Sturgeon

6 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Yeah, i understand that it was supposed to be an accent, but it is still sounded way too much butchered for my ears. 

   Funnily enough, Russian voice actor sounded more manly and imposing than Chris, haha.

 

  Also, why "Crisp Rat"?

Because he's a crisp rat.

50 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

for example, Chris Pratt in the original pronounced "Abrar" chewing all the letters in the word (accent?), haha, but in ours it was clear and understandable, with a better understandable intonation.

This is an artificiality of Hollywood movies intended to make a character seem less like they come from California or New York. Which is funny because most US veterans from bumfuck can do Arabic pronunciation just fine. Anyone actually from "twang" country can recognize how stupid it sounds a mile away.

This is what the guy that Crisp Rat's character is based on sounds like:
 

No exaggerated accent.

1 hour ago, Laser Shark said:

 

I thought you would be happy so see that even the Germans are now admitting the superiority of ARgonomics?

PENISLOK

penis

Anywhere. Wikipedia, probably.

On 7/24/2021 at 10:15 PM, delete013 said:

Well, it is a proven way of getting from feudalism to space travel in merely 40 years.

By having the capitalist Americans build all your factories and bureaus? Yeah, that is one way.

Submissions are now CLOSED.

12 hours ago, delete013 said:

Just the usual capitalism. Outsourcing, budgeting, corruption, profit before quality, etc.

thank goodness we've gotten past all that and embraced robust, strong soviet policy which handily out-competed it.

11 hours ago, Serge said:

Lol.

The good old soviet time. Always better when unknown. 

baste

On 5/26/2021 at 8:34 AM, Sovngard said:

A closer look to the Challenger 2 mantlet :

 

 

 

 

Some even more illuminating photos.

Oh sure I thought there was something else illuminating in those photos we hadn't established.

I can tell you once I started laying out Comanche's turret it became obvious how bad CR2's armor must be.

9 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

i'm only about turret, mantlet is simple 50mm RHA(or even less) + rotor(cradle) which can't be much thciker than 200-250mm

 

 

 

 

 

those "v" shaped weldments on mantlet also strange...

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure I'm seeing it.

8 hours ago, Korvette said:

To anyone that's got even a remotely trained eye the CR2 was already atrocious, at least that's what I assumed, I was thinking more about the regular person still has that image probably.

Yeah you're right about that. Maybe I just hang out too much here.

3 hours ago, Korvette said:

Won't collapse yet for a fair bit. So many are still holding onto that mantlet, the suspension making the tank mobile, the 'dorchester', the L27 being a mythical round, the LFP not being an existent target. A tank failing in trials is somehow okay but a tank 'failing' in combat is indicative of bad design.

Idk man it seems to be largely falling apart to me.

Watching the mythology of Challenger 2 collapse finally after all these years has been deeply satisfying to me.

Also @Toxn, @Sten, @N-L-M, @Xoon, and @Curly_

@A. T. Mahan @Dominus Dolorem @Lord_James @delete013, the new deadline is Saturday the 24th of July. The judges agree that the time has come, so consider it firm.

36 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

It is explicitly stated in Paul-Werner Krapke's 1986 book. He was former "project manager" (leitender Baudirektor) of the Leopard 2 program. The only common part/dimension (out of 13 or 14 submitted for standardization) that the USA and the FRG agreed upon was the width of the tracks.

Hah, that's interesting. Hunnicutt makes it seem like they standardized most/all of it. Thank you, my mistake.

Thank you for the apology. I'm not going to ban you, of course. I know your posting record here and BTTR. But, you know, be nice to the admin hahah.

My meaning was simply "Poland has gotten invaded before". Nothing beyond that, not even an intent of "something something nazi tank blitzkrieg."

How many tanks does Poland need? That's for them to decide. With this buy of Abrams, it will be easier for them to justify divesting their older vehicles. Like I said, maybe it's just my attitude but I would take the wins where I could.

You and I should talk Leos sometime, I'm still learning about it (and modern tanks in general).

1 minute ago, SH_MM said:

How is this an insult?

How is it not? You accused me of bad faith argument or at least being too stupid to avoid a fallacy, you did it when I committed no such fallacy, and you committed the fallacy you accused me of to accuse me of it.

I'd say that's VERY insulting.

@N-L-Mif you'd enforce this por favor.

11 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Strawman. Tanks alone are useless on the modern battlefield with combined arms doctrine. Tanks alone were already useless in WW2.

Ah yes insult the Admin more.



No, I was not strawmanning you, and it's interesting to me that from something I said that was pretty vague, you decided that I must be doing that. And then you took it further by suggesting that I was saying tanks aren't combined arms assets?

This is not a wise course you're on right now.

 

20 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

Abrams' roadwheels have a diameter of 25 inches (635 mm); Leopard 2's roadwheels have a diameter of 700 mm.

Since you've decided to make this a point of contention, and you attacked my character, and because I have shit to do in the real world, you get to dig up actual drawings of M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 roadwheels to prove me wrong, instead of just pulling numbers out of your ass. Chop chop!
 

6 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

I don't think anybody complains that the M1A2 SEP v3 would be a bad tank. The real questions are:

1. Does Poland need 800 tanks (12 tank bataillons + ca. 100 tanks for training etc.)?
2. Does Poland need these tanks instantly?

Poland's current government does have very different answers to these question than their previous (and from what I've read, also a lot of Polish journalists & soldiers).

Does Poland need 800 tanks?

Oh, I dunno.

 

13 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

That is not the case. The road wheels have different diameters and are made from different materials. While Diehl offered tracks based on the Leopard 2's Type 570 tracks (with altered length) to the US Army in the 1980s, these were no selected; the Abrams uses American-made T158 tracks (or a newer version of them).

 

The USMC's old Abrams tanks had more in common with the Leopard 2 (Wegmann-designed smoke grenade dischargers, Zeiss-made laser rangefinder & Rheinmetall's programmable HE ammunition).

Diehl 570s fit on an Abrams. You need a different sprocket, but other than that they work fine. I've never heard anything about the Leopard 2 having different diameter roadwheels.

"Share parts" was strong language on my part. They share basic interfaces and standards, would be more exact. 

Regardless, I don't see this as a huge issue, especially since in the long run they'll be trying to get rid of their older tank types.

Just now, BaronTibere said:

I've seen posted elsewhere that poland is severely lacking in transports for heavier tanks, and garages for even the existing leopard fleet.

I doubt the US would foist off Abramses to someone if they didn't also get support equipment, so I bet the buy includes a lot of ancillaries.

The bridges point someone else mentioned is perfectly salient but I think ultimately not that big a deal. There's a couple of reasons, but the biggest one is that the US has been operating in Europe with Abramses with this constraint (which is a big mobility obstacle on that continent) for literal decades. So they've figured it out, and the Polish Army will obviously be working closely with US forces in any case. So the opportunity for equipment and training transfer is there, and also in a real war chances are fairly good they will literally drive on US pontoon bridges etc.