Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/26/2014 in all areas

  1. 13 points
    Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners! Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet". Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see. T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them. T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines! The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80! The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont
  2. 11 points

    Czechoslovak interwar bits

    Hello guys, I think that possibly some of you might be interested in our interwar Czechoslovak stuff. For starter I've decided to share with you a wonderful online document about our fortification system. At the very beginning I'd like to say that I have nothing common with its creators. It's just an incredible gem that deserves to be shared with you. If you know it, sorry for that, nevertheless I think most of you don't. Since I am new here I will not waste your time debating what if scenarios. Don't worry. Well, enough of talking. What I want to share with you is a massive interactive map of our fortification system containing nearly 11 thousand objects with information about every single one of them. You can switch on even such crazy details like cable networks or construction facilities used for building of the fortifications. The map is directly linked with an online database of the fortification buildings where more than 2000 objects are listed with detailed description (plans, 3D models, photos, weapons, crew, important dates, recent state etc.). Unfortunately this database is only in Czech language but it can be a great source of information for you anyway (especially when linked with the map). The good thing is that the map alone supports other languages and you can easily switch them. This is the base view where I have already switched on all objects. You can change background map type, information etc. on the left side and visualise everything what You want to see on the right side. Let's zoom in a little bit. Here You can see one of the strongest fortified places - a valey at Králíky in north-east Czechia. As you can see the object marks have different shapes, colours etc. The shape is matching the menu on the right side. Triangles are concrete pillboxes vz. (mark) 36. Small circles are pillboxes vz. 37. The letter inside means type of the object (with one firing post, two on each side, angled one etc.). The color can be decoded from the information table in the bottom right corner. Basically it shows whether the object was actually built, if it was later destroyed or the works were only started or even not so. The heavy objects are the large circles. The numbers have also a meaning. It's a resistance class (1 -> 2 -> I -> IV from the lowest to the most resistant). You can switch on also the ground plans of the artilery groups (fortresses with underground network between the casemates). You can see it here (fortress Hůrka). You can also switch on the firing lines. Here You can see heavy artilery coverage of the most fortified section of the line (the sad thing is that no heavy artilery pieces were installed by the time of Münich crisis - but lets leave such details aside for now). You can switch on the firing lines even for the pillboxes as you can see here on the example from the souther border. Nearly all Czechoslovak objects were built for side fire having superheavy resistance frontal walls with stone and earth covers. If You zoom even more and switch for satelite map you get something like this. In this case the red color shows anti tank 47 mm guns and the blue color is 7,92 mm (sometimes double) heavy machine guns of a heavy separated casemate (possible use of light machine guns in observation cupolas is not marked). The grey color shows vz.26 light machine guns of the neighbouring pillbox. You can click on every single object and you get available details. The first icon shows detailed lines of fire including realistic range. Bellow the L: L1 M ZN 3-4 means: Left side: L1 = 47 mm anti tank gun with 7,92 mm coaxial heavy MG; M = twin 7,92 heavy MG; ZN is I think type of the cupola but I'm not actually sure about it. The codes for the weapons are shown at the table in the lower right corner (you need to keep the cursor on the question mark). The Second icon leads to a database of objects which is unfortunately only in our weird language. Anyway you can dig a lot of information from it as well (drawings, recent state, photos, exact location etc.). The best thing is that most of the objects still exist till today (all of those heavy ones). The Germans managed to destroy roughly 2000 light objects (and gain some 11000 tons of steels from them). They managed to damage also many heavy ones when they were testing weapons and tactics for the future use duirng the WW2. They even moved some cupolas (and of course the famous hedgehogs) to other fortifications along the Atlantic wall or elsewhere. Many of them are made into better or worse museums today (large quantity is private now). Huge number of them is just left alone and freely accessible for anyone. If you are more interested I can give you tips which ones to visit. On the Czech map portal You can use a mode panorama which is basically the same thing as Google street view but it's much more up to date and it's nearly everywhere where they got at least with a motorbike. Since the fortifications are also visible there, you check where they are for easier access. If you are interested I can continue the fortification topic with some other information (I'm no historian but I have visited quite many of the objects myself and read some books about them). OK, so this was my first post on the forum. I hope you find it interesting and maybe for some of you it can be a reason for a trip, who knows :-)
  3. 11 points
    Guide "How to tell the difference between T-90 and T-90A". These are the most visible differences between T-90 and T-90A. I made this guide because I haven't seen any on this topic and majority of people don't even know there are these two variants (there are more) or don't know what is different between them, so I wanted to enlighten people. This guide is not 100% true because there are some "hybrid" T-90 which incorporate parts from both models, for example T-90A chassis (body, new tracks and engine) with T-90 cast turret = T-90K http://live.warthunder.com/post/599752/en/ I didn't incorporated export(T-90S) models because they can be distinguished very easily by the complete lack of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS or by the missing MTShU-1-7 modulator such as T-90SA for Algeria, Armenia and Azerbaijan. I am open to any suggestion or to constructive criticism. I hope this will help.
  4. 11 points

    The Japanese Ferdinand

    Disclaimer: Yeah naturally Japanese tanks arent a big focus here, so I usually ignore posting things of the matter here. But like the O-I article I posted here oh so long ago, this article comes with the results of some days spent in the archive reading and (continuing to do) translating pages of reports that havent been read in like, decades. So with that said, hope you enjoy. Still a matter I'm unfinished diving into. --------- Type5 Ho-Ri : The Japanese Ferdinand As of recently, I've gone through the Japanese National Archive files, looking through to find documents that relate to my studies. While I was there, I stumbled across something that caught my interest. Of said documents, the one of most importance was a file called "Military Secrets No.1". The reports were held by the Ministry of Defense, Army records section, Munitions Mobilization district. Contained in these files were a 3-page production chart of late war tracked vehicles of the Japanese army. Located within the chart I found a number besides the Type 5 Ho-Ri tank destroyer. A vehicle that until recently was only known to have made it to wooden mockup stages. In this lengthy article I will cover my findings on the tank project. Unfortunately visual representations of the tank are still being looked at. So I will use existing found sources for this. National Institute for Defense Studies " Military secret No.1 " In September of 1942, the Japanese Army Staff came to the realization that they had no choice but to design a series of tanks to compete with the arrival of the American Sherman tank. Three concepts were proposed by the Staff, each with their own gun selection; Kou (47mm), Otsu (57mm), and Hei (75mm). As combat data filtered back to Japanese high command, the model Kou concept would later merge with Otsu concept, becoming the basis for the design of the Type4 Chi-To. The Hei proposal would eventually lead to the development of the Type5 Chi-Ri. Additional impetus for new development projects came from a change in the Weapons Administration Headquarters Research Policy in July 1943, a change which was made as a result of analyzing and examining the situation of the tank warfare between the German army and the Soviet Union. Through analysis of this data, the Army's tank doctrine shifted to an emphasis on developing tanks which prioritized the anti-armor mission instead of prioritizing infantry support with limited anti-tank capability. Upon the promulgation of this policy, the Japanese Army decided to develop a series of tank destroyers alongside the medium tanks being designed. As a result, the Type5 Chi-Ri, Japan’s primary medium-tank project, would become the basis for a new anti-armor vehicle. This was a natural choice for IJA command; the Chi-Ri project was more mature. Additionally, it held the most advanced technology Japan produced at the time, technology which would become ubiquitous in the designs that would be made until Japan's defeat in 1945. Testing model of Chi-Ri. Used to trial the series of cannons and turrets designed for the tank. In the photograph it is captured by US forces after the gun had been dismantled for further trials. By Japan's defeat in 1945, three models of Chi-Ri entered production. The tank destroyer built upon the chassis of the Chi-Ri would eventually be called the Ho-Ri. Development of this vehicle began shortly after the development of the Chi-Ri, when it had been decided that the tank would use the coil spring suspension system that Japanese manufacturers were already familiar with. After this decision was made, the Army also began work on designing the tank destroyer’s superstructure and casemate. The first design the Army came up with mimicked the Chi-Ri chassis entirely, though the turret was replaced with a reinforced rear-mounted superstructure. The Experimental 10cm Cannon With the development of a new series of tank destroyers taking place, the Army decided to design and produce a new high capacity anti-tank gun to fit the role. On July 22 of 1943, the Army Military Customs Council began designing a 105mm caliber anti-tank gun. Once the design of the cannon had been completed, construction of the cannon took place around a steel shielding that was to be the Ho-Ri's superstructure plating. The trial placement was capable of traversing 10 degrees to the left and the right, elevating by 20 degrees, and depressing by 15. The gun weighed 4.7 tons, with a barrel length of 5.759 m. During one of the first council meetings that took place on the 30th of June, however, the council gave Major Ota and Lieutenant Colonel Neima of the Army Weapons Administrative Division, the two chief engineers of the Experimental 10cm project, the task of achieving the requirement that the gun meet 200mm penetration at 600 meters distance and 1000m/s velocity. Naturally, the tank gun was not capable of this, and, instead, the Experimental 10cm had a muzzle velocity of 915m/s with AP (900m/s with HE), and achieved a performance of 150mm penetration at a distance of 1000 meters. The 10cm Experimental Anti Tank gun relied on a system similar to the Type5 75mm Anti tank cannon in relying on an autoloading mechanism for the tank. This mechanism was known as a semi-automatic loading system, different to the ordinary "autoloader" you see in other vehicles. Unlike the typical autoloading system, the loading crew of the gun system placed the individual shells on the chamber, the system automatically ramming the shell into the breech and forwarding to operation. This gave the effect of automating half the loading routine, as the name suggests. The Experimental 10cm was put into service with the Ho-Ri in 1945. The technical name for the model to be used on the prospective production model was known as the Type5 10cm anti tank cannon. The shell rammer used a horizontal chain closing type, and the automatic loading machine was attached to the back of the gun. It was used because loading ammunition of 123 cm total length and 30 kg weight was deemed too strenuous on a small Japanese physique. Various artillery parts had been diverted and referred to in order to shorten the time of development. The autoloading machine adopted the mechanism of the Type3 12 cm AA Gun for inspiration. The automatic loading mechanism was a continual source of problems, but was repeatedly refurbished to eliminate the drawbacks. Photograph of the Experimental 10cm Anti tank cannon during trials. Note: The shielf and protector are used on Ho-Ri prototype. Gun was first tested separately and then placed in tank prototype. Ho-Ri Designs Originally, the Ho-Ri was to keep the secondary 37mm that had been mounted on the Chi-Ri design. The reason for this addition was due to the limited gun-traverse on casemate tank destroyers. Additionally, the primary cannon could only do so much for itself. Hence, to combat many anti tank threats which the Americans could have dedicated to the assault on Japan, the 37mm was seen as being an efficient method of providing additional firepower against infantry and combat vehicles. To this end, the 37mm gun offered a range of APHE and smoke shells. The 37mm was capable of an elevation of 20 degrees and depression of -15 degrees. The mount itself also offered a horizontal traverse of 20 degrees. The 37mm gun could also be used as a ranging device for the main cannon, however this most likely would not have been needed due to the high velocity of the main gun. Outline of the Ho-Ri design I. Technically entered modified construction of one of the 3 Chi-Ri units. The development of the Ho-Ri design was split into two concepts. One being a rear mounted superstructure on the Chi-Ri chassis with a central stationed engine, and the other having a centralized superstructure with a rear engine placement. The Ho-Ri engine selection was different from the traditional diesel that the Army had kept with for most of their tank production. Japan used a BMW designed gasoline V12 aircraft engine . The main reason for this change was due to industrial capacity of Japan reaching its peak, aircraft development was still a heavy priority and many assets were available for useage. The output of the tank was 550hp/1500rpm. The Ho-Ri II’s design also enabled the option of adding a 20mm AA station on the rear hatch for additional protection. However, the likelihood of it being useful is up for debate. In addition, central placement of the superstructure enabled 60 rounds for the main cannon to be stored instead of the Ho-Ri I’s 40 rounds. In terms of armour, both vehicles were to keep the Chi-Ri hull, hence the maximum frontal armour of these tanks was only 75mm. On the superstructure, however, armor thickness was increased to 100mm. By the time both designs, which had been developed in parallel, were presented to Army General Staff it was too late; the war was almost over, and the thickness of the armor was no longer sufficient against US armaments. Nevertheless, the design showed promise. Thus, while neither design was chosen for production, the Ho-Ri I was adopted as the main influence for the third revision of the tank. This third vehicle is commonly labeled as Ho-Ri III. Technically, however, none of the Ho-Ri vehicles were numerically designated. Ho-Ri III wooden mockup. Ho-Ri III took the basis of the Ho-Ri I, and revamped it to fit the needs of the military. The frontal plate of the tank was sloped at a 70 degree angle and increased to 120mm thickness. In this configuration, the tank was capable of withstanding most anti tank measures the Unites States could bring to the home islands of Japan. The designers of the tank built a wooden mockup form of the revision 3 design and presented it to the general staff, at an unknown date. The Ho-Ri kept its general composition the same as the prior designs, but this change was what the Army Staff ultimately decided to go with and schedule the Ho-Ri for prototype construction. The tank would have a crew total of 6; driver, gunner, two loaders, radio operator, and commander. The past designs made use of the 37mm that the Chi-Ri hull had present, however, with the chosen slope change on the Ho-Ri III, this was no longer present and a crew member spot was open. The 6th crew member was placed as the second loader to assist with the autoloading mechanism and provide shells for the primary loader. The construction of the prototype was completed in 1944. The tank achieved a speed of 40kmh during the trials. The tests were seen as a success, resulting in the Army ordering 5 units of the tank. The tank was put in service as the Type5 Ho-Ri, as the production model started in 1945. However, by the time of the war's end, the series of tanks only made it to 50% completion. Only one operable prototype had been completed fully. Reports of the trial are still being processed at this time [11/15/16]. My research continues. I have been spending days now trying to go through everything and get the details of the tank out to the light. Once all the documents are collected together and organized, translated, and put back together I will write a follow up article to this. You can view full post with all images on my blog post: http://sensha-manual.blogspot.com/2016/11/type5-ho-ri-japanese-ferdinand.html
  5. 11 points

