Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/23/2018 in all areas

  1. 17 points
    This is an article simply to show you guys here how Waffentrager is a faker. The original article ( https://www.weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404213101531682050) was written in Chinese and Japanese. For better understanding I will translate and edit the article and post it here. And I must tell you why I want to reveal this shit: Long time ago I found many sayings from Waffentrager’s blog which I had never heard of, so I turned to my Japanese friend and IJA tank researcher Mr.Taki and asked him to confirm a few of them. In the end it turned out that none of Waffentrager’s article is true. I once argued with him and he not only failed to give out his reference but also deleted my replies! I’m very angry! Now let’s get started. At the very beginning I recommend all of you who opened this post to take a look at Waffentrager’s original article, that will help you understand what I’m debating. Here is the link to the original article: https://sensha-manual.blogspot.jp/2017/09/the-ho-ri-tank-destroyer.html?m=0 In China we need to use VPN(aka “ladder-梯子” or “the scientific way of browsing the Internet-科学上网” in Chinese)to open that link above so at first I post out Waffentrager’s original post in the form of screenshots in my article. I’ll skip that here. Fig.1: I will skip his original article. Now, I had raised my first question here: Please take a look at the screenshot: Fig.2: My first question In the original article, Waffentrager insisted that the Type 5 gun tank was built in July, 1944 and fully assembled in August. It was also put into trials at the same time. Fig.3: Waffentrager’s original article. But, is that true? Let’s have a look at the Japanese archive: Important Fig.4: Archive code C14011075200, Item 4 Notice the part with the red, this is the research and develop plan for the Japanese Tech Research center in 1943, and had been edited in 1944. ◎砲100(Gun-100) is the project name for the 105mm gun used by Type 5 gun tank. The column under it says: “Research a tank gun with 105mm caliber and a muzzle velocity of 900m/s”. This means that the gun had just begun to be developed and from the bottom column we can know that it was PLANNED to be finished in 1945-3[完成豫定 means ”plan to be finished” and 昭20、3 means ”Shouwa 20-3”. Shouwa 20 is 1945 in Japan (you can wiki the way for Japanese to count years I’m not going to explain it here)] Next let’s move on to the Type 5 gun tank itself, here is the Japanese archive: Important Fig.5: Archive code C14011075200, Item 7 “新砲戦車(甲)ホリ車” is the very very first name of Type 5 gun tank, it should be translated into:”New gun tank(A), Ho-Ri vehicle”. “ホリ” is the secret name of it. Still from the column we can easily know that Ho-Ri was also planned to be finished in 1945-3. But under that column there is another one called:”摘要(Summary or outline)”, in this it says:”砲100、第一次試作完了昭和19、8”, In English it is: “Gun-100, First experimental construction(prototype construction) finished in Shouwa 19-8(1944-8)” What does it mean? It means that in 1944-8, Only the 105mm gun used by the Type 5 gun tank was finished! If the Ho-Ri tank itself was finished why it was not in the 摘要 column? So how could an unfinished tank mounted the prototype gun? Waffentrager is talking bullshit. Also from Mr.Kunimoto’s book, he gave the complete schedule of the 105mm gun, here it is: Important Fig.6: Kunimoto’s schedule “修正機能試験” means ”Mechanical correctional test”, it took place in 1944-8, this matches the original Japanese archive(though this chart was also made from original archives). At that time the gun had just finished, not the tank. Next is this paragraph from Waffentrager’s article: Fig.7: Weighing 35 tons From the archive above(important Fig.5) we can learn from the second large column”研究要項(Research items)” that Ho-Ri was only PLANNED to be 35 tons, and maximum armour thickness was PLANNED to be 120mm, not was. Waffentrager is lying, he used the PLANNED data as the BUILT data. I will post out the correct data below later to see what Ho-Ri is really like when its design was finished. Fig.8: 全備重量-約三五屯(Combat weight-app.35t), 装甲(最厚部)-約一二〇粍(Armour, thickest part-app.120mm) At this time, some of the people might inquire me that:”Maybe the Type 5 gun tanks were really finished! You just don’t know!” Well, I will use the archives and books to tell these guys that they are totally wrong. None of the Type 5 gun tank was finished. Always let’s look at Waffentrager’s article first. He said that a total of 5 Ho-Ri were completed. Fig.9: Waffentrager said 5 Ho-Ri were completed. He also put an original Japanese archive(C13120839500) to “enhance” his “facts”. Fig.10: Waffentrager’s archive Everyone can see the”ホリ車,1-3-1” in the document, and someone might actually believe that 5 Ho-Ri were actually built. But they are wrong! Waffentrager is cheating you with “only a part of the original document”! Here is what the original archive really looks like: Important Fig.11: Archive code C13120839500, Item 7 “整備計画” is “Maintenance plan” in English, again it was PLAN! The whole plan was made in 1944-12-26. I don’t actually know how Waffentrager can misunderstand this, maybe he doesn’t even know Japanese or Chinese! Important Fig.12: The cover of the same archive, “昭和十九年十二月二十六日” is 1944-12-26” in English. I have other archives to prove that Ho-Ri were not finished as well: Important Fig. 13 and 14: Mitsubishi’s tank production chart made by the American survey team after the war ends. From the chart you can only find out Type 4 and Type 5 medium tanks’ record. There is no existence of Type 5 gun tank Ho-Ri, or the”M-5 Gun Tank” in the chart’s way. Except for the archives, many books written by Japanese also mentioned that Type 5 gun tank were not finished: Fig.15: Kunimoto’s record. “二〇年五月完成予定の五両の終戦時の工程進捗度は、やっと五〇パーセントであり、完成車両出せずに終戦となった。” In English it’s: “When the war ended, the five Ho-Ri planned to be finished in 1945-5 had finally reached 50% completion. No completed vehicle were made when the war ended.” Here is another book written by Japanese with the help of former IJA tank designer, Tomio Hara: Important Fig.16: Tomio Hara’s book “完成をみるには至らなかった” Again he emphasized that the tank was not finished. Also when Ho-Ri’s design was finished its combat weight was raised to 40 tons, not the planned 35 tons. It was only powered by one “Modified BMW watercooled V12 gasoline engine”, rated 550hp/1500rpm. In Waffentrager’s article he said later a Kawasaki 1100hp engine were installed, but obviously that’s none sense. There was really existed a Kawasaki 1100hp engine but that is the two BMW V12 engine(Same engine on Type 5 gun tank or Type 5 medium tank) combined together for Japanese super-heavy tank O-I use. It will take much more room which Ho-Ri do not have. Fig.17: O-I’s engine compartment arrangement. There’s no such room in Ho-Ri for this engine set. And last here are the other questions I asked Fig.18: Other questions I asked I have already talked about the questions regarding C13120839500 and the engine. As for the gun with 1005m/s muzzle velocity, the Japanese never planned to make the 105mm gun achieve such a high velocity because they don’t have the enough tech back then. Also from the archive C14011075200(important fig.4) the 105mm gun was designed only to reach about 900m/s. So, after all these, how did Waffentrager replied? I will post out the replies from my E-mail(because he deleted my replies on his blog). Fig.19: Waffentrager’s first reply He kept saying that my archive is not the same as his and he is using his own documents. I didn’t believe in these shit and I replied: Fig.20: My reply Last sentence, the Ho-Ri III he was talking about is fake. There are only Ho-Ri I(The one resembles the Ferdinand tank destroyer) and Ho-Ri II(The another one resembles the Jagdtiger tank destroyer). He even photoshoped a picture: Fig.21: Waffentrager’s fake Ho-Ri III Fig.22: The real Ho-Ri I and the base picture of Waffentrager’s photoshoped Ho-Ri III in Tomio Hara’s book. Many same details can be seen in Waffentrager's fake Ho-Ri III The 4 variants of up-armoured Type 3 Chi-Nu medium tank is also fake, I will post his original article and the confirmed facts I got from Mr.Taki by E-mail. Fig.23: 4 models of up-armoured Chi-Nu by Waffentrager Fig.24: Mr.Taki’s reply Waffentrager used every excuses he could get to refuse giving out the references, and finally he deleted my comments. What an asshole! Fig.25: Our last “conversation” Fig.26 He deleted my comment. So, as you can see, Waffentrager is really a dick. He is cheating everybody because he think that we can’t read Japanese. Anyway I still hope he could release his reference and documents to prove me wrong. After all, I’m not here to scold or argue with somebody, but to learn new things. Also if you guys have any questions about WWII(IJA) Japanese tanks, feel free to ask me, I’m happy to help.
  2. 13 points
    I forgot to post out my reference: JACAR C14011075200 JACAR C13120839500 Tomio Hara: "Japanese tank" Gakken: "Tank and Gun Tank" KAMADO: "Japanese Heavy Tanks" and help from Mr.Taki.
  3. 11 points
    It's interesting. Presentation (which contains this page) which available now on ontres.se is 110 pages long about 2-and-a-half years ago i've downloaded on my computer presentation which was 119 pages long. Apparently it's exactly the same as one available now online, except for some pages on tank protection https://cloud.mail.ru/public/FVLe/iUZw87trH (according to Chrome history file, which i've backed up in dec.2015 and still have now, this pdf was without a doubt downloaded from ontres.se https://i.imgur.com/ysAJQgr.png)
  4. 10 points


