/thg/ Treadhead General

File: ZSU-23-4_anti-aircraft_air_defense_tracked_armoured_vehicle_self-propelled_gun_Russia_Russian_Army_017.jpg (140KB, 879x581px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 879x581px

>>31690956
OP: As always, feedback, suggestions wanted and appreciated.
The colourful and checkered combat history of the Shilka, and even its exploits as a successful export product by the USSR is too extended to go into here. Of note, however, was its performance in the various confrontations of Israeli and Arab forces during conflicts such as the 1973 Yom Kippur War, or even in the 1982 Lebanon War in areas such as the Bekaa Valley, where the ZSU-23-4 was positively lethal at ranges of less than 2 km, but dropped off in accuracy dramatically at longer ranges. The role of the Shilka was typically to deny lower altitudes to aircraft, forcing the opposition into envelopes exposed to SAM fire. In the entirety of Operation Peace for Galilee, reportedly six IAF craft were shot down by ZSU-23-4s.
It was in Afghanistan, however, that the Shilka had an unexpected transformation into a direct fire support vehicle, dubbed the “Afghanskii” (see OP image) ZSU-23-4M2, with a removed radar and extended ammunition, while night-vision was installed. Like the M42 in Vietnam, the ZSU-23 was the cornerstone of convoy defence in Afghanistan. The high elevation of its guns was an especially appreciated capability of the vehicle. This ability would come into use again in the First Chechen War, as the Russian Federation’s second foray into Grozny was backed with Shilkas able to tackle insurgents located on rooftops unlike preceding BMPs or T-72s.
Also, one interesting and dangerous “glitch” that plagued the early Shilka was what was called a “runaway gun”, as the air cooled barrels of the 2A7 would leave residual heat that would ignite a chambered round during idleness, which in turn would heat the barrel again, triggering the next automatically chambered round, and so on until the entire belt was consumed. The switch to water cooling mitigated this, but commanders made a point to direct the guns away from local friendly infantry in future operations.

File: _shilka3_red_jpg_1417781757.jpg (322KB, 1541x1541px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1541x1541px

>>31690984
More tank news, as per the new format.
If you have more queries regarding a news story, just point it out, and I’ll further elaborate and provide links.

The German firm Krauss-Maffei Wegmann has unveiled information concerning its bid for the British Army’s Life Extension Programme (LEP) for the Challenger 2 MBT. Pearson Engineering, the present owners of the Armstrong Works at Newcastle-upon-Tyne which had previously fabricated Challenger 2s, are reportedly a key member of the KMW affiliated team as part of the latter’s bid.

Technicae Projetos e Serviços Automotivos, a private Brazilian subsidiary of ST Kinetics is set to modernise and overhaul 180 armoured fighting vehicles of the Colombian Army. The landmark deal comes with the tacit approval and administrative collaboration of Brazil’s state owned enterprise IMBEL.

The first twelve of forty-four CV9035NL IFVs were delivered to the Estonian Army last week, which were originally purchased from the Netherlands in 2014. In addition, six Leopard 1 AEVs (Armoured Engineering Vehicles) were packaged with the delivery; the entire transaction is expected to be finalised by 2018.

The first firing tests of the newly modernised EE-9 Cascavel 6x6 armoured reconnaissance vehicle is expected to begin soon, with the Brazilian Army and EQUITRON presiding. The vehicle, designated the EE-9U, includes a new powerpack, the 320hp Rolls-Royce Power Systems MTU 6R926 engine, and ZF Friedrichshafen 6HP504C automatic transmission, in addition to a multi-spectral observation sensor.

According to Vladimir Popov, head of the Rostec subsidiary Sheglovsky Val, the first tracked prototype of the Panstir-S1 projected to be completed by early 2017, while serial production of the improved Pantsir-SM will begin by 2018. Two years is the expected time for the engineering and prototyping stage to conclude, Popov added.

And that’s all for now.

>>31690956
Any upgrade to the Shilka?

I thought they're putting Iglas on it or radars. It'll sell good for those with Shilkas already.

File: Afghanistan.jpg (37KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 564x423px

>>31691018
Yes, in the 1990s, the Russian Federation began a wholesale overhaul of the Shilka, and furthermore installed two 9K38 Igla missiles as part of its weapons suite, as seen in >>31691005. It also has a smaller thermal signature, air conditioning, and hydrostatic steering.

File: VersãoUelenoestandeABREABREABRE.jpg (125KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 752x423px

>>31691005
for the ee-9 to be relevant they would have to replace the cockerill 90mm gun with a L7, and the brazilian army has no interest in upgrade the cascavel any further because they are developing an 8x8 recoinassance/ tank destoryer (b1 centauro style) version of the guarani

File: Zsu37_106.jpg (75KB, 1051x680px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1051x680px

>>31690956
Rare picture of the Yenisei. Actually not a half bad vehicle, imagine the range of a ZSU-57 with way better accuracy. Guess the Russkies preferred dakka.

File: ZSU-23-4_Shilka_in_Soviet_service_during_a_parade.jpg (1MB, 2295x1837px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2295x1837px

>>31690956
Closest thing you'll hear to enough dakka.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaYCjfvHIsQ

File: ifl.jpg (406KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1920x1080px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgRxGz0M6Gk

>CMI's 3000 series turret + Raytheon sight won a downselect for a ARDEC research & development project
>a C-17 can carry 3 M8's at level 3 armor
>ATK's 30x173mm airburst round uses the same fuse as the 25mm grenades in the XM25
>all four of ATK's 40x180mm rounds will be ready for production by the second quarter 2017
>M829A4 is in production
>the US Army will "probably" make its selection on the 120mm AMP around the first of the year
>Iron Fist Light is "about a quarter the weight" of other APS systems

>>31691115

Why is there a tree trunk tied to the back?

>>31692407
Its the Soviet unditching log.

>>31692435
>Soviet unditching log

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEoaU6aQxMI

Well I'll be god damned.

File: 1452479558997.jpg (6KB, 167x175px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 167x175px

>>31691628
>The Yensei was based on a SU-100, with twin 37 mm autocannons

Your pic is very clearly a ZSU-37, based on the T-60 light tank.

File: 31c034c937447f267cdb00320c0f6ed2.jpg (63KB, 700x470px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 700x470px

>>31692535
I think this was the one OP was talking about

File: 14765167158752.jpg (80KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 960x720px

SAA T-72M1 TURMS-T

File: 14765167158773.jpg (78KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 960x720px

>>31692835

File: Meng Gepard A1 A2 (13).jpg (408KB, 1600x1208px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1600x1208px

>>31690984
Hmm, are there any functional differences between the disc shaped radars and the spade shaped dishes like on the Gepard?

>>31692530
>dat t-80 turbine whine

>>31692530
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SgsWx4yrWY
Anyone have more old timey Soviet military videos? Preferably instructional videos like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wtcd8PppJw

File: 14491629502383.png (607KB, 780x635px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 780x635px

>>31693739
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6PBttBSLuc

>>31692835
Can't be many of those left, the SAA only has 122 to start with and the RG units have seen a lot of action.

