Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/12/2018 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    Akula_941

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    OH YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW THE BLOODY SHITSTORM LOOKS LIKE IN ANOTHER SIDE OF THE OCEAN
  2. 3 points
    LoooSeR

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    TELL US MORE
  3. 2 points
    SH_MM

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    I've been wondering about the protection difference between the Swedish version and the German version. What I found very odd is the table on the last slide I originally posted, which list the Leopard 2 Improved with Vorsatzmodule of the generation "D-2" and internal armor of the generation "B". I think this might be a reference to which prototype was send to Sweden for tests. The original Leopard 2 Improved prototype was the Komponentenversuchsträger (Leopard 2 KVT; "component test bed"), which was based on the chassis number 20825 (the 825th tank made by Maschinenbau Kiel). Based on this number, it appears that the hull (and turret) were made as part of the 6th Leopard 2 batch (the second batch of 2A4 tanks) made between January of 1988 and May of 1989. The previous batch (batch number 5, first batch of Leopard 2A4 tanks) was produced between December of 1985 and March of 1987, while the last batch of Leopard 2A3 tanks ended with the chassis number 20644 for MaK. Given that 45% of all German Leopard 2s were made by MaK and the 5th batch consisted of 370 tanks; therefore I assume that the 5th batch ended with the chassis number 20810 or 20811. The first 96 tanks of the sixth batch were made with the old armor, therefore the chassis number 20825 would fall into that category. The later Leopard 2 Improved prototypes (Truppenversuchsmuster Maximum and Truppenversuchsmuster Minimum, "troops trial model maximum/minimum") were based on the chassis numbers 11156 (TVM max) and 11157, which were made by Krauss-Maffei and belonged to the 8th batch (the last batch of tanks for the German Army) made between January of 1991 and March of 1992. This would mean that original KVT (later renamed IVT) used 1st generation composite armor (also confirming that the "B" in the table stands for the original composite armor), while the TVM tanks had 3rd generation armor (believed to be "D-1", "D-2" or "D-3" in the table). The actual Leopard 2A5 and Leopard 2A6 tanks were made using hulls from the 6th, 7th and 8th batches - so all German tanks with the second and the third generation of composite armor + 22 tanks with the original hull armor package. If the hull armor wasn't altered (although I assume it was), this would mean that there would be some tanks with worse/better hull armor than the others... The turrets were all taken from the 1st batch, so they probably replaced the armor inserts and upgraded them to "C" or "D-1/2/3" level. According to the book by Scheibert, the armor modules in the turret were replaced. According to one issue of the Waffen-Arsenal magazine ("Leopard 2 A5 - Euro-Leopard 2" by Michael Scheibert), the Leopard 2 tested in Sweden was either a KVT/TVM mix or they tested both variants (not written clear enough for me to understand what was the case). In theory this might mean, that the higher level of protection of the Swedish variant is just the result of using "C" or "D-1/2/3" level armor inserts with the same Vorsatzmodul. Yes, that's true. However I've never seen a cast turret with composite armor in the gun mask and Soviet gun masks tended to be thinner. Also the composite filler of the turret always ends a few centimetres away from the gun mount.
  4. 2 points
    SH_MM

