Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 01/23/2018 in all areas

  1. 5 points
  2. 5 points
    Priory_of_Sion

    General AFV Thread

    I'm anxiously waiting for the Turkey's K2-derived Altay to have all these teething problems which will be denied with as much vigor as the Indians defend the Arjun.
  3. 5 points
  4. 5 points
    Sure. You can get the first book as a pdf here. The General Board reports are available here; Tank Gunnery is number 53.
  5. 5 points
  6. 4 points
    TokyoMorose

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    It's a HRG. Hemispherical Resonator Gyroscope - it would be a major accomplishment of Russian industry if they have actually put these into mass production. Only two firms on the planet so far make them. (Also, first actual post of a longtime lurker!)
  7. 4 points
    Collimatrix

    General AFV Thread

    It depends exactly how and when the HE round explodes. If the HE rounds are exploding overhead and throwing shell fragments, the Western paper-tanks should be safe. In fact, even the aluminum-armored M113 was safe against this sort of threat. HE round fragments have good initial velocity, but very poor sectional density and aerodynamics, so they are crummy armor penetrators. The invention of proximity fuses at the end of WWII meant that it got a lot easier to have large-caliber HE shells explode before they hit the ground. The proximity fuse detected the ground and triggered the shell some distance before it hit the ground. This meant that the fragments spread from a higher level above the ground and chewed up more area around the shell strike, which is very good for pulverizing infantry. I'm not sure when the Soviets got proximity fuses, but I doubt they were too far behind the USA. If the HE rounds are exploding on contact with the armor of the vehicle, the armor needs to withstand not just the impact of the fragments but also the blast overpressure wave from the explosion. Here again I would guess that the Western tanks are safe, since 30mm would be considered quite thick for belly armor against mines. That said, there is a difference in the sort of steel that is ideal for armor against armor-piercing shells and armor that is good for dealing with blast overpressure. Armor against armor-piercing shells is ideally rather hard but a bit brittle, armor against blast overpressure is ideally tough but a bit soft (toughness and hardness are always a trade-off in steel). If the HE round in question is an APHE round that has some degree of structural integrity and is fused to explode a few fractions of a second after hitting something, I think the Leo 1 is screwed. Regular HE rounds don't really overmatch thin armor well, since overmatch essentially involves the shell bending it's flight trajectory abruptly after hitting something hard. Regular HE shells have enough of a shell wall to generate fragments, and they're not really well-suited for such extreme maneuvers. But semi-AP HE projectiles have enough of an armor-piercing body, and usually have delayed-action fuses such that they could probably poke right through. So as long as those 76mm guns have APHE, AP or they could pose a threat from the side. Regular HE, especially with a contact or proximity fuse will probably not work well. That said, there was also a HEAT round for the 76mm field gun, the UBP-344A. I haven't been able to find performance, but it could be that those were a threat from the front.
  8. 4 points
    2. The Nature of Terror Attacks and Mass Shootings It is rightfully concerning that so many attacks have occurred in recent years, often in quick succession and with significant death tolls. To understand why they happen, we need to identify two nested categories. One, is what I will call "Domestic Attacks" (DAs), which encompasses any deliberate action taken with any tools or weapons, which intentionally causes mass death in one or multiple simultaneous or sequential events. For this category, the Nice truck attack would qualify, as would the Florida shooting, as would 9/11. However, serial killings would not qualify, nor would domestic homicides, nor would all of Al Qaeda's planned attacks count as one event, even though they were planned by the same group. Nested within this is a category I call "Rampage Shootings". This refers specifically to a deliberate, mostly indiscriminate (i.e., not targeted, like an assassination) attack which specifically uses a firearm to cause casualties, although other tools or weapons may also be used. However, the firearm or firearms must be the primary instrument of death. This would include the Florida shooting, the Pulse nightclub shooting, the Charlie Hebdo attacks, but not the 2008 Mumbai bombings, as those were a broader planned attack using explosives as well as firearms. One thing we must remember is that the broad spectrum of DAs occur all over the world, which indicates that simply restricting guns will not necessarily reduce death. The argument "a gun will kill much better than a knife" fails to account for the intense creativity and determination of these attackers, who pick their targets very carefully to maximize damage with the tools they have at hand. Bombs (which are illegal, but which can be constructed easily by any reasonably intelligent teen with readily available materials), vehicles, fuel, fire, etc. are all widely available methods for conducting attacks like these. Morbid an exercise as it is, "wargaming" DAs considerably clarifies and highlights the tools which can be used by attackers to cause mass death. Restricting material availability through bans may be effective at reducing the incidence rate of one such attack, but it cannot prevent all types of DAs, as there are simply too many ways to cause death on a mass scale, if the target is chosen properly. RSes, however, are a slightly different animal. From what I've studied, it seems evident that each domestic RS in the United States is essentially a copycat crime, specifically copying the 1999 Columbine shooting, or a shooting that itself was a copy of that shooting. However, the Columbine shooting is widely misunderstood. It was not intended to be a classic "school shooting" as we are familiar with today, but rather a coordinated attack much closer to the Oklahoma City bombings or the later 2008 Mumbai bombings. Harris and Klebold were not simply frustrated teens taking out their rage, but seriously disturbed individuals plagued by megalomania, god complices, and other problems, who intended to cause massive cultural change with their actions. Their plan called for not only shooting, but the detonation of explosive devices (which failed), and car bombs which would kill rescue workers. They aimed for a death toll close to 1000, and hoped their actions would shock the country into a cultural shift. In this way, Columbine itself, though it provided the mold, was actually much closer to a classic terror attack in motive and (attempted) execution. It is conspicuous, then, that almost every subsequent RS killer has not copied Harris and Klebold's actual mission, but only the fictitious version of their story which was created by and told through the media. Rampage shooters fantasize endlessly about their attacks, but rarely plan them well, and go in with little more than rage and a gun to assist them in conducting their murder. And most times, they see themselves as kindred spirits to the Harris and Klebolds of NBC, ABC, and CBS - people who never actually existed. (A major exception to this was the Vegas shooter, who planned his attack extremely well, was older, and had motives we are still trying to untangle). So what does this tell us? Well, two things: 1. You cannot stop every attack. We hear things like "we must prevent this from ever happening again". Nope, sorry. It will happen again. Maybe not exactly the same way, but for the same reasons, or different ones. It would be impossible to stop all future DAs from happening, even with a system that was brutally oppressive and tyrannical. We know this because DAs happen all the time even in brutal, tyrannical regimes. 