File: CuysasvWcAAfSTU.jpg (201KB, 960x959px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 960x959px

>>31693778
most of them was station round Damascus, most of they haven't seen any action at all

the tank in that pic took part in the west Ghouta battle yesterday

>>31693806
Is the regime saving them for some big push?

>>31693894
No. The regime is saving them to protect itself.

>>31691899
>no BRRRRTTTTT
I was pretty disappointed.

>>31694258
I mean, there is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9bmCsWRtjs .

>>31693441
Search vs track(target).

>>31693739
https://www.youtube.com/user/smp220700

Interesting new Tatooine crawler anti-mine vehicle going through NDF testing. Also shows the wide variety in NDF personal gear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUgEgY12EcY

File: ZSU-23-4 'Shilka'.jpg (2MB, 4914x3222px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4914x3222px

Syria

>>31691209
Kek it will put much stress to that little tin can. Even stryker could barely withstand the recoil of the L7 gun

A better solution is to adopt new version of cockerill 90mm gun or the 105mm gun The105mm gun might be too much I think

>>31694732
Why dont they try and mount a recoiless rifle on it or something?

File: renault-17-tank-wallpaper-5.jpg (260KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1920x1080px

>>31690956
Can somebody please spare a link to the archive of previous /thg/ threads, especially about the WW1 Renault tank?

>>31694807
That's a downgrade, not an upgrade

You're sacrificing range (especially), accuracy, RoF, protection against fragmentation and versatility of a turreted gun

File: US 105mm tank.jpg (96KB, 700x650px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 700x650px

>>31694732
Strykers use the M68A2, not the L7.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We9qOg9tnCw

>>31696135
Which is american version of L7.

File: Cut6b9JUkAAYK2i.jpg (145KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1200x900px

VT-5 being shipped to the Zhuhai Airshow.

http://orientalist-v.livejournal.com/1590001.html

>>31696294
The only common part between the two is the barrel.

>>31692530
simple and smart..

Why don't you see these on Western tanks? Do they just rely on buddy tanks to just pull them out?

>>31696320

Good spot! I really do like having the Chinese making stuff too now, gives another source of unique looking vehicles being made now that many of the older tank-makers are out of the game.

>>31695191
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/31440505/#31440505

>>31690984
>runaway gun
>Oni-chan I'm... I'm too hot!... i will -BBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTT!!!!!

>>31692335
BAE is going to have to fit the XM360 gun to its M8.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyZ3v_LQ6UM

ZSU-57-2 would have been amazing for urban fighting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RURZrtES9jU

>>31698007
I thought the XM360 was a GDLS design.

>>31699115
The XM360 gun is US Army property. GDLS put it on the Griffin because it is lighter than both the M256 and M68, and as an incentive for the US Army to get a return on the millions spend developing it.

Modifying the M8 to use it (and the autoloader for 120mm rounds) shouldn't be difficult.

>>31696320
Still in the desert camo, eh? I smell more buys from Pakistan.

>>31699510
Much of western China is mountainous/desert too.

>>31699510
Pakistan literally has hundreds of Type-59/69 lying around and they're in the process of upgrading them.

If anything, they would rather have them MBT-3000 for their new MBT project

File: be45cb0ff2a9.jpg (63KB, 896x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 896x600px

>>31696320

File: FOB_112.jpg (44KB, 600x472px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x472px

French export 125mm ammo.

>>31700746
Which designation of the 3VBM range is the most common APFSDS round in use with tanks like the T-90A and T-72B3?

>>31700704
That's a dinky looking RWS.

>>31701630
Looks like the gun is not installed.

>>31702256
7.62 mm?

>>31702977
The size of the ammunition feed implies a 12.7mm

File: bL71Aph.jpg (374KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1280x960px

>>31701168
Mango and Vant stockpiles from the Soviet Union, but Russia is producing longer rounds like Svinets that can only be used by upgraded autoloaders.

>>31703440
Apparently the Russians have rounds that have two tungsten alloy rods in them because they couldn't make one long rod.

File: Mango.jpg (29KB, 912x223px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 912x223px

>>31703582

>>31691899
whats the ammo-load for these things? a few hundred rounds for each gun?

>>31703682
Afghanskii had an extended load of 4000 rounds I recall, and each belt had around 40, with 10 of them AP.

if money wasn't an issue would an arms manufacturer sell a person an export variant of a new tank?

Where is the reserve ammo stored in the Type 90, Type 10 and K2?

front hull magazine? are there pictures of the internal layout?

>>31703838
It wouldn't be in the economic interest of massive tank factories to devote effort and labour into building a single tank.

File: 40009.jpg (186KB, 1024x1446px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1024x1446px

From right to left.

125mm BM42 Mango (two tungsten penetrators wrapped in steel)
125mm BM32 Vant (depleted uranium)
100mm BM25
125mm BM39 Anker (experimental round)
125mm P-31 (training round)
125mm BM46 Svinets (uranium)
four types of 100mm ammunition that I don't care to identify

>>31690956

What's your favorite special snowflake autocannon round?

http://dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Tuesday13975williams.pdf

>40 x 180 Super 40

>>31704197
BM46 should be BM48

>>31704233
How can a round that is still in development be special snowflake?

File: id_m8ags_10_600.jpg (65KB, 432x471px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 432x471px

>>31698007
the Meme-8 already got upgraded to a 120mm gun when they tried to bundle it with the Future Combat Systems program.

>>31704735
None of what you wrote is based on facts.

>>31704735
No it hasn't, the vehicle at AUSA is still pretty much the same vehicle as the original. The XM360 on the Griffon is an FCS component, however.

>>31701168
>>31703440
To add detail,

Vant (DU) and Mango (tungsten/steel) were produced in large quantities starting in the mid 80's, but are shit compared to modern ammo. Mango is the best round that Russia has exported.

Svinets is a much improved DU round, probably comperable to a M829A2, that entered production in the early 90's. With Russia's economic situation at the time it seems only limited numbers were made.

Around 2005 the new lengthened Svinets-1 and Svinets-2 (sometimes called Lelako) was ready for production. This round is too long for the older autoloaders and can only be used by the enlarged ones on the T-90A and T-72B3.

>>31690956

Question not worth its own thread:

Would the Tiger 1 fulfill the technical profile of a Main Battle Tank? ... I know of course the germans didn't use them in that regard, and it certainly was far from THE main tank of course, but it's pretty much the same weight and gun caliber range as an Abrams, which of course everyone considers an MBT. What exactly does the Tiger lack that the first tanks officially called MBTs have?

>>31703966
The T-90A has all its reserve rounds stored within the bottom of the hull in the same compartment as the crew.
The T-90AM I believe has bustle storage for reserves though.

Type 10 and K2 almost certainly have a similar bustle storage or separate compartment in addition to their bustle mounted autoloaders.

