Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by N-L-M

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 5km is approx 16000 ft. At that altitude, good luck hitting anything without a fire director.

    In WW2 manual aiming was used only for short range close in air defence, anything longer ranged than a Bofors 40mm was directed, and even those got mk 51 directors by 1944. The need to accurately calculate lead and drop on a moving target is essential, unless the target is within tracer range- typically less than 5k yd.

  5. Thats quite the bold assumption to make regarding ease of retrofit of armor package upgrades, should they even be the case.


    Considering how that turret has Trophy electronics boxes on it, as well as the cheeks, but for example still only has the older CROWS- I consider it more reasonable to assume its the counterweight for a few reasons-

    1. If that isn't the counterweight, what is? Considering how the Trophy installation is biased aft, youd need a counterweight fore.

    2. A frontal turret armor upgrade, alone, of all the M1A2C upgrades, doesn't make much sense.

    3. While trophy counterweights are known to exist, retrofit armor improvements to older Abrams aren't.

    4. This turret add-on looks substantially different from M1A2C turrets seen. For a start, on those the actual armor cavity was extended forwards, whereas this lump is clearly welded on to the existing turret face, which would mean very poor actual volume for armor inside it.


    5. These cheek expansions only appeared after initial Trophy testing which showed turret imbalance issues.


  6. Just now, LoooSeR said:

    armor for turret ring

    Every Magach with Blazer got pretty much the same turret ring modules. I can only hope the fill is newer.

    In general the Magach and Sabra armor kits seem to be optimized for a high end threat at the cost of coverage, all under rather serious weight restrictions leading to really poor coverage, especially hull side.

  7. 4 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:



    Huh, never noticed this before but it looks like sideskirts 3 and 4 are noticably thinner than sideskirts 1 and 2- looks like only enough thickness for 1 reactive element.

    On early Sabra prototypes there were no reactive sideskirts aft of 1 and 2.

  • Create New...