Jump to content
plainmilitary

CVR(T)2s in the wild

Recommended Posts

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

IMG_1768.jpg

 

IMG_0498.jpg

 

IMG_0259.jpg

 

IMG_0077.jpg

 

IMG_3561.jpg

 

Samson2

IMG_0010.jpg

 

IMG_0434.jpg

 

IMG_0020.jpg

 

IMG_0017-1.jpg

 

 

Spartan2

IMG_0220.jpg

 

IMG_0001.jpg

 

IMG_1736.jpg

 

IMG_0997.jpg

 

Many thanks for looking.

Tony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the info everyone :D...

..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:.??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...