Lord_James
-
Posts
1,077 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Lord_James
-
-
1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:
that is:
1) old
and
2) bad
joke.
I didn’t mean for it to be a joke... sorry if I was offensive.
-
On 4/28/2018 at 6:35 PM, Ramlaen said:
-
22 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:
Did they run out of BMP and MT-LB chassis’ to slap those turrets on?
-
2 hours ago, Sovngard said:
I demand to see the transmission of this thing.
I would think it's similar to the Achzarit's transmission, considering they both have a rear transmission and door:
Spoiler
On a separate note: what kind of (preferably free) drawing software could I get, or what do you guys use, for making some of these designs? Or would my Mk.1 Hand and Mk.2 Ruler suffice, and I could just scan it into my computer?
-
Anyone want to have a raffle on the next questionably responsible country to develope nuclear weapons?
My vote is for either Venezuela or Egypt.
-
31 minutes ago, eggs benedict said:
quick question , are the hull sideskirts on the t-90m ERA or rubber ?
Its heavy ERA on top of rubber.
-
-
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
OK Merkins.....It seems UK based Hillary sympathisers within the Conservative Party have been trying to fuck you over (possibly in collusion with factions within the intelligence services of both of our nations):
So what are you going to do about it?
Links repeated from elsewhere as I reckon this is pretty damned important TBH.
Just another nail in the "Russia-Trump" conspiracy coffin. Eventually it will die... eventually.
-
What kind of rifle is that? Or is it a homemade sniper/AT rifle?
-
1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:
Cloud seeding is a real technology, but it's not particularly useful.
Wide-scale weather manipulation is pretty much beyond our species right now. When you read that the total energy involved in a hurricane could reasonably be measured in kilotons per second, it's pretty clear why. Weather systems are giant, and we are tiny.
I was more referring to how they tried to seed clouds in a very arid environment, where there was basically no moisture to make clouds! Also the size of the rockets were between the size of someone’s forearm to the size of their leg, so the amount of particles placed probably wouldn’t have cause any meaningful changes in rain (or lack there of).
Either way, I doubt the Saudi farmers would know that, so this could be somewhat lucrative, so long as no one tells the local sheikh or cleric
-
Hehehehehe, I like this thread. Reminds me of, back in the “Dust Bowl”, when salesman came around promising to make it rain. They’d talk about how in WWI it often rained after a heavy battle because of all the dust and dirt kicked up from explosions. They would have a rocket with them and proclaim that, “for a small fee”, they could launch the rocket and give the atmosphere some dust to make clouds with... needless to say, it was a total sham, and never worked, but people still bought into it.
Edit: you think the same thing could work in Saudi? They are having a water problem...
-
32 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:
Those civilian UAZs wih HMGs strapped on top of them will participate in Victory Parade even in Khabarovsk. For fuck sake, why?
... cheap? Or maybe they take pride in their garbage? I guess the argument could be made that the average layman wouldn’t be able to tell it’s a bad idea...
-
quick question:
How many M1 Abrams were irrecoverably lost in operation desert storm/shield?
-
25 minutes ago, Scolopax said:
Oh, forgot about that thread, I took it more of as a joke/shitpost thread. Though the T-64 post is still WiP... I was thinking of doing something similar for the warthunder forums, as they’re moving into modern territory. Could educate some people at least, since Gaijin seems to have boarded the “quantity” and “screw sources” trains. But let’s drop that topic.
-
On 4/16/2018 at 5:57 PM, Serge said:
Generaly speaking, I never answer to such a question because it’s the start of unrealistic discussions of technology fanboys unknowing real. But, I can say :
- never forget AMX-10RC is a very 80’s light tank. So, any improvement must be cheap provide.
- the world famous Serge AFV belief is : an AFV chassis push, carry and tow.
- having a good AFV is good, but without its environment, it’s useless.
FCS, sights, weapons were good.
So, I would have :
- modified the seats to have something more confortable and armored. Maybe an harness to sleep ;
- introduced a new TC hatch with an umbrella opening (my priority) ;
- rearrange external storage to increase them ;
- suppress river crossing (both useless and dangerous) to have more storage ;
- add spall liner and mine proof plates under pilot seat and turret floor.
Considering chassis, I would have add :
- 2 rear fuel drop barrels like the Leclerc ones. Fuel drums are compulsory ;
- front tools connector to push mine rollers...
