40 replies to this topic

[partyzanpaulzy]

I have created this thread to get some more millitary stuff than Russian or military trucks and to create more interest like CommanderJB said in his millitary thread.
Post here anything created after the 1900 (unless it's older idea which was supertemporal like Da Vinci's tank) from the European sphere, so you can post Turkish, Libanon or Izraelic stuff, too. Just it will be better to post Russian stuff in it's own thread and so with millitary trucks.

To start I will post you several pictures and links:

Czechoslovakian armored car used during from 1925 (army then (Austrian) police) to WWII (used by gestapo and some of them on the east frontline)
PA-II

Expectations were big, but tests proved the panzer couldn't resist fire from the enemy armored vehicles + big weight + big cost (you could buy one bread for 1.8 - 3.5 Czechoslovakian Crowns, today I need 27 - 35 Czech Crowns)
* weight: 7,7 t.
* length: 6,0 m.
* width: 2,16 m.
* heigth: 2,6 m.
* Panzer: 5,5 mm
* Motor: výkon - 51,4 kW, cylinders - 4
* Speed: 61 - 70/12 km/h ( road/in terrain )
* Range: 300 km.
* Getting over obstacles in terrain: trench - 0,45 m.(width), vertical wall - 0,3 m.(high), water stream - 0,4 m.(deep)
* Crew: 4 men
* Armament: 4 machineguns Maxim 8 (impossible to fire from 2 opposed machineguns)
* Shells: 6250 pieces
* Number in Czechoslovakian army: 9 pcs.
* Cost without armament: 680 000 Kčs (it would be some 6 800 000 Kč today, so some 275 000 Euros, but probably it would be more)

KTO Ryś
Modernized OT-64 SKOT amphibious APC (project in the 1960's of the Czechoslovakia and Poland, these great APCs remained in a duty till today, but now they are outdated, although still works well and only medicals versions are still used in missions, btw "skot" means cattle in Czech).

(picture is from the Wikipedia)

The Czech Army is getting Pandur II 8x8 now (2 Pandurs in cost of 1 Abrams MBT)

although there were some projects on other variants like
from Přerov machine-works, modernization of OT-64 or
great Finnish Patria.


Armoured Tactical 4x4

I took from there: Turkish Otokar Cobra

Polish Tur I (Urus)


Czech Army bought several Dingos II from German company KMW:

These Dingos can resist more than Humvee which are borrowed from the US Army in Afghanistan.

The last thing is work of Czech company (I have to tell you because I took this from their site)
VOP-026 Šternberk s.p.
Remote-controlled turret for APC „LOT“

Basic sub-systems of the turret system:
Control sub-system: turret control unit, display, joystick, turret electronic unit
Sensor sub-system:
* CCD TV camera (surveillance)
* CCD TV camera with narrow FOV (sighting)
* IR camera with uncooled detector with two FOVs
* Integrated laser rangefinder
Optional: IR camera with uncooled detector with two FOVs
Navigation sub-system: Satellite navigation system
Optional: Combined satellite and inertial navigation system
Drive sub-system: Electrical servo-drives including self control
Weapon sub-system: 12,7 mm machine gun NSW + coaxial 7,62 mm machine gun PKT*
Smoke grenade launchers
(* combination of different weapons may be used when the 12,7 NSW is replaced by heavy machine gun or automatic grenade launcher)
taken from their site VOP-026 Šternberk s.p. [EN]

And it's mounted on modernized BRDM-2 (but some people needed money for their summer residences and BMWs )


And last thing is their
„PALBA 2“ reconnaissance-firing system


Nobody replied...

I thought somebody will said something about something here (like that pop-turret on car).

This is UDES:


Some people probably still don't know about this tank.
UDES-XX-20 was part of Sweden MBT project, the winner is modified Leopard 2S with better defence than original Leopard 2S.
from <a href="http://members.tripod.com/Strv102r/strv_2000.htm:" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/Strv102r/strv_2000.htm:</a>

Quote

The UDES 03 was a test vehicle were the concept of an elevating gun mounted on a turretless chassie was tested and found workable. The UDES 19 was a german Marder with a 10,5 cm gun was mounted on top of the vehicle to test the feasability of a external tank gun in a low profile top mounted turret.
UDES-XX-20
The UDES-XX-20 was ready for testing in 1981. It was based on the Hägglunds BV 206 and had double waiststeering and an external 12 cm tank gun. While mobility was very good the concept is more expensive than tracksteering. The vehicle weighed 25 tons.

