What, no logistics and support units? They are part of the *shudders* "war fighting" capability.marktigger wrote:But there shouldn't be units dedicated to it until the warfighting capability is rebuilt.
Search found 1477 matches
- 19 Nov 2016, 07:56
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Army 2020 Refine
- Replies: 249
- Views: 12265
Re: Army 2020 Refine
- 18 Nov 2016, 18:01
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: Army 2020 Refine
- Replies: 249
- Views: 12265
Re: Army 2020 Refine
I would suggest abandon the aid to civilian power shit and concentrate on high end war fighting I think that the Army should remain expert in certain aspects of "aid to civilian power shit" as part of their key expertise. Things like "delivering large quantities of supplies over brok...
- 14 Nov 2016, 20:10
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 2323
- Views: 1039691
Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)
But development and intent had existed since long before. At the same time the growth path was 140mm Older applique is likely gone, it was very light anyway and purely for resisting very light autocannons. The frontal ERA is completely gone, as it was utterly useless in a modern world. There are no...
- 14 Nov 2016, 08:03
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 2323
- Views: 1039691
Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)
M908 High Explosive Obstacle Reduction (HE-OR-T) That one definitely dates from this side of the millennium. I thought you said there were rounds dating back to the same time as the L30 choice was made (1990-ish) Course this is still getting distracted from other, non-debated major issues. The one ...
- 13 Nov 2016, 19:40
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 2323
- Views: 1039691
Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)
Vertical ride height as in "maximum permitted Y-axis movement before the suspension MUCH move the tank upwards". Suspensions aren't infinite. The Challengers is very low, it's great on "light rough", but it couldn't do half of what a Leopard or especially a Merkava could, which ...
- 13 Nov 2016, 18:59
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 2323
- Views: 1039691
Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)
There isn't a single issue I have brought up that I have not invested a lot of time in investigating. Factually lacking a capability (Nighttime hunterkiller) cannot be "exaggerated", either you have it or you don't. The CR2 does not have a thermal sight outside of the TOGS. While you are ...
- 13 Nov 2016, 17:05
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 2323
- Views: 1039691
Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)
I don't think that you can claim that Chieftain -> Challenger 1 -> Challenger 2 is only an incremental improvement and then turn around and complain that the progression is not incremental. It's a bit inconsistent. You can certainly claim that the maintenance of each model has been somewhat lacking ...
- 13 Nov 2016, 15:35
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 2323
- Views: 1039691
Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)
APFSDS rounds are designed to fly purely under their own spin, hence the fins. That spin will drop off precisely at the effective range they are designed for maximum penetration, ie - when the sabot itself drops off the KEP. A rifled gun's inherant spin screws with this calculation, throwing off th...
- 13 Nov 2016, 13:55
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 2323
- Views: 1039691
Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)
Why not?RetroSicotte wrote:As I said in my post, the slip-ring is not 100% effective, but you don't want an APFSDS round to spin on exiting the barrel.
Why? What's the difference?RetroSicotte wrote:It's inherantly worse than a smoothbore which doesn't spin them at all, as spinning from anything other than the fins is a bad impact.
- 13 Nov 2016, 12:54
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 2323
- Views: 1039691
Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)
Pretty much, although with one slight inaccuracy, rifled guns firing APFSDS do not produce inherant spin. They are prevented from spinning when they leave the barrel. Any residual spin the slip ring can't control is actually detrimental to the round, as it's by nature unpredictable and not wanted. ...
- 13 Nov 2016, 09:06
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 2323
- Views: 1039691
Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)
One key point to consider when making comparison is that the EFC baseline is not always the same. So while one gun may use an APFSDS shot for the EFC baseline, with less wearing projectiles being a proportion of that, sometimes the less wearing projectile is the baseline and an APFSDS shot is counte...
- 26 Oct 2016, 22:53
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
- Replies: 2809
- Views: 736853
Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC
SISU is the manufacturer of the Patria XA180, XA185 and AMV So the branch of the company that is now Patria and half state-owned and half-owned by Kongsberg which is itself state-owned? UK Govt got Saxon to keep GKN from going under when the Iranians cancelled their police contract for them And wit...