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    Wow,. thank you @skylancer-3441. Seems like R. Lindström (accidentally?) uploaded some (formerly?) claissified documents in his original presentation. That confirms that the diagram is real, @Militarysta M1A2 turret was also meant to receive add-on armor... Leclerc armor was very poor: Leopard 2 armor evolution: Turret front of a Leopard 2A5 is about 700-800 mm vs KE, 1,600 to 1,800 mm vs HEAT. The Swedish Strv 122 has a different armor package, providing higher protection levels; the Leopard 2 (flat turret) has 300 - 500 mm vs KE protection, but about 50% of the surface is protected against APFSDS ammo with less than 400 mm penetration into steel only. Note the last slide: The German prototype offered to Sweden (and maybe also the German tanks) have Pakete (integrated armor pacakges) of the technology generation "B", while the Vors. Modul (Vorsatzmodul, add-on module in front of the armor) has the technology generation "D-2". I suppose Sweden uses a more modern integrated armor pacakge (C, D-1, D-2, D-3) and the same Vorsatzmodul. The German wikipedia (without citing a reference) claims that the German Leopard 2 uses "C technology" armor (so "Pakete"). Maybe that's based on Spielberger's book, I need to take a look at it in the future. The graph in the center of the last slide shows five colors... my guess (based on the graphs at the left and the right: purple - Leopard 2 from 1979, armor package of the "b" generation (fits the graph on the left); red - Leopard 2 with enhance armor package (1987), which might be "C" generation; yellow - Leopard 2 with enhanced armor package (1992), which might be "D-1" generation; blue - Leopard 2 with armor of the "D-2" generation or armor of the "B" generation with Vorsatzmodul of the "D-2" generation green - Leopard 2 with armor as adopted by Sweden - so probably "C" or "D-1/2/3" base armor with Vorsatzmodul of "D-2" generation This would lead to the following protection estimates (please note that it says frontal arc - +30° to -30°, not direct from front): Leopard 2 - 2A4 (from 1979): 300 mm protection vs KE at 60% of the surface, 400 mm protection vs KE at 25% of the surface Leopard 2A4 (from 1987): 300 mm protection vs KE at 65% of the surface, 400 mm protection vs KE at 55% of the surface, 500 mm protection vs KE at 30% of the surface Leopard 2A4 (from 1992): 350 mm protection vs KE at 93% of the surface, 400 mm protection vs KE at 87% of the surface, 525 mm vs KE at 50% of the surface and 620 mm vs KE at 42% of the surface Leopard 2A5 (prototype?): 620 mm protection vs KE at 65% of the surface, 700 mm protection vs KE at 40% of the surface Leopard 2A5 (production model? Swedish model?): 700 mm protection vs KE at 75% of the surface That also confirms that the older Leopard 2 models didn't feature the enhanced side armor found on newer production variants: Btw: "gor" seems to be pentrated, "ub" means to be not penetrated in one of the earlier tables.
  5. 2 points
    It's interesting. Presentation (which contains this page) which available now on ontres.se is 110 pages long about 2-and-a-half years ago i've downloaded on my computer presentation which was 119 pages long. Apparently it's exactly the same as one available now online, except for some pages on tank protection https://cloud.mail.ru/public/FVLe/iUZw87trH (according to Chrome history file, which i've backed up in dec.2015 and still have now, this pdf was without a doubt downloaded from ontres.se https://i.imgur.com/ysAJQgr.png)
  6. 2 points
  7. 1 point
    Andrei_bt

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    Suppose some games likle SB PRO need a serious correction of armor models)))
  8. 1 point
    Every single ton of carrier you put into a single hull gives you more capacity than the last one. It takes a lot of tonnage to be able to launch even one plane, let alone launch, maintain and arm one plane. If you compare the air wings of light carriers to supercarriers, the latter have a lot more air wing per ton because things like maintenance, seakeeping, launch facilities and deck space are amortized over more planes. Big missile batteries end up on their own platforms with their own superstructure optimized for radar and so on for very good reasons because the USN can afford the tonnage to make their carriers part of a task force. Lastly, VLS cells are a non-trivial cut in the flight deck, which is part of the strength deck and has to have four long cuts in it for catapults, as well as the cuts in the ship girder for the hangar exits onto the elevators. The cuts that already exist are only possible due to classified structural shenanigans of the deep wizardry sort. The Charles de Gaulle has to have a weak spot in her deck because the reactor needs refueling more frequently. As a result, when their new short catapult designs turned out to only work with literally neck-breaking accelerations, they had to cut down to two cats, and the island is way the hell forward, which sucks because that's prime real estate for spotting planes before launch. The Zumwalts are the first missile focused ships to not need the VLS cut to be in prime centerline real estate, and the way they talk about that development indicates that it's bigger than you'd think.
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
    Volkswagen

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    STILL TOP 1 INDIAN WEAPON THAT MAKES THEIR ENEMIES TREMBLE WITH FEAR
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    I'm 98% certain this is a fake account at a glance but Maxine Waters is a literal drooling retard so idk.
  13. 1 point
    Ramlaen

