Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Popular Content

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

  1. 9 points

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    I don't think there is a possible explanation, because people are beginning the argument from the wrong direction. People are making assumptions about the protection level, then try to find sources supporting it - i.e. first comes the thesis, then sources are searched to support it. That's the wrong way to start research - saying "the Challenger 1 needs to have 500 mm RHAe against KE" and then gathering all sources that say somewhat related. I can understand that Laviduce expects a high level of protection based on the thickness of the Chieftain's Stillbrew armor package and based on the greater weight of the Challenger 1 MBT - it could have a protection level of 500 mm vs KE. But we have no confirmation to these theories. With British documents showing that the estimated penetration of 125 mm tungsten-cored APFSDS ammunition was only 475 mm at point blank, I have serious doubts that a protection level of 500 mm or more against APFSDS was required - that's simply not how tanks are designed. The Challenger 1 development was pursued at a different timeframe than the Chieftain upgrade with Stillbrew armor, thus the requirements were different; in so far "just" 400-450 mm vs KE might be a lot more realistic based on the requirements for the MBT-80 project and the data of the Shir 2, assuming the armor package was improved over the latter tank. The Challenger 1 was approved in 1980, the Stillbrew upgrade in 1984. A lot can happen in four years of the Cold War. Even the Chieftain with Stillbrew doesn't reach protection comparable to 500 mm rolled armor steel vs APFSDS ammo, because cast steel provides up to 20% less protection than rolled armor steel. Ceramic armor is not a magical solution to all problems. The T-64A used ceramic armor, yet it protection level was rather limited compared to later tanks. This is wrong. The cited book - at least in its original German version - does not say what is claimed in the first paragraph of this screenshot of "Armor Basics". While the first quote can be found pretty much verbatim on page 76, the second part - i.e. "the ballistic effectiveness of the compouned armors against KE penetrators shows an improvement of only 1.2 to 1.4 over homogeneous rolled steel plate (incontrast to a factor of 2 against shaped charges." - cannot be found on page 76 or 77 of the original book. I have never read the translated version, but I am fairly certain that it doesn't say what is claimed previously. On page 75, the claimed efficiency values (1.2 to 1.4 vs KE, 2 vs shaped charge) can be found: but that is in a paragraph on the armor protection of the T-72! The "factor 2 against shaped charges" is meant to be the mass-efficiency value and is based on a Swiss assessement from a 1982 issue of the Allgemeine Schweizerische Militärzeitschrift claiming that the T-72's hull armor is weight equivalent to a 120 mm steel plate sloped at 70° and provides twice as much protection against shaped charge ammunition as steel armor of the same weight. The same article also includes statements about the supposed performance of the T-72's armor against KE ammo: the article claims that the T-72, M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 use special armor and certain types of special reach a efficiency against KE ammunition of 1.2 to 1.4 per thickness (!). The T-72, which was believed by the Swiss authors to feature a 300 mm line-of-sight thick array of such armor (in reality it had a simple cast steel turret with a thickness of up to 500 mm, while the hull armor has an effective thickness of 547 mm), would then reach a protection level of 360 to 420 mm. We know for fact that the T-72's armor neither reaches a mass efficiency of 2 against shaped charges nor that it provides a thickness efficiency of 1.2 to 1.4 agianst kinetic energy ammunition. It is a false assumption based on incorrect data from a time when the T-72 was still a mystery to NATO and non-aligned countries. Everything else - regarding the effectiveness of ceramic armor - is not related to the Challenger 1. It is pure, unreferenced speculation that the tank would be fitted with such armor, even though it has been proven that Chobham is (mostly) based on spaced NERA sandwiches. Based on a number of declassified documents on the development of Chobham armor, there apparently were more than a dozen different Chobham armor arrays being tested in the early 1970s. Some of them were merely improved versions of earlier designs, others were created to experiment with new concepts (e.g. there was on Chobham armor array that incorporated high explosives similiar to integrated ERA). There might have been some Chobham arrays with ceramic component in them and this development might have lead to the array adopted on the Challenger 1 - but there is no proof for this; even if they are included, ceramics would only play a minor role. CeramTec ETEC, one of the market leaders in Europe for manufacturing ballistic ceramic materials, includes photographs of the Leopard 2 in its flyers, suggesting that some ceramic elements might be part of the armor array. However suggesting that the Shir 2's 325 mm steel-equivalent protection against APFSDS rounds could be increased to 500+ mm just by incorporating ceramic materials seems wrong. Burlington and Chobham are different names for the same thing - there are numerous files using both names to refer to the same armor arrays. According to the British DSTL, modern armor arrays designed to provide protection against KE and HEAT rounds follow a three-stage layout, i.e. they consist of: a distrupting stage to break KE pentrators and shaped chage jets a distrubing stage, which makes sure that the particles and fragments of the broken penetrator change direction and yaw angle an absorbing stage, which stops the fragments from reaching the interior and absorbs the kinetic energy The options for designing the second stage are pretty much limited to different types of spaced multi-layer armor or other types of reactive armor; based on known armor arrays - such as the T-72B's armor and the M1 Abrams' armor, the distrubing stage usually takes up at least half the available armor volume. The first stage is often based on a reactive armor (see the wedge-shaped armor of the Leopard 2A5 or the Kontakt-5 ERA on late Soviet MBTs), although it could also be made using high-hardness steel, perforated armor or ceramic plates (the latter two variants