Jump to content

What's next for top tier ground vehicles?


30 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

I thought 195 was the same company's product, but the 148 was more...cost effective, so they went with that option. Smaller gun, no coaxial, but largely similar design and construction, etcetera.

My interpretation as well. Object 148 was the cheaper alternative to 195. Both have their roots in several crewless turret projects from the 80s and 90s.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FallenZulu said:

I thought that was merely a prototype or mock up. Last time I checked not even the British army knows what they are going to do with their Challengers.

The Challenger 2 LEP (Named Challenger 3 in recent documents) will most likely go with the 120mm L/55 from the start, as with the available sources so far.

Turret is however designed with upgrading to 130mm gun in mind. The plan appears to be upgrading some (<100) CR2 with 120mm gun LEP first, then maybe upgrading the rest (current condition CR2) to 130mm in a secondary upgrade batch.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NoodleCup31 said:

It is a GEPANZERTESINFANTERIEFEUERUNTERSTÜTZUNGSFAHRZEUG

 

 

Did you smash your head on the keyboard to type that?

  • Haha 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

Not exactly, the Obj. 187 absolutely has better hull armor, almost double the LOS thickness over the T-72B, and it has better turret armor, the same as that of the T-90A. It is a bit slower though, being that it is 50 tonnes, but IMO it makes up for that by firing DU rounds that should reach ~600mm of pen in game.

There is also the spaced armor that the ERA creates on the UFP. It might have a thicker turret than T-90A. IIRC T-90A uses the smaller turret from V3 & V4. I think all of the 187s would be more mobile than 90A. V3 would be about the same weight as T-90A and have the GTD-1250 gas turbine from the T-80U. V4 would weigh slightly more with it's new ERA and have the slightly weaker A-85-2 1200hp engine. V5 & V6 gain more weight and have the same engine but even then is 24hp/t vs 21.5hp/t.

I've never seen specs for 3BM39 and 3BM40, do you have them?

 

20 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

If added, the Obj. 187 would definitely be the best soviet tank in game

Def

Edited by WulfPack
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FallenZulu said:
8 hours ago, NoodleCup31 said:

It is a GEPANZERTESINFANTERIEFEUERUNTERSTÜTZUNGSFAHRZEUG

 

 

Did you smash your head on the keyboard to type that?

 

hahaha thast just German for you 

if you translate word for word it means armored infantry fire support vehicle 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Arjun Tank 

Cant wait for the meme involving its ammo name.

 

Penetration XXX blast, and no im not joking

 

https://www.drdo.gov.in/120-mm-penetration-XXX-blast-pcb-and-thermobaric-tb-ammunition-mbt-arjun

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/01/2021 at 04:47, Loongsheep said:

The Challenger 2 LEP (Named Challenger 3 in recent documents) will most likely go with the 120mm L/55 from the start, as with the available sources so far.

Turret is however designed with upgrading to 130mm gun in mind. The plan appears to be upgrading some (<100) CR2 with 120mm gun LEP first, then maybe upgrading the rest (current condition CR2) to 130mm in a secondary upgrade batch.

Lol, there is no documentation that the 130mm will be in mind for the design. It all points at the L55A1 from the get go.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

130mm RHM will need to become NATO standard before nations equip them, otherwise it's just too expensive. There's also the French pushing for their 140mm to become standardized. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that hard.

Rheinmetall makes the guns and upgrades the guns to almost every NATO nation, barring America/France/UK (Until the program is completed). Rheinmetall pretty much exerts control across a huge portion of NATO and the military complex.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaekoB said:

130mm RHM will need to become NATO standard before nations equip them, otherwise it's just too expensive. There's also the French pushing for their 140mm to become standardized. 

Why doesn't that suprise me? The French always want to be different don't they. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, __Renzo__ said:

Why doesn't that suprise me? The French always want to be different don't they. 

I mean, it's worked out for them before. By refusing to adopt the L7 they ended up with a more accurate 105mm

Edited by watch_your_fire
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

I mean, it's worked out for them before. By refusing to adopt the L7 they ended up with a more accurate 105mm

Only more accurate with HEAT round. The Obus G used spin stabilization which was better than fins.

 

However that gun had no AP rounds until 1982. France took the wrong bet and thought no armor could stop HEAT. With APFSDS its accuracy was similar to L7.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Least France does it right, I'd take the GIAT 120 over a L30A1 or 125mm any day, competing only with the M256/L55/L55A1.

 

Furthermore there is nothing wrong with making the jump to 140mm. It's pretty much ultra future proofing instead of just going for a smaller jump. Especially since they're a huge proponent for autoloaders.

Edited by Korvetten
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

Only more accurate with HEAT round. The Obus G used spin stabilization which was better than fins.

 

However that gun had no AP rounds until 1982. France took the wrong bet and thought no armor could stop HEAT. With APFSDS its accuracy was similar to L7.

