Lord_James

Your stance on this is also kind of weird, considering the Yanks had to airdrop you a loaner 2nd Amendment the last time a tyrant took over France.

What is particularly frustrating is that the United States is absolutely swimming in regulations regarding the ownership, use, manufacture, sale, and distribution of firearms.
 
Looking through my state's RCWs, there are roughly 62 different sections directly dealing with who can own a gun, where they can carry it, and so forth.
 
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41
 
 
And this list of laws from Washington state is subtly different from those of the 49 other states in our Republic, the District of Columbia, and laws in place in US territories such as Guam and Puerto Rico. And these laws are subtly different than federal regulations and interpretations of said statutes. To be an informed gun owner in America practically means you have to be an amateur firearms attorney. Or it means you have to be a scofflaw and take your chances.
 
And these are laws put in place to regulate a segment of the American public (gun owners) who are to the 99th percentile, law abiding citizens who vote, pay taxes, have jobs, vote, salute the flag, and many of whom have served in the military, law enforcement, or are fire fighters and first responders. Particularly when WE aren't the ones committing the preponderance of crimes or murders in America.
 
According to this organization, in 2014, 54 percent of US counties had ZERO murders whatsoever.
 
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
 
The map looks like this with the counties having the most murders a deeper red.
 

During the 2016 Presidential election, this is the breakdown per county of people who voted for Donald Trump (perceived as pro-2nd Amendment) in red versus Hillary Clinton (perceived as anti-2nd Amendment) in blue. You'll notice the correlation of counties that voted for Clinton having a disproportionately higher murder rate than those who supported Trump.
 

 
 
 
There's a problem in America but it ain't guns.
 

If you could somehow persuade some of your mass-shooters to target your media, much good work might be done IMHO.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/teenager-woman-stabs-rapist-droitwich-worcestershire-police-search-fights-off-self-defence-a8340381.html
 
Strangely the police haven't charged the girl for stabbing the ghastly shit that tried to rape her.....Are they slacking do you think? 
 
No nor me. 
 
This happened on my local patch, so I'll be watching events very, very closely.

ISIS commander cought in Yarmouk, as claimed

Isn't London a cruise-missile free zone?  

He's hatching

Appears to be just an external bin for stuff. In this pic, it's holding spare ammo boxes for the roof machine gun: 
 
 
I was honestly hoping for something more like the G6-52 or ShKH Dana/Zuzana, as I think those look so sexy. 

https://imp-navigator.livejournal.com/727411.html
T-72 Shafrah shaving islamist beards in Yarmouk

 

 
 
T-72 Shrek with Viper thermal imager

 

 
 
Shilka

 
BMP-2

I think it’s because we love are guns (and knives) more than we love our government  

@Collimatrix @Mighty_Zuk @SH_MM @LoooSeR @Militarysta @Xlucine
 
 
 
 
Yeah I took 'some' liberties with the jet, but that mainly has to do with this being a rough first look at Nozh, I'll do a more properly shaped jet later.
 
 
tl;dw: Yes, a copper jet can cut through a wolfram penetrator but the jet is not nearly long enough.
 
Edit: This is also a frictionless simulation so the jet penetrating the steel plate doesn't slow it down at all. All in all, this is a best case scenario for Nozh.

Have some respect.
It's clearly post-post modernist, from the functionalist school.

Postmodern art.

Should be by opposition, especially since the SAA does not use TOWs to my knowledge.

against. This report (previous versions) I posted here several times, so I forgot to mention from which side.

The ol' reliable:
 
If you want something free and easy to learn, I've been using SketchUP for a short while on small projects I made. It's free, and much easier to learn if you don't want to spend hours just getting somewhat accustomed to the more 'professional' programs.

I would say, if you intend to do proper, advanced drawings, use a proper CAD. SketchUP is  very easy to use, however, it is also quite a pain in the ass when making more advanced models. I am currently learning Solid Edge, which is free. It can generate drawings too, so that you can get a drawing like the one of the BMPT-84. 
 
Welcome to the forum by the way.

Current situation   

Pretty sure it’s just Nozh. 

Glorious T-72B obr 1989 added!
@Scolopax
@Collimatrix
@Zyklon
@Bronezhilet
 
Also added spoilers, as first page of this thread was becoming cluttered.

