It surely cant be that bad; can it?
A stealthy reconnaissance vehicle... allegedly...
Quote from: Ben Waterhouse on 12 June 2021, 05:40:52 PM
A stealthy reconnaissance vehicle... allegedly...
Like most tracked vehicles.
"Stealthy"; if you use it in an artillery barrage.
I've never liked it and I'm not surprised - the silence up until now indicated that deadline after deadline was being missed. There's a lot of comparable stuff out there that the British Army could have gone for instead. Currently, the Aussies are looking at Rheinmetall's Lynx and Korea's Redback whilst the Czechs are buying the latest incarnation of BAE Hagglunds' proven CV90.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 12 June 2021, 06:27:22 PM
Like most tracked vehicles.
"Stealthy"; if you use it in an artillery barrage.
;D ;D ;D
Although it has to be said that future barrages may no longer need to be so noisy given that the use of rubber tracks is now gaining momentum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuJmBt2V0HA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuJmBt2V0HA)
... however, I am slightly concerned about the worrying rumours about the introduction of chocolate armour ...
Let us hope it isn't another SA80 type disaster
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 13 June 2021, 01:53:25 PM
Let us hope it isn't another SA80 type disaster
It already has been, this thing should have been in service 10 years ago.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/from-scimitar-to-fres-to-ajax/from-scimitar-to-fres-to-ajax-the-sixties-and-seventies/
(follow the menues at the bottom of the page - it's a long read!)
It's part of the British army tradition, the vehicles never work properly....
I have never been in any AFV, so curious about the experience of those who Have?
Rather doubt that any squaddie was 'asked' for 'opinion' about 432 or maybe, Warrior, prior to introduction? Modern H&S?
Articles do not say 'Who' had joint pain.. 'crew' or 'guys in back'? If crew, bad design but maybe fixable. My uninformed thought is that 'guys in back' would 'have things 'pretty much the same' in any APC... getting rattled and banged about... unless too cramped or some seating probs.
Tinnitus could be from 'modern' engine/transmission 'whine' or electricals that were not there before? Some things possibly 'fixable'... that's what evaluation is for.
Rather worrying, though!
Possibly worse is 'not being able to reverse over 20cm obstacle! That is ridiculous... when a fast 'back out' absolutely necessary!
My ignorant perception is that, with the added armour 'it just LOOKS like a pig'... so maybe it IS? Far too 'heavy'... but the guys need the protection!
Just what may have been 'wrong' with the Warrior... apart from age? Upgrade cancelled... because New Kit ..and 'orders' on it's way? Or would 'upgrade' have been equally bad?
I reiterate...I am uninformed... but curious?
Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 13 June 2021, 02:53:03 PM
It's part of the British army tradition, the vehicles never work properly....
Or Boots...
... not that I have worn them! ;)
Once broke in my DMS were fine, I have worn them !
Back in the 1980s when they were thinking of MCV-80 (later to become Warrior IFV) some actually made the mistake of asking a squaddie what type of APC they wanted and he just pointed to a nearby Challenger....
As the Israelis have found by experience, and the British and Canadians latterly in WW2, the only viable APC is a tank hull. You can have all the fancy guns, bells, whistles, missiles and what-not as you like, or not, but a minimum pre-requisite is 16" of Chobham frontal armour behind an ERA layer.
Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 14 June 2021, 05:16:01 AM
Once broke in my DMS were fine, I have worn them !
I used to wear my second pair of Ammo boots in the field...
Whoops, will leave now. Thought this was about an Amsterdam football team.
RE Boots: I remember some press 'outrage' over 'leaky' boots in Falklands... then 'melting soles' in the Gulf. Whatever the kit, job done! :)
But just think about the Napoleonic Brit 'boots'... REALLY 'UNIFORM'... swap feet to equal out 'wear'! LOL! ;D
Tinnitus is a swine of a condition!
Hi
QuoteI have never been in any AFV, so curious about the experience of those who Have?
Well if Chieftain, Fox, FV432,and Ferret count (and a driving a Challenger 1 once at ATDU Bovington) then....smelly, bruising, very noisy (headache inducing), dirty, wet in bad weather, etc. but you do get used to it and learn how to make yourself as comfortable as possible. The drivers seat in Chieftain was known for being a good place to sleep.
That said, if you asked me if I would swap for an infantryman in the back of an FV432 then it would be 'no way', we lived a life of luxury compared.
Cheers Paul - ex AJAX, :) 2RTR.
It would be an interesting survey
"what is the most comfortable AFV in the world?" ...
The answer is easy - NONE
Quote from: Big Insect on 14 June 2021, 02:46:02 PM
It would be an interesting survey
"what is the most comfortable AFV in the world?" ...
I'd put money on the Merkava.
Very good chance that the designer's kids will be riding / driving it.
Front engine and plenty of room (2 spare seats) inside.
Interesting - a sort of MBT/APC hybrid - was/is it successful in combat
Sound like it might be good for fighting in a BUA - MBT with onboard infantry protection - but in a fire-fight against T62/T72s etc?
I also suppose it depends on your definition of 'comfort' e.g.
1). not being asphyxiated or poisoned by the external environment
2). being reasonably capable of fighting upon arrival at destination
3). surviving a reasonable hit from enemy munitions (I think a direct strike by main armament of an enemy MBT or top calibre ATGW might be a tad tricky) but good protection over anything but a direct hit or close miss by artillery might be a good idea.
4). ... what else?
From the sound of it, the Merkava is NOT an APC. it is a Tank which can carry 6 well protected troops who can deploy to give the vehicle local protection against RPGs etc... while It covers APCs with infantry moving up. WW2 Soviet 'Tank Riders' Under Armour! A very 'Isreali' idea! BUT, I'm not an Israeli, so not sure if this is actually how they use it. Later models have enhanced 'crew vision', anyway!
Tank to Tank... probably pretty good... but the days of 'massed' Egyptian or Syrian Armour have been 'taken care of'!
Can't see British Army/MOD taking to the concept... but, 'Owt's better than Nowt'
Whilst it can take 6 infantry the rear compartment in the Merkava is normally used for ammunition.
Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 15 June 2021, 07:08:21 AM
Whilst it can take 6 infantry the rear compartment in the Merkava is normally used for ammunition.
Never underestimate the value of rapid reconfiguration for different missions.
Need to evac a patrol who are holed up in a basement, clear out the 120mm rounds fomr the rear, stick with what you have in the autoloader, and you're rolling.
Meanwhile the rest of the world is looking for the big spanner to configure their appropriate mission pod.
I had a quick browse of the Merkava variants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer)
QuoteThey are more heavily armored than the Merkava IV tanks. According to the IDF, the Namer is the most heavily armored vehicle in the world of any type
(With a pinch of Dead Sea salt (cos Wikipedia)).
Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 15 June 2021, 07:08:21 AM
Whilst it can take 6 infantry the rear compartment in the Merkava is normally used for ammunition.
The gun has surprisingly good elevation. As Monsier le. Frog says, the back was mostly intended as easy ammo storage > transfer & restock so they could be parked on the Golan Height and shell the crap out of Syria. Counterfire would be limited in effect as theyd not only be in prepared positions but also much more heavily armoured than a conventional SPG. And able to fight Syrian tanks immediately if the Syrians got fed up with constantly having their days & nights ruined by 105mm HE!