    Basically what this whole thing means is that Emperor Palputin will conquer Galaxy with Space Marines and T-72s. T-72B3s to be precise. I posted this on other Capitalist internet site 3 months ago And apperently this is very likely to be now true after Borisov's stupid speech. UBKh is T-72B3 mod 2016/"M". So let's look at this situation - we have no new produced tanks delivered to RA since 2010-2011 (T-90A production was stopped for T-72B[udget Cuts]3) and there will be no newly produced tanks in any meaningful numbers for 5-10+ more years. Which leave our non-courtiers soldiers with existing fleet of Soviet tanks, which are at least 30+ old. Add here a fact that Soviets human-hating godless commies did worked on new generation of MBTs in late 1980s to seriusly/radically change tank designs, you can see that those tanks were becoming outdated in even 1980s. Similar situation is with IFVs and APCs, with BMP-3 being produced in too small numbers and majority of our fleet is BMP-2s and BTR-80As. On top of that political and military situation, and recent history shows that our forces are going to be involved in number of local conflicts (Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, etc) where our nuclear-powered "Putin Fury" cruise missiles and nuclear powered ekranoplans with nuclear powered teapots will make 0 difference. Majority of our potential enemies/opponents have Soviet weaponry, from RPGs down to S-300s, Smerch/Uragan MRLS and so on. Not only potential, but enemies that we already fought have them and actively use them. In Soviet times, during A-stan war BMPs for example already received armor upgrades (BMP-2D), even against not that well equipped dushmans and mujaheeds. Object 477 had serious side armor package and separated crew compartment, Object 299 had crew protection capsule and so on. Basically, armor and survivability of older vehicles in changing type of conflicts that Soviet army found itself, were already found to be "lacking". Our MoD decision to this problem of aging and outdated park of tanks, IFVs and APCs of army that is going (and already does) fight with relatively not badly armed forces is this: take T-72B, glue French thermal imager and FCS from 2000s, repair all parts that responsible for moving tank from point A to point B and call it "B3", done take BMP-2, add new radio, done take BMP-1, put BTR-80A turret with 30 mm "i can't hit anything" autocannon, done Take BTR-80 and put a turret with 30 mm "i can't hit anything" autocannon, done Create a TV channel (let's call it "Zvezda") and use all central TV channels, internet sites and so on to tell general public that our tanks are most tankiest ever made, APCs are unpenetretable and T-72 can beat Abrams and Leopards 2 left and right with just fumes from diesel engines and driver swearing something in Russian from his open hatch. Somebody think that this will be enough, but there are a lot of problems here that were not solved. We are stuck with 30+, 40+ and in case of Basurmanin program - a fucking 50+ old vehicles. Simply speaking our soldiers are going to next conflict on top of IFVs that were taken out from Army during Soviet times because they were deemed outdated! Why this situation is so stupid? During 2000s we already had plenty to work with. BTR-90 for APCs could be at least something (chassis could support more weight, better armor, more place for turret and weapons, etc), tanks could be upgraded under Burlak program, or Black Eagle could have been developed futher. A lot of resources were put into BTR-90s, Burlak programm with real vehicles made for them. And nothing came from them because funding was stopped on premise of creation of better vehicles in the future. BMP-3 armor upgrades, APS, Relikt, T-72B2 Rogatka, Object 187, etc, a lot of stuff that was mass production ready or nearly ready was not put on conveyor at least in small numbers for active units participating in wars. A lot of wasted time and money. At least with those vehicles we could had something for Army created and produced in this century that at least partially solves problems that Soviet human-hating commies wanted to solve. How many years ago was Object 195 tested? Why they couldn't put those in limited service/test phase? Again, claims of better tank in the future, while army is still sitting on T-72Bs with K-5 and shells under crew bare asses. Years and years of development for some perfect weapon system that lead to nothing in the end while this whole time T-72Bs did not even got Relikt ERA as a cheap-ass upgrade. And only in 2016 an upgrade from 2000s was put into limited use on uparmored T-72B3s. But problems are not stopped here. After collapse of Soviet union we got a pretty good opportunity to solve another problem from late Soviet times - a whole 3 "Main" battle tanks in service that had almost no shared parts but very similar perfomance. Kharkovite traitors now were outsiders, T-80 developers and producers went into bankrupt trash bin and only UVZ left. We could finaly get a standart MBT, without zoological garden of different designs, parts, training, etc. But apperently this is not a case. We now have zoological garden of T-72s, with T-80UE/UA/BVM on top of that and T-90/A/M getting into mix. Same with IFVs - BMP-3 now have to share their role with BMP-2/M and BMP-1 Basurmanin. Well, at least BTR-80A is not in danger in any way as BTR-90 is a dead project. Add here all those MRAPS (Ural-VV, Typhoon-U, Typhoon-K, and so on) for special type of "fuck you, standardization". So good luck to our soldiers with T-72, in 2020, 2030 and maybe 2040 and thanks to Soviet un-orthodox evil empire for providing our MoD with at least something to fight and die in, because with this level of excellent planning and holistic vision of Armed forces our MoD would had to use Toyotas to close gaps and cover a hole in their pants and underpants. But i fear that someday T-72s will no longer be avaliable for B3 "modernization" and Soviet stocks would be 100% used... maybe T-34 needs some sort of modernization? Like T-34B3? It probably will be better than all Western tanks and can beat M1A3 Abrams and Leopards 3s left and right with just fumes from diesel engines and driver swearing something in Russian from his open hatch.
  5. 9 points
    At the end of January, 2018 and after many false starts, the Russian military formally announced the limited adoption of the AEK-971 and AEK-973 rifles. These rifles feature an unusual counterbalanced breech mechanism which is intended to improve handling, especially during full auto fire. While exotic outside of Russia, these counter-balanced rifles are not at all new. In fact, the 2018 adoption of the AEK-971 represents the first success of a rifle concept that has been around for a some time. Earliest Origins Animated diagram of the AK-107/108 Balanced action recoil systems (BARS) work by accelerating a mass in the opposite direction of the bolt carrier. The countermass is of similar mass to the bolt carrier and synchronized to move in the opposite direction by a rack and pinion. This cancels out some, but not all of the impulses associated with self-loading actions. But more on that later. Long before Soviet small arms engineers began experimenting with BARS, a number of production weapons featured synchronized masses moving in opposite directions. Generally speaking, any stabilization that these actions provided was an incidental benefit. Rather, these designs were either attempts to get around patents, or very early developments in the history of autoloading weapons when the design best practices had not been standardized yet. These designs featured a forward-moving gas trap that, of necessity, needed its motion converted into rearward motion by either a lever or rack and pinion. The French St. Etienne Machine Gun The Danish Bang rifle At around the same time, inventors started toying with the idea of using synchronized counter-masses deliberately to cancel out recoil impulses. The earliest patent for such a design comes from 1908 from obscure firearms designer Ludwig Mertens: More information on these early developments is in this article on the matter by Max Popenker. Soviet designers began investigating the BARS concept in earnest in the early 1970s. This is worth noting; these early BARS rifles were actually trialed against the AK-74. The AL-7 rifle, a BARS rifle from the early 1970s The Soviet military chose the more mechanically orthodox AK-74 as a stopgap measure in order to get a small-caliber, high-velocity rifle to the front lines as quickly as possible. Of course, the thing about stopgap weapons is that they always end up hanging around longer than intended, and forty four years later Russian troops are still equipped with the AK-74. A small number of submachine gun prototypes with a BARS-like system were trialed, but not mass-produced. The gas operated action of a rifle can be balanced with a fairly small synchronizer rack and pinion, but the blowback action of a submachine gun requires a fairly large and massive synchronizer gear or lever. This is because in a gas operated rifle a second gas piston can be attached to the countermass, thereby unloading the synchronizer gear. There are three BARS designs of note from Russia: AK-107/AK-108 The AK-107 and AK-108 are BARS rifles in 5.45x39mm and 5.56x45mm respectively. These rifles are products of the Kalashnikov design bureau and Izmash factory, now Kalashnikov Concern. Internally they are very similar to an AK, only with the countermass and synchronizer unit situated above the bolt carrier group. Close up of synchronizer and dual return spring assemblies This is configuration is almost identical to the AL-7 design of the early 1970s. Like the more conventional AK-100 series, the AK-107/AK-108 were offered for export during the late 1990s and early 2000s, but they failed to attract any customers. The furniture is very similar to the AK-100 series, and indeed the only obvious external difference is the long tube protruding from the gas block and bridging the gap to the front sight. The AK-107 has re-emerged recently as the Saiga 107, a rifle clearly intended for competitive shooting events like 3-gun. AEK-971 The rival Kovrov design bureau was only slightly behind the Kalashnikov design bureau in exploring the BARS concept. Their earliest prototype featuring the system, the SA-006 (also transliterated as CA-006) also dates from the early 1970s. Chief designer Sergey Koksharov refined this design into the AEK-971. The chief refinement of his design over the first-generation balanced action prototypes from the early 1970s is that the countermass sits inside the bolt carrier, rather than being stacked on top of it. This is a more compact installation of the mechanism, but otherwise accomplishes the same thing. Moving parts group of the AEK-971 The early AEK-971 had a triangular metal buttstock and a Kalashnikov-style safety lever on the right side of the rifle. In this guise the rifle competed unsuccessfully with Nikonov's AN-94 design in the Abakan competition. Considering that a relative handful of AN-94s were ever produced, this was perhaps not a terrible loss for the Kovrov design bureau. After the end of the Soviet Union, the AEK-971 design was picked up by the Degtyarev factory, itself a division of the state-owned Rostec. The Degtyarev factory would unsuccessfully try to make sales of the weapon for the next twenty four years. In the meantime, they made some small refinements to the rifle. The Kalashnikov-style safety lever was deleted and replaced with a thumb safety on the left side of the receiver. Later on the Degtyarev factory caught HK fever, and a very HK-esque sliding metal stock was added in addition to a very HK-esque rear sight. The thumb safety lever was also made ambidextrous. The handguard was changed a few times. Still, reception to the rifle was lukewarm. The 2018 announcement that the rifle would be procured in limited numbers alongside more conventional AK rifles is not exactly a coup. The numbers bought are likely to be very low. A 5.56mm AEK-972 and 7.62x39mm AEK-973 also exist. The newest version of the rifle has been referred to as A-545. AKB and AKB-1 AKB-1 AKB AKB, closeup of the receiver The AKB and AKB-1 are a pair of painfully obscure designs designed by Viktor Kalashnikov, Mikhail Kalashnikov's son. The later AKB-1 is the more conservative of the two, while the AKB is quite wild. Both rifles use a more or less conventional AK type bolt carrier, but the AKB uses the barrel as the countermass. That's right; the entire barrel shoots forward while the bolt carrier moves back! This unusual arrangement also allowed for an extremely high cyclic rate of fire; 2000RPM. Later on a burst limiter and rate of fire limiter were added. The rifle would fire at the full 2000 RPM for two round bursts, but a mere 1000 RPM for full auto. The AKB-1 was a far more conventional design, but it still had a BARS. In this design the countermass was nested inside the main bolt carrier, similar to the AEK-971. Not a great deal of information is available about these rifles, but @Hrachya H wrote an article on them which can be read here.
  6. 9 points

