Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

skylancer-3441

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    273

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

 Content Type 

Everything posted by skylancer-3441

  1. skylancer-3441
    Several pics related to AS21 Redback have appeared on twitter and elsewhere over the last couple of days from latest DTR 2019-07 http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com/#folio=50 - and also from EOS pdf presentation - photos of mockup (mockups?) - or whatever that is - of EOS T2000 turret: and also more pics of unfinished hull (next to that turret or outside) - from DTR twitter https://twitter.com/DTRmag/status/1146928739671928832 (originally from Hanwha facebook page) and from one of bemil.chosun.com blogs (although it seems to me that some of the latter were originally posted on instagram):
  2. skylancer-3441
    I've stumbled across this photo of Boxer CRV while searching images from Linkedin via Google: And it also includes poster with seethrough renders of both vehicle's hull and turret:
  3. skylancer-3441
    International Defense Review 1981-07.
  4. skylancer-3441
    International Defense Review 1977-06, article on T-72 tank text version and some pics from it, photographed separately same pics and drawings from IDR's article, of what actually was T-64, or may be T-64A, are available usually in somewhat better quality in pdfs of Armor magazine 1977-01-02 and 1978-01-02 (scanned by GoogleBooks and other institutions, and available online at hathitrust.org, and benning.army.mil and/or dvidshub.net, and/or there).
  5. skylancer-3441
    from twitter https://twitter.com/2805662/status/1145837362896756737 MET-D with even more antennas and cameras and other stuff than before and also from this tweet https://twitter.com/Ross_Coffman/status/1143663126472273922 MET-D's front view:
  6. skylancer-3441
  7. skylancer-3441
    Interesting, apparently those two diagrams also give a cost in roubles for different tank components, something barely available for any Cold War Soviet tank even to this day. ...btw, adding those numbers, it seems like entire tank's cost was 600,000 roubles. I don't see any indication on what year it was, but in any case it's quite a big number. It is known (from UVZ's books) that Soviet prices for T-72/T-72A produced at UVZ plant in 1976-1985 were between 150-175 thousand roubles per tank. Even crazy expensive T-80U was around 800 thousand.
  8. skylancer-3441
    single page article on Leopard 2 prototype extreme cold weather trials in Canada and extreme hot weather trials at YPG, Arizona, published in International Defense Review 1975-06
  9. skylancer-3441
    Apparently this is the same company as one which was responsible for P3 and APE 4x4s Wehrtechnik 1971-04, advert with silhouette of that APC as well as some other vehicles by EWK: Wehrtechnik 1972-01, another advert with relatively good quality photo of P3 test vehicle: Wehrtechnik 1976-08, EWK advert had a colourfull photo of P3: and another colourfull pic of P3 from cover of Wehrtechnik 1976-05: this issue also had an article (in german) on P3 - which, among its pictures has a articst's drawing on possible look of another vehicle by EWK P3 next to APE: and also some proposals based on EWK's experience with P3 and APE: both pics from article in IDR 1978-08: another article - single page, from IDR 1981-08 and another article - in german, two pages from Wehrtechnik 1979-03 btw, APE once was on Wehrtechnik's cover: and there was also an advert in Wehrtechnik 1977-12: and another pic of APE in Wehrtechnik 1977-08:
  10. skylancer-3441
    from german magazine Wehrtechnik, issue of 1973-03, - what appears to be mostly theoretical article (in german) which has two parts. Apparently first 3 pages are about some thoughts on development of tank guns and other weapons. But then it kinda changes topic (at least that's how it looks at first sight), so there are one and a half pages about armored vehicles designs, illustrated with some drawings some light armored vehicle's turret design and tank:
  11. skylancer-3441
    Shouldn't then all ramps in AFVs have that problem?
  12. skylancer-3441
    There were news recently on US Army's market survey (Request For Information) on rubber/composite band tracks, preferably segmented, - 1) available now for 36 metric tons vehicle, and - 2) available in several years time if chosen for development, for 45-54 metric tons vehicle No idea whether they've found anything, but it shows that at least some people do not see current weight limit for such tracks as one set in stone
