Jump to content

MikeKiloPapa

Members
  • Posts

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MikeKiloPapa

  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, softskinned and light armored vehicles as well as infrastructure, helicopters and UAVs. In terms of AP performance the ability to penetrate even up-armored threat IFVs at longer range and the great growth potential (to 50mm) undoubtedly played a role as well. As do many other armies which are sticking with the 30mm.....at least partly for reasons of commonality and security of supply im guessing though. Im just not so sure that assesment still holds.... 30mm might be more than adequate against legacy vehicles, but our (most likely) enemies wont be driving around in stock soviet era BMP-1,2 & 3s forever. Pretty much all newer IFVs, whether medium or heavy , is protected against 30mm apfsds to some degree....even Russian and Chinese designs. And while it will undoubtedly take a while before Kurganets and T-15s etc start replacing older vehicles in great numbers, at some point they will. The trend towards heavier and better protected vehicles is as unmistakable as the trend towards bigger and more powerful autocannons, be it 35 or 40mm or 50 and 57mm. The CV9035 (and 40 ) were just somewhat ahead of their time in that respect. And according to you will afford the Dutch exactly 1 more engagement per feed. Excuse me but that juice is hardly worth the squeeze. Weep all you like but fact is you made exactly the same choice (and compromise) when you went from the Marders generous 500 ready rounds to the Pumas "meager" 200. The performance delta between 20 and 30mm isnt all that different from that between 30x173and 35x228mm.
  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 guns without their feeds they are actually quite small and compact....although i concede the 35mm BM a little less so. But it IS also a much more powerful gun...nothing is free. As for the CT40...yes it is very compact.....its bulky ammo handling systems/magazines not so much!......and then you have all the inherent drawbacks of that "unique" weapon system: Excessive throat erosion and barrel wear, basically no growth potential as the ammo is pretty much maxed out from the start and ammunition so eye-wateringly expensive it makes 35mm rounds look like cheap surplus Partizan ammo in comparison! For all the merits of the CT40 , there is a reason why most armies stick with their Bushmasters, Mausers etc. You must be joking? Its YUUUGE... even compared to the BM III ... Pure hyperbole....it speaks volumes about the flexibilty of the platform and of Hägglunds willingness to tailor each CV90 according to customer requirements. Because we are talking about vehicles for 6 different countries with different demands and spanning more than a decade , ofc there are differences between them. Just like Ulan and Pizarro is also not similar despite the "common" ASCOD design. For CV90 at least you have commonality within the seperate generations ....Mk0 and Mk1 share drivetrain, hull and suspension, ...MkII featured the raised rear roof , uprated suspension and the new stronger powerpack all of which is also found on the MKIIIs . You are basically defeating your own argument here....as you point out the differences are due to customer requirements.....i simply cant fathom how that can be construed as a failing of the basic vehicle design . Besides the CV9035DK/NL does have the same/similar FCS...the same SAAB UTAAS gps , with the same day sight, and Catherine XP thermal imager, same LRF....they even have the same FCS modes. The ONLY difference is the End Of Belt stop on the dutch version. And yes they also wanted the thermal sigt for the commander and the DAS laser warning system...and bomblet protection, none of which is found on the danish version. That hardly makes them completely different vehicles though. Not really. The original Norwegian Mk1s have little in common with the CV9030CH and FIN which are both MkII's. Even the gun is "different" ...original bushmaster mk II vs upgraded MK44. Says who? .....That is certainly not standard danish practice......granted its been quite a few years since i was in the army working alongside the CV90s but i dont ever recall them shooting that many rounds outside of demo/exhibition shoots. On the range i always saw them fire either single aimed shots or 2 round bursts. Also i know a few of the CV90 units master gunners and i've NEVER heard them speak of the limited ready ammo as a serious issure or being an unsurmountable tactical challenge(reloading). Only if it actually takes 5 rounds to defeat each target....or you are stupid enough to waste your ammo. Im with you as far as i agree its not an optimal solution......i would have liked to see atleast 100 -120 ready rounds and in retrospect they probably should have designed a bigger turret for that gun. That being said the Bushmaster III IS a powerful weapon system featuring longer range, better accuracy and (much) more punch compared to its smaller siblings.....especially with its secondary ammo natures like HEI and AHEAD/KETF . In most cases it simply wont need as many rounds to do the job.....though im well aware that you probably dont agree with that assesment. You make some good points here. I too feel somewhat ambivalent wrt the IFV concept. While undeniably useful as infantry support vehicles, they are by design inherently compromised....not really great as carriers of infrantry, not powerful enough to knock out the heaviest targets on the battlefield( disregarding the 1-2 atgms potentially carried) and only broadly protected from its own class of vehicles.. The problem is that the straightforward answer to those limitations invariably end up as +€10M tank-sized behemoths, that are neither affordable nor supportable and which will in all likelyhood still be vulnerable to modern heavy antitank weapons. I dont have a good alternative answer either. I only know that we will have to accept that simply increasing passive protection is a dead-end. We are already at the practical limit in terms of both size and weight and when tomorrows weapons render even the most armored vehicles of today obsolete, we will have to find another way. Either accept greater risk and potential casualties OR leave the fighting to robots and drones.
