Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/17/2018 in all areas

  1. 10 points
    LoooSeR

    Competition: Tank Design 2239

    After 23 days of drinking booze and random disappearing, judges finally picked winners of this competition! In a 45 ton category we came to the conclusion that a member of this forum, who only recently joined to us, was able to surpass all other contestants with his tank design. He earns a title of The Glorious Tank Autist of SH - comrade @N-L-M! His XM-2239 "Norman" tank was chosen by all judges as the best submissions of this competition. His work was fighting with Toxn's heavy tank for a 1st place, and managed to overtake it. @Sturgeon's XM12 "Donward" was disqualified from the competition as it was not fitting into one of basic requirements (width, 3.35 meters without skirts vs 3.25 meters required). @A. T. Mahan's 120mm gun tank T44 also was disqualified for use of armor tech that was out of competition-imposed industrial capabilities limitation (1940-1950s level of tech) @ApplesauceBandit's AFVs were also not in a competition as submission was lacking in any stats, so we couldn't understand if vehicle fits into basic requirements. In 25 ton category a rivalry was stronger as more light tanks proposals managed to get through basic requirements. Judges examined several war vehicles proposed by A.T. Mahan, Sturgeon, NLM, Toxn, and made their choice. The winner of this category is no other than a Supreme Warrior of Napkinpanzers comrade @Toxn!* *vehicle should receive a change in co-axial MG placement, as now it is a danger for driver's head when he is entering/exiting his station or anytime when he have his head outside of the hatch. Our Great AFV designer Toxn pictured with tank drivers that his tank is going to kill before modernization programm will be launched to reposition co-axial MG to a safer place. Place for a memorial is ready to accept new heroes of SH Tank design bureau.** **Not in Kharkov Winners of this competition now should receive their prizes, after that - locked in their houses and allowed to get out only to work on AFV designs until retirement.
  2. 8 points
    Sturgeon

