Bronezhilet

Yooo @Toxn what were y'all smoking back in the days?

Per "surviving the ride", the 6x6 with 2 front axles was intended to solve the problem of losing all mobility when the front wheel hit a landmine, by just having an extra sacrificial pair up front. This extra pair of wheels however led to substantial yaw stability issues and was not successful.

Yooo @Toxn what were y'all smoking back in the days?

Yooo @Toxn what were y'all smoking back in the days?

Yooo @Toxn what were y'all smoking back in the days?

Yooo @Toxn what were y'all smoking back in the days?

1974 report
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Hopefully this has not been posted already:


 

A great new indie game for all the cool kids to gush about: Patents, Please.

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. 
 

Cold Response 2006

CV90 falls through ice:


 

Gets free but when being towed it rolls onto the ARV:


 

Rescued by Leopard 1 ARV:




https://www.sphf.se/svenskt-pansar/pansarperspektiv/bargningstjanst/bargning-i-norge/

Bundeswehr tested effects of an absolutely enormous VBIED on HESCO barriers and other fortifications and stuff. Definitely worth watching. 
 

Ow wow that presentation. That dude is going places. Places, but not useful places.
 
Does anybody know when was the last him he was near a military weapon (system)?
 
I'm thinking of burning that presentation down sentence by sentence, but I have better things to do. Like picking my nose and flicking the booger in the general direction I expect Pierre Sprey to be. Muslims pray towards Mecca, I flick boogers towards Pierre Sprey.

https://warspot.ru/17005-teoriya-bronetankovyh-zabluzhdeniy-tanki-v-chistom-pole-i-amerikanskie-stanki
   Yuri Pasholok's article about some of myths about Soviet armor (1943-1944).
 
   1. Turret ring diamter increase problems
 

    Translation of text:
   Is there an ability to increase turret ring of T-34 tank? Yes, they are. According to preliminary assesment ring can be made wider by 200mm.
   Is it possible for production to make it? Yes, Mariupol factory doesn't have any problems with it, factory N183 also have necessary machinery
 
 
 

   T-34-85 with 1600mm turret ring instead of 1430 during testing.
 
 
 
   2. SU-76M is bad
 

   Manual river crossing of the ZIS-3 cannon. Those wishing to tell that the SU-76M was a bad self-propelled gun can mentally send themselves to the place of one of the numbers of this crew
 
 

 
 
 
   3. About ISU-122 existance: myth and reality.
 

   The main reason for the appearance of the A-19 as a weapon for tanks and self-propelled guns. The demolished Tiger turret is the result of an A-19 armor-piercing shell hit from a 1.5 km
 
 

 
 

   Thanks to the ISU-122s, it was possible to reduce the requirements for the production of A-19 for self-propelled guns to 100 pieces per month. Nevertheless, the cases when the plant No. 172 did not keep up with the orders are not rare.
 
 
 
   4. About IS tanks
 

   To the question of when the D-25 was created. The middle of July 1943, and there is already a project of Object 240. The fighting on the Kursk Bulge is still ongoing
 
 

   Distance - 2000m. R50 (half of shots) - 72sm, R100 - 130 sm. "+" is point of aim, central part of the group is 10 sm above and 100sm to the right from point of aim.
   To the question of the accuracy of the D-25T. And such accuracy was achieved during standard warranty tests.
 
 

   One of the tanks that participated in the battle of Ternopol. The vehicle was hit, but, as you can see, served in the Red and Soviet armies for more than a decade
 
 

   In August 1944, the mass production of the IS-2 began with a straightened frontal part of the hull, which was significantly stronger than the original design
 
 
/..../
   6. Optics
 

   Visibility from T-34-85. During the war years, Soviet observation devices and sights made a big step forward
 
 

   For comparison, the visibility from the Panther. Loader is blind, the gunner looks only forward, only the commander can look on the sides. For this reason, defeats on the sides were a frequent result of the combat use of new generation of German tanks.
 
 

To clarify a little on the above post, the paper from which those screencaps are considers everything moving at a velocity less than 2 km/s not part of the jet.

"Demolition Mechanism and Behavior of Shaped Charge with Reactive Liner", Xiao et al.
 
But a 1 kg jet is rare. a (really) rough estimation on a liner with a diameter of 110 and an internal angle of 50 degrees gives me ~380 grams for a 2 mm liner, ~500 grams for a 3 mm liner, and ~750 grams for a 4 mm liner. And we know that not all liner material will go into the jet or slug and we know that the jet itself has a very low weight compared to the slug.
 
