Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Waffentrager

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Waffentrager

  1. Did some looking into, surprised how much law enforcement stateside has had repeated incidents. Brings me to the question about firearm training, do regular officers and 'sheriffs' undergo different training routines? At first glance it looks like everyday LEO's lack the indepth training I presumed them to have about weapon handling.
  2. Well - I did jump to conclusions without doing the proper looking into before sharing what's found online just because at first glance it matches with other material. So albeit harsh words, I did sort of earn the needed-backlash.
  3. It's clear the text hidden has nothing to do with armour. Blatant out of context shot taking numbers similar to armour and censoring the text. The use of the Rheinmetall gun choice for the Type90's development didnt happen untiil 1988, after the first trial tanks were built. It was a late swap from their own 120 to using a cheaper Rheinmetall. Likely right after was their own round based on the DM33 was conducted leading to the introduction of the tank. I don't know when. Japan does bring up the topic of western comparisons, and even including numbers matching that of the western contemporaries. It would either be clear intel sharing - or just random accurate presumptions. But based on the data they mention on the T-90 project, it seems it could be either or.
  4. Aye, did some digging, this is the chart's header. The original piece specifically labels it as the tanks sighting comparison. Lists 3 alternate options and which was better fit. Just the normal dont trust what you find online at face value. Just coincidentally has identical numbers mentioned about armour elsewhere.
  5. Mitsubishi has a few collections of the TK-X project from the Type90 to planned Type10 projection. This snipbit wasnt with the ones I have, but was found online. It's clear the style is from the same source. Just the one posting seems to have used similar numbers of armour to their advantage and tried censoring the rest to prevent reading in-context, or just failed to get what it said. It's clear at least one more is around that's public. Just not about the protection but built in tech instead. It'd be very welcomed. Especially when they seem to love comparing it to the T-90.
  6. Until you want to go to university, homeschooling record doesnt hold up with much credibility where I come from.
  7. An open mind on a topic I have little to no prior experience with. I do appreciate seeing how others think about the given situation.
  8. Do you have the full page? It seems the given snap was not what it was said to be..
  9. Hm, I suppose I put too much faith into thinking law enforcement would do better at trying to prevent such things. Thanks for sharing!
  10. Have there been recent cases of officers having their firearms go off in school without the hostile threat in mind? I'm not referring to anything else. It shouldn't be weird to be concerned for your child's safety regardless of the probability of one common situation against the next. Certainly not when its now common coverage on media. Or maybe I'm doing parenting wrong then to feel a level of concern. I trust a teacher to do their job and only their job for the duration the children are there, to learn. I also trust the placed LEO to do their job as well when the situation happens.
  11. I don't have a disliking of firearms. To make that clear. Although accidents can and do happen involving them because of either the person wielding or an interested child not understand the hazardous potential they can produce. A school shouldn't be a place where you have to worry about the possible result of a firearm going off or a child finding it by coincidence. As what happened just recently for instance with a Teacher. Those accidents do not happen with a proper law enforcement officer keeping his arm on person and not in the classroom or in contact with children regularly. I trust a teacher because that is their sole purpose in the school. I do not trust someone just because they have a permit allowing a concealed carry. They are still regular civilians, not an active law enforcement employer. That's just a personal preference coming from somewhere where regular every-day people dont have the ability to have an obvious firearm on their hip walking down the isle of a grocery market. Likely just paranoia on my part.
  12. Oh, you're not wrong there. I think proper use of law enforcement is an easier and more obvious approach than to give regular citizens who are just child educators a firearm inside the school building. A person with actual training and experience that is not in immediate contact with children seems like a more appropriate situation. Which, I know in my local area at least that seems to be the case (not quite sure if other regions do this?), there is always one Sheriff on duty at school property. Giving them better training for school shooting situations so they can respond quicker would make me at least more comfortable knowing theres someone adequate to protect my child than a random teacher.