OSV-96.  Russian 12.7mm rifle with a hinge mechanism at the front of the receiver so it can be folded down into a more manageable package.

I don't think there is a possible explanation, because people are beginning the argument from the wrong direction. People are making assumptions about the protection level, then try to find sources supporting it - i.e. first comes the thesis, then sources are searched to support it. That's the wrong way to start research - saying "the Challenger 1 needs to have 500 mm RHAe against KE" and then gathering all sources that say somewhat related. I can understand that Laviduce expects a high level of protection based on the thickness of the Chieftain's Stillbrew armor package and based on the greater weight of the Challenger 1 MBT - it could have a protection level of 500 mm vs KE. But we have no confirmation to these theories. With British documents showing that the estimated penetration of 125 mm tungsten-cored APFSDS ammunition was only 475 mm at point blank, I have serious doubts that a protection level of 500 mm or more against APFSDS  was required - that's simply not how tanks are designed.
 
The Challenger 1 development was pursued at a different timeframe than the Chieftain upgrade with Stillbrew armor, thus the requirements were different; in so far "just" 400-450 mm vs KE might be a lot more realistic based on the requirements for the MBT-80 project and the data of the Shir 2, assuming the armor package was improved over the latter tank. The Challenger 1 was approved in 1980, the Stillbrew upgrade in 1984. A lot can happen in four years of the Cold War. Even the Chieftain with Stillbrew doesn't reach protection comparable to 500 mm rolled armor steel vs APFSDS ammo, because cast steel provides up to 20% less protection than rolled armor steel.
 
Ceramic armor is not a magical solution to all problems. The T-64A used ceramic armor, yet it protection level was rather limited compared to later tanks.
 
 
This is wrong. The cited book - at least in its original German version - does not say what is claimed in the first paragraph of this screenshot of "Armor Basics". While the first quote can be found pretty much verbatim on page 76, the second part - i.e. "the ballistic effectiveness of the compouned armors against KE penetrators shows an improvement of only 1.2 to 1.4 over homogeneous rolled steel plate (incontrast to a factor of  2 against shaped charges." - cannot be found on page 76 or 77 of the original book. I have never read the translated version, but I am fairly certain that it doesn't say what is claimed previously.
 
On page 75, the claimed efficiency values (1.2 to 1.4 vs KE, 2 vs shaped charge) can be found: but that is in a paragraph on the armor protection of the T-72! The "factor 2 against shaped charges" is meant to be the mass-efficiency value and is based on a Swiss assessement from a 1982 issue of the Allgemeine Schweizerische Militärzeitschrift claiming that the T-72's hull armor is weight equivalent to a 120 mm steel plate sloped at 70° and provides twice as much protection against shaped charge ammunition as steel armor of the same weight. The same article also includes statements about the supposed performance of the T-72's armor against KE ammo: the article claims that the T-72, M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 use special armor and certain types of special reach a efficiency against KE ammunition of 1.2 to 1.4 per thickness (!). The T-72, which was believed by the Swiss authors to feature a 300 mm line-of-sight thick array of such armor (in reality it had a simple cast steel turret with a thickness of up to 500 mm, while the hull armor has an effective thickness of 547 mm), would then reach a protection level of 360 to 420 mm.
 

 
We know for fact that the T-72's armor neither reaches a mass efficiency of 2 against shaped charges nor that it provides a thickness efficiency of 1.2 to 1.4 agianst kinetic energy ammunition. It is a false assumption based on incorrect data from a time when the T-72 was still a mystery to NATO and non-aligned countries.
 
Everything else - regarding the effectiveness of ceramic armor - is not related to the Challenger 1. It is pure, unreferenced speculation that the tank would be fitted with such armor, even though it has been proven that Chobham is (mostly) based on spaced NERA sandwiches. Based on a number of declassified documents on the development of Chobham armor, there apparently were more than a dozen different Chobham armor arrays being tested in the early 1970s. Some of them were merely improved versions of earlier designs, others were created to experiment with new concepts (e.g. there was on Chobham armor array that incorporated high explosives similiar to integrated ERA). There might have been some Chobham arrays with ceramic component in them and this development might have lead to the array adopted on the Challenger 1  - but there is no proof for this; even if they are included, ceramics would only play a minor role. CeramTec ETEC, one of the market leaders in Europe for manufacturing ballistic ceramic materials, includes photographs of the Leopard 2 in its flyers, suggesting that some ceramic elements might be part of the armor array.
 
