Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

heretic88

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    458

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by heretic88

  1. heretic88
    Why not stick to the original Volvo articulated truck? That has excellent offroad mobility, unlike the HX77. Also seems to be a little bit more compact too.
  2. heretic88
    About this Leopard-1 upgrade... UFP is curious... Maybe I fail to understand some very obvious thing, but my conlcusion... Does the UFP make any sense at all? Ok, we have a 6mm cover plate, 30mm box, then 70mm armor, all at 60 degrees. Thats 212mm LOS. How on earth can that protect against ANY RPG except RPG-2? This armor is absolutely hopeless against the ancient (1969) PG-7M. And I very much doubt it can do anything even against the oldest PG-7V. That thing has 260mm penetration. Unless the 30mm box has some magic contents, I do not see how it can be effective. Yes I fully know this is a very simplistic approach, but I do not know much about Mexas armor.
  3. heretic88
    My guess is that the LFP is thinner (50mm) and has less angle. Definitely strange though. Still, hull front is quite inferior compared to metal polymer blocks on T-55M/T62M, which can at least make the tank immune up to PG-7VS and resistant to VL.
  4. heretic88
    Problem with Leopard-1 is that base armor is so ridiculously thin that it just isnt possible to upgrade the protection to sufficient levels. There is no steel behind the add-on armor. Turret and hull sides may be upgraded to be immune to PG-7V, PG-7VM, resistant to PG-7VS, but hardly more. The PG-7VL is already too much I think, and it is still a very old munition (1977). Whole tank is suitable only for situations where it can exploit its great mobility, really its only defense is speed.
  5. heretic88
    Tyulpans? I saw only M-240. Although 2S19s were reported in syria, so nothing is impossible then...
  6. heretic88
    That thing begs for a GPS/Glonass guided round! It would be a fantastic support weapon! (It already is, but it would be even better) Could be massively useful in Syria.
  7. heretic88
    The guy loves the Abrams so much that he would marry one if he could... On a different forum he did a "hate campaign" against Leopard-2 before he was banned permanently. Now imagine his face after reading this article
  8. heretic88
    I hope the same team will do it which restored the Ob.787, they did a wonderful job with that thing.
  9. heretic88
    Was this posted before? Anyway. Contains a few interesting facts. According to the driver of Saumur tank musum's Panther, the engine is actually quite accessible and easy to maintain. Then he tells of course about the steering system, which is - no surprise - problematic. Later the curator of the museum also tells about it, and he mentions the constant need to check the steering system, and the frequent adjustings required. Maybe this was the real reason behind the low service life of the final drives? Drivers without enough experience or training, so they didnt perform the checks and adjustments, which led to early final drive failures? The drive train wasnt perfect of course, but there is evidence that with experienced drivers, the final drives lasted far, far more than the mythical "150km" (actually I believe it is a typo in the original french report! 1500km should be the real value).
  10. heretic88
    Well, yes you can have shock absorbers with Christie suspension but that makes things more complicated, like on british tanks.
  11. heretic88
    Yes, definitely not as time consuming (at least on T-34) as in the case of the Tiger or Panther, but still not an easy task, far harder than changing a bogie on a Sherman or on a Panzer IV, or changing a torsion bar on a tank without interleaved road wheels. Some springs are more or less trouble free, but some are nasty. In case of the british tanks, well, suspension repair is horror, surely worse than interleaved stuff (tracks off, wheels off, side armor plate off). Brits liked all kinds of weird stuff So yes, you can bash the interleaved suspension, it indeed had problems. But it is unfair if you bash only that, when at the same time, there were other similarly less successful designs, like the Christie suspension. (in fact, you can still find some prototypes after the war with interleaved wheels, but absolutely nothing with Christie suspension)
  12. heretic88
    Funny that nowadays everybody likes to bash ww2 german stuff. Yes, interleaved road wheels had problems, but it wasnt that bad actually. What about the mythical Christie suspension? In my opinion that was far worse. Took lots of space inside and was a nightmare to repair, much worse than interleaved german suspension. Also the ride quality... I once had the opportunity to ride on a T-34, that thing has horrible, I felt almost every bump on the road. Compared to it, the T-55 (that I drove lots) has a luxury car quality suspension.
  13. heretic88
    Paper panzer, after dissection. Quite good photos, from Andrei's blog. (still amazed how ridiculously thin the armor is...) More pictures: https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/1415704.html?fbclid=IwAR2Qdo8g68MySWDE7OHoDmmQKKJnNlCXcQCL3Ry8v33KS7axOf8fDV1h-iQ
  14. heretic88
    Today new speed record for "T-72B3 Circus edition" - 78km/h. How did they do it? Even more tuned engine? Custom sport transmission? Tank gutted inside to reduce weight? Or combination of all 3? Serial T-72B3, with 1130hp engine (the one Belarus uses) cant reach more than 72 kmh. Quite funny, but as far as I know, the rules for the circus say that no prototypes, only serial tanks. T-72B3 Circus edition is anything but serial... Hard to take this competition seriously.
  15. heretic88
