CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

@PhotEx is comparing apples with oranges, and coming to an arrse about face conclusion from looking at the wrong information.
I dissagree
Photex has formed his conclusion** he then selects facts which suit and disregards all others - See Merlin - dog toffee no good Navy didnt buy more - no one but launch customers bought any ad nauseum - despite numerous posters pointing out that as an ASW machine the Navy wanted more - but no money, its been bought by several users - and people that work with it have stated that when spares are supported properly its not unreliable.



**Not US built / designed = shit
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Not really. Since the invention of the tank we've had our main line armour, the big boys whom we bring up to destroy the enemy with firepower and shock effect, while absorbing his return fire.
But we've also had a lighter class of tank, that's done everything else. Recce, rear area security, bullying enemy lightly armoured AFV's and infantry support. In fact every nation has done that. Those lighter tanks were doing tank related tasks, but no one said 'Oh the Stuart VI is useless as it has a worse gun and armour than a King Tiger. Yet they have the same crew! We should just buy King Tigers instead'

So while they are doing tank stuff, they are still doing very different jobs with different priorities of spending your weight allowance. This analogy extends to the log section vehicles I pointed out above. Which is exactly my point, @PhotEx is comparing apples with oranges, and coming to an arrse about face conclusion from looking at the wrong information.

a very hard lesson learned in WWII was light armour and armoured cars doing reconnaissance had short and far to exciting lives when they found where the enemies tanks were -
’where are the enemies tanks Sgt?
’About 1000yards further up the road from the two burning Humbers Sir’
....see the rapid switch to using real tanks with real tank guns as the recce element from 1944.

wether you like it or not, and clearly you don’t, the other side use real tanks to fight for information, and AJAX looking for information in the same battle space will meet them.
And outside the Generals Powerpoints, a 125mm gun trumps a 40mm one every time.
 
a very hard lesson learned in WWII was light armour and armoured cars doing reconnaissance had short and far to exciting lives when they found where the enemies tanks were -
’where are the enemies tanks Sgt?
’About 1000yards further up the road from the two burning Humbers Sir’
....see the rapid switch to using real tanks with real tank guns as the recce element from 1944.

r35gdg4prcz11.jpg


Armour car regiments remained in service through out the war. The Few light tanks we had, which wasn't many and were all imported designs were restricted to HQ recce squadrons in Armoured Brigades. Nearly everything else was done by wheeled armoured cars. Armoured car troops usually had two Dingo's and a pair of Daimler Armoured cars, armed with nothing more deadly than a 2-pounder gun.

What's that, only a 2-pounder? Useless! What happens when they meet a king tiger! They'll all be killed!

Indeed, as I said earlier the principle post war reconnaissance platform was the Ferret! Armed with a fearsome .30 cal.

wether you like it or not, and clearly you don’t, the other side use real tanks to fight for information, and AJAX looking for information in the same battle space will meet them.
And outside the Generals Powerpoints, a 125mm gun trumps a 40mm one every time.

Great! A question though. Why are we fighting for info when we can gather it without a shot being fired?
 
Those lighter tanks were doing tank related tasks, but no one said 'Oh the Stuart VI is useless as it has a worse gun and armour than a King Tiger. Yet they have the same crew! We should just buy King Tigers instead'
If the Stuart weighed the same as the King tiger though, or we were comparing tanks based on their ability to tank for a given number of crew.

You are talking about lighter tanks for lighter tasks, but the Ajax isn’t lighter (or not by much).

If you want to say that Ajax is a better recce vehicle than dedicated tanks, then fine, but as a tank in its weight class it‘s not great...
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
a very hard lesson learned in WWII was light armour and armoured cars doing reconnaissance had short and far to exciting lives when they found where the enemies tanks were -
’where are the enemies tanks Sgt?
’About 1000yards further up the road from the two burning Humbers Sir’
....see the rapid switch to using real tanks with real tank guns as the recce element from 1944.

wether you like it or not, and clearly you don’t, the other side use real tanks to fight for information, and AJAX looking for information in the same battle space will meet them.
And outside the Generals Powerpoints, a 125mm gun trumps a 40mm one every time.
Please, for the love of God, post about double-hulled tankers or something you may have a vague notion about and stop infesting these threads with your utterly pointless trolling.
 
If the Stuart weighed the same as the King tiger though, or we were comparing tanks based on their ability to tank for a given number of crew.

