CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

...it'll be shark with lasers next.
Well, given the need for protected mobility against near-peer adversaries, obviously the shark won't be able to exist on the modern battlefield without a vehicle. It's all very well having a highly-trained airborne shark that spent extra time doing P Company[1] (although reports from test week indicate that they had an unfair advantage during milling, and they kept accidentally biting through the ropes on the log race) but what do they do once that Russian UAV flies overhead and the Divisional Artillery Group is about to give them the bad news?

Nope, the shark obviously has to sit in the gunner's seat of the new Warrior, ideally in the Pl Comd's vehicle. That gives it hatch access so it can use its "LASER beam". With the added advantage that whenever the Pl Comd has a bright idea, there's an instant veto available.

If the RAC adopt a similar crew principle, "bitten by the turret monster" takes on a whole new meaning...

...I also give the whole "armoured sharks" thing about a month until @stacker1 is complaining that "Zese Sharks, zey are Crap" before suggesting that they're always off on some diving expedition, and those pathetic fins make them useless in the stores...

[1] It also allows DInf to declare that there are now females in the infantry, albeit with a slightly toothier smile. And fewer harassment problems.

 
Last edited:
Well, given the need for protected mobility against near-peer adversaries, obviously the shark won't be able to exist on the modern battlefield without a vehicle. It's all very well having a highly-trained airborne shark that spent extra time doing P Company[1] (although reports from test week indicate that they had an unfair advantage during milling, and they kept accidentally biting through the ropes on the log race) but what do they do once that Russian UAV flies overhead and the Divisional Artillery Group is about to give them the bad news?

Nope, the shark obviously has to sit in the gunner's seat of the new Warrior, ideally in the Pl Comd's vehicle. That gives it hatch access so it can use its "LASER beam". With the added advantage that whenever the Pl Comd has a bright idea, there's an instant veto available.

If the RAC adopt a similar crew principle, "bitten by the turret monster" takes on a whole new meaning...

...I also give the whole "armoured sharks" thing about a month until @stacker1 is complaining that "Zese Sharks, zey are Crap" before suggesting that they're always off on some diving expedition, and those pathetic fins make them useless in the stores...

[1] It also allows DInf to declare that there are now females in the infantry, albeit with a slightly toothier smile. And fewer harassment problems.

All points worth raising. Thank God we're no longer drifting the thread.
 
Wait, what? The Boxheads use LAHAT? Every day IS a school day.
Despite what the Wiki article says, I don’t think the BW actually maintains a LAHAT stockpile - maybe they bought a few for evaluation?-

What I would also point out is that LAHAT is a bit on the small side for an ATGM, and the quoted 800mm of RHA penetration isn’t exactly spectacular against the frontal arc of a modern MBT - especially if it doesn’t adopt a steep dive like Javelin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Well, given the need for protected mobility against near-peer adversaries, obviously the shark won't be able to exist on the modern battlefield without a vehicle. It's all very well having a highly-trained airborne shark that spent extra time doing P Company[1] (although reports from test week indicate that they had an unfair advantage during milling, and they kept accidentally biting through the ropes on the log race) but what do they do once that Russian UAV flies overhead and the Divisional Artillery Group is about to give them the bad news?

Nope, the shark obviously has to sit in the gunner's seat of the new Warrior, ideally in the Pl Comd's vehicle. That gives it hatch access so it can use its "LASER beam". With the added advantage that whenever the Pl Comd has a bright idea, there's an instant veto available.

If the RAC adopt a similar crew principle, "bitten by the turret monster" takes on a whole new meaning...

...I also give the whole "armoured sharks" thing about a month until @stacker1 is complaining that "Zese Sharks, zey are Crap" before suggesting that they're always off on some diving expedition, and those pathetic fins make them useless in the stores...

[1] It also allows DInf to declare that there are now females in the infantry, albeit with a slightly toothier smile. And fewer harassment problems.

Why bother with sharks when you can use Barracuda, smaller so you can fit more in the vehicle, with snap reflexes due to its hypersensitive nature, no jewellry to be worn in the vincinity please , less likelyhood of shark rash to other due to softer scales.....

















I'll stop now
 
Despite what the Wiki article says, I don’t think the BW actually maintains a LAHAT stockpile - maybe they bought a few for evaluation?-

What I would also point out is that LAHAT is a bit on the small side for an ATGM, and the quoted 800mm of RHA penetration isn’t exactly spectacular against the frontal arc of a modern MBT - especially if it doesn’t adopt a steep dive like Javelin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the Israelis also use LAHAT to ping at helicopters, in the same way that the Russians use their tank-gun fired missiles.
 
