Originally posted by Suki
it's in one of my note books back home I'll the the who when where as soon as I find it but they said almost exactly "the Challenger 2 is the last generation of british MBT"
I also remember similar coments in (the 1999?) "Janes:armourd and artillery", I remember the 1998 saying that they were planning to upgrade the abrams to 140mm cammons and basically put all the old abrams turrets to upgrading the m60's
but is there really anything that'll just catch a 120mm dpu apfsds... I remember recently seenig a photo, I wish I had a copy, of a t-72 that had been hit by one, it went through the defensive mound suronding the tank, through the tank and through the mound on the opposite side. knocking the turret off on the way.
they also scrapped the crusader.
the m1-abrams "zero to 20 in 7.2 seconds...a top sped of 42 mph" not exactly agile, espically considering that a good gun crew can reliably hit a basketball at two kilometers.
and according to "popular science: 21st century soldier" (and yes I know 1/2 fo it is american propaganda.) page 40
I wish they had had more concrete numbers in there. it was really dumbed down so that "anyone could understand" but it doesn't really help people who actually care.
I've never heard of a darkshade, could you elaborate on that a little more? from your description it sounds to me like the battle ship equevalent of a "maus" I've heard that that thing was supposed to have a 35mm coax...
1.) Latest generation definitely. But to say that it
is the last is to fall into the common trap of presuming that warfare and history will work in one particular pattern with no change, such as the post WW2 presumption that all war from then on would be fought with nuclear weapons in a "push button" manner.
As long as there are foes and potential foes who have heavy gear, it is necessary to have it.
2.) That was one plan at that stage, but such an upgrade would not be worth it, given that heavier calibre shells take up more space, and the current configuration has enough penetrating power, what with depleted uranium, tungsten, et al.
3.) No, there is not a viable defence against heavy guns that is completely invulnerable. But a LAV is far more vulnerable to far lesser calibres and weapons, which are easier to conceal and move.
As I said, it is no good to be able to shift a light division somewhere if they get slaughtered when they get there in a manner which makes the first Israeli encounter with Saggers look like the playground.
4.) Rumsfeld has currently cancelled Crusader, a decision based upon the erroneous assumption that artillery will not be needed in the future, and that air power is the answer to all fire support needs. This does not mean that it may not reappear in some way; the B-1 did.
5.) The M-1 is among the most manueverable for its size. It is a question of finding the optimum balance between firepower, manueverability and defence/armour.
It is doubtful whether they will build anything that is heavier, but that does not mean that heavy equipment is doomed.
6.) That was and is an idea/plan. Many things can change, and probably will, in the meantime. Whilst an expeditionary capability is most necessary, this does not mean that the heavys should be neglected or written off.
7.) Interested in Darkshade class Super Battleships (BBGN) ?
I shall go and dig out the specifications...
Yeah, that was a piece of munition not to be forgotten!
)
for Soviet kit he'd appreciate a pic of a bit of it getting well and truly trashed!
thankyou there's a disturbing lack of those these days. but I'm unclear on one thing, 'APFSDU', what's the distinction?
Some of these people watch too much sci-fi for their own good.
