Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

N-L-M

Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

    548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Posts posted by N-L-M


  1. Considering how they were busy displacing Centurions and Pattons in service, where would they get all those hull parts from? It's not like they had several hundred merkava hull noses just lying around, or several hundred merk 2s to chop up. And that's if we assume the nose is 100% compatible, which it probably isn't. Why would one assume they're identical? The first roadwheel arm hub on the Merk 3 and 4 is right below the final drive base, which appears to be part of the hull nose, and therefore must come as part of the nose.

    P1010229_5_15.jpg

    Namer nose, but the point stands.

     

    On the Merk 2 you don't have those, as it has the bogies which of course sit further back on the hull.

     

    Most reasonable assumption is that they decided to go cast on the Merk 3 when they started cause it's what they knew worked, and later switched to a welded design for whatever reason.


  2. 1 hour ago, Wiedzmin said:

    or part of Mk.3 was builded on Mk.2 hulls ?

    Simply not possible, the whole rear section of the hull is different, as are the hull sides.

    By the look of things, at some point in Merk 3 production they switched from the rounded, presumably cast hull nose to the sharp, presumably welded one.

    I don't recall seeing any pictures of Ramaqh Mk3 with a sharp hull but there are Baz Mk3s with either.


  3. So, a bit older than most of the things in this thread, but @Sturgeon and I noticed something while crunching numbers for the current competition-
    GVBfEfz.jpg
    If you take the 0 degree penetration of the 90mm HVAP and compare it to APDS, you get that it substantially over-performs according to the Demarre equation. Far beyond what you'd expect as reasonable error from Demarre. A possible explanation occurred to us- The HVAP has a heavy steel base, which on normal impact strikes the core from the rear like a hammer driving a nail, thus substantially raising its effective sectional energy.

    shot-h-v-a-p-90mm-t30e16.jpg?w=800

     

    This explanation also goes a long way to explain why it is that HVAP suffers so badly from sloped armor, much more than any other AP ammo type- much like trying to drive a nail at an angle, it skips rather than go in.


  4. So I booted up the Norman model. Turns out that thanks to the needlenose shape and being specced for the wide frontal arc, from directly ahead the Norman's cheeks are hilariously thick:
    IlLKVet.png

    of course the center of the needlenose, where the mantlet is, is significantly more sane.

     

    RUvLIyp.png

    cheek section at 30 degrees to the right

     

    39aeJLA.png

    Section at the mantlet.

     

     

    The Norman is a really tough nut.


  5. On 4/2/2020 at 2:17 PM, Serge said:

    Mk-3

    No, definitely a 1 or 2.

    The merkava 3, 4, and Namer have individual swing arms, the mounts for which are these large bases built into the hull side. The lack of such mounts means it must be a Merk 1 or 2, where the arms are attached to the bogies which are mounted to the hull.

    P1010227_5_8.jpg

    This is a Namer hull, but the idea is the same. There are a few pics of merkava 3s with the swing arm ripped off where you can see it more clearly but my Google fu is weak.

    In the pic posted earlier there's no sign of these swing arm hub bases.


  6. 4 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

    if that 7.5lbs HE per shot or salvo requirement is in terms of fill weight and not total shell weight (and I am assuming that is the case)

    You are correct.

    Can be a single big shot, or a burst of indeterminate length, or any other special tricks you come up with!

    The Rangers are very open minded when it comes to getting HE delivered to targets.


  7. Many missiles are axi-symmetric. In particular those which spin in flight have to be. Therefore, in order to generate lift for horizontal flight they must fly at a positive angle of attack. Examples of such missiles include SS.10, SS.11, Swatter, Sagger, Spigot, Spandrel, Metis, Kornet, HOT, MILAN, and others.

    The TOW also has entirely horizontal wings, but as it does not spin in flight the horiz tail is canted at 2 deg down to raise the nose for positive AoA, and can then vary from +2 to -6 deg, unlike the vertical tail which goes symmetrically from -4 to +4 deg.


  8. 25 minutes ago, Beer said:

    Yes but we know from Iraq and Yemen that the turret side can be penetrated with quite a lot of weapons

    Which is presumably why ARAT-2 is a thing on the turret too, yes.

    But the basic point I was making was that it appears that the turret side is broadly equivalent in protection to the hull side with ARAT-1, which is presumably good enough to stop certain threats.

    And I think you'll agree that ARAT-1 skirts and therefore also the turret side give a damn sight better protection from the side than the thin steel flanks of a T-64 style turret.


  9. The Lone Free State of Texas needs YOU!

    The year is 2255, and the Lone Free State is still recovering from how hard it got hit during The Big One. The geography and politics of the local area are such that borders are very hard to draw, movement ranges are long and points of contact may shift at any time. The Lone Free State Rangers require a new family of vehicles capable of keeping the peace and moving forces safely in the presence of both light irregular forces and thin skinned improvised armored vehicles. 

    More details to follow soon.

×
×
  • Create New...