Bronezhilet

TB 2018 "We can break anything!"

 

 

HEAT penetrates due to chemical energy. It doesn't. It penetrates due to kinetic energy.
 
While HEAT does use chemical energy to propel the kinetic energy penetrator, so does every single AP cartridge. A HEAT round just has it at two points, to propel the shell and to propel the kinetic energy penetrator. Whereas with almost all AP shells the shell and penetrator are one and the same.

It's really funny watching the rolling clusterfuccane of Russian arms procurement, meanwhile the US military is freaking out trying to outdo one-off Russian prototypes because they are terrified of losing their dominance to a country with a military expenditure equivalent to France's, and are being egged on by a greedy defense industry.
 
And the cherry on top is that any Russian with a stake in this wishes they had our problems.

at least on M4A4 tested by brits it was bronze, and seems to be bronze on some restored tanks 

AT.100 Ballistic test of hull and turret of general Sherman tank (courtesy of Fu_Manchu)
 
btw maybe you know exact thickness of bow MG shield ? 

Two weeks with the Navy did more damage than 70 years underwater

Basically what this whole thing means is that Emperor Palputin will conquer Galaxy with Space Marines and T-72s. T-72B3s to be precise.
 
I posted this on other Capitalist internet site 3 months ago
And apperently this is very likely to be now true after Borisov's stupid speech. UBKh is T-72B3 mod 2016/"M".
 
   So let's look at this situation - we have no new produced tanks delivered to RA since 2010-2011 (T-90A production was stopped for T-72B[udget Cuts]3) and there will be no newly produced tanks in any meaningful numbers for 5-10+ more years. Which leave our non-courtiers soldiers with existing fleet of Soviet tanks, which are at least 30+ old. Add here a fact that Soviets human-hating godless commies did worked on new generation of MBTs in late 1980s to seriusly/radically change tank designs, you can see that those tanks were becoming outdated in even 1980s. Similar situation is with IFVs and APCs, with BMP-3 being produced in too small numbers and majority of our fleet is BMP-2s and BTR-80As.
 
   On top of that political and military situation, and recent history shows that our forces are going to be involved in number of local conflicts (Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, etc) where our nuclear-powered "Putin Fury" cruise missiles and nuclear powered ekranoplans with nuclear powered teapots will make 0 difference. Majority of our potential enemies/opponents have Soviet weaponry, from RPGs down to S-300s, Smerch/Uragan MRLS and so on. Not only potential, but enemies that we already fought have them and actively use them.
   In Soviet times, during A-stan war BMPs for example already received armor upgrades (BMP-2D), even against not that well equipped dushmans and mujaheeds. Object 477 had serious side armor package and separated crew compartment, Object 299 had crew protection capsule and so on. Basically, armor and survivability of older vehicles in changing type of conflicts that Soviet army found itself, were already found to be "lacking".
 
   Our MoD decision to this problem of aging and outdated park of tanks, IFVs and APCs of army that is going (and already does) fight with relatively not badly armed forces is this:
take T-72B, glue French thermal imager and FCS from 2000s, repair all parts that responsible for moving tank from point A to point B and call it "B3", done take BMP-2, add new radio, done take BMP-1, put BTR-80A turret with 30 mm "i can't hit anything" autocannon, done Take BTR-80 and put a turret with 30 mm "i can't hit anything" autocannon, done Create a TV channel (let's call it "Zvezda") and use all central TV channels, internet sites and so on to tell general public that our tanks are most tankiest ever made, APCs are unpenetretable and T-72 can beat Abrams and Leopards 2 left and right with just fumes from diesel engines and driver swearing something in Russian from his open hatch.    Somebody think that this will be enough, but there are a lot of problems here that were not solved. We are stuck with 30+, 40+ and in case of Basurmanin program - a fucking 50+ old vehicles. Simply speaking our soldiers are going to next conflict on top of IFVs that were taken out from Army during Soviet times because they were deemed outdated! 
 
   Why this situation is so stupid? 
   During 2000s we already had plenty to work with. BTR-90 for APCs could be at least something (chassis could support more weight, better armor, more place for turret and weapons, etc), tanks could be upgraded under Burlak program, or Black Eagle could have been developed futher. A lot of resources were put into BTR-90s, Burlak programm with real vehicles made for them. And nothing came from them because funding was stopped on premise of creation of better vehicles in the future. BMP-3 armor upgrades, APS, Relikt, T-72B2 Rogatka, Object 187, etc, a lot of stuff that was mass production ready or nearly ready was not put on conveyor at least in small numbers for active units participating in wars. A lot of wasted time and money. At least with those vehicles we could had something for Army created and produced in this century that at least partially solves problems that Soviet human-hating commies wanted to solve.
 
