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

Xoon

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Xoon

  1. Ah, thanks, I remembered wrong. 1200mm for missile. 600mm for Rocket.
  2. 600mm for large caliber ATGMs if I remember correctly, anything less and penetration increases.
  3. I am thinking about the big hole in the mound, with a big back shadow making a big contrast. And zero effort to hide the sticks supporting the hole. Use a netting at least. Same goes for the green spotter, in yellow-orange mound. It just makes my camouflage OCD go crazy .
  4. Just noticed this picture.... What type of camouflage is this? Against planes?
  5. How come Sweden was offered the Merkava 3? Source: http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm
  6. Could the reason the XM1 proved more resilient to CE when fully exposed be because off the front mounted fuel tanks and composite side skirt? Or could it be because the XM1 had almost all it's ammunition in the turret, while the MBT-80 had all of the propellant in the hull, assuming the layout is similar to the Challenger 1?
  7. So, the tank will have a exhaust out the side like the Merkava? And I guess the step is where to thick roof armor begins?
  8. So, this rendering is practically useless to get any information on the new AFV? Does not look like the 3D artist knew anything about AFVs. Did he place the turret above the engine? Where are the exhausts? Is the tank cramped, or is the angle just weird on that soldier? Is the tank small with tiny tracks, or huge with normal size tracks? Where are the hatches? Not really sure what the point of this 3D model is.
  9. Any information on why they are armoring their tanks like this? Does it improve KE protection?
  10. The US is planning on standardizing their fleet on a modular opposed piston design, a little interesting: http://www.calstart.org/Libraries/HTUF_2016/6_-_Major_-_Achates.sflb.ashx And some info: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a566997.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a626738.pdf
  11. Image made by me. ICE: Internal combustion engine. EL-M: Electric motor which works as a starter, generator, alternator, regenerative break and power adder. Hydro-C: Hydraulic coupling which works has a torque converter M: Electric motor and regenerative breaks. FD: Final drive. Very interesting, they took a parallel hybrid system, replaced the gearbox with a torque converter, ran a clutch through it so they could lock it up when it was not needed for more efficiency, and replaced the starter motor and alternator with a single electric motor. If it is reliable it could be the future of hybrid vehicle design. Though, I would like some more info the the electric motors, apart from that they run on 800V. Like, what type of PWM system do they use, frequency converters or DTC? Are the motors AC or DC? What type of motor design do they use. But this is defiantly something I will keep in mind, thanks Coll!
  12. What is this? The image description says Leopard 2 VT2000, any information on it?
  13. Is it possible it is just spaced armor? And, isn't it named Type 87?
  14. Yes, quite old news actually. Some guy at the WT forums found out about it, and now everyone there are losing their shit about the composite armor on it. Though, quite confusing to use NERA for small arms protection.
  15. The propaganda video uses quite old footage, including the one of the T-90 that caught fire (the remote MG's ammunition caught fire). Here is the video for those that are curious (The Leopard is seens at 08:20) (WARING, GRAPHIC): http://videos.videopress.com/wutY8cZC/the-islamic-state-22stay-for-the-end-times-wilacc84yat-hcca3alab22_hd.mp4
  16. Probably not the same tank when I think about it, might be another picture I was talking about. Anyways, another disabled Leopard 2?
  17. Just a two pictures I found interesting from a drone in a ISIS propaganda video: A little closer: Same tank?
×
×
  • Create New...