You are talking about lighter tanks for lighter tasks, but the Ajax isn’t lighter (or not by much).

If you want to say that Ajax is a better recce vehicle than dedicated tanks, then fine, but as a tank in its weight class it‘s not great...

And we're back to AFV design.

Ok we have 40 tons to play with. Basic armour, three crew, engine turret and all the essentials. This leaves X amount of weight spare. How do you spend that weight?
A T-72 spent all the weight allowance on a big gun, extra armour and ammo.
An Ajax spends the same weight on two extra crew, which is actually a very high cost item as the volume needed for a human is quite large, and that needs armouring, extra sensors, and communication gear and a moderate gun. So same weight different job.
 
Reference gun size, just a comment.
Some years ago the Israelis were experimenting with a 60mm high velocity gun. The information in the article didn't specify what it was to be fitted to but the illustration showed a hit on a tank gun barrel where the round (at about 60 degrees) had penetrated both sides of the barrel.
I wonder what other improvements have been made to improve the penetration? (and presumably barrel life)
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
And we're back to AFV design.

Ok we have 40 tons to play with. Basic armour, three crew, engine turret and all the essentials. This leaves X amount of weight spare. How do you spend that weight?
A T-72 spent all the weight allowance on a big gun, extra armour and ammo.
An Ajax spends the same weight on two extra crew, which is actually a very high cost item as the volume needed for a human is quite large, and that needs armouring, extra sensors, and communication gear and a moderate gun. So same weight different job.
I think a problem is some people's (no names/pack drill) fixation on 'medium tank'.

That could be taken to mean two things:

That it's a substitute for a tank.

or

It's got a very useful capability against most things it's likely to encounter on the battlefield.

The primary role of Ajax is reconnaissance.

The MBT role is covered by CR2, whether it be upgraded or not.
 
Reference gun size, just a comment.
Some years ago the Israelis were experimenting with a 60mm high velocity gun. The information in the article didn't specify what it was to be fitted to but the illustration showed a hit on a tank gun barrel where the round (at about 60 degrees) had penetrated both sides of the barrel.
I wonder what other improvements have been made to improve the penetration? (and presumably barrel life)

Slope means nothing these days. I've got a document from the 60s with RARDE stating they've improved APDS to the extent it'll work on high slopes, IIRC 70+ degree's. Plus, I wonder if a gun barrel is actually hardened as armour?

Some modern armours work on producing sheer forces into the penetrators. This causes the shot to break up inside the armour. I've been told there's been some work around that with some interesting ideas in regards defeating that sort of protection. No idea how true it is, as for some boring reason modern armour is really classified.
 
Not really. Since the invention of the tank we've had our main line armour, the big boys whom we bring up to destroy the enemy with firepower and shock effect, while absorbing his return fire.
But we've also had a lighter class of tank, that's done everything else. Recce, rear area security, bullying enemy lightly armoured AFV's and infantry support. In fact every nation has done that. Those lighter tanks were doing tank related tasks, but no one said 'Oh the Stuart VI is useless as it has a worse gun and armour than a King Tiger. Yet they have the same crew! We should just buy King Tigers instead'

So while they are doing tank stuff, they are still doing very different jobs with different priorities of spending your weight allowance. This analogy extends to the log section vehicles I pointed out above. Which is exactly my point, @PhotEx is comparing apples with oranges, and coming to an arrse about face conclusion from looking at the wrong information.
Probably due to having zero experience of armoured vehicles or armoured warfare in general.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Slope means nothing these days. I've got a document from the 60s with RARDE stating they've improved APDS to the extent it'll work on high slopes, IIRC 70+ degree's. Plus, I wonder if a gun barrel is actually hardened as armour?

Some modern armours work on producing sheer forces into the penetrators. This causes the shot to break up inside the armour. I've been told there's been some work around that with some interesting ideas in regards defeating that sort of protection. No idea how true it is, as for some boring reason modern armour is really classified.
Some of the modern armour arrays work better when hit square-on. Slope gave a better armour basis, as it's known. That is, thicker armour.

It's counter-intuitive to the generations brought up on that, er, basis to be happy with flat faces but it's a different principle.
 
I think a problem is some people's (no names/pack drill) fixation on 'medium tank'.

That could be taken to mean two things:

That it's a substitute for a tank.

or

It's got a very useful capability against most things it's likely to encounter on the battlefield.