  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 rather good right about now What is it with you and the CV90(35 especially) anyway?....did it steal your lunch money or what?....you seem to be taking a stab at it every chance you get!
  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 supposedly features more ready rounds in addition to ATGMS and APS.
  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 aimed at the Leo 2s frontal armor, they were all flank or rear shots, and the one in the video above is quite clearly targeting the weaker hull side armor covering the ammo bunker. While there is no doubt that Turkeys ill-fated venture into Syria have caused lasting damage to the Leopard 2s reputation, the losses incurred were caused more by the Turkish army's ineptitude than poor tank design.
  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 original dumper version)......in its burst-fire mode dispersion is so great as to make the capability essentially useless. Because of its automated magazine and the need for specialized resupply/lumber vehicles , the ARCHER is MUCH slower to reload than the CAESAR.......optimistically about 15 min whereas the latter can be reloaded from any truck or trailer in a few minutes using its own crew. With 36 rounds and charges onboard it is also able to conduct longer fire missions before requiring resupply. In terms of scooting Caesar is again 10-15s slower than Archer, but still plenty fast enough to avoid CB fire. The limited traverse and fire arc of CAESAR and all the other GOATs , is a disadvantage that cant be so easily explained away but is a result of having to compromise to keep down cost, weight and complexity. A necessary sacrifice to get 80-90% of the capability at 30-50% of the cost of "real" SPH. Wrt crew size, the CAESAR 8x8 is available with fully automatic shell loading , which allows you to reduce crew size to 3 ....But having 4-5 soldiers increases flexibility and redundancy so is often retained even if not strictly needed. As for redeeming features of the CAESAR......well its battle proven, has a large and growing user base, its reliable, has a very good gun, superb FCS, has excellent strategic mobility and quite good off-road performance too, its cheap(ish) at less than half the cost of real SPHs like ARCHER, K9 etc.....but gives you equivalent or near equivalent capability. In comparison ARCHER, looks like a great system on paper.......but fact is its been around just as long as CAESAR but has barely reached operational status yet, ...its been dogged by reliability and performance issues throughout its lengthy development, some of which to my knowledge remain unresolved. Despite BAEs heavy sales pitches Archer has also yet to secure its first export customer ..... in stark constrast to CAESARs success on the same market. Not only has Archer failed to attract new buyers , its actually lost two!.....all those fawning over its paper specs would do well to read into the final norwegian evaluation , made shortly before they left the ARCHER project. ......its pretty damning TBH, and mirrors the conclusions the danish army came to years earlier when they too were part of the development team..... technically immature, overly complex, unreliable, unsatisfactory accuracy , questions regarding resupply/ reloading when the company making the specialized resupply vehicle went bankrupt, soaring costs, and a general concern over BAEs ability to rectify all those issues. Despite what the swedes have been claiming ever since , neither Denmark nor Norway ditched the ARCHER because of money. Maybe one day the ARCHER will end up being a decent system, especially now BAE have seen the light and put the gun on a sensible platform.....but for now its still far from being able to live up to the hype.
  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 actually quite difficult to tell ......what it more looks like to me though, is 2 plates laminated together, one a fully perforated plate, the other a solid back plate, with the holes filled and the edges around the plates covered in resin/rubber, whatever it is ( it felt hard like resin, but i guess it could just be rubber hardening due to old age). Well that is true of the series production vehicles as well, including A4 and A5, the armor cavity around the drivers hatch is obviously somewhat thinner and likely has a different composition. On the A0-A4 the armor is of course angled and follows the outline/shape of the hatch. What i saw and photographed was the right side sponson armor immediately behind the driver,. which is similar to the left side where the armor cavities are more ore less uniform.
  16. Well idk.....you guys are the armor experts around here .....i just know what the actual armor looks like. I have also once witnessed quite thin perforated plate(STANAG 4569 Level 4 armor package) being tested against 14,5mm B32 rounds and even at relatively high angles it successfully defeated the majority of rounds, despite being only about half the thickness of the B32s nominal penetration capability. Using a bit of common sense, if perforated armor was only effective at 90 degrees perpendicular impacts , it wouldn't be as prevalent in (add.on) armor packages as it clearly is.
