Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Bubbles_Barker

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.
My bold - I don't know, but I do know that gun barrels are very high quality steel, hence we still retain 105mm tank gun barrels for testing etc not because we still have some Cents squirreled away somewhere.
 
My bold - I don't know, but I do know that gun barrels are very high quality steel, hence we still retain 105mm tank gun barrels for testing etc not because we still have some Cents squirreled away somewhere.

Testing establishments always retain some odd little weapons, just so they can perform continuity of testing. Take for example test firing agaisnt a Chieftain turret with a 2-pounder gun. I also have documents talking of a world wide search in the middle of the Second World War to obtain rounds from a certain batch of .303 ammo to ensure as few variables as possible. Its sort of amazing that, considering the sheer amount of .303 manufactured, and fired every day world wide, that we managed to search through all the stores for a particular batch code and get it returned. What's equally amazing was this exercise was successful!
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Testing establishments always retain some odd little weapons, just so they can perform continuity of testing. Take for example test firing agaisnt a Chieftain turret with a 2-pounder gun. I also have documents talking of a world wide search in the middle of the Second World War to obtain rounds from a certain batch of .303 ammo to ensure as few variables as possible. Its sort of amazing that, considering the sheer amount of .303 manufactured, and fired every day world wide, that we managed to search through all the stores for a particular batch code and get it returned. What's equally amazing was this exercise was successful!
And in the days before computers...
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Testing establishments always retain some odd little weapons, just so they can perform continuity of testing. Take for example test firing agaisnt a Chieftain turret with a 2-pounder gun. I also have documents talking of a world wide search in the middle of the Second World War to obtain rounds from a certain batch of .303 ammo to ensure as few variables as possible. Its sort of amazing that, considering the sheer amount of .303 manufactured, and fired every day world wide, that we managed to search through all the stores for a particular batch code and get it returned. What's equally amazing was this exercise was successful!
Not a lot of original .303" about any more, most at the bottom of the Irish Sea!
 
Regarding the earlier comment about buying MGCS when its finished I asked someone I know, who has been keeping up to speed about it. He sent me some documents and stuff that's turned up for it. Whilst we're still in the silliness and what if stage of the project, the bit where everyone throws their ideas into the ring to see what floats, there's a lot of unattractive ideas floating about.

First off this Leopard 2 in a frock idea that was bandied about:
mgcs-image01.jpg

...and they even made a mock up of...
Leopard-3-Tank_1724.jpg

...I suspect it's not happening. Put it from your mind.

One idea that does seem to be clear, and I suspect will be alarming to the tankies here, three man crew with autolaoder and semi-remote turret are in. By the later point, I mean the turret crew will be below the turret ring. Thus your observation and such forth is all done by CCTV and the like, just like the T-14. Here's a slide taken from a presentation:
uRgkW0Z.jpg

Now, the big cannon vehicle has the crew seemingly in the turret, but other things would suggest otherwise. Several patent's have appeared relating to the MGCS. From a Nexter Patent we have this:
unknown.png

Which resembles the turret off the slide above. This one has a massive auto-loader in the box numbered 100. That being said Nexter have also filed a patent for this monstrosity:
nADgiop.png



So we've covered some of the French ideas, what about Ze Germans?! Well another presentation gives us this:
MGCS_photo.jpg


Again, a missile vehicle, a BFG atk cannon version and a lighter armed fire support chassis of some kind. Now the turret bares a resemblance to another patent, this time from RHM.
unknown.png

The autoloader seems to have more than a passing resemblance to the Meggitt one (stand easy PhotEx!). However, Ze Germans are nothing if not clever, and the RHM patent has another image in it...
LYBGDm6.png

Palletised reloading... Quick swap the magazine on our tank! The sheer amount of MHE and weight needed for that in the field makes me very very concerned.

