- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Colin P said:Meanwhile Singapore is buying 60 Leo2's
Their tankers will be happy, going from the AMX-13 to the Leo 2!!!!
I am convince that this is what we can expect from Taliban Jack's ilk:
New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?
I am convince that this is what we can expect from Taliban Jack's ilk:
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,619
- Points
- 1,160
On a semi-related tangent, those CV 90 drivers are so polite...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okly05HmKEA&eurl=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okly05HmKEA&eurl=
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I clicked on the link to watch that CV 90 video and ended up wasting an hour watching all those CV 90 videos. That vehicle is pretty darned impressive. I especially liked the one where the Bradley was stuck in the snow and the CV 90 motored past like it was driving down the street.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,229
- Points
- 1,160
You have to admit the Fench really know how to build armoured cars
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Colin P said:
Collin
There is an old saying: "Looks good from afar, but far from good!" That is the case with many French vehicles. Have you ever had a close up look at some of their kit? The AMX is a 'rattle trap', a very distinctive sound from afar, sounding like the whole tank is going to vibrate apart. The AMX 13 has such a large open space between the turret and the mantlet that you can almost use it as an emergency escape hatch. Pictures are nicely posed in 'advertisements' but closer inspection may not be so appealing.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Ah, French armour, the way that German armour amassed its reputation for deadliness. The French excel at selling weapons, and have always commanded a fair share of the African market, and thus designed for low intensity conflict with low expectation of facing modern anti-armour weapons. The French do many things extremely well, but I would not put armour as either their manufacturing or their fighting specialty.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
This thread is so long, I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but don't the South Africans make a good, light, wheeled tank? A friend of mine is a former SDF officer and has nothing but praise for the ability of their vehicles to stand up to landmines. We've already bought Nayalas from them, right?
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,229
- Points
- 1,160
George
Comparing the AMX-13 to modern tanks is not exactly fair, it was one of the first tanks (really a recce vehicle) the French were able to produce after WWII. I have crawled around the AML-90, amazing they were able to get that gun onto that vehicle. Their Armoured Cars have likely seen more action than any others. Even the AMX-10RC is at least 15-20 years old. A modern version would be quite interesting.
Comparing the AMX-13 to modern tanks is not exactly fair, it was one of the first tanks (really a recce vehicle) the French were able to produce after WWII. I have crawled around the AML-90, amazing they were able to get that gun onto that vehicle. Their Armoured Cars have likely seen more action than any others. Even the AMX-10RC is at least 15-20 years old. A modern version would be quite interesting.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
The AMX-13 was designed and built in the 1950's, so you have to look at it in that light. Despite everything, it seems to have been well liked and adopted by many armies, the IDF used it in war and it has soldiered on right into the new millenium. I can't think of too many other AFV's which can say that. Obviously, if you were given the operational requirments for the AMX-13 today, you would be able to come up with something quite different!
Within the CF, we need to define what it is we want from our Armoured force (as part of the overall CF package), and use that to define the kit we give them. The caveat of "as part of the overall CF package" is actually quite constraining, since if our overall mission is to launch expeditionary forces at short notice out of existing and projected air foce capabilities, then a great many options are removed. Indeed, any definition will put some options to the forefront and others to the back (even a "general purpose army" definition won't help, since you would then have to define "general purpose").
Within the CF, we need to define what it is we want from our Armoured force (as part of the overall CF package), and use that to define the kit we give them. The caveat of "as part of the overall CF package" is actually quite constraining, since if our overall mission is to launch expeditionary forces at short notice out of existing and projected air foce capabilities, then a great many options are removed. Indeed, any definition will put some options to the forefront and others to the back (even a "general purpose army" definition won't help, since you would then have to define "general purpose").
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
We use a 24-Volt 8 battery system in series-parallel. I *think* (read speculate at best) the Rooikat has a 6 battery series 24-Volt system.
