Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Lord_James

  1. Cantilevered objects like to do that... I wonder if the krauts had the same problems with their winter/ostketten tracks
  2. Because, despite the army being a huge money sink, they’re very cheap when it comes to their equipment, and will go with what’s less expensive 9/10 times. Many nations are like this.
  3. Oh, ok, the running gear was pushed out from the hull to accommodate the wider tracks.
  4. What is an M4A1E9? I came across it while bored, but the only information I saw is that it is “an M4A1 with spaced out VVSS suspension and extended end connectors”, but all the pictures that come up look like normal VVSS to me:
  5. Just to clear this up for me: there are low carbon maraging steels; would these require less alloys?
  6. Is there any reason why you would use (lower) bainite over martensite?
  7. “A ceramic armor material database” 1999 https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA362926.pdf Collection of a lot of tests and data into one concise document. 10/10, am still reading after 3 days because it’s over 200 pages Ceramics included are silicon carbide, boron carbide, titanium diboride, aluminum nitride, silicon nitride, aluminum oxide (85% pure), aluminum oxide (high purity), tungsten carbide, and soda lime glass.
  8. I would suspect it has something to do with the recoil length and chamber pressure; the shorter recoil length being necessary to fit in the eastern-block turrets would produce a higher impulse, but I don’t really have any numbers, and I am too lazy right now to go look.
  9. Between when I asked the question and the creation of the thread, I’ve seen some stuff on boron in steel, though I haven’t explicitly looked for it. I did find that you can only apply a maximum of 0.03% by weight of boron in a steel, past that point it starts to reduce effectiveness. I’d seen boron mentioned in some DTIC articles I found, but I just assumed it was an impurity like sulfur and phosphorus.
  10. I’ve been meaning to ask, what is that big cylinder thing on the back of the T-80’s?
  11. I was more referencing how lighter, faster, and more numerous tanks are, demonstrably, more effective than a couple “land ships”. But that only gets you so far: as stated previously, the outdated 37mm SA18s and one-man turrets were significant handicaps.
  12. True, but from my understanding, the Renault FT had a better showing than the British Marks and Saint Chamond: being faster, cheaper, requiring fewer crew, and generally more reliable.
  13. Unfortunate, they looked like they were headed in a new direction with the Ajax, Boxer, and Challenger 3, but I guess all the new changes scared the old men in charge... Hehe On a similar vein, is the Ajax turret able to be integrated to the boxer, or is it to heavy?
  14. Understandable, but isn’t cost overruns par-for-the-course for British army procurement? Also, I would point out that similar occurrences did happen in history (turret from one vehicle being used to upgrade another), namely the T23 turret on the Sherman, and (iirc) the T-34-85’s turret. Boxer’s modular (or so they say), might cost less to use the technology they literally just developed to upgrade her than go shopping around.
  15. Politically risky... how? Was it “politically risky” to fit than cannon on the (now defunct) warrior upgrade?
  16. Does Cockerill make 90mm ammo that fits in the M41 gun?
  17. TIL about “metal stitching” prepare to get jump-scared into the 90s with this one (might want to lower your volume)
  18. Never seen boron as an alloying element, though most of the articles I find are from before 1980, so... Is there a passive armor thread we can move this to?
  19. You overextended with your heavy and immovable arguments, right into a classic bull-horn formation, where the faster and more maneuverable allied facts can attack from the weaker sides, causing higher casualties for your facts and severely disrupting your arguments.
  20. They are, you’re just not accepting it. I gave you several American and British examples, mate... Lol wut? Is that why the Nazi’s increasingly used poorly trained conscripts with minimum equipment as the war went on, or how they continued to make cheap vehicles like Hetzer and Stug as materials and time grew thin? The Normandy campaign was not particularly hampered by the Germans efforts more than any other front. Normandy was difficult to cross because of the environment being: A) full of dense hedge rows (bocage), that were difficult to pass through and provided AT gun crews and panzershreck / panzerfaust teams with easy targets at close range. It took so long because each of these guns / teams had to be meticulously cleared before armor could move forward. B) the roads were so thoroughly damaged by the allied bombardment that it was difficult to drive anywhere without coming across a 2 meter deep crater or heavy debris blocking your path. After the allies had broken out of this terrain, they saw much faster and further advances. Also, outside of Caen is where the falaise pocket was fought, and the allies made huge advances securing land from the Nazi’s, and destroying a large amount of men and material via a large pincer movement, which requires out maneuvering the enemy. Kinda hard to do that if your vehicles are “less maneuverable”.
  21. Hasn’t been seen since the first world war, when Louis Renault sold his Renault FT’s for no profit (to the French army, foreign customers were charged more).
  • Create New...