Lord_James

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

It seems to be a calendar showing the month September. Weekends are red

Why would I know what days are in September, I don’t even know what day tomorrow is 

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

What does this say? It’s all foreign to me  

From context, these are the brigades/battalions that are planning to use the Armata by September this year? 

10 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 

Is that a ZiS on a literal tractor? 

On 1/4/2022 at 6:49 AM, Aussie_Mantis said:

 

Honestly, I was more really concerned with the external appearance of the tank to look as "realistic" as possible- no shot traps, no funny "turrets" like on whatever that Scorpion-thingy from HALO was

I think it should be pointed out that shot traps pretty much don’t exist anymore, APFSDS doesn’t bounce or ricochet any appreciable amount, and you can safely ignore shot traps for the time period you’re concerned with. What does make angled armor less attractive is that your protection is not homogeneous across your profile, being thickest at the tip and thinner as you move towards the base, such is the geometry of triangles. I suspect this is why the Leopard 2SG and PL have more square faces than the 2A5. 
 

As for “funny turrets”, if it works for what you need it to, then don’t worry about aesthetics. Teledyne’s low profile turret is “funny”, as compared to practically every other tank out there, but it works, as proven by the M1128 (somewhat). There’s also the “Elke” technology demonstrator, mounted on an M551, that’s even crazier, and I would very much enjoy seeing something like that work. What’s wrong this the halo tank is that the crew is practically exposed, the tracks are complicated as hell, and the ammo seems to share space with the engine. 

2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

My understanding is that it uses a throttleable solid rocket motor.

It could be like the meteor a2a missile, but I see problems with trying to turn a 7 inch diameter projectile into a 6 inch projectile (to fit current maximum navy or army cannons) and have it perform about 50% better.
 

However, if they make an 8 inch or larger cannon, it would only get easier to achieve such ranges. I might be getting overly creative, but we might see a return to heavy caliber guns again. Fingers crossed for 14 inch railway artillery literally shooting at each other from across continents 

5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Did they accidentally add a 0 to that number, or are they really going to make a cannon that shoots rockets (I don’t feasibly see any other way it could attain such a range). 

2 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Hi there!

I'm a new user, and found this forum by way of a video on the so-called "reformers". The video also included a screencap of a thread in this forum about some guy called "Black Tails Defense" or something, in which the strangest tank was shown- something with a 145 millimeter... howitzer? 

 

The... sheer tomfoolery of putting a long-barrel world war one era howitzer with eighty rounds of ammunition in a forty-ton vehicle somehow designed to also float... I personally enjoy entertaining the concept of designing fictional tanks for fictional universes. However, I'm critically aware of how limited my knowledge on this subject is. 

 

Honestly, I was more really concerned with the external appearance of the tank to look as "realistic" as possible- no shot traps, no funny "turrets" like on whatever that Scorpion-thingy from HALO was, as well as worrying about details like how to make sure the tank doesn't break down mid-combat and the placement of critical systems like Optics, but I'd also like to know what kind of systems should you use (e.g. Turbine or Diesel, Horstmann or Torsion bar, etc etc) 

 

There's a little thing that I'm doing where I draw up tanks et cetera within the confines of Mid-Late 80s-90s - early 2000s doctrine, and I'd like to ask you, what makes a real tank tick for tanks of this era? How should you go about designing a tank? I'm aware of the fact that one should always design inside-up (critical components such as engine, gun, et cetera up), but what are some of the caveats and nuances inevitably intertwined into it? How should one go about the design process for designing a tank?

 

What's a rough list of features you want to have, and others that you can sacrifice for any given role of a tank? I'm aware that this is like asking, "what should I put on a plane", but let's assume that it's for a tank stuck in, say, the Mid-late nineties, around the Gulf War - Kosovo period.

 

Also, in addition to this, some common questions that I'd also like settled are;

- Diesel, Turbine, or Petrol? Where/When/How should these engines be implemented?
- Rifle or Smoothbore? This debate goes on forever and I'd like some sort of concrete answer. As far as I know, the only forces that use rifled guns use them either out of necessity or reliance on a certain specific type of round.
- Why in god's name would you ever put a 145 millimeter howitzer on a tank?

- Caliber: Is there an upper limit? Is it really worth going above 120mm/maybe 130mm at a stretch when combat won't even happen above the ranges that these guns are effective due to the distances that you can see with optics? At range, Artillery and Missiles have traditionally been more efficient.

- Whither the Autoloader, or Nay? I've seen the Chieftain's video on it, but I personally would like your opinions on it.

- Barrel loaded ATGMs- are they really all that they're cracked up to be? Why/why not?

 

I'd like to strickly restrict this to Main Battle Tanks, as I'd rather ask about Infantry Fighting Vehicles later, in another thread.

 

In short, how the 1990s Tank?