  17. Well i see how i might have been a bit unclear,.....i DONT know the armor layout of the old heavy ballistic skirts, what i do know is what the internal side armor modules in the hull look like. I know because i have not only seen the armor with my own eyes but also felt and fondled it with own my chubby fingers. ......To me it would make sense to use the same type of armor layout in the heavy skirts but i could well be wrong. Well in this case it just he means it might weigh 111 or 112 kg, not that it is a 150 or more.... In any case i have heard the 110kg from many different sources including serving A4 tankers so im reasonably sure its accurate. For what its worth the new model heavy skirts on our Leo's (A5DK) weigh exactly 92kg despite being thicker than the earlier skirts. No of course not, but by scaling you can quite quickly ascertain that the skirts are in the region of ~40 by 60 (by 11) cm.....even if its a few cm from the actual dimensions its enough to find a rough ballpark figure in terms of areal density. If it was made of a solid block of armor steel , which has a density of about 8kg/dm3 / 8g/cm3, it would weigh ~189kg ( ballpark figure with 60x40x11= 211kg) .....so the actual ballistic skirt has a density of about 4,6kg/dm3.. If it was designed with 2 x50mm steel plates like Militarysta claims, it would have weighed almost 172kg.
  18. There is no if, ...I am absolutely certain that perforated plate was used in the hull side armor of the A4....The holes aren't empty though, but filled with what looks like some kind of hard resin. You are probably thinking of the regular skirts along the entire length of the hull, not the heavy armour blocks. No. I was referring specifically to the heavy ballistic skirts. Btw regarding the info on those......the Militarysta page on the Leo2A4s armor that you yourself linked to clearly mention their weight as 110 kg......the thickness of 110mm is also known, and the length and height can be reasonably accurately estimated by scaling relative to the total length and height of the vehicle, both of which figures are publicly available online.
  19. There is no if, ...I am absolutely certain that perforated plate was used in the hull side armor of the A4....The holes aren't empty though, but filled with what looks like some kind of hard resin.
  20. Well if you want the real facts and figures i suggest you pursue a career in ballistic testing at KMW, because you wont find those here. Its all just more or less qualified guesswork based on blurry pictures, online documents of dubious credibility thrown in with some material science and math. Those who really know sure as F... wont post it here...or anywhere online. As for areal density of the heavy skirts, well you know their weight and their approximate dimensions, and that they are mostly made of HHS so it shouldn't be too hard to figure out .
  21. I think TTK Ciar gives us a good clue : Based on what the sponson internal armor array on the A4 looks like, it could well be that the heavy ballistic skirts contains a number of 15-20mm thick spaced perforated plates. Such an array would give a good protection against contemporary APFSDS and small caliber shaped charge weapons( at least from 0-30 degree angle from the front). That it would be far less effective against larger caliber ATGMs would matter less, since those would have a significant degree of overmatch anyway. With a LOS thickness of max 3-400mm there simply isnt enough armor there to stop missiles with +650mm penetration,
  22. The Leopard 2AV had composite heavy ballistic skirts already in 1976, therefore I don't believe that any Leopard 2 series model had just spaced steel skirts. In the Swedish documents, the proposed German model is stated to feature the original base armour that went into production in 1979, thus it seems possible that it also had the original side skirts, i.e. the same as fielded on the Turkish Leopard 2A4s. Do you have more info about these composite heavy ballistic skirts? Based on this well-known article (http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/leopard2/Leo2a4.htm) by Militarysta it is described as a 110mm block with two 50mm steel plates spaced apart with a 10mm air gap. I dont know about the old type heavy skirts , but the new ones introduced on the late A4 models onward, sound hollow when you knock on them and a well educated guess could be that they contain a NERA insert in similar style to the front hull and turret. I am very sceptical about Militarysta's claim regarding the old skirts, like Methos says, they would weigh far more than 110kg and still offer insufficient protection.
  23. The frontal section of the hull with heavy ballistic skirts should survive the basic RPG 7 based on the alleged Swedish tests (313-340 mm equivalent protection against a 84 mm shaped charge of a Carl Gustav round), yet anything more modern would defeat it. ..........Regardless of whether you believe in those conveniently "leaked" documents or not, it is worth mentioning that the area covered by the heavy ballistic skirts does not reach the same protection level as the sponson area above.
  24. Even the 2A6 models that the Canadians used in Afghanistan had to be covered from head to toe in slat armour on the sides. The bar armor being used on the Canadian and Danish Leo 2s in Afghanistan had nothing to do with them having poor basic hull armor and everything to do with not getting hit in the first place. Because even if the tanks organic armor succeeds in stopping an RPG, you now have battle damage that needs to get fixed and might even put your tank temporarily out of action. What slat/bar/cage /net armor does, is to offer a relatively light, cheap and simple means of reducing the likelihood of a RPG round reaching the tanks own side armor, by destroying the RPG fuzing mechanism. However slat armor is NOT a substitute for real armor, because it only works against older model RPGs (IIRC up to and including PG-7VL), and even then most systems only has about 50-60% probability of neutralizing the threat. That depends entirely on the location of the hit. If its in the side (sponson) area protecting the fighting compartment, then no .......RPG-2s and early RPG-7s up to the 7VS version (1972) will have a very small chance of penetrating there, and if fired from even just a small angle they almost certainly wont go through.
×
×
  • Create New...