NationStates

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:10 pm**

Fordorsia wrote:DAE remember tanks?

Use old people as armour protection test subjects instead of rabbits or goats or whatever.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:11 pm**

Laritaia wrote:
Dostanuot Loj wrote:
Got a source besides just not trusting the UKMoD?

I find it hard to believe since no official chatter about it has happened. The UKMoD has actually gone the other way and is trying to keep the Challenger in service instead of dropping it completely. And, of course, I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the UKMoD is over the age of twelve.

Ajax is a replacement for CVRT, and it is badly needed.
Next will be the Warrior and FV432 (Probably the same vehicle in different versions), using the same technologies developed for Ajax.
Then you will see a Chally replacement.

Firstly the MoD rarely announces the latest retarded plan before it has to, SOP is to wait till it's too late to do anything about it.

Secondly there is no Warrior replacement.

Thirdly i never said the MoD wants to do it, i'm saying that it will happen regardless. For it not to would require the reversal of at least two decades of budgetary decline and neglect.

and all indications are that things are going to get much worse, not better.

so no, i have no evidence beyond the last 50 years of MoD decisions and monumental fuck ups.

Just remember kids, it's not a cut, it's a "Capability Holiday"

So again, your whole argument is that they won't replace Chally 2 because "MoD sux"?
The MoD will talk about it, that's what they do. They talked about replacement of the CVRT for years before they actually started working on it. And that same program was to include Warrior and FV432 replacement, but has since been cut. It also, at one point, included a Challenger 2 replacement that has also been cut. That does not mean they won't be replaced, it means they are not being replaced yet.

The loss of the UK AVF development capability is also why I said it will be built from German and US technology. "Developed in house", aka assembled from foreign parts, locally.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:19 pm**

Imperializt Russia wrote:The Russian Universal Turret was brought up recently.

The development of my T-108 tank was, in its early life, two-part. It started as a turret that was to be fitted to T-72/80/90 tank chassis, with its hull developed later. But The T-108 is meant to be relatively westernised, and the complete tank will be larger than late-era Soviet tanks.
Especially with the T-108 being able to adopt a 152mm high-velocity gun later in its service life, I feel this may not be possible.

What limitations might the Soviet hulls impose on such a turret? The T-108 utilised Meggitt-style all-in-bustle loading, so carousel space would actually be saved.
The T-108, realistically, requires actually designing, these days.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:23 pm**

Dostanuot Loj wrote:-snip-

No my argument is that there will be no replacement because the MoD is terrible and there genuinely is no money or tbh real need.

It took them the better part of 30 years to finally get their shit together and replace CVRT, and what they ended up with was arguably unsuitable.

by the time the need to replace Chally 2 becomes pressing enough to actually motivate them to do something, odds are there will only be a single Armoured Regiment left.

With a requirement for at most 60-80 vehicles the cost of developing a new vehicle( even from a kit of foreign parts) would be prohibitive, so the choice will be between surplus M1s, Surplus Leopard 2A4s(if there are any left) and nothing.

and tbh smart odds are on nothing.

Am i intensely pessimistic about this?

yes, but it's based on deeply establish precedent.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:26 pm**

They'll buy a battalion of M1A1SAv3s from GD.

Call it Agamemnon.

To go with the other Greek things.

Achilles will be the Bradley II to replace Warrior.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:29 pm**

Laritaia wrote:
Dostanuot Loj wrote:-snip-

No my argument is that there will be no replacement because the MoD is terrible and there genuinely is no money or tbh real need.

It took them the better part of 30 years to finally get their shit together and replace CVRT, and what they ended up with was arguably unsuitable.

by the time the need to replace Chally 2 becomes pressing enough to actually motivate them to do something, odds are there will only be a single Armoured Regiment left.

With a requirement for at most 60-80 vehicles the cost of developing a new vehicle( even from a kit of foreign parts) would be prohibitive, so the choice will be between surplus M1s, Surplus Leopard 2A4s(if there are any left) and nothing.

and tbh smart odds are on nothing.

