T___A

Xlucine, Mech, T___A, The_Warhawk and I did some compare and contrast on cross-section of Ob 277 and Ob 770.
-Whereas Ob 277 appears to have a conventional powertrain layout for a Soviet heavy tank (it's a bit like a leo 1), Ob 770 has a freakishly compact powerpack and transverse engine.  Seriously, it only looks a little bigger than the powerpack in a T-55.  The engine is weird; it appears to be a ten-cylinder design with two straight rows of five cylinders and two crankshafts.  We're pretty sure it was turbocharged.  This design frees up an enormous amount of space in the rear hull for ammo stowage.  Transmission in Ob 770 is automatic with a manually selected overdrive.  It sounds like it incorporates a torque converter (transmission is described as "hydraulic" per machine-translation, and only has 4 forward gears).  Steering mechanism is unremarked upon, but I suspect it was two-layer planetary geared with reserve clutch and brake as in earlier IS-1/T-55, if only because I can't imagine anything more complicated fitting in that dinky little powerpack.  I suspect that the transmission in Ob 277 was a derivative of the planetary triple differential seen in IS-4, but I'm awaiting further confirmation because I was wrong about this being in IS-7.
 
-Both Ob 277 and Ob 770 solve the torsion bars under the turret basket problem.  Ob 277 is similar to AMX-30 in that some of the road wheel swing arms face forward, and some face backwards so that the torsion bars (compound bars-in-tube type ala T-64/IS-7 IIRC) are not underneath the basket.  Interestingly, the plane of the turret on Ob 277 is tilted forward by a few degrees.  Ob 770 uses in-arm hydropneumatic suspension.
 
-The autoloader in Ob 277 appears to be a refinement on the IS-7s.  Instead of storing both projectile and propellant in the bustle racks, it only stores propellant charges; six on top, eight on the bottom (as opposed to IS-7's six total rounds in the bustle).  AP projectiles are stored in a magazine to the side of the gun, and HE is stored in a rack on the turret floor.  I suspect the ammo in this rack could be rotated ala Ob 416.  The way we think this worked is that Ob 277 would have had eight shots of AP that it could get off very quickly without the loader having to do anything.  To fire HE, it looks like the loader would need to get an HE shell out from under his seat, plop it in the tray, and then select the bustle loader to put in a propellant charge from the top of the bustle rack (the HE and AP probably had different propellant charges).  So, for shooting at other tanks with AP, Ob 277 could reload very quickly for range bracketing, but for lobbing HE against, say, bunkers, it would be a bit slower.  The combination of fast-reloading AP rounds, stereo rangefinder and backup 14.5mm ranging gun would have given Ob 277 very good ability to get rounds on to target quickly for the era.

Uh, T___A, you know better. Always post sauce:
 

I don't think this should reflect badly on Japanese sword smith seeing as they neither had the resource nor the need to improve the quality of their swords. Despite the claims of some Weaboos there are definitely European swords created with analogous methods however they were later dropped in favor of other methods as the needs of troops dictated. Also at the end of the day it really doesn't matter as nethier the European Longsword nor the Katana were the primary weapon of their respective users. 

Don't worry, drowning in pussy is a valid excuse.

Don't worry, drowning in pussy is a valid excuse.

Don't worry, drowning in pussy is a valid excuse.

Fleet yaw GIFs, made by yours truly:
 

 


And an accompanying article.

This nails it.
 
For those who haven't been keeping score:
 
-Gross horsepower is the horsepower the engine can put out on a test stand in a lab.  This is the biggest number, so it gets into glossy marketing brochures.  Diesels are losers here; they don't put out much horsepower relative to weight and bulk.  Gasoline engines usually beat out diesels here, as they usually squeeze out more horsepower for a given displacement.  Turbines beat both.
 