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    I don't think there is a possible explanation, because people are beginning the argument from the wrong direction. People are making assumptions about the protection level, then try to find sources supporting it - i.e. first comes the thesis, then sources are searched to support it. That's the wrong way to start research - saying "the Challenger 1 needs to have 500 mm RHAe against KE" and then gathering all sources that say somewhat related. I can understand that Laviduce expects a high level of protection based on the thickness of the Chieftain's Stillbrew armor package and based on the greater weight of the Challenger 1 MBT - it could have a protection level of 500 mm vs KE. But we have no confirmation to these theories. With British documents showing that the estimated penetration of 125 mm tungsten-cored APFSDS ammunition was only 475 mm at point blank, I have serious doubts that a protection level of 500 mm or more against APFSDS was required - that's simply not how tanks are designed. The Challenger 1 development was pursued at a different timeframe than the Chieftain upgrade with Stillbrew armor, thus the requirements were different; in so far "just" 400-450 mm vs KE might be a lot more realistic based on the requirements for the MBT-80 project and the data of the Shir 2, assuming the armor package was improved over the latter tank. The Challenger 1 was approved in 1980, the Stillbrew upgrade in 1984. A lot can happen in four years of the Cold War. Even the Chieftain with Stillbrew doesn't reach protection comparable to 500 mm rolled armor steel vs APFSDS ammo, because cast steel provides up to 20% less protection than rolled armor steel. Ceramic armor is not a magical solution to all problems. The T-64A used ceramic armor, yet it protection level was rather limited compared to later tanks. This is wrong. The cited book - at least in its original German version - does not say what is claimed in the first paragraph of this screenshot of "Armor Basics". While the first quote can be found pretty much verbatim on page 76, the second part - i.e. "the ballistic effectiveness of the compouned armors against KE penetrators shows an improvement of only 1.2 to 1.4 over homogeneous rolled steel plate (incontrast to a factor of 2 against shaped charges." - cannot be found on page 76 or 77 of the original book. I have never read the translated version, but I am fairly certain that it doesn't say what is claimed previously. On page 75, the claimed efficiency values (1.2 to 1.4 vs KE, 2 vs shaped charge) can be found: but that is in a paragraph on the armor protection of the T-72! The "factor 2 against shaped charges" is meant to be the mass-efficiency value and is based on a Swiss assessement from a 1982 issue of the Allgemeine Schweizerische Militärzeitschrift claiming that the T-72's hull armor is weight equivalent to a 120 mm steel plate sloped at 70° and provides twice as much protection against shaped charge ammunition as steel armor of the same weight. The same article also includes statements about the supposed performance of the T-72's armor against KE ammo: the article claims that the T-72, M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 use special armor and certain types of special reach a efficiency against KE ammunition of 1.2 to 1.4 per thickness (!). The T-72, which was believed by the Swiss authors to feature a 300 mm line-of-sight thick array of such armor (in reality it had a simple cast steel turret with a thickness of up to 500 mm, while the hull armor has an effective thickness of 547 mm), would then reach a protection level of 360 to 420 mm. We know for fact that the T-72's armor neither reaches a mass efficiency of 2 against shaped charges nor that it provides a thickness efficiency of 1.2 to 1.4 agianst kinetic energy ammunition. It is a false assumption based on incorrect data from a time when the T-72 was still a mystery to NATO and non-aligned countries. Everything else - regarding the effectiveness of ceramic armor - is not related to the Challenger 1. It is pure, unreferenced speculation that the tank would be fitted with such armor, even though it has been proven that Chobham is (mostly) based on spaced NERA sandwiches. Based on a number of declassified documents on the development of Chobham armor, there apparently were more than a dozen different Chobham armor arrays being tested in the early 1970s. Some of them were merely improved versions of earlier designs, others were created to experiment with new concepts (e.g. there was on Chobham armor array that incorporated high explosives similiar to integrated ERA). There might have been some Chobham arrays with ceramic component in them and this development might have lead to the array adopted on the Challenger 1 - but there is no proof for this; even if they are included, ceramics would only play a minor role. CeramTec ETEC, one of the market leaders in Europe for manufacturing ballistic ceramic materials, includes photographs of the Leopard 2 in its flyers, suggesting that some ceramic elements might be part of the armor array. However suggesting that the Shir 2's 325 mm steel-equivalent protection against APFSDS rounds could be increased to 500+ mm just by incorporating ceramic materials seems wrong. Burlington and Chobham are different names for the same thing - there are numerous files using both names to refer to the same armor arrays. According to the British DSTL, modern armor arrays designed to provide protection against KE and HEAT rounds follow a three-stage layout, i.e. they consist of: a distrupting stage to break KE pentrators and shaped chage jets a distrubing stage, which makes sure that the particles and fragments of the broken penetrator change direction and yaw angle an absorbing stage, which stops the fragments from reaching the interior and absorbs the kinetic energy The options for designing the second stage are pretty much limited to different types of spaced multi-layer armor or other types of reactive armor; based on known armor arrays - such as the T-72B's armor and the M1 Abrams' armor, the distrubing stage usually takes up at least half the available armor volume. The first stage is often based on a reactive armor (see the wedge-shaped armor of the Leopard 2A5 or the Kontakt-5 ERA on late Soviet MBTs), although it could also be made using high-hardness steel, perforated armor or ceramic plates (the latter two variants being common on lighter vehicles, because this armor is more efficient against short, bullet-shaped penetrators). The absorbing stage also can include ceramic materials, but will always include a steel layer (which serves as strucutral support) and potentially kevlar, polymers or other materials. In case of the M1 Abrams, the absorbing stage of the hull armor was a rather simple steel plate. So simply adding ceramics to the armor won't drastically change the protection. The Challenger 1 would require a completely different armor array, which would suffer from the typical problems of ceramic armor against large calibre ammunition, such as a relatively low efficiency, low multi-hit capabilty and problems with cost and manufacturing. Armor consisting of layered aluminium oxide with polymer backing and steel enclosure provides the same protection against shaped charges as steel of the same thickness - thus a Challenger 1 with 700-800 mm frontal armor at most would be quite vulnerable to shaped charges. The "Armor Basics" document from which these snipplets are taken is known to be outdated and incorrect in various aspects. The author speculated too much and used false premises to generate his values - armor thickness, armor weight and layout are often wrong. Here for example he ignored that the Challenger 1 turret is meant to provide protection along a 60° frontal arc (30° to each side of the turret centerline), but the Chieftain was designed with protection along a 45° arc only! Thus his whole idea of using the weight difference to scale the equivalent armor weight of the frontal armor is incorrect. He also claims that a 15% increase in steel mass would result in a steel mass equivalent to a thickness of 50 cm - this would mean that in his beliefs the Chieftain was having an armor thickness of 434 mm, which it does not have in reality - the thickness of the frontal turret armor of a Chieftain is about 240-280 mm according to sources posted earlier in this topic. I don't know any "Ed Francis" and see no reason why his writing should be relevant to this discussion. Seeing that the origin of this quote is a post on the Warthunder forum, which wasn't even written by him, but somebody claiming to have spoken to him, I would be rather careful. This is a big pile of unreferenced claims, that in some cases is rather easy to disprove. It is all speculation with no sources. If Burlington and Chobham were two different things, why would official US and UK documents use both names like synonyms? There are dozens of documents on the development of Chobham/Burlington armor, which are using both names; they also use "Chobham spaced armour" and similar terms disproving the claims that supposedly were made by Ed Francis. And this is how the Chobham spaced armor is shown in the same document - no trace of ceramics! Ceramics themselves do not bulge, but rather break; the elasitic backing behind the ceramic tiles will bulge. Ceramics are not suited for NERA sandwiches as long as multi-hit capability matters, Even if this forum poster had asked Ed Francis on the topic and he let him type on the Warthunder forum with his account, I don't see why this name would result in the text being relevant to us. According to a quick google search Mr. Francis is a volunteer at Bovington, not an expert on AFV design and armor technology. Given that there seems to be no special credentials to his name and that Bovington still has a plaque citing incorrect armor values in front of the Chieftain tank, I do not consider this to be a source. There are no exact figures, which is also related to the problem of "irrecoverably lost" being a philosophical question. However the Abrams supposedly did perform very well in ODS. There were 14 Abrams tanks with DU contamination after being struck by DU rounds or on-board fire, for which the US Army lacked procedures and equipment to deal with. If they recovered these later or not is unknown to me.
  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. 8 points