being common on lighter vehicles, because this armor is more efficient against short, bullet-shaped penetrators). The absorbing stage also can include ceramic materials, but will always include a steel layer (which serves as strucutral support) and potentially kevlar, polymers or other materials. In case of the M1 Abrams, the absorbing stage of the hull armor was a rather simple steel plate. So simply adding ceramics to the armor won't drastically change the protection. The Challenger 1 would require a completely different armor array, which would suffer from the typical problems of ceramic armor against large calibre ammunition, such as a relatively low efficiency, low multi-hit capabilty and problems with cost and manufacturing. Armor consisting of layered aluminium oxide with polymer backing and steel enclosure provides the same protection against shaped charges as steel of the same thickness - thus a Challenger 1 with 700-800 mm frontal armor at most would be quite vulnerable to shaped charges. The "Armor Basics" document from which these snipplets are taken is known to be outdated and incorrect in various aspects. The author speculated too much and used false premises to generate his values - armor thickness, armor weight and layout are often wrong. Here for example he ignored that the Challenger 1 turret is meant to provide protection along a 60° frontal arc (30° to each side of the turret centerline), but the Chieftain was designed with protection along a 45° arc only! Thus his whole idea of using the weight difference to scale the equivalent armor weight of the frontal armor is incorrect. He also claims that a 15% increase in steel mass would result in a steel mass equivalent to a thickness of 50 cm - this would mean that in his beliefs the Chieftain was having an armor thickness of 434 mm, which it does not have in reality - the thickness of the frontal turret armor of a Chieftain is about 240-280 mm according to sources posted earlier in this topic. I don't know any "Ed Francis" and see no reason why his writing should be relevant to this discussion. Seeing that the origin of this quote is a post on the Warthunder forum, which wasn't even written by him, but somebody claiming to have spoken to him, I would be rather careful. This is a big pile of unreferenced claims, that in some cases is rather easy to disprove. It is all speculation with no sources. If Burlington and Chobham were two different things, why would official US and UK documents use both names like synonyms? There are dozens of documents on the development of Chobham/Burlington armor, which are using both names; they also use "Chobham spaced armour" and similar terms disproving the claims that supposedly were made by Ed Francis. And this is how the Chobham spaced armor is shown in the same document - no trace of ceramics! Ceramics themselves do not bulge, but rather break; the elasitic backing behind the ceramic tiles will bulge. Ceramics are not suited for NERA sandwiches as long as multi-hit capability matters, Even if this forum poster had asked Ed Francis on the topic and he let him type on the Warthunder forum with his account, I don't see why this name would result in the text being relevant to us. According to a quick google search Mr. Francis is a volunteer at Bovington, not an expert on AFV design and armor technology. Given that there seems to be no special credentials to his name and that Bovington still has a plaque citing incorrect armor values in front of the Chieftain tank, I do not consider this to be a source. There are no exact figures, which is also related to the problem of "irrecoverably lost" being a philosophical question. However the Abrams supposedly did perform very well in ODS. There were 14 Abrams tanks with DU contamination after being struck by DU rounds or on-board fire, for which the US Army lacked procedures and equipment to deal with. If they recovered these later or not is unknown to me.
  2. 8 points
    Part 6 of a multi-part series. Some kind of goofy mutant and an America-mobile. A duck and a ferret. Saracen Ratel 20. Eland 90, aka the Noddy car. Eland 60, sans 60mm mortar. Crazypants Italian armoured car. I honestly have no idea which end is the front and which end is the back. Granddaddy armoured car. Our first attempt at a locally-made armoured car. This is where we caught the wheeled death trap bug. Attempt the second. The Boys anti-tank rifle is missing. Attempt the third. The Brits had finally gotten tired of the 2 pounder, so of course we snapped them up and stuck them into our wheeled death traps. Attempt 4. Now we're really getting into it. I think that that's a 6-pounder, but I could be wrong. The G6. This is what happens if you let us work on the same thing for too long. Eventually you end up with a house-sized monster armed with a howitzer.
  3. 6 points
    To come to Jeeps' defense a bit, there are of course extremists on both sides of the political divide. Part of the frustration that law-abiding Conservatives feel is that the general media and cultural narrative is that the extremism is coming SOLELY from our side. A Bernie bro stabs a bunch of people in Portland and all of a sudden it's the fault of Trump voters. A mosque burns down (twice) in Bellevue, WA and it's Trump's fault that he's "created an environment where extremism can flourish. Well, no, it was a homeless dude (and a teenage squatter the second time) who lit the match. A guy shoots up a congressional baseball practice and clearly it is a right-winger... oops... no, it was another lefty. Now don't get me wrong, Conservatives have their own Jump to Conclusions mat that we hop on. But other than a few blogs, websites, talk radio and Fox News (which I'm not a fan of and which is staffed by people faking being a Conservative for financial gain) the preponderance of the media consisting of network news, newspapers, blogs, YouTube/Facebook/Twitter, Hollywood and the music industry, and even sports leagues are pretty far on the Left of the spectrum. So if Conservatives act like we've been put upon, it's because we have. Particularly when we manage to get "OUR" guy elected and he's being thwarted in ways previous Presidents have been immune to such as the confirmation process where EVERY single cabinet appointment has been "Borked". Or how every single Executive action taken by the President - even though it is clearly Constitutional - has been challenged in court via a campaign of blatant judge shopping. This stuff did not happen in the previous Administration.
  4. 6 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. 5 points

