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
    If they mount them with guide rails, then why not. Otherwise, its not a good idea. 2A72 is horribly inaccurate, except for single shots. Anyway, this whole vehicle is a mess. Maybe it has some limited uses in urban warfare, but in the environment shown in the video, it is far inferior to any normal tank. Whole vehicle is quite poorly designed. The old Objekt-781 prototypes were much better, but sadly, they were made by another design bureu, so UVZ couldnt say that "its our product". Even these prototypes were only useful in urban warfare, but in my opinion, they were perfectly suited for that, especially the two prototypes which had the twin separate gun turrets. They passed state tests but the collapse of SU prevented their entry to service.
  2. heretic88
    I guess it is nothing more than good old 3UBR6 APBC. Basically, .50 SLAP equivalent, it is so bad in terms of penetration.
  3. heretic88
    According to Al Masdar News, Erdogan's jihadist lapdogs suffered serious losses near Ain Issa. They are clearly going after capturing the town from SDF and SAA. Turkish drones also appeared to support the terrorists, fortunately SAA was able to shoot down one of them. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/major-escalation-in-northern-syria-results-in-heavy-losses-for-turkish-backed-forces/
  4. heretic88
    Awesome, thanks! BTW, werent there any plans to use something bigger than a DSKM or NSVT? Maybe a ZPU-2, SPG-9, ZU-23?
  5. heretic88
    Please, tell me there will be some jihadmobiles with HMGs or SPG on their backs! A few of them at least!
  6. heretic88
    First test firing of hungarian Leopard-2A4. Now there is something interesting. They fired the guns with remote control, for "safety reasons" according to the video. (at 1:23) But why? Also it was mentioned that the tanks traveled to the firing range on public roads, this never happened here before. (usual stupid BS that steel tracks rip up the roads...)
  7. heretic88
    Yep, this was definitely a trap I fell into But the T-28 was just too attractive compared to the rest, so couldnt resist! Anyway, well deserved victory for N-L-M, his design is really brilliant, especially the armor upgrade! I had two problems with this competition: 1, that there were only 3 of us. It would have been good to see some T-26, Panzer II or french tank upgrades 2, now I want to buy Zvezda's new 1/35 T-28 model kit, and want to build both my design and the Carro Armato P.35/105
  8. heretic88
    I really like this BT-5 upgrade! Especially the new armor configuration! My only concern would be ergonomics. The original BTs were already cramped, I wonder how would the crew fit in there when the 75/76mm guns are mounted instead of 45mm.
  9. heretic88
    Ok, here is my T-28 upgrade. T-28/43 Mass: ~30 tons Crew: 4 Protection: (angles unchanged compared to original tank, except the side of driver's compartment) Lower front hull: 30+50mm Upper front hull: 30+50mm Sides: 20mm base, 30mm at driver's compartment, 20+10mm suspension area Top: 10-15mm Frontal part of turret: 30+50mm Rear part of turret: 30+30mm Top: 15mm Cupola: 100mm Main armament: 75mm Pak-97/38, 70 rounds (+optional racks on both sides of driver) Useable ammunition: AP, HEAT, HE Secondary armament: 1x DT machine gun, modified to use italian 8x59mm ammo. 2000 rounds. Observation/aiming devices: - telescopic sight TOP - periscopic sight PT-1 - panoramic sight PTK - 1x periscope for gunner, aimed to side (replacing the vision slit, now covered by armor) - commander's cupola with 5 vision ports (Panzer IV type) Engine: M-17T/43, gasoline, uprated to 550hp. Power to weight ratio: ~18.3 hp/ton Other improvements: - the removal of MG turrets resulted in a free space on both sides of the driver. It can be used for storing tools for maintenance, personal gear for crew, or extra ammo. - added fume extractor fan on turret top - replaced soviet radios - modified, smaller hatch for loader, since the commander's cupola is quite big. - turret became quite heavy (and probbly imbalanced to a degree) with add-on armor, so a reinforced traverse mechanism is added. - old radio antenna rails retained, useful for attaching camouflage.
  10. heretic88
    I think ordinary FAB. ODAB should produce a much bigger explosion. Also its very very far from carpet bombing, which requires big formations only seen in WW2 and Vietnam. Its just a salvo dropped from a single plane.
  11. heretic88
    Btw, wasnt there a case when a Metis-M penetrated the turret side? I may be wrong but I remember reading it somewhere...
  12. heretic88
    I thought about that for a bit... But in the end, I think it doesnt worth keeping them. Removal is a better solution, because you save lots of weight. Then you can bolt on additional armor, add extra ammo, create more space for crew. And as you can see on my drawing, the new armor plates in the place of mini turrets are angled very steeply, so viewed from the front, they provide lots of protection.
