Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/22/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Donward

    United States Gun Control Megathread

    A new look on studies conducted by the Centers of Disease Control regarding "Defensive Gun Use" by Americans. After slogging through the explanations, the author contends that the number of times a gun is used in a self defense situation is quite high and roughly matches the numbers cited by pro-gun activists Namely that about 1 to 1.25 percent of gun owners claimed to use a gun in self defense (these numbers don't include police or self defense against animals btw) which translated to about 2 million Americans. The CDC studies took place in the mid-1990s and had pretty large sample sizes. And the author states the results were suppressed due to the political stance of the Clinton Administration.
  2. 3 points
    Sovngard

    AFV Coax Thread

    Early Chrysler XM-1 validation phase model with a coaxial Bushmaster weapon system :
  3. 3 points
    That would involve the Saudis knowing how to fucking use the expensive equipment they've bought. Saudi Arabia is a backwards LAUGHABLE shithole. They can't figure out how to kill the Houthis with billions of dollars of the best western military equipement that money can buy.
  4. 2 points
    At the end of January, 2018 and after many false starts, the Russian military formally announced the limited adoption of the AEK-971 and AEK-973 rifles. These rifles feature an unusual counterbalanced breech mechanism which is intended to improve handling, especially during full auto fire. While exotic outside of Russia, these counter-balanced rifles are not at all new. In fact, the 2018 adoption of the AEK-971 represents the first success of a rifle concept that has been around for a some time. Earliest Origins Animated diagram of the AK-107/108 Balanced action recoil systems (BARS) work by accelerating a mass in the opposite direction of the bolt carrier. The countermass is of similar mass to the bolt carrier and synchronized to move in the opposite direction by a rack and pinion. This cancels out some, but not all of the impulses associated with self-loading actions. But more on that later. Long before Soviet small arms engineers began experimenting with BARS, a number of production weapons featured synchronized masses moving in opposite directions. Generally speaking, any stabilization that these actions provided was an incidental benefit. Rather, these designs were either attempts to get around patents, or very early developments in the history of autoloading weapons when the design best practices had not been standardized yet. These designs featured a forward-moving gas trap that, of necessity, needed its motion converted into rearward motion by either a lever or rack and pinion. The French St. Etienne Machine Gun The Danish Bang rifle At around the same time, inventors started toying with the idea of using synchronized counter-masses deliberately to cancel out recoil impulses. The earliest patent for such a design comes from 1908 from obscure firearms designer Ludwig Mertens: More information on these early developments is in this article on the matter by Max Popenker. Soviet designers began investigating the BARS concept in earnest in the early 1970s. This is worth noting; these early BARS rifles were actually trialed against the AK-74. The AL-7 rifle, a BARS rifle from the early 1970s The Soviet military chose the more mechanically orthodox AK-74 as a stopgap measure in order to get a small-caliber, high-velocity rifle to the front lines as quickly as possible. Of course, the thing about stopgap weapons is that they always end up hanging around longer than intended, and forty four years later Russian troops are still equipped with the AK-74. A small number of submachine gun prototypes with a BARS-like system were trialed, but not mass-produced. The gas operated action of a rifle can be balanced with a fairly small synchronizer rack and pinion, but the blowback action of a submachine gun requires a fairly large and massive synchronizer gear or lever. This is because in a gas operated rifle a second gas piston can be attached to the countermass, thereby unloading the synchronizer gear. There are three BARS designs of note from Russia: AK-107/AK-108 The AK-107 and AK-108 are BARS rifles in 5.45x39mm and 5.56x45mm respectively. These rifles are products of the Kalashnikov design bureau and Izmash factory, now Kalashnikov Concern. Internally they are very similar to an AK, only with the countermass and synchronizer unit situated above the bolt carrier group. Close up of synchronizer and dual return spring assemblies This is configuration is almost identical to the AL-7 design of the early 1970s. Like the more conventional AK-100 series, the AK-107/AK-108 were offered for export during the late 1990s and early 2000s, but they failed to attract any customers. The furniture is very similar to the AK-100 series, and indeed the only obvious external difference is the long tube protruding from the gas block and bridging the gap to the front sight. The AK-107 has re-emerged recently as the Saiga 107, a rifle clearly intended for competitive shooting events like 3-gun. AEK-971 The rival Kovrov design bureau was only slightly behind the Kalashnikov design bureau in exploring the BARS concept. Their earliest prototype featuring the system, the SA-006 (also transliterated as CA-006) also dates from the early 1970s. Chief designer Sergey Koksharov refined this design into the AEK-971. The chief refinement of his design over the first-generation balanced action prototypes from the early 1970s is that the countermass sits inside the bolt carrier, rather than being stacked on top of it. This is a more compact installation of the mechanism, but otherwise accomplishes the same thing. Moving parts group of the AEK-971 The early AEK-971 had a triangular metal buttstock and a Kalashnikov-style safety lever on the right side of the rifle. In this guise the rifle competed unsuccessfully with Nikonov's AN-94 design in the Abakan competition. Considering that a relative handful of AN-94s were ever produced, this was perhaps not a terrible loss for the Kovrov design bureau. After the end of the Soviet Union, the AEK-971 design was picked up by the Degtyarev factory, itself a division of the state-owned Rostec. The Degtyarev factory would unsuccessfully try to make sales of the weapon for the next twenty four years. In the meantime, they made some small refinements to the rifle. The Kalashnikov-style safety lever was deleted and replaced with a thumb safety on the left side of the receiver. Later on the Degtyarev factory caught HK fever, and a very HK-esque sliding metal stock was added in addition to a very HK-esque rear sight. The thumb safety lever was also made ambidextrous. The handguard was changed a few times. Still, reception to the rifle was lukewarm. The 2018 announcement that the rifle would be procured in limited numbers alongside more conventional AK rifles is not exactly a coup. The numbers bought are likely to be very low. A 5.56mm AEK-972 and 7.62x39mm AEK-973 also exist. The newest version of the rifle has been referred to as A-545. AKB and AKB-1 AKB-1 AKB AKB, closeup of the receiver The AKB and AKB-1 are a pair of painfully obscure designs designed by Viktor Kalashnikov, Mikhail Kalashnikov's son. The later AKB-1 is the more conservative of the two, while the AKB is quite wild. Both rifles use a more or less conventional AK type bolt carrier, but the AKB uses the barrel as the countermass. That's right; the entire barrel shoots forward while the bolt carrier moves back! This unusual arrangement also allowed for an extremely high cyclic rate of fire; 2000RPM. Later on a burst limiter and rate of fire limiter were added. The rifle would fire at the full 2000 RPM for two round bursts, but a mere 1000 RPM for full auto. The AKB-1 was a far more conventional design, but it still had a BARS. In this design the countermass was nested inside the main bolt carrier, similar to the AEK-971. Not a great deal of information is available about these rifles, but @Hrachya H wrote an article on them which can be read here.
  5. 2 points
    DarkLabor

