Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Bronezhilet

Forum Nobility
  • Content count

    3,043
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by Bronezhilet

  1. General news thread

    Since I don't think we have a general news thread, I decided to make one. Dump all news in here that doesn't fit other threads. Soooooo... an EgyptAir Airbus A320 just got hijacked. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35915139
  2. Bash the F-35 thred.

    Too bad the people behind the CAB show are complete retards.
  3. So we have a bunch of people running around who speak very different languages, and yet nobody is talking about it. Hmm. To me, it's very interesting to hear experiences of somebody who does not speak two or more languages. I've been bilingual since I was 4 years old and I started learning my third language when I was 9. So I, more or less, do not have memories of speaking only one language, especially since I had an acceptable level of English when the internet really became a thing for me. As of today I claim to be fluent in three languages: Low Saxon (my native language), Dutch and English. I have a basic understanding of German, enough to read a few of Spielberger's books about tanks in German. I can read and understand South African, but not speak it. Lastly, I can generally understand the gist of texts written in Danish, Swedish or Norwegian, but I haven't bothered really learning any of those. The language I'm really trying to learn is... *drumroll* Russian. I don't know why, but I just love the sound of it. I'm still nowhere near a basic level, I'm still trying to become fluent in reading Cyrillic. So I guess I do know what it's like to be able to speak only one language. So for the Russians on here, after I can properly read Cyrillic, what should be my next step? Reading and trying to understand news articles maybe? Or should I go a different route and listen to Russian radio stations? As for people who only speak English, have you ever felt you were missing out because you didn't speak a certain language? Ever thought about learning another language? If yes, why? I've been looking at Japanese as well, but you know, weeaboos and shit. So in the end I didn't bother. To add something myself, here are a few of my things on a few languages I speak: (Dutch) Low Saxon Some call it a dialect, some call it a language. Opinions differ, but it's generally considered a (regional) language. It's not a single language per se, but more or less made of various dialects which are all quite similar, but different as well. Saying you speak Low Saxon is like saying you speak Germanic. Which you can't because Germanic consists of various different language groups. Because you know English doesn't mean you know German. It's different with Low Saxon. I speak a Low Saxon dialect, which means I can understand all the various dialects, as well as a lot from our granddaddy language group Low German. I might not understand all the individual words, but I do know exactly what he's saying. I once tried it with a German who spoke a German dialect as well. He spoke his dialect, I spoke mine. We were able to understand each other perfectly. Which is freaking amazing. Why? Because he spoke a Low German dialect, and Low Saxon is part of Low German: (So I guess you know what part of the Netherlands I live in.) Say I met an old lady from Berlin and we'd start talking to each other in our dialects, we'd be able to understand each other perfectly. I don't think English has the same thing. Maybe compare it to an American trying to understand freaking Welsh. As for the language itself, I'm amazed that it cannot be written. Sounds strange, but it just doesn't have any rules at all. Which, in linguistics, means you can't write it. And yet it has survived for quite some time. But sadly, its time has come and less and less people are fluent. It's dying, and quite rapidly at that. Also, it does not have a female word-form. "Officially" there is no difference what-so-ever between "his bike" and "her bike". Or "he went to the shop" and "she went to the shop". I can already hear the feminazi's partying because "finally proper equality between men and women", but alas, we don't say "her bike" or "she went to the sop", we just say "his bike" and "he went to the shop". Rekt. If you want to get a lot of words across really quickly, learn this. It's very suited for talking fast, and most speakers do. Dutch It's a mess. Don't learn it unless you have a reason to do so. - Its grammar rules are disgustingly irritating. Writing it can be a disaster. And guess what, it doesn't matter for pronunciation! Don't you love grammar rules like that? "Oh, I wonder, does this word end in a 'd', a 't' or 'dt'?" Guess what sucker, it doesn't matter! Except if you're a language purist, then fuck you. Of course, if you screw it up you'll get punished and people will point and laugh. - Sentence structure is different from Dutch Low Saxon, so automatically it's inferiour. It also different from English, which is also inferiour. - Dutch is totally and absolutely unfit for shouting. Shouting Dutchies are the silly. The language and pronunciation of words just doesn't suit it. English If Dutch is a mess, English is a trainwreck. Seriously, I only speak it because it's the main language of the world. If French had the same status, I would be speaking French, but I don't. And I quite dislike French. Your grammar rules are disgusting, so is the pronunciation, whoever came up with all the fucking rules must love torturing people. Who the fuck came up with the fucking silent-E? Seriously, fuck him. It's like Dutch, but waaaay worse. If I could advise against learning English, I would. Also, fuck English for invading other languages even though half of English is fucking French. It's slowly strangling other languages, which infuriates me. Seeing a language die first-hand isn't funny if you're any type of linguist.
  4. Tanks guns and ammunition.