The primary role of Ajax is reconnaissance.

The MBT role is covered by CR2, whether it be upgraded or not.

The way I'm interpreting it is that the term 'Medium tank' is for doing all the other stuff that we could want a tank to do. While MBT's are more 'Heavy' role. Just dug out a book which referenced a US army Study on what their light tanks got up to in WWII. The US light tank squadrons spent their time doing the following:

Defensive Combat: 33%
Special operations (Eg Mobile Reserve or Rear Area clean up): 29%
Security duty (Eg Flank Security, escorting APC's): 25%
Offensive Operations: 10%
Recce: 3%

Now, Obviously that was Second World War and life has likely gone on a bit since then. But you can see how something with a bit of firepower and a bit of armour could be flexibly useful.
You can't use your MBT for those roles, as they'll be slamming head first into the enemy doing Main Battle Tank stuff.

If you look at the above list, you can see direct parallels. Such as escorting Boxer APC's, or Defensive combat is leavening dismounted infantry.

So maybe we should be looking at Ajax through that prism, with the added facet of expeditionary warfare, rather than getting caught up, like you suggest, on the word 'Tank' and recce?
 
Some of the modern armour arrays work better when hit square-on. Slope gave a better armour basis, as it's known. That is, thicker armour.

It's counter-intuitive to the generations brought up on that, er, basis to be happy with flat faces but it's a different principle.

Have I posted the long argument on here that sloped armour is worse than flat, even when you're just dealing with RHA?
 
And we're back to AFV design.

Ok we have 40 tons to play with. Basic armour, three crew, engine turret and all the essentials. This leaves X amount of weight spare. How do you spend that weight?
A T-72 spent all the weight allowance on a big gun, extra armour and ammo.
An Ajax spends the same weight on two extra crew, which is actually a very high cost item as the volume needed for a human is quite large, and that needs armouring, extra sensors, and communication gear and a moderate gun. So same weight different job.
Yes, each vehicle is optimised for a different role. Ajax is a pretty good as a recce vehicle, but pretty poor as a combat vehicle by comparison to one optimised for it.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
I think a problem is some people's (no names/pack drill) fixation on 'medium tank'.

That could be taken to mean two things:

That it's a substitute for a tank.

or

It's got a very useful capability against most things it's likely to encounter on the battlefield.

The primary role of Ajax is reconnaissance.

The MBT role is covered by CR2, whether it be upgraded or not.

Army’s Head Shed is on public record referring to AJAX as a medium tank.

it can’t defeat it’s likely battlefield tank adversary at any range.
it’s likely battlefield tank adversary can defeat it out to 6,000m

Huge, very thin armour, slow, very, very noisy, barely armed - a recipe for a short life on a modern battlefield.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
r35gdg4prcz11.jpg


Armour car regiments remained in service through out the war. The Few light tanks we had, which wasn't many and were all imported designs were restricted to HQ recce squadrons in Armoured Brigades. Nearly everything else was done by wheeled armoured cars. Armoured car troops usually had two Dingo's and a pair of Daimler Armoured cars, armed with nothing more deadly than a 2-pounder gun.

What's that, only a 2-pounder? Useless! What happens when they meet a king tiger! They'll all be killed!

Indeed, as I said earlier the principle post war reconnaissance platform was the Ferret! Armed with a fearsome .30 cal.



Great! A question though. Why are we fighting for info when we can gather it without a shot being fired?

You conveniently skate over a few things....

the furious upgunning of armoured cars to give them some hope of defending themselves in a fight - see 75mm guns being fitted to wheeled armoured cars by 1945

the use of the fast, compact and 75mm gun armed Cromwell tank as a recce element in the NWETO. Go look for trouble, butch enough to get in a fight if you find it.

Ferret with a .30?
well yes, to impress on the crews and users they were not armoured fighting vehicles - see fitting 30mm pop guns on OPVs so people don’t try using them as warships.
 

