Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/02/2018 in all areas

  1. 12 points
    AAV-P7A1 CATFAE (Catapult launched Fuel Air Explosives). Troop carrying capabilities were exchanged for 21 fuel-air ordnance launchers for the purpose of clearing minefields and other obstacles during an amphibious assault.
  2. 11 points
    Recoil system of the M256:
  3. 10 points
    What a Long, Strange Trip it's Been PC gaming has been a hell of a ride. I say "has been" both in the sense that exciting and dynamic things have happened, but also in the sense that the most exciting and dynamic times are behind us. No other form of video gaming is as closely tied to the latest developments in personal computing hardware, and current trends do not suggest that anything dramatically new and exciting is immediately around the corner. Indeed, fundamental aspects of semiconductor physics suggest that chip technology is nearing, or perhaps already on a plateau where only slow, incremental improvement is possible. This, in turn, will limit the amount of improvement possible for game developers. Gaming certainly will not disappear, and PC gaming will also not disappear, although the PC gaming share of the market may contract in the future. But I think it is a reasonable expectation that future PC game titles will not be such dramatic technological improvements over older titles as was the case in the past in the near term. In the long term, current technology and hardware design will eventually be replaced with something entirely different and disruptive, but as always it is difficult, maybe impossible to predict what that replacement will be. The Good Old Days The start of the modern, hardware-driven PC gaming culture that we all know and love began with Id Software's early first person shooter titles, most importantly 1993's Doom. PC gaming was around before Doom, of course, but Doom's combination of cutting edge graphics technology and massive, massive appeal is what really got the ball rolling. Doom was phenomenally popular. There were, at one point, more installs of Doom than there were installs of the Windows operating system. I don't think there is any subsequent PC title that can claim that. Furthermore, it was Doom, and its spiritual successor Quake that really defined PC gaming as a genre that pushed the boundaries of what was possible with hardware. Doom convincingly faked 3D graphics on computers that had approximately the same number-crunching might as a potato. It also demanded radically more computing power than Wolfenstein 3D, but in those days computing hardware was advancing at such a rate that this wasn't really unreasonable. This was followed by Quake, which was actually 3D, and demanded so much more of the hardware then available that it quickly became one of the first games to support hardware acceleration. Id software disintegrated under the stress of the development of Quake, and while many of the original Id team have gone on to do noteworthy things in PC gaming technology, none of it has been earth-shaking the way their work at Id was. And so, the next important development occurred not with Id's games, but with their successors. It had become clear, by that point, that there was a strong consumer demand for higher game framerates, but also for better-looking graphics. In addition to ever-more sophisticated game engines and higher poly-count game models, the next big advance in PC gaming technology was the addition of shaders to the graphics. Shaders could be used to smooth out the low-poly models of the time, apply lighting effects, and generally make the games look less like spiky ass. But the important caveat about shaders, from a hardware development perspective, was that shader code ran extremely well in parallel while the rest of the game code ran well in series. The sort of chip that would quickly do the calculations for the main game, and the sort of chip that would do quickly do calculations for the graphics were therefore very different. Companies devoted exclusively to making graphics-crunching chips emerged (of these, only Nvidia is left standing), and the stage was set for the heyday of PC gaming hardware evolution from the mid 1990s to the early 2000s. Initially, there were a great number of hardware acceleration options, and getting everything to work was a bit of an inconsistent mess that only enthusiasts really bothered with, but things rapidly settled down to where we are today. The important rules of thumb which have, hitherto applied are: -The IBM-compatible personal computer is the chosen mount of the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race™. -The two most important pieces of hardware on a gaming PC are the CPU and the GPU, and every year the top of the line CPUs and GPUs will be a little faster than before. -Even though, as of the mid 2000s, both gaming consoles and Macs were made of predominantly IBM-compatible hardware, they are not suitable devices for the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race™. This is because they have artificially-imposed software restrictions that keep them from easily being used the same way as a proper gaming PC. -Even though they did not suffer from the same compatibility issues as consoles or Macs, computers with integrated graphics processors are not suitable devices for the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race™. -Intel CPUs are the best, and Nvidia GPUs are the best. AMD is a budget option in both categories. The Victorious March of Moore's Law Moore's Law, which is not an actual physical law, but rather an observation about the shrinkage of the physical size of transistors, has held so true for most of the 21st century that it seemed like it was an actual fundamental law of the universe. The most visible and obvious indication of the continuous improvement in computer hardware was that every year the clock speeds on CPUs got higher. Now, clock speed itself isn't actually particularly indicative of overall CPU performance, since that is a complex interplay of clock speed, instructions per cycle and pipe length. But at the time, CPU architecture was staying more or less the same, so the increase in CPU clock speeds was a reasonable enough, and very marketing-friendly indicator of how swimmingly things were going. In 2000, Intel was confident that 10 GHZ chips were about a decade away. This reliable increase in computing power corresponded with a reliable improvement in game graphics and design year on year. You can usually look at a game from the 2000s and guess, to within a few years, when it came out because the graphical improvements were that consistent year after year. The improvement was also rapid. Compare 2004's Far Cry to 2007's Crysis. And so, for a time, game designers and hardware designers marched hand in hand towards ever greater performance. The End of the Low-Hanging Fruit But you know how this works, right? Everyone has seen VH1's Behind the Music. This next part is where it all comes apart after the explosive success and drugs and groupies, leaving just the drugs. This next part is where we are right now. If you look again at the chart of CPU clock speeds, you see that improvement flatlines at about 2005. This is due to the end of Dennard Scaling. Until about 2006, reductions in the size of transistors allowed chip engineers to increase clock speeds without worrying about thermal issues, but that isn't the case anymore. Transistors have become so small that significant amounts of current leakage occur, meaning that clock speeds cannot improve without imposing unrealistic thermal loads on the chips. Clock speed isn't everything. The actual muscle of a CPU is a function of several things; the pipeline, the instructions per clock cycle, clock speed, and, after 2005 with the introduction of the Athlon 64X2, the core count. And, even as clock speed remained the same, these other important metrics did continue to see improvement: The catch is that the raw performance of a CPU is, roughly speaking, a multiplicative product of all of these things working together. If the chip designers can manage a 20% increase in IPC and a 20% increase in clock speed, and some enhancements to pipeline design that amount to a 5% improvement, then they're looking at a 51.2% overall improvement in chip performance. Roughly. But if they stop being able to improve one of these factors, then to achieve the same increases in performance, they need to cram in the improvements into just the remaining areas, which is a lot harder than making modest improvements across the board. Multi-core CPUs arrived to market at around the same time that clock speed increases became impossible. Adding more cores to the CPU did initially allow for some multiplicative improvements in chip performance, which did buy time for the trend of ever-increasing performance. The theoretical FLOPS (floating point operations per second) of a chip is a function of its IPC, core count and clock speed. However, the real-world performance increase provided by multi-core processing is highly dependent on the degree to which the task can be paralleled, and is subject to Amdahl's Law: Most games can be only poorly parallelized. The parallel portion is probably around the 50% mark for everything except graphics, which has can be parallelized excellently. This means that as soon as CPUs hit 16 cores, there was basically no additional improvement to be had in games from multi-core technology. That is, unless game designers start to code games specifically for better multi-core performance, but so far this has not happened. On top of this, adding more cores to a CPU usually imposes a small reduction to clock speed, so the actual point of diminishing returns may occur at a slightly lower core count. On top of all that, designing new and smaller chip architecture has become harder and harder. Intel first announced 10nm chip architecture back in September 2017, and showed a timeline with it straddling 2017 and 2018. 