Am i intensely pessimistic about this?

yes, but it's based on deeply establish precedent.

Yes, you are deeply pessimistic about it. And I know why, remember I come from the land of "we don't need tanks, or maintenance for stuff like helicopters and submarines."
One regiment is enough for a suitable training cadre, it's all you need if you don't go to war. Especially if your war plan is to simply surge troops in a declared war and use foreign equipment, like US equipment.

Even if a replacement doesn't come domestically, it will come.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:33 pm**

I think in honour of wrd I'm going to replace my ASCOD's with Merkavas.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:35 pm**

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:I think in honour of wrd I'm going to replace my ASCOD's with Merkavas.

the worst gamete

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:32 pm**

Fordorsia wrote:
Hurtful Thoughts wrote:Someone already built it

And I opted to do this to motorcycles.

So how would this kind of thing fair in military use? Like as a scout vehicle or however regular ATVs are used.

Air deployed earth and prime mover, mostly.

For those days when you absolutely must give your airborne forces a 203mm towed howitzer and/or ICBM.

Hurti raiders: In ur base, steal'n yo SCUDs. Because Ford stole mah bike.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:52 pm**

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:
Fordorsia wrote:
So how would this kind of thing fair in military use? Like as a scout vehicle or however regular ATVs are used.

Air deployed earth and prime mover, mostly.

For those days when you absolutely must give your airborne forces a 203mm towed howitzer and/or ICBM.

Hurti raiders: In ur base, steal'n yo SCUDs. Because Ford stole mah bike.

The bike was always mine

Am I doing it right?

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:07 pm**

Dostanuot Loj wrote:I bolded the things you listed as descended from the Chieftain that are not.
In fact, the Challenger is less derived from the Chieftain as the T-44 is from the T-44. The T-90 is far far far closer to the T-72 than the Challenger is to the Chieftain.

I didn't mean they were from the Chieftain. But I did mean they descended from the Chieftain.

The gun is linearly descended from the Chieftains. The hull is not a Chieftain, but it is a modification of the Challenger, which is a modification of the Chieftain. And it is very obvious the geometry of the front hull is an inheritance and part of that inheritance is inevitably the lack of adequate space for frontal armour. The engine is also used in Jordanian Chieftains.

There is definitely a common thread linking the Chieftain, Challenger and Challenger 2. And this is related to a lot of what are now its most obsolete design features.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:17 pm**

Laritaia wrote:With a requirement for at most 60-80 vehicles the cost of developing a new vehicle( even from a kit of foreign parts) would be prohibitive, so the choice will be between surplus M1s, Surplus Leopard 2A4s(if there are any left) and nothing.

and tbh smart odds are on nothing.

Am i intensely pessimistic about this?

yes, but it's based on deeply establish precedent.

Smart odds are on the Leopard 2 successor really. Even if Britain coughed up the money for an independent development the market case would be terrible, as Japan knows advanced vehicles produced in the low hundreds for a single customer come at a sky-high price.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:52 pm**

Austrasien wrote:
Laritaia wrote:With a requirement for at most 60-80 vehicles the cost of developing a new vehicle( even from a kit of foreign parts) would be prohibitive, so the choice will be between surplus M1s, Surplus Leopard 2A4s(if there are any left) and nothing.

and tbh smart odds are on nothing.

Am i intensely pessimistic about this?

yes, but it's based on deeply establish precedent.

Smart odds are on the Leopard 2 successor really. Even if Britain coughed up the money for an independent development the market case would be terrible, as Japan knows advanced vehicles produced in the low hundreds for a single customer come at a sky-high price.

If the English MoD doesn't do that we're gonna get an RTR in 2050 with only 40 mm CTA's for "muh austerity".
Austerity schemes against the Defence of the Realm should be classed the same as high treason. It's so bad Defence of the Realm has become Prostitution of the Realm.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:55 pm**

Austrasien wrote:
Laritaia wrote:With a requirement for at most 60-80 vehicles the cost of developing a new vehicle( even from a kit of foreign parts) would be prohibitive, so the choice will be between surplus M1s, Surplus Leopard 2A4s(if there are any left) and nothing.

and tbh smart odds are on nothing.

