Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/01/2019 in Posts

  1. 17 points
    Laviduce

    French flair

    For the mean time: Updated Special Armor Locations: Fuel Tank Locations: Main Gun Ammunition Locations: Crew Locations: Armament Locations: Powerpack Location:
  2. 13 points
    My Dad was in the Navy from 1965 to 1969. He's been dead since 2000, so there is no asking him for info on this stuff, my mom is around but won't knot much about the Navy details so I am putting this together from memory and whats in the photos. The slides were not in great shape, and the first set of scans were rough, and then the scanner broke. So, since Amazon didn't have the same model anymore, I spent a little more money and got a much nice scanner, with a better "technology" for film scanning, and it fixes the flaws when it scans them. The results are remarkable. As far as I know these images were taken with a Minolta 35mm Camera, I guess an SLR, since he had a bunch of lenses for it. I learned photography with it, and have a few pictures of my GTO I took with his Camera. This was the type of camera you focuses, and set the light settings, and had to hand wind. Considering how much harder a camera was to work back then, I think my old man was a reasonably talented photographer. As far as I can remember he went to boot camp in San Diego, then he went to schools for Ejection Seat Maintenance and Air Condition systems on the F4J Phantom. He got assigned to VF-33, part of CAG-6, with VF-102, VA-82, VA-86, VA-85, RVAH-13, VAW-122, VAW-13 Det. 66, and VAH-10 Det. 66. CAG-6 was assigned to the USS America, who was about three years old and about to go on a world cruise, that would include the Ships only Vietnam deployment in 1968. When the ship got back, it was stationed on the east coast, and VF-33 went to CAG-7, and ended up on the Independence. My dad was with them for at least one work up cruise, since there are a set of photos from that ship. By mid 69 he was back in San Diego, working with VF-121, the west coast RAG, waiting to get out . I do not have any photos yet from San Diego, at least Navy stuff. Here is a shot of the CVA-66 USS America, she displaced 61,174 tons empty, 83,500 full load. She was the second Kitty Hawk Class Carrier, she would spend the majority of her Career in the Med. (if the logo for the Sherman Tank Site seems like its in odd places, its usually covering a flaw the scanner could not fix) Here's a VF-33 Phantom. A VF-102 Phantom, an F-4J the same as VF-33. Here are some pretty cool shots from an underway replenishment. It could be anywhere on the World cruise in 68. I think this is also from an Unrep, maybe the same one. This photo is one of my favorite, you get an A-7 and Sea Night for the the price of one! Old shot with bad scanner as a place holder for a duplicate. This shot is of the flight deck, by the cats on the angle deck looking forward. Not the kill mark on the intake of the F-4J, 212 sitting there, pretty cool. These last three shots are all from the USS Independence, in early 69, I assume off the East Coast on work ups for their upcoming Med Cruise. This is my old Man, Rick T, I'm pretty sure that's a Martin Baker Ejection seat right next to him. Several VF-33 Phantoms got shot down, and the seats always worked, so he had that going for him. This image was scanned on the original scanner, note how cruddy it looks, when get to this slide again, I'll post the improved version. Compare the below image to the one above too. I'll posts more as I water mark them and host them. There was a crossing of the line ceremony, that my Dad took a ton of pics on, its pretty interesting. It was really nice to find these, I had thought hey got lost in a move.
  3. 12 points
    LostCosmonaut

