Actually the doctrine throughout the BAOR days Centurion / Conqueror / Chieftain / Challenger 1 / Challenger 2 was primarily tank vs tank - not infantry support.

The doctrine was to deploy to prep-prepared positions covering killing zones and attempt to destroy Soviet tanks at a rate between 5-10:1.

To achieve this, the Commander is able to swivel his sighting and target designation cupola - independent of where the turret / main gun is pointing - and store future targets so that, as soon as the Gunner has fired at the current target, at the press of a button the turret rapidly traverses onto the next designated target. The requirement was for the main gun to be capable of destroying all then current MBTs at a range of 2,000 metres.

Infantry support was more of a thing post DESERT STORM / GRANBY to recently and probably switching back to tank vs tank (or equally important) in the design of Challenger 3.

All explained in this excellent video from experts at the UK Tank Museum.

On the one hand that's really good news, because the Gepards can be fed quickly with suitable ammo. On the other hand there is a bit of a smell to it. Rheinmetall is currently setting up a production of 35mm munitions. Seems Oerlikon got nervous...

For Russia that's bad news: If even the Suisse decide there will be no business to be made in the foreseeable future that is a devastating verdict even for the midterm prospects.
Seems all but Vlad have read the wiriting on the wall...

"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing". John Stuart Mills (1867) [1]

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle" Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770) E. Blackadder Burke [2]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". JFK (1961) JFK attributed it to Burke.

2023... "ve haf tanks, but you cannot use them. Ve don't want to upset our bilateral relations with the wonderful Mr Putin to which so many western politicians and oil companies have had their noses in the slops trough of".

There is only one response to a bully, and that is to stand firm and give them defined boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Our glorious leaders failed to do that in Crimea, 2014, and 24 Feb 22 was the foreseeable outcome. Whether Leopards, Le Clercs, Challengers or Abrams are used now or not, they will be used, unless Putin gets the message clear and plainly. As the west hasn't the fortitude to place boots on the ground, then perhaps the Estonian lead should be emulated, they are providing all of their 155s to assist Ukraine who has the need, and moral fortitude to stand up.

[1] 1867 March 16, Littell’s Living Age, [Inaugural Address at University of St. Andrews: 1867 February 1], Page 664, Number 1189, Fourth Series, Littell and Gay, Boston.

[2] 1770, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents by Edmund Burke, [Third edition], Page 106, Printed for J. Dodsley in Pall-Mall, London

The New York Times is reporting Abrams tanks will be sent to Ukraine:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01...-officials-say

Putin is a Judoka. He will throw his opponent, or his opponent will throw him.

If he is thrown, he will bow and accept defeat, go home and practice for the next round.

This is proper etiquette.

IF he understands Martial Arts the way he tells everyone he does.

And yet the current longest confirmed tank vs tank kill is 5,100m, by a Challenger 1 crew using an APFSDS from a rifled barrel.

How long would a rifled tank barrel hold up being fired endlessly, morning, noon and night, compared to a smoothbore?

Since been apparently beaten by a Ukrainian T64BV that doubled the distance.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidha...h=1d6030361c10

Indirect fire not sure if can be compared to direct fire. If indirect fire counts than some SPG has the record

Swiss have found no downside to the $$$ made and now want their share...

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....47e0f8414.jpeg
​​​​​​​

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....222043ff6.jpeg

I wonder if the T-14 has the same turret tossing system as earlier versions?

If they store all ammo in the turret next to the autoloader, yes.

except the turret is unmanned and the crew sit in the front.

Yes it does, based on the information available. They have tried to make it more survivable by placing the crew in the front of the hull in a separate crew compartment. Nice, but in case of any sort of malfunction someone has to jump out, climb to the turret and go in... Not something you'd probably like to do in the battlefield.

The T14, based on information available, is essentially another T72 with its autoloader setup. Except more unreliable. And most probably the rest of the technology really isn't anything ground breaking by any means either.

Iron Fist Light Decoupled - not sure if the Bradley’s for UKR will get it - might fall into Russian hands. But it would be a good combat test….

https://www.defensenews.com/land/202...ection-system/


But if the ammo is still stored there, without blow-out panels, the turret will still get thrown - and even in front the crew won’t survive the kinetic effect or the shock wave.

Only the ammo storage is relevant for turret tossing.

Having seen some of the sh*te they have sent to the front line, that is setting the bar exceptionally low.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2e9040fbfe.jpg

I thought Matt excelled himself in the Daily Telegraph today -- topical as ever!
PS for those ex-UK: tens of thousands of parcels are stuck in transit due to postal workers' strikes pre-Xmas, cyberattack on Royal Mail, sheer incompetence in certain delivery companies