Just thought I'd drop you a line (and assuming I'm correct about anything) so you can change it before some asshat mentions it (unneccesarily) on the public forum
Just thought I'd drop you a line (and assuming I'm correct about anything) so you can change it before some asshat mentions it (unneccesarily) on the public forum
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
A few points I found elsewhere on the Rooikat:
A number of upgrades/changes were made to later Mks, mostly to running gear after first period in use and problems were experienced with steering arms bending when doing cross-country at the speeds Rooikat is capable of.
In a 6 x 6 vehicle, a vehicle where the wheels are evenly spaced, unlike the Rooikat where the front pair has a larger distance to the second axle, it is found that it puts less stress on the remaining front wheel if one is blown off. That larger gap between the front running gear and the next set, on the Rooikat, can disable and immobilize the vehicle in this case.
A number of upgrades/changes were made to later Mks, mostly to running gear after first period in use and problems were experienced with steering arms bending when doing cross-country at the speeds Rooikat is capable of.
In a 6 x 6 vehicle, a vehicle where the wheels are evenly spaced, unlike the Rooikat where the front pair has a larger distance to the second axle, it is found that it puts less stress on the remaining front wheel if one is blown off. That larger gap between the front running gear and the next set, on the Rooikat, can disable and immobilize the vehicle in this case.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
http://www.armada.ch/06-6/article-full.cfm
A new article written in Armada about guns on "light" vehicles.
A new article written in Armada about guns on "light" vehicles.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,229
- Points
- 1,160
Likely it was 32volt. This is comman on old fish boats and many of the old electronics were made for that voltage. I drove an old boat with 12,24,32 and 110 volt all on board, what a mess that was! :crybaby:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Hi all
I am an Brit Ex Tankie sorry - Tanker of 15years experience.
I've been reading this thread with interest as over here we have a Website called the Army Rumour Service (ARRSE) which is very similar to you guys on here.
Strangely enough, a similar thread to this happened a little while ago. I left the colours in 1990 having served as an MBT Commander on Chieftain and a very short stint on Challenger 1. But through friends still serving I've kept very much in touch with Chally 2's progress.
I'm pleased to see that there's some very positive feedback on Chally2 on here. It is an outstanding MBT and having had to pick up rapidly from the messy start Chally 1 made :skull: - it's proved it's worth.
It's interesting to see the rational in your forum - MBT or not MBT?
It's important to note that nations build Tanks for what they need or, what they feel they need and how they arrange, Firepower,Protection and Mobility. If I may be so bold here's my thesis:
Germany - Leo 2 - outstanding (had a cabby in BAOR) Mobility always comes first they see it as a form of protection in it's own right. Not too sure myself - Gun Control Equipment these days can compensate for most things.
Firepower - Rheinmetall produce a superb smoothbore (UK have been trialling) 120mm - so good firepower.
Protection - Krauss Maffei simply call it 'composite armour' implying 'Chobham' but of course it ain't. Both the US and Germany left the failed MBT80 project and promptly thought of composite armour but, there is only one chobham.
German tactical doctrine during the 'Cold war' was that if 3million screaming Mongolian tribesmen screamed, one early morning, across the IGB, the foremost units of Leo would be 'at the gates of Moscow' the following morning! Very frustrating when you're exercising with German units. Therefore Germany has Leo, it suits them perfectly!
USA - M1Abrams - Seems an outstanding MBT though I've not had many dealings with it. The US want an all round good egg but, it is very much set up for the American market! It's fairly light, so protection and the composite question springs to light again! It has sufficient punch in the form of the 120mm smoothbore again but, automotively would I fit the gas guzzling turbine unit? I certainly wouldn't want that heat signature today with the sophisticated thermal Observation systems available. But, they do seem to be able to pretty much be able to take it pretty much anywhere, mind you, with their logistical powers, I'd be surprised if they couldn't!!!
Both Leo and M1 suit their nations so what of 'Rule Britannia'?
The UK have invented Tanks and then continually struggled to reach the heaven of power to weight ratios.
We Brits since WW2 have always placed Protection first, Firepower second and then some bodged powerpack mobility last!