    Please tell me you just found this on Facebook or something and that you don't know who Bill Browder actually is. Because that would be way more forgivable than actually supporting the man. The article describes him as a "British-American investor and rights activist," which is a hell of a way to describe someone that slimy. Here's the deal; everyone that the official US government actually likes who deals with Russia in any official or quasi-official capacity is scum. You can take that to the bank. While Russian organized crime was probably more than capable of looting post-Soviet Russia without any help, they had lots of help. This article gives a good summary. The rape and pillage of Russia in the 1990s wasn't just overseen by men in Adidas tracksuits. There were a fair number of well-connected Harvard men. And I do mean well-connected. The Larry Summers mentioned in that article? Yeah, it's that Larry Summers. Once these assholes were done helping gangsters strip-mine Russia of anything valuable, they peddled their "expertise" on Russia to a credulous audience in the US government so they could gain juicy sinecures in various Russia-related posts. And so it came to pass that Michael McFaul, who can't fucking speak Russian, became the US ambassador to Russia. With predictably disastrous results. So, who is William Browder, this man that Putin wants offed? Well, it might surprise you know that fourteen years ago he was firmly on Team Putin. You see, he used to be a Putin stooge, and then he probably stole a fuckload of money, and now he's become a successful lobbyist and tax-non-payer who has managed to rebrand himself as a human rights advocate. Does Putin want him dead? Yeah, and the fact that he used to be a Putin cheerleader, won't testify in court about his finances, and probably lied about the basis for the law that he successfully lobbied for is enough to give you a rough idea of how that came to be. Don't steal from the boss! Don't even steal from the capo!
  9. 8 points
    Since nobody got it, I'll finish this one off. It's the Martel "Mechanical Coffin". Page 47, David Fletcher's book "Mechanized Force: British Tanks Between the Wars". Martel had created some of the early tankettes in the late 1920's, but after a while, he decided those were too big. So he created this silly thing. A soldier was supposed to lay down in it and drive forward. Once he got close to the enemy, it had a lift up panel he would use as armor and fire his rifle through.
  10. 8 points
    Part 6 of a multi-part series. Some kind of goofy mutant and an America-mobile. A duck and a ferret. Saracen Ratel 20. Eland 90, aka the Noddy car. Eland 60, sans 60mm mortar. Crazypants Italian armoured car. I honestly have no idea which end is the front and which end is the back. Granddaddy armoured car. Our first attempt at a locally-made armoured car. This is where we caught the wheeled death trap bug. Attempt the second. The Boys anti-tank rifle is missing. Attempt the third. The Brits had finally gotten tired of the 2 pounder, so of course we snapped them up and stuck them into our wheeled death traps. Attempt 4. Now we're really getting into it. I think that that's a 6-pounder, but I could be wrong. The G6. This is what happens if you let us work on the same thing for too long. Eventually you end up with a house-sized monster armed with a howitzer.
  11. 7 points
    I don't think the microfighter concept is a strong one with current technology. I also think that fighters designed by small countries are at a very large disadvantage because of the current state of engine technology. This wasn't always the case, but it is the case now. Sweden made fighters that were perfectly competitive with those of the USA and USSR throughout the Cold War, and during WWII small nations like Romania and Australia managed to turn out fighters that were perfectly competitive with those of major powers, at least for a time. I should clarify that I mean "small" in the sense of economic power, not land area. The UK and Japan could both turn out decent fifth-generation fighters in the near future if they decided it was a priority (UK more easily than Japan). The main problem is that state-of-the-art jet engines can only be made by a handful of companies. Only those companies have the experience and expertise to design and produce the high temperature components of a top-of-the-line jet engine. John Golan's Lavi book explains that the Israelis were confident that they could produce every single component of the Lavi except the engines. The Lavi was not low-tech, far from it. The entire fuselage was to be filled with Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) jamming devices, the nose would contain a look-down-shoot-down radar, and the wings would be made of aeroelastically tailored carbon fiber composites. All of this stuff was comparably advanced to anything the US or Soviets had airborne at the time, and in some cases (notably the wing composite structure and jammers) it was better. But they categorically could not make the engines in Israel. In fact, any license-production of the engines would amount to mere assembly of knock-down kits of engine components. In order for a jet engine to have better efficiency and power density, the core inside the engine needs to experience greater temperature gradients: The Y axis is pressure and the X axis is volume. Pressure multiplied by volume is work, so the entire area enclosed by the diagram is the work the engine produces. Since a gas increases in temperature when it is compressed, improving engine performance necessarily entails the use of materials that can withstand greater temperatures. Current top of the line gas turbine blades are made of mono-crystal nickel alloys, and those are a stone cold bitch to make. Only a handful of companies worldwide can do it. But these exotic, difficult materials aren't just a luxury. They're fundamental to achieving a high performance thermodynamic cycle. A jet engine can certainly be made that doesn't use these exotic nickel alloys, but they're bigger, heavier and less efficient than one that does. Check out this comparison of a GE F404 with a GE J79: The earliest versions of F404 produced nearly as much thrust as the last versions of the J79, and later versions eclipsed it entirely, all while being narrower, much shorter, slightly more fuel efficient, and requiring enormously less maintenance. Mono-crystal nickel alloy blades are the sine qua non of modern jet fighter engines. Off the top of my head, there's one company in the UK that can make these things, two in the USA, one in France, two in Russia and one in China, but they're still getting their feet under them. The Japanese have enough expertise in industrial turbines and exotic materials science that I think they could figure it out if they threw a huge wad of money at the problem. India is trying to develop independent expertise, but... it's Indian defense. This means that any country that wants to develop a new fighter that is not on the list above has to make do with engines from a country that is on the list above. This means that a lot of the fundamental decisions about the aircraft are made for them. At what altitude and airspeed will the fighter be most efficient? A small country that can't design engines has to choose from a handful of already available engines and hope that the parameters of the existing designs closely match what they want. There is also the possibility that the small country doesn't get the engine they want at all. SAAB is stuck with a weaker version of the General Electric F414 for the Gripen E/F that only produces 98 kN. Since the Gripen E/F is quite a bit heavier than earlier versions, this leaves it somewhat underpowered. General Electric had calculated that, with enough development money, they could develop a souped-up variant of the F414 capable of producing 120 kN of thrust. They pitched this idea, called the F414 EPE, to the US Navy as an upgrade for F/E/A-18E/F/G-e-i-e-i-o fighters. The US Navy was initially interested, but ultimately decided to spend the money elsewhere. So SAAB is stuck with an underpowered Gripen E/F and can't do anything about it, as they're not really in a position to spend the megabucks that GE will want for engine development. Another problem is that the current air warfare paradigm doesn't really favor small fighters. I wrote a post about the effects of scaling on fighter performance on another forum, so I'll copy-paste it here: From simple physical scaling effects, smaller fighters should have an edge in maneuverability but should be at a disadvantage in terms of range and speed. With the fifth generation of fighter jets emphasizing supercruise capability and long range (in order to help compensate for small fleet sizes), a relatively small fighter is not looking like a great trade-off. There are other problems with micro-fighters under the current fifth-generation paradigm. Radar performance (range, resolution) is directly related to the size of the antenna. Bigger fighters can support a larger radar. Internal weapons bays are more or less a must for stealth, and a small fighter is going to have a much harder time supporting internal bay that can carry all the sorts of ordnance it might need to carry. The hybrid light strike/trainer concept has more merit, but I am not sure that this idea is a wise allocation of resources. Combat aircraft designers have moved towards multi-role designs that double as fighters and as attack aircraft because individual aircraft have become more expensive and because mission electronics have become so much better. But aerodynamically speaking, a multi-role aircraft is not an attractive idea. In order to have the requisite agility needed for air to air combat, fighters need to have lots of features that compromise their efficiency. Fighters have huge wings, proportionally speaking, so that they can produce lots of lift. They have vortex generators like canards, dogteeth and LERXs to allow them to pitch to very high angles of attack. They have gigantic vertical stabilizers, ventral fins and other auxiliary and oversize control surfaces to maintain control while they are performing extreme maneuvers. All of this stuff improves agility, but adds weight and drag. A light strike aircraft that doubles as an advanced trainer might be able to perform useful missions in a strike role (as the L39 albatross is today in Syria), but it won't do very much in an air-to-air role. If, in any realistic war, it would just be killed in any sort of contested airspace, it makes more sense to stop pretending that it can double as some sort of fighter, and get rid of all of the features that make it more agile, and just use it as a light bomber. Better still, make it a drone. I think that is the balance of considerations based on modern technology. Changes in technology could change this balance a lot. For instance, General Electric is working on silicon carbide turbine blades, since mono-crystal nickel alloy blades are nearing the limits of their potential. Once the silicon carbide technology is mature, it might turn out to be much easier to produce than the mono-crystal nickel alloys. It is also possible that computers and CFD software will improve to the point where institutional experience in engine design matter less, and small nations will be able to reasonably design and produce their own fighter jet engines. But that is speculative. For right now, I think fighter aircraft are really only competitive if they're fairly big, and if they come from fairly big nations.
  12. 7 points
    Stechkin's Abakan (TKB-0146). https://www.kalashnikov.ru/abakan-stechkina-avtomat-stechkina-tkb-0146/ Bullpup, system of "recoil impulse shifted in time", 2-stage feed system (a year before it was implemented by Nikonov on his ASM), ejection to the front above a trigger grip, non-reciprocating charging handle. 3 firemodes - "2" - 2 round burst (at around 2000 RPM), and "O-A" - combined semi-auto and full auto (pressing trigger intil first "step" will fire weapons in semi-auto, pressing it futher will swtich to full auto fire in 600 RPM).
  13. 7 points

