Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About XhaxhiEnver

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The weight of the missile is similar. The Fagot and Faktoria are at 12kg. The 77A variant is 10.7kg. Metis at 6.5 kg. You understand that the Mulat 115 is 5kg. Half the weight of the TAS-5. You also understand that the Metis was introduced 3 years after the Dragon was introduced and that the TAS-5 FAR WORSE than the Mulat. You do also understand that if you wanted to stabilize the launcher you had to ad a 17 kg tripod (M175 Lafett) which meant that the damn thing was as heavy as the Fagot...while having a third of the EFR (and I'm being generous). The system remains something different indeed. Looser, this is the last post about this subject with this gentleman. If he replies I will address the issue to the appropriate thread.
  2. Missile Mass RTF. The M47 is about 11kg. It has a 1000m EFR with an official first hit probability or .8 and MV of about 112m/s. M77 is from 13 to 15 kg and its EFR is 1500m while the MV is a whooping 130m/s. Ironically a good chunk of 9P135's weight is the casing and the metal tripod (tripod being 4kg). The whole system for the M47 is 15.5 kg (with the SU36). If you want to operate by night then we get into fun territory. The TAS-5 adds another 10 KG. In layman's terms both missiles will expose their operators for 10 seconds at maximum range. While the rest of the world disposed of portable missiles going twice that speed and usually at least twice the range. What's with this selective reading.
  3. Actually both the M47 and M77. While the M47 real counterpart was the Metis, the weight of the system put it right on Fagot/Faktoria territory. The M77 on the other part, from A to D is firmly into Konkurs territory (from 13 to 15 kg) was still limited to 1500m EFR. When the 77D was introduced, the Soviets had already desiged the basis of what would become the Kornet.
  4. I just explained you that the graphic scaling is wrong. It gives a .3m in height and a whole meter in length over the real world specs.
  5. The 2.3m is based on the scale model provided. As said. The scale model makes it look larger and higher than it actually is.
  6. The graphic I provided had one issue. It tried to convey the general gun mount geometry. As such it was wrong even though the idea was sound. The actual size comparisons were not that much off. 1.88 is correct. For the 120mm M1A1. For the M1 initial prod or IP the height should be around 1.75m. So...we have a 10+cm discrepancy on that aspect alone. In order for the Armata to have a 2.1 m 0deg. The vehicle should be roughly 2.6. Roughly. On your image it is 2.94m tall. I redid my calculus on a 7cm conversion (5mm wheel) which gives a full 9.8m hull. I think that the blue print is off by more than "2 track pads". Following up we also have little problem. The front section (imaginary line over the lights) sits at 1.62m height. With the sketch again we have a minimum of 1.8m at the "beak". That's not possible. That photo while not aiming at 0deg, clearly shows that the "beak" isn't a 1.8 and the gun is going to come slightly over the serviceman's head. Unless that man is 2m tall, I can't really understand how that "sketch" corresponds to reality. Nevermind the swap for a M1 early run. If the gun is aimed at 2.1m then the roof isn't at .3m, but half a meter above. Which gives ample room to aim lower (even with a bigger breech). With the recalculus, at best I find out a 7.76m hull from your image; about .2 m shorter than most sources. The T-14 is about 3.3 with the TCIV. It is about 8.7m long in hull. And it is about 2.6m tall. This gives it both better depression than previous Soviet/Russian designs while having a typical central location on the hull contrarily to the M1.
  7. Illustrate what? You took out a M1A1 tank, replaced it with a M1 but forgot a couple of things. First if your M1 is aiming at 0deg at 1,88m. Second the short turret you provided (because why not try that) and the badly drawn TCIV on the T-14 ( it’s 70cm tall) means that the Armata roof sits at 2,6m (Abrams at 2,37/2,44 depending the source) and aims at 0 deg at 2.3m ; this impossible as pictures have shown T-14 guns aimed at 0 deg slightly over servicemen’s head. Then the wheel spacing. The Real life Armata has the five rear wheels separated by the distance of one track « thread » while in your picture there are two. While the front two have 2 threads while in your picture almost three. Reporting the distance we find on these images the Abrams results 2,3m high at roof and Armata at 2,7m high. While again according to your own images the hull length for the Abrams is 8,3m (converted)...While according to all sources it doesn’t get past 8. I could discuss this further but as a person I don’t like being taken for a ride. You should be more « careful » when you try such things. Not every one is gullible.
