BAE Scouts Reactions for New Lightweight Tracked Tank
LONDON — BAE Systems is looking to breathe new life into the lightweight tracked tank market with a vehicle design that it is taking to the upcoming Eurosatory defense show in Paris next month to canvas potential customer opinion on their requirements.
The company's Global Combat Systems arm has already sanctioned funds to build a representative demonstrator later this year but has stopped short of a full launch of the program while executives scout potential customer reaction to the 15-ton to 17-ton vehicle armed with anything up to a 40mm cannon.
Jamie MacKenzie, the international account manager on the program, told reporters at a briefing in London May 8 that Eurosatory would be used to soft launch the program to minimize expenditure while trying to understand what the market is for the vehicle, which will be known as the CV21.
Early soundings at a recent defense show in Malaysia appeared to confirm the company was on the right track, he said.
BAE believes there is a major capability gap for a lightweight tracked vehicle offering good protection but with high mobility in areas where the infrastructure of roads and bridges limits the ability of 36-ton to 40-ton platforms — such as BAE's CV90 Scout and General Dynamics U.K.'s Scout vehicle — to move around .
The executive said that provided there is sufficient interest, BAE could next year move to a fully fledged demonstrator capable of being taken for trials.
For the moment, the rolling demonstrator, for which private venture funds were approved by BAE last week, would feature a representative, nonmoving turret on a chassis.
BAE intends to fit an existing turret equipped with the CTA International novel 40mm case telescoped cannon for the initial demonstrator.
MacKenzie said the CTAI cannon was used because of its availability to BAE. He said the company would work with the customer on lethality requirements and the tank could carry cannons, such as the Bushmaster, or other weapons, including missiles.
CTAI is a joint venture between BAE and Nexter of France. The British army is the launch customer for the weapon, which is being fitted to the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle and the Scout version of the new General Dynamics U.K. specialist vehicle now being developed for the military.
The General Dynamics Scout vehicle will replace the venerable BAE-built CVR(T) platform currently used by the British army for reconnaissance missions starting in the second half of the decade. However, questions have been raised in the last year about the U.K. Ministry of Defence's ability to afford the entire program during an era of budget cuts.
MacKenzie strongly denied the emergence of the CV21 was in part aimed at offering the British a cheap alternative to the ASCOD 2-based vehicle now being developed by the U.K. arm of General Dynamics.
The BAE executive said the vehicle, which the company had set a target price of 1 million pounds ($1.6 million) for the chassis, was aimed at export markets in places such as the Middle East, the Far East and South America.
He said BAE initially at least was particularly targeting the 15 export customers that had purchased the CVR(T) and other members of the same vehicle family.
Jordan, Oman, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia are among the nations that have acquired the CVR(T) or other members of the same family during the program's 40-year life.
The CV21 has its roots in the CVR(T) family, but MacKenzie said it is a new design for a vehicle that is bigger, longer, heavier and wider than its predecessor.
The executive said the new vehicle uses the lessons of the recent CVR(T) updates for use by the British in Afghanistan as well as some components.
BAE was asked to dust down its design last year to produce new hulls for the Scimitar variant of the vehicle the British army operates in Afghanistan.
That vehicle, known as the Scimitar 2, weighed about 12 tons. Among other updates, its hull was built with new aluminum alloy.
Among the CV21's characteristics are an operating weight of 17 tons, a width of 2.7 meters and a maximum speed of 80 kph. The vehicle is able to swim, has a rear escape door and can carry a crew of three plus a passenger.
BAE Scouts Reactions for New Lightweight Tracked Tank | Defense News | defensenews.com
LONDON — BAE Systems is looking to breathe new life into the lightweight tracked tank market with a vehicle design that it is taking to the upcoming Eurosatory defense show in Paris next month to canvas potential customer opinion on their requirements.
