Mohamed A

Mohamed, I was gonna share the wehraboo list with you, but it has a bunch of our real names on it. Sorry.

UAF soldiers need to fry grasshoppers because of lack of supplies and food.

If you smell vodka and fresh wielding from your satellite photos - than it is Russian T-90A.

Kharkovites BTFO

 
Full read here

Receiver looks based on the MG-3, which for some reason was slated for replacement.
 
I had heard of this project a long time ago, I wonder if it is still active.
 
The history of machine gun procurement in the Bundeswehr is full of interesting twists and turns.  According to Musgrave's German Machine Guns book, the first MG-42s produced after WWII were reverse-engineered from wartime guns; the original blueprints had been lost.  For some time thereafter, Rheinmetall produced the MG-42 (later MG-3), as well as the G-3 rifle.  Heckler and Koch announced that they, too, would like to manufacture MG-3 machine guns, which caused some concern at Rheinmetall because this could lead to competitive pricing, which would be bad for them.
 
In the end, a "gentleman's agreement" was reached.  HK would only produce G-3 rifles, and Rheinmetall would cease production of G-3 to focus on MG-3, so both companies could charge monopoly pricing on their respective design!

Information on the new, fully electric, 2E58 gun stabilzer. About time we start hearing about it.
http://gurkhan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/258.html?m=1

Somewhere above Idlib. 

 
Our airforces have a "tradition" - fly over future combat zones/mission locations, without weapons at very high altitude. This is done to familiarize pilots to area.

Thanks.. Didn't know that. Quite interesting actually.
 
 
 
Also should make a 140mm rifled [cause they're british] cannon, which has a HUGE muzzle flash and call that variant M1 Firefly (because of the muzzle flash). Also, at first, it should have bad accuracy.  And it should also penetrate the Leopard 2A5+'s mantlet frontally.
 
Then they should try to strap 4 300mm rockets to the sides of the turret and call that variant Firefly Tulip. Normal M1A4 should also get it.

I don't recall when or why, but the Russians did receive one example of an M26 before the war's end.
 
More on this page, courtesy of one of our resident Commie tank hacks.

From EEs blog,  this one here. 
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/06/lend-lease-impressions-pershing.html
 
Sorry was using phone before. 

I think there was a calculation of how much armor for protection of 1 tanker would weight, and result was about 11 tons. Basically a 4 man tank can't be lighter than ~40 tons without compromising protection (classical layout, ~current level of tech).

I think that if the US sells an Abrams to the UK, they should make a special variant powered by 15 6 cylinder Chrysler engines mounted in a three deep "multibank" formation to produce 1500 HP.  As a US taxpayer, I would be willing to vote to give these tanks to the UK as Lend Lease.  We can call it the Abrams M1A4 and the Brits can call it Abrams II.  Gotta keep tradition going, ya know?

The blog post has been edited; http://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html
 
Most of the changes look to be with the T-72B's armor. 

General chats of many popular games should be Purged, with many "posters" finding themselves in Gulags.

Updated WoT graphics look really good, sound is top notch, just the framerate is a little low.
 

We are still in the stage of moving equipment, damn it!
BTW those towns are attacked by groups with very small amount of Syrians in them. Majority are from different countries in the region and some number of tadjiks, uzbeks, chechens, africans.

This site exists almost entirely as a result of how abjectly shit the WoT forums are.

My sympathies.  I'm a WoT forum vet too.

T-62M frontal armor. [from otvaga forums]

Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
 
Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
 
The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
 
For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
 

 
As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
 
Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
 
So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
 
-What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
 
-Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
 
-Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

-WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
 
 

Doesn't matter, Mohamed. Side armor of turret bustle is weak, coupled with turret overal layout will lead to such situations when hull-down tank will loose all ammunition and became combat incapable because of turret turned a bit to left/right. I want add that tank can be knocked out in hull down with pretty weak weapon, fired from frontal arc.