-Net horsepower is the horsepower after you account for losses from the cooling system.  Diesels are winners here; they typically use 8-17% of the engine horsepower to run the cooling system.  Gasoline engines are losers here; they can use upwards of 20% of their gross horsepower to cool the engine.  Turbines are huge winners here; basically none of their gross output is consumed by auxiliary cooling systems.  Adiabatic diesels would equal turbines in this parameter (and would clobber turbines, or anything else for that matter, in fuel economy), but sadly these exist only in Toyota laboratories covered in a thick layer of dust.
 
-Horsepower at the sprocket is the power available to actually move the tank after the losses of the transmission and final drives.  For the very best transmission designs at peak operating efficiency, this is about 74% of gross horsepower.  
 
Purely mechanical transmissions with layshaft gearboxes (e.g. T-55) are winners here, but these are more demanding for the driver (especially since the T-55 lacks hydraulically boosted tillers or a synchromesh).  Transmissions with torque converters are less efficient, but torque converters reduce wear on the engine and transmission, and give smoother power when the tank is moving over uneven terrain.  The majority of post-war tank designs feature torque converters save the ubiquitous T-54/55/62 family (and the Soviets were quite aware of, and enthusiastic about the potential benefits).  
 
Planetary transmissions (whether automatic as in American designs or with manual gear selectors as in chieftain) are less efficient, but are easier for the driver to use, and have the advantage that gear changes are basically instantaneous, without any pause where there is no power being delivered to the sprockets during gear shifts.  This is a significant advantage during, say, hill climbing.  
 
Electrical and hydrostatic transmissions are even less efficient than automatic transmissions with torque converters, but they have the advantage that they are continuously variable, lacking discrete gear ratios, so they can optimize torque and RPM for given conditions.  They also allow some flexibility in tank design, since power does not have to be provided to the transmission by a rotating power shaft.  You could put the drive sprockets in the front and have their transmission and final drives powered by electrical cables or hydraulic lines that could snake gracefully around the turret basket and not significantly increase the hull height.  I can't imagine why you would ever want to do this, but you could.

Nice try member of a single player health care.

Nice try member of a single player health care.

I'm pretty sure the Germans had no problems killing Abrahams before 1947.

In the original trilogy we hear that Jedi Knights were the protectors of the Old Republic.  And yet, the first we see of them in The Phantom Menace, they're being dispatched to do trade negotiations.  This is a little weird; aren't they supposed to be psychic wizard combat monks?  Why would they know anything about general agreements on tariffs and deficits?
 
Well, you see, it's all a mis-translation. Jedi Knights are the protectionists of the Old Republic.  The Sith are supply-side laissez-faire Austrians, who are trying to put the hard-working Naboo out of a job by flooding the market with cheap, foreign-made space products.
 
This theme was elaborated in a scene that was later cut from Return of the Jedi:
 
Emperor Palpatine:  You are no match for the power of the Invisible Hand!
 
Luke:  Your overconfidence in the Law of Comparative Advantage is your weakness.
 
Emperor Palpatine:  Your faith in trade barriers is yours.

Man, I knew the black bird is big but I didn't really have perspective on it:

A view from the front:

Color photo of the Object 770:

The future is tank plinking.
(Nobody ever remembers what killed the most tanks in desert storm)

A view from the front:

Color photo of the Object 770:

Color photo of the Object 770:

Two things immediately leap to mind as strong possibilities: One, their metallurgy was crap. Two, the Germans lacked any sort of analytical approach to both requirements creation and product design.
The Germans routinely introduce materiel that is neither appropriately capable nor reflective of a deep understanding of the problems facing them. Their tank designs are excellent examples if this, especially the Panther. Do either the Panther or the Tiger II play to German manufacturing strengths, for example? We can only conclude that they do not, and I would especially highlight the armor plates used that were substantially thicker than their industry could successfully heat treat and mass produce. Simply, their requirements exist in some extra dimension, totally removed from the reality facing them.

Gewehr 242(f) - possibly the new G36 replacement?

How much would you like to bet that the presentation for that idea included the words 'platform' and 'monetization'?

The Curators only get 25% of the money you fucking pay in the first place so you aren't really helping the mod makers.