- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 4,007
- Reaction score
- 3,053
If the UK is lucky we can get in early on a joint development deal. Minus the Europeans we might actually get something done this time.
Foo Fighter said:If the UK is lucky we can get in early on a joint development deal. Minus the Europeans we might actually get something done this time.
Foo Fighter said:If the UK is lucky we can get in early on a joint development deal. Minus the Europeans we might actually get something done this time.
Grey Havoc said:I should interject here and note a couple of points:
1. The British Isles are not part of Continental Europe.
2. Some examples would include the Liberty tank project of WWI (with the United States and initially, France), T14 Heavy Tank of WWII, again with the United States, and the FMBT program with Germany, 1970s. Also, serious consideration was given to getting on board the Leclerc program in the late 1980s as a fast replacement for the ill-starred Challenger tank. Incidentally the baseline Leclerc was then put forward for Staff Requirement (Land) 4026, but passed over (alongside the Abrams and Leopard 2) in favour of the 'Improved Challenger' that would become the Challenger II tank.
kaiserd said:Foo Fighter said:If the UK is lucky we can get in early on a joint development deal. Minus the Europeans we might actually get something done this time.
2. Don’t understand the relevance of your comments to the topic; the UK has never developed a tank in partnership with any other nation (European or otherwise) as far as I am aware (maybe the parallel evolution of Shermans in WW2 the closest?). Hence they’ve never delayed or impacted the development of a specific British Tank.
In terms of partnership with European countries in other defense projects they have been largely successful, certainly more successful than the many failed UK-only projects that immediately preceded them.
Foo Fighter said:kaiserd said:Foo Fighter said:If the UK is lucky we can get in early on a joint development deal. Minus the Europeans we might actually get something done this time.
2. Don’t understand the relevance of your comments to the topic; the UK has never developed a tank in partnership with any other nation (European or otherwise) as far as I am aware (maybe the parallel evolution of Shermans in WW2 the closest?). Hence they’ve never delayed or impacted the development of a specific British Tank.
In terms of partnership with European countries in other defense projects they have been largely successful, certainly more successful than the many failed UK-only projects that immediately preceded them.
OK, minus the poor geography and the politics. My point was not about tanks specifically, it was an example of cooperative efforts. Always late and close to cancellation with constantly changing specifications like the Tornado and Typhoon. Cutting down the number of participating nations may allow the specifications to be fixed earlier and a tank being designed and built before it goes out of technological date. How many times was the Nimrod AWACS spec altered?
"I really have to be careful with tongue in cheek comments but hey ho. Not convinced with the Germany best suggestion but yes, they are the only ones currently developing armour but the Panther has had no test worth taking note of.
With note to the reference on meds, many national governments are in the same position, many associated with the EU senior idiot guild.
Anything that is fit for use will have to be extremely advanced at conception and no doubt the coalition working on it will screw it up so badly it will end up being a boy scout with a catapult. Take not of the Tornado and Typhoon to name two".
Context is everything.
kaiserd said:If it is a foreign tank the likely UK content is likely to be VERY low (doubt a joint project would be on offer from any likely reliable partner) and the UK will effectively be giving up the capability to design and build its own tanks.
kaiserd said:either that or just buying the latest incarnation of the M-1 or its replacement design, a Leopard III buy seems unlikely.
Foo Fighter said:I apologise to anyone I have offended. Most of my comments are meant either less than entirely seriously or completely tongue in cheek and as an older and disabled ex soldier, find emotives etc completely baffling so do not use them. I am still trying to create a personal treatise on the development of the armoured vehicle. This has changed over the years and if I can get it done will include paper/card models of certain game changing vehicles as well as diagrams and text. Not sure if I will get it done to my satisfaction but I am trying.
If there is enough harm done and folk want me gone then I will go but the signal ignorance of which I sometimes see should be addressed too.
Kat Tsun said:As it stands, the most likely replacement for the M1 is going to be Leopard 3. The US Army is entering an even numbered decade, which means the pendulum has swung from "heavy armor" to "air-mechanization". We're ready for a new FCS.
kaiserd said:By the way I think Kat Tsun comprehensively blew our points away anyway; I bow to an evident expert in this area.
Foo Fighter said:I apologise to anyone I have offended. Most of my comments are meant either less than entirely seriously or completely tongue in cheek and as an older and disabled ex soldier, find emotives etc completely baffling so do not use them. I am still trying to create a personal treatise on the development of the armoured vehicle. This has changed over the years and if I can get it done will include paper/card models of certain game changing vehicles as well as diagrams and text. Not sure if I will get it done to my satisfaction but I am trying.