>>31705645
Range and reliability, Tiger had a very short operational range and was ill-suited to operations that covered large distances.

>>31705645
Mostly a doctrine that explicitly labelled the Tiger as the primary striking arm of the German Panzer Corps, which was filled by the Panzer III, IVs and Vs, with Tigers being a "heavy tank" that did not operate in the vast majority of tank engagements against both hard and soft targets.

>>31705764

See, I specifically said that I already knew that they weren't used as a MBT, and by extension that the doctrine used them in another way, but I was asking whether the physical tank itself, on a technical specification level, would qualify to be called an MBT, regardless of the original designer's intentions.

>>31705723

But the same can be said of the Abrams (and other turbine fueled tanks), arguably. For example in Iraq they had ridiculously poor uptime simply because of the maintenance and refueling requirements of the turbine, even disregarding the sandy conditions.

>>31705848
>But the same can be said of the Abrams
Not really, Abrams has over twice the range as Tiger I, roughly equal to T-34, and has far better reliability.

>>31705848
>whether the physical tank itself, on a technical specification level, would qualify to be called an MBT
Absolutely yes
If you take a look at the first MBT, the Centurion, it isn't so different from the Tiger.

>>31705848
In that case, a lot of medium and heavy tanks would qualify as early MBTs technical wise. Really, the whole MBT thing is in their usage and organizational philosophy than anything else.

>>31696333
And the breech block so it's practically a slightly modified (as in shortened) L7.

>>31705922
You're kidding right? Because they have almost nothing in common - different transmissions, different suspensions, different turrets, different reliability and especially different use concept behind them.

>>31706221
Are you autistic?
I meant in a very general sense.

>>31704735
Is there any reason why you think the M8 is a meme?

File: 20840908.jpg (99KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1000x665px

Bump with cheetah AA.

So is the XM360 actually ready for implementation? Will it go on the M1A3?

>>31706954
It's already on the Griffin, so I would assume that it's ready for implementation.
I doubt, however, that the M1A3 will get it, since it is not better than the M256.
They did test a L55 version of the current Abrams gun at Aberdeen IIRC, so we'll see where that goes.

>>31705848
>For example in Iraq they had ridiculously poor uptime simply because of the maintenance and refueling requirements of the turbine, even disregarding the sandy conditions.

This myth again.

>>31706201
No, the breech is a different design. They even open in a different direction.

>>31707065
Not that anon, but the Abrams did guzzle a lot of JP8 while it was out there.

>>31707057
>since it is not better than the M256.

wat

The XM360 has vastly higher chamber pressure allowances, ammunition data linking as standard and is rated for higher usage before replacement than the M256 all while being 2100 pounds lighter.

>>31706271
In the same sense that they're both tanks.

>>31707149
I heard around the time the FCS was a thing that the 360 was ETC, but now it's not.

>>31707119
It also has huge fuel tanks and a comperable range to its contemporaries.

The thing that 'slowed them down' was outrunning supply lines in the mad dash across the desert.

>>31707180
One thing I read was that the tank units were not able to get to Baghdad because of the sandy terrain after the main operation. Is there any truth to this?

>>31707174
The XM360 is a super light traditional gun, the XM291 was the ETC gun.

>>31706440
He's 12, and kids love to throw words around

>>31696707
Pretty much. Leo2s, and I imagine most MBTs have enough HP to pull another tank out. For the super thick shit, they bring out the ARV or whatever. I heard a story once about a Leo2 getting stuck in a swamp. They got so far in, another Leo2 had to crawl in and and pruposefully get stuck to attach tow cables, and then have a 3rd tank pull the other two out from dryer ground.

>>31698184
for about 30 seconds until a grenade lands in your open topped vehicle.

>>31709116
It's possible. I've done it with M109s

>>31704197

>four types of 100mm ammunition that I don't care to identify

3BM8 100 mm APDS
3БM21 Zastup 115 mm APFSDS
3BM25 Izomer 100 mm APFSDS
3BM19 or 3BM20 100 mm APFSDS

>>31703440
These are Vant, which is the best common APFSDS in Russian service.

File: 3bm46.jpg (30KB, 800x211px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 800x211px

>>31710277

>>31711278
Never went into production, evolved into the lengthened rounds being produced now.

>>31711504
So is the Armata being loaded exclusively with the lengthier rounds

>>31712004
The T-14 can fire the older rounds, the lengthened Svinet rounds, and the new rounds that can only be fired by its gun.

>>31691005
>the first tracked prototype of the Panstir-S
Is it some T-72 chassis?

>>31712575
Likely a custom one, but not the Tunguska's one as it was judged to be not properly fitting for the S1.

>>31705645
Yes, you could say that. I know autists in this thread will pick my response apart until it is nothing but atoms and then burn those, but I'll say it anyways.

The Tiger could fill the infantry support role, the anti vehicle role, and anti fortification role that MBTs of today do. It was a tank that had decent armor, a fair amount of TACTICAL mobility, and a gun that could fill many roles.
In battlefield employment, when used as the spear head it was designed for, it could be considered the precursor to a main battle tank.

But that is my opinion, and people will undoubtedly have something different to say.

File: clFyk.jpg (62KB, 700x468px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 700x468px

>>31714051

File: 77808_1475224344.jpg (503KB, 1050x700px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1050x700px

>>31714069

File: AGMsywU.jpg (352KB, 2100x1399px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 2100x1399px

>>31714090

>>31714111
Lighting almost made me think gold APFSDS which would be monumentally stupid.

>>31714576
It is aluminum.

>>31706221
>holy crap how can you say that these two very similar things are perfectly absolutely identical in every single way? don't you know that they aren't?!?!?!?!

Autism.

>>31693441

One of them looks for targets, the other aims the guns.

The target one searches in a wide area all around the vehicle very quickly. The aiming one only looks in one direction, at a very small angle of view, so that it can tell the guns where to shoot.

File: CmZM0Q7XEAAwJkY.jpg (126KB, 1280x792px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1280x792px

According to RT, the UK is going to buy Boxers.

https://www.rt.com/uk/362910-mod-german-infantry-vehicles/

>>31714887
Not a bad choice for the bongs, although they're getting Scout SV and Ajax vehicles as well, so wouldn't this purchase overlap a bit?

>>31694365
What the fuck why did they start turning?

>>31716165
Maybe the servos had a malfunction, and started spinning the turret around?

>>31716165
>>31716344
Looks to me like they were spinning out of control.

>>31715961
>Scout SV and Ajax

These are the same vehicle.

They're also IFV's, capable of only holding 4 dismounts. The Boxer is an APC, capable of holding eight.

>>31714844
Does the Shilka having a revolving search radar? I can't spot it on any of the pics in the thread.

File: ZSU-23-4-latrun-4.jpg (235KB, 1268x859px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1268x859px

>>31717027

The shilka has one radar that does both.

If you ever wanted to know what a Type 74 sounds like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7D0rPBwj2k

>>31717073
Damn, I can see the rust on the pintle mg.

