Specialism on AFVs, tanks & tech | Visit my blog https://t.co/4aZPuVG3p8 | Principal at @JanesINTEL | Member @MilWritersGuild/@UKFightClub1 | Views my own L/RT≠E
12 subscribers
I’ve broken into a few parts; (1) What is Titan and Project TYRO; (2) Why is combat bridging important anyway; (3) Why is Titan a serious problem area; (4) Whats the plan for TYRO CSB; and (5) What are the other options and the implications?
The first practical gas turbine powered vehicle, the FV200 Turbine Test Vehicle, a Conqueror. 'Practical' is a caveat - the Germans actually had the first gas turbine tank, a Jagdtiger in WW2, but it had a problematic habit of setting trees and other nearby objects on fire. 
Specialist AFV are ubiquitous now, but the D-Day landings were some of the first outings for many of these capabilities or at the least cemented their utility upon which several generations have evolved since.
MGV was a common family of AFV that were bold in their vision - baseline 24 ton hull (later upped to c.30t) with hybrid drive & CRT track, loads of data & sensor fusion, a lot of automation (most variants were 2-man crews), with less passive armour and more smart solutions. 
So, broad strokes. LMP and BSP form a full spectrum of wheeled vehicle capability for the Army. LMP comprises three strands – Light Utility, Light Protected Mobility, and Medium Protected Mobility. Boxer sits above as a de-facto Heavy Protected Mobility of sorts 
2/ 🇮🇹 Italy: Leopard 2A8
2/ A quick background of Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs). Since the DUKW and LVT in the 1940s, there has been a niche for AFV capable of swimming when afloat and transitioning to land movement seamlessly to transport and support an opposed landing and inland movement. 
2/ The initial plan was to manage obsolescence and reduce some of the maintenance burden - in recent years the training has been curtailed simply because funding for spares and consumables wasn't there, so they are rather keen to minimise outdated elements.
2/ The design remains unchanged at the overall design level from that which I summarised 3 years ago at contract award in this thread:
2/ There *could* be a lift to 1,500 hp but there are major technical obstacles and there is no intent to do it. There is be a mid-ground to be found that is being looked at outside committed programmes.
2/ Missed the start of this (increasingly large…) mini-series of threads? Start over here:
2/ If you want to start at the beginning, this mini-series started here:
2/ This part of the series on obstacle crossing got wildly out of hand (about 140 tweets) so I've broken it into further mini-threads. This first one is step climbing.
2/ Quick point of order: these threads are to talk about comparative strengths & weaknesses outside the normal framing of 'which is best in a muddy field' and think about a few other angles that don't always get acknowledgement.
In summary, unless theyre getting mine clearance kit from Russia (this pic the odd sight of a Finnish Leopard 2A4FIN with Russian KMT-5M roller), when you see a mine plough/roller on an AFV essentially anywhere in the world, they probably bought a Pearson product. 
The turret face has also continuously crept forwards, contrast flat-faced 2A4 with the famous arrowhead armour from 2A5 onwards, and particularly the latest 2A7A1 where APS radars have extended it even further. Some of the more exotic prototypes also have substantial turret faces 
2/n The 10 mm difference in calibre between 120 and 130 mm has quite a marked impact on the overall size of the round, potentially much more than you might expect. Pictured here the Rheinmetall 130 next to a conventional 120 round. 