True. The ball-bearing HEAT round remained in service until the last AMX-30 was retired though, and even today NATO tanks tend to bring along about half chemical rounds and half AP

 

HEAT may be obsolete against proper MBTs but now and especially in the '80s it's good enough for most targets in asymmetric wars, and of course it can be used against infantry while APFSDS cannot

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, watch_your_fire said:

True. The ball-bearing HEAT round remained in service until the last AMX-30 was retired though, and even today NATO tanks tend to bring along about half chemical rounds and half AP

Not saying it was a failure, but it was more expensive to make than HEAT-FS and offers little advantage.

 

5 minutes ago, watch_your_fire said:

HEAT may be obsolete against proper MBTs but now and especially in the '80s it's good enough for most targets in asymmetric wars, and of course it can be used against infantry while APFSDS cannot

Yeah, but the L7 series can fire a even wider range of rounds.

I think the French 105mm is no longer on the market? Haven't seen a modern APFSDS made for it after the early 1990s.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

Not saying it was a failure, but it was more expensive to make than HEAT-FS and offers little advantage.

 

Yeah, but the L7 series can fire a even wider range of rounds.

I think the French 105mm is no longer on the market? Haven't seen a modern APFSDS made for it after the early 1990s.

 

The ammunition expenses are really what is making nations reluctant to upgrade to newer weapon systems, RHM had/has both the 130 and 140mm guns, Leopards could be rolling out with both, but the ammunition prices would be sky high, if they would only be produced for Germany, and some other nations.

 

That's why everyone is waiting for a standard to be decided and accepted upon. The 130mm very likely require or necessitate an autoloader mechanism, the 140mm  does so with certainty, no question asked, which is another additional expense, which most nations tried to avoid as long as possible. The more reasonable one will probably be awarded the win, likely the 130mm. As for major NATO allies, S.Korea might pick something else entirely, maybe whatever ROTEM comes up with, and Japan most certainly will pick a JSW design in the future project, not anything from GIAT, RHM or RO.  

Edited by SaekoB
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SaekoB said:

 

The ammunition expenses are really what is making nations reluctant to upgrade to newer weapon systems, RHM had/has both the 130 and 140mm guns, Leopards could be rolling out with both, but the ammunition prices would be sky high, if they would only be produced for Germany, and some other nations.

 

That's why everyone is waiting for a standard to be decided and accepted upon. The 130mm very likely require or necessitate an autoloader mechanism, the 140mm  does so with certainty, no question asked, which is another additional expense, which most nations tried to avoid as long as possible. The more reasonable one will probably be awarded the win, likely the 130mm. As for major NATO allies, S.Korea might pick something else entirely, maybe whatever ROTEM comes up with, and Japan most certainly will pick a JSW design in the future project, not anything from GIAT, RHM or RO.  

MGCS canon will be whatever will be the most capable to meet the requirements in terms of firepower for it's lifespan. Since the tank is due to enter service in 2035-2040 at this point both the 130mm and the 140 mm have their chance, the 130 mm will probably be chosen first with the 140 mm be introduced later as an upgrade. What is also possible is that since the tank is supposed to be highly modular with a lot of interchangeable component to fit the needs of a maximum amount of potential customers, is that the French tanks will equip their 140 mm gun and german will equip their 130 mm gun. Autoloader can be designed to accomodate both calibers. In the end of the day the only sure thing is that Germany will carry most of the work of the châssis while French work will be more oriented towards to Optronic/vetronic/FCS/Battle managment system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tantor57000 said:

MGCS canon will be whatever will be the most capable to meet the requirements in terms of firepower for it's lifespan. Since the tank is due to enter service in 2035-2040 at this point both the 130mm and the 140 mm have their chance, the 130 mm will probably be chosen first with the 140 mm be introduced later as an upgrade. What is also possible is that since the tank is supposed to be highly modular with a lot of interchangeable component to fit the needs of a maximum amount of potential customers, is that the French tanks will equip their 140 mm gun and german will equip their 130 mm gun. Autoloader can be designed to accomodate both calibers. In the end of the day the only sure thing is that Germany will carry most of the work of the châssis while French work will be more oriented towards to Optronic/vetronic/FCS/Battle managment system.

There's also the teased 157mm american cannot (which I assume is a CTA design)

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CotorShas said:

There's also the teased 157mm american cannot (which I assume is a CTA design)

the gun wont be a definite choice for the upcoming 5 years at the least.

 

What is sure is that the MGCS will be completely different from 3rd generation MBT's. Itll probably be lighter,smaller with a high emphasis on active protection systems. It certainly wont be as armored as most modern 3rf gen mbts are today or the armor will be very strong only on a small portion of the frontal arc mostly the crew compartment.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Tantor57 said:

the gun wont be a definite choice for the upcoming 5 years at the least.

 

What is sure is that the MGCS will be completely different from 3rd generation MBT's. Itll probably be lighter,smaller with a high emphasis on active protection systems. It certainly wont be as armored as most modern 3rf gen mbts are today or the armor will be very strong only on a small portion of the frontal arc mostly the crew compartment.

Are you talking about Type 10? :lol2:

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...