    Fucking NERA everywhere

    NERA & ERA from South-Africa Ingwe ATGM being tested against armor
  14. 7 points

    Tank Layout

    Well it's just a certain nuance. Obviously there is a stabilisation system but it is limited to the stabilisation of the line of sight (within the sights). The turret itself has no stabilisation system. A stabilisation system uses a set of gyroscopes located at specific points (hull, turret, armament). The angular informations gathered by the different gyros is computed by the FCS which gives a set of corrections to the elevation and traverse mechanism (the most early stab systems where the armament remains to the same position no mater how the tank behaves). In addition the FCS adds on top of this another set of corrections related to the ideal LOF (later stab systems that introduces the concept of correction of the position of the tank). On the Leclerc, the sight being how it is, the number of variables is kept as minimum as possible. You only compute the angular variation between the current LOS and the ideal LOF. The set of values is then dispatched to the "guidance system" (asservissements) which monitors the actual movement of the turret (traverse and elevation) and assess the need to power the electric motors or revert them into generators to brake the movement. In itself the tank knows on its own the position of the differents elements (hull, turret and armament) with the closed loop elevation and traverse. The sight give the angle of the whole. Hope it is clear. It's not a whole lot but we make this distinction.
  15. 7 points

    Tank Layout

    The specs required a highly mobile tank capable to destroy any Warsaw pact (PAVA) tanks at long range with a high hit probability on first shot. This led to the crafting of highly precise system. To be honnest with you there is no stabilisation on the Leclerc. The gun is slave to the ballistic computer which computes the ideal LOF from the stabilised LOS. When reloading, the gun goes to the reloading elevation. Meanwhile the LOS is still stabilised to the direction of observation (in the limits of the mirrors amplitude). Unless you release the palm switches, the mirrors go to their mechanical neutral positions. The gunner sight is mechanically mounted to the main armament. When the gun goes up and down; the sight bows up and down. Since the both move along with the exact same angle, boresighting can be done automatically with a deviation measurement laser (AMX 10 RC being the first french AFV to be equiped with such device). Crews do some alignments (what we call "harmonisation" where we keep the parallax in check), but that's not the bullshit stated by Sergei Suvorov where crews were forced to boresight everytime they move their tanks... At the time engineers were open minded on what could replace the classical tank. Once they defined that their platform was still an AFV, they assessed every kind of compromise to take what was the most favorable and compatible to their specs guideline. Fun fact regarding the tracks. They spent quite some time to switch to steel tracks. They initially used the same arrangement as the aluminum alloy tracks (the shape of the rubber trackpads were supposed to reduce the stomping effect). Surprise, surprise, the vibrations at high speed were strong enough to be a handicap. This explains why we transition from V2 (alloy) to V5 (steel). Apparently V4 was also a disappointment. Even with V5 or DST 840 the vibration is quite awkward compared to V2.
  16. 7 points

