Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

STGN

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About STGN

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Okay so why do you not say that to SH_MM Are these not insults?: "What I am doing - and you honestly also should start, if you actually had an interest in finding the truth - is the following:" "What you still massively fail to understand " "You on the other hand are an Abrams fanboy who doesn't bother to consider alternative interpretations, and considers newspapers more relevant than declassified documents as long as it fits your opinion. If a CIA report says "one version of the Abrams turret", a fanboy's knee-jerk reaction is: "This means that the XM774 c
  2. 1. No see you are trying to argue that it is imposible for the Americans to have changed their mind about what protections level even a little bit and you are just so arrogant and condecending that I love pokeing at you becasue your manners are so bad. Lets start with the turret of the original M1 Abrams, was it designed under a weight requirement of 59 tons or 60 tons? It was designed in 1976 according to Hunnicutt and I even have a picture of a model of it from 1976: So the improved FSED turret was done under the 58,9 tons weight requirement. So the 0.9 tons ballistic protection increa
  3. I appreciate the good push back MM, make me go back and check my logic and arguments I haven't been doing this for years. In doing so I was able to recall how I made the measurements, I was conflating a few things but I will explain that later(another post). First I have to repeat, because you apparently missed that I am not a hard core beliver in the Abrams having XM774 protection but I think its a possibility that the turret had it. If you go back to my first post I even say that I lean towards XM774 but I am not sure. However you have strawmaned me a bit talking about "my essent
  4. 1. I wasn't clear enough, I don't scale of plate thickness rather the outside dimensions, and by doing that I am able to get the proper plate thickness. I am surpriced you can't, but I have disagree with you blanked statement that you can't get any accurate information off the drawings. Sure its not blueprint quality, but for our purposes its much better than nothing and we are within a cm of accuracy. 2. First, even if the turret only provides protection against XM579 out to 25 degrees then due to the angle of the armor its going to be providing protection against XM774 just over
  5. 1. Oh great because you don't realize that you can actually test out an hypothesis about size and volume using 3d. Things have to fit together you know. 2.Great, yes. And yes I did make that, based on what I knew at the time. If you are going to be pointing out that it is not 100% right, then I already know that as I have updated my knowledge since then. 3. I did, what is the point here? 4. Yes I have. 5. I never said "everything is wrong" I said it is "mostly wrong", sure you got the outside right, however you put alot of numbers on the inside, we already know the outside of the t
  6. 1. Oh wow you got internal measurement from photogrammetry, you must be a genius. 2. Can you see the images I posted or is there some magic spell called 105mm that completely changes the design of the turret, you do know that the turret was designed for the option to be upgraded, right? 3. Yeah we all know that the worst source for information is official drawings. But I look forward to your photogrammetry of the inside of the armor. 4. Yeah put your fingers in your ears and yell lalalalal, because there is no corrolation between armor dimensions and protection level I guess. 5. A
  7. 1. I agree that the images in their original state are a bit skewed. However when you apply the correct external dimension and internal(center of gun rotor) you get the same values that Gaijin measured on the outside of plate thickness. they also correspond to other measurements on the outside of the tank like distance between front of front plate and weld line of the hull array. Plus you get the same LOS when you measure on SAIFV drawings and the British computer drawings. So I think they are actually pretty accurate. 2. I have to clarify I think the front turret can withstand the xm774 no
  8. Maybe you should read what I wrote before you get defensive. The internal structure of all productions Abrams models is the same, that is why you can turn a M1 into a M1A2C using the same original turret, you just replace necessary external parts. That is why I posted the image of the internal structure from US army documents. I was starting with arguments if you bothered to read them. My guess was how to approach it which I have to admit failed. First argument: Gaijins 19,5" figure is wrong because it measures from the
  9. This is mostly wrong dimensionally and conceptually. Where to start... I am guessing that you are basing your drawing on Gaijin's measurements of the Minnesota Abrams combined with the CIA drawing of the hull front armor? First of all I am sure they got the front armor volume wrong because they thought they measured from the edge of the internal armor plate sticking out through the underside of the turret on the right side. However this is a miss conception we can easily see this in images from the underside during production. What they are actually measuring from is the "armor floor plate"
×
×
  • Create New...