    J2M Raiden

    Compared to the most well known Japanese fighter of World War 2, the A6M “Zero”, the J2M Raiden (“Jack”) was both less famous and less numerous. More than 10,000 A6Ms were built, but barely more than 600 J2Ms were built. Still, the J2M is a noteworthy aircraft. Despite being operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN), it was a strictly land-based aircraft. The Zero was designed with a lightweight structure, to give extreme range and maneuverability. While it had a comparatively large fuel tank, it was lightly armed, and had virtually no armor. While the J2M was also very lightly built, it was designed that way to meet a completely different set of requirements; those of a short-range interceptor. The J2M's design led to it being one of the fastest climbing piston-engine aircraft in World War 2, even though its four 20mm cannons made it much more heavily armed than most Japanese planes. Development of the J2M began in October 1938, under the direction of Jiro Hirokoshi, in response to the issuance of the 14-shi interceptor requirement (1). Hirokoshi had also designed the A6M, which first flew in April 1939. However, development was slow, and the J2M would not make its first flight until 20 March 1942, nearly 3 ½ years later (2). Initially, this was due to Mitsubishi's focus on the A6M, which was further along in development, and of vital importance to the IJN's carrier force. Additionally, the J2M was designed to use a more powerful engine than other Japanese fighters. The first aircraft, designated J2M1, was powered by an MK4C Kasei 13 radial engine, producing 1430 horsepower from 14 cylinders (3) (compare to 940 horsepower for the A6M2) and driving a three bladed propeller. The use of such a powerful engine was driven by the need for a high climb rate, in order to fulfill the requirements set forth in the 14-shi specification. The climb rate of an aircraft is driven by specific excess power; by climbing an aircraft is gaining potential energy, which requires power to generate. Specific Excess Power is given by the following equation; (Airspeed*(Thrust-Drag))/Weight It is clear from this equation that weight and drag must be minimized, while thrust and airspeed are maximized. The J2M was designed using the most powerful engine then available, to maximize thrust. Moreover, the engine was fitted with a long cowling, with the propeller on an extension shaft, also to minimize drag. In a more radical departure from traditional Japanese fighter design (as exemplified by aircraft such as the A6M and Ki-43), the J2M had comparatively short, stubby wings, only 10.8 m wide on the J2M3 variant, with a relatively high wing loading of 1.59 kN/m2 (33.29 lb/ft2) (2). (It should be noted that this wing loading is still lower than contemporary American aircraft such as the F6F Hellcat. The small wings reduced drag, and also reduced weight. More weight was saved by limiting the J2M's internal fuel, the J2M3 had only 550 liters of internal fuel (2). Hirokoshi did add some weight back into the J2M's design. 8 millimeters of steel armor plate protected the pilot, a luxurious amount of protection compared to the Zero. And while the J2M1 was armed with the same armament as the A6M (two 7.7mm machine guns and two Type 99 Model 2 20mm cannons), later variants would be more heavily armed, with the 7.7mm machine guns deleted in favor of an additional pair of 20mm cannons. Doubtlessly, this was driven by Japanese wartime experience; 7.7mm rounds were insufficient to deal with strongly built Grumman fighters, let alone a target like the B-17. The first flight of the J2M Raiden was on March 20th, 1942. Immediately, several issues were identified. One design flaw pointed out quickly was that the cockpit design on the J2M1, coupled with the long cowling, severely restricted visibility. (This issue had been identified by an IJN pilot viewing a mockup of the J2M back in December 1940 (1).) The landing speed was also criticized for being too high; while the poor visibility over the nose exacerbated this issue, pilots transitioning from the Zero would be expected to criticize the handling of a stubby interceptor. Wrecked J2M in the Philippines in 1945. The cooling fan is highly visible. However, the biggest flaw the J2M1 had was poor reliability. The MK4C engine was not delivering the expected performance, and the propeller pitch control was unreliable, failing multiple times. (1) As a result, the J2M1 failed to meet the performance set forth in the 14-shi specification, achieving a top speed of only 577 kph, well short of the 600 kph required. Naturally, the climb rate suffered as well. Only a few J2M1s were built. The next version, the J2M2, had several improvements. The engine was updated to the MK4R-A (3); this engine featured a methanol injection system, enabling it to produce up to 1,800 horsepower for short periods. The propeller was switched for a four blade unit. The extension shaft in the J2M1 had proved unreliable, in the J2M2 the cowling was shortened slightly, and a cooling fan was fitted at the the front. These modifications made the MK4R-A more reliable than the previous engine, despite the increase in power. However, there were still problems; significant vibrations occurred at certain altitudes and speeds; stiffening the engine mounts and propeller blades reduced these issues, but they were never fully solved (1). Another significant design flaw was identified in the summer of 1943; the shock absorber on the tail wheel could jam the elevator controls when the tailwheel retracted, making the aircraft virtually uncontrollable. This design flaw led to the death of one IJN pilot, and nearly killed two more (1). Ultimately, the IJN would not put the J2M2 into service until December 1943, 21 months after the first flight of the J2M1. 155 J2M2s would be built by Mitsubishi (3). By the time the J2M2 was entering service, the J2M3 was well into testing. The J2M3 was the most common variant of the Raiden, 260 were produced at Mitsubishi's factories (3). It was also the first variant to feature an armament of four 20mm cannons (oddly, of two different types of cannon with significantly different ballistics (2); the 7.7mm machine guns were replace with two Type 99 Model 1 cannons). Naturally, the performance of the J2M3 suffered slightly with the heavier armament, but it still retained its excellent rate of climb. The Raiden's excellent rate of climb was what kept it from being cancelled as higher performance aircraft like the N1K1-J Shiden came into service. The J2M's was designed to achieve a high climb rate, necessary for its intended role as an interceptor. The designers were successful; the J2M3, even with four 20mm cannons, was capable of climbing at 4650 feet per minute (1420 feet per minute) (2). Many fighters of World War 2, such as the CW-21, were claimed to be capable of climbing 'a mile a minute', but the Raiden was one of the few piston-engine aircraft that came close to achieving that mark. In fact, the Raiden climbed nearly as fast as the F8F Bearcat, despite being nearly three years older. Additionally, the J2M could continue to climb at high speeds for long periods; the J2M2 needed roughly 10 minutes to reach 30000 feet (9100 meters) (4), and on emergency power (using the methanol injection system), could maintain a climb rate in excess of 3000 feet per minute up to about 20000 feet (about 6000 meters). Analysis in Source (2) shows that the J2M3 was superior in several ways to one of its most common opponents, the F6F Hellcat. Though the Hellcat was faster at lower altitudes, the Raiden was equal at 6000 meters (about 20000 feet), and above that rapidly gained superiority. Additionally, the Raiden, despite not being designed for maneuverability, still had a lower stall speed than the Hellcat, and could turn tighter. The J2M3 actually had a lower wing loading than the American plane, and had flaps that could be used in combat to expand the wing area at will. As shown in the (poorly scanned) graphs on page 39 of (2), the J2M possessed a superior instantaneous turn capability to the F6F at all speeds. However, at high speeds the sustained turn capability of the American plane was superior (page 41 of (2)). The main area the American plane had the advantage was at high speeds and low altitudes; with the more powerful R-2800, the F6F could more easily overcome drag than the J2M. The F6F, as well as most other American planes, were also more solidly built than the J2M. The J2M also remained plagued by reliability issues throughout its service life. In addition to the J2M2 and J2M3 which made up the majority of Raidens built, there were a few other variants. The J2M4 was fitted with a turbo-supercharger, allowing its engine to produce significantly more power at high altitudes (1). However, this arrangement was highly unreliable, and let to only two J2M4s being built. Some sources also report that the J2M4 had two obliquely firing 20mm Type 99 Model 2 cannons in the fuselage behind the pilot (3). The J2M5 used a three stage mechanical supercharger, which proved more reliable than the turbo-supercharger, and still gave significant performance increases at altitude. Production of the J2M5 began at Koza 21st Naval Air Depot in late 1944 (6), but ultimately only about 34 would be built (3). The J2M6 was developed before the J2M4 and J2M6, it had minor updates such as an improved bubble canopy, only one was built (3). Finally, there was the J2M7, which was planned to use the same engine as the J2M5, with the improvements of the J2M6 incorporated. Few, if any, of this variant were built (3). A total of 621 J2Ms were built, mostly by Mitsubishi, which produced 473 airframes (5). However, 128 aircraft (about 1/5th of total production), were built at the Koza 21st Naval Air Depot (6). In addition to the reliability issues which delayed the introduction of the J2M, production was also hindered by American bombing, especially in 1945. For example, Appendix G of (5) shows that 270 J2Ms were ordered in 1945, but only 116 were produced in reality. (Unfortunately, sources (5) and (6) do not distinguish between different variants in their production figures.) Though the J2M2 variant first flew in October 1942, initial production of the Raiden was very slow. In the whole of 1942, only 13 airframes were produced (5). This included the three J2M1 prototypes. 90 airframes were produced in 1943, a significant increase over the year before, but still far less than had been ordered (5), and negligible compared to the production of American types. Production was highest in the spring and summer of 1944 (5), before falling off in late 1944 and 1945. The initial J2M1 and J2M2 variants were armed with a pair of Type 97 7.7mm machine guns, and two Type 99 Model 2 20mm cannons. The Type 97 used a 7.7x56mm rimmed cartridge; a clone of the .303 British round (7). This was the same machine gun used on other IJN fighters such as the A5M and A6M. The Type 99 Model 2 20mm cannon was a clone of the Swiss Oerlikon FF L (7), and used a 20x101mm cartridge. The J2M3 and further variants replaced the Type 97 machine guns with a pair of Type 99 Model 1 20mm cannons. These cannons, derived from the Oerlikon FF, used a 20x72mm cartridge (7), firing a round with roughly the same weight as the one used in the Model 2 at much lower velocity (2000 feet per second vs. 2500 feet per second (3), some sources (7) report an even lower velocity for the Type 99). The advantage the Model 1 had was lightness; it weighed only 26 kilograms vs. 34 kilograms for the model 2. Personally, I am doubtful that saving 16 kilograms was worth the difficulty of trying to use two weapons with different ballistics at the same time. Some variants (J2M3a, J2M5a) had four Model 2 20mm cannons (3), but they seem to be in the minority. In addition to autocannons and machine guns, the J2M was also fitted with two hardpoints which small bombs or rockets could be attached to (3) (4). Given the Raiden's role as an interceptor, and the small capacity of the hardpoints (roughly 60 kilograms) (3), it is highly unlikely that the J2M was ever substantially used as a bomber. Instead, it is more likely that the hardpoints on the J2M were used as mounting points for large air to air rockets, to be used to break up bomber formations, or ensure the destruction of a large aircraft like the B-29 in one hit. The most likely candidate for the J2M's rocket armament was the Type 3 No. 6 Mark 27 Bomb (Rocket) Model 1. Weighing 145 pounds (65.8 kilograms) (8), the Mark 27 was filled with payload of 5.5 pounds of incendiary fragments; upon launch it would accelerate to high subsonic speeds, before detonating after a set time (8). It is also possible that the similar Type 3 No. 1 Mark 28 could have been used; this was similar to the Mark 27, but much smaller, with a total weight of only 19.8 pounds (9 kilograms). The first unit to use the J2M in combat was the 381st Kokutai (1). Forming in October 1943, the unit at first operated Zeros, though gradually it filled with J2M2s through 1944. Even at this point, there were still problems with the Raiden's reliability. On January 30th, a Japanese pilot died when his J2M simply disintegrated during a training flight. By March 1944, the unit had been dispatched to Balikpapan, in Borneo, to defend the vital oil fields and refineries there. But due to the issues with the J2M, it used only Zeros. The first Raidens did not arrive until September 1944 (1). Reportedly, it made its debut on September 30th, when a mixed group of J2Ms and A6Ms intercepted a formation of B-24s attacking the Balikpapan refineries. The J2Ms did well for a few days, until escorting P-47s and P-38s arrived. Some 381st Raidens were also used in defense of Manila, in the Phillipines, as the Americans retook the islands. (9) By 1945, all units were ordered to return to Japan to defend against B-29s and the coming invasion. The 381st's J2Ms never made it to Japan; some ended up in Singapore, where they were found by the British (1). least three units operated the J2M in defense of the home islands of Japan; the 302nd, 332nd, and 352nd Kokutai. The 302nd's attempted combat debut came on November 1st, 1944, when a lone F-13 (reconaissance B-29) overflew Tokyo (1). The J2Ms, along with some Zeros and other fighters, did not manage to intercept the high flying bomber. The first successful attack against the B-29s came on December 3rd, when the 302nd shot down three B-29s. Later that month the 332nd first engaged B-29s attacking the Mitsubishi plant on December 22nd, shooting down one. (1) The 352nd operated in Western Japan, against B-29s flying out of China in late 1944 and early 1945. At first, despite severe maintenace issues, they achieved some successes, such as on November 21st, when a formation of B-29s flying at 25,000 feet was intercepted. Three B-29s were shot down, and more damaged. In general, when the Raidens were able to get to high altitude and attack the B-29s from above, they were relatively successful. This was particularly true when the J2Ms were assigned to intercept B-29 raids over Kyushu, which were flown at altitudes as low as 16,000 feet (1). The J2M also had virtually no capability to intercept aircraft at night, which made them essentially useless against LeMay's incendiary raids on Japanese cities. Finally the arrival of P-51s in April 1945 put the Raidens at a severe disadvantage; the P-51 was equal to or superior to the J2M in almost all respects, and by 1945 the Americans had much better trained pilots and better maintained machines. The last combat usage of the Raiden was on the morning of August 15th. The 302nd's Raidens and several Zeros engaged several Hellcats from VF-88 engaged in strafing runs. Reportedly four Hellcats were shot down, for the loss of two Raidens and at least one Zero(1). Japan surrendered only hours later. At least five J2Ms survived the war, though only one intact Raiden exists today. Two of the J2Ms were captured near Manila on February 20th, 1945 (9) (10). One of them was used for testing; but only briefly. On its second flight in American hands, an oil line in the engine failed, forcing it to land. The aircraft was later destroyed in a ground collision with a B-25 (9). Two more were found by the British in Singapore (1), and were flown in early 1946 but ex-IJN personnel (under close British supervision). The last Raiden was captured in Japan in 1945, and transported to the US. At some point, it ended up in a park in Los Angeles, before being restored to static display at the Planes of Fame museum in California. Sources: https://www.docdroid.net/gDMQra3/raiden-aeroplane-february-2016.pdf#page=2 F6F-5 vs. J2M3 Comparison http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/j2m.htm http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Jack-11-105A.pdf https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015080324281;view=1up;seq=80 https://archive.org/stream/corporationrepor34unit#page/n15/mode/2up http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html http://ww2data.blogspot.com/2016/04/imperial-japanese-navy-explosives-bombs.html https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/j2m/3008.html https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/j2m/3013.html https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/j2m/3014.html Further reading: An additional two dozen Raiden photos: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/japan/aircrafts/j2m-raiden/
  4. 11 points
    Beer

    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 :-)
  5. 10 points
    Sovngard

    Britons are in trouble

    Vickers Valiant on a muddy track : Barr & Stroud LF 11 gunner sight and the Pilkington PE Condor commander day/night sight : Hull ammo rack (30x105 mm) and driver's compartment, the handlebar features a throttle twist grip : VR 1000 powerpack comprising the Rolls-Royce CV12TCA Condor 1000 hp engine and the TN 12-1000 automatic transmission : The pyramidal louvers above the transmission are typical of the Valiant.
  6. 10 points
    Militarysta

    Polish Armoured Vehicles

    This time, photo taken by myself. APC Rosomak firing single 81mm camouflage granate GAK-81 single 81mm in 1st salvo: and single 81mm in 2th salvo: And this one was mucht difficult due to weather conditions. Six 120mm motar round on one picture: And twins: And the result: In summary - 120mm SMK Rak is very good weapons, very powerfull modern and now the best serial produce in the world. Nice that at least one type of weapons producing in my country can be on top lvl...
  7. 10 points
    Stimpy75

    Turkish touch

    i am really exhausted my feet are killin me first i will try google pics if it doesnt i have to upload them to imgur feel free to share them(except for tanknet.forum! F.U. tanknet!) https://photos.app.goo.gl/hSSBM66MUsiYTteC8
  8. 9 points
    2805662

    Modern Tank Destroyers / Gun Carriers

    Got to sneak a peak at this today:
  9. 9 points
    Jackvony

    Tanks guns and ammunition.

