Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Mike E

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    323

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Mike E

  1. Mike E
    That's basically confirmed, but why go to such a great length over just the tank model? It makes sense that a few features and specifications are transferred. According to the UVG/AW collab site Tankopedia, the T-90A with Relikt is invulnerable to M829A3 at a range of 1.2 km. Not related to Armata, but still interesting.
  2. Mike E
    300 tonnes? Ship it to Russia!
  3. Mike E
    Saw Man from UNCLE a few days ago...worst Russian accent I have ever heard....worse than Captain Ramius.
  4. Mike E
    No joke. Still, I'm hopeful that some more information will be released.
  5. Mike E
    According to the AW forums, UVG will be contributing to the game. This is going to be really interesting, and may shed some light on a few of Armata's hidden features.
  6. Mike E
    That article was probably a copy/paste job from Sputnik. GG Janes I think it was a mis-translation in regards to "invisible".
  7. Mike E
    Loooser I have a few questions for you (sorry in advance :/); - Do you have any sources on the Vacuum series of APFSDS? I used to know two, both of which seemingly have been deleted. and... - What is the thin sheet above the glacis for? I have a quick (ah, my excuses) picture; I suspect it is related to the internal armor layout, but would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks
  8. Mike E
    Ah, perfect example... I bounced off of a Leopard 1's side, angled at ~60 degrees, with APFSDS from a T-72A. 250 mm at 2 kilometers seems like a good bit, to be honest.
  9. Mike E
    Well, it isn't a simulator (here comes the WoT excuses all over again). I will agree with the APFSDS v. sloped armor issue, it isn't really...polished for lack of a better word.
  10. Mike E
    "Not as stealth optimized" is another way of saying "not compromised for stealth". AFAIK, the Izd. 30 engines will complete rig-testing this coming year.
  11. Mike E
    We all know Arjun is the real #1 (heads to Indian defense forum). This is when my signature is kind of ironic...
  12. Mike E
    The worst part of that video...is that people are actually liking. Oh humanity, how you have fallen.
  13. Mike E
    Haha, that's true. Here's to repairing all 6!
  14. Mike E
    Hopefully they at least renovate Prototype #6, which would be the rightmost vehicle.
  15. Mike E
    Excellent posts. The 'Nota' would have still been a Kharkov design, correct? And..."more than 1 meter frontal armor, 5 layers armor package on sides" sounds like Armata.
  16. Mike E
    No confirmation just yet... Su-35 is a great platform though, so such a purchase is very welcomed.
  17. Mike E
    They did, and more than once... Object-640 used a bustle-loader in combination with a 2A46M, though the project went to bust with the bankrupting of Omsktransmash. Burlak turret, intended for the T-72, also used a bustle loader. The reason for not actually buying them, I don't know...but as a whole it would have been very expensive, and while it used a bustle loader, it also retained the carousel in the hull. The "additional vulnerability" came more from exposed rounds, rather than the idea of hull-storage itself. T-64/80 used a vertical propellant carousel, that left that propellant exposed. Because it was vertical AND exposed, a decent number of penetrations would lead to a cook off. T-72's use a horizontal carousel, that isn't exposed...however, rounds *can* be stored along the inside of the crew compartment, where they are exposed. That is where the problem came from, *exposing* propellant. T-90MS fixes this problem by adding more armor to the carousel, and also by putting excess ammunition in the bustle instead of the crew compartment. Bustle-loaders are very safe for the crew, but they also provide little, if no protection for the rounds. This is one area where hull storage actually makes sense.
  18. Mike E
    The prototype looks *really* similar to what the Swiss were building at the time.
  19. Mike E
    It was still immensely thick behind that "weak spot". Some 600 mm in LOS, IIRC. Arjun is.......
  20. Mike E

    MiG 1.44 Returns

    Mike E replied to Scolopax's topic in Aviation

    It's FTA, the people there read Gawker...
  21. Mike E
    Delta-Canards aren't exactly known for having little induced drag, IIRC. LPIR is great in theory, but their performance isn't going to be perfect. There have also been developments to try and defeat them. http://dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a456960.pdf
  22. Mike E
    That is what I'm referring to. Either it is insanely thick, or that is just two K-5 like plates angled together like on the T-72B3 turret.
  23. Mike E
    The other picture shows its' true thickness, which must be at least x2 that of K-5.
  24. Mike E
    Not by itself, hence my point. It can be used to give one a general idea of the *wings'* performance, but the fuselage itself is also crucial...as are the control surfaces, TVC etc. F/A-18 is a well known energy bleeder. Currently, only the Rafale's radar system is known to be "hard to pickup". I forget how they do it, but it has something to do with a scattered frequency or something. Given enough time, said variables could probably be figured out.
  25. Mike E

    MiG 1.44 Returns

    Mike E replied to Scolopax's topic in Aviation

    There was an air going model up to 04' IIRC. It is possible that she could be brought back, but that's the optimistic view.
×
×
  • Create New...