   How many years ago was Object 195 tested? Why they couldn't put those in limited service/test phase? Again, claims of better tank in the future, while army is still sitting on T-72Bs with K-5 and shells under crew bare asses.
 
   Years and years of development for some perfect weapon system that lead to nothing in the end while this whole time T-72Bs did not even got Relikt ERA as a cheap-ass upgrade. And only in 2016 an upgrade from 2000s was put into limited use on uparmored T-72B3s. But problems are not stopped here.
 
   After collapse of Soviet union we got a pretty good opportunity to solve another problem from late Soviet times - a whole 3 "Main" battle tanks in service that had almost no shared parts but very similar perfomance. Kharkovite traitors now were outsiders, T-80 developers and producers went into bankrupt trash bin and only UVZ left. We could finaly get a standart MBT, without zoological garden of different designs, parts, training, etc. But apperently this is not a case. We now have zoological garden of T-72s, with T-80UE/UA/BVM on top of that and T-90/A/M getting into mix. Same with IFVs - BMP-3 now have to share their role with BMP-2/M and BMP-1 Basurmanin. Well, at least BTR-80A is not in danger in any way as BTR-90 is a dead project. Add here all those MRAPS (Ural-VV, Typhoon-U, Typhoon-K, and so on) for special type of "fuck you, standardization".
 
   So good luck to our soldiers with T-72, in 2020, 2030 and maybe 2040 and thanks to Soviet un-orthodox evil empire for providing our MoD with at least something to fight and die in, because with this level of excellent planning and holistic vision of Armed forces our MoD would had to use Toyotas to close gaps and cover a hole in their pants and underpants. But i fear that someday T-72s will no longer be avaliable for B3 "modernization" and Soviet stocks would be 100% used... maybe T-34 needs some sort of modernization? Like T-34B3? It probably will be better than all Western tanks and can beat M1A3 Abrams and Leopards 3s left and right with just fumes from diesel engines and driver swearing something in Russian from his open hatch.  
 

Chrysler XM1 

Simo's influence on the course of the war wasn't that big anyway. Implying Finland lost their territory and assets because a certain sniper used the 'wrong' caliber bullet is retarded.

Oh shit, I misread. I though this was a “who’s finding NATO”, not “general expenditures of countries in NATO”. Please disregard. 

The chart is about percent of GDP spent in the military, not the NATO budget.
 
The US pay about 22,1% of the budget followed by Germany (14,6%) France (10,6) and the UK (9,8)
 

 
So while the US still ends up paying more, it is not as unbalanced as gross spending and GDP spending.
Besides NATO budget itself is ridiculously small.
 
The 2% target by 2024 is another matter as it aim to make sure that each member have a credible military (and that is even discutable given how the 2% are calculated) compared to their wealth.
And here it is true that most European country don't pay much compared to how much they could spend (even per capita it is true).
 

 
So reducing the 3,6% of GDP that the US spend on it's defence would only mean shrinking the US military, which would most likely impair it's ability to project force all over the world (which is why NATO is a credible alliance: because the US can send sizeable  contingent to help anywhere they want).
 
So it is true that NATO remain relevant almost solely thanks to the US ability to send massive amount of forces abroad, and while reducing US spending would force the other allies to take matters on their hands and spend more, it would also mean that the US influence over the world would be drastically reduced.
 
Alternatively the US could leave NATO, which would also force the allies to spend more but wouldn't save a penny to the US.
It would most likely be a net loss for the US since they would lose some "soft" power they had through NATO, wouldn't be able to set the STANAG in line with US tech any more and some countries (especially in eastern Europe)  would stop buying American weapons as a political token altogether
 
To sum up the US pulling out of NATO would be detrimental to everybody (US included) and would be an illogical move (though the trade war was also illogical and detrimental to everybody as well).
A better outcome for everybody would be for the allies (especially for EU countries) to step up in order to stand as equals in military worth, we would reach an equilibrium which would mean more stability (on a slight note it would mean a proportionally lower US influence over the world since it is a zero sum game to some extent).
Alternatively the US could reduce it's spending down to 2% of it's GDP which would mean a better balance as well, but given the current trend I think it is both unlikely and probably not a good idea.