2018 has come and gone, and still no 10nm. Currently Intel is hopeful that they can get 10nm chips to market by the end of 2019. AMD have had a somewhat easier time of it, announcing a radically different mixed 14nm and 7nm "chiplet" architecture at the end of 2018, and actually brought a 7nm discrete graphics card to market at the beginning of 2019. However, this new graphics card merely matches NVIDIA's top-of-the-line cards, both in terms of performance and in terms of price. This is a significant development, since AMD's graphics cards have usually been second-best, or cost-effective mid-range models at best, so for them to have a competitive top-of-the-line model is noteworthy. But, while CPUs and GPUs are different, it certainly doesn't paint a picture of obvious and overwhelming superiority for the new 7nm process. The release of AMD's "chiplet" Zen 2 CPUs appears to have been delayed to the middle of 2019, so I suppose we'll find out then. Additionally, it appears that the next-generation of Playstation will use a version of AMD's upcoming "Navi" GPU, as well as a Zen CPU, and AMD hardware will power the next-generation XBOX as well. So AMD is doing quite well servicing the console gaming peasant crowd, at least. Time will tell whether the unexpected delays faced by their rivals along with the unexpected boost from crypto miners buying literally every fucking GPU known to man will allow them to dominate the hardware market going forward. Investors seem optimistic, however: With Intel, they seem less sanguine: and with NVIDIA, well... But the bottom line is don't expect miracles. While it would be enormously satisfying to see Intel and NVIDIA taken down a peg after years of anti-consumer bullshit, the reality is that hardware improvements have fundamentally become difficult. For the time being, nobody is going to be throwing out their old computers just because they've gotten slow. As the rate of improvements dwindles, people will start throwing out their old PCs and replacing them only because they've gotten broken. OK, but What About GPUs? GPU improvements took longer to slow down than CPU improvements, in large part because GPU workloads can be parallel processed well. But the slowdown has arrived. This hasn't stopped the manufacturers of discrete GPUs from trying to innovate, of course. Not only that; the market is about to become more competitive with Intel announcing their plans for a discrete GPU in the near future. NVIDIA has pushed their new ray-tracing optimized graphics cards for the past few months as well. The cryptomining GPU boom has come and gone; GPUs turn out to be better than CPUs at cryptomining, but ASICs beat out GPUs but a lot, so that market is unlikely to be a factor again. GPUs are still relatively cost-competitive for a variety of machine learning tasks, although long-term these will probably be displaced by custom designed chips like the ones Google is mass-ordering. Things really do not look rosy for GPU sales. Every time someone discovers some clever alternative use for GPUs like cryptomining or machine learning, they get displaced after a few years by custom hardware solutions even more fine-tuned to the task. Highly parallel chips are the future, but there's no reason to think that those highly parallel chips will be traditional GPUs, per se. And speaking of which, aren't CPUs getting more parallel, with their ever-increasing core count? And doesn't AMD's "chiplet" architecture allow wildly differently optimized cores to be stitched together? So, the CPU of a computer could very easily be made to accommodate capable on-board graphics muscle. So... why do we even need GPUs in the future? After all, PCs used to have discrete sound cards and networking cards, and the CPU does all of that now. The GPU has really been the last hold-out, and will likely be swallowed by the CPU, at least on low and mid range machines in the next few years. Where to Next? At the end of 2018, popular YouTube tech channel LinusTechTips released a video about Shadow. Shadow is a company that is planning to use centrally-located servers to provide cloud-based games streaming. At the time, the video was received with (understandably) a lot of skepticism, and even Linus doesn't sound all that convinced by Shadow's claims. The technical problems with such a system seem daunting, especially with respect to latency. This really did seem like an idea that would come and go. This is not its time; the technology simply isn't good enough. And then, just ten days ago, Google announced that they had exactly the same idea: The fact that tech colossus Google is interested changed a lot of people's minds about the idea of cloud gaming. Is this the way forward? I am unconvinced. The latency problems do seem legitimately difficult to overcome, even for Google. Also, almost everything that Google tries to do that isn't search on Android fails miserably. Remember Google Glass? Google Plus? But I do think that games that are partially cloud-based will have some market share. Actually, they already do. I spent a hell of a lot of time playing World of Tanks, and that game calculates all line-of-sight checks and all gunfire server-side. Most online games do have some things that are calculated server-side, but WoT was an extreme example for the time. I could easily see future games offloading a greater amount of the computational load to centralized servers vis a vis the player's own PC. But there are two far greater harbingers of doom for PC gaming than cloud computing. The first is smart phones and the second is shitty American corporate culture. Smart phones are set to saturate the world in a way desktop PCs never did. American games publishers are currently more interested in the profits from gambling-esque game monetization schemes than they are in making games. Obviously, I don't mean that in a generic anti-capitalist, corporation-bashing hippie way. I hate hippies. I fuck hippies for breakfast. But if you look at even mainstream news outlets on Electronic Arts, it's pretty obvious that the AAA games industry, which had hitherto been part of the engine driving the games/hardware train forward, is badly sick right now. The only thing that may stop their current sleaziness is government intervention. So, that brings us to the least important, but most discussion-sparking part of the article; my predictions. In the next few years, I predict that the most popular game titles will be things like Fortnite or Apex Legends. They will be monetized on some sort of games-as-service model, and will lean heavily if not entirely on multiplayer modes. They may incorporate some use of server-side calculation to offload the player PC, but in general they will work on modest PCs because they will only aspire to have decent, readable graphics rather than really pretty ones. The typical "gaming rig" for this type of game will be a modest and inexpensive desktop or laptop running built-in graphics with no discrete graphics card. There will continue to be an enthusiast market for games that push the limits, but this market will no longer drive the majority of gaming hardware sales. If these predictions sound suspiciously similar to those espoused by the Coreteks tech channel, that's because I watched a hell of a lot of his stuff when researching this post, and I find his views generally convincing. Intel's Foveros 3D chip architecture could bring a surge in CPU performance, but I predict that it will be a one-time surge, followed by the return to relatively slow improvement. The reason why is that the Foveros architecture allows for truly massive CPU caches, and these could be used to create enormous IPC gains. But after the initial boon caused by the change in architecture, the same problems that are currently slowing down improvement would be back, the same as before. It definitely wouldn't be a return to the good old days of Moore's Law. Even further down the road, a switch to a different semiconducting material such as Gallium Nitride (which is already used in some wireless devices and military electronics) could allow further miniaturization and speed ups where silicon has stalled out. But those sort of predictions stretch my limited prescience and knowledge of semiconductor physics too far. If you are interested in this stuff, I recommend diving into Coretek's channel (linked above) as well as Adored TV.
  4. 9 points
    N-L-M