    The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread

    This seems relevant to the current discussion.
  14. 1 point
    Thanks. I pounded it out in 15 -20 minutes, deadline writing style, and all I can do is look at the mistakes now that I've scanned it with my editor eye. Sigh... Back on subject, it really is fascinating to see how much Trump has changed the landscape of politics in such a short time. Since George Bush the Elder became President, the preponderance of legitimate Republican thought was to lower all trade barriers on goods coming into the country and let the "Free market" and "muh capitalism" take over. Anyone who thought different was a wild-eyed heretic or - worse - a Pat Buchanan supporter. This was a rejection of Republican doctrine which had been in place since the founding of the party in 1856. But 24 years of backing by the conservative intelligentsia in various magazines, talk radio shows, think tanks, and Fox News and later websites and blogs had erased any mention of tariffs and protectionism from the GOP plank. This was baked into various state and national party platforms over that same time. I remember being lectured to 8 or 9 years ago by a former Washington State Republican Party Chairman about how foolish I was to worry about trade deficits and exporting factories and manufacturing jobs to China and how much it helped the state economy being the geographical beneficiary of the make work of off-loading and loading Chinese cargo ships at the Port of Seattle. (Curiously, the guy sold out a couple years ago and is making a six figure salary as the lobbyist for one of the most liberal public sector unions in the country SEIU and various health insurance companies. Scum of the earth. I digress.) It's amazing how thin that veneer was and how acceptable the notion of protectionism is in the GOP. Yes, we know all polls are crap other than painting a rough thumbnail sketch. But here is a Politico poll showing that of 2,000 registered voters, 40 percent support Trump's proposal to place tariffs on steel and aluminum. 35 opposed. Breaking down the numbers, 65 percent of Republicans were in favor. 24 percent of Democrats. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/07/poll-trump-steel-aluminum-tariff-444104 Now a Quinnipac poll has different results but it still has the preponderance of Republicans backing the tariffs. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2525 Now obviously there is still a lot of push-back by leaders in the party and elected officials and various lobbying groups and organizations like the Chamber of Commerce who are going to continue to fight the President on this because how DARE middle and working class workers think that they deserve a living wage. But if the argument is between a bunch of bean counters muttering about the Ricardian model of economics versus - hey, LOOK! - a new factory has opened in Ohio and a new steel mill in Pennsylvania and other important swing states, I can tell you which one is the sounder political move. Edit: And again, this is VERY much a political move on the part of Trump. Look at the swing states on the map. Wisconsin, michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio. These are Rust Belt states. He is crafting an Electoral College majority that - if he's successful - will win him 2020.
  15. 1 point
    TokyoMorose

    General AFV Thread

    Now, I am pretty sure this is the right thread - but @Waffentrager has managed to put this diagram of the various material sections of the Type 90 together. The blanked-out APFSDS in the RED description is JM-33, which (as I am sure most everyone here knows) is their variant of the DM-33.
  16. 1 point
    SH_MM

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    Are you sure? Is it confirmed to be fake? This is from a presentation by R. Lindström, who works/worked for the Swedish FMV: Except for the values, everything is there (lower left corner). The same set of presentations includes a lot of 100% valid files: So overall the drawing seems to be valid. Maybe the guy photoshopped the drawing into the background of a FMV file and added his own values - but look at the drawing in the left corner of the first slide: this drawing does exist and it does have oddly placed text... maybe because R. Lindström wasn't allowed to post the true version (which would have protection values there?)...
  17. 1 point
    SH_MM

