plainmilitary Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 All taken on Salisbury Plain, wild and Media day. We new they were being built, didn't exspect to see them on Herrick 17 FTX.. Scimitar2 Samson2 Spartan2 Many thanks for looking. Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
private mw Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 great pics thanks for sharing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northrecce Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Top one is a Spartan with a sabre/fox/scimitar turret added. Looks a bit top heavy to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirhc Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Top one is a Spartan with a sabre/fox/scimitar turret added. Looks a bit top heavy to me. It's a new build hull with a Scimitar turret on it. The turret looked much better on the hull it was on originally though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbo Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Amazing that they are doing new builds 40 years after cvrt first entered service. A lot of changes though from all accounts - drivers seat and foot controls raised to reduce risk of injury for one. Seems to be mixed reception on the Scimitar 2 but must be a lot better survivability wise. Agree with Chris re the looks. Also heard the handbrakes were struggling due to the extra weight and were being swapped for stormer - easy retro fit but a lot more leverage apparently. My survivability would be significantly improved if I could just move the indicator switch...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlesnakeBob Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 showing ignorance but if you don't ask ....you don't get told etc.. i presume the weldmesh / chicken run style frames are to hopefully detonate anti tank /hand held rocket type weapons before they strike the main Armour?....how effective is it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plainmilitary Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 When coupled with the honeycombe armour it's very effective form APGs and small armes fire by all accounts, not to good with tree stumps and gate posts though. Tend to see quite a few vehicles driving around with bit missing or damaged....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienFTM Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 The gaps in the bar armour are deliberate. An RPG round either detonates away from the vehicle if the HEAT fuse strikes the armour, in which case the generated "plasma" blast is too far away to penetrate the vehicle itself, or more commonly the entire warhead catches between the bars, to be disposed of responsibly later when safe. Interesting to see H17 appear to be taking out CVR(T)2s: it means that LD took the last tranche of newly-refurbished CVR(T)s out first when they were new a few years ago (have to consult to remind me exactly when) and will be the last to use them when they hand over at the end of H16. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mash Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Have known a few Mastiffs to come through the main gates after a patrol with RPG's still in bar armour, crew only alerted by the guy on the gate.:wow: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tack9/12l Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 my regiment 9/12l had thease last year about half way through the tour op herrick 14 if that helps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbo Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 The gaps in the bar armour are deliberate. An RPG round either detonates away from the vehicle if the HEAT fuse strikes the armour, in which case the generated "plasma" blast is too far away to penetrate the vehicle itself, or more commonly the entire warhead catches between the bars, to be disposed of responsibly later when safe. Interesting to see H17 appear to be taking out CVR(T)2s: it means that LD took the last tranche of newly-refurbished CVR(T)s out first when they were new a few years ago (have to consult to remind me exactly when) and will be the last to use them when they hand over at the end of H16. I think the idea is also that if detonation does occur the 'jet' is disrupted because the warhead is deformed and therefore does not have its full penetrative power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlesnakeBob Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Many thanks for the info everyone ... ..Strange isn't it?......all these years after WW2 and we're still bolting extra stuff on the outside of a tank to 'beef up' the armour ...those old Shermans from back in WW2 with extra track links and railway sleepers and sandbags etc lashed to their hulls wouldn't look so out of place today in Afghanistan would they?? .....:-)....... ...and ...eeerrrr :-\........I have to wonder....how much has been spent on research since then :cool2:.?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guykay Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 How come the army is buying new cvrts whilst scrapping out the same or similar models ? Surely they could be upgraded to latest spec cheaper than new builds. Shouldn't complain though, at least it puts stuff on the market for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbo Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I think there have been problems with the hulls cracking and the aluminium armour delaminating on some of the older hulls. Probably wont make a difference to a restorer but you wouldnt want to go to war in one would you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienFTM Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I think there have been problems with the hulls cracking and the aluminium armour delaminating on some of the older hulls. Probably wont make a difference to a restorer but you wouldnt want to go to war in one would you? I have a vague recollection of a tale of a crew, possibly in 8RHA, 11 Armd Div, Normandy to the Baltic, discovering that their Priest self-propelled gun was in fact a prototype, constructed using mild steel and ought to have been nowhere near the business end of armoured warfare. Istr the crew were offered a replacement vehicle when the error was discovered, but politely refused to let go of "their" Priest. I could have dreamt it. Cannot be bothered to go away and check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.