Jump to content

Mike1158

Members
  • Posts

    772
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    England
  • Interests
    Military tech on the whole but tanks in the main.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,091 profile views

Mike1158's Achievements

Crew

Crew (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. G'day folks, We have had several low flying A400M which you would not find unusual in many parts of europe but flying below nearby terrain when out of the immediate vicinity of an airbase seems bloody daft. Flying below terrain near a city? Blows my mind. Wots'it all about, Alfie?
  2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-66750401
  3. I have switched emphasis tbh. I believe that the use of older MBT in this type of conversion is limiting. The ingress/egress is far to compromised unless you spend big bucks altering the basic chassis to the point where a new design makes more sense. The Namer is a different proposition with a front mounted engine and access hatches at the rear of the vehicle ready installed etc. The Armata design to the T-15 is similar in this respect but compromises the driver/crew vision to the immediate front of the vehicle. Protection levels on the T-15 would appear to be improved over the Namer on the frontal arc. I may be wrong in this guestimation though.
  4. IMHO, MBT are not suitable full stop. As infantry support vehicles fine but the compromises we all know make it really, rather bloody pointless. Heavy infantry support vehicles, fill your boots, they are quite well suited for that role.
  5. Taking a pretty ancient vehicle and remodelling, why would you not have a more modern engine? Something that could fit in the front end by preference while also taking advantage of increasing efficiency where possible. Where is the emphasis? With making work for locals or with those who would be going into conflict regions in them? As for the drivers utility in the Armarta, I can see difficulties in close terrainmanouvering with that setup or, do they have camera's for that? Pretty sure there is no perfect solution as there appears not to be with any other vehicle in use. IMHO, the current APC/IFV style of entry/egress used by the majority of APC is a preferred option rather than out of the top of the vehicle or climbibng over the engine with raised access ports.
  6. The problem as I see it is, dismounting via a front mounted hatch and a ramp over the rear mounted engine compartment as several of the conversion have crew do, is exposure to even squad automatic support weapons. Converting to a front mounted engine seems doable via hull switch, basically flip it. Your driver being a fair distance from the front of the chassis might be a problem there. Best use from my perspective, is as a support vehicle and yet these things crop up from time to time. The marl IX seems to be the best of the bunch tbh, Yes, I agree, the more protection we can give crews/dismounts the better but Shirley a bespoke chassis is better.
  7. Discussion of MBT converted into heavy IFV, not including infantry support vehicl types. Starting with the mark IX of ww1, how useful are they? Especially with many facing ingress/egress problems resorting to (IMHO) rather numb arsed solutions. Are they really worthy of time and money spent? Should they concerntrate on producing proper classes of IFV for different threats instead?
  8. What did Modi get for himself? What has he put in his back pocket for the day it all comes down around his ears or, did he not get THAT aspect of the deal? Heard to see what Putin could give him to spirit away at this stage.
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_Chief_(novel) This has an interesting, almost sub plot involving Russia in the Baltic region which has some relvance for the terrain and forces which might be involved. Definitely something of interest in the light of current events.
  10. We kept the .30 for longer than the .50 on our Ferrets (Communication vehicles so the excuse goes), I cannot remember if they were rechambered for 7.62. A lot of us thought the .50 would be better for supporting local infantry than 7.62 and certainly a heavier hitter for light vehicle removal but I was just someone who presses the tit.
  11. WW4 will be long over before then, going by current progress.
  12. I heard the rumours when I was an active gunner but never came across it apart from what was reported as a one off incident on the ranges in 1977 sometime. No idea if it was intended or not.
  13. The .5 ranging gun on Chieftain would have less use as it was limited to three round bursts. As an anti sniper weapon or to go through the embrasue of a pill box etc, fair enuffski.
  14. I have yet to see, and correct me if I am wrong, ANY meaningful defence system a la Trophy in action. I thought these systems were suppsed to make AFV safe from ATGM's so drones and some main gun shells should be easy prey. Why is this? Or am I buttering my toast on both sides again?
  15. The leader who COULD speak the truth to end the war, continues to lie through his nappy NOT ending the war. Simples.
×
×
  • Create New...