CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.
- Thread starter Debenham
- Start date
LE
How does that differ from an M-kill or a K-kill?
Gravelbelly
LE
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:
All points worth raising. Thank God we're no longer drifting the thread.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.
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
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.....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.
I'll stop now
TamH70
MIA
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
Graculus
LE
I refer the honourable poster to the words of G Patton in respect of dying for your country.
Graculus
LE
That's pathetic.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.
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....
Graculus
LE
It is one of them....
very true, i screwed up on the pluralities - Pathetic applies both for shark and sharks
Some people...
bob_the_bomb
LE
What scale will they be supplied to? Only to teeth arms, presumably...
Urban environments only... FISH...
PhotEx
LE
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.
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
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Lt Gen Mark Carleton-Smith appointed CGS | The Intelligence Cell | 11 | |
|
CGS: Regular Reserve to be called up to augment Army | Current Affairs, News and Analysis | 212 | |
|
|
CGS: British Army to get US style 'Commissioned Warrant Officers'? | Current Affairs, News and Analysis | 398 |