    New here, but I've followed this thread (and Mech Warfare) for a good while. I attend the United States Military Academy and it is branch week here. Armor brought an M1A2 SEPv2 which, while awesome and cool to get inside of, was nothing new. However, they had a cutaway of a M829A4 round, which was on public display so it's not breaking OPSEC. Thought it would interest you guys. Edit: I have no official measurements but I've looked at some photos of M829A3 and the penetrator definitely seems longer based on the sabot petals seeming to be longer at the top.
  10. 9 points
    Sovngard

    French flair

    French 140 mm smoothbore gun firing :
  11. 9 points
    EnsignExpendable

    Books About Tanks

    I like books about tanks so much that I even wrote one myself. https://www.mortonsbooks.co.uk/product/view/productCode/15014
  12. 8 points
    A Dingo 2 of the Belgian army was hit by a pressure-activated IED consisting of about 30 kg explosives. The vehicle was part of a German-lead convoy, several German vehicles narrowly missed the IED before the Dingo activated it. All passengers survived, two suffered minor wounds from unsecured objects sent flying inside the vehicle by the IED's detonation. The Marder 1 upgrade will be based around a ~ 563 kW engine from Liebherr, not MTU. It seems that this is the same engine Rheinmetall previously mounted on the Lynx KF31, which makes sense and also means that at least some of the money invested into the Lynx KF31 has managed to generate profit. I wonder if at some time the Lance turret also will end up on the Marder, if politicians decide to spend more/less on defence or delays with Puma's full readiness will continue... Despite the Marder 1 upgrade (which is partly introduced out of fear that the Puma might not be ready for the VJTF 2023 in high enough numbers with sufficient spare parts), Rheinmetall claims that the Puma S1 will be ready for the German lead of the VJTF in the Baltics. The second batch of Pumas (for which the budget has already been approved) hasn't ordered yet, as the original batch isn't finished. The Wiesel 1 upgrade contract has been signed with FFG. The upgrade encompasses improved protection incl. add-on armor and mine protection kit, new optics and an optimized drivetrain. The Rh 202 autocannon is kept, as apparently no worthy replacement option has been found. There were rumors of the Mauser BK 27 used by the German airforce and navy being considered, but I've never seen any official source. The anti-tank version with TOW missile launcher will however see an upgrade, as the old missile system will be replaced by MELLS (Spike-LR). Not all Wiesel 1s (only 196 out of more than 300) will be upgraded, these 196 vehicles will be distributed into the following variants: - 15 driving training vehicles, 16 Wiesel 1s in the reconnaissance variant, 110 Wiesel Mk 20 and 55 Wiesel 1 anti-tank missile. One of the main reasons for not upgrading all Wiesel 1s is the decision to adopt a version of the Boxer with autocannon (known as project "MaKaBo", Maschinenkanone Boxer). As reported by ESuT, after evaluating different existing options for the Boxer, the Bundeswehr has apparently decided that a manned turret is a mandatory requirement, which supposedly leads to Rheinmetall being the winner - at least an official article by the Bundeswehr claimed that the LANCE turret will be fitted. Btw. the weight of a LANCE 1 turret with full armor, missile launcher and 30 mm Mauser MK-30/2 ABM reaches 5,2 tonnes! Each heavy company of the Jäger battalions and the Gebirgsjäger battalion 231 will have twelve Boxers with autocannon (in three platoons of four vehicle) - at the moment there are twelve Wiesel 1s (six with 20 mm Rh 202 and six with TOW launchers) in the heavy companies. The LuWa program (next-generation air-droppable light weapon carrier; supposed up to twice as heavy as Wiesel 1) will provide a replacement for the rest of the Wiesel 1s by the mid/late-2020s. Rheinmetall has also developed the Fuchs 1A8 Plus variant in cooperation with the BAAINBw, which features an improved drivetrain and power pack able to keep up better with Boxer. in theory there also could be armor improvements, as IBD Deisenroth (now part of Rheinmetall Protection Systems) has developed a new armor kit for the Fuchs, which has been fully qualified. This armor meets the full STANAG 4569 level 4 ballistic requirements, whereas the original MEXAS armor kit only reached a reduced/loosened protection requirement. KMW's APVT - the amphibious vehicle based on Puma components with a boat-shaped rear end for reverse swimming - has been called Lurch (amphibian) by KMW recently, so that might become its proper name. One scenario for which KMW advertises the Lurch is river-crossing as part of pioneering (measuring depth of rivers, setting up bridges, etc.). Currently that is done via boat, historically (1970s) the German military had a lot of interest in the APE, but it didn't perform well in tests.
  13. 8 points
    Some information about BTR-90, from 2 articles posted on Warspot (First, Second, in Russian) BTR-90 next to a BTR-80A at the IDELF-2008. The first prototype BTR-90 at the exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod, 1994. The first prototype BTR-90 at the exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod, 1994. Second prototype during factory trails. Vehicle is "wearing" OI-25 tires. Third prototype of the Rostok/GAZ-5923 with some changes from 2nd prototype, on factory trails. Driver's position BTR-90A with BM B08Ya01 "Bakhcha-U" at the show in Kubinka. 2002 Export version of the two missile launcher for Konkurs ATGM BTR-90 No. 2B12LT1931 of December 2004 production with B05Ya01 “Berezhok” combat module. Alabino, 2008. BTR-90 with the Berezhok combat module at the 2nd Guards motorized infantry division training ground, 2008
  14. 8 points
    Photos of Tagil's mockup, developed in late 60s as a part of "topic 101" program aimed at developing next generation soviet tank for 1980s From Russian magazine Technika i Vooruzheniye (Technics and Armament) 2019-09
  15. 8 points
    SH_MM