However suggesting that the Shir 2's 325 mm steel-equivalent protection against APFSDS rounds could be increased to 500+ mm just by incorporating ceramic materials seems wrong. Burlington and Chobham are different names for the same thing - there are numerous files using both names to refer to the same armor arrays. According to the British DSTL, modern armor arrays designed to provide protection against KE and HEAT rounds follow a three-stage layout, i.e. they consist of:
a distrupting stage to break KE pentrators and shaped chage jets a distrubing stage, which makes sure that the particles and fragments of the broken penetrator change direction and yaw angle an absorbing stage, which stops the fragments from reaching the interior and absorbs the kinetic energy The options for designing the second stage are pretty much limited to different types of spaced multi-layer armor or other types of reactive armor; based on known armor arrays - such as the T-72B's armor and the M1 Abrams' armor, the distrubing stage usually takes up at least half the available armor volume. The first stage is often based on a reactive armor (see the wedge-shaped armor of the Leopard 2A5 or the Kontakt-5 ERA on late Soviet MBTs), although it could also be made using high-hardness steel, perforated armor or ceramic plates (the latter two variants being common on lighter vehicles, because this armor is more efficient against short, bullet-shaped penetrators). The absorbing stage also can include ceramic materials, but will always include a steel layer (which serves as strucutral support) and potentially kevlar, polymers or other materials.
 
In case of the M1 Abrams, the absorbing stage of the hull armor was a rather simple steel plate.
 

 
So simply adding ceramics to the armor won't drastically change the protection. The Challenger 1 would require a completely different armor array, which would suffer from the typical problems of ceramic armor against large calibre ammunition, such as a relatively low efficiency, low multi-hit capabilty and problems with cost and manufacturing. Armor consisting of layered aluminium oxide with polymer backing and steel enclosure provides the same protection against shaped charges as steel of the same thickness - thus a Challenger 1 with 700-800 mm frontal armor at most would be quite vulnerable to shaped charges.
 
 
The "Armor Basics" document from which these snipplets are taken is known to be outdated and incorrect in various aspects. The author speculated too much and used false premises to generate his values - armor thickness, armor weight and layout are often wrong. Here for example he ignored that the Challenger 1 turret is meant to provide protection along a 60° frontal arc (30° to each side of the turret centerline), but the Chieftain was designed with protection along a 45° arc only! Thus his whole idea of using the weight difference to scale the equivalent armor weight of the frontal armor is incorrect. He also claims that a 15% increase in steel mass would result in a steel mass equivalent to a thickness of 50 cm - this would mean that in his beliefs the Chieftain was having an armor thickness of 434 mm, which it does not have in reality - the thickness of the frontal turret armor of a Chieftain is about 240-280 mm according to sources posted earlier in this topic.
 
 
I don't know any "Ed Francis" and see no reason why his writing should be relevant to this discussion. Seeing that the origin of this quote is a post on the Warthunder forum, which wasn't even written by him, but somebody claiming to have spoken to him, I would be rather careful. This is a big pile of unreferenced claims, that in some cases is rather easy to disprove. It is all speculation with no sources.
 
If Burlington and Chobham were two different things, why would official US and UK documents use both names like synonyms?
 

 
There are dozens of documents on the development of Chobham/Burlington armor, which are using both names; they also use "Chobham spaced armour" and similar terms disproving the claims that supposedly were made by Ed Francis. And this is how the Chobham spaced armor is shown in the same document - no trace of ceramics!

 
Ceramics themselves do not bulge, but rather break; the elasitic backing behind the ceramic tiles will bulge. Ceramics are not suited for NERA sandwiches as long as multi-hit capability matters,
 
Even if this forum poster had asked Ed Francis on the topic and he let him type on the Warthunder forum with his account, I don't see why this name would result in the text being relevant to us. According to a quick google search Mr. Francis is a volunteer at Bovington, not an expert on AFV design and armor technology. Given that there seems to be no special credentials to his name and that Bovington still has a plaque citing incorrect armor values in front of the Chieftain tank, I do not consider this to be a source.
 