The company's Global Combat Systems arm has already sanctioned funds to build a representative demonstrator later this year but has stopped short of a full launch of the program while executives scout potential customer reaction to the 15-ton to 17-ton vehicle armed with anything up to a 40mm cannon.
Jamie MacKenzie, the international account manager on the program, told reporters at a briefing in London May 8 that Eurosatory would be used to soft launch the program to minimize expenditure while trying to understand what the market is for the vehicle, which will be known as the CV21.
Early soundings at a recent defense show in Malaysia appeared to confirm the company was on the right track, he said.
BAE believes there is a major capability gap for a lightweight tracked vehicle offering good protection but with high mobility in areas where the infrastructure of roads and bridges limits the ability of 36-ton to 40-ton platforms — such as BAE's CV90 Scout and General Dynamics U.K.'s Scout vehicle — to move around .
The executive said that provided there is sufficient interest, BAE could next year move to a fully fledged demonstrator capable of being taken for trials.
For the moment, the rolling demonstrator, for which private venture funds were approved by BAE last week, would feature a representative, nonmoving turret on a chassis.
BAE intends to fit an existing turret equipped with the CTA International novel 40mm case telescoped cannon for the initial demonstrator.
MacKenzie said the CTAI cannon was used because of its availability to BAE. He said the company would work with the customer on lethality requirements and the tank could carry cannons, such as the Bushmaster, or other weapons, including missiles.
CTAI is a joint venture between BAE and Nexter of France. The British army is the launch customer for the weapon, which is being fitted to the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle and the Scout version of the new General Dynamics U.K. specialist vehicle now being developed for the military.
The General Dynamics Scout vehicle will replace the venerable BAE-built CVR(T) platform currently used by the British army for reconnaissance missions starting in the second half of the decade. However, questions have been raised in the last year about the U.K. Ministry of Defence's ability to afford the entire program during an era of budget cuts.
MacKenzie strongly denied the emergence of the CV21 was in part aimed at offering the British a cheap alternative to the ASCOD 2-based vehicle now being developed by the U.K. arm of General Dynamics.
The BAE executive said the vehicle, which the company had set a target price of 1 million pounds ($1.6 million) for the chassis, was aimed at export markets in places such as the Middle East, the Far East and South America.
He said BAE initially at least was particularly targeting the 15 export customers that had purchased the CVR(T) and other members of the same vehicle family.
Jordan, Oman, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia are among the nations that have acquired the CVR(T) or other members of the same family during the program's 40-year life.
The CV21 has its roots in the CVR(T) family, but MacKenzie said it is a new design for a vehicle that is bigger, longer, heavier and wider than its predecessor.
The executive said the new vehicle uses the lessons of the recent CVR(T) updates for use by the British in Afghanistan as well as some components.
BAE was asked to dust down its design last year to produce new hulls for the Scimitar variant of the vehicle the British army operates in Afghanistan.
That vehicle, known as the Scimitar 2, weighed about 12 tons. Among other updates, its hull was built with new aluminum alloy.
Among the CV21's characteristics are an operating weight of 17 tons, a width of 2.7 meters and a maximum speed of 80 kph. The vehicle is able to swim, has a rear escape door and can carry a crew of three plus a passenger.
BAE Scouts Reactions for New Lightweight Tracked Tank | Defense News | defensenews.com
militarysta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,110
- Likes
- 789
Hi, smth new about ammo storing in tank hull on the three diffrend examples:
1) Like in Leo2 - "short" one ammo rack(store) hidden after front hull armour (Leopard-2, Ajrun, K2, Leclerc)
2) Like in T-72/90 T-64/84 - ammo in whole hull -in autoloader and second ones in rest of the hull - Chellenger 1 and 2 is simmilar here...
3) Like in Merkava - ammo store in hull rear in two big racks(stores) (Merkava I-IV, NKPz concepts, some ideas in Tank Block III and Soviet "Perspektives 88"
Marks:
orange - ammo store (rack) in hull
green - area coverd for that angle by frontal hull armour
red - danger area -hit in that sector almoust virtually guarantees perforation and hit in ammo rack (store) when consider modern APFSDS and HEAT.