    Japans Box Tank O-I

    O-I The O-I (オイ車 Oi-sensha) was a super-heavy tank prototype designed by the Imperial Japanese Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War after the Battles of Nomonhan in 1939. The O-I is one of the Second World War’s more secretive tank projects, with documentation regarding the tank being kept private for over 75 years at Wakajishi Shrine, Fujinomiya. Surviving files have been purchased by FineMolds Inc., and publicly previewed in mid-2015. The multi-turreted 150-ton tank was designed for use on the Manchurian plains as a supportive pillbox for the Imperial Japanese against the Soviet Union. The project was disbanded four years after the initial development began, deemed unsatisfactory for continuation in 1943 after the lack of resource material for the prototype. History and development After 1939, the Imperial Japanese Army quickly came to realize that previous forms of mechanized warfare were proved inefficient after their defeat at Khalkhin Gol. Development of the super-heavy project was spearheaded by Colonel Hideo Iwakuro, the head of the Ministry of War of Japan (陸軍省 Rikugun-shō). Iwakuro opposed Japan’s advances towards the Soviet Union in 1939, and with the Japanese defeat, he decided to initiate a project to construct a heavily armored tank capable of withstanding large-caliber field cannons. Iwakuro assigned Colonel Murata of the 4th Technical Research Group to design and construct the super heavy tank in 1939. Colonel Murata noted Iwakuro’s words as described; 「満州の大平原で移動トーチカとして使えるような巨大戦車を作ってほしい。極秘でだ。」 “I want a huge tank built which can be used as a mobile pillbox in the wide open plains of Manchuria. Top secret.” 「今の戦車の寸法を2倍に延ばして作れ。」 “Make the dimensions twice that of today’s tanks.” The 4th Technical Research Group began designing the super-heavy vehicle throughout 1940, attempting to meet Colonel Iwakuro’s vague instructions on the ultimate goal of the project. By March 1941, the research group had finished initial tank design and was ready to begin construction. The following month, a group of pre-selected engineers were chosen to partake in the building of the super-heavy tank. One recorded engineer was Shigeo Otaka, who stated they were sent to the 4th Technical Research Group’s previous headquarters in Tokyo. There, they were guided through a barracks containing multiple small fitting rooms, where they were to conduct meetings and reports on the progress of construction of the super-heavy vehicle. Towards the end of the barracks facility was a fully-enclosed room devoid of windows, with soundproofed walls to prevent external personnel from overhearing discussions related to the project. Each officer present possessed a portion of the project’s blueprint, which, when assembled, projected the full design of the tank, labeled "Mi-To". The name originated from a collection of the Mitsubishi industry and the city, Tokyo; given to the vehicle to uphold secrecy of the tank’s project. Colonels Murata and Iwakuro The chosen engineers voiced their concerns regarding the Mi-To’s design noting that previously, the largest-sized Japanese tank had been the prototype Type95 Heavy in 1934. Issues that had been noted with heavy tank experiments in the years preceding the Mi-To showing Japan’s generally unsuccessful testing on multi-turreted vehicles exceeding the weight of standard armored vehicles. However, with the threat of a second Russo-Japanese conflict becoming more apparent, the project continued despite the engineer’s doubts on the size and mobility of the vehicle. Four engineers who survived to record the dealing had with the project On April 14th 1941, the engineers began the construction of the Mi-To under secretive means. This entailed privately-made mechanical parts and equipment being shipped to the construction zone. Colonel Murata’s original concept was to complete the super-heavy tank three months after the initiation of Mi-To’s construction. This, ultimately, did not come into fruition; as technical issues on the project began to arise. Due to the limitation on material consumption by the government, the amount of parts that could be secretly shipped-in began to dwindle. By the first month of construction, essential construction resources had been depleted and the issues with the vehicle’s cooling system further caused delays. The construction of the Mi-To was postponed until January 1942, a delay of nine months. After the Mi-To’s construction was resumed, the hull was completed on February 8th 1942. The tank had reached near-completion and was being prepared for mobility testing. Mitsubishi built the four turrets for the tank in May of the same year. Initial assembly of the tank’s armament took place soon after the turret’s superstructures were completed. However; the project once again did not have the necessary resources needed for the few remaining parts required for the final assessment. Due to this, the primary turret was removed as it lacked a 35-millimeter-thick roof plate, which had not yet arrived. Thus, the project was put on standby, until further development could continue. The total weight of the vehicle at the time was 96 tons, due to the lack of remaining structural plates and absent 75mm bolted-on armor. O-I documents previewed by FineMolds The date on which the construction of the tank resumed is unknown, although active testing of the tank was scheduled for late 1943. The tank was unveiled to the Imperial Japanese Army’s highest command in 1943, and received a name change to O-I. This followed Japanese naming convention (O translating to Heavy, I for First, making it "First Heavy") that was standard. In his place was Lieutenant Colonel Nakano, Murata's assistant and colleague. Tomio Hara, head of the Sagamia Army Arsenal, was also present. Following the demonstration, senior officials within the IJA requested that field trials begin in August of the same year. The tank was disassembled at 2:00 AM one night in June of 1943 and sent to the Sagami Army Arsenal in Sagamihara, 51 kilometers from Tokyo. The vehicle arrived at the depot in June, and was reassembled and tested on the 1st of August. On the day of the trials, the O-I performed satisfactorily until the second hour of the tests. While maneuvering on off-road terrain, the tank sank into the ground by up to a meter; attempts at traversing the hull to extricate the vehicle proved fruitless, resulting in further sinking due to the vehicle’s suspension coils compressing. The tank was eventually towed out, and further testing was continued on concrete. However, the earlier damage to the suspension resulted in vehicle’s movement damaging the concrete, which in turn, further damaged the suspension bogies to the point that further testing could not continue. The trials were postponed, and later canceled the following day. Nevertheless, the trials conducted at the testing field were considered to be a success, and the vehicle was deemed ready for use in spite of its flaws. The engineers began disassembly of the tank on the 3rd of August due to resources being limited and the inability to maintain the tank in the field. Disassembly of the tank was completed on August 8th. Two days later, the engineers noted in a log that they were to inspect the parts and conduct research to fix the issues the O-I would face. The fate of the O-I after its field-trials which took place on the 1st of August is unclear. Russian reports claim the Japanese were in possession of a wooden O-I mock-up mounting a Daimler-Benz DB 601A engine in 1945, however other sources point to the scrapping of the remaining parts of the same year. The remains of the O-I reside at the Wakajishi Shrine, with a track link of the prototype still present. Remaining track link of the prototype O-I tank Design The O-I was conceived out of the necessity to produce an armored vehicle capable of withstanding modern weaponry being able to return fire with similar firepower. The O-I was designed to act as a mobile pillbox, supporting infantry and mechanized groups along the border of the Soviet Union. The tank had a length of 10.1 meters, width of 4.8 meters, and a height of 3.6 meters. The dimensions of the vehicle closely matched those of the Panzer VIII Maus. The tank was envisioned to have a standard thickness of 150 millimeters front and rear, in order to protect against common anti-tank weapons of the time, yet it was constructed with armor 75 millimeters thick. However, an additional armor plate could be bolted on to bring the total thickness of the armor to 150 millimeters. The use of additional armor allowed for ease of construction and transportation, while also providing the tank with additional defense. Side armor on the hull superstructure was 70 millimeters thick. The additional armor plates were 35 millimeters thick, but armor surrounding the suspension was only 35 millimeters thick. This made the tank’s theoretical armor on the side 75 millimeters. There were eight wheel-supporting beams located on both sides of the suspension area which added an additional 40 millimeters of armor to specific locations on the side of the O-I. 40 ladder pieces were placed around the tank to provide crew with the ability to climb onto of the vehicle with ease. The two 47mm cannons used in the two frontal turrets were also modified to fit the armor layout of the tank. The weapon’s barrels were reinforced with steel to secure them to the tank, due to the standard gun not adequately fitting into the turret. The tank was both designed and built with two inner armor plates to divide the interior into three sections; walls with two doors each and an ultimate thickness of 20mm. This allowed the crew and modules to remain relatively safe while the structure was kept safe with supporting stands. These supports allowed the interior armor plates to stay stable and also prevented collapse. Inside the O-I were two Kawasaki V-12 engines, both located in the rear, parallel lengthwise, to give room for the rear turret operator and transmission. The transmission copied that of the Type97 Chi-Ha’s, but used larger parts and gears making the total weight heavier. The vehicle had a coil spring system, with eight 2 wheeled boggies, totaling 16 individual wheels. Data Sheet Sources - O-I documentation, Finemolds - O-I project report notebook 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 (Finemolds) - JP Tank Perfect Guide - 日本の戦車 原乙未生 (Hara's book) (Old sources) - 帝国陸軍陸戦兵器ガイド1872-1945 - 日本陸軍の火砲 野戦重砲 - 戦車と戦車戦 - 太平洋戦争秘録 日本・秘密兵器大全 ---------------------- ​Since the article Soukou and Daigensui wrote long ago is filled with inconsistencies and errors, decided to make something thats actually accurate to the reports. Wrote it on Google Docs initially, posted it to WT earlier. Will be present on Ritas blog and eventually Wikipedia.
  6. 10 points
    Sturgeon's House management does not endorse the views and statements contained in its user-generated content. All views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official doctrine on which populations are sub-human and must be exterminated.
  7. 9 points

    WWII Japanese Tanks in China

    All photos were taken by myself in year 2016 during my visit to Beijing. Tanks are from the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution and the Tank Museum(currently closed). Enjoy. No.1: Type 94 Light armored car (Tankette) in the Tank Museum This is the early version of the Type 94 Tankette. It was found in a river in 1970s. It is the best preserved Type 94 Tankette in the world. No.2: Type 97 Medium Tank in the Tank Museum This is a late version Type 97 medium tank. It carries the old small 57mm gun turret but has the revised engine ventilation port. This tank was donated by the Soviet 7th mechanized division before they withdrew from China in 1955. No.3: Type 97 Medium Tank Kai in the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution This Type 97 Medium Tank Kai's combat serial number is 102. It belonged to the former China North-East tank regiment. It took part in the attack of Jinzhou against KMT army on 1948-9-14, and did great contribution for knocking out their bunkers and MG nests by shooting and ramming. Thus after the battle this tank was awarded with an honored name:"The Hero(功臣号)“ About the tank itself, it was assembled by the Chinese army themselves by using destroyed or damaged Chi-Ha parts after the surrender of Japan. This particular tank was built up with a normal Type 97's chassis(57mm gun version) early model, and a Type 97 Kai's Shinhoto(New turret for the 47mm gun). However there are other saying claim that this tank was modified by the Japanese. It was the first tank that roared over the Tiananmen Square during the Founding Ceremony of China on 1949-10-1. The same tank on 1949-10-1. China's tank army origins from old IJA tanks. No.4: Type 97 Medium Tank in the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution Sorry, only one photo was taken. This Type 97 Medium Tank has a chassis from Type 97 Medium Tank Kai and a turret from a normal Type 97 Medium Tank. It was merged together by the Chinese army. No.5: Type 95 Armored Track(Train track) Vehicle in the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution Only two samples survived. One is in China here and one is in Kubinka, Russia (Maybe now it is transfered to the Patriot Park? I don't know). Hope you enjoy the photos I took! No repost to other places without my permission.
  8. 9 points

    Syrian conflict.

    The US State Department and other US government organs believed their own propaganda. Remember this? The US government is filled with aging Baby Boomers who feel considerable nostalgia about the social uprisings that defined their generation. They also feel guilt about not having participated in them more vigorously, and wish to vicariously participate in such uprisings elsewhere. They became convinced that the entire Arab world was filled with hip, Western-educated young people who aspired to live in shiny, Western-style democracies instead of shabby, corrupt dictatorships. With a little help from their friends in Washington DC, they could make their dreams a reality! Yes we can! Also, once the revolution was complete there were going to be some shady oil deals and whatnot to sweeten the deal for some of the people involved. The first batch of diplomatic cable leaks have alluded to some of these. But this isn't to say that the US government started all this chaos to get their hands on oil. They're simply not that rational. The horrifying thing about US foreign policy is that the US is so overwhelmingly powerful, and so completely insulated from the consequences of its actions, that the primary goal of US foreign policy is to posture and to gain advantage in US domestic politics. If you live outside the US, you are just a puppet on a string, dancing to a solipsistic and insane tune played by the blind idiot god of America. Unless you live in Russia or China and to a lesser extent India. They have nukes and they're not afraid to tell the US government to shove it. Everywhere else? So, the Democratic Party and their extended network of allies in the State Department and elsewhere decided to prove their purity and support for Democracy by assisting in the overthrow of secular dictatorships throughout the Middle East. This was, in retrospect, and also a the time, obviously a bad idea. While these countries did have large numbers of hip, westernized youth who were tired of the corruption and economic stagnation of their homelands, these countries had even larger numbers of Islamists who were older, better-funded, better-organized, and far better at playing the game. The results were entirely predictable; the young, cool, hip protesters who basically wanted to turn the entire southern coast of the Mediterranean into LA were quickly displaced and cowed into silence by barbarians who want to dynamite the pyramids and conquer all of their neighbors so they can have them as rape-slaves. Also, I want to point out that that last sentence sounds like a breezy, poetic exaggeration but it's actually literally true. This happened pretty quickly; it was obvious that Islamist elements were wearing the pants only a few months into the Arab Spring movement. But the US government does not let mere facts stop it. Instead of quickly pulling support and walking away while pretending nothing happened at all, the US government decided that if Islamists had taken over pro-Democracy protests, Islamists must be the true face of Democracy in the Middle East. Seriously; that's how come you get retarded buzzfeed articles like this one lamenting the suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood. Very quickly, a number of governments that managed not to implode decided that if Uncle Sam was going to act all retarded and shit, they might as well do their best to make sure that it was directed at their enemies. These countries, chiefly Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Israel, formed a surprisingly effective alliance of strange bedfellows that aimed at exporting their domestic political problems and at sticking it to the Persians. Saudi Arabia has a long history of religious radicalism, and an almost equally long history of exporting those radicals so they can get killed by airstrikes from civilized countries. Qatar is a Salafist country that is looking very nervously at their own 20% Shia minority and what's going on in Yemen and Iraq. Turkey is run by a knuckle-dragger who stays on top because his opponents are completely retarded, and who needs displays of foreign military might to keep his base satisfied with his lack of internal success. Israel's Likud government has a precarious hold on power and opposes an Iranian ally and long-standing rival. So, by making sure that a bit of money got into the right pockets, this coalition has kept the mostly Islamist opposition in Syria fed and armed. Propaganda in the US, funded by the Saudis and powered by boomer egos, has mainly kept the public from realizing that this is exactly the sort of anthill that the US does not need to stick its dick into, although they have remained opposed to large-scale deployment of ground forces. The biggest losers are, of course, the mainly secular, hip, westernized youth for whose benefit this idiotic operation was started. And yes, I'm sure they would grit their teeth and side with Assad if any of them haven't been killed.
  9. 8 points
    T-64BV added. Also added spoilers to make page a bit shorter, faster to scroll. This was the last vehicle that this guide will cover, BTW. So yes, after several years it is finally done! @Scolopax @N-L-M @Collimatrix @Ramlaen @Lord_James @Zyklon
  10. 8 points

    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.
  11. 8 points
  12. 8 points
    They let me in the tank restoration yard at Ft Benning earlier today
  13. 8 points

    Aerospace Pictures and Art Thread

    A bunch of Berkut/Firkin goodness has dropped, courtesy of Paralay on the Key Publishing forums: Model of a further-developed Berkut with rectangular nozzles. Sukhoi actually test-flew a rectangular nozzle on an SU-27 testbed: They found that the nozzle dramatically reduced infrared signature, but that it was heavier and developed about 15% less thrust. It is unclear why the PAK-FA uses traditional, round nozzles. Paralay confirms what I had read before; Berkut was conceived as a naval bird: Forward-swept wings are particularly attractive for carrier-based aircraft because they give a little extra lift and a little extra roll authority during landing when compared to aft-swept wings. Landing airplanes on boats is hideously dangerous, so even small advantages can make the difference. And here is a deck plan of an Ulyanovsk-class carrier filled with naval Berkuts!
  14. 8 points
    I didn't watch the video, but the "Putin Makes Me Scared and Wet" quote on the thumbnail is pretty magical and I'm definitely not getting the intended meaning from it.
  15. 8 points