Edited by Dauth, 21 October 2008 - 14:52.

[Mbob61]

You are also forgetting the grand daddy of all tanks, the Challenger 2.
The worlds best MBT in service today.
I dont think i really need to post a pic of that, almost everyone in the world knows what a challenger looks like

Mike

[Dauth]

Posts merged, giving a topic more than 24 hours is generally a good idea.

[Crazykenny]

European warmachine are damn sexy.

[Sgt. Rho]

mbob61, on 21 Oct 2008, 16:47, said:

You are also forgetting the grand daddy of all tanks, the Leopard 2a6.

Corrected.

[Rayburn]

Oh please, don't let this turn into another "my weapon is better than your weapon because I say so"-debate......

Edited by Rayburn, 21 October 2008 - 18:11.

[Waris]

Rayburn, on 22 Oct 2008, 4:37, said:

Oh please, don't let this turn into another "my weapon is better than your weapon because I say so"-thread......

This.

Needs more Cold War-era equipment to see what they were doing when USA and SU still duke it out against each other

[Dutchygamer]

Pzh (Panzerhaubitze) 2000. Three word: epic awesome artillery. To fire 1 shell it costs between 2000 and 3000 Euros For me one of the most epic artilleries ever created (besides the real nuke cannon), and used by the Dutch army Designed by the Germans. More info: linky

Edited by Dutchygamer, 21 October 2008 - 19:52.

[Waris]

Quote

...can fire between 10 and 13 rounds per minute continuously, depending on barrel heating.

Reminds me of something...

One cannot deny the awesoemness of the Pzh2000. Well, maybe until we can see more of dual-barreled Mstas.

[Soul]

partyzanpaulzy, on 20 Oct 2008, 12:58, said:

„PALBA 2“ reconnaissance-firing system

What the hell?

[Sgt. Rho]

Rayburn, on 21 Oct 2008, 20:07, said:

Oh please, don't let this turn into another "my weapon is better than your weapon because I say so"-debate......

Fact, not opinion. AFAIK the Leopard 2a6 always "won" in training and test maneuvers.

[CommanderJB]

Has the Leopard 2A6 withstood seventy RPG hits in a single engagement? And can you provide evidence to back up your claim, as I haven't heard of any exercises or evaluations which have pitted the two against each other? Please don't simply state these things as fact unless you can actually provide irrefutable evidence, and while I don't call you a liar, 'AFAIK' doesn't really cut it for me. Sorry.
But as people said this is not what we're discussing here. Without detailed, classified knowledge of their exact armour, power and armament ratings, plus real world versus application, which of course I hope never to see the point will always be moot, as much as I like the idea of a tank which makes tea over one which does not.
@ Thread, see what I mean? You'd never have got this much attention in my thread... *is jealous*...
(Joking.)
Some very interesting stuff here. The PA-II is an interesting design but outside of something like the Fox or Panhard AML 90, armoured cars never worked very well in combat. Modern 'armoured cars' are more like the MRAP (Mine Resistant Armoured Protection) vehicles which everyone is buying dozens of to replace Humvees in Iraq but don't have much of a combat role. Really the only thing they're good for is transport or scouting, so IMO trying to use one as a combat anti-infantry vehicle was doomed from the start. Still, conceptually it's interesting to reflect on what might have been. The UDES-XX-20 is also a rather fascinating unit. What was the caboose for? Other than that it looks quite like a European version of the M1128 Stryker MGS (and appears to have suffered the same fate when it comes to trying to replace tanks).
And for my contribution to this thread: The BAC TSR.2 Strike Aircraft.