    Starter Firearm Thread

    Moved to the appropriate subforum. First of all, the provisions you are outlining are not "loopholes" as they are explicitly outlined in Federal law. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1) from the 1968 Gun Control Act, the BATFE advisement about which states: Provided that your state has no relevant prohibitions, then, yes you may acquire a handgun from a non-FFL ("unlicensed individual"), usually via gifting. I would be very careful how you conduct this as it's relatively easy to create a condition that could be regulated by state or Federal law. For example, if you live with your parents in a state with no additional regulations and are over 18, your father or mother may gift you a handgun without issue. However, if your father lives in another state, this would fall under interstate commerce and would be illegal, as interstate transactions must go through an FFL (who can't sell you the firearm). Gun shows are dicey in this way because generally speaking you don't have any way to verify that the seller lives in your state or not. You can ask for ID, but that's not a surefire thing either. If you do decide to go this route, I would definitely insist on seeing an ID and photographing it. Another thing to worry about is accidentally conducting a straw purchase. If, for example, you had the above case with your parent, but instead of a Christmas gift, you reimbursed them for the gun then that would become a straw purchase and a Federal crime. More confusingly, if this handgun were already owned by your parents (if for example it was Grandpa's gun), and you bought it off them, that would not be a straw purchase and would be legal. There are also, so far as I know, no regulations against trades of handguns between individuals who reside in the same state. So, conceivably, you could trade for a privately owned handgun, for example - but we enter yet another grey area if the gun you are trading for was purchased with the knowledge that you'd be trading for it. In this case it's possible that this could be considered a straw purchase in the same way as if you had bought the weapon from them with cash. Given the above, I would go about acquiring a handgun very carefully. Some Don'ts, Dos, and Mays: DON'T arrange for someone else to buy a gun for you from an online store or any place with an FFL. This is one of the key ingredients of a straw purchase - if they can prove you arranged the purchase ahead of time, bad day for you. DON'T purchase from or trade with people who are not family members or very close friends (e.g., you've been to their house). It's the only way to be sure. DON'T post on online message boards or Facebook groups conspicuous or incriminating requests for handguns DON'T use Armslist to arrange a private sale. Armslist is a cesspit, full of scams and ne'erdowells, just avoid it. You'll thank me. DON'T go "gun shopping" for a handgun with anyone who might want to sell or gift you a gun unless they agree not to buy anything from that store. Even if it's innocent, "hey dad, I want that one" followed by an attempted sale will give any decent gun store clerk the heebie jeebies. DO let people you know and trust know you want a handgun, and which kind. As long as you don't plan for them to purchase a gun, this is fine. And you may get lucky, or find someone wants to sell a gun you'd be happy with. You never know without bringing it up. DO inform those you know who may be willing to sell, trade, or gift you a handgun what the relevant laws are. Show them the BATFE regulations using your phone or computer. Make sure they do not think they are doing something illegal. DO make an effort to shoot a variety of handguns before you buy. Since you are under 21, you generally can't rent handguns but you should have no problems accompanying a legal purchaser and shooting any guns they rent. Also, look out for folks who might be happy to let you shoot their guns at the range. A .22 LR rifle is nice for this, since you can shoot it anywhere you can shoot a pistol. YOU MAY want to arrange a nice gift for someone who seems like they would be willing to gift or trade you a handgun. Doesn't hurt, right? As for which handgun to pick, this choice is very personal. I shoot Glocks well, and most people do, so that's my default for you. Glock 19 or 17. I estimate there is an 80% chance it will work well for you. If not, you can sell it later for close to full value. If you are a part of that 20% of the population who just really does not agree with Glocks, I would give the well respected competing brands (S&W, SIG, CZ, etc, not Springfield) a try and see which one shoots best for you. "Feel" of the handgun can be related to your performance with them, but isn't necessarily. For example, the most comfortable handgun for me is the Browning Hi Power, yet I shoot Glocks better. The biggest mistake in my humble opinion that a first-time handgun shooter can make is saying "hey, I'll buy a full-size or compact (G19) handgun and it'll be both my IDPA/training gun, and when I'm 21 it'll be my CCW too!" No. Do not do this. Yes, people can and have concealed full size guns every day. They are not you. You've never concealed a handgun before. You want the smallest, most concealable gun you can get that still offers good shootability and lethality (that would be a Glock 43 btw, plus maybe the SIG P365 in a couple years once it's debugged). Right now, I would just pick a good gun to build fundamentals on, and worry about what you want to carry when you get closer to getting your license. If after a year or two of actually carrying that smaller gun, you want to go up to a Desert Eagle or whatever, be my guess. But practice carrying with something that's less of a pain in the ass, first. I would also keep an eye out for anything friends or relatives have that might be a good range gun, even if it's not exactly what you want. Remember, guns usually hold their value so if you don't end up liking it, you can sell it and usually lose less than the cost of renting it. For your starter AR-15, there are a lot of good options. The baseline gun people are usually going to tell you to get is the Colt 6920. This gun offers basically zero nice features (like trigger, free float rail, etc) but it is mechanically still one of the best guns you can buy and makes an excellent host for upgrades. Many other guns below the $1000 mark today offer rail systems, triggers, midlength gas, and other upgrades, but in my case there aren't many of those packages that I really like as a whole, and chances are very good their quality won't be quite as high as the 6920. That's not to say the 6920 is the best rifle out there, but in terms of QC it has been the gun to beat for a while now. With a Colt OEM2, you get the rifle and none of the stuff that goes on it, too, and you are left with roughly $250 of your budget to slap on stocks, rails, etc. Even if it doesn't have all the modern creature comforts (it has a carbine gas system and the notorious GI trigger), it's hard to do better than taking one of those and decking it out the way you like. I've owned a 6920 for 8 years, and it's had close to 10,000 rounds through it. Nothing has broken. Everything still works as it should. The original upper still shoots 2 minute with quality ammo. The 6920 isn't good enough anymore that if you get anything else there'll be a riot, but if you do get one, nobody will question it either. And you'll be satisfied, I think.
  3. 8 points
    for some reason the hull looks like KV-1
  4. 6 points
