The Armored Vehicle Thread

@ Tom: So, how how do you rate the Challenger 2?

DA CHALLY IS DA BESTEST TANK FOR DA BOYZ! The Challenger is a damn beast.

Yeah, but it has some problems. The Army top brass have wanted it to have the 55 calibre length Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore instead of the current 120 mm rifled cannon for yonks now, or at the very least a high pressure 130 mm rifled cannon. (Wikipedia doesn't seem to have the latter titbit but I do recall reading about it over a decade ago and it stuck.)

The reason why they want a new shooter is that the production lines for the 120 mm rifled ammunition are gone, the stocks are running down if not out, and the old argument against the Rheinmetall smoothbore, i.e that it didn't have access to HESH rounds died a death in '09 when they trialled some in Belgium.

Plus, if they had the new gun fitted, it would mean that they could use common NATO stocks of rounds and sources of said rounds held by the Germans and Americans.

And if political will were there, they could replicate what they have already proven to work in trials and whack that new gun in.

Thanks to defence cuts, however, the Challenger can forget about getting some German steel - those Tory and Liberal twats currently putting our country at risk would rather appease their banker friends and waste all the money they think that they can get away with by paring down the deficit than spend some money on defence.

Even the Abrams had a brush with a bigger gun in 140mm Diameter a while back in a test bed.

How much of a difference would a 140mm gun make compared to a 120mm gun?

Dunno. Wouldn't be a bigger hole - the actual penetrator part of the round would stay the same, I reckon. But the bigger shell may have a bigger propellent charge kicking said penetrator up the arse a lot harder than before, so you could be talking increased range, flatter trajectory and much more effect on target. Of course I could be talking out of a hole in my hind end but I think that's how the ballistics would work.

Labour wouldn't be much better, and neither would UKIP — they certainly wouldn't spend enough for my liking, anyhow.

This is sadly true. Which is why if there is a hung parliament next year, we should so make the actions fit the wording, if you follow me?

Decent but a tad overrated, mainly because of their poor production runs and reliance on a different gun and warhead (HESH).

The Merkava series I hold in the same regard. Decent but a tad overrated since they proved a lot more flimsy than their reputation played them up as in 2006. (Granted Hezbollah did have more advanced weapons than RPG-7s.)

A combination of both were the main reasons why. It was costing too much for nowhere near enough benefit (sounds familiar...) and there were increasing survivability concerns.

If it wasn't a concern why did GCV go the exact opposite route of FCS? Experience in Iraq showed a low survivability lightweight vehicle like that in the FCS repertoire would not be worth it.

Tom: Flat out wrong yet again. Gee lets see what happened with the FCS program. Oh yeah in 2009 the Army Budget got a huge kick in the teeth. The Army cut lots of programs and projects and broke up the FCS program which was already hitting cost overruns in more then one project by the time the budget axe came down. The surviving programs were then rolled into the BCT Program.

The Manned Ground Vehicle portion of FCS was cut outright because it was the most expensive. It was axed to try and save the remnants of the program which included various sensors, network tech, drones, and the Land and Air Warrior programs that were all also part of FCS.

Ready for the pattern? BCT was canceled for...thats right budget cuts. Look at that a pattern. A well known and established pattern with military spending in the US where even promising programs die because of creeping cost over runs and budget constraints. The programs that gave the US Sensor Fused Cluster Munition and some of the tech that we use now in a few other weapon systems was axed for the exact same reason.

Finally for the final nail the GCV was not a direct spin off and only ONE planned prototype was to weigh over 80 tons. When it was politely pointed out that was way too heavy for a 9 man squad and lacked speed and mobility because of the heavy restrictions of the weight it was changed. They nipped that issue in the bud PDQ actually. The alternatives included a vehicle of 54 tons of ballistic armor which had people frowning as still too heavy but by using Active Protection systems cut the weight down to 18tons. Gee sounding familiar yet? Oh yeah that's right. Speed and mobility over heavy armor. The cancellation of the program also fits that previously noted pattern. GCV was canceled because of budget cuts and projected cost over runs.

Holy shit look at that budget cuts and cost overruns slaying a wide array of programs left and right. Nothing new in the US military.

Speed even more so then mobility was used by convoys to make it harder to target them with IED's and it worked. The technique was so heavily used many veterans who drove convoy duty have had to relearn how to drive in the US. Mobility was still a big issue and several attempts to go more cross country where possible were used to avoid using heavily mined and easily targeted routes.

We like to be different . Mind you, the Challenger 2 is designed to a different design philosophy to the US — armament and protection are more emphasised over outright speed. That's due to funding, and our differing experiences during World War II, including in the Western Desert and Normandy.