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    This is identical to the diagram I posted earlier (with a lot less pixels) coming from a presentation on the Swedish tan trials. It seems that the protection level was censored in the Swedish presentation (because it is public access). I guess somebody dug this up out of the Swedish archives? But the file name suggest that it shows the M1A1 HA... That said, it seems to be legit. It would confirm my believes on the armor protection of modern tanks being hugely exaggerated and matches some of the earlier mentioned requirements stated in the British documents. PS: This is another photo from a Swedish presentation. Note how the background matches!
  18. 1 point
    I've been slacking a bit, work got stressful, for stupid reasons, and trying to edit images when tired means I fall asleep while doing it. I did finish this one. I've been working on a cleanup on the R974C-4 cross section but it has been very time consuming and still needs several hours of work.
  19. 1 point
    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3104428.html Defender of the Fatherland Day in Severomorsk
  20. 1 point
    Ships haven't been tonnage critical since a little bit after WWII, instead they're volume critical. That's why a modern warship is an apartment building full of computers and coated in radars on top of a hull full of missile and engine. (Also this is a major factor in armor being obsoleted). Discounting the VLS and AEGIS is also probably a mistake. It allows very rapid engagement by a single coordinated system rather than Soviet/Russian style multiple systems, and packs a huge wad of missiles ready to go rather than having to wait for them to be readied from the magazines. You also get things like the Standard Missile being useful in offensive and defensive roles by dint of being a good long range anti-air missile with a lot of energy. Also the USN is more worried than any other navy afloat about things like being able to spend as much time as possible at sea. Steaming to and from their destination is time spent with sailors and ships being used but producing none of the value that's their reason for existing. So seakeeping is a huge priority for the USN, and they tend to take it very seriously. Given the proud tradition of secondary navies tending to use a greater fraction of displacement for armament and sitting in port until needed, the USN is doing pretty well. Entirely agreed, but don't neglect to multiply those putative 'sorties' that lesser carriers manage by some fractional factor to represent how a ski jump leaves you choosing between a reasonable range or an actual weapons load (and if you take the latter by the former, multiply out by a factor to represent the fantastic odds of your carrier being close enough to be found and killed by real opponents). It's probably worth considering that the battleship was obsoleted by the Essex class. Why, you might ask, is an evolutionary design what put the battleship out of business rather than some revolutionary new system that ? 24 hulls. By the end of that class, naval power was capable of tangling with land based air power if it was concentrated and well run. Coordinating with land based air was and is a huge help, but without that, the critical mass to just hunt and utterly destroy a battleship wasn't necessarily there and things like a guerre de course with battleships going into important areas at night (There's a reason Guadalcanal was a nightclub par excellence for surface fleets) were honestly totally viable. The thing is that by 1945, the war wasn't about weaksauce raids into and out of enemy air cover, and careful island hopping, it was about "fuck you, we're the USN, and we're going to deploy the first proper integrated air defense setup on the high seas and dare you to come at us enough to make it count, which means mass attacks by guided munitions (human or otherwise)" And after the war, either you're deploying with or against that massed naval air power, or you don't matter (Sorry Argies but you got taken down by the British. The British. That's a geopolitical corgi-mauling considering what passes for a carrier over there).
  21. 1 point
    You are not wrong that American ships have a light armament outside of their VLS cells, and it is hard to quantify EW/decoys. But 90-122 cells is a hell of a lot of missiles, and it will get silly if we build some those BMD ships based on a San Antonio hull. Some graphics from the .pdf I posted in the other thread. I am not sure if these loadouts are guesses or actually based on something, but for comparison the strike on that Syrian airfield would require more than a 25% loadout of Tomahawks.
  22. 1 point
    The time of shaped charges being an efficient tank killer when hitting the front - or even the side - of a modern tank are over. The biggest issue with shaped charges is that they work only really good against simple steel targets. This also seems to be the problem of your assumptions: the penetration against steel armor doesn't really matter anymore. The metal jet formed by the shaped charge liner after the detonation of the warhead is extremely fragile, that is biggest issue of shaped charges. A few milimetres of sloped steel with some sort of elastic or energetic material (thus working as NERA, NxRA or ERA) can be extremely effective against shaped charges, while essentially not affecting the penetration of kinetic energy penetrators. The Israeli Blazer ERA used two 3 mm thick steel plates and 3 mm layer of explosives; sloped at 60° (and thus in terms of weight eqivalent to some 7-8 mm of steel), this array was capable to reduce the penetration of a RPG-7 from 300 to only about 100 mm - that's about 25 times as much protection as steel of the same weight provides against shaped charges - to be fair one also has to include the weight of the cover plate (which is probably about 3 mm thick based on photographs) and the mounting bolts. The Soviet Kontakt-1 ERA uses two reactive elements (sloped at different angles to still be effective when the ERA tiles is impacted perpendicular) consisting of two 2 mm steel plates with a 7 mm thick layer of explosives. This can reduce the penetration of shaped charge warheads by 400 mm! But it's not only ERA is extremely effective against shaped charges, but also NERA and NxRA. A sandwich consisting of a 2 mm steel plate, a 20 mm layer of Dyneema fabrics (areal density of 21 kg/m², i.e. lower areal density than a 3 mm steel plate) and a 4 