Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 07/18/2017 in all areas

  1. 8 points
  2. 8 points
    They let me in the tank restoration yard at Ft Benning earlier today
  3. 7 points
    This bit from SSC bears repeating: The KKK is really small. They could all stay in the same hotel with a bunch of free rooms left over. Or put another way: the entire membership of the KKK is less than the daily readership of this blog. If you Google “trump KKK”, you get 14.8 million results. I know that Google’s list of results numbers isn’t very accurate. Yet even if they’re inflating the numbers by 1000x, and there were only about 14,000 news articles about the supposed Trump-KKK connection this election, there are still two to three articles about a Trump-KKK connection for every single Klansman in the world. I don’t see any sign that there are other official white supremacy movements that are larger than the Klan, or even enough other small ones to substantially raise the estimate of people involved. David Duke called a big pan-white-supremacist meeting in New Orleans in 2005, and despite getting groups from across North America and Europe he was only able to muster 300 attendees (by comparison, NAACP conventions routinely get 10,000). My guess is that the number of organized white supremacists in the country is in the very low five digits. The internet acts as an extremely effective amplifier for crazy people. If you were to assume the internet to be representative, you would expect that the world population is about 15% furries, 25% Turks and Kurds arguing about who is more subhuman, 20% neo-Nazis, 40% thirsty bros and 0% women. The extreme right in the US has been emboldened by Trump's victory. A lot of other previously marginalized political positions have been emboldened as well. Trade protectionists, pro-settlement Israelis, climate change doubters, old-school DEA drug warriors who want to crack down on medicinal marijuana... and lots of others. The only thing these people have in common is that they were previously marginalized. Trump wasn't supposed to win. All the analysts failed miserably at their jobs, turning what would have been a stinging reprimand into an eschatological calamity for the political establishment. Now the world seems upside down, and a lot of people on the bottom are now feeling like it's their turn to get on top.
  4. 6 points

    Tanks guns and ammunition.

    I never even took the words "depleted", "spent" or "bleed energy" in my mouth. Maybe you should read carefully? Kobylkin also says this (in the same paper): Mickovic: Hazell: Hazell, again in a different publication: Kobylkin, again: Held: Eehhh... hello? Eroding a penetrator is a basic hydrodynamic interaction principle? Unsupported by any research? Fuck me sideways, hydrodynamic interaction between a penetrator and armour is where any decent researcher will start. If someone doesn't understand hydrodynamic interactions it's nearly impossible to understand the penetration mechanics behind APFSDS and HEAT. The penetration formula for a HEAT jet is basically the same fucking formula as the one used for hydrodynamic penetration: ^ HEAT jet penetration formula ^ Hydrodynamic penetration formula Both formulas are from Hazell's excellent book called "Armour; Materials, Design, and Theory". Hello again, are you even reading what you type? You're literally giving the answer to your own question: vectors Do you understand how those work? Evidently not. Hey here's a hint: THE JET IS MOVING TOO LIKE REALLY REALLY FAST Maybe you shouldn't base your rambling on a single source you apparently do not even have access to which is also fully focussed on figuring out a single aspect of HEAT vs ERA interaction. Shit, if you actually properly read the conclusion of the paper you linked you'd have noticed that it starts with "It is proposed that [...]". For some reason you read that as "IT ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY IS THIS". Since we're apparently going to sling journals and papers around, here's a thing for you to read (well, multiple things actually): Everything a fellow called Manfred Held has ever written on ERA, since he was one of the people who invented the fucking thing. But anyway, you just stay you and keep claiming that ERA works by magically interfering with the jet. You correctly said that an impact will create a larger crater than the diameter of the penetrator. Which means that if the plates aren't moving into the path of the jet, ERA/NERA will have no effect. As can be seen in the picture I've posted before: See? No effect on the penetrator what-so-ever. But guess what, if you angle the ERA/NERA so that the plates will actually intersect the jet, things happen! So no, ERA/NERA does not fucking work if you don't feed material into the jet.
  5. 6 points
  6. 5 points
  7. 5 points

    Tanks guns and ammunition.