Two variants:
a) where centre of the scale of the angles is on the turret ring center:
b) where centre of the scale of the angles is on the biggest hull ammo rack (store) center
As we can see - the best option is first one - from Leo2A4 and Leclerc, when ammunition is in one place in one rack(store) and this rack is hidden after rather thick frontall hull armour - so this rack is "short" and very difficult to hit when we consider case of the safe angles for front part of the tank (+/- 35.)
BTW: of course the best idea is like in M1 family - when almoust whole ammo is in turret, and in hull rack is only few pieces of ammo between top and bottom blow-out plates...
1) Like in Leo2 - "short" one ammo rack(store) hidden after front hull armour (Leopard-2, Ajrun, K2, Leclerc)
2) Like in T-72/90 T-64/84 - ammo in whole hull -in autoloader and second ones in rest of the hull - Chellenger 1 and 2 is simmilar here...
3) Like in Merkava - ammo store in hull rear in two big racks(stores) (Merkava I-IV, NKPz concepts, some ideas in Tank Block III and Soviet "Perspektives 88"
Marks:
orange - ammo store (rack) in hull
green - area coverd for that angle by frontal hull armour
red - danger area -hit in that sector almoust virtually guarantees perforation and hit in ammo rack (store) when consider modern APFSDS and HEAT.
Two variants:
a) where centre of the scale of the angles is on the turret ring center:
b) where centre of the scale of the angles is on the biggest hull ammo rack (store) center
As we can see - the best option is first one - from Leo2A4 and Leclerc, when ammunition is in one place in one rack(store) and this rack is hidden after rather thick frontall hull armour - so this rack is "short" and very difficult to hit when we consider case of the safe angles for front part of the tank (+/- 35.)
BTW: of course the best idea is like in M1 family - when almoust whole ammo is in turret, and in hull rack is only few pieces of ammo between top and bottom blow-out plates...
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
IMHO more important in this case than placement is the fact that hull ammunition magazine is small, isolated and as You pointed this right, there are blow off panels.
However I think that with some redesigns in case of M1, we could achieve two different design solution.
With new turret and Meggitt based autoloader or semi-autoloader design, 40 rounds could be stored in turret bustle. Then or we can completely resign from hull ammo magazine, or with new, compact engine, we could place there a similiar to turret one, mechanism and ammo racks for at least ~20 rounds, maybe more. Of course isolated and with blow off panels.
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
In other thread, user Scalieback wrote a bit untruth, so I will correct it.
1) It is not true that only one Challgner 2 was destroyed in Friendly Fire incident. 2 more were at least heavy damaged. One by IED, and second by RPG-29 hit in front hull armor.
Important thing, there was not even single case where M1 tank front armor would be perforated by RPG-29 or any other anti tank weapon in Iraq.
Ok, so let's get back to RPG-29 incident first.
MoD kept failure of best tank quiet - Telegraph
RPG-29 hit a tank in lower front hull plate. It was perforated because in British designs this highly exposed plate is made from a simple RHA, not composite armor, while the upper highly inclined glacis plate, have small composite armor cavities.
This is how weak zones are placed on Challenger 2 front surfaces:
As we can see lower front hull plate of such design creates big and exposed weak zone. And this is very problematic, first there is a driver behind such plate, and what is worse, propelant charge bags in armored bins for ammunition are placed slightly behind his position, on the left and right. Later I will get back to the ammunition storage issue.
But as we can see, there is a problem, how it was solved initially?
That way, we can see that this area is protected by rather simple, light ERA ROMOR-A. It was just not enough to protect vehicle against RPG-29. So after incident designers developed a bolt on Dorchester composite armor module, to be installed in place of ROMOR-A ERA.
But why Challenger 2's had less losses than M1 tanks? There are two simple answers to this:
- British zone was less dangerous, calmer.