    This is what Colli means by "rocket-assisted, gun fired projectile" by the way:
  5. General Mechanised Equipment

    Since I didn't want to put non-fighting vehicles in the General AFV thread, here's a topic dedicated for non-fighting mechanised equipement. And to kick it off, a Centurion Bridgelayer:
  6. Since not all AA is mechanised, I put it in the Aerospace section. If it belongs somewhere else, please move. Patriot system: National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System 2 (NASAMS 2): Fennek Stinger:
  7. The Crossout thread.

    What was that about grenade launchers?
  8. I got really mad when I found out about this concept a few months ago, because I had the exact same idea. But of course someone else had the same idea as me, but earlier. I've done a bunch of simulations on it and it actually works really well.
  9. *cracks fingers* Something that has interested me for a while, are shape stabilised projectiles. As in, projectiles that are stable due to their shape. Everybody has heard of rotation stabilised and fin stabilised projectiles, but shape stabilised is kind of different. I guess most of you here have seen shape stabilised projectiles without actually knowing how and why they work. Geek sidenote: Fin stabilised projectiles are actually fin and rotation stabilised. As I said, shape stabilised projectile have a stable flight path due to their unique shape. Figure 1: A 84mm Carl Gustav shape stabilised HEAT-round Note the slightly ogive front and the stand-off, which are characteristic of shape stabilised projectiles (SSP). Both features are absolutely crucial for the SSP to work. I'm going to throw you guys into the deep end by showing a .gif of the airflow in front of an SSP. Here's a link because I can't embed .gifv apparently The first thing you should notice is the air circulating in some-sort of pocket, and that this airflow is subsonic. Before I continue, here's the airflow in front of a blunt projectile: Clicketyclick While that projectile has a subsonic airflow in front of it as well, it is not circulating. Here's the airspeed of both projectiles as a normal picture: Figure 2: Airspeed in front of an SSP Figure 3: Airspeed in front of a blunt projectile It's clear that an SSP has a ogive-shaped subsonic airpocket in front of the projectile. This basically emulates the ogive of a normal rotation stabilised projectile. In other words, it makes it more aerodynamic. But does that airpocket stabilise the projectile? No it does not. So why is this projectile stabilised? The key is in what happens when it starts to tumble. Right now, there is nothing stopping the projectile from tumbling, and that's the interesting thing. There is literally nothing stopping the projectile from tumbling, except... the projectile itself. Lets take a look at what happens when an SSP starts to tumble. (If I remember correctly, I rotated the projectile 10 degrees) First off, the airflow in front of the projectile. It's fairly obvious that the airflow has changed. Lets check that again, but this time as a picture. Figure 4: Airflow in front of a tumbling SSP Again, it's obvious that the airflow has changed. The subsonic pocket has mainly shifted to one side and the air itself isn't really circulating in the pocket. This change causes a huge change in the Cd of the projectile. Let me show you why. Figure 5: Pressure in front of a tumbling SSP Next, the pressure in front of an SSP flying straight. Figure 6: Pressure in front of an SSP flying straight Please note the approximate pressure in front of both projectiles. The tumbling projectile has, on one side, twice the pressure as the projectile that's flying straight. Very interesting. What's even more interesting is that the pressure occurs on the opposite of the side it's turning to! The projectile is turning upwards, but the pressure builds up at the bottom. This pressure forces the projectile to start turning down again, forcing the projectile in a state where the pressure on all sides is equal. Voila, a shape stabilised projectile. But... why does it work? The subsonic airpocket is created by the stand-off and that little flange, or whatever you want to call it. The dimensions and placement of both are equally important. The stand-off and its side create the airpocket and the flange give the airpocket the required shape. The stand-off size can vary, but the flange size and placement is very important. If the flange is too far forward or too far back, the airpocket will be either too small or too big. Why does the size of the pocket matter? Because of this: Figure 7: Subsonic pocket in front of an SSP I changed the parameters slightly and made all airflow above Mach 1 red. Whatever is not red, is trans- or subsonic. The interesting thing to note here, is the pocket extends to the edge of the projectile (if I made the projectile better it should be exactly on the edge). (Sidenote: Here's the same picture of an SSP at a 10° angle) While the airpocket does not start at the flange, the flange determines where the pocket starts. If, at this velocity, the flange was further back, there would be supersonic flow hitting the front of the projectile, massively increasing drag. If the flange was further forward, the airpocket would be further forward too. This would mean the airpocket would not end at the edge of the projectile, but further out. Creating an airpocket which is wider than the projectile. This would allow the projectile to tumble a bit, because pressures wouldn't change much unless there is supersonic flow hitting the projectile. It is also possible to change the size of the airpocket by changing the front of the projectile itself. If the radius connecting the front and the stand-off is too big, the airflow inside the pocket would disrupt the circulation. The same would happen if the radius is too small. The angle of the front is important as well, but I haven't expermented that much with it so I don't know how important it exactly is, but it has an effect on the airflow. By the way, if the flange did not exist at all, the airpocket would start at around a third to half of the stand-off. Which would completely ruin the airpocket. Without a flange, the stand-off itself would have to be way bigger and longer to create the same kind of airpocket. But Bronezhilet, I hear you cry, if the airspeed changes, the pocket changes as well! I'm glad you brought that up, because you are right. A shape stabilised projectile only works properly within a certain flight envelope. If the projectile is moving too fast, the airpocket would compress allowing supersonic flow to hit the front of the projectile. Which in turns increases drag. By a lot. If the projectile is moving too slow the airpocket widens, allowing the projectile to tumble a bit before it would stabilise. I've been brainstorming with Colli a bit, and we've come to the conclusion that is why some projectiles are both shape stabilised and fin stabilised. When the projectile is moving too slow for shape stabilisation, the fins would keep it pointing in the right direction. And that concludes today's lesson. Thank you for reading.
  10. The Leopard 2 Thread