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Interesting, from when is this document? Seems to be a very early array. It doesn't matter how a layman, an enthusiasts or even a member of a tank crew rates the survivability of tanks on purely subjective impressions. We know that a part of designing a modern MBT is a survivability analysis, both in terms of simulation and real life-firing tests and we know that every tank aside of the Abrams and Armata has opted for a "wine-rack stowage". This is not an inexcusable flaw, but a intentional design decision, as every tank design is a trade-off between negatives and posivites. As it turns out, every tank design team bar Chrysler's one for the Abrams program has ended up with "wine-rack stowage" in the hull, even on new tanks like the K2 Black Panther and the Type 10, which were designed decades after the Abrams. Using combat experience to access crew survivability is not bad, but given that only a dozen or so Leopard 2 MBTs have been hit by ATGMs and these were fitted with an outdated armor package from 1979, this is hardly a proof of limited/lower crew survivability, not to mention that crew survivability also can be higher/lower for each tank depending on what enemy it faces. Seeing the videos from Yemen where a Saudi M1A2S Abrams tank's turret is hit by an ATGM, penetrated by the warhead, yet the crew is saved by the isolated ammo storage and the blow-out panels doesn't actually tell us much about crew survivability (not to mention that these videos are usually cut before anybody can see what happened to the crew) in comparison to a Leclerc, Leopard 2 or K2 Black Panther. As it stands there has been not one example that clearly shows a tank being destroyed due to its "wine-rack stowage" for the hull ammunition. There is no case of a M1A2S Abrams hit in Yemen at an angle, where the "wine-rack" would cause trouble, but the isolated hull ammo of the Abrams is safe. There is no video of a Leopard 2 being hit and penetrated by an ATGM at the hull front or in such a way that one can say the crew would have survived in an Abrams. There are videos showing singular incidents that are not comparable, yet people are pretending they can serve as a valid base for a comparison. Just two weeks ago a video of a Turkish Leopard 2 tank surfaced, which is hit at the turret front; the missile penetrates the armor and despite the isolated turret ammunition, the tank turns into a big ol' fireball, because 20-30 mm steel were not sufficient to keep the ammunition isolated against the penetrating shaped charge jet. Documents from the British-German tank design cooperation as part of the FMBT program suggest that according to a British analysis, wet-stowage was considered to be better for crew survivability than isolated ammo stowage in the hull. Either all tank engineers bar Chrysler's team are dumb or crew survivability isn't as one-dimensional as you seem to pretend. I don't know what your experience with the thermal imagers from European manufacturers are, but this might just be up to US military/manufacturer just utilizing better screens for displaying the output. Technologically, there is no lead on either side. But okay, lets talk thermal imagers and MBTs. When the Leopard 2A5 upgrade was developed, there were two second-generation thermal imaging sensors available in Germany, both designed as part of the tri-national TRIGAT (third generation anti-tank) missile program that lead to the failure that is PARS 3 LR. A small, low-cost IRCCD sensor using a 40 x 4 detector array for the short-range variant of TRIGAT meant to replace MILAN and a large sensor utilizing a 288 x 4 detector array meant for the long-range version (which ended up being PARS 3 LR). At the time, the latter sensor was considered unreasonable expensive, specifically given that the change in the political landscape had a negative impact on the military budgets in Germany and other LEOBEN countries, while the smaller sensor array was considered to provide insufficient resolution. As a result using the US-German Common Modules for the Leopard 2A5's commander periscope or developing a new IRCCD with lower cost than TRIGAT's larger option, but better resolution than TRIGAT's small model, was considered. Both these systems were tested on the Leopard 2 prototypes (TVM min with the US-German Common Modules, TVM max with a new sensor). The new sensors was developed by AEG and uses a 96 x 4 IRCCD detector array and was installed into the new Optischer Passiver Hoch-Empfindlicher Leichter Infrarot-Optischer Sensor (OPHELIOS) thermal imaging system developed by a cooperation between Carl-Zeiss, Atlas Elektronik, AEG, TEMIC EZIS and Eltro. This rather low sensor resultion was somewhat negated by a using a special sensor layout, where the detector array was split into two blocks, slightly shifted in alignment, apparently for better image quality. The software of the OPHELIOS thermal imager was already designed to accept the larger sensor developed for TRIGAT with 288 x 4 detector elements, but this upgrade was never made for Germany's tanks at least following the improved relations with Russia and later the focus on assymetrical warfare. An upgrade of the Leopard 2's thermal imager would likely have occured with the KWS III originally planned for 2008, as this would have required a new FCS and new optics. The US Army settled for a much larger detector array with 480 x 4 detector elements, which was partly possible due to adopting second-generation thermal imagers at a later point of time; this means that more mature manufacturing techniques and smaller process nodes could be used for manufacturing, which are some of the main drivers of the costs of electronics. This detector array is clearly better than the one utilized on OPHELIOS in terms of resolution per scan. In terms of the signal-to-noise ratio (i.e. the most important factor for image quality besides sharpness/resolution), these sensors are all on equal terms, as they all have a TDI of 4 (they rely on scanning each position four times). This allows reducing the noise compared to a first generation thermal imager by half (the square root of the TDI). It must be noted that there are further fators that need to be accounted for such as the aperature, the quality of the lenses and prisms, the scan rate, thermal sensitivity, etc. These factors for example allowed the EMES 15 with WBG-X to provide better results (according to the US evaluation of the Leopard 2AV) than the Abrams' TIS despite both relying on Common Modules with a 120 x 1 detector array. Nased on what I've read, both Raytheon's second gen FLIR aswell as the AEG-designed IRCCD array for the OPHELIOS rely on CMT with similiar thermal sensititvity (7.5 to 10.5 µm); in theory using a smaller detector in combination with a higher scan rate and larger scan amplitude could provide the same output resolution as a larger detector array scanning slower/less. The larger detector array of Raytheon's second-gen FLIR is nothing special and not related to the Americans "just being better at making thermals". I.e. in 2000 - one year after the US adopted second generation FLIR - a new thermal imager made by the German industry around Carl-Zeiss was tested on the Leopard 2 called the HDIR. This was designed around a 576 x n detector array (n being 4 for the model tested on the Leopard 2) and provided an output resolution of 1,920 x 1,152 without using inter-lacing. In a comparison with WBG-X and OPHELIOS, it was found that HDIR allowed to detect (persuambly NATO standard) targets at up to 60% further distances. They made a thermal imager with 20% more detector elements one year after Raytheon's second generation FLIR entered service, but hey, "the Europeans are always a generation behind in thermals". However component discussions make little sense when talking about a tank like the Leopard 2 which has proven to be very adaptable to the customer's needs and has been adopted in countless different configurations, specifically when talking about thermal imagers: the Spanish Leopardo 2E and the Greek Leopard 2A6HEL both utilize the same second-generation FLIR detector from Raytheon as the current M1 Abrams models, which has been integrated by the Spanish company Indra into the Leopard 2's FCS. The idea that European thermal imagers are in terms of performance one generation behind US systems is laughable. All these systems are following the same laws of physics. Hendoldt's ATTICA thermal imager was designed as a modular family, coming in different shapes and sizes (i.e. small, medium and large detector arrays), which is the standard approach on the market today. Even the "small version" of ATTICA as fitted to the Puma IFV has 57 times as many detector elements as the Abrams' second generation FLIR. The medium versions use a 640 x 512 detector array, while the large one offers a 1,280 x 1,024 detector array, i.e. up to 682 times as many detector elements. As common with third generation thermal imagers, they are available either based on CMT or InSb, i.e. in different wave-lengths. For the Puma an upgrade to a larger detector has been proposed (as the Puma A1 configuration already will upgrade daylight cameras and flatscreen displays, so Hensoldt thinks that upping the thermals is the next step), while the Leopard 2A7V's new thermal imager for the gunner's sight has been adopted for its "long range", implying that they maybe didn't reuse the Puma's system. For the third generation thermal imagers, Raytheon has developed two variants of the 3rd-Generation FLIR Sensor Engine; one with a 640 x 480 detector array and a 1,280 x 720 elements detector array, as the US military favors the 16:9 wide-screen format, so I don't see how this should enable them to stay a generation ahead of Europe. Safran, Thales, Leonardo, Hensoldt, etc. are all making similar-sized detector arrays. Leopard 2A6MA3 new ATTICA thermal imager for the gunner's sight, new eye-safe laser rangefinder add-on armor on the hull new SPECTUS driver's sight (including rear-facing night vision/thermal imager) some tanks receive the L/55A1 tank gun changes to the final drive to regain some mobility that was lost when the tank got heavier (however this reduces top speed a bit) stronger torsion-bars and optimized tracks, so the tank is qualified for a combat weight of 70 tonnes more powerful APU replacing the air-conditioning unit that was first adopted with the Leopard 2A7 (it worked fine, but a new system was developed that also double-acts as NBC protection system). The old NBC protection system is retained and acts as additional air-conditioning unit for the driver changes to the ammunition racks, so the DM11 round can be stored in all places modifications to the SAAB Barracuda kit new digital flatscreen display for the commander digital control unit for the electric turret drives fully refurbished engines that are prepared for up-rating
  16. 8 points
  17. 8 points
    Roshindow

    General AFV Thread

    Singular is Freccia, plural would be Frecce going by regular grammar, but I don't know if a vehicle name gets changed like that or it it remains Freccia Have some Ariete - Centauro II mix in the meantime
  18. 8 points
    article on CATTB from IDR 1990-12 and also clippings from IDR 1989-12 on MTAS and from IDR 1990-05 on 140mm gun and render of CATTB from US Army's Weapon Systems Handbook of 1992: and pic from Soldat und Technik 1992-01: and pic of testbed w/XM291 gun - also from SuT 1992-01:
  19. 8 points
    SH_MM

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    Regarding weight reduction:
  20. 8 points
    Wiedzmin

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    1976 Leopard 2AV armour(all from declassified reports), bustle spaced armour(12+30) also used on serial Leopard-2 tanks.
  21. 8 points
    Xoon