- British tanks from the start had up-armor kits protecting vurnable side hull armor.
Second point is very important. In all modern tanks, side hull armor is made only from RHA plates, and their thickness is max ~80mm. In most cases they are protected only by a simple ballistic skirts or non ballistic skirts. Take a notice on photos of Challenger 2 tanks and M1A1 tanks from that period. Americans recived first TUSK kits with additional side armor protection somewhere in 2005-2006, it was a long time, and there were losses, but not that big as some people try to say.
However there is a problem with Challenger 2 up armor kits, especially the latest one. We need to remember that Challenger 2 basic combat weight is 62,5 tons, and still it is a bit too much for it's 1200HP Diesel engine, we also need to remember that Diesel engines need to use approx 100HP for cooling (ventilators need power to work). So we have not 1200HP but 1100HP for example, that are used to move vehicle.
And now the big thing, Challenger 2 with latest up-armor kit weight 74 tons! 74 tons to be moved by such a weak engine that is allready underpowered for a 62,5 tons heavy vehicle! Not to mention that some former RAC tankers and guys close to the whole deal, also says the suspension barely holds such weight.
It is a good example of how not to improve vehicle protection. But of course with the latest uparmor kit, Challenger 2 have best side protection compared to other MBT's... question is it is worth to do it such way, it's not tank anymore but a mobile bunker with big gun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another problem is ammunition storage. How ammunition is stored in Challenger 2? Well it use a 3 piece ammunition (separate projectile, propelant charge and primer), projectiles (both APFSDS and HESH) are stored in simple unprotected/unisolated racks in turret and hull. propelant charges are stored in lightly armored containers.
Whole idea is good but... only on paper, why? It is overall not very smart to belive that some lightly armored container, with a extuinguish fuilds will prevent ammunition cook off. It will not work allways, especially in case of a propelant charge in combustible bag that will not isolate propelant material from fire in the same way as solid metal case. And yes, the whole idea seems to be based on experience with M4 Sherman tanks with wet ammunition storage. But M4's used one piece ammunition with solid metal cases. While of course the idea of bagged charges is from Royal Navy ships.
It was first introduced in Chieftain MBT and... I think it was not ery succesfull in reality. Just look at videos of Chieftains from Iran-Iraq war, where if Iran Chieftain took a hit, and started to burn, it mostly ended as a burning hull without a turret. There are photos in the internet, worth to search.
So, back to Challenger 2. There was a Friendly Fire incident when one Challenger 2 misidentified other one from different unit as a light armor or bunker, and fired HESH. HESH was fired at such angle it hit TC hatch and exploded setting something on fire (and killing one of two crew members sitting in tank, other two were several meters outside tank). Fire ignited ammunition (it is not know what exploded first, HESH rounds or propelant charges) and effect of flying turret known from soviet tanks occured.
What is interesting, very similiar method of ammunition storage is in Israeli Merkava tanks, armored ammunition containers. And how end hit in to ammunition storage area?
And it actually not matters what will hit tank and perforate it's armor igniting ammunition.
I think the main problem here is faith that ammo cook off might be prevented, IMHO it is a failed approach. Ok You can prevent it but how many times? How effective is this preventing? It seems that a much better idea to save crew life is to isolate ammunition in magazines with blow off panels that will vent energy of burning ammunition. It not prevent ammunition ignition, but protect crew.
This video shows tests of this solution in M1 tanks, as we can see, even if ammunition compartment is burning, crew compartment is safe. Also if there is no ammunition in crew compartment, even if armor is perforated, crew survivability increases. We could see this many times, when even if M1 was disabled or destroyed, crew was more or less safe, injured but living.
Ok, it's enough for now, I will add something more later.
However a small note, it is not attack on Challenger 2, only constructive criticism of it's design.
