Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

N-L-M

Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

    552
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Reputation Activity

  1. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Toxn in Californium 2250: FINAL JUDGMENT   
    So I'm late to this party, but thank you to the judges for selecting me.
    I think this was the most technically challenging competition we've had so far, so I'm glad my design was able to solve at least some of the issues presented. 
     
    Edit: I also wanted to say thank you to the organisers (especially @N-L-M) who helped make this possible. There's at least as much work going on in the background as gets put into making the submissions themselves, and so I'm very grateful to the folk who slogged through on this so that I could have fun designing imaginary tanks.
  2. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Scolopax in Israeli AFVs   
    Took me a while to figure it out, but the vehicle that first appears at 0:57 would seem to be UDI's test rig for the Advanced Assault Amphibian Vehicle, a project that would become the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (which GDLS won the contract to further develop.)  I am surprised this thing is still around and in private hands.
  3. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to DogDodger in Israeli AFVs   
    Going a bit old school in Virginia over the weekend:
     
  4. Funny
    N-L-M reacted to Collimatrix in Californium 2250: FINAL JUDGMENT   
    Judges' remarks:
     
    Unfinished Designs:
     
     
    Object 138:
     
     
    Object 426:
     
     
     
     
    Bonus panel of the judges politely discussing the finer points of armored fighting vehicle powertrain design:
     

  5. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Lord_James in The Leopard 2 Thread   
    NERA or ERA. a single 3/3/3mm thick ERA plate at that standoff would likely protect against PG-7V, and 30mm is probably enough to cram in 2 NERA layers back to back. The gap to the 70mm RHA plate is standoff.
    That's one option, anyway.
     
  6. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to Militarysta in Polish Armoured Vehicles   
    Two photos of factory test RAK 120mm mortarsm taken by myself
    (huge - 12MB eacht)

     
     

     
     
     
     
  7. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to LoooSeR in Models and pictures of Soviet MBT designs from 80s. Object 477A, Object 490 Buntar and Object 299.   
    https://twitter.com/xmszeon
       Object 490 "Perspective 2001" (oversized) and Object 490A models

     
     
  8. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to LoooSeR in What are we playing?   
    First mission in USSR campaign. It is kind of tutorial/sandbox for player to play around with game mechanics (infantry, armored car, tank, AT cannons and similar). I will show some of failed attempts as well, to show how easy and quickly you can fail in Behind Enemy Lines. Also, there are few textures on the ground that are not properly rendered (old game + notebook videocard made many years after game received it last update).

       Our mission - capture village defended by Nazis troops. Entrance to it is well protected with 3 AT guns and light tank. Next to it - a hill with 2 more AT guns and minefield.
     
     

       Starting operation. PPSh soldier is sneaking to right flank where a single armored patrol car is located.
     
     
       Next attempt:

       I like explosions in this game, they are powerful and fun.
     
     
       Next attempt, heh

       This time decided to disable nearby tank and try to run away.
     
     
       "load saved game" is my moto

       Now i decided to use T-34 to punch through frontal defence, as i can't take it out with a single soldier (too many troops there). Direct control of T-34 is on, time to play WoT with RTS-style camera view, lol.
     
     
       Let's get back to save file just after AT guns on the hill were out of action, but before my soldier flyed away from one of them after explosion.

       Now i'm using T-34 to punch through central part of village.
     
     
  9. Funny
    N-L-M reacted to Xoon in US Politics Thread: Year 2 of 1000 of the TrumpenReich   
    Go ahead, you guys would still probably tax me less than the Norwegian government. 
    I would not mind a tax break. 
     
  10. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Zyklon in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    That article mentions the COV.
    I've encountered one of those in the wild before, but never knew what it was called. Magical, absolutely magical.
     
    Knowing the name allowed me to find this: 
     
    Also here are some pics of the one I spotted in the wild:


     


  11. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to Beer in Czechoslovak interwar bits   
    Anti-tank guns will be rather short. The 4,7 cm gun used in the fortifications was already introduced. Here are the field ones. 
     