    @Peasant As Tsushima Strait showed, even a handful of knots speed advantage can provide a decisive advantage. The Iowa class might sacrifice some protection, but in exchange they gain between five and seven knots on the Yamatos. This would allow them to dictate the conditions of the engagement, and as seen at Tsushima (And also at Yellow Sea but I digress), a force with even a 1-3 knot advantage could and would dictate the terms of engagement. Additionally, the 16"/50 Mark 7 gun with 16" AP shell Mark 8 is so close in performance to the Japanese 18.1" in armor penetration that the difference is immaterial -- it's within +/- 0.75" either way, which is getting awfully close to the tolerancing for the armor. The mounts for the Mark 7 gun were also significantly faster in elevation, 12 degrees/sec vs 8, increasing the rate of fire by reducing the depression to loading/elevation to firing solution time. The Iowas also depressed the gun to the loading angle during run-out, further improving the rate of fire. Their turrets were also twice as fast in train, 4 degrees/second vs 2 degrees/second for the Yamato. This allows tracking at greater ranges and high speeds, especially during the vessel's own maneuvers. I don't really want to do the math to figure out the maneuvers required to invalidate a fire control solution for the Yamato based on train rate, but it's almost certainly not relevant outside maybe 5,000yd in antiparallel courses, but during heavy maneuvering it would be invaluable. The Iowa class fire control system was fundamentally more advanced than that of the Yamato, and I'm not sure how you arrived at the position that a system requiring manual data transfer and manual tracking of the calculated fire control solution is superior to a system that does not provide those opportunities for human error. Furthermore, the Japanese fire control radars (principally the Type 22 Mod 4) were nowhere near as capable as the Mark 13, nor did the fire control system incorporate a stable vertical, which is a significant problem in a ship that will be expected to maintain a fire control system during maneuver. Having written that before your most recent post, I'll include a TL;DR: 1. They're inferior to a degree that is only very slightly outside the tolerances for the thickness of battleship armor. It's immaterial. 2. You still have to hit the enemy ship, and the mediocrity of the fire control system on Yamato precludes that. 3. Your statement on speed in a gun duel is categorically and demonstrably false, and has been known to be so since 19-0-fucking-5. The IJN won the battles of Yellow Sea and Tsushima Strait because of their fleet's superior speed and maneuverability. 4. The Iowa class' gun mounts reload faster -- see the middle of the second paragraph above for more details. 5. I don't follow your point, the 5"/38 is a fine DP gun. The 5"/54 that replaced it was better, but the /38 is a great gun and it gets the job done. Heavy secondary low angle armament went out of style with Dreadnought. 6. I'm not sure where you get inefficient engines and inferior electronics from the Iowas. Their powerplant was perfectly fine and extremely reliable, and met specifications, and the electronics fit was in every way superior to that of the Yamato class. 7. Battleships do as they're told. 8. The Yamato has inferior firepower due to the slower rate of fire. 9. The Yamato most likely does not win because the Iowa-class would dictate the terms of the engagement, and could simply disengage at will and return in more favorable circumstances, like at night.
  5. 6 points
    " De tekniska studierna delades upp i kompetensuppbyggande studier och försök, konceptstudier samt projektstudier. Fysiskt skydd kom att prioriteras före beväpningssystem, ledningssystem och rörlighetssystem. Tre huvudkrav kom att bli konceptstyrande: Skjutning under gång varvet runt (360º) med huvudvapnet Direktutblick för vagnchefen från vagnens högsta punkt Överlevnad för vagn och besättning vid en träff i ammunitionslagringen Vidare beaktades de typiskt svenska förhållandena som normalt resulterade i speciella krav på försvarsmaterielen – den korta värnpliktsutbildningen följd av korta repetitionsövningar (dvs materielen måste vara lätt att handha) och det faktum att materielen under större delen av sin livslängd skulle ligga i mobiliseringsförråd med ett minimum av underhåll. Skydd I projekt Strv 2000 tillmättes skyddet i vid bemärkelse stor betydelse – eller stridsvagnens överlevnadsförmåga vad avser skydd mot upptäckt-identifiering-träff, skydd mot verkan och skydd mot efterverkan. Kraven sattes mycket högt både vad gäller låga signaturer inom våglängdsområdena för IR och radar, men framförallt för det ballistiska skyddet. Dessa inkluderade mycket förutseende krav på skydd mot minor och takverkande stridsdelar. Grundprincipen för vagnens uppbyggnad var ett minimiskrov i pansarstål som var tillräckligt tjockt för att kunna ta upp krafterna vid körning och skjutning. Det skulle också kunna ta upp de krafter som en yttre skyddsmodul kunde åstadkomma då den träffats. I det fall den yttre skyddsmodulen använde sig av principen med ett spontaninitierat tungt explosivt reaktivt pansar (t ex i kompositionen 15/3/9) – effektivt inte bara mot riktad sprängverkan, utan även kinetisk energi – kunde dessa krafter på grundstrukturen bli relativt stora. De försök som gjordes mot frontalt monterade moduler med denna typ av skydd visade att det var möjligt att kraftigt störa en penetrerande pilprojektil. Tanken var också att Strv 2000 skulle använda en stor andel keram i skyddskonstruktionen. Det faktum att den totala andelen keram skulle komma att uppgå till flera ton i respektive stridsvagn gjorde att ett det så kallade Skyddskeramprojektet startade upp 1988. Under ett par års tid gjordes försök med många olika typer av keram - Al2O3(aluminiumoxid), B4C (borkarbid) och TiB2 (titanborid) – men trots ett brett deltagande från svensk industri, FOA och FMV, blev det inte så mycket mer än en medioker referenskeram. Inspirerade av den valda skyddslösningen i den amerikanska stridsvagnen M1A1 DU där Chobhampansaret uppgraderats med skikt av utarmat uran, gjordes provskjutningar i Sverige även mot denna typ av material. Resultaten visade på möjligheten att nå bättre skyddsprestanda om volymen och inte vikten var gränssättande. Stor möda lades även på att åstadkomma en från besättningen separerad ammunitionslagring som skulle tåla såväl krutbrand som en detonation efter direktträff på en RSV-stridsdel med övertändning som följd. Den lösning som utarbetades fungerade och hade stora likheter med motsvarande utrymmen i Leopard 2 och M1A1 med så kallade ”blow off panels”, men hade en utvecklad princip för att förhindra total övertändning med total utslagning som följd. Skotten var placerade längst bak i chassiet. " Translation: " The technical studies are divided up into competence building studies and trials, concept studies and project studies. Physical armor is prioritzed over weapon systems, FCS and mobility systems. Three main requirements have steered the concept: - Firing while on the movie, 360 degrees with the main weapon. - Direct sight for the vehicle commander from the tanks highest point. - Survival of the tank and crew in case of a hit to the ammunition storage. Furthermore, the typical Swedish environment is considered, which normally results in special requirements for defense materials - the short conscription followed by short repletion exercise (meaning that the material needs to be easy to handle) and the fact that the material in bigger parts of its lifetime will be located at mobilization storage with a minimum of maintenance. Armor: In project Strv 2000 is armor of the highest importance - or the tanks survival chance against discovery - identification - hit, protection against impact, after armor protection. High requirements are sett for a low signature in the visual spectrum, for IR and for radar, men but most of all the armor. These include requirements for mine protection and roof armor. The principle of the tank construction is a minimal hull of armor steel, made strong enough to absorb the force when driving and firing. It should also be able to take up the force that a outer armor module would achieve when hit. In the case of the outer armor module, the use of the principle with a spontaneously initiated heavy explosive reactive armor (composition 15/3/9) - effective not only against directed explosive force (I assume HEAT) but also kinetic energy - could these forces on the hull be reality large. It was also thought that Strv 200 would use a large amount of ceramics in the armor construction. The fact that a big portion of ceramics would come to make up several tons in the tank in question, caused the so called ceramic armor project to be started in 1988. In a couple of years time a few tests were done with several different ceramics - Al2O3(aluminium oxide), B4C (boron carbide) and TiB2 (titan boride) - but even with a board cooperation between Swedish industry, FOA and FMW, the ceramics turned out the not be much more than a mediocre reference ceramics. Inspired by the armor solution chosen by the US tank M1A1, in which the Chobham armor was upgraded with a layer of depleted uranium, a firing trial was held in Sweden against this type of material. The results showed a possibility of better armor performance if volume and not the weight was the restricting factor. A lot of effort was put into producing the ammunition storage, separated from the crew, which can take a direct hit and detonation from a ATGM. The solution developed was similar to the Leopard 2 or M1A1 with their so called "blow off panels", but was also developed to stop a chain reaction from detonating all the ammunition. The ammunition was placed in the hull rear. " I translated the section covering the armor for you guys. Though I do not see anything indicating that the front engine required longer side armor. The requirements state the coverage, regardless of a front engine. Though the coverage required is similar to the M1A2 and Leopard 2's turret. I can translate more if anyone is interested.
  6. 6 points
    Militarysta