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    You previously wrote I would speculate too much on the weight of the tanks, yet you are making even more speculations. Your sources are inconclusive and thus one should be careful with trying to make any statements based on them. First of all, the British document states that the KE protection for the Abrams would reach a level of 320 to 340 mm protection against APFSDS rounds along the protected frontal arc. Given that the hull front has its minimum armor thickness of the frontal hull is at 0° (while the side armor wasn't altered), it should not have a protection level of "350 mm KE minimum". In fact the M1A2 offered to Sweden has a protection level of 350 mm along the frontal arc of the hull - this tank has no DU armor, but that doesn't matter because only five Abrams tanks were ever created with DU armor protecting the hull. We know that the M1IP and the M1A1 feature upgraded hull armor, which can be seen by looking at the location of the weight demonstrators. This leads to the conclusion that the M1 Abrams did not have 350 mm KE minimum for the hull, but rather 320 mm. The table from the British documents lists a single value for armor protection for the Leopard 2, you are speculating what this value exactly means. First of all, "at [the] normal" can refer to the armor modules - as suggested by you - or to the tanks. Hitting a tank at normal means hitting the "front side" at perpendicular angle (the side of the tank not being affected by the shape of the armor). Against your assumption speaks the fact that the Centurion, Leopard 1 and T-62 are not listed with the respective armor thickness values they'd have when the armor was hit at the normal from within the 60° frontal arc (Leopard 1 for example would have some 50-70 mm thickness, the T-62 some ~150 mm). This implies that "at normal" means "hitting the tank directly from the front". You are assuming that this values would refer to the turret armor; but there is no proof for this. The document doesn't say anything about the table being limited to the turret, in fact it lists the hull armor of the Centurion, the Leopard 1 and the T-62! So even if this would refer to "hitting the armor modules at normal", it still could be a value for the hull being hit at 0°. Do I think that the Leopard 2 must have a protection level of 400 mm or greater at the turret when hit from a 30° angle? No, I don't think it has to. It might have a protection level in the high-300s; but I think we should find sources before making assumptions. We however know for fact that the Leopard 2 has a protection level of ~430 mm steel against KE rounds at the turret when hit directly from the front, because this value is derived from an official table by the manufacturer. So your "350 at 0" is already a false premise. You seem to be eager to "prove" that the Leopard 2 has worse frontal armor than the M1 Abrams; you are ignoring some facts, which speak for the Leopard 2 having better frontal armor (such as the greater armor weight and thickness alocated to the turret front) and you are basing everything on a single source, which leaves too much room for interpretation. As I previously stated, it seems to refer to the protection of the hull front - this would match the data from the Swedish leaks and the physical armor thickness (the hull armor of Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams has nearly identical thickness) and is supported by the values of other tanks matching their hull armor thickness. The data from the Swedish leak is inconclusive regarding the protection level of the Leopard 2, when attacked from various angles: As you can see, the surface area with a protection level of 400 mm or more is always larger when attacking the tank from angles other than 0°. The only question that remains is: Which places reach this protection level? The document doesn't tell anything about that, it also doesn't specify wether the area (100%) is limited to the crew compartment or not. If the latter is the case, it seems easily possible for the turret frontal section to also to be part of the protected area. Most likely the hull frontal armor reaches a protection level greater than 400 mm when hit at 20° or 30°, if the frontal hull armor is actually included in the relevant surface area. The Leopard 2's turret armor has a