Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MikeKiloPapa

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/14/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. True the L70 has a fairly compact feed, but at the cost of only having 8 ready rounds of each ammo nature. And while it is easier and faster to reload, it does require the vehicle commander to stop commanding and become full time loader instead. Hardly a much superiour solution compared to the Bushmasters. A mere 5mm, which belies the actual size and power difference between the 35 and 30mm.....which is substantial. That reason primarily being the great utitily and versatility of 35mm AHEAD and later KETF ammo, which has proven very effective against both infantry, AFV optics
  2. AFAIK the new turret will be able to carry an additional 7 rounds in each feed. I feel pretty confident in saying that the Dutch isnt investing a substiantal amount of money in a brand new turret just to get a grand total of 14 extra ready rounds! ....It's far more likely required in order to be able to accomodate their SPIKE atgms and Iron Fist APS, and that a happy side effect of the new turret design is more room for gun and ammo( supposedly the BM III will be mounted much further forward compared to the existing E-series turret) Compared to what exactly?....if you look at the BM
  3. Compared to the current crop of "heavy" IFVs like Puma, Ajax,Lynx, AS-21 etc, calling the CV9035 an "office building" is downright ludicrous. It is in fact only marginally bigger than a CV9040 in terms of exteriour dimensions. "all the functional compromises"...🙄....Yeah we all know its a horribly flawed and compromised design🤣....But at least it didnt take 15 years to get to FOC only to be partly obsolescent at introduction, like a certain other IFV! And compared to the driving dumpster fire that is AJAX i'd say the Swedish bag of compromises is looking r
  4. As a concept it was developed in the 80's yes, but actual production models didnt enter service until early 90's (93' IIRC) . And btw, the Puma's design is from the 90's ....are you going to argue it is obsolete as well? Encourages the crew not to miss and waste ammunition😁 In all seriousness , though i agree that 2x35 rounds isnt exactly optimal, but either it has proven difficult to rectify or it simply isnt the huge issue/limition it is often made out to be. In any case for the Dutch CV9035NL at least the situation is about to improve somewhat, with their new turret which supposedl
  5. Only if you consider every tank except the M1 to be death traps. Because no other MBT contemporary with the Leopard 2A4 would have fared any better, and certainly not the Challenger 1 which also has ammo in the hull and considerably less hull armor to protect it with. Besides, based on the hit location and the large caliber ATGM used in the attack, even an M1A1 Abrams would likely have been disabled. While it may not have suffered a catastrofic ammo detonation, the crew would almost certainly have been killed. Its also worth noting that not a single missile at Afrin/Al-bab etc have been
  6. A "problem" it shares with pretty much every single MBT ever built, save for the M1 and now Armata. Even newer(compared to Leo2) designs such as Leclerc, Type 10, K2 , Merkava mk 4 and Altay have retained hull ammo storage in one form or another. There is probably a reason for that.
  7. It will never really be an apples to apples comparison as ARCHER is a real SPH while CAESAR is more an evolution and replacement for drawn artillery,.... But lets try anyway Archer is faster to shoot yes.....but not by as much as you think....With a competent crew CAESAR is ready to shoot in well under a minute ...maybe 40-45s ....the few extra seconds will not make an appreciable difference IRL. The Archer has a marginally higher ROF.....but not for long with its meagre 21 round magazine. And what BAE doesnt tell you is that the high ROF comes at the cost of accuracy (only in the
  8. Really?.....considering that the CAESAR is the only battle proven system of all the candidates, and further is renowned for its reliability and accuracy , i'd say that you are pretty wide off the mark there.
  9. Wrt to the current AJAX debacle, if the current issues are wholly or partly a result of shoddy workmanship from SBS , there is always the option of having the AJAX hulls manufactured by Steyr in Austria in stead. AFAIK they built the Austrian armys Ulans and are known for excellent QC .
  10. Not anymore.....SBS is back in business with the Dragon VCR 8x8 (Piranha 5) : https://defbrief.com/2020/05/13/spain-re-launches-8x8-vcr-dragon-program/ https://defpost.com/spanish-mod-green-lights-creation-of-company-to-execute-vcr-8x8-program/ Refusing SBS's original offer seemed like a pretty obvious atempt by the Spanish Army/ Spanish government to secure a better deal by forcing them to lower their bid.
  11. No...not really. It was a tad more complicated than that...the CV90 development was in fact based on one of the most complex and thorough studies and evaluations for any afv at that time.Google translate this: https://www.ointres.se/projekt_strf90.htm
  12. ??....This solution hardly seems worthwhile . Useless against any ATGMs and even RPGs newer than PG-7L it makes little sense against an enemy with apparent access to far more powerful and sophisticated antitank weaponry. ISTR the Leclerc mentioned by Zuk above, was penetrated by a Konkurs , killing the driver and wounding the commander.
  13. I agree. Based on the weld seams, it looks like the sponsons are just simple single-walled containers for fuel with no additional armour layers inside, or at least nothing that is welded. A quick google image search on "Leopard 2 hull armor" will soon clear you of that misconception. That is all assuming those "Swedish tests" are actually real.........which is a pretty big assumption
  14. Considering that the A4 is still operational with some of our close allies, i prefer not to give too detailed a description. There is already plenty of photographic evidence online (far to much IMO) suggesting the presence of those special armor modules so i am not really revealing any new information. The lack of concrete evidence from my side also means i could well be making all this stuff up......and i prefer it that way
  15. Your theory sounds plausible, however whether optimized against shaped charges or KE, the skirt area is very unlikely to have the same protection level as the sponsons, simply due to it allocating less space(thickness) for armor( 160mm vs 220-230mm). My gut reaction was yes.......however realizing that its been more than a decade and that my memory might be playing tricks on me, i revisited some of the old pictures i took back then......Aaaand, now im not so sure if you might not be at least partly right after all........due to the heavily deteriorated state of the armor ( corroded) its ac
  • Create New...