Using the following info:

(Liner material is copper)
 


 
I'm getting an RE factor of 2.39. (500/50 = 10 kJ per gram for the total jet, TNT is 4.184 kJ per gram -> 10/4.184=2.39)
 
Yes, you're wrong. It's so destructive because a reactive liner literally blows the fuck up, a normal liner doesn't do this.

So, recently I stumbled upon something fairly interesting. Most of the people here know about shaped charges and how they work, the principles behind it are fairly well known. Recently however, there has been research about a new 'class' of shaped charges: Reactive Liner Shaped Charges. As the name implies it's a shaped charge with a liner made out of a reactive material.
 
Please note that I still do not fully understand the workings of Reactive Liner Shaped Charges, this post may be changed or updated depending on new information and/or discussions.
 
What is a reactive material, you say? One of the papers explains it like this:
(Demolition Mechanism and Behavior of Shaped Chargewith Reactive Liner, Jianguang Xiao et al., 2016)
 
In simple terms, it's a material that only explodes when you hit it really really really really hard with a hammer. Or when you fire it into a solid material at several kilometers per second. I dunno. It's one of the two.
 
What this amounts to is a shaped charge which forms an exploding jet. Neato.
 
But... why should you care? We already don't fire explosives at an armoured target because it's not very efficient, so why suddenly care now? To answer that I have to compare it to normal shaped charges and explain a few things about explosives. The most important thing to understand is that no explosive detonates instantly, there is always a slight delay. This delay is (almost) negligible at normal projectile velocities, but become important at high velocities. Think hypersonic velocities, like with... shaped charge jets!
The main thing I am not completely sure about is whether the detonation of the shaped charge initiates the liner, or the impact with the target. The self-delay of the reactive material used in most of the tests is ~0.85 and depending on the liner angle the jet can move 2.8 to 5.2 meters before actually exploding. Of course this distance will be a lot less when penetrating because the material slows down. A reactive material with a too low self-delay might detonate during the formation of the jet, or before it actually managed to penetrate the armour (but this only applies in the situation where the reactive liner is initiated by the shaped charge). This is of course not something you want, you want the liner to detonate inside the target to do the maximum amount of damage.
 
And that's the main reason you should care about shaped charges with reactive liners. They do a fuckton of damage.
 
This is your brain: This is the result of a shaped charge with an aluminium liner:

 
This is your brain on drugs: This is the result of a shaped charge with a reactive liner:

To give a sense of scale, that's a 1520 by 1520 mm concrete cylinder. The shaped charge had a diameter of... 81 mm.
 
As you can see the reactive liner does a fuckton more damage compared to a normal liner, this is because the jet literally detonates when it's inside the armour. Concrete is one of the materials that cannot deal with certain forces, which makes it weak versus explosives detonating inside of it. Steel for example cares a lot less about it, but even steel will suffer more damage from a reactive liner than a normal copper liner. The entry hole for a reactive liner is around 0.65 CD whereas for a copper liner it is 0.5 CD. A paper also states the following:
The paper however does not show or describe the "tremendous increase in steel target damage". It does however give some basic information and show photos of the entry holes:
 

 

 
The penetration capabilities of reactive liners in steel targets were "sacrificed slightly" compared to copper liners, but the paper does not elaborate any further.
 
Here's some more information and pictures about the effectiveness of reactive liners against concrete targets, just for shits and giggles:

A 'Bam Bam' is the same warhead as the 81mm one (1.8 kg) from the first photos, except scaled to 18.1 kg. The 81mm charge is called Barnie, by the way. The target is the same ~1500 mm too.
 

As you can see the Bam Bam charge is capable of fucking up massive parts of asphalt roads/runways. A 21.6 cm shaped charge completely destroying around 42 square meters of asphalt.
 

 
But hey, a 21.6 cm charge is fucking massive, lets tone it down slightly.
 
Charges:

 
Test setup:

 
Results:

Sadly there's a bunch of information missing in the tables. It is highly likely that different liner thicknesses were used, but these aren't given in the tables.
Results can be found in the full version of Table 1:

...that's around 9-10 square meters of concrete fucked up by a ~1 kg warhead. That's fucking insane.
 
 
Some other things to note is that due to the materials used in these tests (an aluminium-polymer mix) the jet velocity is significantly higher and the jet length longer than comparable copper liners:

 
So the reactive liner used (26% Al, 74% Teflon) has a jet tip velocity that's around twice as high for shallow charges, but drops to around 1.6 at higher angles. The difference in jet tip velocity is most likely due to the lower density of the reactive liner. This is what Wang et al. said about this:
This poor ductility also increases the probability of fragmentation (jet break-up), which can be seen here:


 
So because the reactive liner has a lower density, it forms a jet quicker, but because of its poor ductility it starts to break up very quickly. Tests have shown that a stand-off that's longer than 2 CD is undesirable, whereas normal liners do not really care about a longer stand-off.
 