Of course, these seem to be just ideas a this stage, and its not like companies will not patent ideas in case they can make something of it. So how long until we get a rough idea of what the MGCS will look like? Well yet another presentation gives us a time line:
EOzfmDlUcAEZVyk.png

Of course this wouldn't be Europe without a Second French display, but my french is vastly worse than my non-existent German, so... who knows:
MGCS_photo_2.jpg


That said the timeline does match our needs.

So another couple of years will need to pass before we can get a better idea. But all the thinking so far does seem to be crew below the turret ring and three men.
 
Russian KE rounds are optimized for flat surfaces such as side of Leo, happily CH2 slope makes them a tiny bit less effective.
 

Majorpain

War Hero
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.
That's the big question though, is the future of warfare Blitzkreig and Schwerpunkt like 1940's France or Gulf war, or is it more grinding attrition like 1918 till one side gives way? The experience of Ukraine/Nagorno-Karabakh points more towards the latter, especially in areas where technology levels are more even.

The army is playing with plenty of things at the moment to find out what works, I don't think it will be long before Ajax has some new sensor toys to play with. And best of all, it has the modern equipment to share it with everyone else and not just keep it to itself!
 
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?
The light / medium / heavy split in tank designs during the WWII era was a reflection of two different things. The medium / heavy split was due to demands for rapid increases in vehicle sizes outstripping the technological limitations of available drive trains and suspensions. This meant that they needed two different vehicles to cover different armour / fire power / mobility scenarios.

Post WWII tank evolution slowed down, and drive train and suspension development caught up and it became possible to have the same vehicle fill both the medium and heavy roles, giving us the MBT. The Centurion is a good example of this.

The light tank however was a different story. They were intended to fill specific roles which their smaller size better suited them to than larger tanks. They weren't a technological compromise, at least not for the countries which had an adequate industrial base to allow them to build whatever they wanted.

As such, I see the term "medium tank" as somewhat misleading when applied to the sort of vehicles which we are discussing here. A true "medium tank" was historically something which is intended to form the main attacking element of the armoured forces, and was expected to be able to take on the enemy's most common tanks in head to head combat. That isn't what Ajax is intended to do.

In WWII the Soviets classified the Valentine as a "light tank with heavy armour". That is, they would use it in the roles for which they would normally use a light tank, but it was more heavily armoured than a regular light tank.

If you are going to compare an Ajax with 40mm gun to a "tank" of any sort, it's probably more realistic to call it a "light tank with heavy armour".
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The light / medium / heavy split in tank designs during the WWII era was a reflection of two different things. The medium / heavy split was due to demands for rapid increases in vehicle sizes outstripping the technological limitations of available drive trains and suspensions. This meant that they needed two different vehicles to cover different armour / fire power / mobility scenarios.

Post WWII tank evolution slowed down, and drive train and suspension development caught up and it became possible to have the same vehicle fill both the medium and heavy roles, giving us the MBT. The Centurion is a good example of this.

The light tank however was a different story. They were intended to fill specific roles which their smaller size better suited them to than larger tanks. They weren't a technological compromise, at least not for the countries which had an adequate industrial base to allow them to build whatever they wanted.

As such, I see the term "medium tank" as somewhat misleading when applied to the sort of vehicles which we are discussing here. A true "medium tank" was historically something which is intended to form the main attacking element of the armoured forces, and was expected to be able to take on the enemy's most common tanks in head to head combat. That isn't what Ajax is intended to do.

In WWII the Soviets classified the Valentine as a "light tank with heavy armour". That is, they would use it in the roles for which they would normally use a light tank, but it was more heavily armoured than a regular light tank.

If you are going to compare an Ajax with 40mm gun to a "tank" of any sort, it's probably more realistic to call it a "light tank with heavy armour".
Just to add: the 'heavy' was intended as a point-of-use, breakthrough weapon. The Tiger is a case in point - it wasn't intended for general use, as it ended up, but as a near-invincible asset to be transported to where it was needed, to do the deed and then be carried to be where it was needed next.

Hence, it suffered a lot with powertrain failures - it wasn't originally intended to motor for miles and miles.