    Competition: Californium 2250

    Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII The Dianetic People’s Republic of California Anno Domini 2250 SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank 1. Background. As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater. The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive. Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves: A. The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]). Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns. B. The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed. Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters. C. Deseret tandem ATR-4 series Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM. Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters. D. Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen. Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters. E. Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs. F. IEDs In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep. 2. General guidelines: A. Solicitation outline: In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted. B. Requirements definitions: The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal. Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal. Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that. Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications. C. All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit. D. The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows: a. Vehicle recoverability. b. Continued fightability. c. Crew survival. E. Permissible weights: a. No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons. b. Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time. c. Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport. F. Overall dimensions: a. Length- essentially unrestricted. b. Width- 4m transport width. i. No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement. ii. Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle. c. Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall. G. Technology available: a. Armor: The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge. Structural materials: i. RHA/CHA Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA). Density- 7.8 g/cm^3. ii. Aluminum 5083 More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness. Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm. Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE. Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel). For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended: For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure. Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit. Non-structural passive materials: iii. HHA Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm. Density- 7.8g/cm^3. iv. Glass textolite Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE. Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel). Non-structural. v. Fused silica Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE. Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel). Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work. vi. Fuel Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE. Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE. Density-0.82g/cm^3. vii. Assorted stowage/systems Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE. viii. Spaced armor Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE. Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap. Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette. Reactive armor materials: ix. ERA-light A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects). x. ERA-heavy A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects). xi. NERA-light A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage. xii. NERA-heavy A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel. Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight. Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage. The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1. b. Firepower i. 2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960. ii. Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS. iii. Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot) iv. Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT. v. The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK. c. Mobility i. Engines tech level: 1. MB 838 (830 HP) 2. AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP) 3. Kharkov 5TD (600 HP) ii. Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled). iii. Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place). iv. There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right. d. Electronics i. LRFs- unavailable ii. Thermals-unavailable iii. I^2- limited 3. Operational Requirements. The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet. 4. Submission protocols. Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time. Appendix 1- armor calculation Appendix 2- operational requirements Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
  5. 9 points
    Laviduce