2. Rampage shootings are "memes". These are ideas planted inside the heads of their perpetrators long before they ever decide to conduct such attacks. Columbine occurred in 1999, the year Nikolas Cruz was born. He probably grew up hearing about school shootings, and that that's what disturbed, troubled kids do. And he's enough of a psychopath to actually do it. Preventing these ideas from soaking into the culture of society even more will be difficult, especially since the phenomenon does not seem to be slowing down. TBC
  9. 4 points
    OK, so there are really a few issues we need to tackle here. I'll try to make this brief, so please look into these subjects yourself for additional info. I am trying to keep it to 1-2 paragraphs per issue. 1. Gun Law in the USA The United States is a totally unique country in that it has a right to bear arms which is uninfringeable, that is to say, guaranteed as part of the compact that allows the country to exist, and which cannot be removed or eroded without Constitutional Amendment. Two other countries, Guatemala and Mexico, also have constitutional rights to bear arms, but these are each much less broad and absolute than the Second Amendment in the US. Many students of Constitutional scholarship have argued that the Second Amendment in fact guarantees a right to keep and bear arms with no restrictions whatsoever, although this has never been supported in formal courts. However, in the United States there is some judicial recognition that the "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment do indeed mean for personal defense/martial purposes, and not just for hunting or sporting use. In this way, the United States is totally unique among the nations of the world. We must also take a quick moment to understand the organization of the US itself. The United States is a federalized republic, in effect 50 independent countries with their own governments, unified by a single Federal Government. While each state (and even county, city, etc) may have their own gun laws, we will only discuss gun laws at the Federal level. This will give you a general sense of gun laws in the US, as most places have few restrictions beyond Federal law. Also, the "Constitution" refers to a specific document in US law (rather than the whole body of US law), the US Constitution of 1787, which has been amended 27 times from 1791 to 1992. The first ten amendments (passed in 1791) are referred to as the "Bill of Rights", and collectively are thee model upon which virtually every other country's system of rights is based. The US Constitution is the oldest active constitution in the world. The Second Amendment in the US is regulated and restricted by three major Federal laws: The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, and the Firearm Owner's Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986. The National Firearms Act introduced the first substantial restrictions, which were applied to fully automatic weapons (called "machine guns" in US law, regardless of whether they meet the military criteria), short barreled weapons (rifles and shotguns), silencers/suppressors, and "destructive devices" (bombs, grenades, cannons, etc). The NFA established the NFA registry, whereby these weapons and items must be registered and a $200 tax paid for a citizen to manufacture, transfer, or own them. The Gun Control Act established the concept of "prohibited persons" (e.g., felons, those who have been adjudicated insane), as well as the current system of firearms transfer. The GCA's provisions created what is called the "Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) network", which is a system of licensees who are capable of transferring firearms to any private individual, regardless of whether that individual also possesses an FFL. Therefore, the way this works is that firearms purchased by private individuals must first go through an FFL, who will run a background check and have the purchaser fill out a Federal form (called a "Form 4473"), and, if this is approved by the FBI, the purchaser can take their gun and go home. Therefore, in the US, licenses are not granted for firearms ownership, but are granted to dealers authorizing them to transfer firearms in large scale to purchasers. A typical example of an FFL would be a gun store, but FFLs can exist without a storefront. For example, the FFL I use to buy firearms is just a guy who does some gunsmithing on the side. There are different kinds of FFLs which determine which kinds of weapons the license holder can deal in. In most states, it is perfectly legal for one individual to transfer a firearm to another individual without going through an FFL, this is called a "private transfer", and is encoded in law via the 1968 GCA. However, this cannot be a business or significant source of revenue for the seller, or else they need an FFL. Finally, the 1986 FOPA improved some of the provisions created in the 1968 GCA (for example, according to the GCA, if you were traveling with a weapon that was legal in your own state, but illegal in the state you went to or were passing through, you could be arrested in that state and tried - the FOPA repealed this), but also included a provision (snuck in at the last minute) called the Hughes' Amendment, which closed the NFA registry for machine guns. This means that no new machine guns can be registered as "fully transferable" weapons, and this has dramatically driven up the price of legal automatic weapons since 1986. TBC
  10. 4 points
    Test series of Koalitsiya
  11. 4 points
    "There is no evidence that any of the registration rolls were altered in any fashion, according to U.S. officials." Old story is old, they are just trying to revive it because they need to keep the "Russia rigged our election (therefore Trump is illegitimate)" narrative alive. With all this other news that is coming out about the key witness in the Uranium One scandal testifying before the Senate, the Clinton and Obama involvement with the fake dossier, etc, things are not looking good for a lot of people, including the media who helped perpetrate the Democrat lies. Time for a distraction piece!
  12. 4 points
  13. 4 points
    Two side boosters landed in unison, feed cut out on the centre core. Roadster is off to space
  14. 4 points
    SAIC and ST Kinetics' offer for the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program:
  15. 4 points
    Go fucking die already McCain.
  16. 4 points
    Collimatrix