    Explosive Reactive Armor

    My article about ukrainian ERA "Knife" and "Duplet": In russian: http://warfiles.ru/show-101186-ukrainskaya-dinamicheskaya-zaschita-nozh-chast-1.html http://malikobalo.appspot.com/otvaga2004.ru/tanki/tanki-concept/era-nozh_part2/ http://malikobalo.appspot.com/otvaga2004.ru/tanki/tanki-concept/era-nozh_part3/ And in eglish: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c47_1421699338 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=67c_1423601762 I hope it will be interesting :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About polish ERAWA and ERAWA-2 armour ERA: (mo old article from BTVT) :-) Polish Explosive reactive armor: ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 ·Origins of the ERAWA armor ·ERAWA -1 – the build and effectiveness ·ERAWA -2 – the build and effectiveness ·ERAWA armor on PT-91 and PT-91MZ ·ERAWA-2 unique features, and compare whit other ERA armors. Origins of the ERAWA armor The ERAWA armor is connected whit person of the Prof. Ph.D. D.Sc. Adam WIŚNIEWSKI from Military Institute of Armament Technology (WITU) in Poland. Name of this reactive armor is based on acronym: Explosive Reactive Armor Wiśniewski Adam 1 and 2 layered. The origins of the ERAWA are hidden in half of the 1980s when polish Military Institute of Armament Technology had started (in person Prof. Ph.D Wiśniewski) development process about new armor for deep modernization of the T-72M1. In fact WITU work had started about whole family of the armor whit two „tank” part: ceramic CAWA armor for main tank armor and explosive ERAWA armor as external layer. Rumors about eastern (Soviet Union) origins of the ERAWA are false. Polish Army during negotiation about future production in Poland T-72s tank (planned at half of the 1990s) rejected Kontakt-1 armor as solution whit many flaws and not good enough against suspected RPG's and ATGMS warhead in breakthrough of the 1980/1990. New armor ERAWA-1 was available in 1993 whit first PT-91 prototype. ERAWA -1 – the build and efectivnes Basic parameters of the ERAWA-1 cassette: (Photo description: Left: ERAWA-1 TX cassette Right: ERAWA-1 patent draw: 1-casette; 2-HE (trotyl or trotyl-heksogen); 3- external HHS (HB500) plate ~6mm thick; 5,6 – screws; 7 - brackets for ERAWA-1 cassette in distance 30-50mm form armor ) I. Parameters: 1. Size of the ERAWA-1 cassette - 150x150x26 mm 2. Mass of the ERAWA-1 cassette - 2.9 kg ERAWA-1 is build form RHA cassette whit HE insert (TNT or TNT-hexogen) cover by circa 6mm HHS plate whit 500HB hardness. Whole cassette is mounted by two screws to the brackets. This build, seems to be primitive, but thanks to strong explosive and very good quality HHS plates provides very good capability of the protection: Capability of the Protection is based on formula: CP - capability of protection CP=(H-Hw)/H H- Guaranteed penetration RHA armor with thick "H" Hw - real depth of perforation RHA armor (witness) after perforation ERAWA brick In result ERAWA-1 (single layered) have sucht efectivnes valued in CP factor: against hand held AT weapons sucht Komar (The Mosqito), PG-7 and PG-9 whit (circa 300-330mm RHA penetration): CP = 92% against 9M113 warhed (circa 460mm RHA penetration): CP = 83% against 125mm BK-14M round (circa 450mm RHA penetration): CP = 94% ERAWA-1 casettes are insensitive to react: ·during impact of ·AP small calibre amunition ·fragments from exploding projectiles ·during burning of by: petrol, napalm, thermite Seafty tests ERAWA-1 photos: ERAWA -2 – the build and effectives ERAWA-2 (two layered) was answer for modern thread: AT weapons whit precursor (PG-7VR, MBT LAW, Panzerfaust-3T etc), EFP projectiles formed from 100mm cone diameter, partially APFSDS penetrators, and challenge to reduce RCS tank signature. ERAWA-2 and ERAWA-1 cassettes are fully swichable. Basic parameters of the ERAWA-2 cassette: Photo description: Left: ERAWA-2 TX02 cassette Right: ERAWA-2 patent draw: 1-casette; 2 double HE layer (trotyl or trotyl-heksogen); 3- thin HHS plate separation two HE layers; 4- thin metal lid ; 5 – ceramics layer; 6 – thin HHS plate; 7- rivet/screw; 8 - brackets for ERAWA-2 casette in distance 30-50mm form armor; 9 – screw between cassette and brackets, 10 – mounted nut. ) Parameters: 1. Size of the ERAWA-2 cassette - 150x150x46 mm 2. Mass of the ERAWA-2 cassette - 4.7 kg Internal build of the ERAWA-2 cassette is much more sophisticated then ERAWA-1 and it's very different then other known ERA cassettes. Basic build is similar to the ERAWA-1 – metal cassette attached by mounted screws to brackets in distance 30-50mm from armor surface. But internal ERAWA-2 build is different. First they are two HE layers inside cassette separated by thin (circa 2-3mm) HHS plate whit hardness above 500HB. Probably both HE layers have slightly different HE material whit different reaction time and other parameters. Second – external ERAWA-2 plate is not thick HHS plate but multilayered layout made by: thin metal lid then circa 4-5mm thick ceramic layer and second thin (circa 2-3mm) HHS plate whit hardness above 500HB. Such, unusual, layout make ERAWA-2 different then other known ERA. And give surprisingly good capabilities of the protection: ·Agiainst single SC (HEAT) warheads like 9M113 (Konkurs) or 9M111M (Fagot) or BK-14M CP = 95% ·Against single EFP formed form 100mm cone diameter and penetration circa 85mm RHA CP= 94% During test ERAWA-2 proof abiities to protect in PT-91 hull top and turret top against EFP formed from 50-155mm cone diameter (so up to 120mm RHA penetration) and to protect hull sides against EFP formed form 200mm cone (so up to 150mm RHA penetration). ·Against APFSDS rounds 3BM15 (125mm) and DM-33A1 (120mm) CP in first case (3BM15) was equal to 57% CP in second case (DM33A1) was not given, but ERAWA-2 placed on PT-91 hull model (so T-72M1) was enought to stop APFSDS whit guaranted 470mm RHA penetration, from 600m distance: In this case DM-33 penetartor was heavy damage during ERAWA-2 penetration, then perforate first plate and rebound from deeper (glas textolite) layers without reach second RHA plate (backplate) PT-91 hull is consist by: (for 90 degree) 60 mm RHA + 105 mm STEF + 50 mm RHA, and glasstextolite thickness effectiveness is circa 0.4 against APFSDS, and ERAWA-2 cassette is 46mm thick So layout for 68 degree is: ~120mm ERAWA-2 cassette + 160mm RHA + 280mm STEF + 146mm RHA Hull base armor (without ERAWA) works as circa 420mm RHA against APFSDS. Guaranteed DM-33A1 penetration is 470mm RHA on 2000m. DM-33A1 after passing ERAWA-2 perforate first RHA plate and circa half STEF layer then rebound. In theory ERAWA-2 give CP=42% in this case (using formula: CP=(H-Hw)/H) but in author opinion such test is not relevant cause rather rebound mechanism then only ERAWA-2 working. Some sources (Kajetanowicz J., POLIGON 2/2013, „Czołg podstawowy PT-91 Twardy” page 7.) give ERWA-2 abilities to reduce APFSDS penetration up to 30-40%. What is consist whit above example. For the other hand - both used on test APFSDS rounds are not modern. 3BM15 is complete obsolete and antic and DM-33A1 is not really young (DOI 1987). Probably ERAWA-2 test against much modern rounds (DM53, M829A2, KEW-A2, OLF-F1, M332) will give much worse results. Anyway - ERAWA-2 ERA incares a lot protection of the PT-91 tank against non monoblock penetrator, so: 3BM15, 3BM22, 3BM26, 3BM42 and even help against first generation longer monoblock penetrator (DM33). So for typical angle +/- 30. degree from longitude tank axis and against APFSDS from half of the 1980s decade ERAWA-2 have capability of the protection – circa CP= 50-60% for penetrator whit tungsten or steel slug inside and achieve unknown (30%?) but rather significant protection against slightly younger APFSDS whit monoblock penetrator (DM33A1). ·Against SC warhead (HEAT) whit precursor. Proliferation of the AT hand held weapons whit precursor able to destroy ERA cassette starts to be serious problem for armor developers in 1990s decade. Most of the precursors are working not as typical SC warhead able to perforate armor and are not working in idea „fast ERA detonation” before main warhead SC jet hit target. In modern hand held AT weapons (PG-7VR, MBT-LAW, PzF-3T and IT600, probably in RPG-29) precursor is working in different way. As Panzerfaust-3IT developers wrote: „The dual warhead has a small first charge and a main shaped charge. The first charge penetrates the reactive add-on armor on the combat vehicle without initiating the charge inside it to ensure it does not compromise or pre-vent the armor-piercing action of the main shaped charge.” Such mechanism was describe in some ballistic symposium thesis too: ERAWA-2 was tested against several tandem warhead (main warhead + precursor) AT weapons, but probably the most difficult test was against Pzf-3T and PzF-3IT600: Pzf-3IT600 main warhead (110mm diameter) is able to perforate 900mm RHA plate, and PzF-3T warhead is able to perforate 800mm RHA plate. Both of them where tested against ERAWA-2 cassettes placed on angle 30 and 15 degree (so 75 and 60 degree form the surface): The result was more then good: ERAWA-2 against PzF-3T placed at 30 degree (60) achieve CP = 50% what including sophisticated precursor in Pzf-3T and powerful 110mm warhead (800mm RHA penetration) was greater success. ·Reduce tank RCS signature. ERAWA-2 casettes are covered by 4mm special absorber layer (1K2KS and 1KF2KS absorber) whit mass 6kg/m2 and able to protect against radar working in band X and Ku whit f=8-16GHz. On typical PT-91 such absorber cover circa 20m2 and achive reduce detecting range at 50 to 60% for typical conditions. ERAWA armor on PT-91 and PT-91MZ There was three generation of ERAWA armor on PT-91 tank. First generation consisted 394 ERAWA-1 cassette. On hull front was placed 118 cassettes and on turret 108 cassettes. On each hull side was placed 84 cassettes. Such cover weight circa 1144kg. ERAWA-1 cassettes are mounted by screws and nuts to individual metal brackets on armor surface: Photo: First generation ERAWA mount on early PT-91 tank prototype: Second generation ERAWA armor on serial PT-91 tank consist 296 ERAWA casettes: ·204 x ERAWA-1 ·92 x ERAWA-2 With total weight 2014kg and mounted by screws to the special metal bar- brackets: Photo: second generation ERAWA mount on serial PT-91 tank : Third generation ERAWA armor on PT-91 tank consist 259 cassettes: ·164 ERAWA-1 ·92 ERAWA-2 Weight 907kg. The main change is modular designed to achieve faster replace damage cassettes on battelfield. On hull are placed 79 segments, on turret 90 segments and on each hull side 45 segments. This generation layout is used on PT-91M „Pendekar” (or „Malaj”) for Malaysia, PT-91Ex and PT-91P prototypes. Photo: Third generation ERAWA mount on serial PT-91M „Pendekar” tank : It is importand to notice that typical ERAWA can't be use on light platforms like IFV or APCs. ERAWA armor will not be use on Polish Leopard-2A4 and 2A 5 tanks for law resons – agreement whit KMW and German Republic excludes non authorisated and non tested solution in Leopard-2 modernisation program. Cost of sucht certification and legalization problems propably will be to big to put ERAWA armor on polish Leopard-2. ERAWA-2 unique features, and compare whit other ERA armors. Polish ERAWA armor have some special features whit make ERAWA-1 and 2 very interesting example of different principles during ERA development process. First – ERAWA cassette have small dimensions. While in other countries ERA cassettes are rather big, ERAWA developers had tried to make ERAWA cassettes as small as it possible, whit under cassette montage system. This solution give possibility to mounted ERA cassettes without heavy metal frame known from other ERA or without space between ERA cassettes. In some ERA gaps between cassettes are almost 50mm wide. ERAWA ERA haven't such problems, so it can better cove the tank. Any flat surface cover by ERAWA is protected in 95% of it's area. Photo: Lack of any gaps between ERA cassettes on PT-91A hull and present sucht gaps on T-72B hull. Photo: Compare turret cover by ERA: Second special features of the ERAWA is its high effectiveness even on great angle. While most developers are trying to slopped ERA cassettes at 60 degree (30) form 0 to achieve some needed effectives level ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 can be slopped at smaller angle whit the same effectiveness. Typical ERAWA-2 CP value (capability of the protection) against single SC warhead is CP = 95% at 60. Degree ERA slopped angle. But even for extremely difficult for ERA cassettes angle 70-90. ERAWA-2 is effective in impressive CP=67-80% Photo: ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 effectiveness at difficult angle grater then 60. Third special feature of the ERAWA armor is confirmed abilities to significant reduce (CP=50% for 60. slopped angle) modern AT hand held SC (HEAT) warhead whit precursor. So Pzf-3T, PzF-3IT600, PG-7VR, RPG-29, MBT-LAW, etc Some ERA manufacturer claimed that they ERA have counter double warhead abilities (Relikt, Knive -Duplet, ARAT-2, ERAWA-2, etc) But till now only in Poland (and Ukraine) are known and have confirm in open public sources evidences that ERA armor can withstand such thread. Despite that ERAWA-2 ERA can stop most EFP warhead what is rather unique feature too, and it's cover by microwave absorber to reduce tank RCS. The last, maybe not unique, but really good ERAWA armor feature is it's insensitive for AP small caliber ammunition, fragments from exploding projectiles, and burning of by: petrol, napalm, termite., insensitive for 10m height drop, and chain reaction after ERA cassette explosion. What more – ERAWA have confirm abilities to work in -50 to +80 C temperature, have more then 20 years guaranteed lifetime and is small and easy to fixed it on tank. In compare to exist now ERA ( BRENUS, Blazer, ARAT-1, ARAT-2, Kontakt-1, Kontakt-5, Relikt, Knive /Duplet,) etc. ERAWA have the smallest cassettes and it can cover the biggest tank area (except Ukrainian Knive ERA in Oplot-M modules). ERAWA-2 abilities to stop single HEAT warhead is rather no different then other ERA, this what is special in ERAWA is it's ability to work even on greater angle (90-70.) whit significant effectiveness (CP=67-80%) and abilities to stopped even big EFP warhead. Unknown is effectiveness of the ERAWA-2 againt big tandem ATGM warhed like in Kornet, Ataka, etc. Probably ERA will not achieve such good results in this scenario. But for the other hand – ERAWA-2 have confirm (not only in marketing ads) abilities to deal whit modern hand held SC (HEAT) warheds whit precursor. Reduce at 50% penetration for such warhead like PzF-3T (for 60 angle) and abilities to similar reduction in other modern AT weapons (like RPG-29) should be notice as extremely good. This what modern ERA (Relikt, Knive, etc) have definitely better then ERAWA-2 is ability to stop APFSDS penetrator. Probably ERAWA can deal with only 1980s penetrators (3BM26, 3BM42, 3BM32, DM33A1 etc) whit fluent effectiveness between 30-56% and in case modern monoblock 1980s penetrator rather based on rebound mehanism (like in DM-33A1 case) then destroying penetrator. So effectiveness against modern APFSDS (even 1990s) is rather highly questionable. Good ERAWA feature is covered ERA cassette by microwave absorber to reduce RCS. In summary: ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2 are good example completely different way making ERA to achieve quite good results. Of course ERAWA seems not to be so good as the most modern IBD, FCCT Microtek, NII Stali solutions, but it's not bad anyway. For polish point of view ERAWA armor was necessary and relatively cheap way to increase a lot PT-91 (so originally T-72M1) armor protection. Future of the ERAWA armor in Poland is unclear. Probably for pure German reasons ERAWA will not be used during polish Leopard-2A4 modernization, and then Leopard-2A5 ones program. Trilateral Polish Army – German Army - KMW agreement almost blocked using pure polish solution in modernization program, and few allowed (polish RCWS, driver camera, BMS, etc) where more important and cheaper then long an expensive ERA certification process – including fire tests. Lighter platforms don't need such heavy ERA as ERAWA-1/2 and in polish Military Institute of Armament Technology was developed whole family armors for lighter then tanks platforms like: - CERAWA-1 composite-reactive armor - lightweight special bar armor (the cage) - ceramic armor CAWA-4 and CAWA-3 - main multilayer passive armor CAWA-2 and CAWA-1NA armor In other institutes in Poland where developed NERA armor and polonisated lightweight ceramic armor for Rosomak (AMV) APC. In fact ERAWA successor can be used only in future IFV. Bibliography: 1. Wiśniewski A., Pancerze, budowa, projektowanie i badnie, Warszawa 2001 2. Wiśniewski A. „Protection of Light Armors Against Shaped Charge Projectiles” 3. Wiśniewski A. „Computer analysis of explosive sensitivity to projectile impact” 4. Kajetanowicz J., Czołg podstawowy PT-91 „Twardy”, POLIGON 3/1013 5. Opis patentowy Nr 156463 „Segmentowy pancerz aktywny”, WUP 03/92 6. Opis patentowy Nr 168122 „Czołg z pancerzem reaktywnym”, WUP 01/96 7. Opis patentowy Nr 174119 „Segmentowy pancerz reatywny”, WUP 06/98 8. Koning P. J, Mostret F. J, „The Designand performance of non-initiating shaped charges whit granular jest against ERA”, 20th international symposium on ballistic Orlando 2002. 9. Podgórzak P., Wiśniewski A., „RESEARCH RESULTS ON PRECURSOR OF THE TANDEM SHAPED CHARGE PROJECTILE MODEL”, WITU 2005. 10. Dynamit Noble Defense, „Urban Warfare 2.0 How asymmetric threats dominate conflicts”, 2010. 11. Szudrowicz M. „ANALYSIS OF BAR AND NET SCREENS STRUCTURE PROTECTING VEHICLES AGAINST ANTI-TANK GRENADES FIRED FROM RPG-7”, Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport, Vol. 18, No. 1 2011 12. Magier M., WSTĘPNA ANALIZA ZJAWISKA RYKOSZETOWANIA WYDŁUŻONYCH PENETRATORÓW POCISKÓW KINETYCZNYCH, WITU 2010 =================================== And to be honest - In Poland in late 1990 was tested PT-91 vs M829 120mm Distance was 1200m, there was shot 5x M829 to turret and hull. In fact it was T-72M1 whit ERAWA-2 on hull and turret front, and... additonal HHS palte on hull (so two HHS paltes - factory ones and this "aditional") There was no single penetration :-) The same DM-33A1 was unable to overcome ERAWA-2 and T-72M1 hull. Of course mucht modern APFSDS have not problem to overcome polish ERA. Now in Poland is tested Knife and Duplet ERA as "offset" for deploing polish thermal cameras for Ukrianian tanks (circa 80 pieces for T-72AW modernisated in Lviv tank plant). As I konw the results are not very far away from my article conclusion...
  16. 8 points