    Well, there is a russian saying: "Универсальная машина может делать все, но все одинаково плохо" Which means "Universal machine can do everything, but it does everything equally badly" (russian speaking members will correct me if I translated it badly) Although it must be said, for military needs, their performance is more than enough. No need to fine grade, no need to dig holes quickly and precisely, no need to do slot dozing, etc.
  16. heretic88
    Honestly, that seems very little. I didnt find any data regarding dozers, but Im 100% sure that their performance is lightyears ahead of these military vehicles. Why do I think so? Simply because you can feed an 1000 ton/hour crusher or screening plant with a 25 ton class wheel loader(5m3 bucket). At my workplace I operate a little 5 ton loader, with 1m3 bucket, and if I can do it without stop, I can move 100 ton/hour of material without problem. All in all, AEVs are extremely poor "construction vehicles". Their suspension and transmission systems are highly unsuitable for any earthmoving job. One example, the 40 ton, 700hp BAT-2 performs worse than a 10 ton, 110hp T-100 tractor. Same with western equipment. A Wisent 2 is no match for a Cat D9, not even a D8. But on the other hand, civilian construction vehicles are highly unsuitable for military operations because of their slowness, and of course, lack of protection.
  17. heretic88
    This also includes the second round, featuring Belarus (2nd place), China (winner), Azerbaijan (3rd place) and Serbia (4th place)
  18. heretic88
    Just watched tank biathlon first round... (yep, I had nothing better to do, still more entertaining than formula-1 for example) 3 T-80UE-1 competed, all with female crews. And despite they never were tankists, they did very well. So well, that they would probably beat about 3/4 of the teams from other countries. They were more gentle to the tanks, so hopefully they wont go to the scrapyard. Some observations: T-80UD style AAMG mount is very accurate. The commanders hit their target with their first 1-2 rounds. Main gun shot results were similar as T-72s, all 3 crews hit 2/3 targets. Coax MG bursts were surprisingly accurate however, much more than with T-72. Hits achieved almost immediately, with 2-3 rounds. And finally, T-80s are very fast, max speed was 74km/h, with great acceleration.
  19. heretic88
    Dozers have FAR more traction than any military vehicle on any terrain. No tank would be able to push the blade, or pull the ripper of a D10 or D375 (both 70 tons) for example, but I may go even so far that the same would be true for any tank vs the smaller 50 ton D9/D275. In this video it is clearly seen that the ABV is struggling with pushing only a few m3 of soil, this is absolutely nothing for a D9/D275, which have the blade capacity of around 16-17m3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO5ehu1lLjk Military tracked vehicles are massively inferior to dozers in many ways. First their track provides much less traction. Second, the presence of the suspension system makes it significantly harder to maintain grade. And third, their transmission system is optimized for speed, rather than power. On the other hand, dozers have a huge disadvantage, their sluggishness which is not a good thing in warfare...
  20. heretic88
    The add-on armor plates look cheap, and very poorly made, with massive gaps between them. But on the other hand the upgrade is great, especially the new electronics and the diesel engine are a huge leap forward.
  21. heretic88
    Russian artillery with PGMs? Nice job killing those terrorists btw
  22. heretic88
    How little they knew even about the T-62! "christie" suspension, or "clutch-brake" steering... lol. And even though they tested the tank, they had no idea how to drive it! There is no "crash" gearbox, it is synchronized from 2nd gear. Also you surely dont need to double clutch, and absolutely no need to use sledgehammer to change gears! This is not a shitty T-34! No wonder they destroyed the transmission... morons. From personal experience I know the difference between a properly maintained gearbox and a poorly maintanied one. (T-55) Surely not the lightest gear shift, but if the gearbox is good, and the connecting rods are properly adjusted, you shouldnt have any problems with shifting, all you need is a determined push or pull on the gear change lever, and you are good to go. The article claims that it is tiring to drive the tank. Total BS. I fully admit Im not a strong guy at all, actually on the weaker side, but I didnt have any fatigue problems after 1 hour driving in a T-55. (on the other hand I was totally tired in the GSP-55, after 10 minutes! PT-76 derived components)
  23. heretic88
    Strange comparison... Frontally, the BMP-3 is MUCH stronger than M2A1. Somewhere between the A1 and A2, but definitely closer to the latter. The sides of the BMP are weaker generally, but the Bradley has a not insignificant part of the upper hull, unprotected by 6mm spaced armor, which is quite weak, only 25mm 7039Al.
  24. heretic88
    Well, they are equal in a sense that both vehicles are protected against the opposing side's heavy machine guns. NATO didnt have anything like 14.5, their most powerful HMG was the .50, against which the BMP-1/2D was protected, except the rear doors (unless they are filled with sand, which sometimes happened). That I find hard to believe. Lower frontal plate is 15mm @ 56 degrees, which is 25.5mm LOS on BMP-2, and 19mm @ 56 degrees, which is 34.8mm LOS on BMP-1. 23mm BZT penetrates 25mm armor at 500m only. At 2000m, it cant even pierce a 15mm vertical plate. Rear armor, I agree.
  25. heretic88
    Quite funny, but the Bradley was almost just as "armorless" as the BMP-1/2 until the A2 variant. It was only superior on the sides, and only compared to base BMP-1/2. "Afghan" D variants were equal. The german Marder was greatly superior frontally to both the BMP and the Bradley, but its sides were just as thin as the BMP.
×
×
  • Create New...