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

Lord_James

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    1,077
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Lord_James

  1. I have to disagree (from CV-90 thread): New Kongsberg MCT-30-based turret has built in ATGM/missile launcher, while also having same gun and RWS. I doubt it would be that hard to change the MMP launcher to an FGM-148, Spike, or FIM-92 (or the TOW series, if the army wants to handicap themselves). Unless the army is looking for something similar to the Namer turret, I don’t think they’re going to find much better.
  2. Ok, so, additional retardation: why are they sending out the RFI for unmanned turrets when the MCT-30 can already do all those things, including the ATGMs? Competition?
  3. Forgive my retardation, but isn’t the Styker Dragoon turret an XM813, or similar to it?
  4. I guess Britain (and most of Western Europe) is still dealing with the repercussions of a couple hundred years of inbreeding in the upper class. Nothing a good revolution can’t fix... but that’s kinda hard when you’re completely disarmed.
  5. New 155 modified design: Ballistic cap is now a 3.2/22.6crh (actually 3.226/22.58) secant ogive and the tail is a 1.2 cal, 8o ,conical boattail. Radius of the secant is 3510mm (3508.9). As for the bourrelet and driving bands: The bourrelet is flush with the end of the windscreen, and I think it's a little small but I know little about projectile design. I have a bit of space to place a driving band on the shank, but while looking through some modern projectiles and how they are shaped, I found a HE shell with a sabot-like piece over its tail, which also contained the driving bands. If this is a reliable way to solve that problem, I could probably increase the length of the cap and/or tail. Conversely, I could also place a sabot-like piece over the cap that mounts the bourrelet, and I can place my driving bands on the shank; either seems acceptable (if they work as theorized). I also have a question about the meplat now: I see a lot of flat meplats at the end of large caliber (and rifle caliber, too) projectiles, but in your sketch here, it looks a little rounded, or at least angled (both the secant and VKO). Would a smaller or rounded/angled meplat have better ballistic properties, or is it like the boattail where it is counter-intuitive (until a certain point)? Either way, thank you for the advice! If there's anything that needs changing (or rather, more optimization) for the shell, I'm all ears.
  6. Ok, so what I’m getting is: I need a near-conical, secant type windscreen, maybe something around 3/12crh. Lengthen my boattail to ~1 caliber, and change it to a conical type with a gentle angle of around 8 degrees. I’m thinking about either a 3/12crh windscreen with a 1.0 cal conical boattail (which will give me 155mm to place the driving bands), or a 3.2/15crh windscreen with a 1.2 cal conical tail (I will have only ~80mm for driving bands), or some combination of those features. I’ll get on that tomorrow morning. Thanks for the help!
  7. Question for the more ballistically knowledgeable members of the forum (@Bronezhilet, @Collimatrix, @Sturgeon): I'm designing a 6 inch (actually 155mm) (S)AP shell for a Destroyer Leader I am amateurishly designing (~160m long, ~14m beam, ~5m draft, 6000 metric tons standard), and need a little help. I have 2 main problems. relating to Caliber Radius Head (crh), and it's component parts (mainly ballistic length and radius of curvature/caliber of ogive). I've made a rough outline in Inventor (with dimensions), and am a little confused about it's ballistic length: I have a conical ballistic cap that is 3crh long (465mm) and a boat tail (tracer element is also suppose to double as a base burn device), but I was going for an even longer ballistic cap length (I remember seeing a shell defined with a 6/12crh length, but I cant find that reference anymore) while keeping <800mm in total length and a high volume for more weight/ larger bursting charge. Should I increase the ballistic length even more, or change some other aspect of my shell? Should I use a different shape? I read on Navweaps that US shells had a secant ogive, and this had better ballistics than tangent ogive, but they didn't compare it to conical. Is a conical windscreen the best choice for this shell? Other tips on how to improve this shell are also welcome (yes, I know I forgot my bourrelet and driving bands), but I'm most concerned with the windscreen/ballistic cap. Thank you in advance, Lord James
  8. DFI is especially hilarious these past few days: https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/indias-war-against-pakistani-terrorism-starts-paf-f-16-shot-down.81456/page-3#post-1487355