    3,7 cm KPÚV vz.34 was the first serial purpose-built anti-tank gun of the army. It was produced by Škoda as all other guns. Some two hundred pieces were fielded. The gun was 270-300 kg heavy (per traction variant). With muzzle velocity 675 m/s it could penetrate 30 mm armor at 1000 meters in 1934 testing (but only 30 mm at 550 meters in 1937 when tested against new cemented armor). It was capable to follow a target moving at 40 km/h and fire up to 23 rounds per minute (12 aimed). This gun is most well known as a tank weapon. It was used in LT vz.34 and LT vz.35 (Pz.35(t) ) tanks which were sucessfully used by Wehrmacht, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania in the early stages of the war. One gun is on display in Prague Žižkov muzeum (currently closed due to ongoing reconstruction). 

     
    3,7 cm KPÚV vz.37 was a new gun developed as a result of testing against new types of armor. This gun became the primary anti-tank weapon of the army (some 700 pieces were fielded at the fall of 1938). The gun had higher muzzle velocity (750 m/s) and an extreme rate of fire up to 40 rounds per minute. It used the same ammo with bigger propelant charges (or same). It managed to penetrate 32 mm at 1000 meters. It was heavier (around 370 kg) also due to the use of rubber wheels for motorized traction. In its time it was very powerful AT gun somewhat more powerful than the German PaK 35/36. Wehrmacht let the production run and in September 1939 had nearly 900 of these guns fielded (several hundreds were used by other countries such as Slovakia). Also this gun had its tank variant but this time rather different (shorter recoil etc.) even though the ballistic performance was nearly same. This gun was used in LT vz.38 (Pz.38(t) ) and some TNH-series export tanks. 

     
    4,7 cm KPÚV vz.38 was a new gun which was not yet fielded by the fall of 1938 but I place it here because this gun became pretty well known during the WW2 as a primary armament of the first tank destroyer ever the Panzerjäger I. This 580 kg heavy gun could penetrate some 55 mm at 500 meters and 32 mm at 1500 meters in 1936 testing (the muzzle velocity was 775 m/s). Later in the war it used even more powerful ammo. the rate of fire was 12 aimed shots per minute. Till 1940 it was the most powerful AT gun in Wehrmacht posession. Unfortunately the whole first batch for the army went directly to Wehrmacht when it was produced in the second half of 1939. Meanwhile Yugoslavia got some 300 pieces and used them in the war against Germany. Wehrmacht captured most of the guns and used them as well. Altogether Wehrmacht had around 600 pieces and they served until they were replaced with PaK 40. Also this gun had a tank variant. It was supposed to be used in the medium tank ST vz.39 but only one armed piece was built I think. Wehrmacht didn't order this tank despite it was much better armed than Pz.III of that time. One piece of this gun is on display in Lešany muzeum. 

     
     
  12. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Lord_James in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    That article mentions the COV.
    I've encountered one of those in the wild before, but never knew what it was called. Magical, absolutely magical.
     
    Knowing the name allowed me to find this: 
     
    Also here are some pics of the one I spotted in the wild:


     


  13. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from LoooSeR in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    That article mentions the COV.
    I've encountered one of those in the wild before, but never knew what it was called. Magical, absolutely magical.
     
    Knowing the name allowed me to find this: 
     
    Also here are some pics of the one I spotted in the wild:


     


  14. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Scolopax in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    That article mentions the COV.
    I've encountered one of those in the wild before, but never knew what it was called. Magical, absolutely magical.
     
    Knowing the name allowed me to find this: 
     
    Also here are some pics of the one I spotted in the wild:


     


  15. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Clan_Ghost_Bear in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    That article mentions the COV.
    I've encountered one of those in the wild before, but never knew what it was called. Magical, absolutely magical.
     
    Knowing the name allowed me to find this: 
     
    Also here are some pics of the one I spotted in the wild:


     


  16. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Ramlaen in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    That article mentions the COV.
    I've encountered one of those in the wild before, but never knew what it was called. Magical, absolutely magical.
     
    Knowing the name allowed me to find this: 
     
    Also here are some pics of the one I spotted in the wild:


     


  17. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from skylancer-3441 in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    That article mentions the COV.
    I've encountered one of those in the wild before, but never knew what it was called. Magical, absolutely magical.
     