Majorpain

War Hero
The way I'm interpreting it is that the term 'Medium tank' is for doing all the other stuff that we could want a tank to do. While MBT's are more 'Heavy' role. Just dug out a book which referenced a US army Study on what their light tanks got up to in WWII. The US light tank squadrons spent their time doing the following:

Defensive Combat: 33%
Special operations (Eg Mobile Reserve or Rear Area clean up): 29%
Security duty (Eg Flank Security, escorting APC's): 25%
Offensive Operations: 10%
Recce: 3%

Now, Obviously that was Second World War and life has likely gone on a bit since then. But you can see how something with a bit of firepower and a bit of armour could be flexibly useful.
You can't use your MBT for those roles, as they'll be slamming head first into the enemy doing Main Battle Tank stuff.

If you look at the above list, you can see direct parallels. Such as escorting Boxer APC's, or Defensive combat is leavening dismounted infantry.

So maybe we should be looking at Ajax through that prism, with the added facet of expeditionary warfare, rather than getting caught up, like you suggest, on the word 'Tank' and recce?
That's breakdown is very interesting, I agree it can be too easy to play top trumps and say "Ajax vs MBT" is only going to end one way, whilst forgetting that the majority of the time it will be facing Mech/light inf. Using its advanced sensors Ajax is more than a match for BMP3/BTR90/Equivalent or older variants thereof that equip the majority of units.

As an example, if you mix the number of modern tanks the Russians have (being generous at 2350) and the length of Russia land border (7500km) that's around one tank every 3KM. There really isn't going to be a T72 hiding behind every tree!
 
You conveniently skate over a few things....

the furious upgunning of armoured cars to give them some hope of defending themselves in a fight - see 75mm guns being fitted to wheeled armoured cars by 1945

the use of the fast, compact and 75mm gun armed Cromwell tank as a recce element in the NWETO. Go look for trouble, butch enough to get in a fight if you find it.

Ferret with a .30?
well yes, to impress on the crews and users they were not armoured fighting vehicles - see fitting 30mm pop guns on OPVs so people don’t try using them as warships.
r35gdg4prcz11.jpg

What makes this post worse is that you've already been told, literally within the last 24 hours, that the Cromwell's were used as main line tanks, because they had similar armour and gun to the main tank units.


As to up-arming the Armoured cars, you are of course talking about the heavy armoured cars that populated the support troop, and made up a tiny fraction of the armoured cars in any one unit? For example the strength of the Armoured car regiment contained 14x Staghounds, 52x Dingo's, 45x Daimler Armoured Cars and only 8 of either M3 Auto-cars or AEC Mk.III. So about 6% of the total regiments cars (note: I'm actually excluding liaison and AA AFV's from this count) are armed with anything more deadly than a 2-pounder. Hardly the "furious upgunning of armoured cars to give them some hope of defending themselves in a fight" is it?

30mm's on OPV's? I have no idea. I don't deal with boats!
 
That's breakdown is very interesting, I agree it can be too easy to play top trumps and say "Ajax vs MBT" is only going to end one way, whilst forgetting that the majority of the time it will be facing Mech/light inf. Using its advanced sensors Ajax is more than a match for BMP3/BTR90/Equivalent or older variants thereof that equip the majority of units.

As an example, if you mix the number of modern tanks the Russians have (being generous at 2350) and the length of Russia land border (7500km) that's around one tank every 3KM. There really isn't going to be a T72 hiding behind every tree!


Disingenuous argument. Where Ajax is needed, to locate and fix the Russian main effort, the density of MBTs is going to be near on wheel to wheel.

The lack of some pieces of equipment seen as valuable on a recce vehicle means Ajax is going to end up exposing itself to view.
 

not_observed

Old-Salt
r35gdg4prcz11.jpg

What makes this post worse is that you've already been told, literally within the last 24 hours, that the Cromwell's were used as main line tanks, because they had similar armour and gun to the main tank units.


As to up-arming the Armoured cars, you are of course talking about the heavy armoured cars that populated the support troop, and made up a tiny fraction of the armoured cars in any one unit? For example the strength of the Armoured car regiment contained 14x Staghounds, 52x Dingo's, 45x Daimler Armoured Cars and only 8 of either M3 Auto-cars or AEC Mk.III. So about 6% of the total regiments cars (note: I'm actually excluding liaison and AA AFV's from this count) are armed with anything more deadly than a 2-pounder. Hardly the "furious upgunning of armoured cars to give them some hope of defending themselves in a fight" is it?

30mm's on OPV's? I have no idea. I don't deal with boats!
I know @PhotEx spouts absolute shite but I still don't understand why you and others continue to feed the troll.

Just ignore the twat.
 

Latest Threads

Top