Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kev2go

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,536 profile views
  1. Yea as did earlier leopards. But that's the idea. Mechanical ballistic computer and optical rangefinder for an earlier era.
  2. From what I've read most aps purpose is stricktly in ration to ground basedAnt itank Top attack missiles like the javelin etc? I've always wondered if aps would also have any affect in stopping or at least partially degrading guided muntions fired from fixed wing aircraft like agm65 maverick which travels los, or against a laser guided bomb ( which would come from "top down")
  3. No that cannot be seriously considered a prototype. It's late 2019 not 2015 anymore. It even has an official designation. It's just finishing up finalized testing of what otherwise may as be representative of a finalized product something ready for larger scale production and army use. Considering that additional 100 t14s are to be produced and first of which are going to be entering army hands by 2020 ( ie within 1 year with) based on motions already put into play, then is not what you can seriously call a prototype. There is fine line between prototype and a final product.
  4. A prototype by definition "is an early sample, model, or release of a product built to test a concept or process or to act as a thing to be replicated or learned from" In this case within context "Concept" vehicles that do no represent a completed version or a production standard, are used for general showcasing or for testing out preliminary technologies. or functions, or expanding upon them to which the reach certain requirements, that would be acceptable what is envisioned of a production level vehicle. Vehicles that are actually representative of what would be classified as a "prototype" would be TTB, T80UM2 "black eagle" , or Chrysler XM1. ETC, So The T14 can not be consider a protype or not even really for the BTR82A . T14 is simply just a low rate production vehicle now in service. They simply have not reached mass production that was initially stated, in part due to lack of funding. In conclusion Its its understandable if you haven't modeled interiors them due to lack of accessible information, but please don't miscategorize or misrepresent these as just " prototypes"
  5. and those under that category would be ( besides implied T15)?
  6. just to clarify, is the T15 presented in that video just an AI vehicle or will we have a crewable one?
  7. When it comes to aviation the fighter mafia also had this view. They lost any remaining credibility after the gulf war. They advocated for simplicity and cheap mass production over high tech and quality. There is merit to cost effectiveness but not if it sacrifices too much capability or result in outright obselete equipment. They said high tech platforms would fail the test of combat . They didnt.
  8. but maybe these soldier were graduates of Storm-trooper academy
  9. Kev2go


    Ah see? Now this is the sort of response that would have been appropriate without all the unessary drama. and shows there is indeed los thickness increase and not just a nera revision with different layers or materials.
  10. Kev2go


    M1a2 sep v2 or m1a2c has been in development for how long already? M1a2 sep v2 or m1a2c has been in development for Yet your entire response is that of a whiny little 6 year old child....... Yes it can but not as 3ffective within aforemention former los limitations as apposed to increasing thicker los turret or going leopard route and having the bolted on armor. atop main turret This is misleading M1e1 was being tested even before m1ip was produced. Until m1 with 120mm cannon was ready it was chosen to have m1ip produced as interim Even Your own history of american tanks thread yourself determined at the end of the day m1a1 was still using Burlington 2. Same armor as preceding m1ip. "What does have to do with the price of fish? This thread is about m1a2c . My prior question never had anything to do with the m1a1 or other games? Seriously damien try responding without being a condescending turd for once. And address the points with a rational thought and proofs not with a mental rant and condescending ad hominum tones. Yes a totally uncalled for one. I think you really need to see a mental health care professional to deal with your anger issues.
  11. Kev2go


    lots of interesting and needed upgrades, although im scratching my head that M1A2C wont have newer flir, it will only come with M1A2D another few years down the line and only 3rd generation FLIR at that, when there is already 4th Generation Flir technology. I am also sceptical about how much the armor can really be improved without increasing LOS thickness of the turret. There are only so many times you can revise NERA with DU inserts within the current existing Turret Length and expect any significant results. There will simply have to be noticeable LOS increase in turret for it to believable for "significant" armor improvements.
  12. the Idea to upgrade leopard 2 turret armor with the introduction since the 2a5 was to basically weld on Applique armor onto base 2a4 turret. They didnt need to keep revising armor layouts within the current existing LOS limitations of that turret. Even if Base turret designs are argued better, There are limitations within the current turret config going so many years forward Either M1 and Challenger 2 will need a new longer turret with newer variations ( more los thickness will mean more NERA layers will be possible) however within the current Chassis i don't think it may viable therefore will need to go the Leopard 2a5+ route and install applique armor atop based Turret armor to meaningfully improve its armor but this may interfere with the ability of the driver to get out. hatch.
  13. Should have just bought the leopard 2 from the get go https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/challenger-2-the-wrong-tank-for-the-british-army/
  • Create New...