    Polish Armoured Vehicles

    Wonderfull photos of polish "golden autumn" and tanks from 10 Tk Bde by press 11 "Lubuska" Armoured Division. Photos made by Senior Staff Warrant Officer Rafał Mniedło:
  7. 5 points
    LoooSeR

    Competition: Tank Design 2239

    So i will do a post about competition as a whole, about submissions, give some advices and cover some other minute things. Will update this particular post with my views of each proposed AFVs. In general Overal level of submissions was both higher and lower than previous time. Best designs of this competition were more detailed and thought out compared to last time, but we also had a surprising number of proposals that didn't even get through basic requirements, which were more generous than they were before. Several members of this forum who wanted to participate, didn't managed to finish their submissions, sadly. Combination of those 2 factors left judges with a strange situation when only 2.5 tanks designs in 45 ton category were available for actual judging. Submissions themselves also varied in quality. Lack of at least basic guidlines is probably one of reasons. Some of them were simply hard to read, others had way too much useless information for judges to go through. In my personal case this isn't really a problem, but we have people who have not much time for going through internet stuff. I will propose few things here. @A. T. Mahan's and @Sturgeon's posts are what i am thinking right now. Writing all text in bold IMO is just a step less obnoxious than writing everything IN CAPS. Writing a War and Peace is not needed for short description of your submissions, either. During disussion of vehicles, i also found hard to find specific values that were needed for one or another reason. We need some sort of general layout for submission that will allow for judges to compare designs more... fairly, i guess. Even location of description of features is sometimes confusing when jumping from bookmarks/pages between 3-5 different vehicles. In my case, i managed to miss a feature of gunner optics of @N-L-M Norman. Improvements for submissions First of all i propose to introduce a general layout of submission, that will help to orginize and standartize each entry in this competition, and will help for competitors to better represent their creations. For judges this will allow for easier comparison between entries/submissions. Submission (Name, etc) Short description of what the fuck is this thing and why it have 5 tracks, 3 main guns and rotor blades in the bottom List or table of stats, matching with list or table of requirements. Will allow you to understand if you fucked up something as basic as size and for judges it will help to see if they need to pay attention to everything below this part of submission Nice MS Paint pics of your creation Description of design, general features and some thoughts List of features, maybe a place for "advanced" requirements stats. Stats should go in this order - Protection Survivability, Armament, FCS, Mobility, etc Few more pics and detailed stats Trashbin for everything else, in spoiler. This should allow for less random or strange crap from happening and generally will help to improve quality of our time spend on competitions. About designs that were eliminated from competition. In this contest judges (i was one of 3 judges) threw several vehicles outside of our SH bar because they were too drunk, and left them under cold rain of non-acceptance, drugs and diseased prostitutes. I already posted about this, but some people wanted more details. ApplesauceBandit for lack of any stats to work with Sturgeon's Donward was too fat for requirements, even with side skirts removed. A.T. Mahan's T44 was proposed by me to be disqualified based on number of features that will be covered in more details. I want to point out that all i will say here were my thoughts on this subject, other judges could have their own view on a submission. 1) Armor was one of reasons why this vehicle was outside of general level of tech, suggested in a competition. As was discussed several times on different forums depleted uranium is a type of material that is very hard to work on safely. They are problems with it during machining process and other crap which would make it too hard or too costly to produce with 1940-1950s level of industry. Making just M1 Abrams-type armor is directly going against the background/backstory of contest. Simple ERA like Kontakt-1 or Kontakt-5 is ok for me, as those could be produced in given timeframe (they were not produced in 1940s or 50s for other reasons). But if we are going with ceramic-polymer layered armor with DU and similar, all other contestants could start to put MERAs, Active cell T-80U-like armor packages, APS, jammers and so on, on their basic vehicles. This is 100% sure against proposed timeframe quoted by Lost. 2) WTF is happening with a weight of T44? So it is 41 metric tons unloaded, and 58 tons loaded. Does this mean that you need to strip 17 tons of equipment from a vehicle in order for it to fit into required weight? Did you know that T-90A weight as much as M4 Sherman?* *if you strip 17 tons from it by removing ammunition, fuel, ERA, turret, autoloader and probably an engine as well. 3) This reason was less of a problem from requirements point of view, but cemented my view of this vehicle as Abrams wankery. Why would anybody even look at gas turbines while having 1950s level of tech? Gas turbines have reason to exist only with level of tech of around 1980s or now, with computerized control. In 1950s nobody had 1000 HP compact gas turbine on a 40-50 tons tank in serviceable condition.
  8. 5 points
    A/4-68 Armor Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division was reactivated today, meaning the US Army officially has air dropped armor again.
  9. 5 points
    About the last Soviet tank design, some sort of "what if ...." - http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/490_21vek.htm
  10. 5 points
    T-64 post, with T-64A section is up. @Collimatrix @Scolopax @Bronezhilet @N-L-M
  11. 4 points
    I would, at least, like to compliment Peasant for sticking to his guns despite being horrendously overmatched qualitatively and quantitatively, and getting slaughtered as a result. In this, he does the IJN proud.
  12. 4 points
    Tsushima Strait was in 1905. I think you're conflating it with Surigao Strait. There's a big fucking difference, as I outlined in an edit to my initial post in this thread. To summarize, the IJN beat the shit out of the Imperial Russian Navy because their ships were a knot faster, slightly more maneuverable, and had a gun armament biased towards heavy guns. The same thing also happened at the Battle of the Yellow Sea the year before. Mechanical accuracy means dick all if you can't point the gun in the right direction because the FCS is primitive and incapable of working when you're turning. Spotter aircraft are going to get killed either by 5"/38 fire if it's close enough to give meaningful corrections, or by fighter cover, or by the Curtis SC Seahawks on the Iowa. Yamato was capable of 27 knots, period. I don't have access to the data anymore (it's probably in the SNAME or RINA journal, or at the DTMB), but I saw some hull testing on the design that they did after the war at the David Taylor Model Basin and it was kinda meh -- it's a pretty efficient hull design with a good bulbous bow, but the Iowa hull form is better suited to high speed, and the powerplant is 62,000hp more powerful than that of the Yamatos. It turns out, when you design a ship that's bluffer, 25,000 tons heavier, and less powerful, it's like five knots slower than a ship with a crazy long L:B and a super fine entry. The Iowas were designed from the get-go to be insanely fast, and they accomplished that handily. Oh, and for the sake of argument, if we assume the Iowas could only sustain 30kts (which, again, is not accurate), they were still 2.5-3 knots faster than the Yamatos, which is double or treble the speed advantage that Togo had over Rozhestvensky at Tsushima.
  13. 4 points
    Xoon