  13. Not that it isnt a problem, the fact both parties end up disagreeing with anything the other suggest, ultimately limiting the actual progress thats needed to help stop the problem. That is what I am trying to get across. I don't think I would feel safe knowing my child is going to a class where the teacher has a firearm in their possession, no.
  14. It's horrible and not easy to resolve. But the government there tends to mutually agree its something needing addressing and typically come together in trying new solutions. From what I see, the US is not so mutually agreeing on the problem and how to go about it.. At least that isn't a plain horrid idea, such as the idea of arming teacher staff.
  15. I have not had a real opinion on the topic of firearm property and control until recently. Coming from a country that has had less than 20 homicides of gun origin in the past 2 years, guns to us mean nothing. Its heavily regulated, and no crimes occur besides the rare less-than-one-percent. But living state-side these past couple years, the reoccurring incidents that appear in media really get out of hand. As a newly parent, I have to say I hope a step forward is taken for the sake of child safety, without having taken back another 2 steps in the process. Because so far I haven't seen any proper solutions come from either side of the government's mouthes.
  16. Japan uses JM33 as the standard to compare. However it seems in this case they used the DM33 number given by Germany to compare its protection against Japanese armour (in files full context). Since DM33 is the lacking of the two, this seems to work out in this case. As Mitsubishi even clarified under the numbers the protection level was “pitiful”. Without disclosing the the full document yes. That’s the layout (the thicknesses at least). However in context this page is using existing standards to compare NATO and Japans prototype defense to the Type90. I excluded the maxmimum protection of the tank as that’s not a public figure and cannot be disclosed. Unless the diagram edited means the maximum protection, its incorrect. The majority general front is 380. The maximum protection is not the presumed edited figure. It’s a bit off in fact.
  17. Should have done proper background checking before jumping to conclusions about what I found online.
  18. Yes - this was the intent. I was not expecting the small diagram to gather much attention outside of a General WT community who did not understand specifics. I highlighted only general areas of protection outside of RHA. Not specific area's of the protection and thickness composure. The actual composite blocks are covering the middle and top of the hull (Yes to later mentioning if Type10 and Type90 share general block placements). The bottom flooring is spaced steel - not the same level of protection. But of that to protect against explosive discharge. Not the same. The tests were conducted at the primary composite blocks at the turret sides frontally. This is the primary defense against JM33. Mantlet is not protected by ceramic and other materials, basic lining only. Without fabric covering , revels external block shell. I will be happy to aid if you have questions or needed context - I will give what I can without breaking privacy agreement.
  19. Yeah, Gaijin didnt utilize the blueprints I gave them as well as Wargaming did when Daigensui lent it to them. I'm getting it fixed, however.
  20. ST-A1 Devblog: https://warthunder.com/en/news/4334-development-st-a1-stepping-into-a-new-era-en/ My Tank article: http://sensha-manual.blogspot.com/2016/11/wt-st-a1.html My History Article: http://sensha-manual.blogspot.com/2016/10/fresh-start-new-beginnings.html
  21. Type3 Chi-Nu. Devblog: https://warthunder.com/en/news/4335-development-type-3-chi-nu-last-line-of-defense-en/ My article: http://sensha-manual.blogspot.com/2016/11/wt-type3-chi-nu.html
  22. Japanese tank destroyers are split between assault guns and gun tanks. Ones of popular mention are the Na-To series (30 produced). The others are mainly assault guns using the chi ha chassis and the alike. There is also the Ka-To. Which like the Ho-Ri is the project based off the new doctrine. Instead of Chi-Ri it uses Chi-To chassis as the base. Only one prototype, never made it to production numbers.
  23. Yes. The files say maximum armour thickness at the front is a 120mm plate. How successful they were at it is up for wild guesses.
  24. There are more tank destroyers all together. But yes, 3 models of both Ho-Ri and Ho-Ni.
  25. Not quite. The tank never used the German designs as influence. The title is simply out of the resemblance of the two vehicles. As far as using the same doctrine as the Germand and Soviets goes, it was purely a purpose motive. Not a design approach.
×
×
  • Create New...