If there is enough harm done and folk want me gone then I will go but the signal ignorance of which I sometimes see should be addressed too.
sferrin said:Kat Tsun said:As it stands, the most likely replacement for the M1 is going to be Leopard 3. The US Army is entering an even numbered decade, which means the pendulum has swung from "heavy armor" to "air-mechanization". We're ready for a new FCS.
You'd think they'd have learned from the last debacle (FCS). The only truly useful new design since 2000 was the Crusader and, in their infinite wisdom, we saw what they did with that. Can't have any of that "Cold War relic" stink around ya know.
Foo Fighter said:For what it is worth, I hope whatever our nations build, the future soldiers manning them do not have to come to the realisation that leadership did not have the courage to get the right vehicle at the right time for the right cost. I would hate to see the future soldiers get to the late reality that what they are fielding is nothing more than a can of spam in the face of future threats. 38mm of side armour on a supposedly superior vehicle and the aluminium side skirts would not stop a decent long rifle round now (I am talking Chieftain as an example).
Grey Havoc said:The French do have some Tank development and production capability left, though more by accident than by design.
Kat Tsun said:Ten years is enough for men to retire or machine shops to shut down ...
Twenty is enough for all institutional knowledge to vanish.
Zayhowski said that to move the MPF program quickly to prototype development,
he tapped into the experiences of well-tenured machinists who are still active on
the production floors, as well as to Arsenal retirees who once worked on the
AGS program in the 1980s and 1990s.
Ryan Scrum, who is the Arsenal's general foreman for tube production, said
that what has been a big help in shaving time off of a proposed prototype production
schedule is that the 105mm tube is nearly identical to the tube the Arsenal
machined for the AGS program in the 1990s.
Foo Fighter said:Soviet soldiers were under the impression they were allies with the NAZI soldiers and had already cooperated with the seizure of Poland.
Foo Fighter said:Militarily the Warsaw pact tactical doctrine could be taken as an extension of Blitzkreig, using massed armour, artillery and aviation assets to smash through weaker parts of the NATO lines and bypassing resistance centres. They would give reserve and extra assets to thos points that achieved success in the shortest time. The goal as we knew it was to reasure the French that they would left alone if they stayed out of the conflict. The goal being the French border. Read the Third World War by General, Sir John Hackett and others, this showcases the Warsaw Pact tactics. So, far from being a defensive pact, their doctrine was one of defence by strong offence and intimidation.
Foo Fighter said:And your point is?
Foo Fighter said:recent history of attacks from the west.
Foo Fighter said:Why were they so sensitive to EU membership by the Ukraine?
marauder2048 said:Kat Tsun said:Ten years is enough for men to retire or machine shops to shut down ...
Twenty is enough for all institutional knowledge to vanish.
Semi-related; (re)starting 105mm XM35 production for MPF
Zayhowski said that to move the MPF program quickly to prototype development,
he tapped into the experiences of well-tenured machinists who are still active on
the production floors, as well as to Arsenal retirees who once worked on the
AGS program in the 1980s and 1990s.
Ryan Scrum, who is the Arsenal's general foreman for tube production, said
that what has been a big help in shaving time off of a proposed prototype production
schedule is that the 105mm tube is nearly identical to the tube the Arsenal
machined for the AGS program in the 1990s.
https://www.army.mil/article/193706/arsenal_digs_into_its_history_finding_shovel_ready_program_to_enhance_soldier_readiness_lethality
cador said:French doesn't need Rheinmetall AG to make tank.
Kat Tsun said:The West could've, perhaps should've, and it's doubtful the outcome would be much different. The USSR collapses when it stops hyperventilating that the NATO tank divisions in Germany are going to start putting on totenkopfs and waving swastikas around, because it can't actually make anything useful to trade, because it industrialized around building massive tank divisions. OTOH, the West ends up a mite bit richer and healthier and longer lived because it spends money on railroad and highway infrastructure improvements, space exploration, and the civil economy, instead of tank divisions.
Meanwhile the communist autarky evaporates in the most ironic way imaginable: by its own internal contradictions.
Colonial-Marine said:The M1 may be a good place to start with yet there is a whole lot to do in my opinion. I think the basic turret layout could use some rework at this point due to the need to fit an active protection system and all that involves. I have to give the Israeli's credit for doing a really good job at seamlessly integrating Trophy onto the Merkava IV.
Whatever happened to that 140mm gun tested by the US and others that several NATO countries hoped to utilize on a future main battle tank?
Foo Fighter said:Telescoping ammunition/rounds will significantly reduce impact on turret and hull stowage while retaining efficacy.