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

That_Baka

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    74

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by That_Baka

  1. The Leopard 2 Thread

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

    Per Hazell, you have to smack long rods from quite some distance before they hit in order to do anything.

    Imagine that you had some sort of laser APS that neatly divided a long rod in half mere centimeters before it hit.  This laser would not remove significant amounts of material from the long rod, nor would it impart significant amounts of momentum to it.

    This would do nothing.  The armor would just get hit by two rods, one after the other.

    Now imagine that you're whacking the long rod with something more substantial.  Great, now it could yaw and hit the armor at a significant angle of attack, which could reduce its sectional density!  Or if it gets broken, the two pieces could separate and hit different portions of the armor, which they would lack the ability to penetrate!

    The only thing is that the penetrator is coming in at upwards of mach 4.  There is extremely little time to effect any sort of rotation or seperation of the projectile before it hits unless the APS hits it both very hard and very far away.

    What about smacking rods with counter rods/hyper velocity rockets?

  2. The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    1 hour ago, T___A said:

     

    Both A.G. Karpenko and Baryatinsky say that the Object 268 already had a tray type auto-loader which is why they were able to get away with a four man crew.

     

     

    Object 261 is really fucking obscure. What many people don't realize is that it actually three different designs and the wooden model that is everywhere on the internet isn't actually the Object 261:

     

     

    Object 263 is even more obscure. The only person who has written at length on the Object 263 is A.G. Karpenko  who says that the Object 263 uses parts from both the IS-8 and IS-7.

    Oh thanks new info .I based my expression on chieftain hatch object 268 episode

  3. The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

    LoooSeR; good question...first of all, it was right in the middle of the two most significant Soviet Army events of the 1960s: exercise Dnepr in 1967 and Operation Danube (the invasion of Czechoslovakia), in 1968. These two events shaped the Soviet Army of the Cold War and provided very real rehearsals for WWIII. You're correct, the SU-122-54 was the product of the Soviet Army experience in WWII...especially during the Manchuria campaign against the Japanese. The Soviets developed tactics for combined-arms organizations known as "Assault Groups," "Storm Teams," and "Forward Detachments," with assault guns/tank destroyers at their core. After the war, the SU-122-54 (probably known as the SU-122 (M1954) by the Soviets), was secretly fielded in companies/batteries that were organic to select/high-priority MRRs and TRs. As mentioned above, the SU-122-54 was deployed for both Dnepr and Operation Danube.                 

     

    Since it wasn't forward deployed in the Groups, it was almost missed by Western intelligence through it's development, short life, and death (at Khrushchev's hand...guns bad, missiles good). The first mention of the SU-122-54 in an official US military reference manual was in a USMC MCIA manual in 1996...that's 41 years after it was fielded by the Soviet Army. There was limited intel available on this vehicle as early as 1958 but most of it was Top Secret so it didn't reach many folks in the field. The CIA gave it the designation SU-100 (M1968).

     

    I could go on...the SU-122-54 truly made the D-25 122mm main gun (versioned for the SU-122-54 as the D-49), what it was meant to be...etc.

     

    SU-122-54_Operation%20Dnieper_1967_1.jpg

         

     

    With my respect Jim Warforď. It seems that there misunderstanding i think Looser meant that from technological perspective Su-54-122 is not that interesting (i agree with him).

    In my humble opinion M-62-T2S is much better representation of peak 122mm .And from technical standpoint post-war dead end self-propelled guns Object 268,261 and 263 is much more interesting especially if Object 268 would receive planned autoloader mid life retrofit .

  10. Tank Layout

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    13 hours ago, DarkLabor said:

    switches, the mirrors go to their mechanical neutral positions.

    The gunner sight is mechanically mounted to the main armament. When the gun goes up and down; the sight bows up and down.

    Crews do some alignments (what we call "harmonisation" where we keep the parallax in check), but that's not the bullshit stated by Sergei Suvorov where crews were forced to boresight everytime they move their tanks...

    Rezun said this about soviet tanks or french?

  17. Movie tanks and terrible Vismods

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

    I always found the Soviet assault guns to be really uninteresting and samey.  They're just a heavy tank chassis with a howitzer slapped in them.

    This one is different, and a little more intriguing.  I suppose you could say it's a smaller bore.

    What about SU-100P/152P and Object 416? and Obj.268/9?