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Aussie_Mantis

Well well well(come to the forum!), I’m curious to watch this video that brought you here, got a link? Also, I hope you’ve read the posting guidelines: 

As for “designing a tank”, it’s not so cut and dry… at all. Every aspect of a tank effects another aspect of the tank, I.e. gun size effects ammo and turret size (turret size effecting hull size, and both effect how much armor you need to protect them from enemy fire, etc). Not only that, but each bit of technology usually has its own uses in certain situations: gas turbines have great power to weight, but annihilate fuel; diesels are just good and reliable; and petrol is for people who don’t understand the torque requirements in an armored vehicle . From my (slightly educated) perspective, there’s a lot of going back to things you’ve already done, having to give up some requirements to meet other requirements, and it gets frustrating. I will say, we do have a “semi-biannual” design competition for fun, which was almost exclusively for armored vehicles, but the next comp is an aircraft, so no luck. That doesn’t mean you can’t just do stuff or ask questions, though, but I’m not sure just how much of a “creativity forum” this is, as compared to something like shipbucket. 

On 12/30/2021 at 12:01 PM, Toxn said:

Late to this party, but...

 

you're telling us that not only can Americans not do English, Scottish, Australian or South African accents, they can't even do American accents?

Are you surprised that Americans cannot into culture, even their own? 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Panzerhaubitze 2000 was eliminated from the Norwegian SPG competition for not mobile enough (and according to rumors for being too expensive). Initial trials with the vehicle revealed an issue while driving on frozen roads/ice. KMW's solution was to increase the number of snow grousers from 8 to something like 48. Installation took less than an hour and fixed the problems, but that's obviously only a workaround at the expense of the crew's time.

 

Driving in deep snow revealed the downsides of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 greater weight & combat load. The fact that the Leopard 2 hull is already used in various applications by the Norwegian Army suggests that its performance is considered adequate, once the weight is reduced to similar levels.

 

KMW has proposed building new turrets for the German Leopard 2Ax project to reduce weight. Better materials and construction techniques allow reducing the weight of the turret without compromising protection. They also proposed replacing the optical gunner's sight with a purely electronic solution (akin to the Puma's WAO), again reducing weight and improving protection. If the Bundeswehr is really interesting in picking that up, it might enable KMW to make a very attractive offer to Norway aswell.

 

E-Technologie is used on the Leopard 2A4M CAN, their Kodiaks seem to use a different armor solution also designed by KMW (containers fillable with bulk material).

 

At the "recent" interview with the EDR Magazine, KMW's spokesperson suggested interest mostly in anti-KE ERA solutions (likely from DND or GST).

 

It is greater growth potential for the adoption of mission kits. The Norwegian ministry of transportation (that as far as I've heard indirectly set the weight limit) has nothing to say when tanks get deployed abroad. The Norwegian Army used add-on armor solutions in Afghanistan (e.g. on the CV90) that are not used domestically.

 

The K2NO was showcased with the size-reduced Trophy VPS, not the Trophy APS. The VPS does not have the same "combat proven" and "fully qualified and tested by other NATO members" labels as the full size APS.

 

Rheinmetall is not offering exclusive production to Australia in the LAND 400 Phase 3 program and they are also not playing "mid program catch-up". The test integration of the Soucy tracks were planned before testing was started and the trials are all conducted with steel tracks, which is the primary offer by Rheinmetall.

 

They did the same with the LAND 400 Phase 2 program, where different options were showcased on the Boxer CRV (including the Wotan 35 gun and the ADS), while the primary offer remained the initial Boxer CRV prototype with Mauser MK 30/2-ABM. At the time the AMV-35 had a 35 mm Bushmaster III gun.

 

Basically Rheinmetall is saying "if you like any features of our competition, we can add them to our offer". They have done that more than once and will keep doing so.

Just to clear this up (for me, at least), is the 2A5/A6/A7 wedge or L2PL “wedge” considered add on armor or mission kits? They seem to be very standard, insomuch that I haven’t seen a 2A5 and up without a wedge on their face, but many sources describe it as “add on”. 
 

Also, is there more info on the “heavy ERA” KMW is interested in? It seems weird to desire anti-KE performance when COIN and ATGMs are still huge threats. 

Is the target weight including or without APS? If it’s including, KMW has a lot more than 5 tons to shave off, and I have doubts ERA can compensate for that.
 

On the subject of ERA, it’s multi hit capacity (or lack there of) might be a hindrance when the time comes to finally evaluate these tanks, but that might depend where they put it (sides and roof only, or BM bulat style) and what the Norwegians are more concerned about. 

4 hours ago, Toxn said:

Random question: would it be possible to knapp a brittle alloy?

 

I had a half thought-out idea of quenching a high carbon steel, then shaping it by knapping before tempering.

Well, I mean, a lot of sharpening processes are basically micro knapping at high speed. Grindstones, whetstones, and sanding all remove material, just at a more controlled rate, with less chance for mistakes to ruin the entire product. I think it could be done, but you might break a couple knives (or whatever you have planned) and you would be the only one with experience doing such a thing. 

10 hours ago, Toxn said:

Perhaps move the conversation to an appropriate thread in the bio section?

