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

TokyoMorose

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by TokyoMorose

  1. Okay, this is a obscure one. Well done. TARDEC AReS - "Advanced Reconfigurable Spaceframe", modular electric hybrid IFV testbed - built 2008. Head to tear through tons of various documents as I don't have the book you got that from. (The TARDEC Story)
  2. I hate to barge into someone else's arguments, but several (almost all of his last post really) of DarkLabor's points don't really make sense. British representatives still made exorbitant claims about Challenger after it's production run was effectively over despite the fact that we now know from leaked British documents their claims were bunk. People still believe what they want even after a project is over. And GIAT keeping FCS and Armor data "THE MOST protected data" is not unique to them either. "Weak points" are not the same weaknesses between tanks. Even assuming that hit was through a weakpoint, it doesn't say much for the LeClerc's design that it managed to get hit in one. The Abrams has a comparatively fragile hatch, and yet in all the times they got hit in the mideast, I do not recall a hit managing to be landed clean on that hatch. No Chally 2 was knocked out to a hit to the drivers' optics despite the enormous chasm that was cut in the glacis armor for it. This suggests that the weakpoint on LeClerc is relatively large. The best proof for the accuracy of the Swedish armor CAD models is the fact that neither the Germans or US (who also keep their exact data secret) complained about inaccuracies in modeling. There's also the fact that not a single outside test of LeClerc ever, has praised its armor in relation to late model Abrams or Leo 2s. As to Greek trials - SH never claimed that the Radios were a crucial thing or a corner stone - just said they interfered. That they used the heavier tropical model does not stop them from reducing the weight of that relative to a normal tropical, which is what I am sure SH meant. I already touched on this - KMW and GDLS do not openly discuss Abrams or Leopard 2 protection either. Literally nobody does, and SH is well aware of this. And yes, you have to get permission from the relevant export control authorities to get data on those vehicles as well. So the Swedes could jump through all the hoops with GLDS and KMW, but magically not with GIAT? SH_MM is far from a "random retard", which is why I wrote this post. If your contacts are in the French army, of course they are going to say the LeClerc is the best. Everyone in the British army continued to say Challenger (both times!) was the best even after embarrassing performances that saw them lose time and again in trials. It is not in the interest of the French army to say their tank isn't the best, and it's also in their interest to tell everyone joining the armored force in France that their tank is the best. Troops in M1A1s in the late 80s were told that the vehicle could deal with every latest and greatest Soviet battlewagon without issue, and that they had armor capable of resisting whatever the Soviets could throw at them. We now know both of these to be categorically false, and that analysts at the time were aware of it in secret. You just contradicted yourself. You said "it is the same as the other [...]" and that these drawings came from GIAT while the other is somehow "just a some stuff put together by the FMV". Which is it? Are the turret designs different, or was the FMV model correct? That original statement you made was in fact very silly: "The engineers were not taking into account the other western MBTs when designing the Leclerc. They comply with the established specifications that took into account the latest warnings in the WarPact threats." When designing the Abrams, design specs were entirely based on hypothetical Soviet threats. Same with Leopard 2, same with Challenger. There was never a spec in Challenger that said: "we should make sure the armor is similar to Leopard 2, or better than Abrams".
  3. Oh, I am in complete agreement. The Germans managed to build the world's first transforming tank - drive a Panther 150km and it turns into a pillbox! It's just you'd think that faced with such disastrous longevity, they'd try to develop a transporter so they don't have to drive around said tanks.
  4. Maybe the Panther's final drives wouldn't have been such a disastrous issue had they diesel-powered tank transporters available. Also would probably help with the fuel issues... but German logistics in WW2 is a sad story in general.
  5. I know that it wasn't in danger of rolling over every time it looked sideways, but did have issues with smoothness over undulating terrain and had a more severe side-slope limit. Strykers always seemed top heavy to me, and this just seems to make the problem a lot worse than the alternative 30mm options.
  6. Are they *trying* to raise the center of gravity to somewhere approximating lunar orbit? This looks to be taller than the MGS mount and we all know the amazing stability that vehicle had.
  7. I got to thinking on the merits of the actual double-V (and not the compound V that I was thinking was double-V whoops) - and since the idea seems to be to minimize the amount of area that has to be reinforced (only the trough, and even it is supposed to be slightly concave and open at the ends to vent blast forwards/back) would something like a triple-V not be better? Put third V where the trough is to make two smaller troughs, these will be more concentrated and have to be more heavily reinforced but would not heavily reinforcing those two very small troughs be similar in weight to reinforcing the single large trough while taking up less interior space?
  8. Hmm, that weight penalty for reinforcing the duct seems to be a disadvantage, I wonder if it is really worth it vs raising the vehicle.
  9. I stand entirely corrected, and yet this design baffles me. That central trough is going to act as a stress concentration for the blast wave.
  10. I am not sure why you would think that 3 or 6 would be a double-V hull. Mirroring that design to produce a full hull would result in an inverted trough running down the middle of the vehicle, a great weakness. 5 is the best, and a true double-V.
  11. From my memory, T__A's comments on the IS-3 ring true. They did have serious welding issues, the mechanical systems tended to overheat, and some of the crew positions were ergonomically unacceptable. This is not so much due to any major weight gain, but was rather due to a number of design flaws caused by the extreme haste in which IS-3 was developed and put into production (under a year from the start of development to production starting).
  12. Some of these Ukrainian proposals really seem to be throwing every envelope sketch at the wall and trying to see what sticks. As far as I can tell, that has been the origin of most Ukrainian offers since the 90s.
  13. I am not sure how it is done for Leopard 2 components, but I have seen entire cast or welded assemblies heated up and quenched at once in appropriately massive facilities. This image of a Panzer 68 hull being Quenched at Thun always comes to mind. Welding plates post heat-treatment is very difficult without making the zone around the weld weak. It is usually preferred in metallurgy to weld before heat treatment and then do it all together.
  14. Different crystal phases of the steel, essentially the grade "P" armor is welded while still hot, the other grades are welded at much cooler temperatures. Likely implies that the grade P material is welded post-heat-treatment, while the grade Q and R metal is welded pre-heat-treatment. (This is not necessarily the case, but would be the most likely reason for welding at different phases).
  15. While only tangentially related, I find it interesting that the M1 apparently has issues with the terrain of the Golan Heights, not because that terrain is easy (it is very nasty terrain) - but rather because the US extensively has tested the Abrams on the Yakima Training Center grounds which has lots of similar basalt. I wonder if the YTC gives the Abrams headaches.
  16. What I find most interesting is this seems to confirm that the Type 90, at least for the hull, doesn't have a 60 degree frontal arc of protection. Odd decision, really.
  17. Now, I am pretty sure this is the right thread - but @Waffentrager has managed to put this diagram of the various material sections of the Type 90 together. The blanked-out APFSDS in the RED description is JM-33, which (as I am sure most everyone here knows) is their variant of the DM-33.
  18. It's a HRG. Hemispherical Resonator Gyroscope - it would be a major accomplishment of Russian industry if they have actually put these into mass production. Only two firms on the planet so far make them. (Also, first actual post of a longtime lurker!)
×
×
  • Create New...