    The terrible movies and reviews thread

    My mind is numb from years of deployment. A single year seems to last seven. They say the world is full of beautiful colors. It all looks black and white to me. A question swirls around my brain - somebody stateside asked me, years ago. "Who's a good boy?" I've learned that there are none. We don't all go to heaven
  17. 8 points

    We Have A New Subforum

    Like the 6.8mm SPC?
  18. 7 points
    I will be making a list of useful aerospace related documents in this thread. I'll be adding my own collection at first, feel free to add you own. Launch Vehicles Advanced Cryogenic Expendible SSTO Advanced Rocket Engines Air Augmented Rocket Propulsion Concepts Improved Saturn V Variants History of Soviet Liquid Fueled Engines Silbervogel The Space Shuttle as an Element in the National Space Program (published 1970) Space Shuttle Range Safety Command Destruct System Why Does the Space Shuttle Have Wings?: A Look at the Social Construction of Technology in Air and Space Human Rated Delta IV Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants Soviet Space Program Handbook (1988) Launch Loop Atlas V Users Guide Current Evaluation of Tripropellant Concept Star Raker Assessments of Proposed Upgraded (STS, 1999) Liquid Flyback Booster Configurations Liquid Flyback Booster Study Assessment Dual Liquid Flyback Booster for Space Shuttle Apollo Lunar Module Propulsion Systems Overview Lifting Manned Hypervelocity Reentry Vehicles Saturn V Improvement Study Nuclear Propulsion Missions to Mars and the Moons of Jupiter and Saturn Utilizing Nuclear Thermal Rockets with Indigenous Propellants Nuclear Thermal Rockets Using Indigenous Martian Propellants Nuclear Thermal Rocket/VehicIe Design Options for Future NASA Missions to the Moon and Mars Nuclear Pulse Propulsion Solid Core Nuclear Propulsion Concept Development of Nuclear Rocket Engines in the USSR NSWR Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Program Rover Nuclear Engine Program Tests Design of Antimatter Annihilation Rocket Antiproton Powered Propulsion with Magnetically Confined Plasma Engines Nuclear Pulse Space Vehicle Study SOAR: Space Orbiting Advanced Fusion Power Reactor Metal DUMBO Rocket Reactor Fission Fragment Rocket Engine The Political Feasibility of Nuclear Power in Space Liquid Annular Reactor System (LARS) On the Use of a Pulsed Nuclear Thermal Rocket for Interstellar Travel Fission Fragment Rockets (1988) Exploration Lunex Soviet Manned Lunar Program Solar Rocket System Concept Analysis Manned Mars Missions Using Electric Propulsion Galactic and Solar Cosmic Ray Shielding Issues in Radiation Protection: Galactic Cosmic Rays Titan Submersible Proposal Discovery of 1992 QB1 (first KBO) Color Diversity Among Centaurs and KBOs Manned Venus Flyby Proposal (1967) Manned Eros Flyby (would have used Apollo derivative possibly) Bussard Ramjet (simple) Bussard Ramjet (more stuff) Comparison of Phobos and Deimos as Exploration Targets Scenarios for the Orbits of 2000 CR105 and 2003 VB12 A couple of spaceflight books JIMO Materials Challenges Aerocapture Analysis for a Neptune Mission Aerogravity Assist at Triton Neptune Orbiters Using Solar and Radioisotope Electric Propulsion Magnetic Field of Mercury Human Exploration of Mercury and Saturn Project Mercury Report (1959) Abort Options for Mars Missions Manned Phobos Mission (Project APEX) Manned Venus Orbiting Mission High Altitude Venus Operations Concept Crewed Mission to Callisto Titan and Europa Mission Summary Design of a Common Lunar Lander (1991) Manned Lunar Habitats Meteroid/Debris Shielding Interstellar radio links enhanced by exploiting the Sun as a Gravitational Lens. Origin and Orbital Distribution of Trans-Neptunian Scattered Disc X-Ray Fluorescence from Inner Disc in Cygnus X-1 Evidence for a Distant Planet in the Outer Solar System Evidence for Nemesis (from 1985) THE USES OF ASTRONOMY AN ORATION Rapid Mars Transits with Exhaust-Modulated Plasma Propulsion VASIMIR Columbia Crew Survival Investigation Report CO2/Metal Propellants for Mars Sample Return Missions ISS EVA Radiation Protection Studies The Mars Project (Von Braun, 1953) That is not dead which can eternal lie: the aestivation hypothesis for resolving Fermi’s paradox Nanotechnology and Space System Architecture Apollo Guidance Computer Code List Missiles Defense Against Ballistic Missiles ICBM Basing Options Soviet Theater Nuclear Forces: Implications for NATO Defense (1981) The Evolution of the Cruise Missile A series of presentations on guided missile technology from the National University of Singapore. Seize the High Ground: The Army in Space and Missile Defense Soviet Concepts of Ballistic Missile Defense ABM R&D at Bell Labs Production and Deployment of Nike-X Professional Development Short Course on Tactical Missile Design Tactical Missile Design The Pluto Program Ballistic Missile Defense Report IADS / GCI systems of the Cold War Air defense at the XXI. century Ault Report (Report on Performance of US Navy AAMs in 1968) Nike family and BOMARC HAWK Patriot S-25 S-75 family S-200 family S-300 family 2K11 Krug 2K12 Kub 9K33 Osa 9K331 Tor 9K37M1 Buk 9K81 / 9K81M aka S-300V / VM 9K35 Strela-10 2K22M Tunguska ZU-23-4 Shilka MANPADS Tactical Missile Design by Fleeman. Johns Hopkins APL Lectures on Missile Design.  Military Aviation US THE SEARCH FOR AN ADVANCED FIGHTER A HISTORY FROM THE XF-108 TO THE ADVANCED TACTICAL FIGHTER F-106 Data Sheet Encyclopedia of US Air Force Air Craft and Missile Systems, Vol. 1 (1945-1973) Encyclopedia of US Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems, Vol. 2 (1945-1973) Designations of US Aircraft Accuracy of Azon Guided Bomb AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A 0.12-SCALE MODEL OF THE A-9A AIRCRAFT AT MACH NUMBERS FROM 0.30 TO 0.80 A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CASE STUDY FLIGHT EVALUATION (SYSTEMS) OF THE A-1OA PROTOTYPE AIRCRAFT - APPENDIX V - WEAPON DELIVERY FLIGHT EVALUATION (SYSTEMS OF THE A-10A PROTOTYPE AIRCRAFT RAND Study on F-20 Project FICON STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS OF SEVEN LENTICULAR MODELS AT MACH NUMBER 5 FORCE TESTS ON TEN LENTICULAR MODEL CONFIGURATIONS AT MACH NUMBERS 3 AND 5 AND ANGLES OF ATTACK FROM 0 TO 90 DEG LANDING CHARACTERISTICS OF A LENTICULAR-SHAPED RE-ENTRY VEHICLE PYE WACKET. LENTICULAR ROCKET FEASIBILITY STUDY LONGITUDINAL STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS OF A LENTICULAR MODEL AT MACH NUMBER 8 STATIC LONGITUDINAL STABILITY AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS AT MACH NUMBERS OF 2.86 AND 6.02 AND ANGLES OF ATTACK UP TO 95 DEGREES Congress and SDIO AIM-4F Falcon Characteristics Summary September 1963 AIM-4D Falcon Standard Missile Characteristics September 1963 APPROVED NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AIM-7M/P SPARROW MISSILE SYSTEM N88-NTSP-A-50-8008C/A NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AIM-9M SIDEWINDER MISSILE SYSTEM(FOR MODELS THROUGH AIM-9M-10) N78-NTSP-A-50-8105C/A NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AIM-9X SIDEWINDER MISSILE SYSTEM N88-NTSP-A-50-9601A/A APPROVED NAVY TRAINING PLAN FOR THE AIM-9M SIDEWINDER MISSILE SYSTEM (FOR MODELS THROUGH AIM-9M-8) A-50-8105B/A DRAFT NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AIM-54 PHOENIX MISSILE N88-NTSP-A-50-8007C/D APPROVED NAVY TRAINING SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE AIM-120 ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE N88-NTSP-A-50-8111C/A A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Test Firings Versus Simulated Soviet Tank Company NPS-50-80-008 A4D-2 Standard Aircraft Characteristics Naval Air Training And Operating Procedures Standardization Manual A-4A/B/C F-16A-B MLU Pilot Guide Part 1 F-16A-B MLU Pilot Guide Part 2 Pilot Operational Procedures of F-16 USAF Test Pilot School F-4 Phantom II Guide USAF T. O. 1F-4C-1-2 Flight Operating Difference Supplemental Data USAF Series F-4E Aircraft Thunderbird Configuration NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model RF-4B Aircraft NAVWEPS 01-235FDC-1 NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model F-4J Aircraft NAVAIR 01-245FDD-1 NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1B NATOPS POCKET CHECKLIST F-14B AIRCRAFT NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL F−14D AIRCRAFT XB-35 Pilots Handbook YB-49 Pilots Handbook YRB-49A Pilots Handbook YF-12 Utility Flight Manual Aparent AN/APG–68(V5) Operations Guide, Used on F-16C Aircraft NAVEDTRA 14014A Ch. 9 Aircraft Ordnance Weapons File 2003-2004 TECHNICAL MANUAL, ENGINEERING HANDBOOK SERIES FOR AIRCRAFT REPAIR, GENERAL MANUAL FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIR T.O. NAVAIR 01-1A-1 - 1 APRIL 2015 NAVAIR 01-245DB-2-1.2 (6-1 to 6-49) part 1 NAVAIR 01-245DB-2-1.2 (6-50 to 6-86P) part 2 NAVAIR 01-245DB-2-1.2 (6-87 to 6-108) part 3 Pilots Flight Operating Instructions for Army Model B-17 F and G, British Model Fortress II P-40N Erection and Maintance P-40N Flight Operating Instructions F-86A Flight Handbook AN 01-60JLA-1 30 July 1952 F-86A Flight Handbook T.O. 1F-86-A-1 - 30 August 1957 U-2 Flight Utility Manual 1 March 1959 Supercharging the Allison V-1710 The Impact of Allied Air Attacks on German Divisions and Other Army Forces in Zones of Combat The Effect of the Allied Air Attacks on the Ground Echelon of the Luftwaffe in Western Europe in 1944 1959 SAC Target List A-26 Pilot Training Manual P-40 Pilot Training Manual P-51 Pilot Training Manual P-47N Pilot Training Manual P-38H Pilot Training Manual F-14D manual B-25 Pilot Training Manual USAF Designations Sheet (?) Air Force Performance in Desert Storm YF-109/F3L XBT2D-1 Destroyer Characteristics Sheet AD-5 Skyraider Aircraft Characteristics Sheet A4D-1 Skyhawk Aircraft Characteristics Sheet A2F-1 Intruder Aircraft Characteristics Sheet XF5U-1 Flapjack Aircraft Characteristics Sheet F7U-3P Cutlass Aircraft Characteristics Sheet F3D-2 Skyknight Aircraft Characteristics Sheet F4D-1 Skyray Aircraft Characteristics Sheet F2H-3 Banshee Aircraft Characteristics Sheet F3H-2N Demon Aircraft Characteristics Sheet F4H-1 Phantom Aircraft Characteristics Sheet AF1-E Fury Aircraft Characteristics Sheet AF-9J Cougar Aircraft Characteristics Sheet F-11A Tiger Aircraft Characteristics Sheet F-14A Tomcat Aircraft Characteristics Sheet R3Y-1 Tradewind Aircraft Characteristics Sheet R4Q-1 Flying Boxcar Aircraft Characteristics Sheet P2B-1 Superfortress Aircraft Characteristics Sheet P4M-1Q Mercator Aircraft Characteristics Sheet P5M-2S Marlin Aircraft Characteristics Sheet P3V-1 Orion Aircraft Characteristics Sheet D-188A Aircraft Characteristics Sheet HO4S-2 Aircraft Characteristics Sheet HSS-1F Seabat Aircraft Characteristics Sheet HSL-1 Aircraft Characteristics Sheet K-225 Aircraft Characteristics Sheet KD2G-2 Firefly Aircraft Characteristics Sheet D-188 Scale Model Flight Tests An Experimental Investigation of VTOL Flying Qualities Required for Shipboard Landings X-22A Report Air Combat Tactics Evaluation F-100 F-104 F-105 F-4C vs. MiG 15/17 Type Aircraft (F-86H) History of the NF-104A USAF Serial Numbers 1922-2018 JATO Rocket Flight Test An in-depth examination of the F-20 tigershark program Lockheed P-80A Manual North American X-15 Manual Bell YFM-1 Airacuda Manual CIA Oxcart Archives Performance and Surge Limits of a TF30-P-3 Turbofan Engine/Axisymmetric Mixed-Compression Inlet Propulsion System at Mach 2.5 Wind Tunnel Tests of 1/17th Scale XBDR-1 Model US Navy Interest in U-2 Project Hazel (Mach 3 Recon) Speed Agile Concept Lockheed's Archangel whitepaper NASA Comparison of Me-262, P-80, and Meteor P-38 Design Analysis, by Hal Hibbard Evolution of the F-16 R-2800 Maintenance Manual General Dynamics Aircraft X-Planes at Edwards ATF Contenders Grumman F-11 Northrop YF-23 Lockheed AH-56 Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger Douglas A-1 Skyraider Douglas A2D Skyshark F-22 Raptor McDonnell Model Numbers US Navy PBY Operations 1941-1945 Coalition Air Warfare in the Korean War The US Navy's Transition to Jets U.S. Air Force Investments in Hypersonic Test Technologies & Infrastructure P-40 Variants XB-19 Technical Report A Compendium of Encounter Reports from P-47 Pilots Advanced Technology Tactical Transport A Case Study in US Air Force Air-to-Air Armament Post–World War II through Operation Rolling Thunder 747 Deployed Microfighters Next Generation Attack Fighter Study NAVAIR Air-to-Air Intercept Procedures Workbook. XB-70 Aircraft Study Tailsitter Stability and Control P-38L Maintenance Instructions Assault Gliders: A Reexamination Gliders of World War 2 Convair MX-1964 Proposed Supersonic Bomber (B-58 Initial Studies) USSR SOVIET ASSESSMENTS OF U. S. CLOSE AIR SUPPORT Soviet Naval Aviation (1986) Guide on using E-24 in MiG-23ML Part 1 Guide on using E-24 in MiG-23ML Part 2 Supposed digital transcription of Mi-24V(P) Pilots notes MiG-21Bis Performance Analysis Tumanskiy R-25-300 SU-27SK Flight Manual Part 1 SU-27SK Flight Manual Part 2 ICAS2002 Congress - Generations of Su-27 Fighter - Mickhail A. Pogossyan, Mickhail P. Simonov, German I. Zagainov, Alexy Z. Tarasov - Sukhoi Aircraft Design Bureau, Russia Aviation Week September 24 1990- Su-27 British Pilot Report (1 of 2) Aviation Week September 24 1990- Su-27 British Pilot Report (2 of 2) Russian performance charts for many planes Polkarpov Po-2 technical manual Tu-16 Badger Sukhoi T-50 Evaulation of Soviet Automatic Aircraft Guns 37mm NS and 37mm N Soviet Air Force P-39 Manual Soviet Assessments of North American Air Defense