Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/25/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I hesitate to call these things bombs, considering that from what we have seen so far they appear to be incapable of actually exploding. The one that we have a picture of just has a digital clock with no alarm features, not to mention the myriad of other glaringly obvious problems with it. It's not like it's that difficult to cobble together a timed fuse with modern electronics. You could get everything you need at an automotive supply store or hobby store without even raising any eyebrows. While it's more difficult to make proper high explosive compounds, there are plenty of other options that you can substitute that are also readily available. The person who made these wasn't trying to build a bomb, they were building props. If they were trying to actually build a bomb, they must be a text book example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If they thought these were going to explode, they must have also thought that lemon juice turned you invisible. That certainly is a possibility, but that seems incredibly unlikely to me.
  2. 2 points
    About the last Soviet tank design, some sort of "what if ...." - http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/490_21vek.htm
  3. 2 points
  4. 2 points
    J-10C being used as a testbed for a serrated nozzle:
  5. 1 point
    Alzoc

    French flair

    Well it's more general principles than exact diagrams. Guy who wrote the article was in charge of the R&D on the Leclerc program for some time, and is basically the only reputable French author on AFV. Though he does have a tendency for chauvinism and I don't think he really had access to foreign designs. Unless proven otherwise, consider it as an educated guess of someone who worked in the AFV industry and tank design for years, have an engineering background and have a great deal of contact on the international market. He most likely was around during the Swedish tank trial. The series of RAID articles have been compiled into those two books if you can read French: Both books are interesting and do very well as an introduction on MBT design while containing interesting tidbit of information. The only problem with them is that you have the feeling that nobody ever proof-read them (grammar, syntax, etc).
  6. 1 point
    Molota_477

    French flair

    Hi guys, I would like to take this place to ask that how credible is this article? Screenshot from Magazine RAIDS Les Chars de Combat en Action 3,. All of tanks mentioned in this article have taken part in the Sweden trials, I suppose that maybe the author would have some materials related to the true armor layout.
  7. 1 point
    Sherman M4 Crocodile Flame Tank From the 709th Tanks Battalion in action . Zweifall , Germany 1944
  8. 1 point
    SH_MM