However! The research done to make the Barnie warhead show that it is undesirable to have cavitation during the formation of the jet. This cavitation is visible in the above simulations, but can better be seen in this one:

It is very well possible that Wang et al. had a sub-optimal liner design, since the final Barnie jet looks like this compared to a comparable aluminium liner jet:

They are quite similar and the Barnie jet does not have the 'blobs' visible in the simulations from Wang et al..
 
 
 
And last but certainly not least, Xiao et al. calculated the TNT equivalence (RE factor) of the reactive liner:

 
In simple terms, the kaboom-effectiveness of this reactive material is 3.4 to 7.7 times as high as TNT. But since these values on their own are kind of meaningless, lets compare them to other RE factors!
The RE factor of C4 is 1.34.
The RE factor of RDX is 1.6.
PETN? 1.66. 
Torpex? 1.3.
Amatol? 1.1.
ANFO? 0.74.
The explosive with the highest detonation velocity (Octanitrocubane)? 2.38.
THIS FUCKING ALUMINIUM/TEFLON MIX!? MOTHERFUCKING 7.77.
 
Interestingly the theoretical energy contained in the aluminium/teflon mix is only about 4 times as high as TNT. The higher values are most likely due to the addition of kinetic effects.
 
 
So yeah... huzzah for reactive liners. 
 
I might add some stuff to this post later, depending on whether or not I forgot something.

so, my bad again, 81 no used against hull, 127 and 107
 
127mm-600-636mm pen
107mm-480mm pen


 
 
as far as i understand, because of this hull front failure they later made this hull 
 

 
and only after this version get to 2A0/4 style hull, but i don't know is 2A0/4 a capable of stoping 127mm warhead or not...
 
and there is a scheme of firings of 2AV in US, without any good details, only that tank have 39 hits, of which 16 germans consider to be "good", of which 3 actually was penetration in turret front and mantlet by 127mm warhead, remaining 23 hits, they didn't  mention...
 


 
penetration was hit 6, 5 and 13, which version of hull front was used in US trials i don't know
 
 

p.s scheme of US trials seem to match trials i previosly posted here, so it's seems that they used improved hul, or germans repeat all hits that they recieved during US trials later at home with improved hull front
 
 

FFG Presents Recovery Module for the Boxer:
https://esut.de/2019/08/meldungen/land/14663/ffg-stellt-berge-modul-fuer-den-boxer-vor/







The Boxer drive module shown has a new type of radiator exhaust shroud but the older A0-A1 engine exhaust.
Comparison:

Few more shots. 
I have some new shots to put up. 

It's a little funny to think a pair of Officers, who are now in their 70s look young. 

More young men who are now in their 70s!
I found this great site that has all kinds of info on US Navy ships and has the Cruise book for the America World Cruise, a long with others for ships dating back to pre-WWII in some cases. 
https://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv66-68/000.htm
Sadly, my dad must have somehow missed making it into the VF-33 personnel roster in the book. It's ok Lt Wiest above didn't make the cruise book either.  I've spent hours reading through various cruise books, in particular the WWII carrier and battleship ones. 
 

I find this image really fascinating, I've always wondered how they kept track of the birds, and now I know. I bet its all in a computer now. 

Back to aircraft. A nice VA-85 Intruder.  I'm curious what the weird looking spike looking things on the Island are. Some kind of sensor or ECM device maybe?

I think this one is from the world cruise, but you can't see any markings that tell us what ship for sure.  It's also weird, some slides are dated, others not. Maybe they were in batches at one point but nearly 50 years bouncing around in boxes has mixed them all up. 

This one is from the world cruise. 


A pair of shots of a VA-64 A-4 about to be started, I think that's what the red hose is for.  One thing I noticed, the planes are much cleaner in all the slides than I thought they would be. 
These are from east coast workups in 69. 

And old Vigilante about to get a cat shot. I read somewhere these planes were all G limited and really old by this point. Wish I could remember the book. 

A nice shot of a Phantom cat shot. 

These images all seem like they got taken on the same day, maybe within minutes of each other.  Maybe from up on the Island?

Skywarrior going for a flight. 

The Samuel N. Moore, DD-747 a Sumner class destroyer commissioned June of 44, and only had about a year of service with the US Navy left. I'm pretty sure this is from an UNREP on the world cruise, because DD-747 was struck on 24 October of 69 and given to the Taiwan Navy on 10 December 69. She served with them until 1995.  