    Knowing the name allowed me to find this: 
     
    Also here are some pics of the one I spotted in the wild:


     


  18. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to skylancer-3441 in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    article on AUSA 1985 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1985-12

     
    some pics photographed separately
     
    article (in german) on AUSA 1985 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1986-01

     
    larger pic of Mowag 8x8 w/Ares 75mm cannon

     
    larger pic of scalemodel of what would eventually become known as M109A5

    btw, on this photo of M109A5 model one can spot at the background an red-and-black artist's drawing of some tank - also published b/w in Hunnicutt's book on Abrams, but it appeared earlier (and with caption which says it artist drawing of M1 replacement from General Electric) in IDR 1982-02

     
    article on AUSA 1986 exhibition, published in International Defense Review 1986-12

     
    some pics photographed separately
     
    article (in german) on AUSA 1986 exhibition, published in Wehrtechnik 1987-01

     
    larger pic of scalemodel of M1 Abrams-based tank w/ some new turret

    similar vehicle is well-known from artist's drawing
     
     
  19. Funny
    N-L-M reacted to LoooSeR in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    US supported drug cartels, 
  20. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to BkktMkkt in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
  21. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from That_Baka in French flair   
    For those keeping track at home, the D9 for example has a lot of rollers (good MMP), deep grousers for excellent traction in soft soil, and oil coolers for the torque converter. Unlike armored vehicles in which the torque converter is intended to lock up quickly and therefore not get very hot, the torque converter in the D9 is designed to work in slippage at all times. This results in a lot of power being turned into heat in the oil, which then needs to be cooled to prevent the seals from dying. You could run a tank in 1st gear and 100% slip on the torque converter and get pretty good tractive effort, but not for any length of time. The D9 is a very well designed tool.
  22. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Beer in Czechoslovak interwar bits   
    Let's continue about the artillery. Now about the field guns of the pre-WW2 Czechoslovak army. 
     
    7,5 cm light gun vz.1897. This legendary French gun was still in reserve by the fall of 1938 (38 pieces). They were bought in 1919 as a stop-gap during the war with Hungarian Soviet Republic. I think that this gun was on display in the military museum in Prague Vítkov but I'm not sure (the museum is closed now due to ongoing reconstruction). 

     
    8 cm ligh gun vz.5/8. These Škoda guns fired the first salvos of the WW1. First series still had brass barrel, later production after 1916 was all steel already. Most of the guns in Czechoslovak army was of post war production, but not all. Even though the gun was old in 1938 it was very light and used in higly mobile cavalry units and on armoured trains. 86 pieces were in service in 1938 (part in reserve). You can see it in Lešany museum. There is one peculiar thing about this gun. Small number of them was converted into anti-aircraft guns and a battery of four guns was still in service in Prague in 1938.   

     
    8 cm light gun vz.17. Another škoda gun which was used in the late months of the WW1 on the Italian front. The Czechoslovak guns were from post-war production running till 1937 (the first series was actually originally ordered by Austro-Hungarian army before the end of war). The army had nearly 300 of these guns and despite many discussions about replacing the 76,5 mm barrels by 83,5 mm it was never realized because the army decided that in the future it's wise to replace the light guns with howitzers. The interesting thing about this gun is it's transport. Originally it was towed by horses but later it was being carried on the truck (not behind because its chassis could not cope with speed higher than 10 km/h). 

     
    8 cm light gun vz.30. This gun was a bit of cat-dog design. It had a light barrel but a heavy over-dimensioned support from the howitzer vz.30 which allowed high elevation (80°) for anti-aircraft fire (that was later found not very usable). Nevertheless it had a pretty good 13 km range for its time. Part of the 202 guns in the army was used in motorized units, part with horse traction. Wehrmacht completely missed this category of guns by 1938 and took around 120 pieces. The strange thing about that is that the guns were officially sold to Germany 4 days before the occupation on 11th March 1939 (Germany never paid of course). The government was trying to sell large parts of the military equipment after the Münich. The war preparations hit the economy hard because the army was absolutely enormous compared to the country's size (imagine that a country of 15 million managed to mobilize more than 1 million soldiers and give them equipment in September 1938) and after the Münich it was clear that no fight is possible on the rest of the country (for many reasons which may be discussed later). 

     
    7,5 cm mountain light gun vz.15. This is maybe the most legendary weapon of Škoda production ever. Very widely used in the WW1 and after by many countries. The gun was very easy to transport disassembled to six pieces with weight of 150 kg. It was capable of fire to 7 km distance and its crews were even trained to fight tanks. This gun was used by Czechoslovakia in the short war with Poland in 1919 and Hungarian Soviet Republic in the same year. Overall Czechoslovakia had some 235 pieces and sometimes in very unusual installations (in armoured trains, on Danube boats or as provisional equipment of the artillery blockhouses of the border fortifications). Wehrmacht took them and some other from other states and used them through the whole was especially in Italy and Balcan. This gun is on display in Prague Vítkov muzeum. Muzeum in Lešany has a more modern variant for Yugoslavia from late 20'.   

