Otokar reveils several new products (Incl 30ton IFV)

[LegionnairE]

@revojam those are infantry support guns which are highly unlikely to pierce through an MBT's armor. TD is a dead concept folks, back in the day they were armed with high caliber weapons which, at that time weren't available for the heaviest of tanks. I don't think you can build a tank destroyer concept today, without using a 155/52 howitzer gun. The picture revojam provided has a 105mm low-recoil as i've said, purely intended for infantry support, it can take out armed vehicles aswell but not necessarily tanks.

This was a real TD in 1945 when the standard tank gun of the Wermacht was 88mm. Jagdpanther II with 128mm gun:

Standard tank guns are 120mm now

 

[Deno]

Yea it's a 30-tonnes vehicle, some more armor plating around wouldn't hurt. But this:

can be installed on even lighter vehicles such as the cobra II.
I think they need to design a better pod for the cirit first.

These would be useful for light vehicles but for IFVs these looks too vulnerable. For both personal safety and vehicle survivability, Otokar needs to implant something similar to what Bradley IFVs are using.

@revojam those are infantry support guns which are highly unlikely to pierce through an MBT's armor. TD is a dead concept folks, back in the day they were armed with high caliber weapons which, at that time weren't available for the heaviest of tanks. I don't think you can build a tank destroyer concept today, without using a 155/52 howitzer gun. The picture revojam provided has a 105mm low-recoil as i've said, purely intended for infantry support, it can take out armed vehicles aswell but not necessarily tanks.

I fully agree with you on TD part and to be honest, they lacked the gun power of tanks but they are also slower than tanks which makes them obsolete. Even Bradleys couldn't keep up with MBTs in Gulf War because of their lack of mobility. Can you think what kind of logistical diseaster a gun platform like this would cause in a real war?

 

[Quasar]

eventually'' what we gonna have is an IFV in the same ''class'' with german puma, swedish CV 90 or israeli namer

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/turkey-defence/219409-fnss-new-ifv-turkey-2.html#ixzz2SFRLhNSi


TULPAR is just awesome now all we need is AKKOR and a modified mızrak with a twin ATM compartment.

 

[madmusti]

@<u><a href="http://www.defence.pk/forums/member.php?u=139617" target="_blank">revojam</a></u> those are infantry support guns which are highly unlikely to pierce through an MBT's armor. TD is a dead concept folks, back in the day they were armed with high caliber weapons which, at that time weren't available for the heaviest of tanks. I don't think you can build a tank destroyer concept today, without using a 155/52 howitzer gun. The picture revojam provided has a 105mm low-recoil as i've said, purely intended for infantry support, it can take out armed vehicles aswell but not necessarily tanks.

This was a real TD in 1945 when the standard tank gun of the Wermacht was 88mm. Jagdpanther II with 128mm gun:

Standard tank guns are 120mm now

No it wasn´t ,they have never made it ,the German 8,8 KwK was enough as a Tankdestroyer.

Jagdpanther II was never exist.

Only on Paper and if they will be Exist ,he will get the same Guns like Elefant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia from Ferdinand Porsche.

Jagdpanther II was only faster but less armoured.

In WW2 the Germans has use this with 128mm , (12,8-cm-PaK 44 L/55)

Jagdtiger

For Modern Combat we have this:

 

[Armstrong]

These would be useful for light vehicles but for IFVs these looks too vulnerable. For both personal safety and vehicle survivability, Otokar needs to implant something similar to what Bradley IFVs are using.

I fully agree with you on TD part and to be honest, they lacked the gun power of tanks but they are also slower than tanks which makes them obsolete. Even Bradleys couldn't keep up with MBTs in Gulf War because of their lack of mobility. Can you think what kind of logistical diseaster a gun platform like this would cause in a real war?

Call me a male chauvinist but I still can't come to grips with a girl being interested in & knowing so much about all this stuff !

 

[T-123456]

Call me a male chauvinist but I still can't come to grips with a girl being interested in & knowing so much about all this stuff !

The difference here is,
She is Turkish!

Oh please as if Miss Turkey knows a M16 from G3 !

You jealous by any chance,since we never see a Pakistani girl interested in Arms?

 

[LegionnairE]

@Deno

No it wasn´t ,they have never made it ,the German 8,8 KwK was enough as a Tankdestroyer.

Jagdpanther II was never exist.

Jagdtiger did exist but was produced in very low numbers, I just like the JPzV II design more. Look the point is, even though they stuck with 88mm diameter their TDs were always higher caliber. That was the case with USA too, because of the sherman's poor low-penetrating gun they had to adapt with TDs such as M10 Wolverine, M36 Jackson and M18 Hellcat they had all high caliber guns bigger than what Shermans had. Today the only available gun for such a vehicle is 155/52

I didn't say the jagdpanther II was produced, I've just said a TD has to carry a superior weapon than the tank has. There's no point in calling it a TD otherwise. Argue with the point I make instead of the example I use.

 

[BordoEnes]

The only reason why we would ever mount an 105mm low recoil barrel on the TULPAR is propably if the air force demands an air-dropable support vehicle, Something similair to M8 Buford. But as you know that concept is old and never gone trough. However Russia has an entire family dedicated to this called BMD.

 

[Deno]

The only reason why we would ever mount an 105mm low recoil barrel on the TULPAR is propably if the air force demands an air-dropable support vehicle, Something similair to M8 Buford. But as you know that concept is old and never gone trough.

That would be a reasonable need if we were in oversea operations in which we needed air deployment of armoured vehicles but we are not. Maybe they are going to built these vehicles for international markets, propably for UAE and KSA. Mystery solved.

No Offtopics Arms... >_> Oh, and thanks for the honorary Pakistani citizenship

 

[Armstrong]

You jealous by any chance,since we never see a Pakistani girl interested in Arms?

Did @Deno just delete my post !

Well she is an Honorary Pakistani !

 

[Inspector Spacetime]

The Cobra 2 in the first picture (car on the far left) looks different than the Cobra 2 in the second picture?
Unless the vehicle in the first picture isn't the Cobra 2.

 

[BordoEnes]

The Cobra 2 in the first picture (car on the far left) looks different than the Cobra 2 in the second picture?
Unless the vehicle in the first picture isn't the Cobra 2.

Thats a stretched Cobra version with 4 doors, Its been first shown at a paris exhibition. The second is the Cobra II as you can see its written down in the back.

 

[T-123456]

The Cobra 2 in the first picture (car on the far left) looks different than the Cobra 2 in the second picture?
Unless the vehicle in the first picture isn't the Cobra 2.

Arent those cobra I ?

 

[Armstrong]

So how much does that Mizrak turret cost & can it be custom mounted to a Type-59 (T-54) chassis ?

 

[LegionnairE]

@BordoEnes
Our paratroopers don't have the means to parachute a 30-tonnes armored vehicle into battlezone paratroopers are still stuck with C160 Transalls I don't think it's such a big deal bro, as long as the amphibious capabilities remain the same it's not a problem. Maybe we can strip-off some old 90mm guns from M48 junk and install them on these babies but I think 25mm bushmaster automatic guns preform just fine. @Inspector Spacetime
It's not Cobra II it's just a four-door version of traditional cobra.