  19. The future of PLA bullit spitting devices: Powerful Chinese weapons and infantry units/LEO thread.

    in Infantry Tools & Tactics

    Posted

    20 hours ago, Khand-e said:

     

     

    By the way, for future reference, directly linking to my profile doesn't actually do anything, you have to do @ name without the space for it to page someone. Also, while it's fine here, don't bother doing it on the general discussion boards because I very rarely read that forum.

     

    Anyway, the newer 14.5mm rounds used by the Chinese are rather interesting, and while it is suggested they use it, both on fixed tripod mountings and in turrets for certain vehicles aswell as for export, alot of where and how exactly it's used is unknown for the most part.

     

    As for data on the SLAP round made for it, well, let's take a look.

     

    ikLtjJT.jpg

     

    The round itself is called the DGJ02, there's a few interesting things to note about it, like, unlike the US .50 SLAP design, it has a fully covered nosed designed to break away in petals after firing (originally it was design to separate after 150-200m, I've heard that's been improved on though.)

     

    PO1dSEB.jpg

     

    This is rather interesting, as some machine gun designs and rifles can't actually use US styled open tipped SLAP without modifications, example, the Barrett M82/M107 can't because the sub caliber tip won't actually engage the feed ramps properly without a modified barrel and ramping.

     

    You'll also notice from the image above that it has a tracer in the back, nothing out the ordinary, one minor point of interest however is that it harkens back to old school ranging tracers of WWI in that it uses a dual colored tracer that's Green out to 500m and then Red out to 1000m+  (I don't know the exact burnout range on the 2nd stage of the tracer.)

     

    As for how it performs, the thing is a goddamn brute, the Tungsten Carbide penetrator has a weight of 45g and has a MV of approximately 1,250 m/s and will reliably punch through 20mm of RHA at a 60 degree incline at 1000m distance. some speculations on why the Chinese chose to go with a new HMG design in the QJG02 over the Type 56 and 58 (old license produced KPVs and ZPUs) is that these run quite a bit hotter than WW2 vintage ammunition, or that maybe it feeds better, or just that they wanted a fresh design to replace the aging fleet of KPV clones, I've never really gotten a straight answer on this, but the point is it was deemed necessary to move on to a new design, which we'll discuss later.

     

    There's also a second round they designed to go with it called the DGE02, which is listed as an "APHEI" round designed against soft skinned and light armored vehicles and low flying aircraft, basically, the test for this was, once again, at 1000m, it will penetrate 15mm of RHA set at a less punishing 30 degree incline, then there's a second test where they shot 2 thin RHA plates at 300m, one 2mm thick and another behind it 1.2mm thick (distance apart is unknown), they claim that "at least 20 fragments will penetrate with 75 to 95 additional incendiary pellets being produced which have an average of an 80% chance to ignite aviation fuel." what fuel type exactly they were using, once again I don't know as obviously there's more then one type of aviation fuel. note that this also features the double colored tracer of the DGJ02.

     

    So, in addition to the SLAP round, they also made kind of sort of an Mk. 211 analogue to team up with it, they supposedly also made 12.7mm versions of these but I don't have performance characteristics of these. (one of the pictures I used to have for the of DJE02 I used as a stand in was of the 12.7mm version, green case with a yellow tip and black band painted below it.)

     

    I'm going to do a part 2 on weapons but, I need to clear some things up first.

     

     

    Is there any 14.5mm cartrige derivatives? Like WW2 soviet 14.5x147mm Blum ?

  22. General artillery, SPGs, MLRS and long range ATGMs thread.

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    21 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

    You do realise that a significant chunk of ballistics research is done in China, right? I already lost count at how many times I raged because an exciting paper was only available in Chinese.

     

    I mean, there's probably a reason that the first International Conference on Defence Technology is held in China.

    Oh good to know .Yeah Chinese made strives ans breakthrough as of lately. I too interested what chinese cook up lately .

     

    21 hours ago, Khand-e said:

     

    Lol yes because clearly those dumb Chinese can't possibly figure out the impossible task of ordnance design, neve rmind that a fuckload of research on new and experimental designs you'll find are done in China and organizations like the IBS have like half their members based out of China, they just can't figure out munition design!

     

    Can you not post dumb assumptions that have no backing in reality? it would really help lower the bullshit quota on this forum, thanks.

    Sorry to disappoint then . I really meant no insult . Most of it is extremelly poor choice of words however which i strive to correct . Therefore interesting source about source about chinese weapon R & D process would be very appreciated. 

×
×
  • Create New...