Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

N-L-M

Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

    603
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

N-L-M last won the day on July 8 2020

N-L-M had the most liked content!

About N-L-M

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,174 profile views
  1. If you are talking about plain steel armor, the answer is the penetration area is cleaned, edges are chamfered, and a plug is inserted and welded in place. See page 30 here, for a quick description of steel armor repair processes. And indeed the rest of the paper for details on fused silica armor. A note for the above: Austenitic welds are softer and more ductile than ferritic welds, but do not require the extensive and precise preheating that ferritic welds do to prevent cracking in the weld. This does however leave the weld as a somewhat weak spot in the repair.
  2. 1. Fuel tanks are very easy to move, what with fuel being liquid. Also we have some pics of blown up merk 3s which suggest the rear fuel tanks are just bolted on, which would make them fairly easy to remove: 2. The most the Israelis ever did to Centurion hulls was fit them for Merk 2 bogies, which may have been designed with a similar interface in the first place; as we have previously discussed, the hull body for the single swing arm suspension is substantially different, and would require major hull cutting, welding, and machining operations, hardly a minor deal. 3. Th
  3. Ok, so 2 questions. 1. What is the source for the claim that the mk3 based Ofek retains the clamshell doors and was not converted to a ramp? 2. Seeing as we know that one mk2 Ofek has the clamshell and one has a ramp, how is it more sensible to assume that the entire suspension was replaced off the hull rather than, say, another mk3 Ofek existing, this one with a ramp too? The pics in the post we are discussing have a Merk 3 sponson and Merk 3 suspension. Seeing as the Ofek doesn't appear to be in series production yet, and is by all accounts supposed to be a quick and ch
  4. What about the Merk 3 chassis makes you consider it impossible to convert in such a manner? Doubly so, that you consider it more likely that they went to all the trouble to convert a merk 2 chassis to merk 3 suspension? This is especially odd given that we've already seen one based on a Merk 3 hull:
  5. That is quite clearly a merk 3 chassis. Note the individual suspension units all pointing the same way.
  6. Well, seeing as Iron Vision doesn't appear to have been fielded yet, I think that's a bit premature to say.
  7. Perhaps, what if there is no downselect in the first two rounds? IE, everyone designs guns, but all guns are then available for turret designs, which are then all available for hull integration? Gives a bit more freedom to pick and choose the components you want to integrate, and as there is no downselect there's no penalty before the vehicle is complete.
  8. Well, that disadvantages large turrets that hold stuff relative to small ones that cram it all in the hull. Consider the case of a K2 turret, vs the turret of a T-72.
  9. If you are already connecting things to said steel, connecting a different plate to it with some kind of interlayer...
  10. My issue with that is the hull-turret relationship, wherein the turret has a substantial basket, which dictates to an extent hull dimensions, and the fact that anything not stowed in the turret must eventually be stowed in the hull. Not least of which are crew and ammo.
  11. It is also possible, or perhaps even likely, that .50+ RCWS will be a major part of anti-drone, anti-loitering munition point defenses in the coming years. Having the ability to host one provides substantial self protection ability against said threat which is oh so fashionable to talk about nowadays.
  12. I actually kind of want to avoid this a little. As we saw with the DPRC competition, overly constraining the design space leads to boxing people in, and in a historical context the more you box in the more you inevitably converge on "only do what was done" because they all had good reasons at the time. The "what if they were all a bit more open to ideas we now know are good" approach frees that up a bit. This would have to be very carefully curated, but could be interesting. Not sure how one would judge a turret in the absence of a hull, though.
  13. Had a couple of ideas for competitions, want to put them out there and see what y'all think. 1. The year is 1911. The rapid pace of artillery development has left the Belgian military increasingly worried about the vulnerability of the Brialmont forts in case of war, which combined with the overall charged atmosphere in Europe leaves much to be desired in the nation's defensive plans. It is hoped that the automobile revolution may be able to solve this issue; any army advancing into Belgium must move at least its supplies by road or rail, and any valuable goal must also be connected
  14. Quite likely, yes. I buy that THS more thickness- efficient, but tanks don't seem to have dimensional constraints as much as they do weight ones. The very wide array of very wide skirt options for tanks seems to suggest that weight efficiency is the more pressing concern. As time goes on we see more and more that pretty much everything is a reactive sandwich of some sort, with the exception of armor solely optimized for dealing with rigid KE penetrators, where ceramics shine in the role of shattering them. Unless the design optimization has very extreme constraints
×
×
  • Create New...