    Tank Layout

    Système de protection EEI pour AMX 10 RCR === IED protection system for AMX 10 RCR
  6. 1 point
    Serge

    French flair

    I propose a new topic to regroup information about French AFVs. Days after days, information is overwhelmed under the inflow of photos about anything and everything. It can be interesting to try to have dedicated topics to ease the quality of exchanges. So, if you have already posted interesting photos, documentations and view about French AFVs, you can quote them here.
  7. 1 point
    DarkLabor

    French flair

    Here some scans from the Satory VI (1977) catalog : https://imgur.com/a/zfjSNwm
  8. 1 point
    DarkLabor

    French flair

    Let's start to quick the AMX-56 bullshit out of the window. The french documentary with the original interview of the program manager. I will look for my Satory catalogs for some vintage data.
  9. 1 point
    LoooSeR

    Thermal signature of AFV

    don't bother, whatever you will find will not be a proof of video being fake. I also remember those talks, there were funny.
  10. 1 point
    Serge

    Tank Layout

    Both commander and gunner’s seats are identical. The only difference is the commander adjustment’s got a rear stopper to reduce the setting by 3 cm. Why ? To avoid to pierce fuel tanks. Without the stopper, the seat can protrude from the turret basket. My goal is to protect the crew from shrapnel. So, I would have manufactured seats with ballistic materials. We have to remain that in France, people above 185cm were not permitted to become tankist, but tank commanders. So my knees suffered a little bit against the gunner’s seat. Look at any tank at war. You never have enough place. The only external storage you have (on the RC standard, not the RCR), is a basket designed to carry 4 of the old butyl waterproof tank crew pack. During the Gulf war, crewmen stored MREs between the hull and the add-on armor. In the French troop, you have a truck per troop to carry burden. But, in the real life you must be as autonomous as possible. My solution would have been a mixt between the TML-105 storage for the front and the sides and a Merkava like rear basket. SEPAR is too much heavy. I’m just thinking about internal layer on some dedicated places. AMX-10RC can’t be burdened. It’s very dangerous considering its steering system. In 2002, Australian SAS LRPV received 4cm thick anti-mine composite floor plates. This kind of solution would have been acceptable.
  11. 1 point
    Sovngard