    The bit I quoted from Kobylkin was directed at your question about why the FMP has a different effect than the BMP, not at whether or not feeding material into the jet lowers penetration. Anyway, yes, the main reason why ERA/NERA works is due to feeding material into the jet. Since a penetrator can only penetrate a finite amount of armour, you can lower the thickness of main armour it can penetrate by feeding material (armour) into its path. The faster a plate moves, the more material it can feed into the jet before the jet has passed the plate. A plate basically looks like this after the jet has gone through it: And the faster the plate goes, the longer Lslit will be. To be specific, it can be calculated with this formula: The jet will also pass through more material if the angle of the ERA/NERA is increased: And what happens when you increase the thickness of the FMP and BMP? (Note that the BMP in the FMP test is 8 mm thick while the FMP in the BMP test is 1 mm) Anyway, there's lots more I want to say, but I'm a bit ill at the moment so staring at journals and papers isn't the smartest thing to do, I'm already getting a headache and yet I only have a few journals open: I'll get back to this when I'm feeling better, I'm sorry for not being able to give a concise answer at the moment. Or maybe @Collimatrix can take over, he knows about as much as I do on this subject.
  8. 5 points

    Tanks guns and ammunition.

    The explosive compound in ERA (well, any military explosive compound) will only detonate when a certain pressure is reached. If the impact does not reach that pressure, the explosive will not detonate. As long as the pressure doesn't go above a certain threshold it doesn't matter what's hitting the explosive, it simply won't explode. I suppose there's a way to poke a hole through ERA without setting it off, but I haven't yet figured out how exactly. It is. If you look at various tests with actual ERA, you'll see that the jet isn't noticeably being yawed/deflected, no matter the ERA angle: You can however see that the higher the angle of the ERA compared to the jet, the more disturbed the jet is. This is simply because the ERA is capable of feeding more material into the jet, degrading it. Actually, here are a bunch of photos of a shaped charge jets versus NERA at different angles: And again, the more material is fed into the jet, the worse it becomes. However, ERA and NERA do actually deflect the jet, but only very slightly. I'm talking about ~50 m/s down for a 55 degree angle ERA sandwich. 50 m/s might sound a lot, until you realise that these jets move forward at a few thousand meters per second. So the downward velocity is negligible. The reason the forwards moving flyer plate caused more damage to the jet is because of... vectors, basically.. Or as Kobylkin and Dorokhov put it: Also, this is what the paper says about the pictures you linked: Here are the pictures in higher res by the way, for future use:
  9. 5 points
    Some, I didn't take a whole lot but here's what I got Some observations Most of the M4s were in rough shape besides one A3 and a Canadian Firefly. I didn't see the following that I thought would be there: T28/T95, T29, Tiger II, Su-100 I caught a glimpse inside the warehouse they restoration team works and could see some of the old Mark V tanks and I suspect the missing tanks are also deep within it as well. Many of the cold war era vehicles had tarps over them, so you couldn't fully see some of the things like the M8 Buford, Chieftain, Leopard, AMX-13, or M60A2 Starships. They had a couple of modern MRAPs there that dwarf everything but the WWII LVTs.
  10. 4 points
    Made in China.... Left - Right Back row: Shenyang J-11, Chengdu J-10, Shenyang J-8II, Shenyang J-8, Chengdu J-7, Shenyang J-6, Shenyang J-5 Front row: Xian JH-7A, Nanchang Q-5
  11. 4 points


    Armata IFV module http://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2017/08/15.html
  12. 4 points
    More Cobra King getting some attention and loading up for the future National Museum of the United States Army at Fort Belvoir. M74 I forgot to label the previous post. Tanks are T34 and T43.
  13. 4 points

    Aerospace Pictures and Art Thread

    Other Boeing's sky art. Sky "art" done by Piper PA-28R-201T Turbo Arrow III
  14. 4 points

    Israeli AFVs

    New images. Turret details: Clockwise from the top: 1) Commander's sight. 2) Dual missile launcher. 3) 4x Trophy radar. 4) 60mm mortar. 5) Gunner's sight. 6) 30-40mm cannon with dual feed, 400 bullets. 7) Smoke grenades. 8) Coaxial machine gun 7.62mm, 700 bullets. Illustration on the Eitan. Presentation had low res unfortunately:
  15. 4 points

    The Best of Craigslist

  16. 4 points

    Tanks guns and ammunition.