    Advanced MiG-3 Variants

    Intro The MiG-3. All flying aircraft today have been re-engined with the V1710, and look slightly different. The MiG-3 was one of the first fighters developed by the famous Mikoyan-Gurevich design bureau. An improvement on the troubled MiG-1, the MiG-3 was designed for combat at high altitude. Introduced in 1941, it gained less fame than its contemporaries like the Yakovlev and Lavochkin fighters. Germany's virtually nonexistent strategic bomber force, and the low-altitude nature of combat on the Eastern Front meant the MiG-3 was forced out of its element, and its performance suffered. Combined with the MiG's difficult flight characteristics and the horrible strategic situation for the Soviets in 1941, this meant the MiG-3 achieved little success. While the MiG-3 did not spawn a successful series of fighters (like the Yak-1, Yak-9, and Yak-3, for instance), numerous variants were considered, and many of them were built in at least prototype form. However, for many reasons, such as lack of need or nTheonavailability of suitable engines, none of these variants entered large scale production. I-230/MiG-3U The resemblance to the baseline MiG-3 is easily seen. via aviastar The I-230 was one of the more straightforward developments of the MiG-3. Development on the I-230 (also known as the MiG-3U) began in late 1941, with the objective to correct numerous flaws identified in the MiG-3. First was the armament; the MiG-3 had only two 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns and a single 12.7 Berezen (BS) machine gun, firing through the propeller. On the I-230, these were replaced with two 20mm ShVAK cannons (again synchronized to fire through the propeller). Outwardly, the I-230 looked very similar to the production MiG-3, although the new aircraft was made mostly of wood instead of steel tubing and duralumin. The wing area and wingspan were increased (to 18 m^2 and 11 meters, versus 17.4 m^2 and 10.2 meters for the production MiG-3), and the fuselage was lengthened by .37 meters. Soviet engineers originally intended to fit the I-230 with the AM-39 engine. However, by the time the I-230 airframe was completed in early 1942, the AM-39 was not yet available. As a result, the first I-230 was forced to use an engine built from both AM-38 and AM-35 parts (designated AM-35A). This engine was roughly 40 kilograms heavier than the intended engine, but produced a respectable 1350 horsepower. Even with such an odd engine, the I-230 flew by the end of 1942, achieving a top speed of over 650 km/hr at altitude. (Some sources say the I-230 first flew in May 1943, this is likely for the machines with AM-35A engines). Four more prototypes were built with AM-35A engines. These aircraft would serve in defense of the Moscow region while undergoing flight testing. While the design showed promise, by this point the AM-35 was obsolete and out of production. Additionally, some other deficiencies were identified. The I-230 was found to be difficult to land (a flaw shared with the MiG-3), and the engine tended to leak oil into the rest of the aircraft at high altitudes. As a result, the I-230 was not built. I-231 The I-231 was a further evolution of the I-230, using the AM-39 engine that had originally been intended for use in the I-230. One of the I-230 aircraft had its engine replaced with the more powerful AM-39. This required modification of the cooling system; the radiator was enlarged, with another secondary radiator installed. There were also a few other modifications, such as moving the horizontal tail surfaces downward slightly, the fuselage fuel tank was enlarged and some modifications to the radios. Armament was the same as the I-230; two 20mm ShVAK cannons. First flight of the I-231 was in October 1943. However, in early November, the prototype was forced to make an emergency landing after the supercharger failed at high altitude. Two weeks later, flight testing of the repaired I-231 resumed. The prototype, with the more powerful AM-39 (1800 horsepower), reached a top speed of 707 km/hr at an altitude of about 7000 meters. It also climbed to 5000 meters in under 5 minutes. Flight testing continued in early 1944, and in March, the I-231 was damaged after overrunning the runway during landing. The program suffered another setback when the repaired I-231 suffered an engine failure, damaging the precious AM-39 engine. Following this last mishap, work on the I-231 was discontinued. The similarities between the radial and inline engined models are still visible. via airvectors I-210/MiG-9 M-82 I-210 with radial engine. via airpages.ru The I-210 was a more substantial modification of the MiG-3 which began in the summer of 1941. Production of the Shvestsov M-82 radial engine had recently begun, and many design bureaus, including MiG, were instructed to find ways to incorporate the engine into their designs. In the case of the MiG-3, this was especially important, as the Soviet government sought to discontinue the AM-35 to free up production space for the AM-38 used by the all-important Il-2. In theory, the M-82, with 1700 horsepower, would provide a significant performance increase over the AM-35. Soviet engineers projected that the M-82 equipped MiG-3 (now known as the I-210) would reach nearly 650 km/hr at altitude. It was also projected that performance would be massively improved at low altitude, important for combat on the Eastern Front. The new aircraft was received the designation “MiG-9 M-82”, denoting that it was a substantially new type (this designation would later be reused for a twin-jet fighter in the late 1940s). In addition to fitting of the M-82, there were several other differences between the MiG-3 and the I-210. Armament was increased to three 12.7mm UBS machine guns (two 7.62mm ShKAS were fitted initially, but soon removed). Several systems related to the engine, including the oil coolers and fuel system were also updated. The fuselage was widened slightly to accommodate the new engine. The I-210 first flew in July 1941. However, it became quickly apparent that it was not meeting its performance targets. The top speed at an altitude of 5000 meters was a mere 540 km/hr, far inferior to to projects (as well as the production MiG-3!). Part of this was due to having a different model of propeller installed than what was intended. However, wind tunnel testing and inspection showed that the engine cowling was poorly designed and sealed to the rest of the airframe, causing significant drag. Several months were required to correct the various defects, and it was not until June 1942 that three I-210s were ready for trails. During testing, the three aircraft were assigned to the PVO for use on the front. State trials began in September, and the I-210 fared poorly. Maximum speed was still only 565 km/hr, far inferior to existing types. Overall, the I-210 was judged to be unsatisfactory and inferior to the La-5 and Yak-7. The aircraft did not enter production, although the three completed prototypes would serve in Karelia until 1944. I-211/MiG-9E The failure of the I-210 was not the end of efforts to install a radial engine into the MiG-3 airframe. In late 1942, work on the I-211 began. A new Ash-82 engine, an improved variant of the M-82 installed on the I-210, was fitted. With the help of the Shvetsov bureau, the aerodynamics of the engine and its cowling were substantially improved. Further modifications reduced the empty weight of the “MiG-9E” by 170 kg. The three 12.7mm machine guns were replaced by two 20mm ShVAK cannons. Testing of the I-211 began in August 1942 (other sources variously say that testing did not begin until early 1943, my interpretation is that this is when state trials officially happened). Performance was markedly superior to the I-210; the I-211 reached a top speed of 670 km/hr, and was able to climb to altitudes in excess of 11000 meters. However, the La-5, which was already in production using the M-82 engine, had similar performance. Moreover, the La-7 was in development, and was felt to have better potential. In all, only ten I-211s were built. Interestingly, at least one source claims that a variant of the I-211 equipped with a Lend-Lease R-2800 engine was considered. There is no evidence that such an aircraft was actually built. I-220/MiG-11 The I-220 (and the rest of its series up to the I-225) were substantially different from the production MiG-3, sharing little aside from the basic design and concept. These aircraft took the original mission of the MiG-3, interception of targets at high altitude, to the ultimate extreme. The initial request that led to development of the I-220 was issued in July 1941, in response to high-altitude overflights by Ju-86P reconnaissance aircraft. These aircraft, capable of operating at over 13000 meters, were outside the reach of almost any Soviet fighter. A few Ju-86Ps at slightly lower altitude were intercepted by MiG-3s before the start of the war, so the MiG-3 was a natural starting point for a high-altitude interceptor. Work on the I-220 prototype began in late 1942. Originally, it had been planned to install the AM-39 engine, but it was not ready at the time construction began on the prototype. Instead, one source (OKB MiG, Page 48) states anAM-38F engine was installed, which still provided more power (1700 hp) than the AM-35 on the MiG-3. However, it had the drawback of losing power at high-altitudes; the AM-38F would be an interim installation at best. A different source reports that an AM-37 was the first engine installed. In addition to the new engine, the wingspan was lengthened by .80 meters, with a slight sweep added to the outer portion of the leading edge. The radiator was relocated from the belly of the aircraft to inside the wing center section, with new air intakes added at the wing roots. Armament was increased to four ShVAKs, making the I-220 one of the heaviest armed Soviet fighters. The I-220 first flew in January 1943. Testing of the aircraft proceeded, as the AM-39 was still not yet ready. Despite being handicapped by the AM-38F engine, the I-220 prototype was still able to reach 650 km/hr during testing in January 1944. It was agreed that the aircraft had potential, but would need the AM-39 to reach its maximum performance. The