My Dad was in the Navy from 1965 to 1969. He's been dead since 2000, so there is no asking him for info on this stuff, my mom is around but won't knot much about the Navy details so I am putting this together from memory and whats in the photos.  The slides were not in great shape, and the first set of scans were rough, and then the scanner broke. So, since Amazon didn't have the same model anymore, I spent a little more money and got a much nice scanner, with a better "technology" for film scanning, and it fixes the flaws when it scans them. The results are remarkable.  As far as I know these images were taken with a Minolta 35mm Camera,   I guess an SLR, since he had a bunch of lenses for it. I learned photography with it, and have a few pictures of my GTO I took with his Camera.  This was the type of camera you focuses, and set the light settings, and had to hand wind. Considering how much harder a camera was to work back then, I think my old man was a reasonably talented photographer.
  
As far as I can remember he went to boot camp in San Diego, then he went to schools for Ejection Seat Maintenance and Air Condition systems on the F4J Phantom. He got assigned to VF-33, part of CAG-6, with  VF-102,  VA-82, VA-86, VA-85, RVAH-13, VAW-122, VAW-13 Det. 66, and VAH-10 Det. 66. CAG-6 was assigned to the USS America, who was about three years old and about to go on a world cruise, that would include the Ships only Vietnam deployment in 1968. When the ship got back, it was stationed on the east coast, and VF-33 went to CAG-7, and ended up on the Independence. My dad was with them for at least one work up cruise, since there are a set of photos from that ship. By mid 69 he was back in San Diego, working with VF-121, the west coast RAG, waiting to get out . I do not have any photos yet from San Diego, at least Navy stuff. 
 
Here is a shot of the CVA-66 USS America, she displaced 61,174 tons empty, 83,500 full load. She was the second Kitty Hawk Class Carrier,  she would spend the majority of her Career in the Med.  (if the logo for the Sherman Tank Site seems like its in odd places, its usually covering a flaw the scanner could not fix)
 

 
Here's a VF-33 Phantom. 

A VF-102 Phantom, an F-4J the same as VF-33. 

 
Here are some pretty cool shots from an underway replenishment. It could be anywhere on the World cruise in 68. 



 
I think this is also from an Unrep, maybe the same one.  This photo is one of my favorite, you get an A-7 and Sea Night for the the price of one!

 
Old shot with bad scanner as a place holder for a duplicate. 

 
This shot is of the flight deck, by the cats on the angle deck looking forward. Not the kill mark on the intake of the F-4J, 212 sitting there, pretty cool. 

 
 
 
These last three shots are all from the USS Independence, in early 69, I assume off the East Coast on work ups for their upcoming Med Cruise. 
 

 

 
 

 

This is my old Man, Rick T, I'm pretty sure that's a Martin Baker Ejection seat right next to him. Several VF-33 Phantoms got shot down, and the seats always worked, so he had that going for him.  This image was scanned on the original scanner, note how cruddy it looks, when get to this slide again, I'll post the improved version. Compare the below image to the one above too. 

 
I'll posts more as I water mark them and host them. 
 
There was a crossing of the line ceremony, that my Dad took a ton of pics on, its pretty interesting. 
 
It was really nice to find these, I had thought hey got lost in a move. 
 
 
 

I have just heard from Richard Ogorkiewicz's wife that he died suddenly on Sunday. As all will know, he was a brilliant writer and analyst in the field of AFVs. He was still active physically and mentally, just completing his memoirs. 
I remember all his many kindnesses, keen intelligence and his wry sense of humour. I wil miss him.
Marsh

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1988&p=30#p1269585
   Bunch of interesting stuff posted by tankoff from the materials of the conference "Science. Industry. Defense.".
https://npo.conf.nstu.ru/arhiv
 
30 mm AP round with solid-fuel jet engines
https://npo.conf.nstu.ru/file/2017_2.pdf (page 9-14)

   4 engines per round, tungsten core.
 
https://npo.conf.nstu.ru/file/2019/book2019_2.pdf 
   Telescopic catridges for 40 mm ACs. Page 141-146.

 
 
   Page 178-181 of that document
   Development of radio-transparent ammunition for 57 mm ACs. 

   Variants of rounds made out proposed materials with ready fragments.
 
 
 
   That one is a bit unusual - HEAT warhead inside of APFSDS, without explosive filler. Page 190. Uses unusual form inside of a rod, lined with copper and pressure from APFSDS rod to actuate HEAT jet. Proposed to increase penetration of main round.