Jump to content
tanknet.org

Mighty_Zuk

Members
  • Content Count

    796
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Mighty_Zuk

  • Rank
    Crew

Recent Profile Visitors

69 profile views
  1. The key to advancing into 2025 with a single deployable maneuver brigade, is to gut everything other than that brigade. That, my friend, is the MoD keeping its ridiculous promise. I'll just keep advocading for 3 deployable divisions (including 1 SoF) and 2 homeland (including 1 for administrative stuff). Maybe by 2040 we'll see that.
  2. You are correct. I learned this from someone I trust and didn't double check. I now checked and apparently Caterpillar offer remanufacture services for the CV12 engine.
  3. A missile can be fired from the gun. The LAHAT was developed first for the 105mm gun, so a 120mm rifled gun can fire it just as well. But it's going to require an FCS upgrade so you can't just throw it onto the tank.
  4. The Challenger based support vehicles are not going to be upgraded, to the best of my knowledge. Neither should they. And by withdrawing even more Challenger tanks, they can be supported via cannibalization. IIRC, most of the Challenger's systems including the entire powerpack, are no longer supported by industry.
  5. The upgraded Challenger will only serve in a small quantity, if it even will. Roughly 100. Either way, upgrading or not, the Challenger 2 will remain a unique vehicle, meaning at least some degree of factory level maintenance in a line or facility unique to it. So the upkeep costs will be high, as you're keeping multiple unique lines alive only for a few dozen tanks. An MPF will be cheaper, is brand new and ready for 40 years of service, and could be bought in larger numbers. When you have no cash, sometimes the solution has to be a middle ground. It's not always
  6. The CR 2 fleet retirement is irreversible. Buying new MBTs instead is off the table because it's deemed an even worse option. So I think the UK should purchase GDLS's variant of the MPF, modified for their needs. It will utilize an AJAX chassis mated with either an Abrams based turret with wide support and low risk, or any turret of their choosing. It will offer great parts commonality with other Ajax vehicles in the armed forces, will be overall cheaper, and will have similar tactical and strategic mobility as the Ajax. It's a form of affordable firepower for the mobility
  7. I just assume they put around 80kg on every seat plus maybe 40kg by every seat. I don't know how they'd simulate the rest of the weight because a lot is reserved for upgrades yet to be determined. I assume that when the turret is on the rear and already features a lot of things that would have it upgraded, rather than add modules, putting a lot of extra weight on the troop section floor wouldn't be too bad.
  8. Eitan going through rough terrain testing. Tires seem to have excellent grip. Full weight was simulated for the test.
  9. There is this weird notion that somehow, many small countries with regional influence at best, can easily drag a superpower into a war. None drags anyone into a war. If the US takes an active role in any war that originally did not involve it, it does so because it has that interest. It's good at least that you understand it. What's even more controversial, is the necessity of war. I do not see war as being a bad thing, necessarily. While much of the western world has already transcended above the needs of war, a significant portion of the world hasn't, and so it remains a valid
  10. Both countries benefited greatly from this deal, so your point is invalid. The US could not escalate it against Israel, otherwise it would have to admit a huge mistake on its part. It gave, in an international forum, a false location of its ship. If true, it would have been far out of reach for any IAF or IN asset. It is you who claims Israel is not an ally of the US and does not contribute. You need not provide any more proof of your stupidity. Regarding your question about subsidies per capita, here are a few I remember: Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, South Korea, the B
  11. The US didn't encourage the Arabs. It was independently pressuring the UK to halt arms transfers to Israel. Why exactly, I don't know. All I've read in that interview is its effects, not the cause. Glenn, you once again tarnished your near non-existent reputation with that USS Liberty conspiracy theory bullshit. Good job.
  12. US support existed, but it was nowhere near the amount of support received by Arab states from the USSR. The US sold some weapons to Israel, and then blocked others from selling arms to Israel without offering an alternative. I'm not too knowledgeable on the assistance to the IAF, but from interviews I've read of Israel Tal, there was always an urgent need for tanks, APCs, artillery, and other combat vehicles to keep the ground war moving, and the US was more of an obstacle in that regard, even participating in the Arab pressure campaign against the sale of Chieftains. The Arab
  13. The War of Attrition wasn't in 1973. That was the Yom Kippur War. The War of Attrition lasted between 1967 and 1970, coming directly after the Six Day War of 1967, and ending shortly prior to the Yom Kippur War of 1973. It was mainly between Israel and Egypt, but Jordan and Syria's contributions were not insignificant, and were what led Israel to capture the Golan. As you may know already, the first sign of American physical support came by the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, or in other words, AFTER every major war in Israel's history. Prior to that, it was a major obstacle for Isra
  14. Lithium batteries are still painfully heavy.
  15. The benefit of such design is that the entire engine bay can be removed. Instead it looks like it has an abnormally large powerpack.
×
×
  • Create New...