    French flair

    AMX Leclerc Series 1 Special Armor distribution in the hull and turret (not including the spaced heavy side skirts). Once the model is complete i will use it to do some vulnerability modelling along the lines the data presented in the Swedish Tank Trial diagrams:
  6. 8 points
    Here comes more T-64 stuff. Seems the Kharkov factory, 1972. I don't own any of this material. Enjoy.
  7. 8 points
    Valryon

    Polish Armoured Vehicles

    First 3 Leopards 2PL delivered to Bumar Łabędy. Another pic from Tomasz Dmitruk.
  8. 7 points
    Comrades! The time of your waiting is over! I introduce to you the Sierra Nevada VagonZavod AFV-50 Gun Tank Frontal Dimensions Frontal Armor Turret Cheek Armor Array (not to scale) Top/Side Vital Statistics(as pictured): Weight : 52.6 Metric Tons Crew: 3 (Commander, Gunner, Driver) Length (hull/OAL gun forward): 6.9m/9.3m Width: 3.9m Height: 2.4m Engine: Twin Turbocharged+Supercharged V-12 Diesel (880kw/1180hp) 16.73kw/tonne / 22.4hp/tonne >70 kph on road Armament: 125mm L/48 auto-loaded smoothbore, 30 rounds ready 1x PKT 7.62x54mm Coaxial MG, 3000 rounds 1x KPVT 14.5x114mm AAMG, 500 rounds in 50 round belts
  9. 7 points
    Scav

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    Armour dimensions of the M1A1 in the American Heritage museum (made by a friend): Hull: 24" or 609.6mm to weldline, rumoured 4" plate behind that (101.6mm) (Quoting friend) Seems like there's some empty space there, or he could've missed something, but he agreed that LOS thickness was ~732mm. Turret cheek loader: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular From front face to loader's hatch on outside: 78" (he had to hook the tape over, so -3" on the pic you see) and from loader's hatch on inside to armour = 41", so turret cheek armour from front = 37" or 939.8mm. Turret cheek gunner: 29" or 736.6mm perpendicular, less angled than loader's side, no measurement to commander's hatch and inside to get overal thickness but we assumed same inner plate thickness. (maybe the GPS wouldn't be able to fit if it was bigger?) So, hull of M1 (1980) was same thickness and turret most likely the same too (732mm LOS), so how come they gave turret higher protection values than hull? Seems a bit odd, CIA gave turret 400mm KE (on a turret variant, we don't know which) and 750mm CE, but hull generally gets values of 350mm KE and 750mm CE..... In any case, reference threat for XM-1 (FSED I think) was XM579E1 (simulating 115mm APFSDS): Penetration was estimated at 161mm @60° and 1470m/s (either PB or 500m ish). UK estimated XM-1 at 320-340mm, which coincides with the 115mm at 800-1200m requirement: As previously pointed out in this thread. This doesn't talk about the XM-1s before the FSED it seems (why would they talk about an outdated design?). So either CIA was talking about IPM1 turret ("long turret") or they somehow increased KE values for turret while keeping CE the same OR CIA was overestimating own armour?.... Anyway, BRL-1 or early versions of Chobham don't seem to be very good against KE relatively speaking, NERA part itself seems to do very little for KE, simulated ammo (XM579E1) isn't the best against composite materials or complex targets. Perhaps OG M1 only had ~350mm effective against KE on both hull and turret and IPM1 increased this to 400 or slightly higher, but I don't think that increasing the thickness of the turret with more NERA seems very efficient against KE. IPM1/M1A1 probably have below 470mm against KE on turret (XM579E1), but maybe more against old slug type APFSDS and definitely less against 80s long rods. This probably led to DU equipped M1s...... to compensate for relatively poor KE protection.
  10. 7 points
    Hey all! T___A here, You may, or may not be acquainted with me. In case you don't I mostly post in the Soviet Tank thread here in MW. I do read most of the content on the rest forum however. To be frank with you all: I have been disappointed with the quality of this forum. So has @Sturgeon. So our glorious leader in a fit of drunken anger has appointed me the Reich Plenipotentiary for the Administration of the Four Plan of the Final Solution of the shitpoasting question. Seriously: Dumbass slap fighting in the wrong thread will no longer be tolerated Neither will anime avatars. This is a rule that not even OG Alter Kämpfers are exempt from. You know who you are and I will be sending a PM to you. As always SH's most important rule applies: referte avt morimini In video form:
  11. 7 points
    Hello, just a long time SH lurker. Source: internet. T-64As, 120 BTRZ Kirchmoser, Brandenburg, DDR. Unknown year.
  12. 7 points
    So, did anyone else post pictures of the Marder 2 before? My friends went to Koblenz and took these pictures: They asked about the penetration of DM33, but apparently it's still being used by Japan so it's "classified"(surprisingly not other coutries). Otherwise he'd be allowed to share it.
  13. 7 points
    Molnibalage make several really good booklets about the air defence systems, here I try to cover them all: S-25 S-75 family S-200 family S-300 family IADS / GCI systems of the Cold War Nike family and BOMARC HAWK Patriot Air defense at the XXI. century S-125 vs. F-117 2K11 Krug 2K12 Kub 9K33 Osa 9K331 Tor 9K37M1 Buk 9K81 / 9K81M aka S-300V / VM 9K35 Strela-10 2K22M Tunguska ZU-23-4 Shilka Download directory: Download Directory @ Mediafire This is the translation of the long Hungarian book what Molnibalage made in cooperation with other guys for ex. with Hpaps, he is well known for the SamSim. This is the whole, in Hungarian: click here Because these chapters (booklets) just a part of a big book are some parts in the document which refer to content of the book in other chapters. Slowly the whole book will be translated, but it could take years to finish it. Have a good reading!
  14. 6 points
    T-64BV added. Also added spoilers to make page a bit shorter, faster to scroll. This was the last vehicle that this guide will cover, BTW. So yes, after several years it is finally done! @Scolopax @N-L-M @Collimatrix @Ramlaen @Lord_James @Zyklon
  15. 6 points
    T-64B section added. Only Kharkovite-64BV is left to cover. @Collimatrix @Scolopax @Bronezhilet @N-L-M @Zyklon @Lord_James @EnsignExpendable
  16. 6 points
    Toxn