Challenger Armour is......without doubt the best in the world - to date, there are no penetrations in any theatre of war.
the firepower - The 120mm rifled bore has, for many years been the ultimate main armament but, only because we insisted on the Chemical energy round HESH which requires rifling for long range engagement accuracy. Challenger2E has been trialling smoothbore technology.
As a commander I was taught max European engagement distances of no more than 2400metres. So why HESH? It enables engagements of upto 8000mtrs?(another argument!). Either way, the existing 120mm combined with the fire control system (TOGS), is more than adequate.
Mobility - The CV12 RR/Perkins pack is superb - remember it can transmit enough power to move 64tons+ at respectable speeds around 40-45mph. Unless on a particularly smooth cross country area, I doubt if anyone would want to engage targetry at that kind of speed even though some nations say they can!! :blotto:
The UK has always wanted an MBT that could sit and slug it out, take and give punishment with ease and then get in and out of hotspots smoothly. CR2 does all of the above - smoothly,
So to round up my lengthy diatribe - the one thing that stands up in all this is - don't forget the crews - Brit crews are fully trained in basic mechanics and problem solving - all maintenance is down to the crew. My experience in Germany of the M1 or Leo 2 was - ooops it's broke, call a mech!!!!!
Canadian crews are, I'm sure (once met some on the Suffield Prairie with Grizzly and Cougar - had a cabby most impressed) every bit as professional and their opinions should be heard by the MOD as to what MBT is best for Canada!!
And, oh yes, ALL nations need MBT's, it's an Offensive weapons system and, sometime, we all need an offensive weapon.
Sorry if I've rambled on but, well, I thought it might be nice for someone from 'over the pond' to stick his head over the parapet - just don't take my head off.
Don't forget 'From the mud, through the blood to the green fields beyond' began 90 years ago this coming November.
Armour - We are all members of the brotherhood.
I am an Brit Ex Tankie sorry - Tanker of 15years experience.
I've been reading this thread with interest as over here we have a Website called the Army Rumour Service (ARRSE) which is very similar to you guys on here.
Strangely enough, a similar thread to this happened a little while ago. I left the colours in 1990 having served as an MBT Commander on Chieftain and a very short stint on Challenger 1. But through friends still serving I've kept very much in touch with Chally 2's progress.
I'm pleased to see that there's some very positive feedback on Chally2 on here. It is an outstanding MBT and having had to pick up rapidly from the messy start Chally 1 made :skull: - it's proved it's worth.
It's interesting to see the rational in your forum - MBT or not MBT?
It's important to note that nations build Tanks for what they need or, what they feel they need and how they arrange, Firepower,Protection and Mobility. If I may be so bold here's my thesis:
Germany - Leo 2 - outstanding (had a cabby in BAOR) Mobility always comes first they see it as a form of protection in it's own right. Not too sure myself - Gun Control Equipment these days can compensate for most things.
Firepower - Rheinmetall produce a superb smoothbore (UK have been trialling) 120mm - so good firepower.
Protection - Krauss Maffei simply call it 'composite armour' implying 'Chobham' but of course it ain't. Both the US and Germany left the failed MBT80 project and promptly thought of composite armour but, there is only one chobham.
German tactical doctrine during the 'Cold war' was that if 3million screaming Mongolian tribesmen screamed, one early morning, across the IGB, the foremost units of Leo would be 'at the gates of Moscow' the following morning! Very frustrating when you're exercising with German units. Therefore Germany has Leo, it suits them perfectly!
USA - M1Abrams - Seems an outstanding MBT though I've not had many dealings with it. The US want an all round good egg but, it is very much set up for the American market! It's fairly light, so protection and the composite question springs to light again! It has sufficient punch in the form of the 120mm smoothbore again but, automotively would I fit the gas guzzling turbine unit? I certainly wouldn't want that heat signature today with the sophisticated thermal Observation systems available. But, they do seem to be able to pretty much be able to take it pretty much anywhere, mind you, with their logistical powers, I'd be surprised if they couldn't!!!