>>31717073
More Type 74, ignore the cancerous comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmKtl0WGdxA

File: 51hnuHFBqaL._SY400_.jpg (35KB, 290x400px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 290x400px

Guys, I want to buy a book about tanks. An actual hardcover book.
I have no clue what can be good and what is not.
I'd like something with illustrations, specs and stories/trivia and I was thinking of pic related but I'm not sure.

Can anyone help?

File: 51+fB53zruL._SY424_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (53KB, 500x426px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x426px

>>31717599
Hardcover? This comes to mind:
https://www.amazon.com/Tank-Important-Armored-Military-Vehicle/dp/0760349630/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1476781526&sr=1-7&keywords=tank
Not exactly Hunnicutt, but it's a good overview with nice pics.

File: tanks-ogorkiewicz.jpg (65KB, 400x604px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 400x604px

>>31717607
There's also this.
https://www.amazon.com/Tanks-years-evolution-General-Military/dp/1472806700/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1476781897&sr=1-1&keywords=ogorkiewicz
Very technical book.

>>31717619
This one looks really interesting, thanks.

Any other suggestions?

>>31717807
I know you said physical books, but if you don't mind reading through epubs, then there's the dropbox too.

File: 1467116502.jpg (130KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 768x1024px

>>31717807
Get you hands on a Hunnicutt book if you can.

I found a book that might interest most of the people in this thread.

It is about the technology used in tanks. It is from 1991 so it may be somewhat old.


http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=E5FB90B2BF1FB5B81E8D5D6C04E6F31A

File: image.jpg (73KB, 538x380px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 538x380px

>>31711278
>>31711504

>>31718674
Late production Abrams have STAFF on the gunners back up sight.

File: 298656_original.jpg (277KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1200x1600px

>>31714051
>>31714069
>>31714090
>>31714111
is this the production version of pic related or is it the 3BM-44M

>>31714822
Yea, just like it's autism to say that your grandma's Volkswagen 1300 isn't the same type of car as your TDI Passat.

File: OFL 105 kiss cool.jpg (478KB, 659x874px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 659x874px

>>31714724

>2016
>not using a carbon fiber-reinforced composite sabot
pic unrelated

>tfw you shoot and miss a pickup truck less than 100m away and it blows you up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_lq9xIivPM

File: image.jpg (52KB, 600x398px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x398px

BAE is going to offer an M8 with 2nd/3rd gen thermal sights, modernized electronics and a new engine for Mobile Protected Firepower.

https://youtu.be/aUvDly7qvBQ

>>31719318
what are those steel ball?

>>31719601

They improve the anti-personnel effects if the APFSDS is used against light armored vehicles or helicopters.

File: 1468591084700.jpg (415KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 1920x1080px

>>31711504
>Never went into production

Sauce ?

>>31719660
how does that even work?
well, they have some steel ball on the tip, but no way that is enough to improved the effect on soft target

>>31719495
the crew survived though

File: duel_75_bradley_vs_bmp_page_68.jpg (220KB, 768x1063px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 768x1063px

>>31719495
Is this how it looks like when you have non-existent training to use your BMP-1 main gun?

>>31719704

The small metallic balls scattered throughout the crew compartment of a light-armored vehicle at a supersonic speed while the tungsten rod stays on its current trajectory, end of the story.

>>31719257

What's the point of continuing to prove that you're autistic?

Go away.

>>31710277
>>31703440
Those are not even Vant, it's a T-90 and old steel ammo.

>>31716801

Ajax is not an IFV, nor is it "only 4 dismounts."

Ajax is a recon vehicle, with a small compartment in the old troop compartment for 3 ISTAR specialists.

Aries is the dismount carrier, and it can carry anything between 3-8 men, depending on what the internal equipment is carried. An overwatch team carrying a bunch of Javelins will fit less than a team of light infantry with at most sniper rifles. UGVs or ISTAR kit take up space. It's modular.

But number of dismounts isn't the difference, Boxer even aside from dismount numbers is a totally different kind of vehicle in an operational sense of deployment.

>>31719932
>Ajax is not an IFV, nor is it "only 4 dismounts."
>Ajax is a recon vehicle, with a small compartment in the old troop compartment for 3 ISTAR specialists.
>Aries is the dismount carrier, and it can carry anything between 3-8 men

I simply don't understand the point of lying like this.

Here, read about what the actual vehicle that I was discussing is like, rather than the fantasy you've invented in your head to score internet points, or whatever:

http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/AJAX/imggallery/Newsletters/GDUK2962%20-%20AJAX%20Super%20Photo%20diary.pdf

All of the bullshit you just made up is proven false within 3 seconds of googling.

Why didn't you just google this stuff before you wrote this trash? What could possibly have been the point of humiliating yourself like this?

>But number of dismounts isn't the difference, Boxer even aside from dismount numbers is a totally different kind of vehicle in an operational sense of deployment.

Oh, do please go on. I'm eager to hear what incredible lies you've made up for the Boxer as well.

Go ahead, post.

>>31719967
>an IFV is what I say it is, not what the user says it is
>link a GDLS brochure that undermines your position

>>31720320

Good, I'm glad that shut you up.

Don't ever post in my thread again.

>>31692407
No true Son of the motherland leaves home with out a unditching log. If your tank gets stuck on a rock or in mud or something you attach the log across both tracks and drag it under the tank and then repeat this until you are unstuck.

>>31720393
I am not the anon you were arguing with, I am simply pointing out you discredited your own argument.

>>31721011

You're three posts deep and you still can't tell me what you think is wrong about my post.

File: 20140922_125616.jpg (625KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 2048x1536px

>>31696066
I don't know why, but the coolest tank images ro me are the ones where the Commander is on his HMG on the turret as it advances.

>>31721417

Your pic depicts the loader on his MG, FYI.

>>31719967
What? The brochure clearly states that the AJAX is an ISTAR vehicle with three crew + an optional fourth, and ARES is shown to be an AFV specifically designed for carrying troops into battle. AJAX doesn't hold dismounts as such, and ARES does; so AJAX isn't an IFV in the infantry carrying sense and neither is ARES since it doesn't have an autocannon as of yet and neither are explicitly stated to be IFVs anyway. Anon, I suggest you read the brochure you posted.

>>31721857

Why are you capitalizing these names as if they're acronyms? They're not acronyms. They are names.

Ajax is the name for the vehicle family.

>ARES is shown to be an AFV specifically designed for carrying troops into battle

It carries 4 dismounts. The Boxer carries 8. Ajax is not an APC. It's not big enough to be one. The Ares version holds exactly the same amount as the other versions (except the ones that hold less).

How many times are you going to get triggered over this before you accept that Ajax is not an APC, but an IFV?

It's like the Bradley, or the CV90. It has a big gun and can blow shit up, and it can carry a few dudes in the back. It's not an APC, friendo, no matter how many times you try to argue this.

>>31721313
This is my third post, and

>an IFV is what I say it is, not what the user says it is

>>31721903

Five posts and you still can't come up with an argument.