    General AFV Thread

    At one point, the Belgian army had two Leopard 1A5BE fitted with MEXAS composite add-on armor :
  12. 1 point
    Ulric

    The Kerbal Space Program Total Sperg Zone

    The Sovetsky Kerbania, my newest cruiser designed to provide logistical and long range support to Kulako and Kerbinov Vertical Launch System One of the two Goliath Class Heavy Mining Landers. Nose Mounted R-7 escape system. The 9MN of thrust that will accelerate this 2880 ton vessel.
  13. 1 point
    Xoon

    Tank Layout

    My issue is the huge empty space on each side of the gun, shouldn't it be possible to fit two drums on each side? Roughly this size: Welcome to the forum James! Zuk here used the Meggit autoloader as a example because the Leclerc autoloader only fits around 16 rounds, might be 21, but still way to low. This forum is growing fast. Nice to hear that Tovarish might be coming over. A oscillating turret are quite tall, or has to have less gun depression/elevation. I think a cleft turret would be a better bet. The Swedish tested several turret layouts and found the cleft turret to be the best, here's a comparison of a conventional turret, a autoloaded conventional turret, and a cleft turret. Of course the overhead turret will turn out taller than on the picture, but it cuts out over a meter of length from the oscillating part, giving it much better elevation. Here is a view of how the turret looks while depressed, though probably exaggerated: Good point, I do not think that a fuel tank/ammo rack combination would be a problem with a blow out panel. Same with wet racks. Though, I am pretty sure you can't use fuel as the "wet" part in a wet rack.
  14. 1 point
    Yikes. It took me a while to work through the confusion while going through the article: But that picture is a Sherman, not an M7 tank. But the M7 tank was an International Harvester product, not ALCO. But the M7 tank was armed with the 75 mm gun M3, not a 105 mm gun. But that picture is of a howitzer motor carri...oh.
  15. 1 point
    Oh wow it's too bad I just bought an M4 today.
  16. 1 point
    Thank you, Sturgeon, for your wonderful TFB article today. Like you, I've come to view light infantry as a primarily weight-constrained force. In general, trading firepower for lighter weight is advantageous with respect to the currently over-burdened U.S. infantryman. As you acknowledge in the article, generating suppressive fires via DMR rather than LMG is a weight-efficient means of achieving a suppressive effect in many of circumstances. I, however, do not believe that a belt-fed weapon is necessarily a dead end in the AR/DM role within the squad. There is at least one belt-fed weapon that can achieve very good accuracy: the HK21. The HK21, of course, achieves this by having much more in common with a battle rifle than a traditional LMG or GPMG, namely the closed bolt operating system, hammer, and fixed, top-mounted scope mount of the G3 from which it is derived. While the roller-delayed operating system may itself be a dead end, the HK21 provides a template that could inform future designs in that a belt-fed weapon can retain many of the advantages a traditional magazine-fed weapon if the magazine well is merely replaced by a belt-feed mechanism. The downside is that reloading the HK21 is arguably even slower and more cumbersome than a traditional LMG/GPMG. In the tear-down portion of that video, Mr. Vickers notes that one work around is use a starter tab. I, for one, would not want to be fumbling around trying to find the starter tab when my fine motor skills go out the window as rounds are impacting around me, so reloading without ANY belt handling is desirable. While H&K tried to develop a linkless feed system for the HK21, it didn't go anywhere. I'm dubious that a linkless feed system could be made light enough and sufficiently reliable for infantry use. If one goal of a future M249 replacement is that it share ammo with squads ARs, I agree that something along the lines of the M27 makes a lot of sense. I also believe that a GPC is a dead end, and that a two-caliber system for the infantry is probably the way to go. Ideally, my proposal is that the military replace 5.56x45mm with a cartridge optimized for a vld-epr bullet in the 50-77 grain range (i.e., an optimized SCHV round) and replace 7.62x51mm with a cartridge optimized for a vld-epr bullet in the 90-120 grain range, all concepts that I believe Sturgeon, among others, has touched on over the years. Ideally a composite case having a traditional extractor groove would be used. To summarize Sturgeon's work, the 7.62 replacement is, in essence, a composite-cased .264 USA (or possibly closer to 6.5mm Creedmoor) firing a 6.5mm vld-epr bullet. Let's call it a medium caliber, high velocity (MCHV) round. While I do not advocate equipping all members of the squad with a MCHV weapon, I do believe that having one or two MCHV DMRs within the squad would be desirable and that replacing the M249s with these makes the most sense. From a logistics point of view, it would be desirable to distribute all SCHV rounds in magazines and all MCHV rounds in belts, other than perhaps accurized MCHV loadings. For this reason, I think it would be worthwhile to investigate a conceptual successor to the HK21 as a SAW/DMR. One change that I advocate is moving to a gas-operated system with a fixed barrel, preferably a LW-profile barrel with a carbon fiber overwrap to increase rigidity, surface area, and thermal conductivity. The SCAR 17 with a lengthened upper receiver to accommodate a constant-recoil system might be a good starting point. The grunts would primarily use the weapon in semi-auto, but a limited full-auto capability would be available for engaging maneuvering infantry at a distance and in close ambushes. Reloading would still be an issue. This is where we borrow from the best SAW that never was, the XM248. The XM248, among its many innovations, used a cam-driven sprocket to advance the belt. While WeaponsMan unfortunately passed away recently, his great discussion of the feed mechanism lives on. While the XM248 promised belt-handling-free reloading, the ammo boxes did have potentially fragile exposed "plastic grippers" that held the first round in the feed position. Additionally, there is the potential for misalignment of the belt and feed sprocket during reloading. While, I don't consider these to be deal breakers, we might do better in terms of reliability by integrating the feed sprocket with the ammo box. The ammo box would hold a round in the feed position via an anti-backup pawl, as in the XM248 design. While carrying around a feed sprocket in each "magazine" would add weight, I doubt there would be any penalty in terms of weight or bulk versus drum magazines, and it would enable truly care-free reloading. I imagine they'd actually be significantly less bulky than drum magazines and no heavier, if not slightly lighter, if a plastic belt is used. I propose 60-75 round drums as being standard. A backup, loose-belt adapter could be carried and inserted into the "magwell" if only loose belts for the GPMGs were available. The cam assembly, however, does prevent the use of a traditional hammer and trigger mechanism. We might get around this by using a linear hammer, as in the QBZ-97, or use the slightly more complicated cam system of the HK21. What do y'all think?
  17. 1 point
    Sovngard