    Bash the F-35 thred.

    Welcome to SH! I dig the username. The F-35 is more agile than the F-16, at least in some respects. We know, for instance, that the F-35 has at least double the AOA limit of the F-16, and airshow footage suggests that its roll rate is a little better as well. On the other hand, the F-16 probably beats the F-35 in sustained turn rate and transonic acceleration. Bottom line is that fighter agility has a lot of different parameters, and design choices that favor certain parameters of agility harm other parameters. A tailless delta will favor instantaneous turn rate and roll rate at the expense of sustained turn rate and cruise efficiency, for instance. Getting the best possible agility isn't just an issue of cost, it's a trade off with other performance parameters. We have a thread about these tradeoffs, at least in the context of WWII fighter design. My take on the F-35A's performance is: +Very good high AOA performance and AOA limit; comparable, possibly better than the super hornet based on leaked reports and soforth. +Very good instantaneous turn rate as a result of the excellent high AOA performance. +Very good roll rate as a result of wing planform and good software harmonization of the control surfaces. +Absolutely bonkers fuel capacity. The F-35A carries more fuel than a Tomcat. That's not relatively more fuel than a Tomcat, that's more gallons of fuel. +The advanced flight control software and good airflow at high AOA allow the F-35A to perform screwy new maneuvers like the J-hook. How useful this will be in actual combat is debatable. -Transonic acceleration doesn't sound so hot, although a fourth generation fighter would have to be carrying a very modest air to air load to actually best the F-35, since the F-35 is always clean. -Sustained turn performance doesn't sound so hot, but again, a fourth generation fighter would need a fairly modest load to actually exploit this. -Top speed is rather low, but top speed with heavy air to surface loads is probably unmatched (except maybe by the SU-57 or J-20). External stores are very draggy.
  17. 4 points
  18. 3 points
    While this is being portrayed as a purge of conservatives, all I see is dollar $igns. Force users to fork over important personal information, in this case phone numbers. Twitter will blandly assure users that they only need the numbers for "security purposes" whereupon at a later date they'll sell that information to the highest bidder. As with all free social media, the users aren't the customers, they're the product being sold. Once again, I'm glad that I've never joined Twatter.
  19. 3 points
  20. 3 points
  21. 3 points
  22. 3 points
    I would describe it more as fragmentation. Look at how contentious the 2008 Obama/Clinton primary was, and how contentious the 2016 Sanders/Clinton primary was. There's no glue holding the Democrats together anymore, and all attempts to re-establish a hierarchy have failed. This sort of Hobbesian all-for-themselves infighting really brings out the crazies. Crazies don't normally have a shot at getting power. When the Democrats were on their A-game, like in the Bill Clinton days, crazies were kept out of sight. But now the crazies smell blood in the water and think that now could be their time to shine. But it's just a symptom of the entire party fraying and coming apart. The Republicans were having this problem to a lesser degree, but they have learned fairly quickly that they must submit themselves to the golden-plated whims of Emperor Trump.
  23. 3 points
    SH_MM