Tupolev Tu-22M Soviet Secret Projects: Fighters Since 1945 Su-25 Mi-24 MiG-29 MiG-31 Yakovlev V/STOL Fighters Su-27 Walkaround OKB MiG: A History Soviet Secret Bomber Projects China Chinese AA Systems UK Vulcan B MK. 2 Aircrew Manual Hunter F.1 Pilots Notes Sea Hawk F.2, F.B.3&5 and F.G.A.4&6 Pilots Notes Sea Hornet F.20 Pilots Notes Venom FB.4 Pilots Notes SPITFIRE IX, XI & XVI PILOTS NOTES THIRD EDITION Seafire Mk.I, II, III Merlin 32, 45, 46, 55 or 55M Engine Pilots Notes Seafire Mk.XV&XVII Griffon VI Engine Pilots Notes Seafire mk.45 Griffon 61 Engine Mk.46 Griffon 87 Engine Seafire FR.47 Griffon 87 or 88 Engine Naval Air Fighting Development Unit Test Report on Seafire FR.47 WT Thread with Pilot Notes on British/Commonwealth Planes Royal Air Force Buffalo Mk. I Manual [url= https://www.dropbox.com/s/d00qe9vl3sdkdxj/TempestV PilotNotes.pdf?dl=0 ]Tempest V Pilot's Notes[/url] British Secret Projects (Fighters) Sweden Swedish Military Aircraft Reference Sheet Swedish Air Force Squadron Composition Saab SK35C Draken Flight Manual SFI FPL SK35C 29 October 1994 Australian Government Evaluation of J35B A Bunch of Swedish Gas Turbine Patents from the 1930s Swedish Air Force Jet Engines AJ and AJS 37 Viggen flight manuals (untranslated) 1965 Swedish Fighter Tactics Manual From Jaktfalken to Viggen Where the Air Force was After 1945 Critical Years: Formative Moments for the Swedish Aircraft Industry 1944-1951 (untranslated) J21 A-3 Manual (partial) (untranslated) Italy G.91 Flight Testing Italian F-104 UCAV Proposal Macchi 200 C Aircraft Manual CR.32 Manual February 1941 Italian Aviation Magazine Germany A Ram-Jet Engine For Fighters (NACA, 1947, Translation of German Paper) 1950 report on the Horten designs Luftwaffenmaterialkommando GAF T.O. 1F-MIG29-1 Flight Manual MiG-29 (English) Ta-152H Teil 1 Ta-152H Manual Translated Ta 152 C, Baubeschreibung Nr.290, 5.Januar 1945, 12 Seiten Ta 152 H-0, H-1, Vorläufiges Handbuch, Elektrisches Bordnetz, Januar 1945, 42 Seiten Ta 152, Ersatzteil-Liste Ta 152, Januar 1945, 299 Seiten Ta 152 C,H, Werkzeichnungen , 1943-1945, Band 1, 104 Seiten Do-335 A1 Teil 0 Flight Handbook Do-335 Patentschrift Document Do-335 A1 Geraeteliste Do 335 A-6 Nachtjaeger Baubeschreibung Do 335 B-0 Zerstoerer Daimler Benz Handbuch DB 601 A-B Daimler Benz DB 603 A Handbuch Daimler Benz DB 603 E-G Handbuch East German MiG-29 The Development of German Antiaircraft Weapons and Equipment of All Types Up to 1945 Flight evaluation of a captured ME-262 MK 112 Autocannon MK 101 MK 103 MK 108 American Analysis of Me-110 Bf-109 F-1 Handbook Me-109 K-4 Handbook Me-163 Handbook Me-262 A-1 Handbook R4M Rocket Jumo 004 Improvements Jumo 004 Pictures Fritz-X Rheinmetall RZ-65 Hecht Glide-bomb Wasserfall Hs 117 Schmetterling Rheintochter Rheinbote Rh Z 61/9 Luftwaffe Suicide Projects He-176 Soviet Bf-109 G-2 trials Bf-109 F-1/F-2 with DB601N Performance Trials US Navy Report on Messerschmitt Aircraft Development Ta-152 Working Drawings Ta-400 Focke Wulf PTL 021 German Secret Weapons Secret Wonder Weapons of Germany Rotorcraft of the Third Reich Luftwaffe Secret Projects (Ground Attack) Luftwaffe Secret Projects (Fighters) Luftwaffe Secret Projects (Bombers) Japan A7M Wind Tunnel Test Results (Untranslated) A6M3 Operations Manual (Untranslated) Ki-10 Manual (Untranslated) Ki-44 Manual (Untranslated) Nakajima Type 99 Ha25 Manual Nakajima Aircraft Engine List (Line Type) Nakajima Aircraft Engine List (Single Row Radial) Nakajima Aircraft Engine List (Double Row Radial) F6F-5 vs. J2M3 Japanese Secret Projects (WW2) Various Japanese Aircraft Links J2M2 Performance Chart United States Strategic Bombing Survey Report I Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Airframes and Engines) United States Strategic Bombing Survey Report XIX Army Air Arsenal and Navy Air Depots (Airframes and Engines) Canada Canadian Neptune (P2V) Project 1794 (Avrocar) Final Report Australia Wirraway Operating Instructions Boomerang Operating Instructions Israel 6 Day War Air Power France Mirage 2000C Manual L'Arsenal de l'aeronautique (Untranslated) Hawk 75 Pilot's Manual Hawk 75 Maneuvers Mirage F1 in South Africa Vietnam North Vietnam Air Defences Finland Winter War and Continuation War Aircraft Types Other/Uncategorized Leaked Swiss Evaluation of Gripen vs Eurofighter vs Rafale The Strategic Aspect of Supercruising Flight Standard Aircraft Characteristics Archive Close Coupled Canard Design for Air Combat Aerodynamic highlights of a fourth generation delta canard fighter aircraft Air Intakes for High Speed Vehicles Ballistic Missile Defense Penetration and Deceleration of 25,000 lb Bombs in Concrete Targets The Use of Prototypes in Weapon System Development Radar Cross Section Measurements Breuget Range Equation External Burning Ramjets Wingless Flight: The Lifting Body Story Engineering Design Handbook: Design for Air Transport and Airdrop of Materiel Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design A Study of Hypersonic Aircraft (1964) A Linear Accelerator in Space Astronomical Engineering: A Strategy for Modifying Planetary Orbits A comparison of sleeve valve and poppet valve engines. Combat Aircraft Prototypes Since 1945 The Perception of the P-16 in the US Energy Efficiency of Sea and Air Vehicles Do Joint Fighter Programs Save Money? Ducted Pulsejet Development of Radar Homing Missiles Aviation (Civilian) Generalized Performance Comparison of Large Conventional, Tail Boom, and Tailless Aircraft (NACA, 1947) The Supersonic Transport as an Instrument of National Power Silent Supersonic Demonstrator (Japan) Sonic Boom Reduction United 232: Coping with Loss of All Flight Controls Wing-in-Ground Effect Craft Supersonic Aerodynamics 747-400 Flight Crew Operations Manual Boeing 747-400 Operations Manual 767-300 Flight Crew Operations Manual For Norwind Airlines - Document Number D632T001-36NRW - Revision Number: 9- Revision Date: August 16, 2013 Aerodynamic Characteristics of Four Duct Tandem VTOL Aircraft Configurations Engine Proposal for Phase III of the Supersonic Transport Program Supersonic Transport Engines GE4 vs. JTF17 Sonic Cruiser Concept Analysis Span-Distributed Loading Cargo Aircraft Boeing - Planemaker to the World High Velocity Jet Noise Reduction Kalman Filtering (GPS Technology) Flight Investigation of Supersonic Propellor Study of 14 Nuclear Powered Airplanes Performance of External Bump Compression Inlet at Mach Numbers of 1.5 and 2.0 Free Flight Tunnel Test Log Biographies/Personal Accounts Fulcrum: A Top Gun Pilot's Escape from the Soviet Empire, by Alexander Zuyev MiG Pilot: The Final Escape of Lt. Belenko Boris Chertok Memoir Link to English Translation Memoirs of an Aeronautical Engineer: Flight Tests at Ames Research Center: 1940-1970 The Problem of Space Travel 1928 by Slovenian Engineer Herman Potočnik General Kenney Reports, a personal History of the Pacific War By George C Kenney: Darker Shades of Blue Rockets and People, by Boris Chertok Pierre Sprey gets dunked on
  19. 7 points
    It occurred to me, while reading LoooSeR's account of how a bunch of peasants are clobbering the expensive Saudi military, that perhaps it was time to take a good, hard look at the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. What a vibrant and wonderful country! Saudi Arabia leads the world in incest: Saudi Clerics have novel theories of science. They have a diversified, modern economy, which is definitely not unstable: Including a booming agricultural sector! What a swell place, with enlightened views on women!
  20. 7 points
    Here's the thing, most conservatives I know are ardent anti-racists and have been their whole life. Judging others as individuals is a core part of their morality since they were young, imparted to them by their parents who were adults or young people during the Civil Rights Movement. These people know the power of words as tools of oppression of minorities, that's why universally they reject the use of the N-word, and that remains culturally unacceptable in public discourse. Now imagine you're one of these people who are anti-racist at your core, and circa 2001 you start getting criticized for being racist. Your first reaction is going to be, golly! I'm not racist! Let me apologize! Or maybe it's: I'm not a racist but what I say is an uncomfortable truth. And then it keeps happening. Over and over again. Racist! Racist! Racist! Racist! Sooner or later, you become wise to the fact that every time someone accuses you of being racist, there's a political agenda behind it. You begin to realize that the race card is played more often as a smokescreen to conceal malfeasance than as corrective behavior. Years go by, and the first black man is elected president. Well, you think, it was about time. Not my candidate, and I'm not too fond of someone from the Chicago political establishment getting the top spot, especially with that D next to his name and a vaguely socialism-lite platform, but eh McCain was a shitty candidate anyway. Of course you're not going to be quiet about him, any more than you would a white president. He gives an iPod to the Queen, you laugh at him. Fails to uphold his campaign promises, you criticize him. Lets the bureaucracy strangle business with regulation, you holler and yell. The ACA is the worst, you can see the effect it has on business and that's the thing that rubs you raw the most. But the cries of "racism!" don't go away. In fact they intensify and diversify. Policy criticisms that have nothing to do with race get criticized as "racist!" simply because Obama is black. Antagonism towards whites hits an all time high. Race baiting gets worse not better. You start to hear about incredible stories from the border, too. Mexican Army elements, or possibly cartel groups dressed in Army clothes, cross the border, actually kill people, and nothing happens. Meanwhile border security hits an all time low. The Democrats, in at least partial power during this time, don't seem worried about this. In fact, you start seeing articles about "Purple Texas" and how by 2030 Republicans will never win another Federal election because "the future is diverse" or some shit. Fast forward to now. "Racism!" Yeah who cares. You're just trying to shut me down. Seen this a million times. "No, racism!" Look if you don't shut up I'm gonna say the N-word just to piss you off. "RACISM!" GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM YOU JUNGLE MONKEY. It's not because you're racist. It's because you're done. You still treat everyone the same regardless of skin color (which the lefties hate). You still hire black people, you still buy tamales from the food truck run by that nice Mexican lady. Nothing has changed, except You're done playing these games. You're done being taken advantage of. You're done letting people use your good nature against you, to get one over on you. You're done self-censoring just to make them happy, in fact you hate these people who have abused your goodwill enough that you might just relish saying something that sounds kinda racist just to make them froth and toss. Fuck them. Your side lost politically for years just because cries of "racist!" would make them sit down and shut up, so was their desire to be fair and not racist. And this desire got you NOWHERE in politics, it just encouraged the Democrats to do it more. And here we are. Cry racism all you want. Nobody's listening.
  21. 7 points
    So, did anyone else post pictures of the Marder 2 before? My friends went to Koblenz and took these pictures: They asked about the penetration of DM33, but apparently it's still being used by Japan so it's "classified"(surprisingly not other coutries). Otherwise he'd be allowed to share it.
  22. 7 points
  23. 7 points
    The perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide
  24. 7 points
    [get prepped for some ramblings] I get more depressed than scared. Her voting record as a senator isn't good at all(in my opinion) with votes for the Iraq War(and not apologizing for it till 2014), No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, 2008 bailouts, ineffective Border Fences, trying to outlaw certain video games, that time she tried to ban flag burning, etc. Then you have the whole Citizens United thing which I find scary as it was all about censoring a movie criticizing Clinton. Her time as Sec State wasn't as bad in my opinion, but failing to come to terms with Russia is a massive failure. I generally agree with the Iran Deal, but the scary part about it was that Clinton & Obama worked so hard to get the deal done that they overlooked Iran's meddling in Syria and didn't go along with the Annan peace deal in 2012. Libya is a mess thanks to Clinton, even if it isn't as bad as Syria. Her talks about the wonders of decapitation strategy is also dumbfounding to me. I'm also not going to talk about the things they didn't get done like reining in North Korea or Burma, but I doubt any American FP team could. Her foundation also accepting money from the Saudis and Qataris is actually more frightening to me than Trump's foundation just being a straight out scam too. Then you have that her current policy platform is filled with things I don't really agree with, but that's more icing on the cake than anything else. Though I still don't fear for my wellbeing under a Clinton presidency or a Trump one for that matter. I think different people will suffer under either one, but that has been the way America has been ran for a while so it doesn't matter. I'll probably write in "your mom bitches" at this point.
  25. 7 points

