Fordorsia wrote:DAE remember tanks?
Use old people as armour protection test subjects instead of rabbits or goats or whatever.
Advertisement
by Gallia- » Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:10 pm
Fordorsia wrote:DAE remember tanks?
by Dostanuot Loj » 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"
by Imperializt Russia » 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.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Laritaia » Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:23 pm
Dostanuot Loj wrote:-snip-
by Gallia- » Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:26 pm
by Dostanuot Loj » 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.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:33 pm
by Gallia- » 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.
by Hurtful Thoughts » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:32 pm
Fordorsia wrote:
So how would this kind of thing fair in military use? Like as a scout vehicle or however regular ATVs are used.
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War
Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....
by Fordorsia » 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.
San-Silvacian wrote:Forgot to take off my Rhodie shorts when I went to sleep.
Woke up in bitches and enemy combatants.
Crookfur wrote:Speak for yourself, Crookfur infantry enjoy the sheer uber high speed low drag operator nature of their tactical woad
Spreewerke wrote:One of our employees ate a raw kidney and a raw liver and the only powers he gained was the ability to summon a massive hospital bill.
Premislyd wrote:This is probably the best thing somebody has ever spammed.
Puzikas wrote:That joke was so dark it has to smile to be seen at night.
by Austrasien » 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.
by Austrasien » 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.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » 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.
by Taihei Tengoku » 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.
by Theodosiya » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:01 pm
by Connori Pilgrims » 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.
by Gallia- » 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
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.
by Fordorsia » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:41 pm
San-Silvacian wrote:Forgot to take off my Rhodie shorts when I went to sleep.
Woke up in bitches and enemy combatants.
Crookfur wrote:Speak for yourself, Crookfur infantry enjoy the sheer uber high speed low drag operator nature of their tactical woad
Spreewerke wrote:One of our employees ate a raw kidney and a raw liver and the only powers he gained was the ability to summon a massive hospital bill.
Premislyd wrote:This is probably the best thing somebody has ever spammed.
Puzikas wrote:That joke was so dark it has to smile to be seen at night.
by Hurtful Thoughts » 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.
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War
Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....
by Fordorsia » 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.
Generally, engine-dimensions are not a limiting factor.
San-Silvacian wrote:Forgot to take off my Rhodie shorts when I went to sleep.
Woke up in bitches and enemy combatants.
Crookfur wrote:Speak for yourself, Crookfur infantry enjoy the sheer uber high speed low drag operator nature of their tactical woad
Spreewerke wrote:One of our employees ate a raw kidney and a raw liver and the only powers he gained was the ability to summon a massive hospital bill.
Premislyd wrote:This is probably the best thing somebody has ever spammed.
Puzikas wrote:That joke was so dark it has to smile to be seen at night.
by HMS Vanguard » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:50 am
Gallia- wrote:1) Money is the biggest obstacle to tanks getting anything
by HMS Vanguard » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:53 am
Gallia- wrote:You'd need to end the pension machines and NHS machines for a better military.
by Opplandia » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:59 am
by HMS Vanguard » 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.
by Opplandia » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:12 am
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: The Community of Cascadia, Toin, Torkeland
Advertisement