    Californium 2250- final submissions

    Nordic Feminist Design Division presents: P2055 “Gaupen” Table of basic statistics: Parameter Value Mass, combat 65 metric ton Length, combat (transport) 7050mm Width, combat (transport) 3877mm Height, combat (transport) 2000mm Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal) 297Kn/m2 Estimated Speed 60Kp/h Estimated range 400Km Crew, number (roles) 2 (Commander, Gunner/Driver) Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) 200mm L40 gun. (40 rounds, 15 in first autoloader). Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) 7,62mm GPM (1200 rounds). 12,7mm HMG (500 rounds) Vehicle designer’s notes: The P2250 was designed to be as heavily armored as possible, with the smallest weight and profile. We tried to make use of the new experimental technologies and developed our own hydrostatic transmission and hydropneumatic suspension. This allowed much greater low speed mobility and some interesting arrangements. With the cannon mounted to the chassis, the autoloader became simplified and allowed a higher theoretical rate of fire and a reduction of crew to only 2. Mobility: 1. Link to Appendix 1- Not realized because of lack of weight value. 2. Engine - Kharkov 5TD (increased to 6 cylinder), 16L, 800HP, water cooled, constant speed. 3. Transmission - Hydrostatic, 1 Forward, 1 Neutral and 1 Reverse, engine forward; motor and controls in the rear, is a continuously variable transmission, allow the engine to run at a constant speed with instant torque. It features hydraulic breaking and locking on top of normal friction breaks, also has a minor regenerative capabilities. Appendix Location of drive train components and their connections: 4.Fuel - Diesel, 1000L, sponsons, 400km, was planning to add optional fuel barrels for increased range, but scrapped because of time limit. 5. Powerpack is set up as an open circuit hydraulic system, allowing it to power auxiliary equipment and other subsystems like the auto loader and suspension, or power tools. Appendix 6. Suspension- Hydropneumatic (Nitrogen), 500mm suspension travel, 500mm ground clearance. The suspension is a fully adjustable in arm suspension using a slider crank design. Each arm has a built in shock absorber and can be either electronically or manually adjusted. Each unit has an overpressure valve to limit damage to the unit during very rough travel. Each unit is a bolt on unit, making replacements easy and fast. Appendix View of the suspension: Survivability: Red: Ammunition and cannon. Blue: Composite armor. Grey: Drive line components. Green: Fuel. Brown: Crew. 1. Link to Appendix 1 - Not realized. 2. Link to Appendix 2- Not Realized, has a 1000mm deep armor cavity at 1,79m^3 at the front, with a 900mm deep armor cavity at 180mm height on each sponsons. 3. Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks- Very low profile vehicle with the ability to further reduce its profile by lowering its suspension. Very low profile while in hull down position. Has blow off panels, light panels that are screwed in place to break off when ammunition ignites. Fuel is used as side armor. Firepower: A. Weapons: 1. Link to Appendix 1- Not realized. 2. Main Weapon- a. Smoothbore cannon (510 MPa working pressure). b. 200mm caliber. c. Ammunition: Common: 200 x 900 mm brass case, estimated 50kg. HEAT: Not realized. HE: Not relied. AP: Not realized. d. Ammo stowage arrangement- 15 rounds stored in primary shell conveyor, 25 rounds stored in secondary shell conveyor. Entire system has blow off panels above it. The system is powered by the tanks hydraulic circuit. B. Optics: 1. Primary gunsight- two axis stabilized gunners sight. 2. Drivers 3 vison telescopes. Commander features 360 degree coverage form the copula with a 4x sight connected to the RCWS. C. FCS: 1. FCS- Gun is rigidly mounted to the chassis. The gunner can select a firing mode to put the vehicle into precision mode. Tracks turn to traverse the cannon, and the suspension adjusts to elevate to depress the gun. The gunners controls feeds into the suspensions control system, modifying the pressure in each individual suspension unit to accomplish the right elevation/depression. A gyroscope keeps track of the vehicles tilt and adjusts accordingly. The commanders station has duplicated controls and features a fully rotatable commanders copula with a range finder and 12,7mm remote operated HMG. The commander can measure the range and move the tank accordingly, giving a sort of hunter-killer system. 2. Link to Appendix 3- May be added in the future. Fightability: 1. Ease of service and maintenance on the suspension units. 2. Low maintenance transmission, hydraulic motors do not require a lot of maintenance. 3. Reduced brake wear because of hydraulic parking break and minor regenerative breaking. 4. Reduced engine wear from running on a stable RPM. 5. It has a 200mm cannon. 6. Has a remote controlled weapons station, allowing the commander to avoid peaking his head out when firing on infantry. Free expression zone: The Nordic Feminist Design Division felt that there was a sever lack of special needs armored fighting vehicles which strives against our glories republics values. The team set out to make the most inclusive vehicle possible. The turret was quickly removed as it was seen as offensive to the crippled, gifted people of our republic. Next was the issue with the height. The tank was too high to climb aboard for midgets little people, so a adjustable suspension was installed to allow the tank to lower itself. It was also of the highest importance that even our machines would bow to our Serene Highness. The gun was requested to be of at least 200mm caliber, which our lead engineer said was outrageous (our lead engineer has been REDACTED, and has been replaced by a more suiting, and diverse individual). Our lead engineer agreed and work began to install the gun. Our female engineers noted that the ammunition was too heavy to be loaded manually for a woman, and was deemed discriminatory, so a autoloader was developed to accommodate the superior gender. As of currently our team failed to meet the deadline and has been REDACTED. Our team has been sent on a holiday in the North to sunbath in the north. A picture of our team of engineers going to work. All Hail Serene Highness. (I will try to add the schematics tomorrow for the suspension and transmission, but it is 01:30 here, and I am taking the bus to work at 06:00. )
  22. 8 points
    Whatismoo

    Californium 2250- final submissions

    FINAL SUBMISSION: AFV-50 — T-52 (Object 138) A Product of SierraNevadaVagonzavod Chief Designer Whatismoo Aeronautical Engineering, Drafting, Armor, and Hypervelocity Threat Projectile Testing Objects (HTPTO) A. T. Mahan Advanced Technology Bureau, Ramjet Propulsion Development Hephaestus Aetnaean Digital Computing and Hypersonics, Computational Armor Optimization: CKFinite Advanced Design Bureau Flapjack OnlySlightlyCrazy Space Operations Crazy Table of basic statistics: Parameter Value Mass, combat 49 365kg (W/ERA, 47 982 W/O ERA) Length, combat (transport) 9.950m Width, combat (transport) Width, with ERA: 4.251m Width, no ERA: 4.0m Width over tracks: 3.86m Height, combat (transport) 2.41m Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal) 231.1 kPa (88.4 kPa) Estimated Speed >75kph (25-33hp/ton) Estimated range 460km on internal fuel, 720km with additional external drums Crew, number (roles) 3 (Commander, Gunner, Driver-Mechanic) Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) 125mm Smoothbore Gun 2A35 (30 Ready, 45 Total) Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) Coaxial 7.62mm PKT (2000 ready, 4000 total) Commander's KPVT (100 ready, 500 stowed) Vehicle designer’s notes: As chief designer of the 2250 Heavy Tank program at SNVZ, we had spent quite some time theorizing about ways to remedy the, frankly, superiority of the Cascadian "Norman" Medium Tank over current Californian vehicles. Our design needed to not only meet the Norman, but exceed it, by enough to ensure that no simple upgrades of the Cascadian design could undermine the qualitative advantage our design held. Where the Norman is, in many ways, a radically re-designed and improved T-55, SNVZ decided to take a similar approach with the far superior T-72. The result is a robust, light weight, technologically advanced, and astoundingly lethal vehicle which can be comfortably operated in all environments which it could expect to face, from the heat of the Mojave to the alpine chill of the Sierra Nevadas. Vehicle feature list: Mobility: 1. APPENDIX 1: https://mega.nz/#!IQhH3YJA!kXnIfS2rWaeVaA1hM8ouQwpfTQ08K4qW3jNOIY8a_Ig 2. Engine- EVDS-2230-2 V-12, 2,230 cubic inch, 1,562hp, water cooled, FADEC, electronically controlled fuel injection, and twincharged. 3. Transmission- CD-1750 crossdrive-type eight-speed manual gearbox, mounted in VPK-3B powerpack, able to handle much greater power. 4. Fuel- Type, Automotive diesel, 1,200L + 416L stowed in the hull and in auxiliary quick-detach barrels at the rear hull, 460km internal/720km with aux tanks, auxiliary tanks can be jettisoned remotely from driver or commander's position. 5. Under-armor APU (52hp, 15kW), mechanical cooling system for driver-mechanic. 6. Suspension- Torsion-bar, +325mm/-125mm travel, 490mm ground clearance, rotary-type shock absorbers on all arms, modularized easily-replacable design. Survivability: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - https://mega.nz/#!IQhH3YJA!kXnIfS2rWaeVaA1hM8ouQwpfTQ08K4qW3jNOIY8a_Ig 2. Link to Appendix 2- armor array details: https://mega.nz/#!IRhBUaDS!6a01a-Z6tpCzOeqzdGqxoo9poVTBN4RQ-nMIRHVabQU 3. [In Spoiler Box] Firepower: A. Weapons: 1. Link to Appendix 1- https://mega.nz/#!IQhH3YJA!kXnIfS2rWaeVaA1hM8ouQwpfTQ08K4qW3jNOIY8a_Ig 2. Main Weapon- 2A35 (image in spoiler tag) a. Type: Smooth Bore Tank Gun b. Caliber: 125mm L/48 c. Ammunition types and performance (short) 3BR1 APCBC-FS [Modified BR-472 projectile at 1,245m/s] 3OF1 HE-FS [950m/s] 3OF2 DEMO-FS [It’s a oversize HE round to replace the venerable 152mm assault gun in urban combat] 3BK1 Tandem-charge HEAT [55/115mm HEAT, 915m/s] 3BK2 Triplex-charge HEAT [85/115/115 HEAT, 915m/s] 3UBM3 AP-SFRJ: See Appendix 3 for details 3BM2 Hypervelocity Threat Projectile Testing Object: (750x50mm rod at 1,580m/s) 3BM3 Hypervelocity Threat Projectile Testing Object: (850x36.4mm segmented rod at 2,000m/s) d. Ammo stowage arrangement The AL-type carousel-pattern automatic loader is capable of handling cartridges of 950mm overall length (technically 975 is the physical limit, but it is believed that a 950mm cartridge overall length limit allows significant room for growth while leaving some clearance inside the autoloader). It services the gun in circa 6 seconds, providing a reliable 10-round-per-minute rate of fire. It is fed by a 30-round carousel, with the cartridges arranged vertically around the turret ring. Reloading the autoloader carousel is conducted by the crew, and most of the shells are a single-person lift. Some of the more exotic types, including but not limited to 3BR1, 3BK2, 3OF1, 3OF3, and 3UBM3 are shipped separately as two pieces, and assembled during loading into the autoloader carousel due to the high projectile weight. The vehicle is provided with two hull ammunition racks flanking the driver, which are not able to be loaded from in combat and are NOT capable of storing 3BK2, 3OF3, or 3UBM3. The autoloader separates the turret basket from the hull with a steel splinter-protective bulkhead of 5mm thickness and the driver is unable to maneuver those sorts of ammunition through the loading hatch. Total ammunition stowage for the main gun is 45 rounds, 30 in the autoloader and 15 in the hull storage racks. e. FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on. f. Neat features. -- See Above 3. Secondary weapons- Coaxial PKT: Feeding from left to right with a disintegrating link belt. Mounted in the Mk.18 mount, and provided with 4000 rounds ammunition, of which 2000 is ready. Integrated into the main gun FCS. Commander's KPVT: The commander is provided with a 14.5x114mm KPVT heavy machine gun mounted to the cupola, with a sighting and control system for use while under armor. This is provided with 100 rounds of linked ready ammunition, and a further 400 rounds stowed in the turret basket in ammunition cans, with provision made to stow extra ammunition cans to the turret roof for quick reloads. The commander’s KPV can also be used as a manually operated anti-aircraft gun. It was chosen to provide a range overmatch against Mormon forces, as the 14.5x114mm cartridge possesses nearly twice the muzzle energy of the 12.7x99mm round, and has commensurately better long range performance. The Commander’s machine gun is provided with a 1-8x variable power periscopic optical system for use under armor, and back-up iron sights. Control is through electric motors and geared drive, and the gun can be slaved to the sight. It provides light vehicle and anti-infantry capability to 3,000m. The mount is fully stabilized and is able to be used effectively while on the move, and incorporates F50 NGVII image intensifying tubes 4. Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. (Also APS system and Semiconductor production) https://mega.nz/#!EBRiRQ6Q!5wYPI0yDpF_8qGgA5KHUR1cHtbtmdFy8nxn5XOECdHc B. Optics: 1. Primary gunsight The TPD-2-49 stereoscopic rangefinding sight assembly is a fully stabilized rangefinder and gunsight with day / night capabilities. Day sighting is provided by two sights, a high field of view periscopic unity sight and a 3 to 12 power variable magnification periscopic sight with illuminated reticle. Night sighting is provided by F50 image intensifying tubes mounted in both the periscopic portion of the sight assembly and in the rangefinder. (F50 is part of the Night Vision Generation II image intensifier program discussed in Appendix 3, Part D: Electro-optical Program Night Vision Generation II.) Provision is made for the replacement or augmentation of the image intensifying system with a thermal imaging system when such a system is ready. The sight is arranged so that replacement of the stereoscopic rangefinder with a laser rangefinder system is possible. Range information from the TPD-2-49 is automatically transmitted to the 7M13 FCS and is included in the gun-follows-sight control scheme: the ballistic solution is continuously updated by the 5E1 and the gun aimed as the range is dialed in. As a result, firing can take place immediately after the correct range is found. 2. The commander’s hunter-killer cupola with TDD-3 optical complex is provided with a 1-8x variable power periscopic optical system for use under armor. Control is through electric motors and geared drive, and the 125mm gun can be slaved to the sight (commander's override). In combination with the 14.5mm KPVT machine gun, TDD-3 provides light vehicle and anti-infantry capability to 3,000m, as well as hunter-killer and slew-to-cue capabilities. The mount is fully stabilized and is able to be used effectively while on the move, and incorporates F50 NGVII image intensifying tubes for night operations. C. FCS: 1. List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture. TPD-2-49 244cm coincidence rangefinder-sight (GCRS) complex TDD-3 Commander’s Independent Rangefinder-Sight (CIRS) complex 7M13 Electronic Fire Control System 5E1 Turret/Weapon Management Computer (TWMC) 2. Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system. https://mega.nz/#!EBRiRQ6Q!5wYPI0yDpF_8qGgA5KHUR1cHtbtmdFy8nxn5XOECdHc Fightability: 1. List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability. Low Crew Requirements Turret armor defeats >BGM-1 60/160 CE and ≥500mm KE to 161.5° of turret traverse High Degree of Automation Improved battlefield accuracy and see-shoot time through digital FCS Autoloader allows true Fire / Load on the move capability Excellent night-fighting capacity through the provision of Gen-III Equivalent I2 tubes, both in the vehicle and for personnel. Digital systems improve maintenance and wear tracking, allow better supply chain management Power-Pack enables fast maintenance Turret modular armor package design eases growth / upgrades and battle damage repair Semiconductor advances allow rapid development of advanced computing systems Guided KE ramjet round lethal at extended ranges, quite accurate, short flight time Light weight eases infrastructure wear from training maneuvers, increases strategic/operational mobility Small silhouette - Turret exposes same frontal area turned up to 40 degrees off centerline Advanced armor suite and crew Force-Multiplication measures (hard-shell crew helmet, dual-tube night vision devices) Advanced digital radio encryption for safe battlefield communications Text-Messaging through the radio system extends communication range where voice TX is unintelligible Additional Features: Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories. Crew Comfort Upgradeability Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long. SNVZ design and pre-production staff, including comrade-academicians, comrade-engineers, and comrade-military-technical-advisors. Photo by Comrade Political-Moral Officer Lt. Col Allin Smythee-Redacted, PAFDPMR
  23. 8 points
    Stimpy75

