Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


skylancer-3441 last won the day on December 9

skylancer-3441 had the most liked content!

About skylancer-3441

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

260 profile views
  1. skylancer-3441


    Whoever made this, IMO in attempt to make "naked" turret he kinda overdid that - I mean, he got rid of all APS launcher "tubes" mounted on turret, and kept only those which T-15's hull already has. So APS now covers only ~120 deg frontal arc, and (unlike what T-14 actually has) in some situations could not be quickly pointed towards threat elsewhere, because one needs to rotate entire hull to do that. On the other hand 299 - and also 299-based HIFV - has about 20-25 (depending on the picture) modules of what seems to be some version of APS Arena mounted around its turret
  2. skylancer-3441

    Documents for the Documents God

    ... https://cloud.mail.ru/public/87mv/NGc3PoEpo/ "The TARDEC Story: Sixty-five Years of Innovation 1946-2010", downloaded via some means from GoogleBooks, and ... welll, it lacks some 50 pages (out of 3 hundreed) which they do not show https://cloud.mail.ru/public/KL5T/U8pbM6iL7 "The Bradley and how it Got that Way: Technology, Institutions, and the Problem of Mechanized Infantry in the United States Army", which GoogleBooks also has, - it also lacks about 50 pages (out of 2 hundreed) Also, Archive.org has a some sort of online library, which allowes to borrow some of their scanned books - so one user could see that book, and enyone else willing to do the same at the same time should wait in line, as if it was not a bunch of .img/.png files but a real physical copy of the book. Anyway, among some things thay show that way, there is a scan of Burton's Pentagon Wars https://cloud.mail.ru/public/A1qi/Yem6Npsi8 https://cloud.mail.ru/public/ES1e/pSRmx6NzH several dozens of articles and small notes (predominantly in english) on Bradley and tracked APCs and IFVs in general, and how they should be employed, which appeared in 50s-80s in those magazines which I was able to find on the internet - mostly in Army, Armor, Infanry, Military Review, Soldiers, - and also some articles from newspapers like New York Times on scandals around Bradley development and acquizition ... more books there https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Jjk9/mHuYG7piH ... Now there are I guess about 40 volumes of Infantry available in full view on the same link, and I've asked them about Army magazine and got 69 volumes so far https://books.google.ru/books?uid=115590142161999487031&as_coll=1006 - also they've denied my requests for 13 volumes (which are available on Hathitrust anyway). Apparently they've also scanned some Soviet and Russian magazines - like this one https://books.google.ru/books?uid=115590142161999487031&as_coll=1010 (Soviet Miitary Review, english language edition of soviet propaganda magazine about Soviet Army) - also it seems to me that in this case copyright status is confusing and noone knows for sure whether it's in Public Domain or not, which is why my requests on that were mostly denied. those and other "bookshelves" (folders) are available there https://books.google.ru/books?uid=115590142161999487031
  3. https://m.weibo.cn/status/4314232545708008 some new pics on NGCV OMFV's MET-D, for example: and also and another render of GCV: this picture comes to mind: ... Comparing that Bradley drawing with one of the original Bradley from All Vollunteer 1980-07 https://i.imgur.com/WykRCXe.jpg (most detailed picture of soldiers in Bradley i've got so far) Those 6 dismounts got some very generous 202-203 cm of space - that is 67,5 cm (26,5 inches) per person, for sholder or forearm-forearm breadth, which is obviously increases a lot (compared to person in summer clothes or nude) when person is carrying a lot of gear of wearing winter clothes (which no one seems to be bothered about in 1960s or even early 1980s, so IIRC Bradley was designed with something like 56 cm/22 inches in mind - and when in 1984 they measured 95th percentile soldier in uniform for extreme cold weather ("Anthropometry of the Clothed US Army Ground Troop and Combat Vehicle Crewmen"), in turned out that he needs 62 cm/24.5 inches)
  4. skylancer-3441

    General AFV Thread

    well, some news sites like this one for example http://www.ukraineindustrial.info/c37-machinery/176/ actually claimed that its UFP has 1200-1900mm, - without mentioning against what kind of threat - and it seems to me that they simply misunderstood that table chart in the middle of that photo of BMP-80's drawings (in my previous post): (btw I'm not quite sure about 600 - it might as well be a 300 - or smth else) Judging by drawing above that table chart - one with red missile and yellow armor - "H" values represents distance measured from the ground. And "S" probably represents LOS thickness at that height (and this is why I'm not sure about 600). Alternatively one could've made some generous assumptions using those LOS thickness values, and aso considering that it has engine at the front, and also that blue box has vertical frontal plate which is apparently 60mm thick (even though it has large rectangular hole in it for a driver)
  5. skylancer-3441