  8. They are not the same size. They are close, not similar. There is a .9m difference in hull length. A .12 to .25 in hull height. What the graphic is showing is that once placed on the same firing line. The gun geometry is relatively similar. Yes the T-14 is comparable in size to the M1A1.
  9. Sorry to interrupt, but does the VPZ gentleman understands that Kamov was hired to design a helicopter for China that had "no analogue in the world Russian military" and that the computational design was BETTER (that's an understatement) than the Rooivalk the Chinese were trying to get from RSAF? If that helicopter could have been developed in conjunction, today there's a fat chance Rosvertol would be selling it like hot cakes. This is a cautionary tale when it comes to Kamov (and Russia) in matter of military development. Also the whole the US doesn't produce is, how can Russia do it, is absurd. The US took 16 years to conceptualize a decent short range AA asset which in return became the butt of all memes. It was until 1996 stuck with an ATGM that weighed as much as a Konkurs with a third of the range and .8 hit probability. We can align such examples for a long while to explain why your position is pure non-sense.
  10. Pak-Fa is cancelled and Night Hunter NM is too expensive. https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3968914
  11. I beg the pardon of you all here but you seem to forget a couple of things about "tank development", the vehicle at hand and how generally military institutions tend to operate. a. We are talking about a specific situation which in recent history has happened very few times. That is IFV auto-canons penetrating the sides of an MBT turret. -These cases have been proven in ODS and Ukraine recently. -The said cases had happened due to both tactical errors, material inferiority of the MBT's and generally a very poor state of the MBT unit who got attacked. -The case of ODS (73 Easting) while much talked about, was a situation that happened because the Iraqis were overrun by the US tactical group. The fact that the Iraqis in static dug-ins were in one case taken out by 25mm (some say from the rear of the Turret at point blank range) is basically an outlier and is no basis for concern (The T-72's were being smacked by US heavy armor and FCS capability). -In the case of the 2nd Separate TB of Ukraine that was ambushed by LNR (cough Russians cough) BMP's and lost 3 T64BV to penetrating shots, is also something that is an outlier. And relies on a bad tactical decision from the CO's. As such the fact that both sides came that close, is an outlier. As BMP's would rarely venture that close. Before you bring up Thunder Runs of 2003 fame, the level of luck and speed and organization versus the lack of all those in Ukraine, should be pressed forward. b. We are talking about a vehicle which by nature is going to be engaged in a unit. A unit that will cover angles, operate with other supporting vehicles. If your cohesion and inter-operation as a unit breaks down at that point, then again, there's no level or armor that would help you. c. The "it shouldn't happen" is exactly why you have a doctrine which lays out objectives, TTP's and thresholds to evaluate those. Both in capability and efficiency. If your military unit can't establish its goals (which are mainly military translations of political calculus), pursue them within the threshold of violence and losses then a review is in order. But those doctrinal lines cannot simply be to make everything "unkillable". Because cost for starters. Furthermore, a case of "making" things "unkillable" in first glance will always have an escalation. This escalation is only possible if the conflict at hand isn't terminated. In the case of Israel, that conflict is unsolvable. But in the case of Russia or the US, the conflicts recently have all been solved (on their "hot" phase) rather quickly. d. The vehicle we are talking about is satisfactory when taking into account how a military unit should operate. Furthermore its layout makes it easier to both up-armor if need be, but also protect as it is.
  12. That relies on the wager that a lighter vehicle would manage to come close enough to fire its gun within effective range.
  13. Hello comrades. First post here. I just wanted to drop by this. As you can see physically there is no issue regarding depression. Because the more centrally placed turret and L52 gun, it could have been, BUT, because of that "high roof" AND L52 (again) angled on a slope the results are the same. Ironically, the "real estate" exposed by both sides is the same. With the current M1A2SepV3 (M1A2C) the "real estate" is even a tad bigger for the M1...
  • Create New...