>>31721893
You probably think an Strv 103 isn't an MBT.

>>31721935

Thanks for conceding.

I didn't actually need you to tell me that you were giving up, by the way. You could have just stopped responding altogether. It has the same effect.

>>31721947
You have abandoned your claim that the Ajax is an IFV after being told the UK does not consider it one. And are now trying to change the subject.

>>31722017
> the Ajax is an IFV after being told the UK does not consider it one

Not an argument.

In fact, not even a complete thought. Just nothing at all.

Try again.

>>31721947
I hope you realise >>31721935 is not me, but okay.
AJAX is not an APC, but it's not an IFV which is the important thing that I was getting at, because a) no dismounts and b) there's no mention that it is an IFV.
AJAX HAS NO DISMOUNTS. The brochure says THREE CREW PLUS AN OPTIONAL FOURTH.
IFVs hinge on having DISMOUNTS. Hence why they're labelled separately as IFVs. I was never arguing that they were APCs, you flaming autist.

File: PMRS Rear Compartment.jpg (40KB, 435x290px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 435x290px

>>31719967

>lying

Except he's completely fucking right. Ajax is not an IFV. It's just based on an IFV chassis, it's as much an IFV as an Assault Breacher is an MBT, just because it's on an Abrams chassis.

Ares meanwhile is an APC for either specialist or non specialist teams, and if you've ever actually looked in the back of one, such as at DVD 2015, you'll see there's a bunch of shelves that can be dismantled with a few screws taken out. Hell, they even took them out to store the marketing material banners inside after they were done.

Most commonly, they'll be carrying said specialist teams for 4 dismounts (given thats, y'know their role!), who need room for their equipment. Even if it were a "normal" APC, you'd STILL only fit 4 guys in there because huge weapons and launchers, ISTAR satellites/radars/sights and UGVs don't just fold into black holes in their arses when men jump inside just because the brochure says "8 guys"

>Oh, do please go on. I'm eager to hear what incredible lies you've made up for the Boxer as well.

You seriously think an 8x8 APC or IFV is the same thing as a dedicated ISTAR recon platform? No wonder everyone's dogpiling you in here.

>>31721893

> It has a big gun and can blow shit up, and it can carry a few dudes in the back

Um, no. Ajax has a big gun, and it carries one guy in the back, because it's a fucking ISTAR recon network vehicle that performs a completely different role. Do you even read your own sources?

>>31722194
>You seriously think an 8x8 APC or IFV is the same thing as a dedicated ISTAR recon platform?

No?

Have you even been reading my posts? My point all along has been that they are two different vehicles. Seriously, go back and read what I wrote. I never said that Ajax and Boxer were the same. I have repeatedly argued that they are two different vehicles with two different capabilities. The Anon I've been sparring with is the one saying they're the same.

How is it that you've made such an incredible mistake? What was so difficult about just figuring out *what the argument was about* before deciding to "contribute" to it?

You've simply wasted my time and yours. Again, if you still haven't figured it out by now: We are in perfect agreement. You have gotten everything I've said completely backwards and are arguing with a phantom you have invented in your mind.

>>31722926
>My point all along has been that they are two different vehicles.

Actually that was what the anon you were arguing with said.

And you are still trying to steer the topic away from your claim that the Ajax is an IFV.

Alright you fuckers, here's how it is. The Ajax is not an IFV. It is not an infantry carrier. It is a SCOUT vehicle, which can carry a dismounts to work in the scout role. This is the same thing the US Army wants in their new scout vehicle. A scout vehicle that could carry a few dismounts to aid in that role. It is not designed to carry infantry. It is not designed to support infantry. It is purely a scout vehicle.

The Ares vehicle does carry infantry which can support Ajax's scouting.

>>31723239
>Actually that was what the anon you were arguing with said.

No.

Again, you've got this completely backwards. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this before you get it.

>>31723271
In the US Army it would be in cavalry scout units.

>>31723908
Correction, in OLDER cavalry units. They're roughly analogous to the M3 Bradley.

>>31719495

>Dune coons

>Mechanized warfare

It's like only their incompetence was mechanized. Everything else remained the same.

>>31719594

All I could hear is "uh" and "gen 1 FLIR"

>>31724056
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUvDly7qvBQ&feature=youtu.be&t=3m17s

>>31723408
So you do think that the Ajax is an IFV as you posted here >>31721893 ?
After all, you haven't responded to >>31722108 or >>31723271

>>31724043
>Dune coons
>Warfare
FTFY

>>31724708

Man, what a retarded concept. Every sand nigger now has a TOW-2, this thing can do nothing a Jeep with an SPG-9 recoilless rifle can't do.

>>31726043
It can shrug off shrapnel, small arms and have a great deal longer range, accuracy and power than a jeep with an SPG though. Plus the "P" in "MPF" stands for "Protected".

>>31726043
>this thing can do nothing a Jeep with an SPG-9 recoilless rifle can't do.

Do you find that being this retarded is an obstacle in your life?

>>31726043
>73mm recoilless on basically a completely open platform
>being able to compete with 105mm fully enclosed in armor

90% sure the major difference between the m8 and the current stryker MGS is the m8 is air-dropable like the sheridan and doesn't need to have its gun put on after landing. It might also have slightly more protection than the stryker.

>>31726606
>105mm

They're probably going to update it to 120mm for the MPF competition.

File: atwarstryker480.jpg (213KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1280x853px

>>31726606
That and the whole being organic to a SBCT.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/turkey-mulling-upgrade-to-leopard-2s-m60s

>One senior procurement official familiar with the program said that about 100 Leopard 2s and 300 M60s would go through an upgrade program. Industry sources say such upgrades would cost Ankara anywhere between $2 million to $3 million per tank. A bunch of 300 to 400 tank upgrades will have a total cost of more than $1 billion.

>>31726843
Wouldn't the auto loader need some serious rework for 120mm upgrade or do you think they already have that in mind?

File: m8_autoloader00.jpg (22KB, 322x240px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 322x240px

>>31727219
The autoloader stores the shells vertically in a conveyor on the left side of the turret, the design is fine but will likely need to be modified for the larger rounds.

File: is that the best you can do.jpg (130KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1280x720px

An Abrams at Mosul got hit with at ATGM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez4jsMOVf4s

Took it like a champ.

>>31727219

I would assume they've already thought of that.

>>31727325

wish we could see what happened after...

>>31727148
Thing is, they really do need the upgrades, especially if tank forays into Iraq continue. A lot of their M60s are not in great shape.

>>31709116
The problem isn`t in horsepower. T-72 can perfectly tow the other T-72 from the mud. Problem is, what will you do, if you don`t have any spare tanks or ARVs available? Trying to go submersible, or leave the stuck vehicle?

>>31727484
Nothing. If the video cuts - it usually means that nothing did.

I wonder though, why do they prioritise hitting the front of the tanks, instead of the tasty bmp next to it.