    Turkish touch

  24. 8 points
    Whatismoo

    Competition: Californium 2250

    Comrades! The time of your waiting is over! I introduce to you the Sierra Nevada VagonZavod AFV-50 Gun Tank Frontal Dimensions Frontal Armor Turret Cheek Armor Array (not to scale) Top/Side Vital Statistics(as pictured): Weight : 52.6 Metric Tons Crew: 3 (Commander, Gunner, Driver) Length (hull/OAL gun forward): 6.9m/9.3m Width: 3.9m Height: 2.4m Engine: Twin Turbocharged+Supercharged V-12 Diesel (880kw/1180hp) 16.73kw/tonne / 22.4hp/tonne >70 kph on road Armament: 125mm L/48 auto-loaded smoothbore, 30 rounds ready 1x PKT 7.62x54mm Coaxial MG, 3000 rounds 1x KPVT 14.5x114mm AAMG, 500 rounds in 50 round belts
  25. 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
  26. 7 points
    Ikv 91 appreciation post. Vehicles and crew here are participating in training exercises, 1978. Photos from the Swedish Arsenalen museum archive. Link to a few more. The infantry rider photo is separate from the others in both setting and photo collection
  27. 7 points
    David Moyes

    Britons are in trouble

    Marder-like early experimental Warrior with Chobham. 750hp engine. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/british-chobham-armour-micv.13467/
  28. 7 points
  29. 7 points
  30. 7 points
    Drozd APS on T-55AD, scans of manual. Source. Drozd system detection zone (D0), tracking zone (Ds) and interception zone(Dp). D0 - 130 m, Ds - 40m and Dp - 6.6m. Each 20 degress sector is covered by 2 APS rockets, so 2 projectiles can be intercepted in that zone. Whole sector that APS is covering is 80 degrees in front of the turret.
  31. 7 points
    On this day, 15 years ago. Leonid Rashal (very well known doctor) in Beslan, Sept 1st/2nd. Ruslan Aushev walking to school Gym - in the middle, workshops - on the left, Acting hall - left, near corner of building, library - right side. FSB unit "White coal" from Essentuki NSFW After operation. Soldiers that died during those events: 1. Dmitry Razumovsky ("Major") - lieutenant colonel, head of the Directorate "V" of the TsSN of the FSB of Russia. He was awarded the star of the Hero of the Russian Federation (posthumously). During assault killed 2 terrorists that were shooting at fleeing hostages. Was killed during room-to-room combat inside of the school. 2. Alexander Perov (“Pooh”) - Major, Head of the Task Force of the 1st Division of the Directorate “A” of the TsN FSB of Russia. When the brutal battle suddenly began on September 3, 2004, Alexander Perov, acting decisively and courageously, personally destroyed one of the four bandits who fired at the hostage children. During combat inside of the school, Major Perov was covering special forces group, but suddenly a terrorist appeared from the opposite side and opened fire in the back of the officers. He destroyed terrorist, but he himself was mortally wounded. He was awarded the star of the Hero of the Russian Federation (posthumously). 3. Oleg Ilyin (“Skala”/ "Rock") - lieutenant colonel, head of 4th fireteam of 3rd department of the Directorate “V” of the TsSN FSB of Russia. Initially acting in the schoolyard, Oleg Ilyin with his subordinates diverted the fire of terrorists who shot at the escaping hostages. In this battle he was wounded, but remained in action. Then he burst into the school building, where he discovered another group of terrorists ready to break out of school. In a fierce battle with point-blank fire, he destroyed two militants. Distracting the attention of the bandits on himself, he saved the life of the soldiers following him and ensured by his actions the complete destruction of this group of terrorists. In this battle, Colonel Ilyin was killed. He was awarded the star of the Hero of the Russian Federation (posthumously). 4. Andrey Turkin ("Cherkess") - lieutenant, operative of the 2nd department of the Directorate "V" of the TsSN FSB of Russia. Andrei Turkin, as part of his unit, burst into the school building under fire of militants. He was injured, but did not leave the battle. Covering the hostage rescue with fire, he personally destroyed one terrorist. When one of the terrorists, hiding in the pantry, threw a grenade at the hostages, the officer rushed and covered grenade with his body. He was awarded the star of the Hero of the Russian Federation (posthumously). 5. Mikhail Kuznetsov ("Domovoy") - FSB major. During the special operation, he evacuated more than 20 wounded hostages, mainly children. Covering his group, Mikhail joined the battle with two terrorists and, having destroyed them, died. Order of Merit for the Fatherland, 4th class, with swords (posthumous). 6. Vyacheslav Malyarov (“Malyar”/"Painter") major, senior detective of Department 1 of Directorate “A” of the CTsSN FSB. During combat inside the building, he blocked the direction of the fire, which was carried out by four bandits in direction of room with the hostages. Having been mortally wounded, Vyacheslav continued to fight, wounded two terrorists and forced them to retreat. Cavalier of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" IV degree with swords (posthumous). 7. Andrey Velko - Major, employee of the Directorate “V” of the TsSN FSB of the Russian Federation. As part of the assault group, he entered the school building. Destroyed one of the Basayevites and ensured the actions of the group. Then he came into fire contact with another terrorist and destroyed him. The officer received multiple fatal injuries, covering hostages. Posthumously awarded the Order of Merit to the Fatherland, IV degree. 8. Roman Katasonov - major, senior operative of the 4th department of the Directorate “V” of the TsSN FSB of Russia. Major Roman Katasonov during the assault penetrated the building and destroyed two terrorists. In one of the rooms he found two hidden children. Rescuing them and covering up the assault group's employees, Roman was fighting with a terrorist's machine gun crew and was mortally wounded. Cavalier of the Order of Merit to the Fatherland, IV degree, with swords (posthumous). 9. Denis Pudovkin (“Gusar”) - ensign, senior instructor of the 3rd department of the Directorate “V” of the TsSN FSB of Russia. He destroyed one of the bandits who was shooting at the children. He carried wounded schoolchildren under fire. Having received a shrapnel wound, he continued to save people. Cavalier of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" IV degree (posthumous) 10. Oleg Loskov - ensign, senior instructor of the 1st department of the Directorate “A” of the TsSN FSB. As part of an assault group, he encountered four bandits trying to escape from the school building under the cover of fleeing hostages. He wounded one of the terrorists and, obscuring the hostages, blocked the bandits from escaping. Having been mortally wounded, Oleg continued to support the actions of the assault group with fire. He was awarded the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" IV degree (posthumous). In Beslan
  32. 7 points
    That article mentions the COV. I've encountered one of those in the wild before, but never knew what it was called. Magical, absolutely magical. Knowing the name allowed me to find this: Also here are some pics of the one I spotted in the wild:
  33. 7 points
  34. 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.
  35. 7 points
    The M109A7 with the ERCA and Auto-loader is to be designated XM1299: https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2019/armament/Musgrave.pdf
  36. 7 points
    Wiedzmin