Am i intensely pessimistic about this?

yes, but it's based on deeply establish precedent.

Smart odds are on the Leopard 2 successor really. Even if Britain coughed up the money for an independent development the market case would be terrible, as Japan knows advanced vehicles produced in the low hundreds for a single customer come at a sky-high price.

They should buy Type 10s from Japan :o

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:01 pm**

Turret based on Abrams, slightly leghtened, with internal changed to accommodate more armor and bustle autoloader. Hull slightly less steep for smaller lower glacis but both thicker and stronger than Abrams.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:07 pm**

Theodosiya wrote:Turret based on Abrams, slightly leghtened, with internal changed to accommodate more armor and bustle autoloader. Hull slightly less steep for smaller lower glacis but both thicker and stronger than Abrams.

I've always wondered whether it is worthwhile to throw that much for the lower glacis. WoT/AW/WT aside, in typical battle ranges you're not likely to hit that spot - and most effort nowadays seems to be for top attack munitions so maybe emphasizing vertical protection is more important. And unless you're expecting to run over RPG-29 mines repeatedly then the bolded seems to be an unneeded.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:35 pm**

Taihei Tengoku wrote:
Austrasien wrote:
Smart odds are on the Leopard 2 successor really. Even if Britain coughed up the money for an independent development the market case would be terrible, as Japan knows advanced vehicles produced in the low hundreds for a single customer come at a sky-high price.

They should buy Type 10s from Japan

The "shit turret geometry" theme should be continued in perpetuity.

Just like GIB.

End memes pls.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
Austrasien wrote:
Smart odds are on the Leopard 2 successor really. Even if Britain coughed up the money for an independent development the market case would be terrible, as Japan knows advanced vehicles produced in the low hundreds for a single customer come at a sky-high price.

If the English MoD doesn't do that we're gonna get an RTR in 2050 with only 40 mm CTA's for "muh austerity".
Austerity schemes against the Defence of the Realm should be classed the same as high treason. It's so bad Defence of the Realm has become Prostitution of the Realm.

You'd need to end the pension machines and NHS machines for a better military.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:41 pm**

I know it's absurdly large and just kind of ridiculous but I'm really happy with how it's looking. Looks pretty good as a sci-fi movie vehicle I think.

Carries 13 all together. Driver at the front, Commander in the cupola, Gunner is behind the turret with his controls, and 10 passengers.
40mm autocannon and coax .30 in the turret, Commander has an M2, and there's a .30 cal on a rotating mount above the seat that's next to the Gunner. I was considering having the .30 cal on a periscope mount but that wouldn't be worth the inconvenience to the passengers.

Not supposed to be entirely realistic, but any feedback would be good.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:53 pm**

Fordorsia wrote:I know it's absurdly large and just kind of ridiculous but I'm really happy with how it's looking. Looks pretty good as a sci-fi movie vehicle I think.

Carries 13 all together. Driver at the front, Commander in the cupola, Gunner is behind the turret with his controls, and 10 passengers.
40mm autocannon and coax .30 in the turret, Commander has an M2, and there's a .30 cal on a rotating mount above the seat that's next to the Gunner. I was considering having the .30 cal on a periscope mount but that wouldn't be worth the inconvenience to the passengers.

Not supposed to be entirely realistic, but any feedback would be good.

You could make it shorter if you neglect to give any of the passengers standing-room, at all.

Right now is tall like school-bus, need only the yellow paint. Most protected short-bus of entire kindergarten class.

Generally, engine-dimensions are not a limiting factor.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:06 pm**

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:
Fordorsia wrote:I know it's absurdly large and just kind of ridiculous but I'm really happy with how it's looking. Looks pretty good as a sci-fi movie vehicle I think.