     
    10,5 cm heavy gun vz.13. This French gun was used after the creation of Czechoslovkia but none was in service in the fall of 1938. As other French weapons 13 pieces were bought during the war with Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919. One piece is on display in Lešany. 

     
    10,5 cm heavy gun vz.35. This Škoda piece was for sure the most modern gun in the army inventory and one of the most modern guns in the world of its time. It was capable to deliver 18 kg round to 18 km with its own weight just 4,2 tons. It was also designed to directly engage tanks if needed (that was of course a total overkill against Pz.I and II in 1938 but very useful in the future). The army managed to get 106 pieces before Münich. There was a lot of interest in the gun from abroad but due to the political situation most of the export orders were taken by Wehrmacht (Yugoslavia, Latvia, Netherlands). Even USSR decided to buy this weapon but the agreement was never signed due to the post-Münich situation. Wehrmacht used some 140 pieces, the rest was used by Slovakia. One of these guns is preserved in Lešany museum. 

     
    Next time anti-tank guns. 
     
     
  23. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Xlucine in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    I did read the document, and your conclusions from it are so off-base that I'm not sure you read it.
    Consider, for example, the closing remarks, on page III of the document (page 6 of the PDF):

    "small real cost growth" is not at all the situation you describe.

    A growth of 19%, mostly because extra features were added in? say it ain't so!


    And again, 19% growth for features, mainly the strengthened powertrain, is literal taxpayer rape. wew.
    Also, the 507k is hardware costs for a single vehicle. Doubling the order for what is pretty much the same hardware cost per unit does not mean that the hardware cost per unit has doubled, and indeed the paper only talks about an estimated price increase if 19%. I really don't know how you could even reach that interpretation.
    You know, that's a fascinating source, but once again your source does not say what you claim it does.
    To wit, the Army's response to that claim:

    Page 89 of the very PDF you posted. If you're gonna cherry pick quotes from sources, at least bother to read your entire source. Cause it firmly disagrees with the conclusion you are trying to draw from it.

    Fun for the whole family!
    And a bit more, just to get the point across:


    Oh no muh poor taxpayer getting ripped off for squillions of dollars oh no
    It's almost as if getting sent to an active war zone in the sandbox leads to greater wear and therefore need for spare parts, as well as high fuel consumption, while the M60A3s are left at home or in Europe, who'd a-thunk it?
    The cost of the M1 exceeding the M1A1 is interesting, wonder what led to that.
    You do have a legit point that in practice it appears that the M1 has turned out to be expensive to operate, but that's a far cry from it being a case of the US MIC "raping the taxpayer".

    1-800-come-on-now
    Ah, a clear sign that you indeed don't know what you're talking about, thanks for playing.
    for reference, the 1.5 trillion is a lifecycle cost for the entire fucking fleet. Not a sunk cost. And that's a really shitty way to dodge the point, which was that early LRIP costs are not indicative of full scale production.
    All the congressional testimony you've posted says otherwise, the design to cost was largely successful and the tank was delivered on time and mostly on budget, a great achievement for any development program, let alone one run by the US Army.
    It was absolutely the successor program to the failed MBT-70, what are you on to?
    So the US Army disagrees with you on the cost issue, and by all accounts the Abrams program has been a resounding success. You don't scale up a 3300 tank buy to 7000 if the cost balloons out of control, and sufficient evidence has been posted in this thread (ironically, by you) to disprove that notion.
    Inflation is a hell of a drug, and the extras in the TTS don't help.
     