frontal armor thickness of about 860 mm at the left turret cheek; given that the turret front is sloped at 34° in the horizontal plane, it will have a greater armor thickness when hit at 30° angle than the hull armor at 0° - overall the armor thickness might be comparable to that of the Abrams of 0° (unfortunately nobody has published proper measurements of the Abrams, but supposedly the early production model had some 700 mm physical thickness when hit at 0°). You should keep in mind that the Leopard 2(AV) was designed to resist the 105 mm smoothbore gun firing APFSDS ammo (i.e. the same projectile as used on the 120 mm DM13 with lower velocity) from unknown range. This round has a slightly higher MV and a longer & thicker tungsten penetrator than the M735 APFSDS, which is claimed to penetrate more than 300 mm steel armor. ___ Moving back from the armor and more to the general topic: Something regarding mobility: According to the French topic, the Leclerc squeezes 1,143 effective hp out of its 1,500 hp engine. The M1 Abrams reaches a1,232 hp net output of its AGT-1500C gas turbine, also some older discussion suggest that it might have only ~1,000 hp at the sprokets. The Leopard 2 seems to be less efficient in this regard, managing to get only 1,070 hp to the sprockets according to W. Spielberger. Leopard 1 gets 630 out of 830 hp to the sprockets. Maybe that is why the German army wishes for a 1,200 kW engine on future Leopard 2 models; however the published acceleration data suggests that the Leopard 2 beats the Abrams to 32 km/h. Regarding FCS: In 1987 the Saudi Arabian Kingdom tested the AMX-40, the Challenger 1, the M1A1 Abrams and the EE-T2 Osorio tank. The EE-T2 Osorio was fitted with a French 120 mm smoothbore gun from GIAT and a fire control system developed by the British company Macroni. It included a 16 bit microcontroller and a SAGEM MVS 580 optic with integrated thermal imager for the commander (the same sight was later fitted to the Challenger 2E, which underwent trials in Greece). According to claims made by a Brazilian source, the Osorio was the only tank capable of hitting a stationary target in 4,000 metres distance. Against moving targets (at distances of 1,500, 2,000 and 2,500 metres), the Osorio supposedly hit eight with twelve shots. The Abrams hit 5 with twelve shots, while both of the other tanks managed to hit only a single target. The fuel consumption of the German engine was 200 g/kWh, which allowed it to travel a distance of 400 kilometres, further than any of the other three tanks. In 1992 the M1A2 Abrams and the Challenger 2 were tested in Kuwait. During the tests numerous results were leaked by American representatives in order to prove that the Challenger 2 was the worse tank. In a statement made to Jane's Defence Weekly, British sources suggested that General Dynamics didn't tell the whole truth. Both tanks failed to climb a 50% slope, because it consisted of loose sand and chalk. The Challenger 2 had to be towed after driving 80 km on flat ground. Maximum speed achieved by the British tank was 50 km/h, while the Abrams managed to reach 65 km/h. The brakes of the Challenger 2 worked too slow in the opinion of the Kuwaiti officials, needing between 50 to 70 metres to come to an halt. When trying to hit a T-55 tank at a distance of 4,000 metres, the M1A2 managed to hit one out of two shots (apparently it used APFSDS rounds); the Challenger 2 fired six HESH rounds at the same target, all missed. Firing at unarmored targets at distances smaller than 4,000 metres was easy for the Abrams. It hit 10 out of 10 targets, while the Challenger 2 hit only 7. Shooting on armored targets, the Challenger 2 hit four out of four shots, while the Abrams hit nine out of nine. General Dynamics' tank was also better at firing on the move; the Abrams hit three targets at a distance of 2,000 metres with three shots, while the Challenger 2 hit one out of three. In hunter-killer operations, the Abrams required 32 seconds to destroy four targets with fourt shoots; the Challenger 2 hit 3 targets out of four in 66 seconds. Accuracy when firing during night and fuel consumption had still to be measured, but Vickers believed to have an advantage there (at least in fuel consumption). http://btvt.info/1inservice/abrams_vs_chelly.htm Challenger 2 ARV towing an Abrams, which failed to climb a dune.
  6. 5 points