    Competition: A modern medium AFV

    FINAL VERSION CARACAL MMEV A MEDIUM TANK FOR THE MODERN AGE THE HONDENAAIER INDUSTRIES, LTD. CARACAL MEDIUM MULTIPURPOSE EXPEDITIONARY VEHICLE Hondenaaier Ind., Ltd. is proud to present its new design for a revolutionary medium weight vehicle. The CARACAL tank meets every need for a rapid deployment expeditionary vehicle for infantry support, long range fire, anti-tank missions, counter-insurgency warfare, and conventional engagements. The CARACAL tank sports a combination of all-around armor, devastating firepower, and great speed that makes it one of the most well-balanced and relentlessly effective vehicles ever designed. CARACAL MEDIUM MULTIPURPOSE EXPEDITIONARY VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS Crew: 3 (Driver, Gunner, Commander Engine: MTU 871 Ka-501 1200 shp, 2,600 RPM Cylinder displacement: 3.97 l Total displacement: 31.7 l Transmission: Allison X1100-3B, option for HMPT-1000 CVT Suspension: Torsion bar, fully compatible with M2/M3 Bradley Width: 3.350m, 3.920m w/ Second Chance-Light ERA Hull height: 1.240m Hull width: 2.160m Hull length: 7.140m Turret ring: 2.150m (same as M1) Ground clearance: 0.46m Empty weight: 35 tonnes Combat weight: 36-40 tonnes, depending on configuration Maximum speed: 80 km/h (governed) Maximum reverse speed: 48 km/h (with X1100) Fuel capacity: 230 US gallons (870 l) Hull rotation time (360°): 8 seconds Turret rotation time (360°): 7 seconds Armament: 75mm Lancer CT Autocannon, 2-3 machine guns Ammunition load: 150 75mm CT rounds, ~9,000 MMG rounds, ~800 HMG rounds Stabilization: 2-axis, passively stabilized Main gun elevation/depression: 25/-12 degrees Ammunition types (75mm): HEAT-MP-T (programmable), HEDP-T (programmable), APFSDS-T, HEAT-T, TP-T, TPCSDS-T, HE-OR-T FIREPOWER The CARACAL has the most versatile armament of any modern fighting vehicle. Standard armament consists of a smoothbore 75mm automatic cannon, capable of variable rates of fire between 50 and 200 rounds per minute, in three shot bursts. This cannon fires caseless single-piece ammunition from a magazine contained in the turret bustle. The cannon is of the swing-chamber type, with a separate chamber segment that swings to the left of the gun axis under the force of recoil. At the end of its stroke, it triggers an electrically-driven feed mechanism capable of loading the gun at over 400 rounds per minute, limited to 200 in practice. This feed mechanism is capable of feeding the gun at all attitudes and arcs of rotation. The 75mm cannon is fully programmable, and is integrated with the tank's stabilization and situational awareness systems. This gives the tank great capability against softer targets like infantry, helicopters, and light armored vehicles. For example, one mode coordinates a three-round burst of 75mm programmable high explosive projectiles, according to the target being engaged. When attacking infantry, the CARACAL's gun fires three projectiles at a calculated dispersion given the range detected by the tank's sensors, ensuring that each projectile bursts above the ground near the target at the very edge of every other round's radius. These rounds can be patterned in line, rank, cloverleaf, and other patterns, for destructive capability far, far beyond that of even higher-caliber artillery guns. Against lightly armored vehicles and IFVs, the CARACAL's 75mm gun can be programmed to either maximize hit probability or penetration. In the former mode, the gun works by attacking a smaller dispersion area against the identified target, ensuring the highest probability of a knock out hit. In the latter mode, three 75mm rounds are programmed to strike the exact same location, allowing the first two hits to detonate or disrupt any explosive reactive or non explosive reactive armor on the vehicle. Likewise, when attacking helicopters, this same capability allows the CARACAL to fire a maximum-hit-probability group at its target, enabling the CARACAL to quickly kill helicopters before they can engage it back. This enables the CARACAL MMEV to dominate its battlespace versus air and ground threats alike. The CARACAL is not your average expeditionary light tank, however. With a 2,150mm turret ring, the CARACAL is capable of accepting all M1-compatible turrets and guns, including 140mm tank gun systems designed by Royal Ordnance, GIAT, and Rheinmetall. This ensures that the CARACAL chassis remains competitive in the event of a high intensity conflict with a high density of enemy main battle tanks. Against lighter, less capable offerings from other companies, the CARACAL is in a class by itself. With the combination of an incredibly effective and versatile 75mm gun, and main battle tank caliber armament that can defeat even the most advanced threats, the HONDENAAIER INDUSTRIES, LTD. CARACAL MEDIUM MULTIPURPOSE EXPEDITIONARY VEHICLE is the right solution for the unpredictable future nonlinear battlespace of tomorrow! ARMOR The CARACAL MMEV provides the most cost-effective and flexible armor solution of any main battle fighting vehicle available today. At its foundation, the CARACAL MMEV comes proofed against 30mm HEDP ammunition from attack angles as generous as 60 degrees from the horizon. This basic layer of armor not only protects the CARACAL from small arms fire, heavy machine gun fire, and most autocannon fire, but shields the CARACAL against attack helicopter cannon fire as well. Even in the lightest package, the CARACAL protects against high explosive shells as large as 105mm from a distance of 5m, as well as rocket and light antitank weapon fire at severe angles. The comprehensive protection package doesn't end there, however, as the CARACAL also comes with a modular armor attachment system built-in to the base armor layer, allowing it to mount extensive Explosive Reactive Armor and Non-Explosive Reactive Armor packages over its glacis, mantlet, turret, and side skirts. The Second Chance-Light ERA package, for example protects against an additional 600mm of RHA penetration, giving the fully-equipped CARACAL MMEV a total of almost 800mm RHA protection from the frontal aspect. Against mines and IEDs, the CARACAL MMEV is protected by a generous 40mm thick armor plate as the base layer, but also has mounting points for additional belly armor packages including NERA and laminate armor. At its maximum threat armor package, the CARACAL protects against TM-72 and Type 84 anti-tank mines, as well as large IED warheads. Beyond its passive armor package, the CARACAL also offers upgrade capability with a wide variety of Active Protection Systems, including the comprehensive Regal APS, which couples a computer-controlled multi-function Doppler radar to Low Reaction Time (LRT) projectile dispensers that can intercept a variety of incoming missiles from 600-3,000 m/s velocity. Regal also incorporates a multi-function signal jammer to confuse and deflect incoming missiles away from the CARACAL MMEV. Further, the CARACAL MMEV so-equipped with both ERA and APS systems still stays within the weight and size limits necessary for two to be comfortably transported in a C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft, with roll-on/roll-off capability. This allows the CARACAL MMEV to deploy to anywhere in the world within hours, to everywhere from major airports to unprepared grasslands, while doubling the strategic capability of an armored force versus current heavier main battle tank offerings. So protected, the CARACAL is a tough adversary, capable of going toe-to-toe and emerging victorious against the latest man-portable anti-tank weapons, helicopter-fired ATGMs, and main battle tank cannons. Far from being “just another light tank”, the CARACAL MMEV is a true “high transportable” medium main battle fighting vehicle. MOBILITY At its maximum weight configuration, the CARACAL MMEV is packing 32 hp/tonne, giving it a full third more power to weight than competing heavier main battle tanks. This additional power, coupled with advanced transmission and suspension options, gives the CARACAL unprecedented battlefield mobility that allows it to attack the enemy any time, anywhere, and melt away before the enemy can coordinate a counter-attack. The CARACAL embodies the modern incarnation of the firefighting tank, able to sprint from hotspot to hotspot to attack and defeat the enemy so that friendly forces can take objectives and defeat the enemy in detail. As a dynamic fire support weapon, the CARACAL is unparalleled; its speed, coupled with its devastating firepower allow it to rapidly support allied forces and defeat enemy air and ground threats alike, making it a key component in future battle plans that demand rapid, total victory. OPTICS AND COMMUNICATION The CARACAL MMEV is equipped with the latest optical sensors, thermal all-weather vision equipment, internal radar and early warning systems, laser rangefinders and designators, and electronic network integration systems. This comprehensive optics and communication suite makes the CARACAL the most situationally aware vehicle on the battlefield, as well as the vehicle with the lowest reaction time to any threat. Mounted on the right of the turret is the commander's cupola, fully equipped with all around multi-function day/night/all-weather periscopes mounted around the hatch. On the left of the turret is the gunner's periscope, also an all-weather multi-function model with full thermal and low light capabilities. Both the commander and gunner are fully equipped to fight in any weather under the protection of the CARACAL's armor, minimizing the amount of time that either crewmember must remain unbuttoned. Due to this, the CARACAL can fight at any time, in any environment, including in nuclear threat zones. The CARACAL's databus is fully compatible with MIL-STD-1553, and also supports IEEE 1394, giving the CARACAL the most flexible electronics suite of any modern armored fighting vehicle, and that means the CARACAL is an eminently upgradeable vehicle that can adapt to changing requirements and new technology. Likewise, the CARACAL is a fully networked vehicle, able to communicate in an instant with allied air, sea, and land forces through its fully FIPS-140-compliant network suite. All of the network and electronics modules on the CARACAL are also completely modular, easing the demands of full fleet refurbishment and giving the CARACAL the lowest projected upgrade costs of any current armored vehicle. THE CARACAL MMEV is the world's future premier lightweight main battle fighting vehicle, able to deploy rapidly to anywhere in the world at a moment's notice twice as efficiently as the modern main battle tank. Capable of defeating all threats, air or ground, while completing mission objectives and providing maximum survivability and battlefield persistence for allied forces, the CARACAL is THE next-generation fighting vehicle for tomorrow's non-euclidean battlezone. Choose to win. Choose the CARACAL MEDIUM MULTIPURPOSE EXPEDITIONARY VEHICLE. HONDENAAIER INDUSTRIES, LTD., WE GO IN DEEP FOR DEFENSE OOC Supplementary Stuff: OK, so this is a section for out of character supplementary info regarding my design, some of which was requested by Colli. First, here's the Caracal with the maximum ERA package: It's not a proper render because the render function on my SolidWorks appears to have broken for the moment. Oh well, anyway, it illustrates the package. More to come. Alright, I've calculated the total weight of that heavy ERA package, and it comes to 4.2 tonnes. That's based on the weight of Kontakt-5, and the volume of ERA on the Caracal. Here's the total weight breakdown for the Caracal: Caracal weight breakdown: Hull weight, bare: 11.63 tonnes Driver's hatch weight: 0.196 tonnes Turret weight, bare: 6.08 Mantlet weight, bare: 0.869 tonnes Optics weight: 0.357 tonnes Commander's hatch weight: 0.063 tonnes Gunner's hatch weight: 0.035 tonnes Periscope weights: 0.014 tonnes 0.014 tonnes Total armor percentage: 56% (without ERA) ERA weight: 1.9 tonnes (light), 4.2 tonnes (heavy) Fender/side skirts weight: 0.49 tonnes Gun weight: 1.144 tonnes (3.3%) Ammunition weight: 0.810 tonnes Fuel weight (230 US gallons): 0.696 tonnes Powerpack weight: 4,300 kilograms (12.4%) Track and suspension weight: 0.196 tonnes per roadwheel assembly (including torsion bars; 14 total, equals 2.744 tonnes), plus 3.560 tonnes for all track links, plus 0.185 tonnes for two idler wheel assemblies, plus 0.485 tonnes for two sprockets. (22.2% for all track and suspension elements combined) Total estimated weight (current): 34.4 tonnes (clean), 36.3 tonnes (light ERA), 38.6 tonnes (heavy ERA) Track contact area is as follows: That equals 4.87 square meters area. Here are the contact dimensions, if you want: The dimensions of the ammunition, by the way, are 130mmx530mm. The ammunition is perfectly cylindrical.
  26. 7 points

    The Hippie Hate Thread

    Pictured: Collimatrix was on the drug called U-235 and in a haze he created a time machine because plot. He decides to fuck those paradoxes and go back in time and Sturgeon goes along for the ride while the rest of the gang are busy doing important stuff like yelling at 14 yr kids on the internet who think Tiger Tanks are cool while Tied goes into cardiac arrest for eating too many Snickers bars. In contemplating on how to change history, it became clear. Kill the hippies. How? Shoot'em while looking as sexy as hell.
  27. 6 points

    Israeli AFVs

  28. 6 points
    Some shots and footage of the Americans in Wartime Museum's EFV automotive test rig:
  29. 6 points

    Your Tank Stories

    Abrams Driver then Gunner* Anyway once after we returned from Kuwait and not to long after we gotten our tanks back from the boat/train we had to loan out some of ours to another unit conducting training. So after like a week of so the guys return the tank claiming the turret was traversing on its own with zero human input whatsoever. So one day the mechanics tell us to go ahead and startup this particular tank and move it forward (so the turret can be freely moved without hitting other parked tanks). They specifically told us not to worry about the turret because its hydraulic line had been completely disconnected and that there was no way it could move unless manually. I hop in and startup and I swear that thing made the freakiest engine startup noises I'd ever heard. Sure enough a couple of moments later with my head out cause I was open hatch in the seat the freakin turret starts traversing on its own! Needless to say I immediately ducked my head and dropped the seat and did an emergency shut off of the engine. Even if I hadn't have ducked I would have been fine since it was parked with 2 tanks on either side and once the gun tube hit the adjacent tanks bore evacuator it stopped it in its tracks anyway. No one got hurt but the tank next to it had to get a replacement bore evacuator though lol......
  30. 6 points


    This has all been translated from my forum posts in Russian and from war game Reddit which is where it was originally posted and then moved to other forums and back here. I dont care if you cant read it well Overview: Romanian Socialist Republic’s Army is quite different from other NSWP armies and although have a lot of common equipment, there are important differences in some approaches. Because of Ceausescu's obsession to produce everything in country and lack of trust from Soviets to sell better weaponry, Romanian Army was obliged to develop its own models and inspire even from Western army or collaborate with China. Economically it was bad and Ceausescu simply couldn't grasp the economics of the fact that you can't produce 100% of everything in country without bankrupting yourself. Remember that TR-580 production started in 1977, it didn't matter that the T-72 was superior, as long as Rumnia could produce a tank - any tank - in country. Sure, later TR-85 was better and some Chinese and Western help was used but was still a medium tank rather than an MBT. So, there was less money for acquisition from abroad, resulting in the acquisition of small numbers of advanced weaponry, and even those few were not top of the line. The T-72s Romanian Army got were the early T-72 Ural1, MiG-23s were MF version when others in the Warsaw Pact were buying MLs. Very few AT-4/5 were acquired because Rumania produced the antiquated Maliutka which was eventually upgraded with Western help. Upgraded local variants were not bad but not top of the line of course. They stubbornedly pursued the license production of the useless RS-2US/A-90 and AA-2 R-3S/A-91 air to air missiles of 1950 and 1960 vintage MiG-21s - the backbone of the air force - while WP neighbours equipped theirs with R-13M, R-60 and R-3R. Some studies were made to design better missiles and local copies were constantly improved but in the end it was older equipment. And examples could go on. Later, these missiles were upgraded so somehow the gap was closed. After 1990 Romania was bankrupt, and only little money was available for upgrades in the 90's but some of those upgrades proved very successful as MIG-21, still in service, with DASH helmet and Israeli avionics. There were not enough T-72s to upgrade, and not enough money to build TR-125s which was a fine tank for its time. Just like it was the case with the MiG-21 versus MiG-29 upgrade, former was dropped due to low number of planes and because maintenance should have been made in Russia. Many products were presented only at first military exposition after 1989 events which took place in 1999. But this is because at that time was the first public exhibition and were researched even from early 80s; it was a huge secrecy developed by weapons producers which was the norm during Ceausescu’s regime. Many others were dropped in late 80s/early 90s due to lack of finance and very few info are still available. Western helos were available (licensed SA-330, Alouette) and some very interesting protos (IAR – 317, probably only dedicated attack helo designed at that time by a WP country except USSR); also, collaboration of Romania with China in military research could give a deck with a selection of Soviet style tanks (T-55 with upgrades, basic T-72) and Romanian tanks with Chinese modern FCS, stabilizer and other stuff (TR-85M, TR-125).
  31. 6 points
    Stefan Kotsch has published the following excerpts from East-German documents regarding the reliability of the T-72 on Tank-Net.
  32. 6 points
    So this is a bit of an outgrowth of my comments on the LCS... Corvettes and Cruisers - Surface Combatants in 2015 and Beyond The year 2015 is an interesting time for the oft-forgotten surface combatants - corvettes, frigates, destroyers, and cruisers - which are used to operating under the shadow of aircraft carriers that have dominated naval combat. On the Western side, you have numerous sources in the Internet reporting doom and gloom for the American Navy, citing warship shortages compared to a growing Chinese Navy. Even the Russian Navy, which mostly remains underfunded, is featured in sensationalist articles like this one: http://theweek.com/articles/583294/tiny-russian-warship-just-shocked-world Which question how small Russian warships are able to carry many more missiles than much larger American warships. The problem, unfortunately, lies with the lack of naval knowledge among the general news media and the public. Sensationalism and trivia tend to override context and timelines in the search for more viewers and clicks. Fortunately, that's why this article exists to set things straight. The Myth of the Declining American Surface Fleet One of the most enduring and popular misconceptions on the Internet is the idea that the American surface fleet is declining. Too much focus is placed on the problems of the navy's two latest ship designs - the Zumwalt and the Littoral Combat Ship - while commentators whose naval knowledge is limited to playing Harpoon wax nostalgic about the days of a massive US Navy that had dozens of cruisers and frigates. All of this tends to disguise a startling revelation: The US surface fleet is in fact incredibly strong now; and is more powerful than it was in the 90s. The key really, which everyone doesn't seem to notice, is the US Navy's concentration on a single, proven warship type: The Arleigh Burke class. There are now 62 of these powerful warships serving in the US Navy, half of which only joined the fleet after the year 2000. This production run in fact exceeds the production run of any US warship for the past 30 years - the Knox class frigate for instance had only 36 units, while only 51 of the "cheap" OH Perry class were built for the USN, And that's not even the end of the run yet. An additional 14 units had already been authorized - to make up for the cancellation of most of the Zumwalts - with potentially thirty more to be ordered. It may in fact come to pass that the Arleigh Burke's production run would exceed a hundred; which is quite an investment given that these are 10,000 ton warships that are more equivalent to World War 2 cruisers than the 2,000 ton destroyers from the same era. Yet even with the existing run of 62 ships the production of Arleigh Burkes had in fact already outweighed the production total of the OH Perry class (which was half the weight of a Burke) and the Spruance class - the two ship classes they were really meant to replace. So while the total number of ships may have decreased, in terms of tonnage the fleet's overall weight in fact increased - while lowering manpower cost. The Burkes are also simply much better ships than the old frigates and destroyers because of the improved AEGIS sensors and the versatility of its VLS system; which can load many different types of missile depending on its mission. A single Burke for instance could theoretically carry 96 SAMs for air defense or 96 Tomahawk missiles instead - the latter loadout being four times more cruise missiles that the Russians fired on Syria using their four small ships. An old OH Perry by contrast could only carry 40 short-ranged SAMs and a handful of anti-ship missiles in its main missile magazine. Moreover, the numbers of Arleigh Burkes available - alongside the twenty-two original AEGIS cruisers, give the US a grand total of eighty-four top-of the-line escorts. Compared to the nineteen US Navy Supercarriers and Marine carriers, the USN in fact has enough to provide four of AEGIS escorts per carrier. China by contrast has a mere dozen Type 51 and 52 destroyers that come close in weight class - but not in capability - as the Burkes. Indeed, their only match unit per unit are the six Kongo and Atago class ships of the Japanese SDF - who are of course American allies! In this context, it also becomes easier to see why much of the "controversy" around the Littoral Combat Ship is misplaced. Many of its critics want it to be as capable as the outgoing OH Perry class frigates. What these critics don't realize is that the replacement for these ships were in fact the dozens of new Arleigh Burkes. The LCS was instead meant to fill the roles that the Burkes could't perform - and in doing so they spelled the doom of the 4,000 ton frigates. The Death of the 4,000 ton Frigate A perennial problem in amateur warship discussion is the insistence of many commentators on the need for particular ship types. "We need cruisers/destroyers/frigates", often uttered without realizing what the particular ships were actually meant to do. This applies to the 4,000 ton "multirole" frigate - which is an enormously popular type of warship worldwide and the OH Perry is an exemplar of this type. In essence, the multirole frigate promises decent all-around capability at an affordable cost. However, for the present-day US Navy, there is no place for the multi-role frigate. The Burkes served as carrier escorts and independent cruisers for showing the flag in dangerous hotspots. The LCS meanwhile was a utility ship in a carrier battle group, or a low-intensity combat ship for showing the flag in safer waters. There was no space in between for a multirole frigate. And that's because the well-loved frigate was in fact always riddled by compromise. It simply could not be good at anti-air combat, anti-submarine combat, and surface combat with only 4,000 tons displacement. Specialist ships meanwhile - such as the Knox - could not operate independently because they could not deal with all possible threats they encountered. Even the idea that they could serve as "backup" for the primary carrier escorts proved problematic, particularly in anti-air combat. Experience in the Falklands showed that having multiple average SAM systems operating independently was problematic - you had mere minutes or even seconds to coordinate your defense volleys which proved impossible with multiple ships; leading to the possibility that some of the enemy aircraft/missiles were left un-engaged. Long-ranged SAM systems also tended to be radar-guided leading to the possibility of the escorts interfering with each other's radar. The solution was a centralized and computerized SAM system on a single ship with a powerful radar - the AEGIS system on the US cruisers and the Burkes. Indeed, so powerful was this system that the Americans quickly scrapped their remaining non-AEGIS air defense cruisers while the OH Perry class was allowed to lose their SAM systems - it was better to have a handful of AEGIS ships doing air defense than a lot of lesser ships. Interestingly, the only type of SAM system that would complement AEGIS was the short-ranged RIM; which was an IR-guided weapon that did not interfere with other ship's radar while providing last-ditch defense against an enemy missile that got through the long-ranged SAM volleys of AEGIS. It was probably not a coincidence that RIM was the only SAM system equipped on the LCS; while all of the US Navy's remaining carrier escorts were large AEGIS ships. Meanwhile, anti-submarine combat had also progressed. The Knox and OH Perry class were designed with the idea that the warship itself may have to engage an enemy submarine in direct combat; which is why it had its own anti-submarine torpedo tubes and the ASROC launcher. The speed of nuclear submarines and their own guided torpedoes had long made this approach suicidal however, hence the switch to using helicopters to attack submarines without fear of retaliation. With this in mind, the only contribution of a multirole frigate in anti-submarine warfare was its helicopter pad - a helicopter pad also present on the LCS. In short, the problem with the multirole frigate was that too much of its systems had become dead weight. Its SAM systems were more of a liability if it were not up-to-date, and the anti-submarine weapons redundant in the context of using the helicopter for submarine hunting. Indeed, it could be considered wasteful to use multirole frigates in carrier battlegroups since some of their tasks were so mundane - such as the "plane guard" whose mission was to pick up any pilots who may have crashed into the sea while trying to land on the carrier. Is it really necessary for a 4,000 ton frigate with a large number of weapons (most of which it cannot use while so close to the carrier) to be saddled with this role, or is better for a smaller, cheaper vessel like the LCS whose sole anti-air weapon can be used to defend the carrier? Quiet New Dreadnoughts: Corvettes and Cruisers Put together, the Burke and the LCS both point to two emerging trends in surface combatants; as well as the dangerous continuation of many navies down the path of the multirole frigate. First, the Burkes showed it was possible to have a powerful surface combatant theoretically capable of surviving heavy air attack (theoretical as the system has never been tested fully in combat) that nonetheless retains sufficient anti-surface and anti-submarine punch. However, this design requires the ship to be nearly 10,000 tons. The Chinese Type 52D for instance is now around 7,500 tons in weight compared to the original Type 52's 6,000; and the future proposals are definitely looking at a 10,000 ton design. The British Daring class had an even more dramatic size increase, doubling in size from the previous Type 42s. All of these ships are equipped with VLS with actual or theoretical capability to load multiple types of missiles for different missions. These 10,000 ton "Destroyers" are more rightly classified as "cruisers" given they are also capable of independent action in addition to serving as escort; and their presence spells the obsolescence of the 4,000-5,000 ton "multirole" frigate. The new 10K Cruisers can simply do everything the frigates are supposed to do and better except in terms of acquisition cost; which is why the frigate will remain primarily with budget-stricken navies trying to pursue paper advantages at a discount. The higher-end Corvettes like the Sa'ar V, which are even more cash-strapped implementations of the multirole frigate that also sacrifice seakeeping, may also soon suffer the same fate. Meanwhile, new 1,000-3,000 ton corvettes like the LCS will be developed to fill the existing gap in warships suitable for low-intensity conflict or mundane tasks with a battlefleet. Given the cost of the 10K cruisers these smaller ships will focus not on packing as many weapons or capabilities as possible, but focus on a handful of roles at the most efficient possible cost. These ships will be characterized by omitting features seen by traditionalists as "standard" pieces of equipment - kept "just in case" - but for the most part really only add to the operating cost of the ship in the long run. Of course future technological developments may result in new ship types and capabilities - including perhaps a renewed interest in long-ranged naval gunnery. However, I suspect that many of these new technologies will simply be incorporated in the large cruisers and then the smaller corvettes as necessary; and that these two core types will serve as the basis of future surface combatants for the world's fleets.
  33. 6 points