mm steel plate, is capable of reducing the penetration of a 115 mm MILAN 2 warhead by 400 mm, when sloped at 60° and spaced infront of the steel witness block. Granted, there was a lot more empty space between witness block and NERA panel than on real tanks, but actual NERA (that also provides some protection against EFPs and KE ammo) can be more than 8 to 10 times as efficient than normal steel armor. While tandem warheads were made to counter early ERA types (and also provided a higher efficiency against composite armor such as Chobham according to a British document from the 1970s), there are a lot of reasons why shaped charges are still unsuited and less than ideal at defeating tanks. Explosive reactive armor types such as ERAWA-2, DYNA, Duplet and Relikt have been optimized to provide protection against tandem warheads too. At the same time, NERA and NxRA can be layered without issues, resulting a significant gain in protection also against tandem warheads. This makes shaped charges rather useless for defeating the frontal armor of tanks and also the side armor on vehicles such as the Leopard 2 Evolution or the T-84M Oplot-M. Meanwhile in order to be efficient (in terms of protection per weight) against APFSDS ammunition, steel plates require a certain thickness, in ideal case more than the diameter of the penetrator. This also affects the efficiency of NERA and ERA against APFSDS ammunition: The Soviet Kontakt-5 ERA, as installed on the T-80U turret, is claimed to enhance the protection of the T-80U by 20% to 30% against (older) APFSDS ammunition. Given Russian/Ukranian claims on the protection level of the T-80U, this means that the ERA provides 130 to 180 mm against (older) APFSDS. Given that the Kontakt-5 ERA at the turret consists of 53 mm to 60 mm of steel and 22 to 24 mm explosives (depending on location due to the different slope of upper and lower ERA tiles), this means it can only provide between 2 and 3 times as much protection as steel of the same weight against APFSDS ammo. Not very efficient compared to the ~20 times the protection of steel per weight of early ERA! Modern APFSDS ammunition has a more complex construction, using special tips, pre-penetrator, multi-segmented rods, metal jackets or in some cases a composite penetrator, consiting of different (heavy) metal alloys. This allows modern ammunition to be optimized against composite armor, spaced armor and ERA. In extreme cases, this can result in a much higher penetration against special armor than against steel. The Danish Army tested the German DM53 APFSDS against the KEW-A2 (M829A2 with tungsten penetrator), both fired from the L/44 gun of the Leopard 2A5. Despite being shorter and slightly slower - which according to estimations based on the Lanz-Odermatt equation would result in a lower penetration - the DM53 proved to be superior against complex target arrays... supposedly the result of a three-segmented rod construction. According to the German author Rolf Hilmes, who worked as a tank technology expert for the German military procurement agency and who lectured at the German military academy, depending on velocity and range, the DM53 can defeat armor targets that are equivalent to 1,000 mm RHA against conventional penetrators. However he doesn't claim that it can defeat 1,000 mm RHA; in contrast, values from the manufacturer seem suggest a much lower penetration against RHA. This all isn't possible with shaped charge weapons. You cannot optimize a shaped charge in the same way; the penetrator (metal jet) will always have a similar shape and construction. One can exchange the material of the liner, the shape of the liner or the number of shaped chartges. The Soviet Union developed the 3BK-21B HEAT-FS round with DU liner for the 125 mm smoothbore guns. It was supposedly developed for better penetration against complex/composite armor targets. Based on an US assessment on different liner materials, DU has an "excellent" jet ductibility, which might result in less shattering when interacting with NERA or ERA; however copper was also noted to have "excellent shaped charge jet ductibility" and we know how bad it is against (N)ERA/NxRA. According to some sources, the Soviet found the DU liner to lower armor penetration (against RHA at least) despite it being a denser liner material than copper. This might be the result of a much poorer sound velocity compared to other materials. Given that the Soviets (and everybody else) has given up on using DU as liner material for shaped charges, DU apparently doesn't increase armor penetration against modern tank armor. Alternatively tantalum and tungsten have been found to be desirable for use in shaped charges (at least tantalum is still being used for EFPs) thanks to their "good" ductibility and much better sound velocity. These materials are however rather expensive and both require vacuum sintering. There has been research on different liner materials, which won't set off the explosives in ERA, such as special materials using teflon; however to my knowledge this has lead to nothing useful yet and it won't work against NERA and NxRA. So from the "material" point-of-view, shaped charges are still 1940s/1950s technology, most of them using copper liners; meanwhile APFSDS technology has grown at the same rate as composite armor, currently people might be shooting "composite" APFSDS (combination of different materials in special non-homogenous layout) against composite armor. Using multiple shaped charge warheads however isn't a great solution either. It increases the weight and size of ammunition, while at the same time requiring a lot of space for proper (somewhat optimal) standoff in order to gain penetration without the second/third/fourth warhead beign defeated by the initiated (N)ERA/NxRA. Just look at the space between precursor and main warhead on the Spike missile: TL;DR: Shaped charges are less efficient against complex armor and apparently there is currently no reasonable way of changing this.
  23. 0 points
    https://theintercept.com/2018/03/05/as-the-trial-of-omar-mateens-wife-begins-new-evidence-undermines-beliefs-about-the-pulse-massacre-including-motive/ Who would've thought that having armed men would deter attack:
  24. 0 points
    Donward

    Cats Have A Shitty Taste In Music

    And another example of cats having zero understanding of music theory. You call this good percussion???
  25. 0 points
    Sovngard

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    Where did this come from ?
×