Waffentrager
-
Posts
165 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Waffentrager
-
-
2 minutes ago, Belesarius said:
Why don't you tell us how you really feel?
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.
-
8 minutes ago, SH_MM said:
So we don't really know if these values are actually representing the Leopard 2's turret armor or are from some other file (camera instruction manual)?
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.
8 minutes ago, SH_MM said:However I don't think it is very likely, that the 120 mm DM33 ammunition was used for the data delivered to Japan. The 120 mm DM33 entered service in 1987 with the West-German Bundeswehr, which would be the last stage of the Type 90 development. I suppose the performance data of the Leopard 2 tank was requested before spending several million USD (or an equivalent sum of Yen) on the development of a new tank. Do you know when the data for the Leopard 2 was requested by Japan?
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.
-
13 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:
Considering this was posted by someone new, I had it checked with a translator I know. And yes, this is about cameras, not tanks.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:
So which one is it, do you have the full document or not?
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:
It's a rough world out there. Only person you can count on is yourself.
Strong argument for homeschooling, actually.
Until you want to go to university, homeschooling record doesnt hold up with much credibility where I come from.
-
1 minute ago, Sturgeon said:
Thanks for keeping an open mind with us.
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.
-
13 minutes ago, Monochromelody said:
It says "Height of lens assembly is about 380 mm"
Do you have the full page? It seems the given snap was not what it was said to be..
-
2 minutes ago, Donward said:
There was one in Virginia/Washington DC just today/yesterday.
Hm, I suppose I put too much faith into thinking law enforcement would do better at trying to prevent such things. Thanks for sharing!
-
5 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:
Really? LEOs don't have accidents?
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.
8 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:But anyway, it's weird that you are worried so much about accidents (which kill fewer kids than swimming pools).
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.
10 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:Nope, sorry, this is nonlogic. Either you trust a teacher with your kids' lives or you don't. The gun makes no difference. If Mr. Balding Spot is willing to shoot your kid, he's also willing to stab, beat, or rape them.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:
1. Why do you trust teachers with your kids, but not guns? Especially if they've specifically had training to carry a gun (i.e., a CCW).
2. Guns do not convert people into killers. You are not making teachers any more dangerous to your kids by allowing them to become accredited to carry guns, including on school grounds.
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.
8 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:1. Why do you trust teachers with your kids, but not guns? Especially if they've specifically had training to carry a gun (i.e., a CCW).
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.
-
3 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:
Rather, maybe it's stopping either of them from making retarded mistakes, eh?
Oh, you're not wrong there.
4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:But you would feel safe knowing that someone with a gun could come into the school at any time and kill as many as they liked, totally unopposed?
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:
Wait, are you seriously arguing that any side in the US does not think mass shootings are a problem? Because it sounds like that's what you're saying.
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.
4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:Why do you think protecting children is a bad idea?
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:
South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the world (40 people/day), for example. I'm sure that's a complex issue with few good solutions.
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.
-
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.
-
12 minutes ago, SH_MM said:
Does it specify how the armor protection was measured? I.e. what type of ammunition was used to establish the protection level?
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”.
15 minutes ago, SH_MM said:Is this the minimum/average/maximum protection along the frontal arc or when direclty hit at the front? Is the value "50%" related to this (e.g. is this the protection achieved on 50% of the tank's surface)?
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.
-
Should have done proper background checking before jumping to conclusions about what I found online.
-
7 hours ago, SH_MM said:
I think this is a rather optimistic colorization on the model.
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.
7 hours ago, SH_MM said:The red area on the hull extends to the floor plate - there shouldn't be any composite armor at all.
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.
7 hours ago, SH_MM said:. The gun mantlet armor module is very thin, so I'm not sure if this should be able to achieve the same protection level as the turret armor (even at 30° impact angle the turret will be thicker.
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.
3 hours ago, Laviduce said:
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.
-
It seems obvious from the drawing and photo that the WT model is completely borked. The WoT model seems a lot closer.
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.
-
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
-
-
What other TDs does Japan have?
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.
-
So it's a 120 mm thick steel plate sloped at 70°? That is overkill for WW2 and even for the next twenty years after that. Or is it only 120 mm at the line-of-sight? Did the superstructure armor remained unchanged?
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.
-
In terms of tank destroyer designs, this gives us the Ho-Nis I, II, and III, and Ho-Ros I, II, and III altogether for Japan?
There are more tank destroyers all together. But yes, 3 models of both Ho-Ri and Ho-Ni.
-
So the Ho-Ri was actually designed after the Ferdinand based on its(god awful) debut at Kursk and not a case of convergent design evolution? I sorta assumed the later
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.
United States Gun Control Megathread
in Open Discussion
Posted
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.