    The Swedish AFV Thread: Not Just Strv 103s

    Translation:
  14. 4 points
  15. 4 points
    Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

    Competition: Tank Design 2239

    We should have results soonish. Just an FYI.
  16. 4 points
    and higher res without watermark from Alexey Khlopotov blog
  17. 3 points
    Ramlaen

    General news thread

    Angela Merkel says she will not seek a fifth term as chancellor, effectively beginning the winding down of her time as German leader. Merkel says she will not be seeking any political post after her term as chancellor ends in 2021. She also says she will not stand for re-election as chairwoman of her Christian Democratic Union party when an election is held in December. Merkel's CDU party and her coalition partner in Berlin, the Social Democratic Party, saw heavy losses in the state election in Hesse this weekend.
  18. 3 points
    Akula_941

    Kamov new concept leak

  19. 3 points
    Xoon

    The Swedish AFV Thread: Not Just Strv 103s

    " En 10,5 cm kanon monterades ovanpå Mardern i ett enmanstorn. Med denna rigg UDES 19 genomfördes ett flertal olika försök – körning, skjutning, med mera. Det gjordes egentligen två riggar för UDES 19. Utöver kör- och skjutriggen tillverkades även en laddrigg. På dessa genomfördes kör-, skjut-, observations-och laddförsök. Laddriggen testade principen att låta en laddpendel som roterar runt samma axel som kanonen föra skotten ett och ett från magasinet till kanonen. Konstruktionen visade sig fungera bra och vara så robust att varken snö eller de grenar man testade med (upp till 5 cm) tjocka utgjorde något hinder för funktionen, däremot sågs det finnas risk att skräp följde med skotten in i kanonen. Man testade dock inte känsligheten för beskjutning. Under skjutförsök bekräftades att det gick snabbare att inrikta kanonen - detta eftersom den har lägre massa än ett vanligt torn. Dock fick riggen långa skottider som berodde på dåligt fininriktningssystem. Parallellt testades även denna princip med ovanpålagrad kanon på ett chassi till Strv 103. " Translation: " A 105mm canon was mounted on top of a Marder AFV in a one-man turret. With this rig, UDES 19 completed several different tests - driving, firing and more. It is actually two rigs for UDES 19. For driving- and shooting-rig a loading rig is added. Driving, firing, observation and loading test are done on these rigs. The loading rig is to test the principle that a loading pendulum that rotates around the same axis as the canon can feed ammunition from the magazine to the cannon. This system appeared to work well and was so robust that neither snow or branches that was tested (up to 50mm) thick made a hindrance for the system, however, there is a risk of rubbish coming with the ammunition into the cannon. Therefor, the sensitivity to firing was not tested. In the firing trials in was found that the cannon was faster at aiming, because of the lighter tower. However, the rig high aiming time was thought to be because of bad FCS. In parallel this principle was tested on a chassis of the Strv 103." Source: http://www.ointres.se/udes.htm
  20. 3 points
    Monochromelody