Considering it’s environment, I would have :
- add a fourth 10RC per troop (In France, reccon tanks troops are 3 tanks troops. Leclerc : 4 MBT troops) ;
- adopted AMX-10RTT as command post and ARVs instead of VAB and ARV based on trucks.
With diminution of 10RC number, I would have transformed some of them in general purpose vehicles able to carry dedicated teams for special tasks such as EW....
When dimounting the barrel and ammo racks, you have plenty of room.
9 hours ago, Serge said:Both commander and gunner’s seats are identical.
The only difference is the commander adjustment’s got a rear stopper to reduce the setting by 3 cm. Why ? To avoid to pierce fuel tanks. Without the stopper, the seat can protrude from the turret basket.
My goal is to protect the crew from shrapnel. So, I would have manufactured seats with ballistic materials.
We have to remain that in France, people above 185cm were not permitted to become tankist, but tank commanders.
So my knees suffered a little bit against the gunner’s seat.
Look at any tank at war. You never have enough place.
The only external storage you have (on the RC standard, not the RCR), is a basket designed to carry 4 of the old butyl waterproof tank crew pack. During the Gulf war, crewmen stored MREs between the hull and the add-on armor.
In the French troop, you have a truck per troop to carry burden. But, in the real life you must be as autonomous as possible.
My solution would have been a mixt between the TML-105 storage for the front and the sides and a Merkava like rear basket.
SEPAR is too much heavy.
I’m just thinking about internal layer on some dedicated places. AMX-10RC can’t be burdened. It’s very dangerous considering its steering system.
In 2002, Australian SAS LRPV received 4cm thick anti-mine composite floor plates. This kind of solution would have been acceptable.
Might as well make a new bloody vehicle with all those changes. Maybe something like a 105mm armed VBCI or the Vextra 105? Or maybe just build a totally new vehicle from the ground up specifically for urban/sub-urban combat. Could probably give it MRAP capabilities stock and not have to worry about a damn 2 ton upgrade package...
Thinking about it, the newest Centauro sounds like a pretty good fit, just add some extra boxes to the hull sides/turret bustle and you’re pretty close to those requirements.
-
Geez this was a long thread to read through, though interesting none the less. 3 things:
1. Relating to the BMPT argument: weren’t there fuel tanks in the hull sides next to the driver? Wouldn’t the extra AGL gunners necessitate the removal of those fuel tank, reducing the range of the vehicle (as there’s no where else you can put the fuel tanks)?
2. Also relating to the BMPT: why not just slave the AGL or MG to the commander’s sight like on the newest T-90M and T-14? Now the commander has a weapon to fight with, which is an advantage in urban combat (multiple weapon systems firing in multiple directions).
2.5 Since urban combat requires different weapons firing in many directions, wouldn’t something like a T-28/T-35 be somewhat effective for urban combat? I mean, don’t use those tanks specifically, but the concept is somewhat sound... right?
3. What ever happened with that T-series identification guide @LoooSeR? I didn’t see it anywhere on the forum, unless I missed it (which is a real possibility). If you forgot about it, I could help make it: 2 of my classes end this week so I will have some more free time, and I will be finished on May 3rd, which will totally free up my schedule until summer courses start (May 18th I believe).
-
I heard through a grapevine that several Russians were killed in the recent Tomahawk strikes... I pray these aren't true.
-
On 2/1/2016 at 8:19 AM, LoooSeR said:
Forgot to add best ISIS HMG movable tripod/quadpod, thanks to Colli for a reminder.
I have found my spirit animal, now all I need is for this picture to be small enough to fit in my signature
-
Here you go, I took the transverse engine idea and moved the ammo to the rear (with a blow out panel and armored door) as well as replaced the front ammo rack with a fuel tank to make up for the displaced fuel. I call it the "Leopard 2S" (S for safe).
Edit: could also add an inert gas replacement system to the fuel tanks to help reduce fuel fires (I saw some concern about that in the "Western Tank Rumble" thread).
-
15 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
3)BTMP concepts were interesting but impractical in any possible way. Too low troop capacity, exit only from top, slow dismounting, hatches can actually be blocked, and the thing cannot give the infantry any proper support at the dismount stage at least on the level a proper IFV could.