Corrections:
1) It is not true that only one Challgner 2 was destroyed in Friendly Fire incident. 2 more were at least heavy damaged. One by IED, and second by RPG-29 hit in front hull armor.
Important thing, there was not even single case where M1 tank front armor would be perforated by RPG-29 or any other anti tank weapon in Iraq.
Ok, so let's get back to RPG-29 incident first.
MoD kept failure of best tank quiet - Telegraph
RPG-29 hit a tank in lower front hull plate. It was perforated because in British designs this highly exposed plate is made from a simple RHA, not composite armor, while the upper highly inclined glacis plate, have small composite armor cavities.
This is how weak zones are placed on Challenger 2 front surfaces:
As we can see lower front hull plate of such design creates big and exposed weak zone. And this is very problematic, first there is a driver behind such plate, and what is worse, propelant charge bags in armored bins for ammunition are placed slightly behind his position, on the left and right. Later I will get back to the ammunition storage issue.
But as we can see, there is a problem, how it was solved initially?
That way, we can see that this area is protected by rather simple, light ERA ROMOR-A. It was just not enough to protect vehicle against RPG-29. So after incident designers developed a bolt on Dorchester composite armor module, to be installed in place of ROMOR-A ERA.
But why Challenger 2's had less losses than M1 tanks? There are two simple answers to this:
- British zone was less dangerous, calmer.
- British tanks from the start had up-armor kits protecting vurnable side hull armor.
Second point is very important. In all modern tanks, side hull armor is made only from RHA plates, and their thickness is max ~80mm. In most cases they are protected only by a simple ballistic skirts or non ballistic skirts. Take a notice on photos of Challenger 2 tanks and M1A1 tanks from that period. Americans recived first TUSK kits with additional side armor protection somewhere in 2005-2006, it was a long time, and there were losses, but not that big as some people try to say.
However there is a problem with Challenger 2 up armor kits, especially the latest one. We need to remember that Challenger 2 basic combat weight is 62,5 tons, and still it is a bit too much for it's 1200HP Diesel engine, we also need to remember that Diesel engines need to use approx 100HP for cooling (ventilators need power to work). So we have not 1200HP but 1100HP for example, that are used to move vehicle.
And now the big thing, Challenger 2 with latest up-armor kit weight 74 tons! 74 tons to be moved by such a weak engine that is allready underpowered for a 62,5 tons heavy vehicle! Not to mention that some former RAC tankers and guys close to the whole deal, also says the suspension barely holds such weight.
It is a good example of how not to improve vehicle protection. But of course with the latest uparmor kit, Challenger 2 have best side protection compared to other MBT's... question is it is worth to do it such way, it's not tank anymore but a mobile bunker with big gun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another problem is ammunition storage. How ammunition is stored in Challenger 2? Well it use a 3 piece ammunition (separate projectile, propelant charge and primer), projectiles (both APFSDS and HESH) are stored in simple unprotected/unisolated racks in turret and hull. propelant charges are stored in lightly armored containers.
Whole idea is good but... only on paper, why? It is overall not very smart to belive that some lightly armored container, with a extuinguish fuilds will prevent ammunition cook off. It will not work allways, especially in case of a propelant charge in combustible bag that will not isolate propelant material from fire in the same way as solid metal case. And yes, the whole idea seems to be based on experience with M4 Sherman tanks with wet ammunition storage. But M4's used one piece ammunition with solid metal cases. While of course the idea of bagged charges is from Royal Navy ships.
It was first introduced in Chieftain MBT and... I think it was not ery succesfull in reality. Just look at videos of Chieftains from Iran-Iraq war, where if Iran Chieftain took a hit, and started to burn, it mostly ended as a burning hull without a turret. There are photos in the internet, worth to search.
So, back to Challenger 2. There was a Friendly Fire incident when one Challenger 2 misidentified other one from different unit as a light armor or bunker, and fired HESH. HESH was fired at such angle it hit TC hatch and exploded setting something on fire (and killing one of two crew members sitting in tank, other two were several meters outside tank). Fire ignited ammunition (it is not know what exploded first, HESH rounds or propelant charges) and effect of flying turret known from soviet tanks occured.
