Laviduce

BMP-3 for Iraqi Army

I updated the model to resemble the mock-up

I made a model of the T-34M:



Astute viewers will notice that the commander's cupola is wrong - it's supposed to be a T-50 cupola rather than the T-34/85 model I stuck on.
 
Rivet counters will notice that the exhausts don't have the crazy bolt arrangement they should have (and are kind of the wrong shape), the front hooks are missing, the radio antenna is missing, the hull periscopes are missing, and that the turret periscopes are of the wrong type.

One of these is not like the others.
 

Of course I can.

 
Apparently it goes way back to at least 2011:
http://www.defence-point.gr/news/νέες-επιτυχείς-βολές-του-leo2-a4-με-πυροβόλο

....ready to get kebabed

My "favorite" myths abut tanks:
 
1) Leopard-2AV main  armour was worse then XM1 :-)
2) Leopard-2A4 was inferior in armour protection in compare to M1 and M1IP
3) T-72B was poor protected in compare to western tanks
4) T-80U was poor protected in compare to western tanks
The favorite one:
5) T-72B and T-80B and T-80U and T-64 have therible "Ronson quality" survivialibity on battelfield after hit

Probably heavy UAV will be shown

This is dope.

1

Threats and simulated weapons during the Abrams' development, giving a rough idea about armor protection. From otvaga, unfortunately the full source wasn't posted.

A few days ago the folks from Warthunder went to Minnesota and measured some details regarding the physical thickness of the armor of an original M1 Abrams tank, something which was already mentioned in the United States Military Vehicle General topic.
 
 
The English version of the article can be found here. I decided to take these values and combine them with the schmatics of the original composite armor (aka "Chobham", "Burlington" & "BRL-1") fielded on this version to estimate the overall armor thickness. The scan quality of these schematics is low (the paper wasn't flat when scanned, so the lines are not always straight), but I tried to adjust for this as good as possible. It seems that these schematics are not for scale or the measurements were wrong (though that doesn't seem likely).
 
Overall it seems that the armor thickness has been exaggerated quite a bit; some people said it would be 700 mm or even 750 mm, but most results end up being below 600 mm. I guess the most damning argument against the overall thickness being in the 650-750 mm range is the claim, that the distance between weld lines on the hull floor is just 22 inches (558 mm). Even though it isn't clear wether this includes or excludes the weld lines, it more or less means that overall cavity thickness is way below 558 mm. Add to this a 101 mm backplate and a 31.75 mm frontplate (both sloped) and 700-750 mm armor thickness becomes impossible, IMO 650 mm aswell, but I've never seen exact angles for the LFP and the hull floor.
 

 
WT also measured the thickness of the turret's armor cavities, but they didn't mention if that includes slope and they didn't mention the exact thickness of backplate, but it also doesn't seem to warrant the 700-800 mm thickness sometimes claimed. Armor cavity thickness was 19.5 inches on an unspecified side of the turret (the horizontal slope of the turret front is assymetrical), but the front plate is 1.5 inches (38.1 mm) thick.

Ah yes, let’s place a 12 inch gun in a 1.6 kt sub, eat your heart out France! 
 
Obligatory picture of Surcouf: 

The French were hard at work getting rid of the last supplies of Nazi meth.

So we get to reconcile those NRC documents with this one.
 
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1619/ML16190A098.pdf

stock footage of AMX-30 production and testing:
 

More of Algerian T-90SAs

 
 
Iraqi T-90s