    AFV Coax Thread

    Early Chrysler XM-1 validation phase model with a coaxial Bushmaster weapon system :
  7. 4 points
    Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles, you know? Not all Muslims are terrorists, but quite a bit of terrorism is perpetrated by radical Islamists. Not all lefties are crazed gunmen, but a fair number of crazed gunmen happen to be on the left side of the spectrum. The shootings are usually not politically motivated, either. The issue that comes into play here is that every time there is a shooting, the vast majority of main stream media comes out with conjecture and misinformation as to the perpetrators political alignment and affiliations. After the theater shooting in Aurora, the media went digging through Tea Party records and found someone with a similar name to the shooter, picked it up and ran with it. Turns out, it was some fucked up college kid who went off his meds (which is a trait that shows up more than once, by the way). Then they play the blame game and go on parade pointing fingers at every conservative and pro gun organization that they can find. The left leaning media paints anyone who disagrees with them on gun control with the broad brush of things such being complicit with or even guilty by association of murdering children on national TV. If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty and blanket discrimination, start there. PS, more examples. Ebay, Google, and other major players on the online world harassing, banning, blocking, demonetizing, censoring or in other ways suppressing opinions that dissent from their left leaning world view. I know of businesses that have had their Ebay account frozen because there we selling slings that could be used on AR-15s. That was the day that I learned that, according to Ebay's customer service department, it is AGAINST THE LAW!!!! to sell slings for "Assault Rifle 15s" on Ebay. Dating sites have shadow banned people who have pictures of firearms in their profile. Google suppresses search results that are against their ideology. Twitter is confirmed to be shadow banning conservatives based on certain algorithms. YouTube constantly goes after conservatives, and they have started shutting down channels that feature firearms. These are companies that have no business bringing up politics, but it seems to be at the very core of their modus operandi. Do you need more examples? The right has some bad apples for sure, but the left has orders of magnitude more, and they hold influential positions in society. Also, do we know how many death threats Trump and his family have received?
  8. 4 points

    North Korea, you so crazy!