- 26 Oct 2016, 19:54
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
- Replies: 2809
- Views: 736853
Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC
So the government pays for R&D and Concept vehicles? Why not? It's how it works elsewhere. then what do the companies do? Do they make a viable vehicle and in absence of UK contracts try and sell it internationally? They tried that. Not enough sales for something the home country's military doe...
- 24 Oct 2016, 23:04
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 2323
- Views: 1039691
Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)
Most tanks store ready in the turret bustle. The trick is whether you can get blowout panels and sealed doors in there. Blowout panels are pretty easy. If nothing else you want the the cover to be easily removable for maintenance and it's pretty basic to make a panel harder to push in than push out...
- 24 Oct 2016, 22:37
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 2323
- Views: 1039691
Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)
Flippancy aside, it's actually a fairly good point, though there is probably a bunch of different ways of solving the problem, starting with the existing method of dealing with solid waste.
- 23 Oct 2016, 18:30
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
- Replies: 2809
- Views: 736853
Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC
maybe british Manufacturers should step up and offer viable vehicles in the numbers and timeframes the army require! Like vickers, GKN and Alvis used to! I wonder why they can't? It's not a viable business model. The Army and MoD seem to prefer paying for concept studies rather than actually buildi...
- 17 Oct 2016, 21:23
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
- Replies: 2809
- Views: 736853
Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC
ABSV is the answer for the armoured battlegroups. Other formations will need other vehicles to maintain commonality with the main strength of the vehicles of the formation. If the ABSV is based on Warrior, which it has been so far, then there are a limited number of those.
- 11 Oct 2016, 19:37
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Section Infantry Weapons
- Replies: 1492
- Views: 441252
Re: Section infantry weapons
any references for their use in Malaya? or trials in arduous enviroment's? WO 291/1867. There was a .pdf of it put out on Antony Williams' forum a year or two back. My pdf reader is playing me up at the moment so it's a bit hard to review it, but there was no mention I recall of reliability issues ...
- 10 Oct 2016, 19:28
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Section Infantry Weapons
- Replies: 1492
- Views: 441252
Re: Section infantry weapons
The Rifle, No.9, so yes.marktigger wrote:what the EM2?mr.fred wrote:It did OK in Malaya.marktigger wrote:looking at the locking system on the EM2 I wonder how well it would have performed in Borneo, Aden and Oman?
- 09 Oct 2016, 21:34
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Section Infantry Weapons
- Replies: 1492
- Views: 441252
Re: Section infantry weapons
Moving to 5.56 only sections would be a grave mistake. I believe many soldiers would happily carry a belt of 7.62 for their section 7.62 Minimi. The firepower it brings is the core of the whole sections firepower. This goes back to Vietnam where the M60 gunners provided the key effect as against th...
- 09 Oct 2016, 18:48
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Section Infantry Weapons
- Replies: 1492
- Views: 441252
Re: Section infantry weapons
It did OK in Malaya.marktigger wrote:looking at the locking system on the EM2 I wonder how well it would have performed in Borneo, Aden and Oman?
- 08 Oct 2016, 10:25
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Section Infantry Weapons
- Replies: 1492
- Views: 441252
Re: Section infantry weapons
would rather we bought a rifle that worked, was accurate, reliable and ergonomically easy to use and was well trialed so we don't get any surprises. And came from a manufacturer with high standards of quality control and after sales support. That's what we've ended up with, although it took a while...
- 07 Oct 2016, 21:41
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Section Infantry Weapons
- Replies: 1492
- Views: 441252
Re: Section infantry weapons
Although Politics formed the alliances that defeated our enemies. Which would you rather? A particular rifle or allies? Though that's part of reasons one and three. If you have a rifle that can be easily adapted into different configurations, you can test them out without having to re-equip or re-tr...
- 07 Oct 2016, 19:08
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Section Infantry Weapons
- Replies: 1492
- Views: 441252
Re: Section infantry weapons
What should happen and what does happen are frequently worlds apart. Sadly, the service doesn't necessarily know what it wants or needs either. I was reading something on another forum about how expert shooters in a number of cases have specified a weapon that suits them but is a poor fit for the ma...
- 07 Oct 2016, 12:55
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
- Replies: 350
- Views: 134369
Re: AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun (Army)
The question is, you keep saying "against armour". A question, true enough. Since the original statement was that 105mm was ineffective against armour, with no specifics, I was asking if it was still ineffective against that target set, on the basis that marktigger might know what the tar...