second I-220 prototype was eventually fitted with the AM-39, but by that point it had been decided to substantially redesign the aircraft. I-220 vs. I-221 I-221/MiG-7 While the I-220 had done well, it had not been able to reach the altitudes its designers had hoped for. Numerous changes would be required to get the best possible performance out of the airframe. The most obvious area for improvement was the engine. Rather than the AM-38F, an AM-39A with a turbocharger was installed. Not only was the AM-39 more powerful than the AM-38, but the twin turbocharger would allow the engine to continue developing power at altitude. Additionally, the wingspan was increased further, to 13 meters. Armament was reduced to two ShVAK cannons, to save weight. Significantly, the I-221 was fitted with a pressurized cockpit, to allow the pilot to survive at extreme altitude. By the time the I-221 made its first flight in December 1943, the Ju-86 threat had disappeared. One of the high-altitude intruders had been intercepted by a Yak-9PD (a high-altitude version of the Yak-9 designed and built in three weeks), though it had not been destroyed, overflights ceased. Nevertheless, the Yak-9PD was very much an interim solution, armed with only one ShVAK and requiring 25 minutes to climb to 12000 meters. So, development of the I-221 continued. The test program of the I-221 was cut very short. On the eighth flight of the aircraft, in February 1944, the pilot bailed out at altitude, after seeing flames coming from the turbocharger and smoke in the cockpit. The pilot survived unharmed, but obviously the I-221 was completely destroyed. I-222/MiG-7 Side view of I-222. via ruslet.webnode.cz The I-222 was a continued development of the I-221. Not only did it have several additional performance improvements, but it was the closest of MiG's high altitude fighters to a “production ready” aircraft. The AM-39A engine was replaced with a more powerful AM-39B, with twin turbo-superchargers, plus a new four-bladed propeller. An improved intercooler was also installed (clearly visible under the central fuselage). To improve the I-222's potential utility as a combat aircraft, 64mm of armored glass was installed in the windscreen, and the cockpit pressure bulkheads were reinforced with armor plate. The fuselage contours were also modified to give the pilot better rearward visibility. Armament was two B-20 cannons, replacing the ShVAKs. The I-222 made its first flight in May 1944. Relatively little testing was done before the aircraft went to the TSAGI wind tunnel for further refinement. It emerged in September and underwent further testing. Test flights proved that the I-222 had truly exceptional performance. A speed of 691 km/hr was reached, quite respectable for a piston-powered aircraft. The truly astonishing performance figure was the ceiling of 14500 meters, well in excess of any German aircraft (save for the rare and latecoming Ta-152H). Though the I-222 could likely have been put into production, Soviet authorities assessed (correctly) that by late 1944 there was little threat from high-altitude German aircraft. Nuisance flights by Ju-86s were of little consequence, and German bomber programs such as the He-274 universally failed to bear fruit. Testing of the I-222 continued through late 1945, when the program was cancelled. I-224/Mig-7 As can be seen the I-224 is similar to the I-222. From OKB MiG by Butowski and Miller The I-224 was a development of the I-222 with an improved AM-39FB engine. Several other minor improvements, such as an improved propeller and modified cooling system. The new aircraft first flew in September 1944. After five flights, it was heavily damaged in an emergency landing. Difficulties continued after the aircraft was repaired in December; the engine had to be replaced in February due to the presence of metal particles in the oil. Like the I-222, the I-224 demonstrated very good performance at altitude, also climbing to over 14000 meters and recording speeds over 690 km/hr. But by now, it was October 1945, and the war was over. It was decided to fit the I-224 with a fuel-injected AM-44 engine. This was not completed until July of 1946, and by then the time of the piston-engine fighter had passed. Both the I-222 and I-224 programs were shut down in November. I-225/MiG-11 From OKB MiG by Butowski & Miller The I-225 was born from the second I-220 prototype. Although the I-225 was still designed for operation at high-altitude, it was decided not to optimize the aircraft for such extreme heights as the I-222 and I-224. It was hoped that this would allow for a higher top speed and heavier armament, among other improvements. A turbocharged variant of the AM-42 engine (similar to that used on the Il-10 ground attack aircraft) was fitted, providing 2200 horsepower at takeoff. The pressurized cabin was deleted to save weight, and allow the cockpit to be optimized for better visibility. Armament was the same as the I-220; four ShVAK cannons. Armor was added to the windscreen, as well as the pilot's headrest. Improved instrumentation and a new radio system was also added. As predicted, the I-225 had exceptional performance. The aircraft was capable of speeds in excess of 720 km/hr, and demonstrated good handling characteristics. Unfortunately, the first I-225 prototype was lost after only 15 flights, due to an engine fire. A second prototype was completed with an AM-42FB engine, and first flew in March 1945. This second prototype was fitted with four B-20 cannons instead of ShVAKs, This prototype was also reported to be capable of over 720 km/hr, as well as able to climb to 5000 meters in under 4 minutes. However, due to continued vibrations, the AM-42 was replaced with an AM-44 in January 1946. This did not solve the issues though, and the I-225, like its predecessors, was not selected for production. All work on the I-225 was shut down in March 1947. Remarks While none of the advanced MiG-3 variants entered production, they did provide the Mikoyan-Gurevich bureau with valuable engineering and design experience. In a different world, one might imagine that some of their designs could have found a niche. The I-210/1 and I-230/1 would have little reason to be built in a world where Yakovlev and Lavochkin fighters exist in the way they did. However, if Germany or another enemy had a developed strategic bombing arm, then the I-220 series fighters could have found a use. Either way, by 1945, it was clear that jet aircraft were the future. Even the Soviets, who had a relatively late start on jet engines, quickly developed aircraft like the MiG-9 and Yak-15 whose performance exceeded any of the MiG-3 variants. Sources: OKB MiG, a History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft, by Piotr Butowski and Jay Miller http://www.airvectors.net/avmig3.html http://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/a_mikoyan-gurevich.php https://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-technika/a-i-mikojan-a-m-i-gurjevic/ (I-230, I-210, I-211, I-220, I-221, I-222, I-224, and I-225 pages) http://www.airwar.ru/fighterww2.html (I-230, I-231, I-210, I-211, I-220, I-221, I-222, I-224, and I-225 pages) http://soviethammer.blogspot.com/2015/02/mig-fighter-aircraft-development-wwii.html
  17. 7 points
    In case some of the netizens on WT forum and Reddit doubt my source of reference, I will post them out here. All the original archives I used are accessible for the public can be found in the Japan National Archive center's website here: https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/aj/meta/reference And here is the two archives mentioned by both Waffentrager and me: C14011075200: https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/aj/meta/image_C14011075200?IS_KIND=RefSummary&IS_STYLE=default&IS_TAG_S1=d2&IS_KEY_S1=C14011075200& C13120839500:https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/aj/meta/listPhoto?NO=1&DB_ID=G0000101EXTERNAL&ID=%24_ID&LANG=default&image_num=6&IS_STYLE=default&TYPE=PDF&DL_TYPE=pdf&REFCODE=C13120839400&CN=1 And books I used: Many documents and archives regarding WWII Japanese tanks have already been public viewable, there is always someone don't know.
  18. 7 points
    Talk about Type90, i got some information from Chinese document which mention about the armor composite used on Type88 which is the prototype for Type90 recently. Not sure the exact truth but i would like to share. “Japanese Type88 tank's turret and hull composite armor were trying to use different ceramic material (Alumina、Silicon oxide or Silicon carbide ceramic cut in rectangle or hexagon),each layer using binder to bonded together. The protection of this armor can reach up equal to 400mm thick of armour steel (BK) and is capable of defeat 120mm high density KE projectile (muzzle velocity>1600m/s) fired from 200meters at 0 degree, and also capable to protect against the 120mm HEAT shell which capable of penetrating 600mm of armor. Besides, there are many of different type of armor plate, the use of ceramic material and it's ability of protection giving the armor research development a new direction” image10 Type88 tank's spaced (composite) armor structure. 陶瓷板=Ceramic plate 毫米=mm Other than this,japan seems are developing some kind of Kevlar composite It says:"Japan is currently develop a Kevlar fiber with Titanium alloy or aluminum structured multi-layer composite armor " Of course those are just for the prototype of type90, but we can try guessing the armor from this source: <<间隔(复合)装甲——现代坦克的主要装甲结构>>(1982) (Composite armor--the main structure of the armor for modern MBT) (1982) <<国外复合装甲中非金属材料的应用和研究概况>>(1983) (Summarize of the use and research of non-metallic material in foreign composite armor)(1983) ft. Akula_941
  19. 7 points
    @Collimatrix @Mighty_Zuk @SH_MM @LoooSeR @Militarysta @Xlucine Yeah I took 'some' liberties with the jet, but that mainly has to do with this being a rough first look at Nozh, I'll do a more properly shaped jet later. tl;dw: Yes, a copper jet can cut through a wolfram penetrator but the jet is not nearly long enough. Edit: This is also a frictionless simulation so the jet penetrating the steel plate doesn't slow it down at all. All in all, this is a best case scenario for Nozh.
  20. 6 points