Both Leo and M1 suit their nations so what of 'Rule Britannia'?
The UK have invented Tanks and then continually struggled to reach the heaven of power to weight ratios.
We Brits since WW2 have always placed Protection first, Firepower second and then some bodged powerpack mobility last!
Challenger Armour is......without doubt the best in the world - to date, there are no penetrations in any theatre of war.
the firepower - The 120mm rifled bore has, for many years been the ultimate main armament but, only because we insisted on the Chemical energy round HESH which requires rifling for long range engagement accuracy. Challenger2E has been trialling smoothbore technology.
As a commander I was taught max European engagement distances of no more than 2400metres. So why HESH? It enables engagements of upto 8000mtrs?(another argument!). Either way, the existing 120mm combined with the fire control system (TOGS), is more than adequate.
Mobility - The CV12 RR/Perkins pack is superb - remember it can transmit enough power to move 64tons+ at respectable speeds around 40-45mph. Unless on a particularly smooth cross country area, I doubt if anyone would want to engage targetry at that kind of speed even though some nations say they can!! :blotto:
The UK has always wanted an MBT that could sit and slug it out, take and give punishment with ease and then get in and out of hotspots smoothly. CR2 does all of the above - smoothly,
So to round up my lengthy diatribe - the one thing that stands up in all this is - don't forget the crews - Brit crews are fully trained in basic mechanics and problem solving - all maintenance is down to the crew. My experience in Germany of the M1 or Leo 2 was - ooops it's broke, call a mech!!!!!
Canadian crews are, I'm sure (once met some on the Suffield Prairie with Grizzly and Cougar - had a cabby most impressed) every bit as professional and their opinions should be heard by the MOD as to what MBT is best for Canada!!
And, oh yes, ALL nations need MBT's, it's an Offensive weapons system and, sometime, we all need an offensive weapon.
Sorry if I've rambled on but, well, I thought it might be nice for someone from 'over the pond' to stick his head over the parapet - just don't take my head off.
Don't forget 'From the mud, through the blood to the green fields beyond' began 90 years ago this coming November.
Armour - We are all members of the brotherhood.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
In one sense I like the rifle, since it adds a different challenge to potential enemy forces when they design their tanks. When facing NATO, the former USSR needed to take into account HEAT warheads from tanks and ATGMs; "Long Rod" KE penetrators from APDSFS; HESH from British rifles and Canadian Leopards and "Short" penetrators from rifled APDS rounds.
Each type of round has a different mechanism of attack, hence wildly different uparmour kits like "Dolly Parton" turret upgrades, Blazer active armour and various sorts of composite armour "fillers" used by the USSR, not to mention lead foil coatings to limit the crews radiation exposure vs neutron bombs.....
On the other hand, the actual number of British and Canadian tanks was so small that it was more of a theoretical threat than anything else, and the imperatives of standardization and interoperability will see the 120 rifle pass into history (alas). Ammunition technology has advanced considerably in the last 20 years as well, with projects like through tube missiles, TERM (Tank Extended Range Munitions) and STAFF (Smart Target Activated Fire and Forget) showing the way for the future.
Each type of round has a different mechanism of attack, hence wildly different uparmour kits like "Dolly Parton" turret upgrades, Blazer active armour and various sorts of composite armour "fillers" used by the USSR, not to mention lead foil coatings to limit the crews radiation exposure vs neutron bombs.....
On the other hand, the actual number of British and Canadian tanks was so small that it was more of a theoretical threat than anything else, and the imperatives of standardization and interoperability will see the 120 rifle pass into history (alas). Ammunition technology has advanced considerably in the last 20 years as well, with projects like through tube missiles, TERM (Tank Extended Range Munitions) and STAFF (Smart Target Activated Fire and Forget) showing the way for the future.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,619
- Points
- 1,160
I remeber seeing a presentation at Shrivenham in the 80s on rail guns and the possibility of them, one day, being mounted in AFVs. Anyone heard of this possibility?
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_RailGuns,,00.html
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_RailGuns,,00.html