>>31694732
Doubt you need a big gun for the role the vehicle has

The Centaur may have an 105 but the South Africans tested the 105 and decided to stick with the 76 high velocity on their Rooikat.

I tend to defer to the South Africans when it comes to putting guns on wheels...

>>31728596
If they get lucky and BTFO an Abrams, then I guess it makes for far more compelling propaganda footage.

File: hqdefault.jpg (34KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x360px

>>31696707
>Why don't you see these on Western tanks? Do they just rely on buddy tanks to just pull them out?
>>31709116
>>31728479

Firstly, the unditching beam (as it is called) is just one way of solving the problem of how to get a tank out of a sticky place. It's not better or worse, it's just different, and Russian tanks still have tow hooks and cables to pull each other around anyway, because:

Secondly, it matters how stuck the tank is. No amount of logs is going to get you out of pic related, for example. Hence why T72's have tow cables.

Most western tanks don't have unditching beams because, actually, most tanks (including Russian ones) don't have them. Even tanks like the T72 usually don't appear on the battlefield with a beam attached, because most of the time it's really not needed. It only works in certain terrain, and if you just don't ever encounter it in your AO, you don't fiddle with the beam and just stick to using cables instead for the sake of simplicity.

There are other things about unditching beams which makes them annoying, like that they require quite a bit of setup before they can be used, and then require you to remove and stow them afterwards as well. Attaching and unattaching a tow cable is much simpler.

File: hqdefault (1).jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

>>31729003

Here are some more pictures of T72's being towed by cables.

File: 77374810001_4041598845001_video-still-for-video-4041526674001.jpg (18KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x270px

>>31729007

Most of the time it seems only one cable is used, but using two is probably better in certain circumstances.

File: Mark_IV.jpg (182KB, 800x449px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 800x449px

>>31729012

And here's an unditching beam actually in use, though on an older tank.

>>31729015

And here's a video I just found of an unditching beam being used from start to finish

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHMsQSrxjho

>>31729007
>T72's

T-80BV

Info on the Puma
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com.au/2016/10/puma-ifv-armor-and-upgrade-speculations.html
>300 mm of frontal composite
I mean, that's pretty hectic.

>>31729192
The crazy thing is, in spite of all its extremely powerful features, it's actually a downgrade from what was proposed to be an even heavier vehicle offering MBT levels of protection.

>>31729003
>>31729007
>>31729012
>>31729015
Thanks anon, neat pics.

>>31729192
>>31729411
That author likes to push his spectlations as fact.

File: image.jpg (83KB, 741x367px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 741x367px

>>31727219
>>31727272

File: 1469027484058.jpg (18KB, 428x469px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 428x469px

>>31727325
In what way can you state that it took it like a champ if you can't see the aftermath?

>>31729895
Because if the tank went up in flames it would be in the video instead of the video cutting off.

>>31719318
Composite sabots aren't strong enough for the enhanced pressures in both the Russian and German rounds. They also make the round absurdly more expensive.

>>31730297
M829A4 uses a composite sabot, I don't think you are going to be able to successfully claim it is not a very high pressure round.

>>31727325
Anyone know the ATGM type?

>>31732543

Sounds like a Konkurs.

That little "squeak, pop" noise it makes before launch is what gives it away.

Compare it to this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnfS2oB6QNQ&feature=youtu.be&t=1m4s

>>31732890

4chan fucked the link up when it embedded. Just skip to 1:04 to hear the sound. There are a couple launches in this video.

>>31732890
Yep that a Konkurs.

Had completely forgotten about Konkurs and was trying to ID it off of the tracking flare / flight path.

>>31690956
Why does it say on the side in English " Hatch must be secured" ?

>>31733198
Because the hatch must be secured.

Its a US operated vehicle, note the filename.

>>31733198

It's a vehicle used by the US Army for training.

Observe the laser tag gear.

File: 1474260338001.jpg (111KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 800x534px

>>31727325

Frontal hit on the turret with what appears to be a 2nd generation manportable ATGM is not likely going to do any damage.

>>31709116

Heard a similar story about this, only with M88 recovery vehicle getting stuck, and a second one getting stuck trying to pull it out (though not purposefully). Third one was smart enough to get the other two unstuck.

>>31734010
I wonder if some of the upgraded T-55s, Chinese Export T-55 upgrades and maybe some T-72s filtering down from the north of the continent could now surpass the Olifant.

>>31734032
Got it from Israel probably.

>>31729821
I mean, they're pretty convincing speculations.

>>31736645
He puts a lot of work into it, but be wary any time he compares German equipment to foreign counterparts. I recall back when he was talking about Lithuania buying Boxers, he made sure to mention how a 30mm Mk30 is more "accurate" than a 30mm Bushmaster because it programs ammunition at the muzzle instead of in the breech.

The thing is, that is only relevant for the velocity check on AHEAD ammo which Lithuania won't even be buying.

>>31730490
Because the A4 isn't, at least compared to the Russian and German rounds. The A3 is already a hot round to fire- something like 200-300 shots can be made with it from a fresh barrel, I very much doubt they are going to increase pressure when they haven't made any barrel upgrades for the tanks.

File: baes_la_16-9_AGS1.jpg (3MB, 3200x1800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3200x1800px

>>31719594
If BAE can squeeze in the new engine/transmission going into the Bradley/AMPV/M109A7 then the M8 will go from 550hp to ~800hp.

File: m829e4_1.jpg (272KB, 1300x865px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1300x865px

>>31737101
Which German/Russian rounds do you believe are so much higher pressure than an M829A4 that they cannot use a composite sabot?

>>31714887
That's weird, considering the Boxer didn't pass the semi-finals of the FRES evaluation.

>>31705645
Because the underlying principle of the MBT is not a given amount of weigh, or armor, it is the balance of contradictory elements, mobility, both strategical (taking also into account his deployability and logistical weigh) and tactical, armor and firepower. Even though it is "pretty much like an Abrams" which is a gross oversimplification, it skirted way too much on the side of armor and firepower, for the industrial, technical and logistical capabilities of that time, to be employed as a main battle tank. Even if today you can get all in acceptable amount for a 70tons, 120mm armed vehicle, by that time the "acceptable balance" that would have defined the ancestor of the concept of MBT would have been found in the Panther, Sherman, T-34, and one short generation later in the T-44 and Pershing.

>>31736863
>AHEAD ammo for an IVF
That actually seems like a good way to deal with drones, assuming you could cram a radar in.

>>31738897
Challenger 1 next to T-34? Is this in Poland?

>>31739372
Bosnia in the 90s, Challenger is from the NATO peacekeeper and the T-34 is a local.

So why exactly are we building these light tanks at all? Why not just strip a few tons of armor off an MBT?

>>31739895
We should bring back the M41 and modernize it

>>31735388
Olifant is just a glorified Centurion. I imagine a T-55AGM, the retrofit package from Ukraine, would probably beat it.