The T-10, which the Conqueror was the counter to, was also a breakthrough weapon intended to provide support at strategic locations/times.
 

Bardeyai

Old-Salt
Depends on whose saying it. Those I trust have presented cases that would indicate it is lethal.

This came from Tony Williams, which is not a well known name, unless you're in ammunition circles.
LDx9Ovx.png


40x255mm is the 40mm CTWS, 50x330mm is the new Bushmaster 50mm Supershot. Equally, when talking to a friend who works for an European countries army in their tank design department, he used some of his calculators to check the perforative performance of the APFSDS round. The results seem to match, or at least be within the ballpark, of the claims presented in this presentation:
40mm-ctas-armour-piercing-fin-stabilised-discarding-sabot-tracer-apfsds-t.jpg


Of course you have the question of behind armour effect, but if that plate is a true indicator of the perforation then it would seem to be carrying sufficient material into the targets interior to have an effect, especially when you've got a belt fed weapon.
Equally, you have the MoD who stated that the only weapon, of the several submitted, that matched the lethality requirements was the 40mm CTWS.
I’ve spent an enjoyable day wondering how to respond without breaking my - or more importantly, others- Persec. Couldn’t see a way to do it.
I’d decided the only thing to do was to throw my hands in the air and admit I was a Walt of the Walts who deserved to be killed with fire. Notwithstanding that Mr Incendiary Cutlery has gone in the direction I intended, that may still be a fair fate.
Moving swiftly on, I get your argument about Ajax as a Recce Vehicle . Where it gets a bit thin is that ferret et al were cheap and cheerful, plentiful and expendable. Add to that that Ajax is replacing a 6 ton (now 13 ton) vehicle with one at 40 tons then consider the logistics of how it was intended to be deployed around the globe. The cost benefit analysis looks less than rosy.
And , final point from me - how’s Ajax supposed to fit between the rubber trees then?
 
I’ve spent an enjoyable day wondering how to respond without breaking my - or more importantly, others- Persec. Couldn’t see a way to do it.
I’d decided the only thing to do was to throw my hands in the air and admit I was a Walt of the Walts who deserved to be killed with fire. Notwithstanding that Mr Incendiary Cutlery has gone in the direction I intended, that may still be a fair fate.
Moving swiftly on, I get your argument about Ajax as a Recce Vehicle . Where it gets a bit thin is that ferret et al were cheap and cheerful, plentiful and expendable. Add to that that Ajax is replacing a 6 ton (now 13 ton) vehicle with one at 40 tons then consider the logistics of how it was intended to be deployed around the globe. The cost benefit analysis looks less than rosy.
And , final point from me - how’s Ajax supposed to fit between the rubber trees then?
It runs over them and they bounce back when the Ajax has passed.
 
I’ve spent an enjoyable day wondering how to respond without breaking my - or more importantly, others- Persec. Couldn’t see a way to do it.
I’d decided the only thing to do was to throw my hands in the air and admit I was a Walt of the Walts who deserved to be killed with fire. Notwithstanding that Mr Incendiary Cutlery has gone in the direction I intended, that may still be a fair fate.
Moving swiftly on, I get your argument about Ajax as a Recce Vehicle . Where it gets a bit thin is that ferret et al were cheap and cheerful, plentiful and expendable. Add to that that Ajax is replacing a 6 ton (now 13 ton) vehicle with one at 40 tons then consider the logistics of how it was intended to be deployed around the globe. The cost benefit analysis looks less than rosy.
And , final point from me - how’s Ajax supposed to fit between the rubber trees then?
Well despite donkies years of looking I've never found mention of Rubber tree's in the specs for CVRT...

I can only state what I can see. So that's why I've come to that conclusion. Of course, look at it this way, you've kept your secrets. :safe: . just need to make sure you keep TND off site!
 

Ursus Major

Clanker
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 don’t think he understands the word “ reconnaissance“...
 

Latest Threads

Top