Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Wrong thread, and what?

Sorry but I don't really understand what you're trying to convey here. Can you rephrase?

 

No, definitely not the wrong thread nor did I click reply to the wrong response.

 

You acted as if the cute little 60mm HVMS thing was somehow in the same league as the Super 75 over the last few of your posts in this thread (it's not) while also making the snarky little comment in another thread that maybe the US "will save itself a few years" by just picking up iron vision for the Bradley thing...

 

It's a trend with you to act like the Israeli whatever is at the very least just as good as ANYTHING ELSE of any kind in any class anyone posts ever! This is your SOP at the bare minimum.  In this case you even went as far as to try to throw shade by using an argument from incredulity as your evidence of the outright inferiority of an American project that was being discussed which is just plain better in every way than the "home team solution" you tried to pretend had even some claim to qualitative equivalence etc!

 

Maybe if you had referenced the Ottomatic version your utterly unfounded bias wouldn't have been so glaringly and jarringly obvious, but then again the Ottomatic isn't Izzy either therefore I'm sure It's completely inferior in your mind as well.

 

Which is exactly how the whole iron vision thing ties in and why I brought it up here too even though THAT snarky xenocentric and unfounded bit of commentary exists in another thread.

 

Once again we find you acting as if the product from your home nation is so far ahead in the road to serial production and advanced in function that the US ought to just not even bother with a domestic solution and buy Iron vision instead. The actual reality of the situation though pretty thoroughly fails to match up with your assertions/assessment yet again though if one stops arguing from incredulity in a way that basically comes down to just assuming that your "home team" stuff is unparalleled and revolutionary then reinforcing that by not bothering to actually look to see if it's even remotely close to true!

 

And another tie in here is that ELKE / HSTVL / RDF LT / super 75 etc are in a lot of ways some of the first real even close to successful Western outings into territory that would justify and or even require stuff like an iron vision type system to make them workable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Singular is Freccia, plural would be Frecce going by regular grammar, but I don't know if a vehicle name gets changed like that or it it remains Freccia   Have some Ariete - Centauro II mix

I didn't say anything about penetration either.     See?  That's what I said.  I never claimed that HESH is impotent because it cannot penetrate.  I am saying HESH is impotent because

2 hours ago, roguetechie said:

 

No, definitely not the wrong thread nor did I click reply to the wrong response.

 

You acted as if the cute little 60mm HVMS thing was somehow in the same league as the Super 75 over the last few of your posts in this thread (it's not) while also making the snarky little comment in another thread that maybe the US "will save itself a few years" by just picking up iron vision for the Bradley thing...

 

It's a trend with you to act like the Israeli whatever is at the very least just as good as ANYTHING ELSE of any kind in any class anyone posts ever! This is your SOP at the bare minimum.  In this case you even went as far as to try to throw shade by using an argument from incredulity as your evidence of the outright inferiority of an American project that was being discussed which is just plain better in every way than the "home team solution" you tried to pretend had even some claim to qualitative equivalence etc!

 

Maybe if you had referenced the Ottomatic version your utterly unfounded bias wouldn't have been so glaringly and jarringly obvious, but then again the Ottomatic isn't Izzy either therefore I'm sure It's completely inferior in your mind as well.

 

Which is exactly how the whole iron vision thing ties in and why I brought it up here too even though THAT snarky xenocentric and unfounded bit of commentary exists in another thread.

 

Once again we find you acting as if the product from your home nation is so far ahead in the road to serial production and advanced in function that the US ought to just not even bother with a domestic solution and buy Iron vision instead. The actual reality of the situation though pretty thoroughly fails to match up with your assertions/assessment yet again though if one stops arguing from incredulity in a way that basically comes down to just assuming that your "home team" stuff is unparalleled and revolutionary then reinforcing that by not bothering to actually look to see if it's even remotely close to true!

 

And another tie in here is that ELKE / HSTVL / RDF LT / super 75 etc are in a lot of ways some of the first real even close to successful Western outings into territory that would justify and or even require stuff like an iron vision type system to make them workable.

 

EDIT: Changed my comment. Wrote it inappropriately.

 

You had a bad day. You need to vent out some anger. Don't vent it on me though.

 

I believe you simply, greatly, misunderstood me on all the above points. So this is your chance to rephrase it.

 

I want us to maintain mutual respect, so work with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2018 at 4:00 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

EDIT: Changed my comment. Wrote it inappropriately.

 

You had a bad day. You need to vent out some anger. Don't vent it on me though.

 

I believe you simply, greatly, misunderstood me on all the above points. So this is your chance to rephrase it.

 

I want us to maintain mutual respect, so work with me.

 

My apologies ... It's been really hot here for a week and heat is very taxing on me which makes me grumpy. 

 

No excuses, just an explanation... Again I apologize.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a quick glance around and those two vehicles are surprisingly averse to being seen together (and yet I'm pretty sure there must be a picture out there showing them side by side, in one of these typical "the evolution of our hardware" photo shoots). I even tried Hunnicutt's Bradley - A History of the American Fighting and Support Vehicles or turning to Desert Storm footage, but nothing turned up for me.

 

The only pic I found that kind of illustrates the difference in size between the two was lifted from a modelling site, and even then it must be taken with a ULCC-sized dose of salt.

 

AT5bJtn.jpg

 

That said, while looking around I found some rather exotic stuff such as this German StuG-like conversion of the M113. Would've been perfect for the "Name that AFV" thread except I don't have an official name to slap on it. :lol:

 

C2QKmou.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll leave the link to the 14th of July parade in case somebody is interested:

 

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/france/14-juillet/direct-regardez-le-defile-militaire-du-14-juillet-avec-pour-la-premiere-fois-des-images-4d_2845251.html

 

Edit: The actual parade start around 2h35 time mark (or rather the opening animation).

Link to post
Share on other sites

ZfxvPJJ.jpg

Naked:
 

Spoiler

7sxttaF.jpg
SFIvfHa.jpg


Base Armour (Spaced Steel?):
 

Spoiler

J9FmvHq.jpg
pEhfC5f.jpg
Y4dlHNG.jpg

Side Storage
B1Uwlav.jpg

Diffrent side storage:
gvtYSOt.jpg


Expanded Armour (Composite?) & Blocks
 

Spoiler

Bolted on-top of Replaces base armour at the front. Comes as standard at rear and bottom(?):
fTGaT6Q.jpg
mkts7pb.jpg
jWSy00n.jpg
pHSvxjr.jpg
qHpEyn2.jpg

Turret slabs:
1IXwQ5R.jpg

Bar/Mesh:
LhJlfg0.jpg
xH4WpX8.jpg


Barracuda camo:
 

Spoiler

GxCH8IN.jpg


Testing Ballast Weights:
 

Spoiler

cbzfwZK.jpg
eJGQsxa.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully this is the right place for this, but why does the Japanese Type-74 have such an archaic commander's cupola? Vision block's, Fixed commander's sight and no provision for open protected position, and with the .50 M2 mounted centerline on the turret, a "tradition" that continues to this day in the Type-90. All of this seems very strange, especially as the STB-1 at least had a panoramic periscope for the commander.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By Collimatrix
      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?
       
       

×
×
  • Create New...