    Competition: Tank Design 2239

    Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk) The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely. Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted. The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future. The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily). California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter. The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender; (near the Californian border) The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse. Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho. (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco) Requirements As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire): Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Other relevant information: Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.
  21. 6 points
    About T-80UE-1 and UA Basically same upgrade, but if T-80BV is getting new FCS and some other changes it get T-80UE-1 designation, if T-80U - then T-80UA. But T-80UE-1s can have differences between them... Some T-80UE-1, according to photos posted on Otvaga, have "Plissa" thermal imager, but part of T-80UE-1s have PL-1 IR lamp. GurKhan explains: So T-80UE-1 Sp1 is variant with PL-1 IR laser projector, Sp2 - with Plissa thermal imager. T-80UA also have similar 2 variants (with PL-1 and second one with Plissa), although no designations that i know. Also: And if tank have RCWS - it may be either UD or UE-1, if not - them U or UA. Cyprus got special variant T-80, similar to UA but without Ainet and with older mechanical loader. And one more moment - PL-1 is not a give away of model of T-80, as IR lamps on normal T-80Us could have been swaped for PL-1 during repairs (without any modernisations or changes inside). One notorious thing in UE-1 - some ammunition is located in the turret. I guess fuck everybody inside was MoD moto. To summarize: T-80UE-1 is T-80BV with T-80UD turret, new FCS and sights, with 1250HP gas turbine installed and Kontakt-5 build in ERA package on both hull and turret. T-80UE-1 Sp1 have PL-1 IR laser projector, while T-80UE-1 Sp2 received Plissa thermal imager. And both Sp1 and Sp2 have ammunition fucking stuffed everywhere in turret.
  22. 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
  23. 6 points

    Help me understand tank suspension

    @EnsignExpendable wrote a bit about this some time ago. Technology of Tanks does have a good summary of the matter, but it's such an expensive book that I recommend going straight to the piracy option and getting the shitty OCR version. Ogorkiewicz's more recent Tanks: 100 Years of Evolution has a condensed, but far less detailed commentary on the development of tanks suspension. Here is my heavily editorialized summary of tank suspension: Tank suspension is what gives the track some "give" while the tank is moving at speed over rough terrain. The main purpose of tank suspension is to keep the crew from being incapacitated by the tank shaking up and down while the tank is moving off-road. It has some minor benefits to weapon and sight stabilization, but the technology of weapon and sight stabilization is so advanced at this point that it doesn't really matter today. The very first tanks had no suspension whatsoever; the entire run of the track was rigidly attached to the tank's hull. This meant that there was no shock absorption whatsoever when these old tanks went over bumps, but this was basically acceptable because the first tanks were also very slow, and tended to poison their crews with carbon monoxide anyway. In the interwar period, tank suspension tended towards systems where several road wheels share a common spring element. In some cases, four road wheels would be attached to a common leaf spring by series of levers and balances. More commonly, pairs of road wheels would share a common spring as in the HVSS and VVSS suspension of the Sherman, but also the bizarro longtitudinal torsion bar design in the Ferdinand. The interwar period also saw the first independent suspension systems. In independent suspension each road wheel acts upon its own spring. Independent suspensions give a better ride quality for the crew at high speed, but they suffer from greater pitching oscillation (nose of the tank rocking up and down) than the older-style suspension where pairs of road wheels share a common spring, especially at lower speeds. Independent suspensions are also heavier. Christie suspension is independent, as are the majority of torsion bar systems (the Soviets screwed around with some non-independent systems, and there was the Ferdinand). The majority of tank designers switched from the older spring-sharing systems to the newer independent systems, as in the US T20 series of medium tanks where the M4 evolved into the M26 and lost its volute spring suspension for torsion bars. The British went backwards and switched from the independent Christie suspension of Comet to the spring-sharing Horstmann suspension in Centurion. This is because the British are bad at tank design, although Centurion was a decent tank once you ripped out the old engine and transmission and put an AVDS and Allison tranny in there. The British would stay with the Horstmann suspension through Chieftain and until Challenger 1. Again, Chieftain was generally a bad tank, and the British made the world's best tank in 1916, and have been trailing since then. The majority of publications will categorize tank suspension by what springing medium the swing arms are tensioned by. This is completely stupid and conveys almost no useful information. It doesn't tell me anything about the comparative automotive performance of the M60 vs the Pz. 68 to know that one has the swing arms tensioned by long, twisting rods of spring steel while the other tensions the arms with a stack of frisbee-shaped discs of spring steel. The shape of the piece of steel being bent to absorb energy from the suspension elements is literally the least useful piece of information about the suspension performance. More useful information would be the limits of the articulation of the swing arm, spring coefficients, swing arm length, damping coefficients, and unsprung mass of the suspension components. Also useful would be the location of the center of mass of the tank relative to each of the road wheels and swing arms and its moment of inertia about the pitch axis. But this more specific information is hard to come by.
  24. 6 points
    BAE Systems has submitted its proposal to the U.S. Army to build and test the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) vehicle for use by the Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT).
  25. 6 points
    Sure. You can get the first book as a pdf here. The General Board reports are available here; Tank Gunnery is number 53.