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Most likely there was just dirt stuck in the barrel...
  24. 3 points
  25. 3 points
  26. 3 points
    Link to download for Tempest V pilot's manual; https://www.dropbox.com/s/d00qe9vl3sdkdxj/TempestV PilotNotes.pdf?dl=0 And an R-2800 maintenance manual, which is a bit more comprehensive; https://www.dropbox.com/s/y820691i8di5zwl/Pratt Whitney Maintenance Manual_ Double Wasp R-2800 CA Engines.pdf?dl=0 Also, if you can't handle some profanity, well, this might not be the best place for you.
  27. 3 points
    Collimatrix

    Oddballs

    Bombardier beetles, which are basically living Me-163s, survive predation by firing off their rockets inside of toads.
  28. 3 points
    Gun shield armor module of an Abrams.
  29. 3 points
    SH_MM

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    This is an extract from a British document from 1988. Apparently the British military believed that the "uparmoured Chieftain" has better frontal protection than a Leopard 2, while the Challenger 2 has inferior protection against KE than an uparmoured variant of the Abrams announced "recently" by 1988 standards. IMO the latter refers to the DU armor upgrade of the M1A1 HA. Interesstingly this is said to provide better protection only over a narrow frontal arc... does this mean that the Abrams' armor array does not provide full protection of the 60° frontal arc? At least other images also imply the that... The graphic above is from a Swedish document and might have been taken from an official M1 sales/info brochure, as Sweden tested the Abrams. Based on this, the "turret front" arc for the M1A2 covers the crew compartment only at angles of about 17-21° to each side of the centerline. As for the Leopard 2 and the Chieftain: Honestly I am quite confused. In 1988 the second generation armor package for the Leopard 2 was adopted (based on German marketing documents send to Sweden) - if that is true, the British assessment might still be based on an earlier Leopard 2 model with the original first generation armor package from 1979. That this would provide lower protection than the Challenger 1, Challenger 2 and M1A1 HA Abrams is quite easy to believe (weight 55.15 tons vs 61-62.5 tons). Apparently the document does not disclose what tank variant exactly is meant with the uparmored Chieftain and how armor protection was rated (disclosed figures, estimates, weighting for KE/CE protection, etc). I don't believe that they meant the Chieftain with Stillbrew armor, based on the fact that its protection against shaped charges seems to be extremly weak (no composite armor on the hull, except for a bit Stillbrew armor at the turret ring) and at best should have comparable protection at the turret (weight of both tanks is very similar, but the Chieftain's turret is made from inferior cast steel, that offers less protection per weight). Maybe the British military was still toying with the idea of upgrading Chieftain tanks? In the end they had concrete plans for upgunning the Chieftain with the L30 tank gun and adopting the Challenger 2's FCS, which were only canceled after the end of the Soviet Union. So it seems possible that the uparmored Chieftain statement is refering to a hypothetical armor upgrade that was not adopted in service. Maybe something similar to the original Chobham armor upgrade concept form the 1970s, the Chieftain Mark 5/2 or the Chieftain 900:
  30. 3 points
    https://imp-navigator.livejournal.com/702260.html @Khand-e @Akula_941
  31. 3 points
    Collimatrix

    Books About Tanks

    Just got my copy of Zaloga's T-64 book.
  32. 3 points
    This is just too funny not to share:
  33. 3 points
  34. 3 points
    Domus Acipenseris

    Bash the F-35 thred.