  17. 3 points
    Their banner headlines after the press conference.
  18. 3 points
    Finally found something that Photobucket didn't take a wrecking-ball to, courtesy of good old (but small) Picturetrail: M4A2 Sherman 'Cecilia', 1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Marine Tank Battalion. Tarawa, November 1943 (Airfix 1/76 with a lot of scratchwork & aftermarket extras) Captured T-26 in Nationalist service (1/72 Kit-Bash UM/SKIF/Mirage Hobby), other details long since forgotten.....Apologies for the yellowness of these two, they were taken a long time ago, before I had a booth (hence the tissue-paper backdrop).....I really should have drilled out that horn too!
  19. 3 points

    The former ACV-Puma

    The Armored Combat Vehicle Puma started as a privat-venture betwen Krauss-Maffei and Diehl in 1983. The two first prototypes were ready first in spring 1986 with a Kuka 20mm two men turret and second in autumn with a Diehl 120mm mortar turret. ACV-Puma was intented as an export armored vehicle of the 16-28 t class. By 1983 original concept, it was offered with two engine options (400/600hp) to cope with the level of armor protection asked. The running gear was a mixt of both Leopard-1 and 2 components : - Leo-1 : road wheels, track support rollers, torsion bars and even the driver's seat ; - Leo-2 : track adjuster, cooling system components and sproket hub. It was possible to run the engine outside of its compartment. In 1988, the concept was improved further : - the class range reached 38t ; - the engines offer was 440 or 750hp strong ; - the chassis was now available in two length (5/6 road wheels) and hight/low profil hull (20cm). The ACV-Puma was a contender at the Norwegian IFV programme from 1991 and the Turkish 1987 relaunched TIFV programme. Norway chose CV-90 and Turkey, the AIFV. (If anyone have information about how it was a serious contender, I'm interested) It was also evaluated by the Swiss army in 1991. I don't know if it took part to the Char de grenadiers 2000 programme. In 1983´s concept, the difference betwen the low profil hull and the 20cm higher hight profil hull was obtained by a "box shape vertical raised" rear compartment. With the 1988's design, the front slop is now different to achieve a better ballistic protection. When considering documentations of this period, it's important to note the mine/IED protection was not a priority like today. I'll post soon a scan showing general layout of the troop compartment. It's a Marder/BMP old fashion one with soldiers facing outside. Even if it was not a success at exportation, I think ACV-Puma must be known because of both : - the outdated combat beliefs of the 80's (still vigourous today) ; - and advanced proposal such as the differential hull length from the drawing board. I have a question : Does anyone known if a 6 road wheels chassis was ever built ?
  20. 3 points