    Tank neutral steer capability

    The neutral steer, or pivot steer, means the tank drive one track forward while the other track backward, to perform a turn-on-spot. The very first tank with neutral steer, believe it or not, is the German A7V in WWI. Here is the transmission of A7V. The transmission incorporate two independent gearbox, each connected to a 100-hp engine. The gearbox use clash gears to select speed, and bevel gear to select forward or reverse. It's easy to perform a neutral steer. Those tanks with electric transmission(St.Chamond, Porsche Tiger, etc.) can easily perform neutral steer, for their twin driving electric motors can rotate in opposite direction. And tanks with twin driving hydraulic motors(Panzer IV mit Hydrostatischem Antrieb) can neutral steer in a similar manner. As mentioned above, the simplest way to neutral steer is to have seperated gearboxes or sub-transmissions driving both tracks. US airborne tank M551 Sherridan and Ukraine T-84 Oplot are modern approach of this manner. Althought they neutral steer with tracks driving in different speed, thus they cannot pivot steer precisely on the central spot. The neutral steer capability is more common on dual-flow transmission. A dual-flow transmission, or “双流传动” in Chinese, means the power flow from engine into the transmission splitted into driving power flow and steering power flow, then they join together with mesh gears or planetaries. Control these power flows allows the driver to change speed and steer left or right. The dual-flow principle itself came up even earlier than the tank. The 1899 Vedovelli Priestley electric taxi equipped with double differential steering system, is capable of neutral steering. And the first tank with dual-flow transmission is the Schneider-Renault SRB, then evolved into the Char B1 heavy tank. The Char B1 tank's dual-flow principle is quite simple. The power splitted into two: the driving power flow into gearbox and drive the main differential; the steering power flow into the appareil Naëder, a hydrostatic pump-motor assembly, can rotate on different speed and direction. Char B1 can use appareil Naëder to control its hull howitzer precisly, this principle inspired the Swedish Strv 103 tank. And the US M1 Abrams tanks use a HSU(Hydrostatic Steering Unit) based on the same principle of appareil Naëder. (To be continued)
  21. 3 points
    Scolopax

    Bash the F-35 thred.