>>31739428
This is the first time I've heard of Challys in Bosnia, I thought there were just Leopard 1s.

>>31737277
>>Sniper, equipped with stilleto bullet, can destroy T-14`s main gun targeting system...

Ukrainian sourse?

>>31739963
Put an unmanned turrent on an abrams and you could get down to like 45 tons, give it a 2 man crew, add a armored personnel trailer to tow along a few dismounts/UAV's.

Theres all the light tank anyone could want.

File: m60_Elbit.jpg (63KB, 696x392px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 696x392px

>>31737106
If they're upgrading it and weight matters, why not also switch to LAHAT missiles?

File: tankfu.jpg (2MB, 3958x2639px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3958x2639px

Don't mind me, best tank coming through.

File: INA Arjuna MK2.jpg (146KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 600x400px

INA Arjuna MK2

Developed by - DRDO

Weight - 68t
Length gun forward - 10.64m
Hull lenght - 8m
Width - 3.95m
Height - 2.8m
Height with RCWS - 3.18m
Main gun - 120 mm rifled
ATGW - LAHAT
Machine Guns - 1x7.62 mm, 1x12.7mm
Elevation range - -9 to +20 degrees
Traverse range - 360 degrees
Main gun ammunition load - 39
Engine - MTU MB 838 Ka-501 diesel
Engine power - 1400hp
Maximum road speed - 58 km/h
Range - 400 km

File: INA T-90 Bhisma.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

INA T-90 Bhisma

Dimensions - 9.63oa x3.78 x2.22 m (31.7 x12.5 x7.3 ft)
Total weight, battle ready - 47 tons
Crew - 3 (cdr, driver, gunner)
Propulsion 950 hp (736 kW) for V-92S2 12-cyl. diesel engine
Suspension - Torsion bars
Speed (road) - 60 km/h (37 mph)
Range - 550 km (340 mi)
Armament 2A46M-5 125 mm sb, 42rds, 12.7mm Kord HMG, 7.62mm PKMT
Armor - Steel-composite-reactive blend, ERA Kanchan/Kontak 5

>>31740677
>>31740696
Didn't you post these last thread?

>>31740530
I can't even tell if this is bait

>>31740912
Nope. Didn't know they were posted earlier. I am usually a /pol/tard, I am new here.

>>31717599
Its pretty damn good book. I had it as a kid and it was where my love of armor came from. It doesn't include APC or IFVs tho

>>31741129
Ah okay, because there was a poo in the loo poster in the last thread that discussed details about the Arjun Mk 2.

File: A burger watches as the Danish leave their dwellings.jpg (345KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 2048x1365px

>tfw shitty eyes prevented me from having a shot at riding in a Leopard

just run me over familia

>>31737136
German: DM-43, DM-53, and DM-63, and likely DM-73
Russian: Svinets-1/2, and likely whatever the fuck they are making for Armata.

>>31740429
Um, yes. Its only glass. There's like a spare carried onboard if it gets shot, and the commander's sight is still capable of being used for gunnery purposes.

>>31741905
What is the chamber pressure of those rounds and an M829?

>inb4 you are talking out your ass

File: Olifant Mk1.jpg (114KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 960x540px

>>31739980
You are thinking of the Olifant Mk1B

File: olifant_mk2.jpg (74KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x399px

>>31739980
Which is a mistake, considering the Olifant Mk2 exists and the only commonality with the Centurion being the Gun and hull*.

New turret, Digitized systems, Hunter-Killer capabilities, data-link and new power-pack** were all added during the early to mid 2000's

*The Mk2's hull having an added composite/spaced armor package.
**not 100% on this

>>31735388
T55 no

T72, probably - only because I doubt the 105mm can pen anywhere

File: olifant_mk1b.jpg (104KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 600x401px

A comprehensive guide to the Olifant
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6255:fact-file-the-olifant-main-battle-tank&catid=79:fact-files&Itemid=159

>>31742120
Mistake: thats a Mk1a (1980's), pic is a Mk1B (1990's)

File: Arjun Mark 2.jpg (129KB, 960x633px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 960x633px

>>31740677

The LAHAT is not even in service in the Indian army....

>>31742561
The weight given for the Arjun also includes a mine plow.

What 125mm ammo does India use for its T-90's?

>>31742666
For that matter, is there any info on the 125mm ammo China uses?

>>31728609
I have read that the reason it got the 76 is to discourage adventurous fellows in taking on tanks. Something that it is not designed nor intended to do.

I have seen a photo of a Denel prototype with a 105 but so far as I now it is not in service.

File: 20160507_091656.jpg (1MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1536px

Some photos I took while at an airshow

File: 20160507_091832.jpg (2MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1536px

>>31743716

File: 20160507_091920.jpg (1MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1536px

>>31743728

File: 20160507_092004.jpg (1MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1536px

>>31743740
No idea why it flips it. Sorry, Right way on my pc.

Pretty crazy to think this took on T55's.

File: 20160507_092029.jpg (2MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1536px

>>31743759

File: maxresdefault.jpg (90KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1280x720px

>>31742219
>>31742282
I always thought the Olifant was a handsome tank. It's like dropping an LS1 in a 70's Camaro body.

>>31741761
q.q I feel your pain anon. I try not to be some tryhard weirdo about it tho but fukkkk I like tanks

>>31743716
>>31743728
>>31743740
>>31743759
>>31743772
Cool pics thanks anon, not sure why it flips, does it to me too
>inb4 newfag

File: confused-face.png (88KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 300x256px

>>31740530
>45 tons
>'light'

File: Tatrapan2.jpg (126KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 600x401px

Bumping with aesthetic Tatrapan

>>31742666
>What 125mm ammo does India use for its T-90's?

Purchased by Indians in 1999.

http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68630

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3975x2545px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3975x2545px

In terms of actual kills/downed aircraft, which SPAAG is/was the most lethal? I've always wondered about this, but can't find good info on the subject. I can't help but think that Technicals strapped with ZU-23-2s would likely be the most lethal "SPAAG." Any ideas?

>>31746093
You are asking which SPAAG has seen the most action but using different words.

>>31746093

The ZU-23-2 is one of the highest contenders for ground kills, some of the others being the Shilka in Afghanistan and Syria/Iraq and the US quad M2 mounts used in WW2/Korea/Vietnam.

As for actual aircraft kills, who knows. If you're counting WW2 era SPAAGs i'd say any of those probably have more kills than most modern equivalents.

>>31746282
How so? As in it's impossible to actually quantify, or that most of the really badass SPAAGs haven't seen much action? Both are pretty damn valid.

>>31746808

A ZU-23-2 bolted onto a technical doesn't make it a SPAAG.

Actual SPAAGs feature radars and fire control systems. If you strap a ZU-23-2 onto a technical it doesn't magically gain those features. It's still guided by the human eye and aimed by turning those spinny wheel things.

There's no doubt a lot of people have been killed by the ZU-23-2, but it's not a SPAAG, no matter what you bolt it onto.