@ Tam: Remember the Tracked Rapier and the M548? Anyway, rumour has it is that Exactor has now been moved onto to a trailer.

edited 19th Dec '14 6:41:08 AM by Greenmantle

Nah, I don't remember those. When I was over getting alternately frozen half to death or getting parboiled on the prairie at Suffield, trying to keep the Battle Group and Op For idiots killing themselves on the roads and cross country as part of the Ops Room staff, I did see various FV 430 series panzers, Challenger 2 panzers and the AS 90 self propelled gun panzer. That fucker was a shocker up close. That's not a gun barrel on that bloody thing, that's the Clyde Tunnel in just-miniature.

I saw what a battery of those things can do to a hillside on video and I was glad I wasn't ever likely to be underneath that kind of barrage.

The Tracked Rapier was a right pig to drive, I've heard. It was designed for the Iranians, you see, and we got it after the Revolution...

I've heard about Suffield, and seen photos of Prairie Dogs in a slightly earlier time, a time of Chieftains (not too great around the engine bay), FV434s, and M109s.

Re: big guns on tanks.

The British had a proposal in the 1950s to put an 183mm (!) rifled gun on the chassis of the FV 214 Conqueror, in a limited traverse turret, since firing perpendicular to the tank would tip it over. Would have been a hell of a sight to see, but supposedly the Chief of the General Staff told them that they would build a prototype over his dead body. It is now the bane of WOT players as the British Tier X TD.

IIRC there was a Swedish 1990s proposal for a giant 150mm+ guntank, with an autocannon to deal with infantry, but I could be misremembering.

EDIT: The STRV-2000. Actually just an 140mm gun, with a 40mm autocannon. Apparently the requirement was for 800mm of penetration vs RHAe, with after-effects. WHERE IS YOUR T-90 NOW?

Sadly, the project never reached the prototype stage; despite incorporating many new concepts, it would have needed export sales to be economical, and with the Leopard and the M1 to compete with that would have been an uphill struggle.

edited 19th Dec '14 2:29:25 PM by Achaemenid

Achae: No I think you are close. I could have sworn I read about and saw a test bed demonstrator with a massive gun as Modern AT gun. It had this horridly long barrel for the chassis to boot.

Ooh and found another example. A test bed based on the old Centurion creating "The British KV-2". Complete with barn turret and 183mm gun◊

edited 19th Dec '14 4:47:50 PM by TuefelHundenIV

^ What the fuck would they be using that for? Trying to kill a battleship?

It's there because fuck you and fuck everyone around you

I want one

edited 19th Dec '14 4:55:07 PM by LeGarcon

Wikipedia says it was meant to be a tank destroyer. Probably an attempt to counter the way heavily armored Soviet heavy tanks before the Soviets realized the idea was stupid.

^ Like that nonsense piece of work the IST-10? Or that further nonsense the Объект 279?

edited 19th Dec '14 5:16:54 PM by MajorTom

Yeah, probably the T-10 and speculation about future developments like that bizarre Object-279 which is one of the oddest tanks ever actually built.

LOL and that will be arriving in World of Tanks soon LOL. So that means two UK tanks in the game with 183mm guns.

Tom: It is one of those post war interim designs. Several design ideas sprung up about how to take out a heavy or even early MBT's with a gun system. One of the prevailing ideas was a big guns firing big shells like HEAT, HESH, or variations on AP. I am fairly certain a HEAT shell fired by a 183mm would be an unpleasant surprise to say the least.

Other ideas involved rapidly hitting the target in quick succession with high velocity but smaller caliber shots. This gave us the Ontos and some crazy design vehicle that had a burst fire gun firing 76 or75mm ammo.

The end result for the most part was a high velocity large bore gun.

Ha found that weird tank. It is supposedly known as the RDF Light Tank, the CAT/LCV, the M39 RDF Light Tank, and even as the ARES Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank. Weird vehicle. I can't remember where I saw mention of the rapid fire gun bit but I am certain that was supposedly one of it's supposed selling points.

Edit: Fair warning if you spend time digging. Sparky Warning^note While looking up these projects you will bump into Mike Sparks drivel, Sparkites, and similar nutters.

edited 19th Dec '14 6:43:48 PM by TuefelHundenIV

What exactly is the deal with Sparks?

Mike Sparks is a military history, technology, and tactics crank. He hilariously references bad, unworkable, and exaggerated ideas while boosting ideas that he clearly does not fully understand. Even worse he is obsessed with M113 Battle Taxi APC. He makes a titan out of a waif. He states it would be the bestest light tank ever.

To top it off he is a certified tin foil hat nutcase who swears Ian Flemming's books contain coded information. He is also infamous for laying claim to ideas that others have adopted that come from anyone but Spark's and pretty much all of it is verifiably traceable. He was supposedly a member of the Armed Forces there are two schools of thought on this. He was and he was bounced out for being an abject failure or he simply wasn't. Many believe he never was.

He on very rare occasion makes a few good points but it is often buried under piles of nonsense crankery. Most of his drek comes from not bothering to ask honest questions, the worst variety of cherry picking, denial of verifiable and provable facts, and other nuttery.

If you want to discuss the M-113 in a sane manner or want to poke at Mike's low hanging fruit feel free.