    Competition: Californium 2250

    So this week I did my usual 'run hard with the first idea that pops into your head' approach. This is what I came up with: This is Brick junior. It fulfils the objective requirements for firepower and armour protection, and the threshold requirements for specific power (I don't know about the rest yet). The Brick series of vehicles are all built around the idea of the essential crew (see below) being housed in the hull/turret ring under the hull line. The turret superstructure, in turn, is thinly armoured except for the mantlet, although the addition of lightweight armour panels to the turret periphery can readily increase the protection provided to the gun and its associated equipment. As a result, Brick junior weighs 49 tonnes fully loaded and can run on a stretched T-72 derived suspension (Basically one extra road wheel). The engine is an AVDS-series derived unit running to a rear transmission assembly (again, T-72 derived). The gun is a 150mm L/45 piece designed primarily to sling HEAT-FS and HE-FS. It also has an emergency supercharge APFSDS round which can penetrate a base-model Norman from the front out to 2000m if needed. The range of HEAT-FS ammunition (steel-coned HEDP, copper-coned and improved copper-coned tandem charge) means that no practical level of up-armouring will save the existing models of Cascadian tanks. The gun is fed by an autoloader unit running from an ammunition compartment in the left side of the turret. The compartment holds up to 20 charges and 20 shells, and feeds them to a loading rail in the turret rear. The ammunition compartment can be topped up from a secondary 20+20 compartment left of the driver when the turret is locked forwards. Both compartments have blow-off panels on top. The M-model Brick would use a more simple autoloader unit, so it would have to level the gun between shots. The more sophisticated version would be able to follow the gun through most of it's elevation and depression range. The gun itself and elevate/depress 30/-10 degrees. The coax is a 12.7mm piece. The most unusual feature of the Brick is the armoured pulpit mounted to the rear of the turret superstructure. This acts as a counterweight, and also houses the observer-gunner. Xis job is to observe and operate the rangefinder, freeing up some work from the commander and gunner. This crewmember is, however, not necessary to operate the tank and so only enjoys base levels of protection. A 12.7mm pintle-mounted gun may be provided for particularly trusted observer-gunners to operate. Brick junior identifies as gender-fluid demisexual polyamorous, and xer preferred greeting is 'please, oh god no'.
  17. 6 points
    Very interesting vehicle with impressive UFP LOS armor thickness even at preliminary project stage OBM vol.3 p.342 says it was able to withstand some 122mm KE round, and provided protection against 600mm CE. The thing is - there is a difference between drawings of preliminary project (p.227), and another drawing (p.341), with later having more sloped armor at around 74 degrees which leads to even more impressive LOS thickness of 90,7 cm, however I wish there was some better source for that than my measurements using those drawings scaled by their T-64 type roadwheels and 5TDF engine. ... This thing also had sight cover doors, unlike some other russian vehicles of not-so-distant-past: ... It also had some sort of periscopic device for commander (which, obviously, was located in hull and had rather limited observation via perisopes in his hatch) here, protruding on the starboard side of the vehicle: inside: Upd: btw, btvt.info's web version of OBM vol.3 article on 287 has same image in somewhat different quality. Upscaled: And another thing i should've remembered earlier. Btvt.info's article on soviet ERA development history, among other things, talks about ERA which was tested in 1968 with 3 vehicles in mind - obj. 434 (T-64A), obj 775 and obj. 287. For some reason i've always forgot about 287. Anyway, that article has this drawing of 287 ERA UFP (as anyone can see, in very bad quality): and it says that shape of composite armor UFP+LFP is also shown, and that it was taken from drawing of obj.287-50-assembly2. And that this ERA-hull configuration was tested against Falanga ATGM (IIRC 500mm CE) and was also able to protect against up to 800 mm CE treats. (Which leads to a question of whether composite armor version was tested, and able to withstand, against same treats or not) Anyway, it shows that angle in question is 75 degrees, and that alone would lead an UFP of 90+130+30mm to having a LOS thickness of about 96 cm. ... Another interesting feature of 287 is that people in 1940s-1960s were not satisfied at all with the way all that slat armor and other means designed to increase standoff distance from shaped charge weapons also increase vehicle's dimensions and could be torn away by obstacles. So both in US and USSR there were some developments on how to fold those things when there are no imminent danger. Gill armor on T-72 is rather well-known, and described there https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html in length (in part "GILL ARMOUR") but there were other things which were proposed, tested, and apparently rejected - and 287 got two of those. There were some thin presumably metal sheets which look similar to some of the prototypes which were tested in early 60s and later apparently lead to "gill armor" and even earlier 287 had some netted armor - made using steel wire - which by the way was also proposed for preliminary project of Obj. 432 in 1961
  18. 6 points
    EnsignExpendable