    "Belgium Chooses Lockheed's F-35 to Replace F-16 Jets - Belga"
  22. 3 points
    Ah yes, let’s place a 12 inch gun in a 1.6 kt sub, eat your heart out France! Obligatory picture of Surcouf:
  23. 3 points
    Early design of armata and Kurganets http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/armata_brigada.htm
  24. 3 points
    I should probably clarify what is the grognard's opinions - and these are opinions, he hasn't seen any actual design documents on the R-27/AA-10 - and what are my own assumptions working off of what he posited. Grognard (almost verbatim): The [R-27...] was designed as something that would counter the AIM-7F missile and would have better maneuverability and expanded F-Pole over the Sparrow. The missile is much larger than Sparrow, particularly the longer range variants. The stuff he's seen says that the AA-10 has Canard control. I guess you could take your choice whether its Canard or Mid-body wing control. In any event, the control fins are place closer to mid-body than to the nose. These mid-body control finds need to be larger to generate maneuvers because the moment arm between the center-of-pressure and center-of-gravity is much smaller than for true canard or tail control. The sparrow also has large wings for this reason. Given the large size of the control surfaces, he suspects that the designers were trying to provide “wing-like” surface for long range flight profiles that are quoted. The higher aspect surfaces are of higher aspect ratio, and that in turn provides an improved lift-to-drag ratio on lifting surfaces. This is the only missile he can recall that has control surfaces extended out past the tail fins. The longer (and narrower) control surfaces would concentrate the dynamic loading such that the individual surfaces would have the center of pressure closer to the control hinge axis. This means the surfaces can be rotated with less torque than something like the AIM-7. As such, the control surface actuators would require less power to operate and would most likely respond faster while still maintaining sufficient force to affect the body rotation during maneuvering. He thinks the drawback of this design is that the wings would interfere with conventional launch rail systems, and would not fit into internal weapons bays. This may be why you don’t see a lot of this design; however, from an aerodynamic perspective, he thinks the long, narrower fins are more efficient both in reducing drag and in minimizing control torque requirement. OnlySlightlyCrazy: One of the leading factors in a missile's RMax is it's battery life - many missiles can aerodynamically hit targets much further than their battery can last out to. Thus, having more efficient control surfaces on a missile desiring long range makes sense. As to why the fins are midbody - that's the swappable nosecone bit that Colli shared. That image also explains the forward angle on the midbody fins; you want your fins to be as large as possible since they're midbody, and you want them as far forward as you can get them without intruding into the autopilot or Target Detection Device sections. Thus, having it swept forward means you get a wider fin farther forward, and get to not intrude into other necessary components. That forward sweep is frankly the only usual part of the fin - combining a forward sweep with a conventional fin geometry is what gets you the axe-body. I'm happy to take a crack at further questions myself, or forward them to said grognard before he retires and or dies.
  25. 3 points
    Kharkovite invention - 64. How to efficiently waste resources of Soviet Union. Finally, we came to T-64 section. I know that it is first specific tank type related post in the thread when you scroll it, but only after T-72 and T-80 section I am doing T-64 part, and for a reason. More information on this Kharkovite invention to describe it properly was demanded. A secret knowledge was needed for this task. Before going into the abyss of Kharkovite treachery, a holy blessing and protection of the spirits of ancestors was needed to survive this dirty trip. My destination was prospekt Stachek 47/Strikes Avenue 47, a holy place of birth of T-80, Kirovskiy factory location. My hand touched a factory wall and my lips gently whispered holy words of blessing to Glorious T-80, words of curses to terrible spawn of Morozov’s twisted mind, words of renunciation from opposite piston diesel engines. “Do you believe in gas turbines, young communist?” “Yes, I do believe in superiority of gas turbines, holy spirit of SKB-2 and Kirovskiy Factory”. Blessing was granted and tough trip started from old walls of a factory that saw Revolution and flames of Great Fatherland War. “Kharkovite scum of course tried to conceal their attempts to sabotage Soviet system” holy voice whispered in my mind. “You need to uncover their deceitful claims of superiority of T-64 and their vile fantasies of selling Soviet Rodina property and achievements of working class to rotting capitalist West” confidently said the voice. “Trying to uncover their lies by simply showing terrible results of their attempts to create a fighting machine for Soviet proletariat is not enough! You need to show their true promptings and their deceptive manipulations of people of Soviet Union and members of Communist Party!”. “KGB” i said to myself, “they were collecting information about all anti-Soviet elements, and maybe they managed to get some sort of information on Morozov’s sect, what they were doing”. Target now was clear for me. Museum of political history of Russia. It was located inside of an old Tsarist homestead, build for a ballerina (and a monarchist whore). This museum had a collection of documents showing that Soviets often knew exactly what anti-Soviet elements were saying during their secret meetings. But all displayed papers, yellow and worn out by flow of time, were about “intelligentsia” attempts to undermine Proletariat Revolution by their poisonous poems. I needed more. “My PutinTroll ID card may be useful here” my voice sounded enthusiastic. An inconspicuous staff door was found near museum wardrobe with clear sign of PutinTroll access system controlling it. My hand pulled out a small card from a pocket, with “Lenin Banner 2nd Special Chairborn Putinskaya Assault Keyboard Unit” clearly written on one side of that piece of cheap plastic. I didn’t knew what level of access was needed to get inside, but attempt was worth a risk. Card was inserted into device but door did not reacted. Red light was looking at me from card reader, coldly answering to my confusion. “Heh, strange that my card doesn’t work here. Museum staff access card is needed, for sure”. Sounds of steps distracted me from watching in anger at card reader. “What are you doing here” said security guard. “Was looking for a toilet, could find it anywhere, thought that there is maybe a bathroom for staff that I can use.” Guy gave me tired look, “first floor, left from the entrance”. I went down, so at least it would look like I was telling truth. “Maybe this old lady in checkroom have proper card?”