What is interesting, very similiar method of ammunition storage is in Israeli Merkava tanks, armored ammunition containers. And how end hit in to ammunition storage area?
And it actually not matters what will hit tank and perforate it's armor igniting ammunition.
I think the main problem here is faith that ammo cook off might be prevented, IMHO it is a failed approach. Ok You can prevent it but how many times? How effective is this preventing? It seems that a much better idea to save crew life is to isolate ammunition in magazines with blow off panels that will vent energy of burning ammunition. It not prevent ammunition ignition, but protect crew.
This video shows tests of this solution in M1 tanks, as we can see, even if ammunition compartment is burning, crew compartment is safe. Also if there is no ammunition in crew compartment, even if armor is perforated, crew survivability increases. We could see this many times, when even if M1 was disabled or destroyed, crew was more or less safe, injured but living.
Ok, it's enough for now, I will add something more later.
However a small note, it is not attack on Challenger 2, only constructive criticism of it's design.
Last edited by a moderator:
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
Ok, let's move forward. Turret front armor of Challenger 2 is preatty interesting design. Solutions are surpsingly inherited directly from it's predececor, Challenger 1, even if turret is completely new.
Let's first take a look on Challenger 1 turret without Burlington composite armor installed.
As we can see it is a cast design. Now let's take a look on Challenger 2 turret interior photos, both prototype and production series vehicle.
As we can see, the internal, armor backplates are also cast. So where is a problem someone would say, where there is one. It is widely known that cast armor, of the same thickness, hardness etc. will most probably offer less protection by 5-15% than it's rolled (RHA) analog.
It does not mean that Challenger 2 protection is bad, no, it is a very well protected tank, however people claiming it is better protected than other tanks, are rather propagandists than impartial observers.
So what final verdict should be? Challenger 2 definetly is not the best tank, not the best protected one. In fact British soldiers were just more lucky than their American counterparts due to several reasons.
Oh BTW, here is a drawing showing placement of propelant charge containers in Challenger 1, very similiar one is in Challenger 2.
Now take a look at drawing made by Militarysta. It is obvious that ammunition placement in Chieftain, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2, is very similiar to that in Soviet tanks... it means it is not much safer.
Oh, and one more thing, here is a drawing with frontal weak zones marked. Made by Wiedzmin, user of OTVAGA2004 forums, he made it using photos that I posted.
Let's first take a look on Challenger 1 turret without Burlington composite armor installed.
As we can see it is a cast design. Now let's take a look on Challenger 2 turret interior photos, both prototype and production series vehicle.
As we can see, the internal, armor backplates are also cast. So where is a problem someone would say, where there is one. It is widely known that cast armor, of the same thickness, hardness etc. will most probably offer less protection by 5-15% than it's rolled (RHA) analog.
It does not mean that Challenger 2 protection is bad, no, it is a very well protected tank, however people claiming it is better protected than other tanks, are rather propagandists than impartial observers.
So what final verdict should be? Challenger 2 definetly is not the best tank, not the best protected one. In fact British soldiers were just more lucky than their American counterparts due to several reasons.
Oh BTW, here is a drawing showing placement of propelant charge containers in Challenger 1, very similiar one is in Challenger 2.
Now take a look at drawing made by Militarysta. It is obvious that ammunition placement in Chieftain, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2, is very similiar to that in Soviet tanks... it means it is not much safer.
Oh, and one more thing, here is a drawing with frontal weak zones marked. Made by Wiedzmin, user of OTVAGA2004 forums, he made it using photos that I posted.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,042
That M113 is my fav..
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,042
My bad M114, With 4 wheels at each side..