    Scale Models Megathread

    Finally, the Mark V is finished, photographed, and on my shelf. Overall, I'm pretty satisfied with this project. Rest of photos
  19. 6 points
    Stefan Kotsch has published the following excerpts from East-German documents regarding the reliability of the T-72 on Tank-Net.
  20. 6 points
    SH_MM

    Britons are in trouble

  21. 6 points
    Some information on BMP-3 with Epokha from GurKhan. Epokha unmanned turret is planned to be installed on modernized BMP-3s, it is armed with low-energy 57 autocannon similar to LShO-57 (which is basically an oversized AGL) and 2 new ATGMs. When people heard name of new ATGM (Bulat) and looked at model of Epokha turret everybody thought that Bulat ATGMs were new small caliber missiles as big launchers on sides of unmanned turret were exactly same as Kornet launchers on Berezhok and other turrets for IFVs. But looks like we were wrong: Bulat is Kornet-sized ATGM with new guidance system (possibly 3rd gen F&F, i hope). It is possible to use Kornets in those launcher, so Bulats are not going to be exclusive type of ATGMs that Epokha can use. I suspect that during initial presentation those things will be armed with Kornets instead of new Bulats. Bulat ATGM 3D model shown during presentetion of Boomerang-BM unmanned turret, sometime before 2015 IIRC. So what are those smaller caliber missile launcher on Epokha turret roof? Picture from patent: Those things are our good old friend "guided bullet" concept, which was sort of known for years. Docs that were posted on otvaga: http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2496087 http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2512047 http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2496089 http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2538881 http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2527366 http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2569229 In container/launcher: http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2568823 http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2529256 http://www.fips.ru/cdfi/fips.dll/ru?ty=29&docid=2535119 LShO-57/AGS-57:
  22. 6 points
  23. 5 points
    Adraste

    Israeli AFVs

    A few pics from the recent flare-up
  24. 5 points
    Xoon

    Competition: Californium 2250

    Been refining the suspension, currently done with the suspension arm: Next on the agenda is the suspension mount: Currently work is progress. This is all I am going to do today, its waaay to late:
  25. 5 points
    Lord_James

    Competition: Californium 2250

    More picks of the SH-1T, now with road wheels and 2 new armor cavities! Weight is up to 35.86 Mg, with the suspension and wheels taking up 8.6 Mg by themselves (steel torsion bars with 850mm diameter aluminum wheels). New Armor cavities: 6. Engine Compartment Roof: 30mm RHA + 60mm array + 30mm JPA at 7o. 992mm LoS 7. Crew Compartment Roof: 25mm RHA + light NERA + 36mm JPA. might reverse angle the NERA or change the material, as I'm getting disappointingly low numbers for roof protection. I also raised the crew compartment floor, so no one can trip over the autoloader, though this reduces the head room from 1.45m to 1.26m. near future: A. mock up turret and carousel loader. B. extend the sponsons backwards to make space for a rear idler, additional cover for the rear door, and rear aesthetics. C. place ammo racks (the current front space can fit 42 charges). D. armor arrays and side skirts. later: E. Upgrade kits F. front dozer blade (a la T-72) G. alternate turrets/vehicles
  26. 5 points
    Toxn