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    The statement regarding the hull armor package can mean anything and is hardly relevant. The armor package of the Abrams has been upgraded several times - like the adoption of first, second and third generation DU armor in the turret - but this was always limited in scope due the limits set on weight and budget. This is why I mentioned that the M1A1HA (from 1988) had the same turret bustle armor array as the M1 Abrams from 1980 - maybe the materials were improved, but any gain in protection purely by material changes is likely very limited when looking at NERA's performance vs KE) - and even modern Abrams' tanks have the same side hull armor as the original production model (at least in terms of thickness and layering, again small adjustments could have been made to the materials). Likewise "new hull armor" might be identical to that of the previous model with slight changes in material composition; it could be different, but weight and size impose limits. These factors also make it rather unlikely, if not flat-out impossible for the Abrams to resist 125 mm APFSDS rounds at the hull (specifically when looking at the frontal arc rather than just the frontal surface; 65 mm skirt armor + 60 mm hull armor is not going to stop much). The design of ammunition can be altered at any time of a product life; before, during and after initial introduction. Svinets-1, Svinets-2 and Relikt might be very different in terms of internal construction or material composition since then. You keep relying on baseless speculations. First of all it is extremely unlikely that any modern APFSDS performs worse against sloped targets than against flat armor; sloped armor is easier to penetrate and perforate - by as much as 20% in case of 60° sloped armor according to the work of W. Lanz and W. Odermatt (depending on penetrator geometry). The performance of APFSDS ammo against steel armor is also completely irrelevant to their abilities to penetrate composite armor; research has shown that the ability to penetrate special armor is highly dependent on the exact interactions between armor and projecitle; two rounds with the same penetration against steel armor can have very different performance against the same type of special armor, which was demonstrated in the German tests during the LKE program (two rounds with the same penetration against RHA had a difference of 110 mm in penetration power after defeating a special armor array). This also means that all figures in regards to armor protection (and penetration) have to be taken in the context of the munitions or simulation used to come up with the values: an armor providing 500 mm protection against a BM-22 APFSDS won't provide 500 mm protectioon against something like the M829A3 APFSDS round. You also cannot simply say "this armor is newer, so it has to provide significantly more protection". You want the armor of the later models of the M1A2 Abrams to provide 50% more protection, while staying in the same physical volume, retaining the same basic steel shell (as old tanks are rebuilt and the interior and exterior steel plates are apparently not changed unless necessary), roughly the same weight limit (may or may not be different for the M1A2C), being affordable and providing decent multi-hit capability. Specifically given that supposedly (assuming the front and back plates of the turret have the same thickness as on hull) more than 150 mm of the "600 mm" protection that the M1A2 (HAP/EAP) provided against older types of APFSDS ammo are the result of the steel structure, you are asking for an improbable, if not impossible, improvement in performance. Armor doesn't grow on trees, neither does it come from the clouds of imagination. MBTs achieve higher levels of protection by adding weight and/or volume to the armor. Improvements from superior materials are often negligible and come with another issue (large increases in costs!). The M1A1 HA's much higher protection than the M1A1's (using inaccurate RHA values apparently an increase from 380-400 mm to 600 mm) came in combination with an increase in armor weight by roughly 3 tons. The Leopard 2's massive gains in protection came with an increase in armor thickness by up to ~80% and a weight increase of 5 to 7 tons depending on model. The M1A2 SEP series doesn't seem to offer similar increases, although there are still some open questions regarding the M1A2C (How much of the increased weight is related to armor? Does the listed figure include TUSK or Trophy?). The Russians claim that Relikt provides a reduction of APFSDS penetration by 50% even against APFSDS rounds designed to defeat Kontakt-5. You should note that your quote doesn't mention Relikt or the ability to defeat a T-90M/T-90MS/T-90SM anyhwere, which is relevant. The ability to defeat ERA is not a binary metric; improving the performance of an APFSDS round agains a certain type of ERA can mean anything from "We managed to reduce the performance penality caused by ERA by 5%" to "The penetration performance of the APFSDS is essentially unaffected by the ERA". The text speaks of third-generation explosive reactive armor, which is a very broad term and may have absolutely nothing to do with the exact layout of Relikt. How would the US Army know about the exact working mechanism, layout and performance of Relikt? Super-spies like an American version of James Bond? Did the US Army simply call Putin and asked them about these things? Or did they go to Amazon.ru and order a bunch of Relikt ERA tiles? Most likely the US Army uses a self-developed ERA system as representation of future/current ERA arrays; Germany did something like this during the LKE II program. The USA might have by pure coincidence developed a perfect clone of Relikt, which could perfectly replicate the behaviour of Relikt - but that is extremely unlikely. The US' third-generation ERA might look and work completely different from Relikt, for example it could be based on Nozh (a third-generation ERA to which the US military actually has access, because it was installed on a number of T-80UD/T-84 tanks purchased by the US Army). Nozh and Relikt use completely different working mechanisms, so a performance gain against one type of ERA doesn't automatically render the other type obsolete. Threat vehicles is likewise a very broad term. It could mean that the US expects the M829A4 to defeat a T-90M, but it also could mean a dozen other things. Being able to overcome third-generation ERA potentially without a major reduction in penetration performance doesn't automatically mean that all tanks equipped with this ERA can be defeated; there still is some hefty amount of base armor, which supposedly has been improved on the T-90M/T-90MS/T-90SM, that needs to be penetrated aswell. Being able to defeat threat vehicles with third-generatrion ERA also could refer to upgraded last-generation tanks fitted with Relikt (or Nozh/Duplet), which might be immune to the current M829A3 (they should be immune, if the Russian performance claims were true). For example it might refer to the T-72BM or the initial model of the T-84, which should have inferior base armor compared to the T-90M. We don't know if the M829A4 is capable to defeat the T-90M with Relikt ERA, we don't know if the current M1A2's armor is capable of resisting hits with Svinets-1/Svinets-2 - yet you keep making generalizing statements based on nothing but speculation. That is not good. No, we don't know anything about the hull armor being improved. CBO reports are mostly based on unclassified data and use publicly available sources. Damian just likes to ignore any weak links in his sources as long as they fit his narrative. Just look what's under the table that Damian considers a confirmation of his theories: Yes, another unclassified CBO report from 1993 and a privately-run website run by Gary W. Cooke... Unless the United States decided to change the definition of heavy armor two times (before and after the AIM upgrade), the M1A1 AIM doesn't feature heavy armor in the hull. First M1A1 AIM tanks were made in 2000, but in 2006 only five prototypes of the M1 Abrams featured heavy armor in the hull. As of 2014 General Dynamics was only granted the licence to install DU armor in the turret of the Abrams, but not the turret. The CBO report simply doesn't have the same degrees of quality and reliability than the documents from the NRC. Unless the CBO report is using the term heavy armor to refer to one of the five prototypes with DU armor in the hull or has changed the definition of heavy armor (which also seems unlikely given that the M1A1 AIM weighs 62 metric tons vs the M1A1 HA's 61.3 metric tons), it is simply incorrect. The only variant that theoretically could have heavy armor in the hull - and that depends on the weight distribution - seems to be the M1A2C Abrams.
  9. 1 point
    LostCosmonaut

    Aerospace Pictures and Art Thread

    Photo from a V2 65 miles up in 1946
  10. 1 point
    V-3420 with extension shafts, the configuration that would have been used in the McDonnell Model 1 (pre-Moonbat)
  11. 1 point
    How does CNN not know that is just a clock with duct tape wrapped around it?
  12. 1 point
    alanch90