Built in the 60s this was Britain's attempt to build a fast, low-level strike bomber for delivering tactical nuclear weapons as their V-Bombers were much better suited to strategic roles, and much more vulnerable. It foundered however on political issues despite an extremely capable design far ahead of its time, mostly because the weapons it was designed to carry were banned from use in Britain after public backlash to the Trident programme's massive expenditure and moral questionability. To quote Sir Sydney Camm, closely associated with the project, "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right."

Edited by CommanderJB, 22 October 2008 - 01:44.

[Lord PieMonster]

All this thread, and no Eurofighter. I'm truly surprised.
This is one of the few modern-ish aircraft i know almost nothing about, but after a quick scan of wikipedia, it seems an all around good fighter. its Generation 4, so no stealth, but good maneuverability, decent payload, Infrared Search and track, supercruise, etc.

and of course...

the tornado ADV, the air defence version of the Panavia Tornado

[CommanderJB]

Lord PieMonster, on 31 Oct 2008, 14:57, said:

All this thread, and no Eurofighter. I'm truly surprised.
This is one of the few modern-ish aircraft i know almost nothing about, but after a quick scan of wikipedia, it seems an all around good fighter. its Generation 4, so no stealth, but good maneuverability, decent payload, Infrared Search and track, supercruise, etc.

It's probably the single most controversial fighter aircraft in existence. Superbly agile, and with better avionics and dogfighting ability than virtually anything else in the sky that doesn't have 3D TVC, and a claimed supposedly low RCS, but hamstrung by a short range and far over-hyped for a long time, as well as being involved in certain unsavoury business practices IIRC. Upgrades to the F-15 would in many cases produce an equally capable aircraft, though for manoeuvrability they'd never come close. I'm neutral on it, but it was a good project for the European defence industries to undertake, and is undoubtedly modern.
If you want to learn more, especially about the debate swirling around it, have a look at this; it'll give you a good run-down on the arguments for and against if you have a high level of interest and half an hour to spare.

Edited by Igor, 31 October 2008 - 07:29.

[TheNuker0]

All this thread, and no Centauro?

Here it is... the tank destroyer to end all tank destroyers:



While americans struggle with their Strykers, this thing has being going around for 20 years, blowing stuff up and looking cool doing it. The US army actually tested it and considered buying it, but couldn't because of the weird commercial restrictions in the USA defense market.
Its 105 mm turret is going to be replaced by the new HITFACT 120mm turret, officially making it the deadliest tank destroyer in service.

Quote

1 Nov 2001 Standing on top of a B1 Centauro (8 X 8) wheeled tank destroyer, civilian Dwayne Davidson, a Raytheon technician (left), shakes hands with US Army Staff Sergeant Mike Garback (center), Company B, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. Sergeant (SGT) Emil Woeppel, Company B is on the right. A targeting mechanism, with a modified bracket to correct foresight alignment irregularities, is mounted on the barrel of the 105 mm gun. Fort Lewis Washington.

Edited by TheNuker0, 20 December 2008 - 09:02.

[Jazzie Spurs]

I still prefer the Vextra Dragar

[CommanderJB]

Wellllll... I dunno about the 'tank destroyer to end all tank destroyers'. 105mm guns have been considered practically obsolete when it comes to anti-tank warfare for a good twenty years or so, and even if it gets a 120mm turret that's both no guarantee of success (though it's a massive jump) and nothing new. I'd be more inclined towards a deployed 125mm system. Especially one that can fire guided missiles. And is tracked. And can swim. (It's known as the Sprut-SD.)

[Waris]

CommanderJB, on 20 Dec 2008, 17:08, said:

I'd be more inclined towards a deployed 125mm system. Especially one that can fire guided missiles. And is tracked. And can swim. (It's known as the Sprut-SD.)

...Able to engage while swimming, air-drop-able with crews inside...

[TheNuker0]

CommanderJB, on 20 Dec 2008, 10:08, said:

Wellllll... I dunno about the 'tank destroyer to end all tank destroyers'. 105mm guns have been considered practically obsolete when it comes to anti-tank warfare for a good twenty years or so, and even if it gets a 120mm turret that's both no guarantee of success (though it's a massive jump) and nothing new. I'd be more inclined towards a deployed 125mm system. Especially one that can fire guided missiles. And is tracked. And can swim. (It's known as the Sprut-SD.)