    Competition: Californium 2250

    Brick junior gained weight thanks to my poor grasp of maths, and had to be put on a diet: All-up weight is now 63 tonnes fully loaded, but the ammunition capacity has been lowered to 30 rounds (20 in the primary ammo rack and 10 in the secondary). I'm at the point where I have to decide whether it's worth slimming it down more, going for a bigger engine or starting on Brick senior. With a stretched AVDS-derived mill the all-up weight will probably be close to 70 tonnes, but the power available jumps to 1205hp. This should provide enough grunt to push over the minimum power-to-weight requirements (Brick jr is currently a hair under). On the other hand, it might be worth stretching out properly and getting that 200mm gun I've been wanting to throw into this competition... Edit: here are the rounds for the 150mm smoothbore gun: - Common: all rounds use a seperate tubular 150x1000mm propelling charge section (semi-combustible with a aluminium or steel case stub). Some rounds include extra propellant in the warhead section. Reload rate is approximately 15 seconds per round. - HEAT-FS (HEDP, steel liner): 545mm RHA penetration, 35kg, 950m/s. - HEAT-FS (single, copper liner): 610mm RHA penetration, 35kg, 950m/s. - HEAT-FS (tandem, copper liners, high-precision cones + improved pressing): 250/700mm RHA penetration, 35kg, 950m/s. - HE-FS: 60mm RHA penetration, 43kg, 850m/s. - APFSDS (maraging steel): 375mm RHA penetration at muzzle, 5.1kg penetrator, 10.4kg total, 1900m/s (note: due to excessive barrel wear, this round is restricted to a maximum of 3 per combat load). - APFSDS (maraging steel with 20x21mm tungsten carbide tip): 410mm RHA penetration at muzzle, 5.2kg projectile, 10.4kg total, 1900m/s (note: due to excessive barrel wear, this round is restricted to a maximum of 3 per combat load).
  27. 5 points
    Scav

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Interesting points: Mantlet weighs 640kg Barrel + breech weigh 1905kg but total assembly without mantlet is 3015kg, so 1110kg for cradle, recoil system, recoil guard, etc. They tested APFSDS with L/Ds in excess of 30. Sales brochure (?) from September 1982.
  28. 5 points
    Don't know if already posted: https://www.mtu-report.com/Technology/Research-Development/Putting-the-Puma-through-its-Paces https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/themen_im_fokus/puma_ersetzt_marder/index.php#
  29. 5 points
    SPARTAN ARMED

    Israeli AFVs

  30. 5 points
    We may (very soon) get Constitutional carry in Kentucky. Keeping my fingers crossed. ETA- IT PASSED. Kentucky has Constitutional carry. 60 "yes" , while 37 found freedom "scary".
  31. 5 points
  32. 5 points
    Belesarius

    The Shipwreck News Thread

    Oh wow. This is a fucking cool shot from above the wreck of the Hornet. Note how intact the wreck is, with the island largely intact. Some of the stern is missing, or crumpled in the sonar shadow. But man, for a ship that took such a beating she looks largely intact. @Collimatrix, @A. T. Mahan,
  33. 5 points
    Alzoc

    French flair

    ELC EVEN There are quite a few different turret: Twin 30 mm: Smoothbore 90mm: Recoiless 120 mm: SS-11 and/or SS-12: They were the entry in competition with the AMX design for the ELC project:
  34. 5 points
  35. 5 points
  36. 5 points
    Militarysta

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Well sometimes knowledge in silver but shut the fuck up is pure gold. That what I think about those on AW forum. Point by point: Yes, mostly true. PT-91M/M1 have better vs KE armour then Leopard 2A4 and as base armour - mucht more weaker then L2A4 against HEAT. But PT-91M/M1 whit ERAWA-2 is mucht better protected then Leopard 2A4. Sad, but it's fact. But from the other hand - Leopard 2A4 outdated PT-91 in all other aspects and tank crews don't event want to lisen about T-72M1/PT-91/Pendakar tank. They just want's Leo-2. yes, it's true in case old 2A4. No, not true. AMAP-B is OK, "base armour" in Leopard 2A4 is shit -that's the problem. Whole protection accoding to polish PGZ shoud be "over 2A5 level" but on test WITU dicover that is not even on this level. Rest is classify but definetly AMAP-B is not problem...in relatio to weight is very good. Part of polish MoD is working on G2G whit USA about take 300-400 M1A1 and upgrade it in Lima. Estimated cost is ~3bln $ It's forced against polish industry (PGZ want's to deal whit Germans or mod.PT-91M) or Army (they want Leopard 2 tanks). It's just slowly doing by last year - IMHO chance are 50/50 couse nobody (despite part od MoD) want's M1A1PL in Poland.
  37. 5 points
    https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5c154835b2d87b00acb731f7/unificirovannye-tipovye-shassi-okr-odnotomnik-5c1bda1855f3da00aa81a727?from=channel GurKhan artice about pre-Armata work on unified chassis vehicles.
  38. 5 points
    skylancer-3441