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    Well, doing guestimates is ususally the best we can do about modern systems. But we have some data. When it comes to protection analysis, hull armor is secondary to turret armor. As we all know, most of the shots in tank-tank engagement impact the turret. According to this guy The tank has new armor on the hull. It doesnt mean thats to counter 125mm apfsds though. But on the other hand, this upgraded armor package is the first one in almost 2 decades, im sure that they managed to make armor thats either more weight efficient (for the claimed protection against IEDs, for example) or more effective vs conventional threats, or both. To what extent is up for guessing. Both the Svinets 1-2 and Relikt have been introduced recently thats true, but that introduction was way long overdue. They were designed around the early 2000´s. While some improvements can be made, i would expect them to be negligible. Those designs are so old that there is data about their performance. For the APFSDS rounds we have this table, supposedly from Tula which claims a penetration at a 60º target from 2km of 370mm RHA for Svinets 1 and 330mm RHA for Svinets 2, and at minimum double those figures for non-sloped targets (for some reason im unable to attach the table in the post). Both figures imply that they can defeat the original M1A2, but we dont know how effective would they be against the first SEP, let alone the SEPv3. However lets say that both Svinets would penetrate a maximum of 800mm, for the Abrams, having its armor upgraded up to that figure wouldn´t be much of a stretch after 2 armor upgrades and almost 3 decades for research and development (since the introduction of M1A2 armor package). About the Relikt, usually its claimed to be twice as effective vs KE than Kontakt 5, so around 40 percent decrease in APFSDS penetration. Said ERA is so good that it renders M829A3 useless, and thats something admitted by ATK in the brochure about the new round while also claiming the capability to defeat Relikt with the A4:
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    LoooSeR

    Competition: Tank Design 2239

    After 23 days of drinking booze and random disappearing, judges finally picked winners of this competition! In a 45 ton category we came to the conclusion that a member of this forum, who only recently joined to us, was able to surpass all other contestants with his tank design. He earns a title of The Glorious Tank Autist of SH - comrade @N-L-M! His XM-2239 "Norman" tank was chosen by all judges as the best submissions of this competition. His work was fighting with Toxn's heavy tank for a 1st place, and managed to overtake it. @Sturgeon's XM12 "Donward" was disqualified from the competition as it was not fitting into one of basic requirements (width, 3.35 meters without skirts vs 3.25 meters required). @A. T. Mahan's 120mm gun tank T44 also was disqualified for use of armor tech that was out of competition-imposed industrial capabilities limitation (1940-1950s level of tech) @ApplesauceBandit's AFVs were also not in a competition as submission was lacking in any stats, so we couldn't understand if vehicle fits into basic requirements. In 25 ton category a rivalry was stronger as more light tanks proposals managed to get through basic requirements. Judges examined several war vehicles proposed by A.T. Mahan, Sturgeon, NLM, Toxn, and made their choice. The winner of this category is no other than a Supreme Warrior of Napkinpanzers comrade @Toxn!* *vehicle should receive a change in co-axial MG placement, as now it is a danger for driver's head when he is entering/exiting his station or anytime when he have his head outside of the hatch. Our Great AFV designer Toxn pictured with tank drivers that his tank is going to kill before modernization programm will be launched to reposition co-axial MG to a safer place. Place for a memorial is ready to accept new heroes of SH Tank design bureau.** **Not in Kharkov Winners of this competition now should receive their prizes, after that - locked in their houses and allowed to get out only to work on AFV designs until retirement.
  15. 1 point
    Ah yes, let’s place a 12 inch gun in a 1.6 kt sub, eat your heart out France! Obligatory picture of Surcouf:
  16. 1 point
    LoooSeR

    French flair

    Jag
  17. 1 point
  18. 0 points
    Yep. That's exactly how it would seem. Probably a white nationalist racist homophobic white male with ties to the NRA. Probably lives in a trailer and beats his wife. Might have a thing for his cousin. But most certainly votes Republican.
  19. 0 points
    Ramlaen

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    So we get to reconcile those NRC documents with this one. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1619/ML16190A098.pdf
  20. 0 points
    No, he'll invade and bomb two unrelated websites.
  21. 0 points
    I've changed my mind. This is a 4chan prank.
  22. 0 points
    Also on the other side of the "bomb", the clock, has no alarm function. It's function was to grab as much attention as possible and so far it's succeeded.
  23. 0 points
  24. 0 points
    Toxn

    Competition: Tank Design 2239

    I am honoured to accept lifelong house arrest and confinement in the name of designing glorious tanks for our sacred motherland. I will place the coaxial machinegun in a more suitable position where it can wound all crewman equally, so as to enact the egalitarian principles of our supreme state.
  25. 0 points
    This is fucked up. I post this to say that campus PD is a bunch of ineffectual bullshit. Heart goes out to her family. People are shitters.
×