  9. 4 points

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    I posted about this on another forum quite a while ago, so you may already know this: The company FWH manufactures cast armor parts for German AFVs. It offers three quality classes. Quality class "P" with a hardness of 350 to 380 on the Brinell scale was used for the Leopard 2 to 2A3 (I suppose the early batches of 2A4 tanks also received casts parts of the same quality class). Quality class "Q" with a hardness of 380 to 420 HB was used on the Leopard 2A4, 2A5 and the 2A6 models for Greece and Spain. The quality class "R" with a hardness of 480 to 520 HB is used for the Puma and Boxer. Most German combat vehicles make use of welded armor, so this info is rather meager. However the Boxer uses 45 cast armor parts made by FWH with a size of up tp 1,600 mm. On the Leopard 2 cast armor elements might be used for the gun mount, the mounting system for the suspension elements and maybe parts of the hatches. But this information gives a general idea about what steel was used for this tank and how protection was improved from the earlier models to the later Leopard 2A4 batches and the following models. Welding is done austenitic for steel elements of quality class "P" and ferritic for the quality classes "Q" and "R". There is a document suggesting that the welded steel plates for the Leopard 2's basic construction were delivered by the Stahlwerk Geisweld. The steel is branded "HFX 130" and has a thickness ranging between 5 and 45 mm depending on location. Unfortunately there is no HFX 130 steel being advertised anymore. An interessting fact is that the Stahlwerk Geisweld is nowadays owned by Schmolz und Birkenbach, which also owns the Swiss company SteelTec. While Stahlwerk Geisweld seems to be focused on manufacturing stainless steel for industry applications, SteelTec offers a product called "HSX 130". Given that the "HF" stands for "hochfest" (German for "high strength") and "HS" also stands for "high strength", both of these steel alloys might be the same. HSX 130 steel is offered with a maximum thickness of 45 mm (like shown in the German document mentioning HFX 130) and has a hardness of 395 HB on average (tensile strength ranges from 1,250 to 1,400 N/mm². This might be used on the Leopard 2, given that flyers from Krauss-Maffei talked about the high quality steel used for the tank. ___ German Leopard 2A6MA2 being handed over to the Netherlands:
  10. 4 points

    General news thread

    This qualifies as a big deal to me.
  11. 4 points
    5 man crew was dropped during and/or shortly after WW2 and nobody is making any tank or IFV with 5-6-7+ man crew. I guess there were reasons for this and any "advantage" was outweighed by disadvantages. Instead every major AFV developing country designers tried to minimize number of crewmembers inside of single vehicle. Nobody today produce T-35-alikes, other than this BMPT thing. Bow gunners are fucking WH40K-level of tank design, good for killing hordes of imaginary aliens, not so useful in real combat. Having ability to fire in 3 directions doesn't help you to win combat in Urban fights. Just yesterday example from Syria: During SAA push to Yarmouk camp, Hayat Takhrir Ash-Sham manage to take out several AFVs. After 1st "wave" of AFVs were damaged, SAA commanders sended an assault team to bring back damaged tanks (and probably crews, but no accurate info about them that i know). So this is one of those situations for which BMPT is supposedly was made - support tanks in Urban fights and replace infantry (at least partially) during assault operations. As you see those guys are doing suppressive fire, fire in several directions with more serious weapons than 2 fucking AGS (which would have hard time to fire in direction in which BMP-2 main gun is firing, because those 2 AGS are facing front and can't do shit to targets at sides and BMP hull doesn't always face those buildings on the left with frontal armor because it can't drive sideways). Did their firing in several directions in the same time helped them? No. HTS "opened" a corridor and ambushed armor in it from sides. SAA crews couldn't fire at enemies effectively because they couldn't fucking see them and figure out where+when to fire exactly. Several tanks lost and plenty of killed soldiers are results of that. BMPT could probably survive that becaue of Relikt ERA, but this is specualtion that can be made about any tank with proper side protection modules installed like T-72B3 UBKh. Ability to fire in several directions means nothing in cities if you don't have: 1) ability to detect enemies in your LOS, taking into account that enemies put effort in maksing their movement, positions and so on 2) ability to destroy positions and hit enemies in protected areas\cover Puting MORE people in those boxes in urban fights is asking for more casulties per single vehicle, especially because UVZ BMPT have no serious sighting system for AGS gunners and their limited arc, limited firepower, limited capabilities to spot AT infantry in their LOS making them nearly, if not completely, useless. 30 mm autocannons would have hard time to penetrate those houses and do serious damage in deep parts of them, even if bad guys infantry was spotted getting to ambush positions or cover. And if you really want to use UVZ-made BMPT's AGLs, give those things to infantry! They can put them inside of buildings, between houses, fire them indirectly from safe positions and suppress areas, without driving into direct LOS of enemy infantry and asking for tandem RPG or ATGM. Thats are reasons why i think current BMPT is useless and waste of money and time. Should be re-designed with 3 man crew*, smaller vehicle with higher protection of sides, bottom and roof; better sensors and completely 360 degrees observation system with software assistance in spotting targets (and even target tracking/aiming like Boomerang-BM claimed to have); better integration with other units - incl recon units via battlefield managment systems; high-velocity and relatively high penetration cannon/autocannon, airburst munitions. Ability to detect and quickly "service" targets on the level of SPAAGs, being capable of shooting down ATGMs/RPGs, including on considerable range during combat in field. If you need to deal with enemies from several directios - use more vehicles instead, as they also can maneuver and pick better angles, cover and positions, than 1 BMPT trying to find place to keep LOS to several enemy positions while having part of weapons locked into limited arc. *As "The Chieftain" noted - a platoon of generic "T-72s"/3-man crew tank have 4 vehicles to fight, while a platoon of generic "Abrams"/4-man crew tanks have 3 vehicles to do their job on battlefield, and platoon of T-72s in result have higher firepower. Thats why crews should be made smaller.
  12. 4 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.
  13. 3 points
    Presentation with different vehicles/RCWS/unmanned turrets found, posted on otvaga https://ppt-online.org/304674 Previous version of BMMP (Combat vehicle for Naval infantry), Army 2016 Earlier, wheeled version
  14. 3 points