I looked for a “general biology” thread, but couldn’t find one, the closest being the biotech and engineering thread, and I don’t think my question fits in there. But, alzoc provided a decent enough answer. I do have new questions to clarify some things for me, but I will drop those if no one cares to answer. 

15 hours ago, Toxn said:

 

In retrospect, this is definitely the wrong thread to have asked this in, and I phrased my question poorly.
 

Attempt 2: Why do micro organisms just “fall apart” immediately after they die? Do the forces or biological processes, that occur when they’re alive, maintain their outer layer? Being a novice, I would think it’s similar to larger organisms where it just stops maintaining itself after death and decay is more gradual, as the bonds between all the molecules eventually fail over time (or are broken down by a scavenging creature). Maybe that’s just my engineering student brain trying to make sense of weird, stinky organic stuff by comparing it to machines and/or macro biology. 
 

(should probably move this discussion to somewhere more appropriate, but I’ll let someone else make that decision)

2 hours ago, ZloyKrolik said:

I received this for x-mas this year:

Did you make sure it’s not radioactive? 

I have a question, but I don’t know where to put this, so here you go (I apologize for the click bait thumb nail). 

@Toxn, wtf is happening to the bacteria at 2:08? 

On 12/20/2021 at 12:46 PM, Cleb said:

An XK1, most likely PV-2

 

Looks very much like the Chrysler XM1 proposal. Was there any technology or idea sharing between the M1 and K1?

On 12/17/2021 at 8:38 PM, Domus Acipenseris said:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/9504/what-is-the-difference-between-the-v-shape-tail-and-the-straight-tail-on-the-bee

 

Apparently the Boeing X-32 was lighter when it was changed to a conventional tail.  The actuators for the V-tail were heavy.

Found it, first post, a little ways down. It’s a Bf109 with a V tail, but @Collimatrix stated that the problems were associated with take off and landing, but no mention of level flight or combat maneuvering. I would be interested to know more about the results of the tests this particular 109 went through. 

On 12/17/2021 at 8:38 PM, Domus Acipenseris said:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/9504/what-is-the-difference-between-the-v-shape-tail-and-the-straight-tail-on-the-bee

 

Apparently the Boeing X-32 was lighter when it was changed to a conventional tail.  The actuators for the V-tail were heavy.

As for the gull wings, here’s something explaining its aerodynamics: 

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21027/whats-the-advantage-of-the-f4u-corsairs-gull-wing-design

Why/how do V tails (and supposedly gull wings) enhance your aerodynamics to make you go faster? 

2:26 “The worst thing to come out of WW2 was these shitty CoD games” 

I think my sense of humor might be shit. 
 

10 hours ago, Toxn said:

So here's a question that touches on the whole A-10 issue in a more philosophical way: should a force/service be determined by role, or by battlespace? In other words: is the main point of the navy to attain sea superiority (however that's defined), or to act as a repository for sea-going assets?

 

I know that in the real world these considerations are usually secondary to contingent, historical factors (and in any case all the actors involved here pick and choose the framing they want to suit their real purpose - which is to get a bigger share of the budget). But it helps me to think about this when engaging with the whole debate about the to CAS role. If the main role of the air force is to dominate an airspace, then it having organic CAS assets is more or less a sideshow. If, however, its main role is to house air assets, then having CAS aircraft is essential.

 

 

That would be logical, but history is (and the people who make history are) rarely logical. Asking for a service branch to limit its sphere of influence might as well be asking them to slap their own mothers, for how much of a fuss they put up.  

3 hours ago, Toxn said:

It's obviously a bit of a joke, but yeah. More or less.

 

Enough Ju-88s survived to get over the target and bomb it. Even with 4 sidewinders each and respawns, the A-10s were just too slow (and slow-climbing) to get up to the formation and take the prop bombers down in time. And if they'd had escorts then the A-10s would have been sitting ducks - they were barely hanging on at that altitude.

I think this is a bit unfair, similar to asking an A-36 to perform like a P-51, which isn’t going to happen. Now what would be a better ask is to give the luftwaffe the A-10’s and have them try to get past the British air defense. I doubt the warthog could get past the hurricanes and spitfires any better than the He-111 and Ju-88, but it just removes any bias about intended combat roles. 

3 hours ago, Laviduce said:

I find "flat turret" designs along the lines Lines of the Leclerc, K1 , K1AX, K2, Altay, etc. rather kawai cute !

 

*sad Chrysler XM1 noises* 

On 11/27/2021 at 5:08 PM, Domus Acipenseris said:

I think Fisher was too far ahead of his time.  His ideas were almost all correct and have been borne out over the past century.  However, ideal like the Dardanelles op, "large light cruisers" and super battlecruisers with 18" main and 3" belts were mistakes.  Tech had to catch up to his vision.

On 11/28/2021 at 4:57 AM, Dragonstriker said:

First Sea Lord Sir Jackie Fisher also coined “OMG” as an acronym for the phrase “Oh, My God!”.

Truly a great man.

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_British_Battleship_1906_1946.html?id=QDg5CwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1
 

This preview explains a bit about Fisher and his ideas.