Would the Aus M1A1 AIM perform as well under similar conditions in such challenging terrain? Tough act to follow. Centurions performance in Vietnam between 68-71 was highly distinguished.
Jan 25, 2020 • 9 tweets • 4 min read
The ultimate in mutually exclusive requirements is seeking "transformational change" when your current IFV is at Life of Type.
The US needs a new IFV. Not a Future Combat System, Ground Combat Vehicle or whatever the hell an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle is suppose to be.
The fundamental issue with the OMFV specification requirements is the desire for tank levels of survivability whilst maintaining legacy strategic mobility requirements using legacy aircraft. When you want it all, you generally end up with nothing.
Aug 3, 2019 • 22 tweets • 9 min read
A great thread by @JonHawkes275. There are two points worth challenging to further the debate however. 1) Are modern AFV to heavy? 2) Do we need to wait for a material technical breakthrough before building the next gen MBT? Another thread.......
Jon emphasise a point about the weight and size of modern AFVs, that they are at a tipping point of performance for speed, mobility and impact on infrastructure. I offer this is a common misperception among the #miltwitter community and general population. 1/
Jul 12, 2019 • 15 tweets • 10 min read
Drones. What to do about drones.
If they haven't already, their about to overtake ATGMs, due to their availability & affordability, as the weapon of choice in the fight against modern AFVs by both state & non-state actors. So what do we do about it? What are some of the options?
Fortunately there is some equipment, equipment already in-service or requiring minor repurposing to achieve an effect that reduces the potential threat to most legacy AFV fleets. Let's look at some of the kinetic options available to reduce the drone threat 1/
May 25, 2019 • 16 tweets • 7 min read
Solid thread. Some pretty solid pics as well. However none of the points raised by the author effect an MBTs combat function or justify not incorporating full main gun ammunition compartmentalisation were the majority of rounds should be stored in the turret. Lets consider why 1/
Let's start with combat function. Contact is likely. Offence or defence. You already have a round loaded. At best the loader has the mechanical safety engaged. The gunner Id's a target, the commander confirms with the executive "fire " the loader arms the gun if required 2/
May 7, 2019 • 8 tweets • 3 min read
What are the factors that effect the maximum effective range of modern main battle tanks. Ammunition type, cannon length, fire control system and target type all contribute to this tightly held metric. Let's consider some of those factors. 1/
The first factor is ammunition type. By nature of design an APFSDS projectile will always travel further (considerably so) than other ammo natures. The APFSDS muzzle velocity and correspondingly flat trajectory make it the go to (non missile) round when engaging at long range. 2/
Apr 25, 2019 • 15 tweets • 6 min read
Forget fucking Cambodia, here is a short thread on why tank numbers absolutely matter and the real reasons 148 upgraded CR2 just won't cut it for the UK Army. 1/
This should be a simple math exercise, but it's not. The UK Army currently operates 227 CR2 across 3 regular army tank regiments, a reserve regiment and the Armoured centre. These platforms are scattered from one end of the globe to the other in support of UK training outcomes 2/