    The Leopard 2 Thread

    1974 requirements -105mm KE -120mm KE -120mm HEAT 120mm HEAT penetration, and there is a first problem did they tested Leopard-2 with real shots and built in stand-off or they used static tests with Optimum stand-off, because protection could be 480-500(btw my bad, not Meppen test, some RARDE reports), or up to 700 1977-78 requirements did they dropeed idea of protection from 120mm KE, or just not mentioned it in report, also Milan, penetration of Milan at built in stand-off 530-560mm mean crater profiles, it's not pen, but depth of jet inside target, pen little bit less, so again, did they have protection from Milan in 1974 or they updated in only after 74(76 maybe? or even 77-78) did they fired it on tank, or used static with optimum stand off ? 1987 requirements(one of british reports claim that germans will start placing D-tech packages in 1987-88) -120mm DM23 - HOT and once again HOT mean crater profiles, so if they tested Leo2 in 1974 and 77 with optimum stand-off(710mm pen) then 1987 "improvement" look silly in terms of CE protection (710mm 1974-1978 up to 750-780 in 1987), but if they have only 480-550 in 1974-1978, there is a great increase in CE protection level, or they were "ok" with CE level, but want improvement in KE + some little "update" for CE. as for "abandoned bulging armour" i think they just mixed it with ceramic to get protection against CE, if they ever really used ceramics inside Leo2, because germans still can't produce good enough ceramic plates(Al2O3 plates IRRC) for body armour, and i'm seriously doubt that they can produce good quality ceramic for use in tank CE protection, it's expensive, it's not durable, and you need to have some very good quality check for it, or they just used some chip "dirt" like in T-64 turret, it doesn't need to be "super high tech" if it's work. british claims that this report also contain about "Leo-2 protects only vs old steel soviet APFSDS" is BS, this is clearly seen in the 1974 report, germans have WHA long rods requirements from the start, and this requirements was stronger than US 105mm APFSDS, and i think more or less similar to british requirements for CR1 with XL23(IIRC, yes it's monoblock APFSDS, but shitty alloy and round), as for "low numbers" or "lol it's level of T-64" without knowing real estimation procedures you can't compare "300 vs APFSDS german" vs "300mm vs APDS/APFSDS soviet", again, for example we have T-72M1 with 16mm addon, which gives 405mm vs M111 APFSDS, does it mean that T-72M1 have better armour than Leopard-2 or... for understand what is real level of protection you need to test all tanks with similar rounds in similar conditions firing trials of 2AV and full armour scheme i will upload later...
  37. 7 points
    Beer

    Czechoslovak interwar bits

    Few photos (from my phone so pardon for the quality). I will add some more later. Artilery casemate R-S-79 of Hanička fortress (north-east Czechia). It shall have been armed with three 100 mm rapid firing howitzers which were never installed (plus several MGs and granade tubes). This type of objects was the largest in the whole fortification system. It is made of 5600 tons of reinforced concrete and the walls and roof are up to 3,5 meters thick (same for all object of artilery fortresses). By the late 1938 neiter Wehrmacht nor Luftwaffe had any weapon capable of guaranteed penetration. You can see damage caused by German tests. They achieved some penetrations only when firing salvos point blank from the rearward side. Hanička fortres was used for development of special Röchling bunker-penetrating shells and hand-held cumulative bombs. I am not able to recognize damage potentially caused by them. For sure one Röchling shell is displayed (badly corroded) in the fortress. Infantry casemate R-S-78 of fortress Hanička. It was one of the object used to defend the main artilery object. Its main armament was a cupola armed with heavy twin MG (plus several other MGs and grenade tubes). Unfortunately what You see is only an observation cupola (light MG could have been fired from it) not the heavy MG one. As You can see all weapons were installed behind a deep moat with grenade tubes and covered by a thick roof from the top. Generally the heavy Czechoslovak fortresses were similar to the French ones but as I don't know those very well I can't tell you how exactly they differed. In the war the object would have a camouflage coloring and net. Stand-alone infantry casemate R-S-87 covering a road over a mountain ridge. It's main armament is a 90 mm mortar installed in the moat. Also 47 mm anti-tank gun and two twin heavy MGs and several light MGs. Its walls are up to 1,75 meters thick and it's therefore one of the less resistant heavy objects however it is placed in difficult terrain. The bunker is private and the chimney is of course not original. Here would be the mortar. Twin heavy MG and a light MG on the left side of it. The firing posts are not original as those were removed probably for Atlantic Wall. Famous hedgehog and behind it you can see the anti-tank gun in a spherical armoured post. 47 mm AT gun. Stand-alone heavy infantry casemate R-S-81 after German tests (with armored firing posts taken to Atlantic Wall I believe). This object was built in the same resistance class as the one upon. Since it is one of the lightests heavy objetcs the results of the artilery tests on the normally inaccessible walls are not very impressive. An exampe of anti-infantry obstacles with a light object vz.37 in the background (this time from the southern border with Austria). Where armor attack was expcected the obstacles were made of mixture of concrete moats and steel or older concrete hedgehogs. The firing lines were of course free of trees which was advantage and disadvantage in the same time. Large majority of Czech border areas is hills, mountains and forests. That made it much more difficult for attackers but on the other hand the free of trees firing lines were clearly visible from the air. This is how the pillbox looks from the side of the enemy. Even these light pillboxes had walls up to 80 cm (120 cm for less common but still widely used reinforced variant). Together with stones and earth on the front side they are claimed to be capable to withstand 88 mm Flak fire (per German tests) or 105 mm howitzer hits (150 mm for the reinforced variant). The crew of max. seven men (depending on the type) had light MGs, grenade tubes and personal weapons. Detail of the firing post for the vz.26 light MG (sometimes also old heavy MG vz.24 was used I think - the MG vz.24 was rechambered Schwarzlose for 8 mm Mauser ammo). You can see how the firing post is covered by the shielding wall from the fire coming from the enemy. These pillboxes covered basically all enemy borders (except extremely difficult terrain where only field fortifications weere used) and usually in several lines. Nearly 10000 of them were finished. Unlike in France there was nowhere to pass around. At the end of the war there was a skirmish between Wehrmacht and US army where German soldiers tried to use these pillboxes. They could however use them basically only as a shelter because at that time the fans were removed and when someone fired from inside the pillbox was immediately full of exhaust gasses. Pillbox vz.37 from the rear (friendly) side. The biggest problem of these bunkers was absence of any anti-tank weapons but by the time of Münich no fielded German tank had more than 14,5 armour and even the MGs could be dangerous for them since the gaps between the bunkers were usually short. Of course AT guns could and would be used in field positions to support the lines of bunkers. Another issue was with the ammo. It was simply not possible to store much ammo inside therefore the bunkers needed ammo supplies (unlike large fortresses with underground warehouses and even own water wells). Part of the pillboxes on the iron curtain were in use by the army till 1990' and are therefore in good condition. They have however often different firing posts (for UK vz.59) and often more stone and earth cover (officially to prevent overturning them by nuclear explosion). Normally the pillbox has some 2 meters of concrete undeground.
  38. 7 points
    LoooSeR

    Tanks guns and ammunition.