I think the Israelis also use LAHAT to ping at helicopters, in the same way that the Russians use their tank-gun fired missiles.
I’d rather use a fin round myself - it gets there faster, and means you don’t have to sit still for 10-15 seconds guiding a missile onto a helicopter whose own DAS will probably have warned it that something’s coming...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well, given the need for protected mobility against near-peer adversaries, obviously the shark won't be able to exist on the modern battlefield without a vehicle. It's all very well having a highly-trained airborne shark that spent extra time doing P Company[1] (although reports from test week indicate that they had an unfair advantage during milling, and they kept accidentally biting through the ropes on the log race) but what do they do once that Russian UAV flies overhead and the Divisional Artillery Group is about to give them the bad news?

Nope, the shark obviously has to sit in the gunner's seat of the new Warrior, ideally in the Pl Comd's vehicle. That gives it hatch access so it can use its "LASER beam". With the added advantage that whenever the Pl Comd has a bright idea, there's an instant veto available.

If the RAC adopt a similar crew principle, "bitten by the turret monster" takes on a whole new meaning...

...I also give the whole "armoured sharks" thing about a month until @stacker1 is complaining that "Zese Sharks, zey are Crap" before suggesting that they're always off on some diving expedition, and those pathetic fins make them useless in the stores...

[1] It also allows DInf to declare that there are now females in the infantry, albeit with a slightly toothier smile. And fewer harassment problems.

That's pathetic.
 
I’d rather use a fin round myself - it gets there faster, and means you don’t have to sit still for 10-15 seconds guiding a missile onto a helicopter whose own DAS will probably have warned it that something’s coming...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Think its mainly for dealing out nastiness at ranges where you can see the bugger, but cant guarantee your rounds will slap him without missing and taking out Fatimah Miggins and her six kids watching the war from her balcony a block further on while being interviewed by the beeb.
Now if they had a rifled gun and HESH...

...I'll get me coat....
 
Saying that tanks are mainly there to destroy other tanks is like saying that the artillery is mainly there to conduct counter-battery fire. They're both there to fight the battle and have many uses.
WWII - the primary, as in 95% of the time role of tanks was supporting infantry. It’s been the same ever since.
Both the British and Americans fielded specialised ‘tank destroyers’ with single purpose high velocity guns in WWII, and what did they end up doing 99% of the time? Supporting infantry as mobile artillery.
Most tanks in WWII never got to fire a single AT round except on a range, but often shot out their barrels firing HE.
 
A thought on this whole RWS/secondary weapon thing.

It seems with bolting an RWS, AMS, sights, commanders viewer, .50cal, 7.62mm and stove pipe on the top of the turret we're getting to the point where we can't see the wood for the trees so to speak. Or at least see the top of the tank for add ons. It'll also have a radar signature roughly akin to my waist line. Equally these will all

(and its beginning to sound about as impractical as the A.19 tank, or the 1938 class medium tank!)

It occurs that we have several problems all requiring the same solution. What if we were to combine these items into single mount?

The APS fire 40mm sized fragmentation grenades to disrupt incoming missiles.
A programmable 40mm grenade could be quite hand in close in terrain to dealing with enemies out of sight or in buildings.
The mount for this could easily mount the Commanders sight as well.
In addition as such a mount would need to be fed by a belt or magazine, it would provide protection against any future developments in drone technology, such as the drone swarm concept.

All of these could be met by a one or two low velocity 40-50mm grenade lobbers.
 
A thought on this whole RWS/secondary weapon thing.

It seems with bolting an RWS, AMS, sights, commanders viewer, .50cal, 7.62mm and stove pipe on the top of the turret we're getting to the point where we can't see the wood for the trees so to speak. Or at least see the top of the tank for add ons. It'll also have a radar signature roughly akin to my waist line. Equally these will all

(and its beginning to sound about as impractical as the A.19 tank, or the 1938 class medium tank!)

It occurs that we have several problems all requiring the same solution. What if we were to combine these items into single mount?

The APS fire 40mm sized fragmentation grenades to disrupt incoming missiles.
A programmable 40mm grenade could be quite hand in close in terrain to dealing with enemies out of sight or in buildings.
The mount for this could easily mount the Commanders sight as well.
In addition as such a mount would need to be fed by a belt or magazine, it would provide protection against any future developments in drone technology, such as the drone swarm concept.

All of these could be met by a one or two low velocity 40-50mm grenade lobbers.
The kinds of munition used by APS like Iron Fist or LEDS are a world apart from something like a 40mm GMG round - not least in explosive content and fusing complexity.
It would be nice to have a single multipurpose system that could do all the things you describe, but the reality is that the differing requirements drive the engineering solutions in different directions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Latest Threads

Top