 
There are no exact figures, which is also related to the problem of "irrecoverably lost" being a philosophical question. However the Abrams supposedly did perform very well in ODS. There were 14 Abrams tanks with DU contamination after being struck by DU rounds or on-board fire, for which the US Army lacked procedures and equipment to deal with. If they recovered these later or not is unknown to me.

5 man crew was dropped during and/or shortly after WW2 and nobody is making any tank or IFV with 5-6-7+ man crew. I guess there were reasons for this and any "advantage" was outweighed by disadvantages. Instead every major AFV developing country designers tried to minimize number of crewmembers inside of single vehicle. Nobody today produce T-35-alikes, other than this BMPT thing.
   Bow gunners are fucking WH40K-level of tank design, good for killing hordes of imaginary aliens, not so useful in real combat.
 
   Having ability to fire in 3 directions doesn't help you to win combat in Urban fights. Just yesterday example from Syria:

   During SAA push to Yarmouk camp, Hayat Takhrir Ash-Sham manage to take out several AFVs. After 1st "wave" of AFVs were damaged, SAA commanders sended an assault team to bring back damaged tanks (and probably crews, but no accurate info about them that i know). So this is one of those situations for which BMPT is supposedly was made - support tanks in Urban fights and replace infantry (at least partially) during assault operations.
   As you see those guys are doing suppressive fire, fire in several directions with more serious weapons than 2 fucking AGS (which would have hard time to fire in direction in which BMP-2 main gun is firing, because those 2 AGS are facing front and can't do shit to targets at sides and BMP hull doesn't always face those buildings on the left with frontal armor because it can't drive sideways). Did their firing in several directions in the same time helped them? No. 

 
 
   HTS "opened" a corridor and ambushed armor in it from sides. SAA crews couldn't fire at enemies effectively because they couldn't fucking see them and figure out where+when to fire exactly. Several tanks lost and plenty of killed soldiers are results of that. BMPT could probably survive that becaue of Relikt ERA, but this is specualtion that can be made about any tank with proper side protection modules installed like T-72B3 UBKh. 
 
   Ability to fire in several directions means nothing in cities if you don't have:
1) ability to detect enemies in your LOS, taking into account that enemies put effort in maksing their movement, positions and so on
2) ability to destroy positions and hit enemies in protected areas\cover 
 
  Puting MORE people in those boxes in urban fights is asking for more casulties per single vehicle, especially because UVZ BMPT have no serious sighting system for AGS gunners and their limited arc, limited firepower, limited capabilities to spot AT infantry in their LOS making them nearly, if not completely, useless. 30 mm autocannons would have hard time to penetrate those houses and do serious damage in deep parts of them, even if bad guys infantry was spotted getting to ambush positions or cover.
  
  And if you really want to use UVZ-made BMPT's AGLs, give those things to infantry! They can put them inside of buildings, between houses, fire them indirectly from safe positions and suppress areas, without driving into direct LOS of enemy infantry and asking for tandem RPG or ATGM. 
 
   Thats are reasons why i think current BMPT is useless and waste of money and time. Should be re-designed with 3 man crew*, smaller vehicle with higher protection of sides, bottom and roof; better sensors and completely 360 degrees observation system with software assistance in spotting targets (and even target tracking/aiming like Boomerang-BM claimed to have); better integration with other units - incl recon units via battlefield managment systems; high-velocity and relatively high penetration cannon/autocannon, airburst munitions. Ability to detect and quickly "service" targets on the level of SPAAGs, being capable of shooting down ATGMs/RPGs, including on considerable range during combat in field. If you need to deal with enemies from several directios - use more vehicles instead, as they also can maneuver and pick better angles, cover and positions, than 1 BMPT trying to find place to keep LOS to several enemy positions while having part of weapons locked into limited arc.
 
   *As "The Chieftain" noted - a platoon of generic "T-72s"/3-man crew tank have 4 vehicles to fight, while a platoon of generic "Abrams"/4-man crew tanks have 3 vehicles to do their job on battlefield, and platoon of T-72s in result have higher firepower. Thats why crews should be made smaller.