    Welcome to SH!
  11. The Crossout thread.

    With the new update the Duster cab goes for over 100 coins. ...I bought 26 when they were ~50 gold a piece.
  12. DRDO; India's Porsche

    I know we already have a topic on the Arjun, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have another thread about how DRDO can't make anything. I mean, the Arjun program started in 1974 (according to Wikipedia) and the thing got produced 30 years later, in 2004. Should we take a look at the list of tanks that got developed at around the same time period? T-72 T-80 Type 88 Type 96 Type 74 OF-40 Merkava 1 Merkava 2 Merkava 3 Leopard 2 M1 Abrams Challenger 1 M-84 K-1 Type 90 Leclerc T-90 PT-91 Zulfiqar C1 Ariete Challenger 2 TR-85 T-84 ...and many more A keen I will have noticed that these are both second and third generation tanks, which is right, because the development of the Arjun took place during two generations of tanks. Of note is that the Israelis managed to make three Merkava variants in the time DRDO took to develop the Arjun. And if that wasn't enough, he Challenger 1 was developed, build, accepted for service, and taken out of service by the Brits in less time than it took DRDO to deliver the first batch of Arjuns. What the fuck. Alright alright I'll stop the bashing! So lets take a look at the armour of the Arjun: Okay now that we've taken a look at the armour of the Arjun, we can take a look at something of which the Indians pretend is armour. First, the turret 'armour': The first good thing to note about the turret armour is that the left front is decent. The second good thing about the turret armour is that it's so bad I can spend a whole post on burning it down. The mantlet looks thick in this model, but it looks like it's not modeled right since it seems to be fused with the frontal armour itself. This is what the actual armour in the gun mantlet looks like: It's fairly thin, like in the Leclerc, but even worse is that it does not cover the whole gap in the turret. Seriously DRDO, what the fuck? Of course there are pictures of a fully assembled model, but it seems that the completed mantlet is no more than a sheet metal box around the structure shown in the above photo. I mean, look at this: You can see the weld lines and shit on top of the 'mantlet', there is no reason to believe this is a solid steel block. These pictures bring me nicely to the next two points: 1. The turret side basically lacks any and all side armour 2. The gunner sight barely has any armour The green blocks on the turret side in the first picture are actually storage boxes, not armour. The majority of the side is only a few cm thick steel plate. Lets just compare this to the Leopard 2A4 for a second: (Thanks to @Militarysta for making this picture) You can see that the turret side protection extends way, way further back on the Leopard 2A4 than it does on the Arjun. The Arjun only has to rotate the turret slightly to be completely vulnerable to even low caliber autocannons. And as you can imagine, that's not good. You can also see that the armour block behind the gunner sight is around 660 mm LOS, the same spot in the Arjun is estimated to be around 300 mm thick. Don't worry about the lower part of the gun sight, that has no armour at all. The sight itself looks like this: So the turret has negligible side protection, horrible frontal protection, and a shit mantlet. But wait, there's more! The turret roof is really thin. If you take a look at this