    Bash the EM-2 Thread

    In general, the execrable L85 series of weapons is not related to the EM-2. Both rifles were bad, but they were bad for completely unrelated reasons. There is one thing, however, that the EM-2 did pass along to early prototypes of the L85. This was a pathological and uniquely British fear of flash hiders. Flash hiders are terribly useful things to have on the muzzle of a rifle. In addition to enormously reducing the visible flash at the end of the muzzle, they can also double as mounting points for rifle grenades and blank firing adapters. They help protect the crown of the barrel, and they can even save a barrel from bursting if someone slips and jams their muzzle into the dirt, as flash hiders are a wider internal diameter than the bore and have holes in them, which allows the propellant gas to flow harmlessly around the obstruction. That's a fairly long list of advantages for basically no disadvantages, so the majority of rifle designers have taken it for granted that their weapons will sport a threaded muzzle with some sort of flash hider, brake, compensator or what have you screwed on to the tip. In addition to the advantages above, screwed-on muzzle devices can also be easily replaced if someone invents a better one, or if someone slips, falls, and mashes the muzzle of their rifle into a concrete pad. To anyone designing military rifles it was very clear that they really ought to have threaded muzzles. Except the British. If you look carefully at this picture of the XL-64 prototype, you can see that there is no seam between the barrel and the flash hider. That's right; the flash hider is machined into the barrel itself. The completely irrational British hatred for threaded-on flash hiders began with the EM-2 program. The majority of EM-2s were never equipped with flash hiders, and it was generally accepted (e.g. during the American competitive trials) that it did not need one. The enormous 25 inch long barrel gave enough volume for the propellant gas to expand and cool that the EM-2's flash signature was naturally low. Other rifles of the period, not being so blessed, required threaded on flash hiders. Again, this wasn't at all a bad thing, but for some reason the British arms designers didn't see it that way and flipped the fuck out about the idea of flash hiders. This excerpt from a salty missive from then Labour MP Woodrow Wyatt sums up the British perspective: Total. Insanity. For the record, the shipping weight of a long FAL flash hider is 4 ounces, and an A2 flash hider is 2 ounces. Flash hiders are not attached and detached willy-nilly, getting them on and off requires a vice, a wrench and some elbow grease. But for some reason, the idea that flash hiders are heavy, detached pieces of gadgetry just waiting to get lost occurs several times in period British documents on the development of the EM-2. Having identified a completely imaginary problem, the engineers proceeded to come up with an adequate solution: And that is how the British machined-in flash hider came to be, until sanity (partially) re-asserted itself and the XL-70 was given a threaded muzzle.
  21. 3 points


    from otvaga forum thread on Kurgnaets ... .... Here is a rather fresh report from Kurganmash (07.08.2017): http://www.tplants.com/pressroom/releases/3683/ and more about Kurgnanets programm: http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=458749
  22. 3 points
    Here is a new one on my site. An interview with Cookie Sewell. https://tankandafvnews.com/2017/08/12/soviet-t-10-qa-with-stephen-cookie-sewell/
  23. 3 points

    Active Protection System (APS) for tanks

    I think there are multiple factors that need to be considered. Shtora and Sarab are effective nowadays, but only against older missile types. Why are these systems effective? Because there was enough time to analyze the existing missile systems, that was quite hard back in the Cold War. The Soviets with Shtora faced a much greater amount of competition, still the system appeared rather late (~1985) and failed to intercept the TOW and MILAN missiles during the Greek tests. So it seems rather questionable, that a 1970s tank (a tank "prior to the adoption of the Leopard 2") could make good use of a Shtora/Sarab system. One thing to consider: The majority of opposing ATGMs in the 1970s and even in the 1980s still were MCLOS missile systems, at least for the Warsaw Pact countries. The Soviet Army could afford all the new and fancy stuff, the other countries in the Warsaw Pact not so much. For example East-Germany received the Fagot ATGM in 1975, the Konkurs and Metis were delivered in 1983 and 1984, while the gun-launched Bastion ATGM was adopted in 1988 and the Shturm missile was adopted in 1989. Even then the Malyutka remained the most numerous missile, though apparently a number of them were upgraded to SACLOS systems. The SPG-9 and RPG-7 were considered to be the main tank killers though. The Soviet Union adopted Shtora, because they faced a very different opposition. West-Germany alone had something in the area of 3,000-4,000 SACLOS launchers (316 Jaguar 1, 165 Jaguar 2, 170 Wiesel with TOW, ~2,100 Marder with Milan, several hundred Fuchs and Wolf with Milan, 212 PAH-1 helicopters, + several infantry systems). I can understand that it's a bit sad that most modern vehicles don't have an APS, but even the Soviets had a reluctance when it came to adopting APS. No system is perfect, so when you don't have to invest lots of money into a system of potentially limited value, then you won't do it. Even before the Israelis used Blazer for the first time, there was an ERA package being tested on the Leopard 1, which provided protection against 105 mm APFSDS ammo. Just think about that, an armor that could have a Kontakt-5-like impact on tank and gun development a decade earlier! I think it comes down to NATO not having access to enough data on Soviet tanks and missiles. The existence of the T-64 was pretty much unknown during the 1970s, while info on the T-72 was extremely scarce... I have an old edition of Jane's, where the author assumed that the T-64 and T-72 were both the same tank (blaming different reporting names from UK and US for the two designations) and were fitted with either a 115 mm or 122 mm rifled gun, while not a single word about composite armor is mentioned... NATO believed that ATGMs could deal with all Soviet tanks and that the larger number and higher sophistication of NATO ATGM systems would mean that Soviet tanks were even less likely to survive. When it became clear that the Soviets had composite armor and had developed more modern missile systems, the NATO tanks all were upgraded. The US Army's M60 was meant to receive ERA, but after the M1 Abrams became widespread, it was considered cheaper to not buy it. The ERA package adopted on the M60A1 of the USMC (originally designed for the US Army) is btw. not Blazer, but made in France (it's called something like "ACA" or" AAC"). The AMX-30 received a version of the same ERA system to protect against ATGMs. The Leopard 1 was meant to receive composite armor, but that was canceled after the Soviet Union was gone.
  24. 3 points
  25. 3 points
    @Belesarius has some explaining to do.
  26. 3 points