Carries 13 all together. Driver at the front, Commander in the cupola, Gunner is behind the turret with his controls, and 10 passengers.
40mm autocannon and coax .30 in the turret, Commander has an M2, and there's a .30 cal on a rotating mount above the seat that's next to the Gunner. I was considering having the .30 cal on a periscope mount but that wouldn't be worth the inconvenience to the passengers.

Not supposed to be entirely realistic, but any feedback would be good.

You could make it shorter if you neglect to give any of the passengers standing-room, at all.

Right now is tall like school-bus, need only the yellow paint. Most protected short-bus of entire kindergarten class.

Generally, engine-dimensions are not a limiting factor.

Actually that's not really standing room. It's just got 70cm of ground clearance so it's still your average roof height inside it. From the ground to the roof is about 3m. Looking at it it looks like the passengers getting out the back is like getting out the back of a medium sized army truck, except they have a ramp too, so at least that wouldn't be an issue.

Generally, engine-dimensions are not a limiting factor.

What do you mean?

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:50 am**

Gallia- wrote:1) Money is the biggest obstacle to tanks getting anything

Absolutely right, and the boring truth is that Leopard 2 and Abrams have benefited from large user bases and continuous improvement simply because the Germans built thousands too many for a projected 90s Cold War that never came, instead dumping them on the world market at below cost, while the Abrams has the world's largest home market, that won't ever go elsewhere for prestige reasons. The fact is that if Britain wanted to operate >3,000 tanks for some reason, like the Americans do and the Germans once did, the development costs would not be a major factor, and there's no lack of industrial base. If you want 150 tanks, yes savings can be made by buying from a foreign manufacturer with economy of scale instead.

That's all a bit tangential to the points you were making, though. There isn't a lot of difference between any of these tanks if you include arbitrary upgrade potential, and that's going to be the case for any successor tank too. The real question being asked today is whether there's any purpose for tanks for countries that don't have pre-positioned land forces, rather than how to radically improve them with design changes (not at all obvious).

If a new tank design were radically different to the old ones for some reason, it isn't likely going to come from Germany, which operates about the same number of tanks as the UK (232 vs 227), both being too small to justify the costs. Either it would be bought in from the US, or we spin the big wheel with another pan-Euro megaproject. My guess is that the British MoD will ultimately decide to retire tanks without replacement. The Germans will probably buy American, assuming they haven't remilitarised by that time. But I rather suspect both countries are more likely to fight insurgencies on their own territory than conventional land wars with Russia in the next 50 years.

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:53 am**

Gallia- wrote:You'd need to end the pension machines and NHS machines for a better military.

Ironically the NHS is way cheaper than the US healthcare system - 10% of GDP vs 17%. If the US could force sick people to wait on trolleys in hospital corridors etc. you could boost your military spending by up to 200%!

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:59 am**

Actually Germany and France are once again discussing the possebility of cooperation in constructing a new MBT. Even if that fails, its rather unlikely that the Bundeswehr would start using US-built ones, Vanguard.

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:08 am**

Opplandia wrote:Actually Germany and France are once again discussing the possebility of cooperation in constructing a new MBT. Even if that fails, its rather unlikely thst the Bundeswehr would start using US-built ones, Vanguard.

Euro megaproject remains a strong possibility, and probably the first choice politically, but failure of said project ranging from total and catastrophic to mere crippling delays is not just possible, but very likely. So if not that, who else in the market? The only big manufacturer in the Western bloc is the US.

Bearing in mind that this is for a radically new design which is 1. certainly not on the horizon right now and 2. may never happen.

Posted: **Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:12 am**

Should the german-french cooperative fail (which I doubt seeing as Nexter and Krauss-Maffei-Wegmann are involved) Germany would drop the idea of a completely new vehicle altogether and instead try to churn out the next big upgrade-package for the Leopard 2; even if it would mean massively reduced performance compared to something entirely new. Theyre not going to buy US MBTs, thats how those guys actually work.

NationStates

Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation Mk X