    Was posted on otvaga - diploma work on ramjet APFSDS design (in russian). PDF
  39. 7 points
    N-L-M

    Israeli AFVs

    Consider the geometry of actual armor without ignoring the LFP. In addition, the mass of the ammo is almost insignificant (25 kg per round and 40 or so rounds in the hull is 1 ton, vs 2 tons each for the engine and transmission plus fluids). That's not how tracked vehicles work, at all. You keep throwing this around without sourcing it. While I get that the Merk 4 is better protected than the previous ones, I'm interested in hearing what the actual professionals have to say. Also, the Namer shows that when sufficiently motivated even the Izzys can adequately place armor around an AVDS if we ignore the LFP as usual. The Mark 2D seems to show that the guys in charge disagree about the driver's visibility and armor on that side. On the engine side, continuing the hull line at the hump forwards to the beak instead of having it drop would make room for an armor module in front of the engine. That area is not in the FOV of the driver's central periscope nor in the FOV of the right one, which looks out over the engine deck. Please don't throw around things like this, they betray just how little you actually know. Let's compare the AVDS-1790-5A as found in the Merk 1 to the MTU 883 in the Merk 4, shall we? First, the AVDS: And then the MTU: Notice something? The AVDS is nominally approximately 4" longer. But that includes the turbo arrangement, which isn't included in the MTU engine dimensions. Once you include the turbo, the MTU 883 is longer. But wait, you say, the powerpack isn't only the engine! The Merks have used CD-850 Allsions and RK-304 and RK-325 Renk transmissions! So let's take a look at those now. First, the CD-850: Note that the depth of the transmission, 29", is approximately 730mm. next, the RK-304: and finally, the RK-325: https://www.renk-ag.com/en/products-and-service/products/vehicle-transmissions/rk-325/ Dimensions: 1,910 x 830 x 960mm that's L*W*H. So, in fact, the RK-325 as found on the Merk 4 is longer than the transmissions in any previous Merk model, as is the MTU engine. So yeah, the "significant reduction in length of the powerpack unit" is a simple sign that you don't actually know what you're talking about, care to guess again? You should know the drill by now. Source this claim. You're zigzagging from "theres no problem with armoring the front along with the engine, slight weight bias forwards is a good thing" to "need to restore balance by uneven wheel spacing". Also that's not the only reason for having wheels spaced unevenly, care to guess what the other ones are? Again you're not bringing your A-game, step it up. 2 has a new powertrain with the Renk RK304 transmission, which necessitated changing the entire engine deck area, exhaust routed into the coolant air exhaust manifold, as well as turret changes like the mortar and special armor slapped on. The drivetrain of the 2 is closer to that of the 3 than it is to the 1. Well you'd also expect them to realize that ammo separation is the objectively correct way to go, but I suppose you can't get everything. Also how exactly would you expect them to realize that the alternative is better when they don't have any experience with rear engine tanks newer than the M60A3, anyway? Reminder that the Merk 3 has a roof sight. There's a difference between making something work and it being a good idea which gives you what you actually want. Red is not russian, even if you can't tell Eastern European accents apart. What did the big bad Russians do to you anyway? You're dragging the forum discourse level and SNR waaay the fuck down with your shitposting, cease. Hybrids bring their own host of problems, not least requiring more volume and weight than equivalent mechanical transmissions. Also, why would you go to all the trouble of putting the drive sprockets in the front, if you decouple them from the engine? it's objectively a worse location for them. This bit we've been over before, and I'm just qouting it again to rub your face in how wrong it is and how you never bothered to perform 10 minutes of googling because you lack any self-critical thinking ability. You're gonna have to source this too, this claim in particular is interesting, as on the Merk the air filters were never in the way of the UFP in the first place! Aaaand you're confirmed for never having viewed anything through a camera resting above a hot surface. That's not only an incredibly asinine statement, considering how the IDF hasn't designed any rear-engine MBTs, but it's nevertheless still wrong: In short, @Mighty_Zuk, you have a lot of unsubstantiated claims to back up, Referte Avt Morimini. You've also said a lot of bullshit that betrays a basic and fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter. Git larned, and kindly match the confidence displayed in your posts to your actual level of knowledge in the subject matter, and not to what you'd like others to believe it is. You are invited to step up your game and keep the baseless speculation and denial to other forums like AW, and refrain from overly nationalistic fanboyism. Also, if you don't know something, even in a field which is close to your heart, just admit it. there's no shame in not knowing shit, but there's quite a lot in pretending to know stuff you don't and being flat out wrong. Kindly raise the standard of your posting, we really don't want this place devolving into AW or worse, DFI. Which is unfortunately the current posting standard you are representing. Sure, if you like your tanks immobile.
  40. 6 points
    Serge

    French flair

    140mm barrel test.
  41. 6 points
    Few more shots. I have some new shots to put up. It's a little funny to think a pair of Officers, who are now in their 70s look young. More young men who are now in their 70s! I found this great site that has all kinds of info on US Navy ships and has the Cruise book for the America World Cruise, a long with others for ships dating back to pre-WWII in some cases. https://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv66-68/000.htm Sadly, my dad must have somehow missed making it into the VF-33 personnel roster in the book. It's ok Lt Wiest above didn't make the cruise book either. I've spent hours reading through various cruise books, in particular the WWII carrier and battleship ones. I find this image really fascinating, I've always wondered how they kept track of the birds, and now I know. I bet its all in a computer now. Back to aircraft. A nice VA-85 Intruder. I'm curious what the weird looking spike looking things on the Island are. Some kind of sensor or ECM device maybe? I think this one is from the world cruise, but you can't see any markings that tell us what ship for sure. It's also weird, some slides are dated, others not. Maybe they were in batches at one point but nearly 50 years bouncing around in boxes has mixed them all up. This one is from the world cruise. A pair of shots of a VA-64 A-4 about to be started, I think that's what the red hose is for. One thing I noticed, the planes are much cleaner in all the slides than I thought they would be. These are from east coast workups in 69. And old Vigilante about to get a cat shot. I read somewhere these planes were all G limited and really old by this point. Wish I could remember the book. A nice shot of a Phantom cat shot. These images all seem like they got taken on the same day, maybe within minutes of each other. Maybe from up on the Island? Skywarrior going for a flight. The Samuel N. Moore, DD-747 a Sumner class destroyer commissioned June of 44, and only had about a year of service with the US Navy left. I'm pretty sure this is from an UNREP on the world cruise, because DD-747 was struck on 24 October of 69 and given to the Taiwan Navy on 10 December 69. She served with them until 1995.
  42. 6 points
    David Moyes

    General AFV Thread

    Spain voids production contract for Piranha V: https://www.ejercitos.org/2019/12/23/defensa-declara-desierto-el-contrato-del-vcr-8x8/ https://www.ejercitos.org/2019/12/24/vcr-8x8-requiem-por-un-sueno/ Proposal found unsatisfactory on all fronts: Non-compliance with technical requirements Failure to comply with the deadlines Lack of integration of industrial components required for hull or the turrets under study Lack of financial guarantees for possible cost overruns in respect of the amount approved as the program's expenditure ceiling "From the aforementioned DIGAM report it seems that the contract will be submitted to public tender" Article mentions that Iveco Freccia could be considered the favourite. VBCI and Boxer other contenders.
  43. 6 points
    Roshindow

    General AFV Thread

    Some of the indended updates to the Ariete, not all though, there are 7 slides that "leaked" -unchanged performance -replacement of Halon 1301 with FM200 -removal of ITAR/EAR/Dual use components -solving of obsolescence problems [duh] -maximum logistical compatibility with the new armored car Centauro II -all components are made in Italy with MIL-STD-1275D, MIL-STD-461F qualifications -programmable digital electronics -obscurable light warnings [I think?] -battery power with timer to preserve battery charge The general gist of it is modified engine with common rail tech to bring it up to 1600hp, new transmission, suspension and brakes to go with it (apparently even now the brakes could break "easily"), new optics for the commander, gunner and driver, replacement of the hydro system for the turret trasverse with an electric system, some other various systems.
  44. 6 points
    Some shots and footage of the Americans in Wartime Museum's EFV automotive test rig:
  45. 6 points
    article from IDR 1984-07 separately photograped pics
  46. 6 points
    from https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6567119520996048896/ - 4 photos of slides from recent presentation on NGCV's RCVs and another one from https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6567111444783996928/
  47. 6 points
    LoooSeR

    GLORIOUS T-14 ARMATA PICTURES.

    Possible layout of T-14 frontal armor http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=2159&p=2#p1244215
  48. 6 points
    article on AUSA 1980 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1981-01 article on AUSA 1981 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1982-01 article on AUSA 1981 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1982-02 article (in german) on AUSA 1981 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1982-01 article on AUSA 1982 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1982-12 from that article on AUSA'82 - Ares concept turret w/75mm on nonexistent 6x6 wheeled chassis, which reminds me of ACVT and MPWS concepts - like one from cover of Armor magazine's January-February 1980 issue (although this one was with "gun pod" turret) (same drawings also available in Wheled versus tracked vehicles study final report, March 1985 on page 235 aka 3-73)
  49. 6 points
    2S18 Pat-S, an experimental precursor to the 2S31. Armament was a SA61 152mm howitzer.
  50. 6 points
    BkktMkkt

    Tanks guns and ammunition.

    Some my models
×
×
  • Create New...