  9. Fucking hilarious: https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/indias-war-against-pakistani-terrorism-starts-paf-f-16-shot-down.81456/page-3#post-1487355
  10. Does it specifically say the back hull or the back of the turret ring? If it’s the back hull, the fuel tank might be in the rear sponsons or next to the engine.
  11. Nukes?! Oh shit... this isn’t gonna attract bigger nations like the US and China, is it? If nukes were to go flying, I would prefer it remains between India and Pakistan.
  12. Quick (probably stupid) question: what is the LLLTV component of the PZB 200 sight for? its #2 in these pics.
  13. I do hope you’re being paid for this all this work @Laviduce, cause that just sounds like a headache. Or, if you’re not, I hope you like what you’re doing, cause that’s pretty awesome. Either way, keep up the good work! This is really interesting, and might shed some light on an underrated MBT. Have you done something like this before, with another tank or something, or are you figuring out the process as you go?
  14. Does this mean I can keep my Hotchkiss Mle 1914?
  15. I have to disagree; the Sprut (as stated above, by Loooser) was created to be an amphibious (and air dropped?) vehicle that can engage and defeat enemy structures and vehicles... vehicles being anything from a Toyota Hilux with an M2HB, to a fully fitted M1A2C. Also, “made to do X” and “it can actually do X” are 2 totally different things; see Afghanit APS (the T-14 as a whole is kinda weird, but I do hope they can get it to work). The Sprut was made to engage enemy tanks (and anything the infantry couldn’t do already), and it most likely can attack 3rd gen MBTs effectively (Challenger 2, Leopard 2A4, M1A2, etc.), especially if the M version has the T-90A loader, and this is due to tactics. Just as the M18 and M36 have less armor and (at least the M18) had a weaker gun than the biggest opponents they faced, they were still highly effective due to how they were used. This could be a similar situation to the Sprut, though I know very little about Russian military doctrine. And again, if the Russians want to call the 2S25(M) a “tracked attack helicopter”, then it’s a damn tracked attack helicopter.
  16. And all real “MBTs” have turrets, right? The Swedes classified their Strv 103 as an “MBT”, but it has no turret. Different nations can have different classifications for their tanks, regardless of form or function. If the Russians want to classify the 2S25(M) as a tank destroyer, or a gun carrier, or a light amphibious tank, or a god damn attack helicopter with tracks, they can do that. It can LOOK LIKE a vehicle that we would classify as something else, but to the nation that uses said vehicle, it is whatever they classify it. The original 2S25s were created before the T-90A entered production (from what I’ve read), so they probably use the old loader. The 2S25M was made after the T-90A, so it wouldn’t be impossible that it has the updated loader. Of course, with the Russian military budget cuts, it wouldn’t be too crazy to assume they didn’t update the loader.
  17. For the 8x8 on the right, is that a 57mm derivatsiya turret?
  18. ... ... Do they... are they... is this really... ... ... This is just as retarded as having sex with a virgin curing STDs (looking at you, SE Asia). You know what, let these people who buy this obvious scam be idiots, and waste their money, and hopefully after several years of “therapy” realize that there’s nothing in their miserable lives that makes their life worth saving anyway. Inbred mongrels, probably the same people who are anti-vaxx or believe the earth is flat and our governments are just a bunch of Illuminati puppets. ... ... I’ve had a stressful day, so let’s start over: god these people are stupid; can’t wait for trump to actually make his death camps and put these people in first...
  19. And this is where the new HE comes in, what the sabot won’t mangle, will most likely have thin enough armor that HE will fuck it up pretty bad. The M2 on top of the turret can mess up light vehicles, too. Basically, if the armor is too thin for the sabot to produce enough fragments, the HE will probably be able to get through it no problem.
  20. Hmmmm. This might be stupid, but if the blast radius is an issue, couldn’t they make smaller TBEs? I mean, the reason we have several different bomb sizes is because 500lbs might be too much for situations (or not enough).
  21. Well, that looks like a ramp past that block (I’m guessing that block might be an APU? Cause of the fan), and the block is attached to the levers that open the ramp. So does that block move down into the ground with the ramp when it opens, or up onto the roof?
×
×
  • Create New...