  13. heretic88
    While Im not an expert, but I think there would be some weight gain, thanks to heavily uparmored turret. But the hull on itself, despite thick add on armor would be probably indeed lighter. In any case, thats why I uprated the engine a bit
  14. heretic88
    I do not have much time for 3d modeling or professional image editing, so I made a rather primitive photoshopped line drawing So, my choice was the T-28, despite its limited availability. French stuff werent considered at all, they are hopeless junk. Panzer II is a nice tank with lots of good properties, but its crew compartment is too compact for a bigger gun. So only the soviet tanks left. Sadly both the BT-5 and T-26 are too lightly armored, and the BT is also too narrow inside thanks to christie suspension, so I chose the T-28. The first thing I did, is to get rid of the stupid mini turrets. Then, I reshaped the area near the driver's position, added two sharply angled, 30mm thick plates where the turrets were. This also created more space for the driver, and also optionally more ammo/stuff for crew/maintenance tools can be stored in the new free space. Next, I improved the armor protection. The nearly vertical surfaces of the front hull (upper & lower) received 50mm add-on plates. Turret front and frontal part of side also received an 50mm add-on, rear part got a thinner 30mm plate, but this was just to keep the whole turret (somewhat) balanced. Frontally, the tank became immune to 37 and 40mm guns, and resistant to 6pdr. Firepower: Both L-10 and KT-28 guns had to go, first because the poor performance, and second, the not guaranteed supply of ammo. The replacement is the 7.5cm Pak 97/38. The reasons of this decision: this gun is still quite compact, will not make the life of the crew miserable inside. It is also already in service in the army, so ammo supply is secured. Muzzle velocity isnt much better than the L-10, but the performance of AP shells are better, and good HEAT rounds are also available. Mobility: I didnt change much. The original M-17T engine is barely more than a slightly modified BMW VI, so nothing wrong here. I only tuned it a bit, so performance increased by 50hp, I think it is enough, and also do not cause problems with reliability and service life. Other improvements: - Panzer IV style commander's cupola, for good vision. - added fume extractor fan on turret top - replaced soviet radios - add-on armor now covers side vision slits, so the gunner received a replacement periscope - modified, smaller hatch for loader, since the commander's cupola is quite big. - turret became quite heavy (and probbly imbalanced to a degree) with add-on armor, so a reinforced traverse mechanism is added. - old radio antenna rails retained, useful for attaching camouflage.
  15. heretic88
    Sadly, meanwhile a 4th victim died... RIP. Its tragic. Not just the death of innocents. Also because meanwhile, the V4 countries, but especially Hungary and Poland are STILL the "bad guys", "pariahs", because we didnt accept any of these so called "highly qualified workers" or "refugees" from the middle east and africa. We didnt have any terror attacks since this madness began in 2014-15. Wonder why... Western europeans should realize that it is practically impossible to integrate these people into european societies. And vote accordingly in the next elections. (although I fear its too late for some countries, including Austria) But sadly, they still elect far leftist parties that promote migration... This is the tragedy of whole western europe.
  16. heretic88
    Germany should really consider reinventing their designation systems... it is getting idiotic. Again. They did the same thing in cold war. Now what is next? Leo-2A6A4A3A8V??? What is the point of stacking these stupid "A" numbers on each other? Americans did it right now with the new Abrams designation system.
  17. heretic88
    Very nice! How close is this plane to the original? I know of course the engines, radio and some equipment are modern and there are no weapons, but what about the rest?
  18. heretic88
    If I remember well, that is because of the rotor wash. So this doesnt add to the reduction of accuracy from a ground platform
  19. heretic88
    This thing is uber cool, I'd love to have one! Although I do not really understand why did the designers use a tank-like planetary steering system. I'd definitely replace it with hydromotors.
  20. heretic88
    Jesus Christ, the tank museum did it again... They are quite pathetic... This time, they are worse... Some highlights: - Red army, red army, red army, during the whole video... Arent they aware that after 1946, it was called Soviet army? - 2A20 gun was designed from the start to fire missiles... lol... - T-62 czech production... on a different planet maybe - OPVT system assembly time, 8 hours... - characteristic soviet track noise , coming from track pin ramps... illustrated by a T-34 sound sample... lol - The dome next to shell ejection port is the radiation detector... morons...
  21. heretic88
    You are right, but nobody said that we need these things against small drones. Actually, there arent any weapon systems currently in the world that are really effective against small drones, or loitering munitions. Possible solutions: lasers, large caliber (40mm+) autocannons with guided munition, or mini missiles.
  22. heretic88
    Actually, not shelled. Bombed. By turkish F-16s. This was found in the ruins:
  23. heretic88
    Unfortunately, the Stryker is the platform in consideration. Would be a VERY bad idea... Not just the chassis. I think the whole IM-SHORAD is a mess. Jack of all trades, master of none. Almost if the designers would have no idea about the real purpose of the system, just different weapons cobbled together. Well, this is one of the disadvantages of NATO membership. Russia has the exact AA system we need, the Pantsir, and we arent allowed to buy it.
  24. heretic88
    This is the M1 version, with new radar, new optic systems with thermal channel. Also has new missiles. You can see the difference here, original 2S6M on the right, 2S6M1 on left.
  25. heretic88
    So this means that the Tunguska received the modernized radar and optics package after all? This is the first time I see this being in service in the army. Previously this was only displayed at MAKS, Army, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...