picture you'd say that it has a decently thick roof: See? That looks to be like a solid few cm thick. So why say the roof is really thin? Well, take a look at this as well: That hatch/cupola is raised. So what looks to be a roof that's a few cm thick is just a raised cupola. Which means that the turret roof itself is horribly thin. And since the front third is sloped forward that means APFSDS can easily yaw into the crew compartment, and lets not speak about attacks from above because that'll end in tears for the Arjun. Is there anything not shit about the Arjun turret? ... No! Actually! A sharp-eyed reader will already have noticed that the turret ammorack has absolutely no protection at all: The inside of the turret itself is a horrible fucking mess, just look at it: That's right, those cables are hanging from fucking string. Since the gun is also in the turret, surely that must be a good part of the turret, right? Right!? I mean, they had until 2004 to select or make a good gun! Aahahahahahahha, no. It's a rifled 120 mm. In 2004. Helloooooo India, welcome to Britain, 19-fucking-80s. ...well maybe they have very good ammunition! No. That's about the same as DM23. Which was introduced in 1983. 1984 saw a medium-high L/D (20+ L/D) penetrator for the US, 1987 for Germany and 1986 for the Soviet Union. We got high L/D (30+ L/D) penetrators in the early 90s. India's still rocking that good-ol' 17 L/D trash. Sooooo will the hull be any better? No. Access hatch in the upper glacis. On TS I was talking to @Collimatrix about how the driver's position most likely makes the upper glacis in front of him thinner, but that turned out not to be true, since... ...his position doesn't reach the fucking glacis in the first place. Not only that, look at how fucking horsewank thin that glacis is. With how thin it is, it's most likely just solid steel instead of NERA, even though the Indians claim it uses NERA, and they have this to say about their NERA: Literally fucking what I could probably go on and on and on about the retardation that's called Arjun, but I won't. I have subjected myself to too much stupidity already since I had to go to fucking places like defenceforumindia which was completely fucking malarious. And if you don't know what that word means, it's a combination of malaria and hilarious since reading defenceforumindia is equal parts sickening and hilarious.
  13. Trade-offs in WWII Fighter Design

    Also, a tail wheel instead of a nose wheel.
  14. General AFV Thread

    Left fender says "Armana company".
  15. Trade-offs in WWII Fighter Design

    Bailing out became a little tricky.
  16. Syrian conflict.

    About a 3-3.5 km shot, not too bad considering the SAA tankers are probably lacking in training quite a bit.
  17. Lets talk about languages

    Implying Americans speak English.
  18. WoT v WT effort-thread

    @Ulric the Shilka can easily murder planes from ~2km away, it's hilarious. It's super easy to just keep the sky clear with just a single Shilka.
  19. WoT v WT effort-thread

    Tomorrow is the last day
  20. WoT v WT effort-thread

    @Ulric in case you want to complete your T-34 collection: https://store.gaijin.net/story.php?title=T-34-Prototype-Pack ~200 left at the moment.
  21. WoT v WT effort-thread

    The Shilka is just.... wow
  22. I checked with a bunch of people and basically we have no idea. All they 've been able to figure out is that they're not Syrian militia nor part of any Syian "Intel" group.
×