Spanish ships having trouble floating?  Sounds like they're keeping with the finest traditions of the Armada.

Forwarding "We will fight until the last American" as the new NATO motto.

It's not better at poking a hole in solid steel, but it should be way better at poking a hole in a NERA package.

Yesssss
 
https://babylonbee.com/news/senator-ben-sasse-offered-one-last-chance-to-bow-to-towering-trump-statue-before-being-thrown-into-fiery-furnace/

@Ramlaen not exactly next to each other, but still:

I may or may not have had the same version of the game. And a friend may or may not have had the same version too.
 
We may or may not have had a blast playing the co-op

Waveshapers can't touch the liner, which this one does.

A pair of interesting photographs posted by Damian from @Walter_Sobchak's blog, not (just) because they show an Abrams testing hydropneumatic suspension but because they appear to show the glacis is thicker than it is around the driver's hatch.
 

Couple of options here:
It's a third charge for extra penetration It's a reactive liner charge It's something else 1. Third charge for extra penetration
Could be simple an extra charge crammed in the shell go get a little bit of extra penetration of the whole package. All other Soviet/Russian HEAT shells have quite a bit of empty room behind the main charge, they could have just simply thrown in an extra charge. It's a low angle (or high, depending on how you look at it) shaped charge to fit through the hole the main charge made. Point against this option is that it has to penetrate (part of) the slug the main charge left behind, so the added penetration is anyone's guess.
 
2. Reactive liner charge
It could also be a reactive liner shaped charge for extra after-armour effect (and a little bit of extra fuck you in case of an incomplete penetration). Main charge penetrates armour, reactive liner flies through, goes boom inside a vehicle. It's basically like a Bunkerfaust, but instead of a fragmentation warhead you have a reactive liner exploding inside whatever you shoot at. A fragmentation warhead doesn't work because the hole an anti-tank HEAT jet leaves isn't big enough for a proper warhead. But it is big enough for a HEAT yet. It's a low angle shaped charge so that the jet can fly through the hole the main jet made without having to penetrate anything so it'll end up behind the armour in time. 
 
3. It's something else
It's also possible that it acts as a super high velocity precursor designed to smash through all (N)ERA sandwiches before they can react properly. It's basically an un-interceptable due to its speed. But it still has to penetrate all the (N)ERA layers and I don't know how long the jet from this charge is. The reason it's behind the main charge is weight distribution. While shape stabilisation is quite nifty, you still have to pay attention to a whole bunch of things. Oh, and the main jet still has to actually form properly, which needs a certain amount of area (and doesn't need a charge in front of it fucking it up). Point for this setup is that it looks like the main fuse is behind the auxiliary charge, with a booster going to the main charge. Keywords here being "looks like". It's also a low angled charge so that the jet will pass through the hole in the main charge before the main jet forms. 
Huge point against this: ...they could just make the whole main charge at a lower angle.
 
 
It's also interesting to note that the auxiliary charge has a constant explosive layer thickness. I don't have my papers handy so I can't check, but it should result in a more even jet velocity (Gurney equations and all that).
 
More things to note about the shell in general:
Russians still don't know how to shape stabilise It has a telescoping nose, probably so it fits in the autoloader. I wonder how/when they'll extend the nose Shorter fins More boattail-y than previous shells What's the bit in front of the main charge? What's in there? Looks like the precursor has 2 types of explosive. No idea why.   

WOw, it is like KRISS VECTOR (BEST SMG EVER OF COURSE)
 
Quick, Deviantart weapon designers, put this in every weapon concept art!

Rare photos of ZBD-04A launching GL-ATGMs

 

 

Don't hide behind "muh secret data" too quickly since a lot of things aren't actually that secret. You'd think that the external ballistic performance of M829A1 would be secret, but whoopsy daisy it's not.
 
Effectiveness of cage armour? We know.
APFSDS interception methods of APS and its effectiveness? We know and we can figure it out fairly accurately.
Effectiveness of Nozh? We know.
Terminal ballistics of HEAT jets? We know.
Effectiveness of ERA? We know.
 
Seriously, a lot of information is buried in papers or can be gleaned from papers. But the average military enthusiast can't be arsed to read through thousands upon thousands of pages of information to find interesting tidbits of information.