File: Btr-d_Belarus.jpg (2MB, 4092x2728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4092x2728px

>>31746907

If you want to really nitpick, SPAAG means SELF PROPELLED ANTI AIRCRAFT GUN

It's not self propelled if the entire ZU-23-2 platform has to be bolted onto a pickup truck or other such vehicle to move.

>>31746746
I definitely think those are all contenders, particularly the ZSU-23-4 Afghanskii and M2 quad mounts. Shit, the quad mounts have been fucking shit up since WW2 (there's definitely a reason they called it the meat grinder).

As for aircraft kills (post-WW2) I have no idea, but I always found it funny that Iraqi ZSU-57-2s supposedly took out 2 British Tornadoes in 1991.

File: image.jpg (162KB, 639x621px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 639x621px

>>31746941
I see what you mean. So where, then, does shit like the Wirbelwind, ZSU-57-2, and Type 63 fit in?

>>31747037

...those are SPAAGs. Because they're designed as such, and aren't just standalone towed anti-aircraft guns bolted to a chassis in the field.

>>31742561
It's not even in service with any army tbqh.

>>31743624
76 was put in because it was high velocity and deemed more versatile than the low pressure 90mm on the Ratel 90

Rooikat 105 has two variants - one penned for export (failed) and another for local testing be Denel/Armscor/CSIR and then discarded

With the 105 the juice isn't worth the squeeze

>>31746907
Eh, I'd disagree. If it is in fact attached to it and doesn't require to be unmounted before firing, then it is in fact a SPAAG. An absolutely shitty one, as you mentioned, but the vehicle is at that point armed with an AA gun which is self propelled. It is a very terrible SPAAG, but a SPAAG nonetheless.

>>31747078
Well the only real distinction between the SPAAGs mentioned in my last post and technicals is that the seating/anchoring platform seen in their stationary form was replaced by mountings to the turret. It's still the same gun as is found in it's original form, just with a new mounting. The only distinction, then, is that one was assembled in the field, and the other in a factory. I understand the distinction, but I do not think that is enough to say a technical as such is absolutely not a SPAAG.

>>31742561
The Arjun Mk 2 feels BIG. Like, its BIGNESS is actually palpable in a way that streamlined tanks like the M1 or Leopard 2 aren't necessarily.

File: image.jpg (86KB, 600x430px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x430px

>>31690956
What is your opinion in the Otomatic? It seems like a pretty badass concept, with its dual ability to penetrate light armor and older tanks, and my understanding was that its gun had pretty damn good range.

>>31748255
I know that it's a total beast in Wargame.

>>31748255
Jeeeeeeee-sus a 76mm autocannon holy fuck

>>31748862
ok not to derail the thread but after seeing the 76mm high rate of fire gun, I've come across up to 130mm high rof guns. What's the largest? I'm assuming the pressures involved are not close to tank gun pressures? Also what specifically makes 2 gun turret acceptable on naval 130mm while it gets shat on for tanks? Size, weight, etc.?

>>31749077
> I'm assuming the pressures involved are not close to tank gun pressures
They can be high when pushing high altitudes

>Also what specifically makes 2 gun turret acceptable on naval 130mm while it gets shat on for tanks?

1. Recoil absorption from fixing the mount in a several thousand ton ship as opposed to a several dozen ton tank
2. Tank combat is based on Singular accuracy on the opening shot at medium to close ranges, ships engage from extreme ranges where the increased volume of fire suits the needs better

3. Ammo availiability: The ship board turrets have below deck magazines with far more room for storage.

4, Turret ergonomics
A tank turret has 2 to 4 people and 1 gun crammed in a turret, cramped conditions reduce hygene, happyness ( and therefore combat effectiveness), situational awareness and speed of function.
This is the main reason why many naval guns only had gun shields

File: CashMoney.jpg (66KB, 500x660px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x660px

>>31749191
thanks for the insight anon

>>31749254
for a more visual explaination
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/images/U/s/US_5_38_DP_gun__twin_schematic_full.jpg
The loaders station for the USN twin 5in turret is WW2
vs
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1742995&d=1363279863 for a cut away

>>31749348
Thanks. Cool abrams cutaway, where's that from?

>>31748660
Yup. Those fuckers will obliterate all of your commie APCs, IFVs, air assets, and even fuck up your tanks. The sound of one of those bastards is enough to make RedFor shit themselves. I hate the damn things.

>>31748862
That's why I think Otomatics are so god damn cool. The fact that they can send a 76mm round out with such accuracy (what with all the radar equipment and what not) and high rof is just astounding. I absolutely would not want to be in an aircraft down range of one of them.

>>31749628
yeah i had no idea there were such high caliber auto or high-rate of fire guns. Highest I'd heard of was the zsu's 57

>>31749628
plus the giant fucking smoke clouds 57mm+ pump out, wew

>>31749846
I love the god damn ZSU-57-2. It's aesthetics and firepower just make it an overall badass SPAAG. I'm curious as to what kind of action they're seeing in Syria.

File: Syria_USSR_SA-6_rearmed_with_57mm.png (501KB, 720x483px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 720x483px

>>31750272
So far I have only seen one video that showed a ZSU-57-2 in action in Syria. The guns get used all the time on other platforms though.

>>31750314
Oh shit, that's kinda cool. Gotta love all the bizarre, thrown together vehicles emerging in that conflict.

>>31750272
>>31750314
Where the hell do they get 57mm ammo out there? Doesn't only russia make it? Can't imagine each turret carries much with them, huh?

BMP gets completely obliterated:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=47f_1476721582

>>31750639
After the ZSU-23 became mainstream, the USSR began offloading everything related to the ZSU-57 to its export partners as soon as humanly possible, meaning that there's a shit ton of 57 ammo in stockpiles of governments in the Middle East.

>>31749846
The Bofors 57 mm I guess counts to some degree as a naval gun.

File: 1471204498268.jpg (60KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 480x640px

>>31747524

What is it ?

>>31748255
I really like its space age radar arrays.

>>31749191

This, but also (and more importantly):

1) It limits the size of the guns you can mount. If you have a turret large enough for a 100mm gun, and you put two guns in there, you'd be lucky to be able to fit two 50mm's in the same space, and you would be at a permanent firepower disadvantage compared to tanks with one large gun. This is also why battleships switched to "all big gun" configurations, more or less.

2) The only reason, therefore, to have more than one gun is when you need a higher rate of fire or an increase in accuracy. Tests with the VT Tank demonstrated that, for tank combat, the increases you get aren't really that great, and more than offset by the disadvantages of mounting them to begin with

>>31754554
>This is also why battleships switched to "all big gun" configurations, more or less.
I'd have to disagree with that. That has more to do with accuracy and rate of fire, thus the chance of getting a hit within a certain time period. At first, the big guns were VERY slow to reload, and when you did fire them they weren't likely to hit. Thus, it made sense to have a few big guns and a hell of a lot more quick firing guns of good size. As fire control and rate of fire increased, the all big gun armament was now feasible.