  13. skylancer-3441
    from Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sompong.nondhasa/posts/1722926777810426 - some 8x8 from Thailand (Thai->En via Google Translate)
  14. skylancer-3441
    https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/saf-unveils-hunter-armys-first-fully-digital-armoured-fighting-vehicle http://kementah.blogspot.com/2019/06/defence-minister-dr-ng-eng-hen.html https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/new-saf-hunter-armoured-fighting-vehicle-commissioned-as-armour-formation-turns-50 Hunter AFV - NGAVF w/ Samson 30 rcws
  15. skylancer-3441
    reminds me of AAV7
  16. skylancer-3441
    It has 5 feet 2 inches long compartment at the back although its kinda cramped (well, entire vehicle is) with internal height from floor to ceiling of like 3 feet 11, and some 19.5 inches of width per dismount. - imagine Merkava tank but with carousel autoloader, and with ammunition permanently removed from its storage area in the back: in order to fit dismounts - Merkava is capable of that, but only temporarily:
  17. skylancer-3441
    (from GettyImages) mid-90s photos of Bradley M2A2 w/ ERA kit covered with some camouflaged canvas
  18. skylancer-3441
    More about LOS thickness of that - previously on page 143 of this thread
  19. skylancer-3441
    silde 12 mentions that BMP-3 has only 2 firing ports left compared to BMP-1 and 2. But - first - there are 4 firing ports easily available to dismounts, on the left and right sides of personnel compartment (and there is 1 more on the left door, although it's probably rather difficult to use it) and second - there are also 2 MG operators (dismounts) sitting left and right of the driver, so overall BMP-3 has 6 dismounts capable of firing while they are entirely in the vehicle. And also judging by available pictures of object-299-based HIFV, (some) soviets still retained "mounted infantry firing from portholes" concept in late 80s even for HIFV-as-protected-as-tank. More than that, early 00s version of wheeled BTR-90 still had 6 firing ports https://i.imgur.com/wptJKHk.jpg https://i.imgur.com/0WwSiOR.jpg untill it got add-on armor kit which had holes only for 2 of those; and some other add-on armor kits from NII Stali - designed for BMP-2 and advertised in early 00s - also had holes for firing ports, and sometimes for more than 2 of them https://i.imgur.com/JM07GxG.jpg ...quoting Burton rather close to his book of the same name, and then adding some more - thus playing fast and loose with numbers. Amount of 25mm rounds (1500) /without Burton's "up to"/ and TOW missiles (10) are for CFV M3, number of dismounts (6) is for IFV M2 - and that was compared to number of dismounts (11) taken straight from Burton's book [PW p.133], with reference to Anthony Battista's version of early Bradley development history - which does not explicitly gives any number at all for any design before 1968 Casey Board's QMR [DOD Test Procedures (1986-01-28) pp.21-22, 34-35]. As far as I see, it is Burton's own understanding that "relatively simple follow-on to the M-113" vehicle was intended to carry as many dismounts as M-113, and it is not supported by anything else.
  20. skylancer-3441
    http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com New issue of DTR become available - with article on weight of Land 400 Phase 3 contestants compared to other IFVs and tanks (btw, according to author's math, T-15 HIFV weigths about 46-47 metric tons), and whether it's a problem or not; two page poster on how Lynx KF-41 consists of proven components from elsewhere; and Nicholas Drummond's article on NGCV-OMFV where he forgot about US Army's HFM/ASM program from late 80s-early 90s, - if he ever knew about it in the first place - so according to him NGCV-OMFV is only third attempt to replace Bradley.
  21. skylancer-3441
    I would say that it's photoshopped using that picture of Rooikat: and this picture of BMP-3 w/ Arena APS, which was made narrower, and also it's roof and entire Arena APS radar was cut in order to keep Rooikat sights, because this particular version of BMP-3 turret lacks panoramic sight. btw, it still has built-in Arena APS projectiles along frontal 270-degree arc: which happend because apparently all that photoshopper needed was a photo of BMP-3 turret in desert sand color, made from the right angle.
  22. skylancer-3441