    Tanks guns and ammunition.

    Unfortunately, Manfred Held passed away in 2011. Asking him is going to be a little tricky. Or are you perchance trying to tell me to kill myself?
  27. 3 points
  28. 3 points
  29. 3 points

    General Photo Thread

    A few images of the Wolin Poland festival I was just at. Me in the brass helmet, you can see in one image I was hit hard enough to break off the top decorative bit.
  30. 3 points

    North Korea's ICBMs and You

    http://imp-navigator.livejournal.com/636544.html Real names of Best Korean ICBMs and tactical missiles http://www.neams.ru/настоящее-имя/ Luna - "Hwaseong-1" (Mars-1) Luna-M - Hwaseong-3 (Mars-3) SCUD-B - Hwaseong-5 (Mars-5) SCUD-C - Hwaseon-6 (Mars-6) "Nodon" (sometimes referred to as SCUD-D and Nodon-A) - "Hwaseong-7" (Mars-7) SCUD-ER - "Hwaseong-9" (Mars-9) KN-02 - Hwaseong-11 (Mars-11) P.S. For the sake of completeness, I will add the well-known official names of new missiles The rocket known in the west as "Musudan" is "Hwaseong-10" The new liquid BRSD - "Hwaseon-12" New liquid ICBM - "Hwaseon-14" Solid-fueled - "Pukykson-1" Solid-fueled ground-based - "Pukykson-2"
  31. 3 points

    Tanks guns and ammunition.

    APFSDS round used by the Type-10, google translate didn´t get me far but it seems it is similar to the DM33 or DM53. (from here: http://eaglet.skr.jp/MILITARY/TK-X.htm )
  32. 3 points
    I just heard bits of Trump's speech on this immigration bill. The amount of salt that will flow from the left is giving me wood.
  33. 3 points
    Well this is some bullshit right here
  34. 3 points

    Israeli AFVs

    New turret for the Namer with an integrated APS. Will provide updates as soon as I get home. This is Zuk time!
  35. 3 points

    Bash the EM-2 Thread

    Christ, what a question! I shall try and keep it short - there are both political and technical stories running parallel. It had potential, that much is clear. It was pursued over the EM-1 because it was slightly further along the development phase. Once Britain put all their efforts into the EM-2 the project was ambitious, more so than anything else at the time. Calibre was supposed to be selected by a panel of ballistics experts (Ideal Calibre Panel) but another working committee's suggestion of .280 was selected over the ICP's recommended .270 - a mistake. Not that .280 isn't a decent round for what it was intended to do. Politically this is all within the context of the emerging NATO alliance when they didn't know what they were aiming to achieve - standardisation proved to be impossible on all but some ammunition and some equipment. The US, for their own reasons (which are worth a book in themselves) disliked .280 and made concerted efforts (at least in British eyes) to put NATO powers off .280. Meanwhile in the UK the sitting Labour party use EM-2 as a flagship rearmament program, Chruchill's Conservative party against this and believe in preservation of the Anglo-US alliance at all costs. Once Labour lose next election (just 5 months after 'adoption' of EM-2 as the Rifle No.9) the Conservatives move to axe rifle program. Some evidence to suggest Churchill may have used it as a bargaining chip to secure a senior NATO naval command position for UK (this may have occurred during the Jan 52 meeting with Truman). The project stagnated due to US Ordnance unwillingness to compromise and UK political indecision. Add into this a lack of funding and a design which needed more refinement for general production and you have a complicated narrative. That's the summary view and I feel like I have probably left out a lot - its been 18 months since I worked on EM-2 properly, other projects have taken priority. But its a fascinating rifle and its development and downfall are equally interesting. I've not doubt Nate can fill some of the inevitable gaps!
  36. 3 points