    Bittereinder 5: tonks

    Part 5 of a multi-part series. This one's got the goods. Sherman and firefly. Early crusader. Early Valentine. The British really went through a phase where they slapped 2 pounders onto everything. Father. Son. Holy ghost. Comet, aka Hipster Centurion. Centurion, aka The entire History of South African tanks post-WW2. T-shirt cannon Churchill. Combat engineers get no respect. This thing is tiny and has an insane steering system. Somehow this thing is even smaller. Those twin barrels are for a flamethrower of some sort, because the Italians were world-class optimists.
  15. 3 points

    Tank Layout

    photo of this model with open rear door: it's a vehicle based on Kharkovite's tank with compact "suitcase"-shaped Kharkovite engine and two gearboxes T-84 cutaway: T-80UD: Achzarit has passageway above some parts of the transmission, and next to both an upper half of its transversely-mounted engine (which is shorter than V2-derieved diesel, so it leaves some space for lower part of passageway) and cooling system On the other hand it seems like if this Kharkovite BTMP-84 has passageway (judging by what it shown on model's photo above - it's floor panels are entirely horizontal, unlike some of those on Achzarit) located above left part of its engine and one of the gearboxes, and next to a cooling system. Which sould've been redesigned to make it narrower (albeit higher, probably, - but passageway's roof should be somewhat higher anyway), and also they've probably removed that red boxy thing and put it somewhere else
  16. 3 points
    Glorious T-72B obr 1989 added! @Scolopax @Collimatrix @Zyklon @Bronezhilet Also added spoilers, as first page of this thread was becoming cluttered.
  17. 3 points

    Bittereinder 2: Plane edition

    More from the Joburg war museum/museum of military history. The planes are fairly well-known, although there are a few surprises here that you guys might like. Warning: lots of blurry photos ahead. All from the Brink Hall. There's also a Hawker Hartebees lurking around in the background that I couldn't find an opportunity to photograph make an illustrative diorama of. Engines, including a certain teutonic failure-engine lurking towards the right of the first picture. This is probably the first exhibit you'll see. It's in a little glass-fronted display just past the entrance, along with its two chums. Chum 1 Chum 2. Note the impressive late-war German build quality, as well as the utterly insane idea of making a fast, grossly unreliable aircraft into a night fighter. Speaking of dangerous aircraft, here's an Impala. My brother had a friend in school who lost a father to one of these things. A lonely whirlybird Our nuclear option. The Canberra was unavailable for comment. Turbodak's dad.
  18. 3 points
    There's so many federal laws on the books, the average person has most likely broken a handful just by living. On this board? We'd go for a high score.
  19. 3 points
    Bingo. Again, I will reiterate, the child is a lost cause. But it is no one's call but the parents of said child to determine what treatment he receives. Because boy howdy, any other way sets a very dangerous precedent.
  20. 3 points
    https://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/10327126.html https://www.facebook.com/udalostibrno/posts/1358930817507222
  21. 3 points
    Yeah, I don't see the personnel turnover as some sort of sign for anything other than the fact that Trump is the first president in a long ass time to come into office without a cabal of political figures and favors amassed from a life of work as a political figure.
  22. 3 points
  23. 3 points

    French flair

    Here some scans from the Satory VI (1977) catalog : https://imgur.com/a/zfjSNwm
  24. 3 points

    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.
  25. 3 points

    Random Nuclear Stuff