That thing is a light tank, not a tank destroyer... you can't really compare an MGS with a Tank.

But:

Centauro's wheels allow it to reach the speed of 110Km/h
It has a 800Km range, 300 more than the Sprut-SD
It may not be amphibious, but it has full NBC protection and can cross rivers by just going underwater and emerging at the other side.

[CommanderJB]

I wouldn't actually call the Sprut-SD a light tank; it carries a large gun and negligible armour and has a job of removing enemy vehicles from the engagement area from the longest possible range in support of other vehicles and forces, just like any other wheeled tank destroyer. And the Sprut-SD's capacity to be delivered from an Il-76 more than negates the range disadvantage. Wheels vs. tracks are another argument entirely but I think for me at least tracks retain an advantage in cross-country anti-vehicle warfare because (especially when combined with a platform with as little weight as the Sprut-SD) they can go just about anywhere. NATO exercises in Norway proved well enough what happened to the Marines' brand-new LAVs in the snow.

[TheNuker0]

CommanderJB, on 20 Dec 2008, 10:23, said:

I wouldn't actually call the Sprut-SD a light tank; it carries a large gun and negligible armour and has a job of removing enemy vehicles from the engagement area from the longest possible range in support of other vehicles and forces, just like any other wheeled tank destroyer. And the Sprut-SD's capacity to be delivered from an Il-76 more than negates the range disadvantage. Wheels vs. tracks are another argument entirely but I think for me at least tracks retain an advantage in cross-country anti-vehicle warfare because (especially when combined with a platform with as little weight as the Sprut-SD) they can go just about anywhere. NATO exercises in Norway proved well enough what happened to the Marines' brand-new LAVs in the snow.

I guess you're right, that thing is not a tank: I just checked its armour, and it can only withstand 12.7mm fire on the front and rifle bullets on the sides, while the Centauro can withstand 14.7mm fire from anywhere and 25mm fire on the front.

And, while not airdroppable (AFAIK) it's definitely air-portable.

Also, about cross country warfare:

Edited by TheNuker0, 20 December 2008 - 10:06.

[TehKiller]

Why are you comparing a Stryker with a Centauro?

One is a APC whose sole purpose is to provide safe transport while the other was designed to take on tanks... Kinda different classes eh?

[TheNuker0]

TehKiller, on 20 Dec 2008, 17:06, said:

Why are you comparing a Stryker with a Centauro?

One is a APC whose sole purpose is to provide safe transport while the other was designed to take on tanks... Kinda different classes eh?

I was comparing it to the stryker 105mm, the MGS version of the stryker.

But, if you really must know, there -is- a "close defence" version of the centauro which, at the cost of a part of the ammo, can load up to 4 passengers, effectively gaining the title of 2nd heaviest IFV after the BMT-72. There are also several different versions of the Centauro with different weaponry and equipment (they're codenamed "Freccia").

Edited by TheNuker0, 20 December 2008 - 16:28.

[Cuppa]

Lord PieMonster, on 30 Oct 2008, 23:57, said:

All this thread, and no Eurofighter. I'm truly surprised.
This is one of the few modern-ish aircraft i know almost nothing about, but after a quick scan of wikipedia, it seems an all around good fighter. its Generation 4, so no stealth, but good maneuverability, decent payload, Infrared Search and track, supercruise, etc.

And lets not forget the Rafale, which is very similar to the Eurofighter:

While they may look similar, the Rafale's intakes are on the side of the fuselage, unlike the how the Eurofighter has it's intake under the fuselage. From the looks of it, they have about the same speed and payload.

[CommanderJB]

And their supporters get mutually rabid at the mention of the other. Seriously, it's some of the most nonsensical, incendiary stuff I think I've seen on the web for two jets that are for all intents and purposes bloomin' identical in their stats. Kudos to Dassault for managing to make an impressive 4.5 gen jet on their own, though; but I still prefer the Typhoon, probably because I'm British.