    Israeli AFVs

    Something interesting about Merkava III's armor protection(in Chinese): Some of these images are come from Chinese course book《装甲防护技术基础》(The basic technology of armor protection), and others are come from this issue: http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-BQZS200108004.htm The main author of these two sources is one of the chief tank designers in China. Mr.Zhang has presided over a design of front-engine tank scheme under the frame of Chinese 3rd gen MBT, but there was little info refer to these history) Photo of Mr.Zhang and General Tal. The cast turret base and weld frame. Special armor covered, those colored parts most likely are heavy NERA or Built-in-ERA structure modules, while others are lighter module I guess. T-3/4 module before shooting by a HEAT warhead of HOT missile. According to previous picture, it should be the side armor of the turret. So we can assume that the front arc of Merkava III's turret, looks likely ±30°,which can withstand more than 700mm even 800mm penetration from CE threat. Still the T-3/4 module,before hitting by a RPG warhead. I am confused this number as T-9/4 at my first look, but it is more likely a distorted "3". There are some reasons: (1) Its thickness doesn't seem to fit on top of the turret. (2) In this pic the threat is RPG warhead, moreover, its incidence normal angle is smaller than the previous HOT warhead, which can be used as a useful basis for judging. Built-in ERA structure, the left side is Israeli scheme, and Russian scheme at right side. The armor layout of tank Merkava Mk III. The solid line is base steel armor's equivalent thickness, including spaced armor array inside the hull( The table above shows the thickness and inclination of the base steel armor, unfortunately many notes are missing in the PDF) and the dotted line is the special armor's protection capability against KE ammunition, up to 450mm RHA on turret front and 350-400mm on the UFP. Hope you guys will enjoy this post
  34. 6 points

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    everyone can make a mistake )
  35. 6 points

    The Aglockalypse

    It is time to explain The Aglockalypse. This is the handgun that killed handgun design in the West. Nobody has had any new ideas worth mentioning on the mechanical design of service handguns since this design came out. Almost every major arms manufacturer in the West makes what is materially a Glock clone; albeit with a few small embellishments and their own logo stamped on the side. What Makes a Glock a Glock? Almost every mechanical contrivance in small arms design was invented about one hundred years ago by some Austro-Hungarian noble you've never heard of or by John Moses Browning. It's about 50/50. Most of small arms design these days consists of applying new materials and manufacturing techniques to old ideas (which may have been unworkable at the time), or by taking a lot of old ideas from different sources and mixing them together in some way that's complimentary. The Glock pistol design is no exception; the ideas were not novel, but putting them all together proved an absolutely world-beating combination. 1) Polymer Frame An H&K VP-70, the first production polymer-framed pistol. Polymer-framed pistols were not an original idea, but at the debut of the Glock 17 they were still a fairly new idea. Glock proved the concept to be mature, and it provided the Glock with a huge advantage over the competition. Traditional metal-framed pistols are made by taking a hunk of metal, either a casting, billet or forging, and cutting away everything that isn't pistol-shaped: This translates to a lot of machine time and a lot of expensive alloys that end up as shavings on the floor. The frame of the Glock was much faster and cheaper to make. Some metal inserts were put into an injection mold (which admittedly is an expensive device, but you pay for it once), and then hot, liquid plastic was squirted into this cavity to form the frame. The entire process takes less than a minute. Cost-wise there is no way for a metal-framed pistol to compete with a polymer-framed one, apples to apples. For very large contracts the math tilts even further in favor of injection molding, since one-time capital costs are a large percentage of injection molding costs while ongoing costs are smaller, while ongoing costs for machining stay largely the same. Gaston Glock was very aggressive about pursuing large contracts (notably the NYPD, which was an early coup), which helped him best use this advantage. 2) The Glock locking system Glocks use a linkless Browning tilting-barrel short recoil system and lock the slide to the barrel via a large rectangular lug machined into the barrel that fits into the ejection port. Glocks were the second major pistol design to combine these two concepts, the first being the SiG P220 series. Ejection port of a Webley automatic pistol, showing the square breech section of the barrel locked to the slide via the ejection port. The barrel translates diagonally. Cross section of a Browning hi-power. This was the first mass-produced pistol to use the linkless short recoil system. The barrel locks to the slide via a series of rings in the barrel that tilt into corresponding grooves in the slide. SiG P220 This operating system is robust and reliable, and fairly easy to manufacture. It has a few theoretical flaws, such as the barrel being slightly off-angle during the extraction of the spent case, the pivot sitting below the barrel and thereby raising the bore axis, and the necessary clearances for the movement of the barrel degrading accuracy. In practice these objections are immaterial. Glocks are absurdly reliable, have a low enough bore axis and only a unusually skilled shooters would notice the mechanical contributions of the precision of the pistol over their own wobbling aim. 3) The Glock Fire Control System The Glock fire control group is an elegant combination of several ideas. Again, most of the ideas in the Glock fire control group had antecedents, but their combination and execution in the Glock was very clever. The trigger transfer bar is a complex shape, but it is stamped from sheet metal and so quite cheap to produce. It also combines several functions into a single piece, including enough safeties that Glocks are reasonably safe to carry even though they lack an external safety. The complete lack of a machined metal hammer, and the clever trigger dingus-lever were also cost savings over traditional pistol design. There are several other incidental design features of the Glock pistol, but these three are in my opinion the ones that allowed it to gobble up market share because they economized manufacture. They are also the three features that the overwhelming majority of Western pistols designed since the Early '80s copy unashamedly. Victims of the Aglockalypse When Gaston Glock first entered his creation in the Austrian Army pistol competition, nobody in arms design had heard of the guy. Longstanding Austrian arms company Steyr was quite confident that their own GB pistol would win the competition. This is basically the pistol equivalent of the couple making out in the back of a convertible at night in a horror movie. It is remembered only as the first in a long list of casualties. Instead, not only was the Steyr GB to lose the competition, but it would fade from the marketplace without making much of an impression anywhere. This is a shame, in my opinion, because the Steyr GB has a few good ideas that deserve a second look, such as the two-position-feed magazines (seen otherwise only in rifles, SMGs and Russian pistol designs), and the truckbed-liner crinkle finish. The design also has some good features for economy of production and excellent mechanical precision, but really, on the whole, it's completely inferior to the Glock. These pistols have a really poor reputation for being unreliable and wearing out quickly, and while Steyr fans will claim this is in large part due to inferior license-produced versions from the United States, nobody argues that even the Steyr-made GBs have anything on the nearly bomb-proof Glock. Also, they're enormous. As far as the Glock was concerned, the Steyr GB was just the first blood. It wasn't enough to best a local competitor; the Glock would obsolete an entire generation of automatic pistol designs. In neighboring Germany, Heckler and Koch's flagship pistol offering was the P7. The P7 has many admirable features. Like the Steyr GB it has a fixed barrel and excellent mechanical precision. It is also very slim and has an extremely low bore axis. It also has the most hideously complicated fire control system ever seen in a pistol that isn't a revolver: A pistol like the P7 could simply never be made cost-competitive with the Glock, much less by a company like HK which usually errs on the side of high performance rather than low cost. Walther, the other big German small arms manufacturer, was busy making the P5: No, the picture isn't reversed. The ejection port is indeed on the left side of the P5, which is because the P5 is nothing more than a slightly re-worked P38 of World War Two vintage. The frame is aluminum, the barrel is shorter and the fire control group has some detail improvements, but it's otherwise the same, right down to the dubious rotating-block locking system. It didn't even have a double-column magazine. Just another outdated design for the Glock to drop-kick into the dustbin of history. Longtime Belgian designer FNH was pushing the Browning BDA, a pistol so boring that I can barely write about it while remaining awake. This is basically a Browning hi-power with a double action trigger somehow shoehorned in. Given how the Browning hi-power trigger works, this is not exactly a straightforward conversion, and this would invite curiousity were it not for the fact that this pistol carries with it a highly stiffling aura of impenetrable boringness. I seriously cannot bring myself to care. Across the Atlantic, in gun-happy America the Glock would face stiff competition from hardened, skillful American firms that had more to offer than face-lifted wartime designs and botique gas-delayed guns. The rugged American outlook on law enforcement provided a stiffly competitive market for quality peace officers' weapons. Haha, I kid. They were just as complacent and mediocre as everyone else. Sturm Ruger Co, one of only two publicly traded firearms manufacturers in the US, released their P-series of pistols in the mid eighties. It seems a little uncharitable to list these chunky pistols as victims of Glock superiority, since they sold in decent numbers and aren't terrible. But victims they were; the design was simply outdated. The strangest feature of the P-series pistols is that the older designs in the family use a swinging link to cam the barrel in and out of engagement with the slide. While the swinging cam arrangement works well enough, and several fine weapons use it (e.g. 1911, Tokarev), with modern materials and manufacturing tolerances the linkless system is simply better because it doesn't produce the grinding movement caused by the short radius of the link swinging radius, and because it has fewer parts. The P series was also reasonably cost-competitive because most of the parts are cast before machining to final dimensions. Sturm Ruger has exceptional expertise in firearms castings, which has long given them the edge in pricing. Castings can be made very closely to the final shapes required, which saves a lot of machining time. However, this gives many of their designs a bloated, water-retaining look. The other publicly traded firm, Smith and Wesson, was doing reasonably well with a whole family of automatic pistols that I absolutely do not care about. They have names that end in "9", have generally Browning-ish insides, and the single stacks look pretty and elegant. There are also some double stack variants, and some are in stainless. Something something unbuttoned pastel shirts, designer Italian pants and cocaine. Oh look, there goes my mind, wandering again because these pistols are BORING, MEDIOCRE AND I HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO CARE ABOUT. OH LOOK IT'S ANOTHER PRE-GLOCK SINGLE STACK METAL FRAMED PISTOL. This time it's from Colt. It is a well-documented fact that Colt's senior management spent the entire 1980's doing nothing but licking their own genitals like cats. I don't even know what this pistol is called. Do you know what it's called? Do you care? Do you think Colt's management cared? Of course not. So let's make up a name. We'll call it... the Colt Elantra. This Colt pistol is more interesting, and has an operatic history. Unfortunately, that opera is Wagner's Ring Cycle. Nobody did anything that made sense, and by the end there was a fat lady singing and then everything burned to the ground. The pistol was originally designed by Reed Knight and Eugene Stoner, who were by that time already living legends for designing the combat robots that crushed the communist menace decisively at the Battle of Arrakis. The design was mechanically fascinating, featuring an unusual rotating barrel, roller-bearing supported striker fire control group, polymer frame with screw-on grips, and an unusual, but very appealing slide stop design. Alas, Colt completely screwed up the design by making it too big, making the trigger pull too long and too heavy, and by making it not work. Even without the stiff competition from Glock, the design would have been an ignominious failure. All of the above designs, though in some cases initially successful, would face dwindling market share against the cheaper-to produce Glocks. Their respective firms sat down and quickly came to the conclusion that they were not as clever as Gaston Glock, but that was OK since he had done the clever for them. Saint Gaston Converts the Industry to Glocktholicism The first of the Glock clones to hit the market, the S&W Sigma is so similar to the Glock that some of the parts will interchange: This resulted in some drama, hasty design changes and a settlement payment for an undisclosed amount. Next came the Walther P99: This pistol introduced the interchangeable backstrap, which was generally considered a good idea. It also introduced several option trigger modules, including a DA/SA version with a decocker button on top of the slide. This is bid'ah, and heresy against the Glockspel. The great genius of the Glock is that it's simpler and cheaper to produce than competing designs. One cannot successfully outcompete the Glock by taking a Glock and adding a bunch of extra shit to it. Then you just have a more expensive Glock, which, ipso facto, will not outcompete an Orthodox Glock. HK was, until recently, one of the last holdouts of Albigensianism hammer-fired handguns, being unable for some time to bring themselves to make an unabashed Glock clone. However, their USP series is, compared to their previous offerings, quite Glocky. They have switched to the Browning short-recoil, linkless tilting barrel design with a barrel that locks to the slide through the ejection port. By 2014, however, HK had entered into full Glockmmunion, and introduced the VP9; a striker-fired, polymer framed pistol: FNH of Belgium initially responded with the FN Forty-Nine, which is like a Glock but with a DAO trigger: However, they swiftly recanted of their error and introduced the FNP, FNX and finally the FNS, an all-but-Orthodox Glock clone: Steyr introduced the M9 series of pistols, which were actually designed by a former Glock employee! These are basically Glocks, but slanted, with weird sights and that say "Steyr" on the side instead of "Glock." In 2007, Ruger was converted and introduced the SR-9: In 2005, S&W made a slightly more refined clone called the M&P: There are several versions now, including some for blasphemers that have external safeties. Colt has yet to introduce a Glock clone; their strategy regarding this portion of the handgun market remains enigmatic. Survivors For various reasons, a few metal-framed designs have survived and remain commercially competitive. But there is reason to think that their days are numbered. The Beretta M92 series is mechanically rather similar to the Walther P-39, except it has a double stack magazine. The widespread adoption of this essentially sound, but uninspired design, by many militaries not the least of which is the US Army, has bought the design staying power. However, the recent announcement that Beretta, too, has discovered how to stencil their own name on to the side of a Glock shows that they haven't come up with anything better either. The CZ-75 design continues on as well, in no small part because producing a CZ-75 clone is a right of passage in Turkey that all adolescents must pass in order to be recognized as men. Turkish CZ-75 clones are so common at firearms trade shows that they are often used for paperweights and juggling. When there is heavy snow it is common to keep a bucket of Turkish CZ-75 clones handy to pour onto icy patches to get better traction for a stuck vehicle. But the latest offering from CZ proper, the CZ P-09 is beginning to look a lot like Glock-mas: Polymer frame, barrel that locks into the ejection port... It keeps the distinctive CZ-75 slide-inside-frame and fire control group, but it's more like a Glock than a CZ-75 is. The trendline is unmistakable. There are a few other hold-outs, but by and large the firearms industry has found Glock's recipe to be compelling. To be cost-competitive, new designs copy these innovations to a greater, rather than a lesser degree. This has meant a stultifying lack of creativity amongst pistol manufacturers, as more and more of them decide that their best bet is to copy a thirty five year old design.
  36. 6 points

