VPZ
-
Posts
293 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by VPZ
-
-
9 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:
It looks like the suspension has been changed to independently-sprung road wheels with external coil springs.
All Pumas have Merkava's suspension
-
-
18 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
Which if it was true, would actually defeat your argument.
Of course it is true. For example, Soviet cars was copies of American and European. So, soviets could buy foreign technologies, if not from USA, than from Europe.
18 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:How is the size of the aircraft relevant to the concept?
IMO, this hypothetical helicopter is too small for having turbofan engines.
Anyway, you may believe and wait for release of this chopper from the cartoon.
18 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:I'm going to need an explanation on the "civil aircraft sucks" theory,
SSJ
-
2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
This helicopter is Sikorsky's Absolute Chad 69, unofficially known as "CH-53".
Attack helicopters are smaller, aren't they?
2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:The isolation during the cold war
LOL, actually USSR wasn't so isolated.
2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:But in aviation? Nope. It could consistently put up a match to the west.
Russia is definitely not the first in aviation. Civil aircraft sucks, and still there is no even semi-stealth aircraft.
-
35 minutes ago, MRose said:
It's almost as in they put a door in the back.
There was a requirement to place all the ammo in the chassis.
-
6 minutes ago, heretic88 said:
Yes, one very simple reason: Israel back then didnt have access to technology/no capability to manufacture composite arrays. They needed a solution for good anti-HEAT protection, and the only option was put the engine at the front as armor. As Damian said back then, the design is very inefficient, huge size and mass with comparatively low protection. But since Israel had no other choice, we cant blame the designers. They did everything they could, and the Merkava eventually became a good tank.
They put the engine at the front not for protection.
-
9 hours ago, Serge said:
Yes.
And they have other problems such as :
- complexe cooling (big problem for the SPz-Puma),
- bad field of view for driver.
But it doesn't mean that they can't aim forward. Merkava can, while some russian sources claim that it can't.
-
24 minutes ago, Serge said:
This mythe is simply a basic of armoured vehicle design you have to take into account.
When Tal introduced the Mk3 around May 1989, it was a part of the discussion.
Yes. And there are many vehicles with frontal engine. Do all of them have problems with aiming?
-
10 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:
You understand how dumb this whole thing sounds? Some badly informed Russians that saw a random article on random military-related site in Runet in 2013 posted somewhere in English forums anuanced myth about Merkava and all this is a part of.... Russian propaganda?
That's how Internet works - reposting. BTW, why a hell should I know where did he read it? Just ask him.
-
1 minute ago, LoooSeR said:
So Russian propaganda spreading those myths on English part of Internet through some military-related Russian language site where random people can post their articles? Great, who here ever heard of topwar?
Those Russian, who participate in discussions on English forums. Is it really so hard to understand?
BTW, this article is much older than I thought:
https://topwar.ru/29321-konstruktivnye-uyazvimosti-osnovnoy-boevoy-mashiny-aoi-merkava-mk4.html
-
8 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:
Source. Who are those Russian propaganda who spreads those myths in English part of internet?
There was an article, that was discussed on russian forums. Maybe it was from topwar. It's hard to remember now.
-
1 minute ago, LoooSeR said:
Great, now please show us who/which one of them are spreading those myths in English part of internet.
I know that this myth appeared in Russian internet several years ago. This youtuber said nothing new, he just repeated what he had read on some forum, probably AW, or any other military forum popular among Russians.
-
2 hours ago, N-L-M said:
What did the big bad Russians do to you anyway?
I live in Russia, asshole. I do know what Russian propaganda is, while rednecks like you don't.
QuoteIs it wrong?
Yes, it's wrong, because this myth is spread by people who know nothing about this tank. I'd rather ask them where did they read about problems with aiming.
-
That's very old photo, but the turret already has the hatch.
And here it looks like there is the loader's hatch, but it is sealed.
-
7 minutes ago, Sovngard said:
So, which Merkava Mk. 4 model features/doesn't feature the loader's hatch ?
Must be all of them have (serial models)
-
4 minutes ago, Lord_James said:
Guy sounds like a wehrboo; should be flogged with an M1 inspired, DU whip.
He is just another Putin-obsessed Russian.
-
-
12 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
- Heat can obscure the thermal vision of the gunner, so gunner has to turn away the turret.
This fake is spread by russian propaganda.
-
3 hours ago, Serge said:
Not exactly.
No, it's certainly commander's sight.
1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:When RPG-30 became vehicle born? Kornet is not exactly vehicle-only ATGM either.
We were talking about ATGMs with several launchers.
-
-
20 hours ago, LoooSeR said:
Trophy have 1 launcher per side.
It's almost impossible to shoot a tank from the side using a vehicle based ATGM.
19 hours ago, Lord_James said:What is it?
A commander's sight.
-
All APS have at least two launchers. So, using two missiles against tank with APS is ineffective and maybe just a propaganda trick.
-
Damn, how many topics related to Soviet/Russian tanks are on this forum? Just don't create them.
-
35 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:
I'm not sure if those things are IrvonVision.
Is that... a spirit of Best Korean tank design?
Of course it's not.
)
Non-exploding infantry hardware thread.
in Infantry Tools & Tactics
Posted
Shaldag