The BMT-72 is the only one with roof hatches only, the BTMP-84 has a rear hatch like the Achzarit:
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/btmp_84_images.htm
Though it could be semi useful for pier vs. pier wars as you can carry infantry within the heavy armor of the MBT and have those infantry right there instead of having a less armored (and typically slower) APC/IFV following. Idk, I might be trying to justify others ignorance/idiocy again.
On a side note: how do you post something directly from your computer? I have a (mediocre) paint drawing of a change to the Leo 2 but I don't know how to post it
What am I missing?
-
4 hours ago, Xoon said:
A oscillating turret are quite tall, or has to have less gun depression/elevation.
I think a cleft turret would be a better bet.
The Swedish tested several turret layouts and found the cleft turret to be the best, here's a comparison of a conventional turret, a autoloaded conventional turret, and a cleft turret.
Oh, (from what I understand) like the T92, Ob'yekt 490A Buntar, and Stryker M1128. My thoughts were to maximize RoF, as the cleft turret has to reset the gun to reload, though if it means this fantasy tank can have the Buntar's awesome looking turret, I'm all in.
QuoteThough, I am pretty sure you can't use fuel as the "wet" part in a wet rack.
I didn't know what else to call it, other than a "fuel tank rack".
On a separate note; troop carrying MBTs:
BTMP-84
BMT-72
Made by those krazy Kharkovites. Discuss.
-
On 10/28/2016 at 6:36 PM, Xoon said:
So while I was tinkering with the engine compartment layout I came up with these three layouts inspired by Soviet design:
Layout 1:
This layout has the advantage of being the shortest of the three. This is because the rounds lie along the length of the engine on each side. The total ammunition count here was about 36 rounds when using the 120x570mm NATO shell, with the entire engine compartment being 1,8m wide and about 1m tall. One potential I see with this design is that it could possibly be retrofitted on a Leopard 2. By shrinking the fuel tanks on each side of the engine, and isolating the ammunition and modifying the engine deck, this should be possible. This layout also works with the 130mm without being any longer, at the cost of even smaller fuel tanks in the engine compartment.
Layout 2 and 3:
Layout 1 here is just for almost for the fun of it. Put simply, it is longer than layout 1, but gives you a ludicrous ammunition capacity. You can fit about 72 shells of 120x570mm NATO ammunition in there! Any tanker that thinks that a tank with over 72 rounds of ammunition has to little ammunition deserves a slap.
Layout 2 here is a bit more realistic, sacrificing ammunition capacity for space for fuel and/or a APU or whatever you want to fit there. With identical length to layout 1 by the way. However, this layout still sports a pretty solid amount of ammunition, around 54 rounds in fact!
Of course, all of these layouts use isolated ammunition with blowout panels and a blast door, so in case of a penetration the crew will survive. Also, if I am not mistaken, tanks with all of their ammunition in the hull experienced less cook offs after penetration. And of course, this design allows for smaller turret, with either a 16 rounds ready rack bustle, a Leclerc style autoloader with 16 rounds, or the glories Soviet carousel autoloader.
Any questions?
Couldn’t you (theoretically) place that extra ammo in a wet rack? I mean, if fuel could become an issue, why not just add that extra capacity by placing a fuel tank around the ammo? I’m not saying remove the blow out panels, but integrate the wet storage into the safe storage.
-
2 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
The QuickDraw autoloader that Xoon showed here is supposed to be in the bustle.
And hello there James. Nice to see you migrated.
The problem I see with that loader is the shells are stored in reverse, which would require another assembly to flip the shell over, which would reduce the load time. Though, the gears in my head are spinning, and I wonder if something like a hybrid of that Meggitt loader (turned so the shells face forward) and an oscillating turret could happen; would have a great RoF while still retaining the 34 round rack [see AMX-50 Surbaisse autoloader].
PS. I also adhere to the design philosophy of the front mounted engine and rear crew compartment, which (managed properly) can provide additional crew survivability, IMO the most important part of a tank.
-
On 4/13/2018 at 5:52 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:
For a turret to be designed this way, it will need a very compact autoloader.
Why not have a bustle loader like the Leclerc or T-84 Yatagan? Would allow for a roof mounted turret and a long bustle over the crew capsule.
Also, first post from a ~2 month lurker. Hey Xoon, Alzoc, Ramlaen and Zuk
What am I missing?
Syrian conflict.
in Open Discussion
Posted
by the SAA, against the SAA, or in general?