    Bash the EM-2 Thread

    I'm going to take minor issue with the part of your thesis that characterizes US production as behind because it focused on forging the receivers. I say this, because the US had gotten extremely good at receiver forgings. You show an image of "M14" receiver production which is highly misleading, as it is in fact an image of the modern Smith Enterprises Inc machining process (from billet) of their M14 reproduction receivers. In reality, the M14 receive was formed from a very close forging. For comparison, here are some images of an original M1 forging: This receiver forging obviously required additional machining to turn it into the finished product, but you can see the level of extreme detail conveyed to the blank by the forge: Even the cutout for the rear sight mechanism, and the feed area are forged straight into the receiver. As well, the details on the underside of the receiver are already beginning to show, such as the hollow where the bolt reciprocates, and the area for the magazine. These forgings lost very little mass to become finished receivers, relative to what other forgings require (compare to the FAL receiver in your post above). In this way, they were extremely well production optimized. Of course, it's true that the receivers still took some considerable machine time to finish (though much less than other forgings), and there were correspondingly efforts to reduce the cost of the weapons. Although M14 manufacturer Harrington and Richardson decided to make their rifles exactly the same way they were making M1s, Winchester and TRW both innovated new ways of turning receiver forgings into complete receivers. Winchester produced M14 receivers automatically, turning forgings into receivers via early NC machines. TRW in particular is notable for their procedure of using high precision forgings which were then cut by enormous chain broaching machines to finished dimensions. Also, the rest of the M14 was production optimized as well. Looking back briefly at the Earle Harvey T25, which had been designed from the ground up to be producible in garages across the United States in the event of nuclear war (no, really), the M14 took a page out of this book as well and was extremely well-suited for distributed production, with almost all other parts besides the barrel, bolt, and receiver able to be cast in the small foundries which were common at the time. In fact, TRW produced only 11 parts for the M14, and outsourced all other parts production to other manufacturers, and were able to offer the M14 to the government at a considerable cost savings as a result ($79.45 per, compared to $95 per for H&R). H&R also subcontracted out most small parts of the rifle.
  37. 3 points
  38. 3 points
  39. 3 points

    Bash the J-20 thread.

  40. 3 points
  41. 3 points
    Great art! Dozen ot them are stored here - (UPI190) (behind the T-80s under the cover... of course no photos possible for now. https://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/190.html
  42. 3 points
    Kubinka testing ground (former 38 Research Institute) https://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/blog-post_32.html
  43. 3 points
  44. 2 points

    Scale Models Megathread

    Cheers, my newer stuff is a bit sharper and the photography is/was better.....Will get the booth out eventually but it's enormous so I need the spare room to be free. I used to be a Sci-Fi kit reviewer on Britmodeller so I had to buy a stupidly big booth just to fit the ludicrous boxes in (PS - As you may be able to tell, I'm not a huge fan of commercial Sci-Fi, so I wasn't really a natural fit for the reviewer post). If you are into modelling I can't recommend Britmodeller highly enough, despite the name it's a massively cosmopolitan forum and the modellers are really pretty good, check this out: Models built painted & photographed by Andy Moore.
  45. 2 points
  46. 2 points
  47. 2 points

    General AFV Thread

  48. 2 points

    Bash the F-35 thred.

  49. 2 points
  50. 2 points
    Type-59D (front) and a Type-89 SPG (back) disembarking from a landing craft