Twinblade
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,578
- Likes
- 3,231
Well the interesting part is cost
, much more reasonable than hellfire and a cheaper option to arm the UAV's with (although hellfire is a better missile, you always don't need something that impressive)
kaustav2001
Regular Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
- Messages
- 219
- Likes
- 126
Well this isn't exactly in line with the ^^above^^ discussion, but since we're discussing tanks I figured .. why not -
Found this on World of Tanks official forum (lots of pics of WWII tanks), there really a lot of pics on that site.. so enjoy all.
Flickriver: Most interesting photos from Tanks A lot pool
Found this on World of Tanks official forum (lots of pics of WWII tanks), there really a lot of pics on that site.. so enjoy all.
Flickriver: Most interesting photos from Tanks A lot pool
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
http://armed-services.senate.gov/press/SASC.NDAA.052412.pdf
Great news, especially for US Armored Corps, M1 tanks production/modernization won't be stopped, funds were approved for funding materials for 33 more tanks upgraded in 2014, through 2015 there are big chances for foreing users modernization programs, while we should also remember that financial situation in 2013/2014 might improve allowing for increasing number of tanks to be upgraded for US Armed Forces. In 2016/2017 new big modernization program (supposed M1A3 will start).
Also other other good news, GCV have more funding, and M109PIM modernization program for M109A6 Paladin SPH's also will be funded.
However just read this document, situation could have been better, but thankfully is not worser.
Great news, especially for US Armored Corps, M1 tanks production/modernization won't be stopped, funds were approved for funding materials for 33 more tanks upgraded in 2014, through 2015 there are big chances for foreing users modernization programs, while we should also remember that financial situation in 2013/2014 might improve allowing for increasing number of tanks to be upgraded for US Armed Forces. In 2016/2017 new big modernization program (supposed M1A3 will start).
Also other other good news, GCV have more funding, and M109PIM modernization program for M109A6 Paladin SPH's also will be funded.
However just read this document, situation could have been better, but thankfully is not worser.
militarysta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,110
- Likes
- 789
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
Pitty that there are no good drawings of other MBT's like T-90A, T-90MS or Arjun, however perhaps we will have a similiar drawing for T-84M Oplot and Merkava Mk4 as I talked with Militarysta and he agreed that perhaps something can be done.
Leclerc weak zones, it is how it looks moe or less in my opinion, however perhaps more research is needed to make it more accurate.
Main problem IMHO is the issue of HL-60 main sight placement, and how it is connected with gunner station. Below photos of HL-60 main sight and HL-80 panoramic sight.
If we will be able to find photos from factory of Leclerc tank turrets before main sight installation, many things will be easier.
Leclerc weak zones, it is how it looks moe or less in my opinion, however perhaps more research is needed to make it more accurate.
Main problem IMHO is the issue of HL-60 main sight placement, and how it is connected with gunner station. Below photos of HL-60 main sight and HL-80 panoramic sight.
If we will be able to find photos from factory of Leclerc tank turrets before main sight installation, many things will be easier.
Last edited:
militarysta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,110
- Likes
- 789
militarysta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,110
- Likes
- 789
Well -on Your draw week points are overall to big
IMHO it's look that:
All periscopes are above turret roof and crew comparment.
Main gun singht have simmilar problem like EMES-15 in Leo-2 - Im thinking about hole in second special armour cavity for "optical path channel section". But this area is not so big
IMHO it's look that:
All periscopes are above turret roof and crew comparment.
Main gun singht have simmilar problem like EMES-15 in Leo-2 - Im thinking about hole in second special armour cavity for "optical path channel section". But this area is not so big
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | Pakistan show interest in Ukraine Oplot main battle tank | Pakistan | 0 | |
|
T-80UD Main Battle Tank - A Pakistani Perspective | Defence Wiki | 0 | |
| W | Taiwan will purchase 108 M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks from U.S. | Land Forces | 6 | |
| W | Pakistan Procuring 300 T-90 Main Battle Tanks from Russia. | Pakistan | 68 |
