Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Army Projects / Re: M-1 Replacement
« Last post by Foo Fighter on Today at 01:28:36 pm »
There is a certain element of logic in the lightweight platform direction.  Using the triad of armour as a base point, as long as you have a method of reducing the threat of armour penetraion you CAN have a good balance.  The thing is to decide on the level of threat you want to protect the crew from.

If you decide to begin with the premise that there is no such thing as total protection you can convince any government you care to mention.  When I served in the British Army we were of the opinion that the Chieftain was pretty much the dogs danglies and unbeatable but as much importance comes from training and support as in armour thickness/type.  The medium PZKPFW V medium tank had side armour (hull) of 40mm to 50mm while our Chieftain heavy tanks had side armour of 38mm with 13mm side skirts.  Tell me, what would that protect anyone from?

The T34/85 was a pretty good medium tank for its day and the M4 Sherman was acknowledged as , well, not all that.  What happened when the two met in the middle east?  Israeli crews of the Sherman and later AMX 13 won the day.  What is needed is to acknowledge that if you remove protection from one source you MUST replace it with protection from another source and the best bets are:-

Self protection systems.
Area defence, drones/helicopter/aircraft.
Increased training levels.
Choose your battlefield
Joint arms deployment.

In no particular order, there should also be a willingness for command personalities to refuse to deploy troops to ground that is unsuitable, tanks in towns and cities for example.  Have a look on youtube for examples of simple and sophisticated weaponry types used in these environments.  Plenty of crews cooked by poor judgement on deployment.  Tanks need to evolve and with technology combined with plenty of common sense, they will.  As long as the idiots can be MADE to avoid wasting money there will be more of it to actually produce the weapons and systems our troops NEED to do the job and hopefully survive.
22
Army Projects / Re: M-1 Replacement
« Last post by marauder2048 on Today at 01:03:43 pm »
Quote
For lighter weight vehicles, recoil limitations are overcome by incorporating the larger caliber rarefaction wave gun
 technology while providing guided, stabilized LOS, course-corrected LOS, and beyond LOS accuracy"

Excellent overview of competing recoil management techniques from Dr. Eric Kathe, US Army RDECOM  ARDECís Benet Labs, presentation at Armaments 2015.

Fire-out-of-battery always struck me as the most readily realizable.
23
Army Projects / Re: M-1 Replacement
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 11:31:27 am »
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1745414-army-plans-new-tank-after-abrams-2030s

"high-tech future lightweight tank platform "

You'd think they'd have learned their lesson on FCS.
24
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Project Hazel
« Last post by archipeppe on Today at 11:00:48 am »
Absolutely amazing Dynoman!

The engine nacelles resemble to me the Skylon's ones.....
25
An unnamed official in the US has confirmed the test was a failure and the missile auto destructed.

Quote
Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported that the missile veered towards the US coast, but the US official told CNN that this trajectory was part of an automatic self-destruct sequence. The official said the missile diverted into the ocean -- an automatic procedure when missile electronics detect an anomaly.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/23/europe/trident-missile-failure-theresa-may/
26
Army Projects / Re: M-1 Replacement
« Last post by Kat Tsun on Today at 09:28:23 am »
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1745414-army-plans-new-tank-after-abrams-2030s
If the tank is to be replaced it only logically follows the reintroduction of a family of vehicles and thus the return of some form of FCS program.

We can only hope not, unless you mean TARDEC's Future Combat System but that was just a 40-ton tank in the vein of Block III. AOE and FXXI eras' Light-Heavy dichotomy is the closest the US Army has ever come to perfection. Scrapping all thoughts of air-mechanization and starting from a line of thinking explicitly recognizing the need for both +50 ton heavy forces and light infantry in tandem would be a better move, which is apparently what the US Army is doing in this time of austerity.

Something more like SPz Puma and less like FCS MGVs would be a better starting point for a future American tank. Or Block III again.
27
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Project Hazel
« Last post by flateric on Today at 09:23:13 am »
Dynoman, thank you for sharing
28
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Project Hazel
« Last post by hesham on Today at 07:29:39 am »
And;
29
Postwar Aircraft Projects / Re: Project Hazel
« Last post by hesham on Today at 07:28:49 am »
Brilliant and amazing find my dear Dynoman,

this Convair ZP-266 is new,and we can put it here.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10