    last I looked, when someone does that, they usually use words like "central" to distinguish that from percentile number, in order to aviod confusion. And they do not use Ordinal numbers, although a possibility of typos should not be excluded, obviously. Example I just googled: equipment to fit the ''5th to 95th percentile user,'' that is, the central 90% Did I miss some description of KF-41 which stated what soldiers it can and can not fit, which says that it can not fit 8 95th percentile male soldiers? ... upd: DTR 2019-04 p.27 claimed it can fit 6 90th percentile (australian?) male dismounts, and 8 "at same seat spacing" (=90th percentile too, I guess) if required. such chart for Geman male population is readily available from deutschesheer.de article: ... interior of CV-9030N with MkIII hull 12 Mpix version available there https://mediearkiv.forsvaret.no/fotoweb/archives/5000-Alle-bilder-2013-2019/Indekserte bilder1/2015/06/Teknologi kampvogn8.jpg.info#c=%2Ffotoweb%2Farchives%2F5000-Alle-bilder-2013-2019%2F%3F25%3Dcv9030
  23. skylancer-3441
    way below, 172 cm high - its smth like 10th percentile male
  24. skylancer-3441
    I guess it's better to use some other term that vague "Europe". At least because it does not include Germany. I would like to remind about that article on Puma https://www.deutschesheer.de/portal/a/heer/start/aktuell/nachrichten/jahr2018/august2018/!ut/p/z1/hY5fC4IwFMW_kXf-m_Y4kURCCy3LvcRwwwzbZCzpoQ_fIvBNug8H7j2_ezhA4QJUsnnomRmUZKPdW4qveBPkmVejIvNOBJGmOu6aonSzfQANnP8h1NpoZQiCmgtobUa0nuFDDRTonc3s5UxKm1EYh3XfjtDemOSjOKiO_A4W5MLplLSMVSOkGaz2mhmll-_uqbV1nIFDi9w0QeHSyX0nfkwiHAQ4zZMKpsc2Lsuw_wCvRfxg/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/#Z7_694IG2S0MG2UA0AVRTKVMN1GO3 it was 97th percentile male for crew, and - as a compromise - 75th percentile male for dismounts. And apparently they paid attention to female soldiers too. This article https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article180519422/Schuetzenpanzer-Puma-Soldaten-duerfen-nicht-groesser-als-1-84-Meter-sein.html mentions that there is also another restriction - to be at least 161 cm high (without helmet). Which is smaller than (~168cm high) 3rd percentile male in diagram from deutschesheer.de article (which covers man from Infants to 18 year olds, so I presume it gives height without helmet). Btw, during hearings in Bundestag on Puma - transcript available here http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/067/1906770.pdf - there was a response that "[google translate] Of the serving today in the Bundeswehr Panzergrenadieren are - 86 percent unrestricted use in the armored infantry fighting vehicle PUMA". I do not see any other way to get that 86 precent figure except including female soldiers into consideration. ... altough Zetor Engineering's Wolfdog IFV proposal seems to be nothing but KF-41-alike wishful thinking, - at least it is capable of providing informantion about wishes themselves. It's brouchure mentions that "interior space transports crew up to 190 cm in height in a 3+8 (3+9) configuration", which is obviously male 90+ percentile, and also renders inside that brochure allow to measure space available for dismounts - and about 70 cm is available.
  25. skylancer-3441
    using this screenshot from video about Armadillo vehicle, and this drawing of "high roof" version of CV-90 from some master thiesis, one of several available on http://www.diva-portal.org while googling about CV-90 it seems like Armadillo has about 55 cm of width per dismount (seats themselves are narrower) Which - technically - allowes to fit US 95th percentile soldier - considering shoulder width of 54 cm, which SAIC mentioned in leaflet about Terrex-2 for MPC contest: . Kinda. The thing is - it seems like actually it's not nearly enough. When measured from upper arm to upper arm or from forearm to forearm, people are usually several inches wider - even when nude, but especially when wearing gear and/or wearing winter uniform. And btw as i previously concluded it seems like US Army now wants to do something about that problem in NGCV, providing some ~67 cm per person. In order to provide same 67cm of width per dismount in CV-90, one needs to spend more space on dismounts - more hull length to be precise, additional ~48 cm of it. Which leaves about 129-130 cm - measured from turret ring to first pair of dismounts: Are there any modern 2-man turrets with turret basket diameter of 129 cm or less?
×
×
  • Create New...