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19960000737 What does the board think of the document above? It's a 200 page 1995 NASA study on technologies and their impact on fighter agility. It seems to explain why the F-35 was not made more agile than the F-16. TLDR: Not cost effective.
  35. 3 points
  36. 3 points
    Falcon Heavy static fire happened
  37. 3 points
    LoooSeR

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    One of next Voennaya Priemka will be about Boomerang
  38. 3 points
  39. 2 points
  40. 2 points
    Lightweight torpedo propulsion concepts. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a079034.pdf
  41. 2 points
    He lived in the wrong timeline
  42. 2 points
    As we all know, if there was a Russian with compromising photos of Trump, @LoooSeR would have posted them here first.
  43. 2 points
    THE 76 - MM GUN M1A1 AND M1A2: AN ANALYSIS OF U.S. ANTI - TANK CAPABILITIES DURING WORLD WAR II
  44. 2 points
    Jeeps understands the temperament of the forum admin, as do I. We're fine with shit talking as long as you back your shit up. You obviously failed to read the forum guidelines on how to manage to fit in here. IE, provide documents and quality content without commentary at first and ease your way into posting until you have a handle on how this place operates. Coming in and arguing with long time posters who have first hand knowledge of the topic isn't the way to make friends. or even quality enemies.
  45. 2 points
    Sturgeon

    Forum Improvements and Changelog

    Added. just use the shortcut [spacecowboy]
  46. 2 points
    Hey everybody, remember when Trump said that he was being bugged, and everyone laughed at him?
  47. 2 points
    I finally watched this and hooooooly shit I would have smacked that interviewer. And that is probably what she was going for.
  48. 2 points
  49. 2 points
    Concurrent Technologies Corporation is collaborating with TARDEC to improve the manufacturing of the U.S. Army’s friction stir-welded HFBC prototype hulls for the Next Generation Combat Vehicle.
  50. 2 points
    Xoon

    The SH Ski/Snowboard Thread

    Since a ski on a yearly basis I guess I can post here. First I would add to your advice list: -Wear a helmet. -Use a balaclava or similar to cover your face when it is cold, you don't want to get frost bitten. -For the love of god and your kids, don't stand right below the top of a slope half way down the mountain, especially not in a line covering most of the slope. -Wear a back spine guard, unless you want to live dangerous and paralyzed, especially if you are new. -Do not do long windy turns while going downhill, it will wear out your legs faster and you are a pain in the ass to pass. -Wear a helmet. -Do not pile up in front of the lift at the top. -Do not force yourself in on others when they take a T-lift or bench if they are in a group. -Do not slam the harness of the bench in the head of the others. -Do not slam the harness of the bench in the head of the others. -Do not slam the harness of the bench in the head of the others. -Do not slam the harness of the bench in the head of the others. -Do not slam the harness of the bench in the head of the others. -Do not slam the harness of the bench in the head of the others. -Wear a helmet. -Do not cover up narrow passes. -Do not stand still right around the corner in the middle of the track. -If you are waiting, go of the track into the loose snow and wait there. -Do not buy hot chocolate at the cafe up at the top of the lift, unless you love your 6-8 dollar coca. -Wear a helmet. I use randonee skis, they are designed for back country skiing and climbing mountains, but they were leagues above my downhill skis, so I use them for both. They aren't as stiff, which makes the skis wobble at high speeds, but they are also way lighter, which is practical. Also I can run like a maniac in the boots. When I go downhill I prefer going fast, as fast as I can manage without crashing down the slope. I always try to break as little as possible. I do recommend the Swiss alps as they have much larger resorts than here in Norway, but also have a amazing amount of beginners than want to kill you. Here in Norway it is tradition to go skiing, a joke is that we are born with skis on our feet. This of course means that you will mostly meet experienced skiers in Norway, be it cross country or downhill. Though, cross country is not as common. Oh, and we don't have ratings, we only have child slopes, family slopes and then just different names for the slopes.
×