    The Cartridge Collecting Thread

    Recovered Petals and cup from 14.5x114mm APDS. Rare 5.8x39mm rounds, made as a competing round to the 5.8x42mm
  37. 6 points
  38. 6 points
    You can tell a site is well administrated when the administrators accuse each other of inebriated hacking in the changelog.
  39. 6 points
  40. 6 points
    Though, I found these fresh photos of T-72 Ural scrapped in China. Someone have uploaded them into public networks. (Also,there is someone said that there are still available T-72M and T-72B collected in Plant 617, but have no more photo infos can prove that we have the second T-72. BTW, The T-80U might be located in Beijing Tank museum but do not show to public )
  41. 6 points

    General AFV Thread

    Pz 68 M0911 also known as Pz 68ET is a upgraded Pz 68, it got up armored and also recieved a 120mm gun though it never got accepted into service. It was produced in 1984 and had a combat weight of 42.000 kg, it also apparently could carry 56 120mm rounds (44 in the hull and 12 on turret floor) and 5200 rounds for its 7,5mm Panzer Maschinengewehr 1951/71. It retained the MTU MB 837 Ba-500 of the Pz 68 which delivered 660hp and its APU.
  42. 6 points
  43. 6 points
    Since the highest and best use of this thread is to make fun of Gary Johnson...
  44. 6 points
    Credit for most of the photos goes to Ulric.
  45. 6 points

    Too Fast to Die; Tantalum-180m

    Everybody here is probably familiar with the concept of isotopes. Different atoms of the same type might have different amounts of neutrons, giving them different properties. Two of the most well known isotopes are Uranium-238 and -235, but every element has multiple isotopes. Some of these are stable, while others decay in fractions of a second. Sometimes, when a particular isotope gets excited (energy added to the nucleus), it can enter a "metastable" state, where it holds on to the energy for a while instead of releasing it or decaying immediately. Most metastable isotopes decay back to their regular forms or into another atom fairly quickly, and are less stable than their parents. With one exception; Tantalum-180m. Tantalum-180 has a half life of about 8 hours, decaying to hafnium or tungsten. Tantalum-180m, despite containing more energy in its nucleus, does not do this. In fact, it has never been observed to decay. It is predicted that -180m should decay, either to tantalum-180, hafnium, or tungsten, but this has not yet been seen to happen. Based on present data, Tantalum-180m has a half life of at least 1015 years, far greater than the age of the universe. It is believed that Tantalum-180m is produced in supernova explosions, but the isotopes rarity and poorly understood nature means that scientists are unsure. The reason behind tantalum-180m's stability is actually the amount of energy it has. This energy is stored as angular momentum in the nucleus, and is commonly referred to as nuclear spin. Most atoms have a nuclear spin of 0 or another small value, such as 1/2 or 3/2. Tantalum-180m has 9, while Tantalum-180 has 1. This means that a very large amount of energy must be released from the -180m nuclear at once to decay (about 75 keV, corresponding to soft X-rays). Such an energy release happening all at once is extremely unlikely. As a result, Tantalum-180m is stuck in its metastable state, with too much energy to decay. It is literally too fast to die.
  46. 6 points
    USS Massachusetts firing a broadside. Note outbound 16" shells in the upper left hand part of the picture.
  47. 6 points
  48. 6 points
    OK, maybe this is unfair to Robert Zubrin, but here's my drunken, late-night ranting on WHY HAVEN'T WE GONE TO MARS? WAAAAAH. Ready for the short answer? OK: It takes a fucking long time to get to Mars. (hopefully not too) Long answer: Many people thought the Mars landings would be the natural follow-on to the epic Lunar landings of the late '60s and early '70s, and they weren't necessarily wrong. I still feel the Mars landings are a natural follow on, but there are some reasons besides shinking budgets, a loss of romance, and ennui that I feel are worth examining. I am not an expert, and I welcome anyone who is stepping in and telling my I am wrong, but I will nonetheless do my best to get this stuff right. So, it might feel like a Mars mission would be just like a Moon mission, but with a bigger rocket and maybe a habitat and stuff, right? Well, that's accurate, but it's not everything. I don't claim to know everything about a Mars mission, but here's some stuff to think about. First, we have to understand that a hypothetical Mars mission is not like a hypothetical Lunar mission, and the most important differences have nothing to do with Mars itself! A trip to the Moon takes about three days. Coincidentally, a human can survive about that long with no resources whatsoever except air. This means that a Lunar mission needs to take along on-board supplies lasting for six days, and oxygen for six, and that's enough for the mission plus contingency. Now, the important part here is that the Lunar mission doesn't need to develop any living techniques to complete its mission. Simply, they can easily bring along what they need to survive. For a Mars mission, it's several orders of magnitude more complicated. The mission takes a minimum of 130 days one way, if you have awesome high speed rockets. More realistically, 260 days is your one-way trip. That's close to 9 months of travel there, then 9 months back. Asking "how much weight of supplies would you need to supply one human on that trip?" is so complex as to be almost meaningless. Let's look at just water. A human needs several quarts of water per day to survive, just to drink. So for 260 days, one person would need about a metric ton and a half of water. That's for hydration alone, and more would probably be needed. It would be difficult to calculate exactly the delta-v needed to move a steadily-venting metric ton point five of water to Mars and back, but this alone represents a problem. Can you do a Mars mission via supply alone? Clearly you can theoretically-speaking, but consider that the weight of daily supplies needed for a Mars mission would be 87 times that needed for a Moon mission, and then recall the size of the Saturn V rocket that took us to the Moon. Then add in the weight of ancillary supplies like medicine, etc, that would be needed because a Mars mission can't just abort. Being on a spaceship halfway to Mars is the remotest man has ever been by well over three orders of magnitude; a doctor in Antarctica by comparison has instantly available help. This is all to say a Mars mission has to be a self-sustaining ecosystem, barring mind-boggling available delta-v and awesomely huge launch vehicles with which to launch a tremendous amount of supplies. One hundred and twenty man-months' worth of MREs and water doesn't seem like such a big deal until you see how big the rocket(s) needed to take it to Mars and back have to be. So we've recharacterized the problem. Clearly, getting to Mars isn't so hard. We've visited it by proxy loads of times. But now we realize that those probe missions weren't NASA just dicking around, they were actually dramatically lower intensity than a supplied Mars mission. To bring humans to Mars, we need to replicate the human ecosystem, and stick it on top of a rocket, or more likely in pieces atop multiple rockets. Replicating the human ecosystem sounds straightforward... Until you actually try it. This is Biosphere 2 (Biosphere 1 is Earth, yes, I know, nerds ruin everything): Biosphere 2 was one of the first major projects in trying to replicate Earth's ecosystem apart from itself. I am not going to say that we learned nothing from Biosphere 2, but in the context of preparing for a Mars mission, Biosphere 2 did not result in a viable system for space exploration, so far as I can tell. For a start, Biosphere 2 is much, much too large to launch atop a rocket! It sounds like I'm getting down on Biosphere 2, but I actually respect the effort quite a bit. It just isn't the result we need to get to Mars by 1995. However, there is another human habitation that has given us a much greater head-start towards a Mars mission than Biosphere 2: Good ol' Alpha. I feel as though the public perception of ISS has been a little harder on it than it should be. A space station feels unglamorous. It doesn't feel daring, like stepping on the Moon was, and it doesn't feel dangerous or brave. ISS has gotten more popular in recent years, as its competition for the spotlight (particularly Shuttle) has faded, but it still never captured people's hearts like Apollo or even Shuttle did. But really, ISS is kind of the Apollo 9 of the Mars effort. OK, that analogy doesn't go very far, but ISS is a crucial experiment - a long term one - in the process to going to Mars. We're putting people in space for very long periods of time, and seeing what exactly it is they need to survive up there. We now know exactly what technologies we need to perfect to supply and keep alive people during the twenty-month Mars mission, because we've already kept people alive in ISS for that and longer. And, we're making very significant strides: To avoid getting into too much detail, and recognizing that I think I've made my point, I'll leave it there, adding one final thought. NASA is staffed by people who want to go to Mars. Every single person at NASA, from Charlie to the janitorial staff, probably hold as mankind's finest achievement the Apollo Moon landings, and they want to see that achievement topped by landing human beings on Mars. I would be willing to bet that NASA could get a direct order from Congress to in no way pursue a mission to Mars, and we would still make progress in deliberate, calculated, secret ways towards that goal. The perception (which I have been guilty of, too) that NASA is sitting on their ass and needs to get on with it, is probably less justified than we want to believe. Going to Mars will be hard, and there's no guarantee that we'll make it the first time. There are a lot of problems that need solved, a fuck ton of engineering to realize those solutions, and industrial quantities of bravery needed to execute them. Putting people on Mars will be the greatest achievement in the history of mankind, until the next. Not because it is easy.
  49. 6 points
    This is a 737-200. It has two JT8D turbofan engines that live happily in pods underneath the wings, guzzling down air and Jet-A. This is an ME-262. It has two Jumo 004 engines that live... not exactly happily in pods under the wings, guzzling down air and whatever the Nazis had that was flammable. This is an F-14A of VF-84 "Jolly Rogers." It has two TF30 low bypass turbofans that sit at the end of long inlets with three variable-geometry shock ramps, a variable-position spill door and a boundary layer diverter per engine. These elements are computer-controlled to optimize pressure recovery, oblique shock wave location, minimize spillage drag and keep flow distortion to a minimum. Air intake design in combat aircraft turns out to be extremely complicated. Unlike an airliner, which is expected to cruise at subsonic speeds all the time, and unlike a wunderwaffe, which is expected to vaguely work enough so that the Americans give you a cushy technical consultant's job after the war instead of leaving you for the Russians, a modern fighter air intake has to work well at subsonic speeds, at supersonic speeds, when the fighter is maneuvering, it must deliver undistorted air to the engines, and it must be as light and offer as little drag and other aerodynamic disruptions as possible. Oh yeah, and nowadays it should contribute as little as possible to radar cross section. Have fun! For good subsonic performance, the air intake has to produce smooth, gradual transitions in flow as it is decelerated and finally fed into the engine. This produces a decrease in dynamic pressure and a corresponding rise in static pressure. A relatively simple and light inlet design can do this well. For supersonic flight, things get more complicated. The air must be decelerated to subsonic velocity by a shock wave, or, ideally, by a series of shocks. The exact position and angle of the shock waves changes with mach number, so for very best efficiency, the intake requires some sort of variable geometry. The first supersonic fighters used nose-mounted intakes. In a number of designs, there were central shock-producing spikes that also doubled as radar mounts: In these designs the shock cone could translate forwards and backwards some amount to optimize shock location. However, as radar became more and more important to air combat, shock-cone mounted radars ceased to be large enough to fit the wide, powerful radar sets that designers wanted. The air intakes were moved to the sides and bottom of the aircraft. This Q-5 is a particularly good example because the design was originally based one that had a nose-mounted intake (the J-6/MiG-19). Putting the intakes on the sides does get them out of the way, but it causes another problem. Airflow moving over the surface of the fuselage develops a turbulent boundary layer, and ingesting this turbulent boundary layer into the engines causes problems in the compressors. Aircraft with intakes mounted next to the fuselage, therefore, require some means of keeping the boundary layer air from getting into the engines. Usually this is accomplished by having a slight offset and a splitter plate: However, there are other means of boundary layer management. The JSF and the new Chinese fighter designs use diverterless supersonic inlets: In these a bump in front of the inlet deflects the boundary layer away from the engine intake using sorcery advanced fluid dynamics. This system is lighter, and probably allows better stealth than traditional inlet designs. Fighters must be able to maneuver, sometimes violently, and this can affect airflow into the engines. Placing the air intakes underneath the fuselage, or underneath the wings helps the situation at high angles of attack, as the fuselage or wing helps deflect the airflow towards the intakes: The intake location of the F-16: and also the MiG-29: Take advantage of this fact. Finally, air intakes are potentially large sources of radar returns, so on modern designs they have to be tailored to minimize this problem. One of the biggest ways to do this is to hide the engine's compressor blades from the front, as large, whirling pieces of metal are very good radar reflectors: As you can see, the compressor face of the engine in the YF-23 is almost completely hidden. You can also see that the inlet duct avoids right angles that would act as retroreflectors, and that it has an unusual boundary layer management system. There is a lot more ground to cover, but these are the basics of how combat aircraft air intakes work, and why they look the way they look.
  50. 6 points

    "Pigs" Have A Hard Job

    Oh hell yes. I support mandatory body cams for cops 3000%. Protects the cops, protects the people. Any missing footage during a shift = automatic suspension until the cause is found. If it could be done technologically, I'd say it automatically flags footage or broadcasts to the station when a weapon is drawn. Edit: 47% drop in use of force and 41% drop in complaints in San Diego. 31% drop in use of pepper spray. http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2015/03/26/body-cameras-shown-to-limit-use-of-force-by-san-diego-police/
  • Create New...