. As it was summer time, there was nobody in checkroom, and old lady was drowsy. Perfect. Her card was sticking out of side pocket, and few seconds later it was in my hands. Thrilled and cautious in the same time, I went to other stairs, expecting that this corridor may connect them and have big room for storage or for service personnel of Kshesinskaya. Door with card reader confirmed this assumption. Card reader mechanism grabbed card that was inserted into it and a 2-3 second later opened metallic door. It was hard to see inside, as only light from hall, coming through doorway was only source of light here. Flashlight on my phone, made by Chinese communists and sold under South Korean capitalists brand was helpful here. Communist-made and Korean-sold flashlight revealed an old corridor with series of doors. “Kazakhstan” was written above a nearest door. “They are probably keeping documents here, divided by country, so when ordered by leadership, museum staff can put out or pull out from public part of museum documents with appropriate content. Don’t like country – put out bad docs about them” I told myself. “Need to find Ukraine”. Door was found, with almost no signs of wear. Piece of plastic managed to open it as well and a cool air hit me like a wall. Hundreds of shelves were visible in dim light of dying bulb. «This is excellent! Need to find a proper folder, though. This building is sure big, especially for a court ballerina”. After about an hour of searching a pack of folders with “Reports on Morozov’s group assemblies, for comrade Serov” written by a typewriter on it, was found. “This is it!”. I impatiently opened it, with hundreds of pages of text in typewriter font flashing before my eyes. “Everything is here!” “Committee of State Security under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. 1955, Decem... ….. ….. Secret… …. For comrade Serov… …. .. Morozov appears to periodically assemble a group of engineers from Kharkov on his property, where in private condition they exchange anti-Soviet ideas… … as source reported among those speeches Morozov expressed his wish to sabotage Soviet Army capabilities and spend resources of country ineffectively, which was met positively by attendees. … [hand written] Put a device there, I need a tape of that before showing anything to comrade Khrushchev. Did Morozov lost his mind? Recordings of their speeches give to ... ...“ “Committee of State Security under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. 1956 March... …. ...full transcript of those meetings is in Attachment 1, some excerpts: … - Those Moskovites are crazy, they want to send a device into space on top of giant fueltank with gigantic rocket engine attached to that hideous device. - I wish it exploded during launch! - Maybe we can make it to.. - We don’t have any rocketeers here, Mikola - Yeah. So what we can do to hurt Moscovite thieves? They are stealing our wealth, preventing us from becoming rich, like those bourgeoisie from Paris or London! - Majority of people here are engineers, and we managed to get inside of Commies weapon industry. We can make them spend their money on our inventions! - But we need to make them not work, you know, so those nuts will not destroy Paris or London, or we will not have a place to run after their payments! Laughing - I propose my idea to make a battle tank, we already discussed this, it should have a lot of advanced features so it will be easy to sell it to Army idiots, but we will make it unreliable enough so they would spend a lot on “fixing” those “problems” Laughing - This is how you plan to get a new dacha, Oleksiy? Laughing - They will spend a 5-year plan worth of money to make it at least work, but all this time they will not be able to attack better countries then their own! Laughing - Give me this horilka, Sasha - I sure like yours foreign tape recorder, where you got it? …. …. - Most sophisticated part of any vehicle is engine and suspension. We need to make them as bad as possible, but not too terrible, or they will just reject it. - Yeah, but we also can put more sophistication on this design. What we can make more complicated there? - Remember Heavy tanks competition? Several of those boxes had some sort of mechanized loading systems. Maybe we can make our own, but bigger and more complicated? … - Let’s also make it steel-only armor! Taking into consideration that Westerners will adopt new and better weapons to the time when we will manage to “fix” all problems, tank armor will not be adequate and because of our over-optimization of weight and volume in our design, they will have hard time to modernize it! And again, this will ensure that will not able to launch any assault operations and start another world war, as our tanks would be always “not combat ready” - Yes, but just enough “not combat ready”, we will make it balance between “battle capable” and “not capable” so they will be trapped and chained by our design for many years in attempts to finally make it capable of spreading their stupidity! …” “Committee of State Security under the Council of Ministers of the USSR. 1956, April…. ….. Secret… …. For comrade Serov… … it appears that this group of dissidents have somebody in upper echelons of our Party, Ivan Alexandrovich. Further investigation can become a subject of political attention. A small excerpt from recorded speech during their recent meeting: … - So what about your Patron in Communist party higher-ups? - He made a report on Joseph Stalin’s cult of personality of and the mass repressions few days ago. 2 years ago he gave to Ukrainian SSR Crimea, for those who did not understood what character I am speaking about. He is reliable enough for our plans. - Would he support our proposal for Soviet Army? Without his support somebody in Politburo can rather easily push us aside. - Yes, he would. We started work on new tank that we will push down Army throat, while we will make them want more of that! Generally we already gave this vehicle all we need, it is a matter of construction and fine-tunning it to be bad enough. - That would cost a lot of money for Communists, haha! - Not only that, but we will try to make our design to be unified tank of Soviet army, so other factories will produce it as well! Nobody will be able to compete with us! - Currently T-54 and T-55 are enough for Army, but as our Patron said, Army will be interested in new tank by early 60s. We have about 5-7 years before this project starts, so our group needs to be silent about this subject from now, especially after subject will become political. ….” “Khrushchev! It was him who helped to push T-64!” “T-64 wasn’t adopted by 1964, but serial production of first vehicles was already started. About 90 of them were made, and Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU dismissed him from the post of First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1964 as well! Probably after seeing how terrible this tank was, that was pushed by Khrushchev, they finally managed to attract more political figures on their side and throw Nikita out. They understood his Kharkovite treacherous nature and that's why he wasn't allowed to participate in political work! It all makes sense now!” T-64A - first Kharkovite to be adopted by Soviet Army and produced in numbers Probably because it work, sometimes After going through a pile of documents, i found another pile of old paper documents, about T-64A. Kharkovite contras tried to force Soviet army to adopt their terrible tractor T-64, disguised as combat vehicle, in 1964. But only in 1966 it was adopted in very small numbers. Only T-64A managed to become a serial-produced vehicle, unlike T-64, which was more like a prototype and money grab from reptile Kharkovites scum. T-64A was equipped with 125 mm caliber gun, unlike a previous attempt to suck resources from USSR. From other models of T-64 that some of you, capitalist, can see in the field even today, it is different by few features: Optical rangefinder was used on this Kharkovite-designed tractor on punny rollers, with second optical lens (1) visible on right side of the Kharkovite-designed turret. Gunner sight (2) is narrow, with small-ish secondary/night sight behind it mounted with optical observation device near it. Turret armor (3) is generally naked, with nothing on right side. On right side of the turret there is also a box, right next to optical rangefinder lens, which will help to distinguish this Kharkovite vomit from the True Soldier of Soviet Rodina T-72 Ural and Red Banner Guards Warrior T-80. _____________________________________________________________________________________
×