    But anyway, TL;DR there's plenty of evidence that the Design-To-Cost of the M1 Abrams was by and large successful, and that it was successfully limited to a unit hardware cost significantly below that of the MBT-70, thus backing up the claim that started this whole discussion, ie that the Abrams was a budget tank born from the failure of the MBT-70 project.
    Not really no. What is however ironic is that you're calling out Ram despite you being the one who's incredibly wrong about this. The F-35 cost issue is prime bait and you took it like a champ. Thanks for playing.
  24. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Xlucine in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    It has to do with the Abrams development mostly evolving from a cut down MBT-70. Ending up more expensive than the M-60 is mostly irrelevant because by that time the M60 was entirely obsolete, and therefore could not fill the role required, nor could any vehicle of equivalent cost. For the defined role, the Abrams as designed was a very austere design with few exceptions, and if you think for some reason that the Abrams wasn't designed under some pretty strict cost limits you are sorely mistaken and are more than invited to re-read Hunnicutt.
    Also penny pinching in general is a figure of speech for cost cutting, not only the cost cutting associated with small low value details. But choosing a 1-axis gunner's sight stab over 2-axis because it's $3000 cheaper is indeed penny pinching when it comes to a tank.
    Not than the MBT-70, to which the comparison must be made.
    Yes, also killed were the FCS, GCV, and some other programs which were supposed to replace the Abrams with an autoloaded vehicle. The fact that these projects all got cut and ate up most of the budget, leaving fuckall for Abrams upgrades, is a separate issue.
    Also talking facts here, bucko. Compare the estimated price of the MBT-70, M60A1 and M60A3 to that of the Abrams in then year dollars.
    Had you bothered to open a copy of Hunnicutt, you'd see that he provides the following numbers in equivalent 1972 dollars:
    $422k final Chrysler proposal
    $507k RFP design goal
     
    $526k XM-1 1978 estimate (including GFE) (from here)
    $339k M60A1
    $432k M60A3
    $611k XM803 (MBT-70)
     
    So yeah, Definitely a budget conscious development.
    (now if you're going "wait those numbers can't be right how come it's so much cheaper than the design goal", the answer is "competition". Chrysler's bid was $196M to GM's $232M).
  25. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Lord_James in United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines   
    I did read the document, and your conclusions from it are so off-base that I'm not sure you read it.
    Consider, for example, the closing remarks, on page III of the document (page 6 of the PDF):

    "small real cost growth" is not at all the situation you describe.

    A growth of 19%, mostly because extra features were added in? say it ain't so!


    And again, 19% growth for features, mainly the strengthened powertrain, is literal taxpayer rape. wew.
    Also, the 507k is hardware costs for a single vehicle. Doubling the order for what is pretty much the same hardware cost per unit does not mean that the hardware cost per unit has doubled, and indeed the paper only talks about an estimated price increase if 19%. I really don't know how you could even reach that interpretation.
    You know, that's a fascinating source, but once again your source does not say what you claim it does.
    To wit, the Army's response to that claim:

    Page 89 of the very PDF you posted. If you're gonna cherry pick quotes from sources, at least bother to read your entire source. Cause it firmly disagrees with the conclusion you are trying to draw from it.

    Fun for the whole family!
    And a bit more, just to get the point across:


    Oh no muh poor taxpayer getting ripped off for squillions of dollars oh no
    It's almost as if getting sent to an active war zone in the sandbox leads to greater wear and therefore need for spare parts, as well as high fuel consumption, while the M60A3s are left at home or in Europe, who'd a-thunk it?
    The cost of the M1 exceeding the M1A1 is interesting, wonder what led to that.
    You do have a legit point that in practice it appears that the M1 has turned out to be expensive to operate, but that's a far cry from it being a case of the US MIC "raping the taxpayer".

    1-800-come-on-now
    Ah, a clear sign that you indeed don't know what you're talking about, thanks for playing.
    for reference, the 1.5 trillion is a lifecycle cost for the entire fucking fleet. Not a sunk cost. And that's a really shitty way to dodge the point, which was that early LRIP costs are not indicative of full scale production.
    All the congressional testimony you've posted says otherwise, the design to cost was largely successful and the tank was delivered on time and mostly on budget, a great achievement for any development program, let alone one run by the US Army.
    It was absolutely the successor program to the failed MBT-70, what are you on to?
    So the US Army disagrees with you on the cost issue, and by all accounts the Abrams program has been a resounding success. You don't scale up a 3300 tank buy to 7000 if the cost balloons out of control, and sufficient evidence has been posted in this thread (ironically, by you) to disprove that notion.
    Inflation is a hell of a drug, and the extras in the TTS don't help.
     
    But anyway, TL;DR there's plenty of evidence that the Design-To-Cost of the M1 Abrams was by and large successful, and that it was successfully limited to a unit hardware cost significantly below that of the MBT-70, thus backing up the claim that started this whole discussion, ie that the Abrams was a budget tank born from the failure of the MBT-70 project.
    Not really no. What is however ironic is that you're calling out Ram despite you being the one who's incredibly wrong about this. The F-35 cost issue is prime bait and you took it like a champ. Thanks for playing.
×
×
  • Create New...