    AFV Coax Thread

    AMX-30 M693 20mm autocannon superelevation (-8° to +40°) :
  18. 1 point
    Collimatrix

    AFV Coax Thread

    Reposting this here: Twin roof-mounted KPVTs, because your commander is going to want something serious to fight with if he needs to unbutton and use the roof gun!
  19. 1 point
    Collimatrix

    AFV Coax Thread

    Domestic Armored Vehicles mentions that prior to the adoption of the PKMT, Soviet designer VI Silin had a design for a dedicated tank coax MG that would put empty casings back into the belt, so as to keep all that brass from making a mess in the turret and getting into things. Hilariously, at one point Google Translate auto-translated whatever the Russian for "machine gun belt" is as "gun food."
  20. 1 point
    LoooSeR

    AFV Coax Thread

    Object 477 Boxer/Molot with 30 mm autocannon mounted on top turret roof. Object 195 with 30mm AC, almost unnoticeable on this gargantua turret.
  21. 1 point
    T___A

    AFV Coax Thread

    The IS-7 also had two RP-46s in addition to the 14.5mm coax.
  22. 1 point
    Collimatrix

    AFV Coax Thread

    What's with the five round belts on the KPV-T? At some early point in its development, abrams was supposed to have a 25mm autocannon coax. Supposedly combat experience from the 1973 war showed that in the heat of combat, the crew inevitably shoots at anything tank-shaped with the main gun, even if it's a lesser vehicle like a BMP that could easily be swatted with an autocannon. How this was determined, I have no idea, since so far as I can tell the tanks used on both sides had rifle-caliber MGs. Soviet heavies IS-7, Ob 277, and Ob 770 had 14.5mm coax since 130mm ammo is gigantic and they didn't carry very much of it. Also, the 14.5 doubled as a ranging MG, since it had reasonably close trajectory to the 130. Tank coax strikes me as one of the few places where a blow-forward autocannon would really shine.
  23. 1 point
    LostCosmonaut

    AFV Coax Thread

    My uninformed opinion feels that a heavy machine gun (such as the KPVT up there) is the ideal choice. The way I see it, you're going to be using the coaxial for antinfantry work, and against other fairly soft targets. An HMG seems like it would give good performance against infantry, light vehicles, and the like, while not taking up so much space as something in the 20mm+ range. The M1919 and similar caliber weapons appear as though they don't have the armor penetration to reliably cheese things like M113s and early BMPs.
  24. 0 points
    Toxn

    WoT v WT effort-thread

    My experience (see above) is that Russian and German shells can do terrible things so long as they get inside the armour somehow. English AP shot is... not so good at hurting things.
  25. 0 points
    Ulric

    The Kerbal Space Program Total Sperg Zone

    The downside of this vessel. 14 of my 32 gigs of RAM is going to KSP
×