    General AFV Thread

    It's not BMP-64, it's T-80-based vehicle usually mentioned as BMP-80 - and unlike BMP-64, they never finished a mockup of this thing. Although they made some drawings, for example: (original photo was posted there http://s540.photobucket.com/user/tigersblog_photo/media/btt21.jpg.html) and with those steel plates 50-100mm thick and 7 roadwheels - it seems to me that they were aiming at 50-60 metric ton class. That blue box alone (with what seems to be 100mm thick roof, 100mm right and left sides, and 60mm everything else) weights about 17 metric tons. (well... If my plugin for Sketchup was working correctly while calculating volume of it's parts) ... It seems to me that Bradley in it's basic form was more protected than Marder 1 in his basic form - Bradley had all-around protection agains 14.5 (from 250 meters) even though it was about 7 metric tons lighter than Marder.
  6. from this article and comment section https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/10/16/the-american-s-tank/ so - I guess, that means 14 concepts, with 8 of them posted so far ....Including a couple of infantry carrying vehicles - Heavy IFV with tank-like protection, and another vehicle with remote-controlled turret (and machineguns) and protection against radiation https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/07/us-afv-concepts-no-5/ https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/us-afv-concepts-no-8-armored-infantry-carrier/ ... and another proposal, which reminds me of Soviet (Chelyabinsk) BMPT prototypes from late 80s - same idea of providing something better than port hole for every dismount, coupled with doctrine which demands to distmount as little as possible, coupled with reducing number of dismounts to 4-5. https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/19/us-afv-concepts-no-9-armored-combat-carrier/ and another proposal - lightly armored this time https://fromtheswedisharchives.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/us-afv-concepts-no-10-infantry-carrier-low-profile/
  7. skylancer-3441

    Britons are in trouble

    It was also narrower - 100/107 inches according to this diagram from Raport WTO 2002-12 (article on AUSA-2002): photos:
  8. skylancer-3441

    StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

    speanking of TH-495 variants and from romanian magazine "Știință și Tehnică" 1993-06:
  9. skylancer-3441

    Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    IFV Task Force Study results (1978-04), chapter VIII (Appendices), Appendix E - BRL Vulnerability Analysis of the IFV concepts, page 2. More there
  10. About two and a half years ago i've stumbled across some russian book about western IFVs, which apparently was a mere compilation of articles from western magazines translated into russian. There was a mention of some 58-ton heavy IFV, called SAIFV, which was described as vehicle baised on Abrams chassis, and they also claimed that a prototype was biult and tested. (which seems dubious to me now) Than, two years ago, I've stumbled across this article about SAIFV https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-army-wanted-to-replace-the-bradley-38-years-ago-dffb6728dd11 which has 3 drawings - "artist conceptions". Than, half a year ago I was reading some US DOD bidget hearings transcripts about MICV/IFV development, and stumbled across mentions of 50-55 metric tons $800,0000 - 1,000,000 SAIFV of Crizer study, and than I've googled a Mobility analysis of IFV task force alternatives (1978-07) report (which is allmost the same as Appendix D of that report which is described below). Unfortunatelly there weren't any proper pictures, (and also i've thought that those 3 drawings from medium.com article are modern "artist conceptions", not one from 1978). Than several things happend in the right time and place, which invlolved twitter, AUSA-2018, NGCV-OMFV, and author of that arcticle at medium.com, and when I asked him about that article - it turned out that there is a report about SAIFV, which is readily available on the internet there http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16635coll14/id/56079/rec/1 884 pages, with 7 normal chapters and chapter 8 which consists of 6 appendices. cost figures from Appendices F and B: things like those cost figures, coupled with deceiving percents like this (Ch. IV p.17): (there were also other versions mentioned in Senate hearings of FY1978-1980s - 91.6%, 92%, 95%, and also they've mentioned soviet motorized rifle division instead of tank regiment) apparently saved Bradley. Although in 1979 those $370,000 turned out to be $472,000 (in same FY1978 dollars), - and later according to FY1983 bidget hearings - $1,350,000 (which is about $880,000 in 1978 dollars). ... btw, GAO's report "Army's Proposed Close Combat Armored Vehicle Team" (12 dec 1977) has following thing on page 23: and that was BFV project manager's responce (hearings on military posture and h.r. 10929, part 2 of 7, p.183) several mounths later (somewhere in feb-apr 1978):
  11. from article "Advanced Integrated Propulsion Systems (AIPS) for Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT)" Feb/Mar 1983
  12. One may also remember this render: and this one too: or just usual arrangement in Stryker with antimine seats: so - it seems to me like there is now a driver, than 1 person behind him, than 5 seats for dismounts on the left side, 1 person on the right side behind engine compartment, and 4 seats for dismounts behind him and this passageway is gone - well, not that empty anymore, to be precise and btw it seems like they removed this hatch:
  13. skylancer-3441

    Israeli AFVs

    It seems to me that Waronline does not allows unregistered users to see attachments in full scale, only prewiews which are downsized to width of 100 pix, so - could someone please reupload that to Imgur or smth?