    Documents for the Documents God

    ... https://cloud.mail.ru/public/87mv/NGc3PoEpo/ "The TARDEC Story: Sixty-five Years of Innovation 1946-2010", downloaded via some means from GoogleBooks, and ... welll, it lacks some 50 pages (out of 3 hundreed) which they do not show https://cloud.mail.ru/public/KL5T/U8pbM6iL7 "The Bradley and how it Got that Way: Technology, Institutions, and the Problem of Mechanized Infantry in the United States Army", which GoogleBooks also has, - it also lacks about 50 pages (out of 2 hundreed) Also, Archive.org has a some sort of online library, which allowes to borrow some of their scanned books - so one user could see that book, and enyone else willing to do the same at the same time should wait in line, as if it was not a bunch of .img/.png files but a real physical copy of the book. Anyway, among some things thay show that way, there is a scan of Burton's Pentagon Wars https://cloud.mail.ru/public/A1qi/Yem6Npsi8 https://cloud.mail.ru/public/ES1e/pSRmx6NzH several dozens of articles and small notes (predominantly in english) on Bradley and tracked APCs and IFVs in general, and how they should be employed, which appeared in 50s-80s in those magazines which I was able to find on the internet - mostly in Army, Armor, Infanry, Military Review, Soldiers, - and also some articles from newspapers like New York Times on scandals around Bradley development and acquizition ... more books there https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Jjk9/mHuYG7piH ... Now there are I guess about 40 volumes of Infantry available in full view on the same link, and I've asked them about Army magazine and got 69 volumes so far https://books.google.ru/books?uid=115590142161999487031&as_coll=1006 - also they've denied my requests for 13 volumes (which are available on Hathitrust anyway). Apparently they've also scanned some Soviet and Russian magazines - like this one https://books.google.ru/books?uid=115590142161999487031&as_coll=1010 (Soviet Miitary Review, english language edition of soviet propaganda magazine about Soviet Army) - also it seems to me that in this case copyright status is confusing and noone knows for sure whether it's in Public Domain or not, which is why my requests on that were mostly denied. those and other "bookshelves" (folders) are available there https://books.google.ru/books?uid=115590142161999487031
  39. 5 points
    https://m.weibo.cn/status/4314232545708008 some new pics on NGCV OMFV's MET-D, for example: and also and another render of GCV: this picture comes to mind: ... Comparing that Bradley drawing with one of the original Bradley from All Vollunteer 1980-07 https://i.imgur.com/WykRCXe.jpg (most detailed picture of soldiers in Bradley i've got so far) Those 6 dismounts got some very generous 202-203 cm of space - that is 67,5 cm (26,5 inches) per person, for sholder or forearm-forearm breadth, which is obviously increases a lot (compared to person in summer clothes or nude) when person is carrying a lot of gear of wearing winter clothes (which no one seems to be bothered about in 1960s or even early 1980s, so IIRC Bradley was designed with something like 56 cm/22 inches in mind - and when in 1984 they measured 95th percentile soldier in uniform for extreme cold weather ("Anthropometry of the Clothed US Army Ground Troop and Combat Vehicle Crewmen"), in turned out that he needs 62 cm/24.5 inches)
  40. 5 points
  41. 4 points
    that photo and 3 more - allmost identical and made within several seconds - from twitter in its maximum size of 3 Mpix : and another photo of the same event made by another photograph - from some news site - in 16 Mpix and 2 hi-rez photos of workers in M1's hull
  42. 4 points
    David Moyes

    Britons are in trouble

    Storage at the back of a Challenger 2 turret. Swings open. Model but you get the idea.
  43. 4 points
    Challenger 2 + MUSS APS being tested as part of the British MEDUSA program.
  44. 4 points
    Handguards. The palm swell makes the AKM much easier to hold when you are sweaty and trying to stay on target: Sights. AKM 1000m, Type 3 800m. I don't know why this is. Sling attachment points. Receiver and gas block on type 3, stock and handguard retainer on AKM: Gas venting holes on Type 3 drilled into tube. Vent holes on AKM cast into actual block. Dust covers: thin and reinforced with ribbing vs. thick and smooth. Type 3 thickness: AKM Thickness: Barrel thickness of Type 3 (near breech first, then near the end) Barrel thickness of AKM (again, breech then near end) So in my opinion the AKM is leagues better. It's lighter, easier to handle, more svelte, you can hold the damn thing, the stock's drop is more pleasant, bayo slips right on, and in go fast they had a rate reducer/hammer retarder. Is the Type 3 marginally more accurate? Probably, but not enough to offset the advantages of the AKM when it came to production and fielding the damn thing. A few notes though: A proper Type 3 would have a screwed in barrel, not a pinned one. Also the Type 3 rifles were in fact blued like this one, whereas the AKMs were paint over park. So next I'd like to do the Type 56 because it is a straight up bizarre combination of the Type 3, RPK, and AKM. It's easy to write off the stamped Chinese guns as AKMs but they are more Type 3 (and interestingly save very little weight over a milled gun). 1.6mm receiver, RPK rivet pattern, Type 3 stock drop and furniture, Type 3 barrel profile. Really just weird hybrids but damn are they stout little bastards.
  45. 4 points
    Object 770 (mock up, to be precise)
  46. 4 points
    DOT&E report for 2018 published. Abrams: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018m1a2sep.pdf APS: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018aps.pdf AMPV: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018ampv.pdf Bradley: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018bradley.pdf JAB: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018jab.pdf M109A7: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018m109pim.pdf Stryker - Dragoon: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018strykericvd.pdf RWS-J: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018strykercrowsj.pdf ACV: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/navy/2018acv.pdf
  47. 4 points
    My photos from parade of AFVs. Several were edited, and also number of them have problems with "horizon", thanks to crowd and no space to move around. Oh, one more thing - this is all original content do not steal. Thats why i put my easy-to-edit-out discord nickname on them. Main action was happening on Dvortsovaya square/Palace square where access was blocked for mortals and only profession photographers from big medias could get in so a lot of vics were photographed during exit from square.
  48. 4 points
  49. 4 points
    Nice family drawing (same as one of our member's signature, but with names over them this time). Lacking Nota, though.
  50. 4 points
×
×
  • Create New...