mr.fred wrote:Equally, my point was that these numbers (magnification, resolution) cannot be taken in isolation. It would be entirely possible to pick a system with vastly superior numbers and find that it is entirely inferior to a system with what are, on the face of it, ‘worse’ numbers.
I have a pair of 10-40x binoculars, but i’ll pick up my 8 or 10x fixed binoculars nine times our of ten because the quality of the optics is better. In terms of looking at far objects, my cheap 10x binoculars are equal to or better than my mildly expensive 30x digital camera (and that with a 2x digital zoom) because my eyesight can resolve smaller objects
RetroSicotte wrote:Using random binoculars to compare to technology on the level of the SEPs systems is a huge oversimplification.
RetroSicotte wrote:Talk to the users,
RetroSicotte wrote:Remember that the Leopard's ones are still ultimately based on tweaking older versions, or at best early 2000s. The US ones are over a decade newer than even that and freshly made from new technology.
RetroSicotte wrote:I find having someone who actually uses the thing as a better source myself
RetroSicotte wrote:as there's always far more to go in these things than just comparing a simple number.
BV Buster wrote:The engine is terrible and the gear box is worse, the suspension on the other hand is very good, massively noticeable when going cross country, it was the first thing I noticed when on a cabby in a Leo.
Anyone off to tankfest?
I was intending going to Tankfest at last this year (been trying for 3-4 years now) but always that unfortunate thing called "life" getting in the way!
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Very useful discussion, I wonder how it all compares with the sensor and display resolution from the factory that "our" Thales kindly built in Belorussia and which has since supplied thousands of Russian tanks (incl. some for export, like to India)?
BV Buster wrote:The engine if used daily and looked after is reliable but not when it has been sat for a while, it’s so under powered especially with all the TES kit on. Flat out across country I didn’t notice much difference between Leo, M1 or CR2, just the ride was better in CR2, you could hit bigger bumps and not have to slow down as much.
The most important part is the acceleration, moving between fire positions, jockeying ect is a lot slower in Chally, Leo is properly fast, M1 took a while getting going but was still faster than CR2.
That is true of all internal combustion engines though.
I'd heard it mentioned a while back on another forum (i believe he was a tanker himself IIRC) that it wasn't engine itself that was necessarily the weak point in terms of power, but the transmission?
Ron5 wrote:I don't think the Challenger upgrade competition has been decided yet so a bit premature to be talking as if Bae had won.
Would be nice though.
rjhancock wrote:The version shown in Shepard Media is slightly different. The sight immediately above the gun mantlet has been completely removed.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... llanger-2/
Ron5 wrote: to see an APS. Is it Trophy?
Users browsing this forum: mr.fred and 3 guests