N-L-M

The rear tow/lifting holes also seem to be reinforced compared to the older Abrams: In the pics you posted it looks like theres an extra plate tacked on doubling the thickness. Theyre not playing around with the weight gains.

The solicitation should be ready by the weekend. Participants are advised to get any spiritual auditing done before setting about designing tanks.

Armor coupons are armor samples for ballistic testing, not integrated into a vehicle's structure. A small panel, say 0.5x0.5m, built to the same spec as the actual armor but in a small easy-to-test and cheap package.

Carter was the Peanut Smith, not Clinton.

The rumors say that the Dianetic People's Republic of California will have a RFP out soon, in tyool 2250 or so.

@Ramlaen look at the turret face- I bet that's the ballast from the weight sheets.

I for one welcome our new glorious Commissar.

That's clearly K-1 on the turret face in tyool 2019. Lmaoing@kharkov

Looks like a very high sink rate. The aircraft is fully flared on landing, so either the approach angle was too steep or the plane thought it was several hundred meters higher up than it really was. The bounce is characeristic of extremely heavy landings- the undercarriage can't damp it all out, and the pneumatic springs shove the airframe right back into the air. It looks like the impact may have been violent enough to fully compress the springs to their mechanical stops, at which point the shock gets transferred directly to the aircraft. The shock bending loads on the structure trying to accelerate the heavy nose cantilever from "steep descent" to "rebound" exceeded the load limit and the airframe broke where the bending moment causes maximal stress- at the base of the cantilever.

The Israeli Centurions at that point used the same power pack as the M60 and M48 (with minor fittings differences), so that's a no.

Indeed. Spice is a kit fitted on mk 80 series bombs. And that bomb body clearly says mk 83 on it.

You'd also have to make it a blowoff compartment, which requires significant cutting and welding work. Much less than a new turret would require but still not a small job.

Strv 2000 is entirely obsolete in the current year and would basically have to be restarted almost from scratch. Remember, Strv 2000 was a project in the late 1980s, and it's been over 30 years since then. Other than broad layout and concepts (like modular armor), and any ballistic tests conducted at the time, everything involved in that project is obsolete.

Windows and firing ports yes. Probably not protected beyond STANAG III plus .50 cal fire in the frontal arc.

So I was on a certain Discord server and the topic of reactive armor came up. I ended up writing a rather long post about why RHAe is a fundamentally flawed method of measuring the effectiveness of ERA, vs other models (such as a fractional model ( % reduction in penetration), even those do not entirely accurately reflect reality). I post it here unedited for your critique, do your worst (which is of course your best). Rhae The problem is that with that approach your measured "RHAe" is just a rephrasing of the measured residual penetration with no further info processing applied, and is only useful as far as your individual measurements are. And when your armor's effectiveness is affected by the projectile's penetrating ability, well, the "armor equivalency" value gets dependent on the projectiles characteristics in the specific case and not in any way in a generalized manner, which defeats the whole point of having a unit of measure in the first place. You see, nobody uses plain old 220BHN RHA any more for anything other than weapons testing. But it's still useful as a reference for armor materials within the limitations that the defeat mechanisms are similar- typically, clean penetration into semi-infinite targets. This allows you to compare different solutions within the same class. For example, if against a certain threat class 500bhn steel penetrated cleanly has a RHAe of 2 vs 220BHN steel at a given obliquity, you know this to hold true across that class and definitely for individual projectile designs. As an example, If I know that an AP round will go through 100mm 220BHN RHA at 1km, I know it will also go through 50mm of the 500 BHN stuff. Likewise, if that same projectile fired at the same velocity goes through 110mm 220 at 0.5km, at that range itll go through 55mm of the high hard stuff at the closer range. And I know that if I scale the projectile design up such that it now defeats 120mm 220, it'll also defeat 60mm 500. So far, so good. But now I try to apply the same logic to a reactive plate. A dart round rated at 100mm 220 at 0.5km is fired at the ERA and achieves only 50mm of residual penetration. From this I conclude that the ERA has a "RHAe" of 50 against this projectile design. I then proceed to fire it at 1.5km, where its penetration is only 40mm 220. By the above logic, I should expect it to never pass the ERA. But it will, and the residual penetration will shred all the poor innocent 1mm witness plates. Now lets take the same projectile and scale it up, so it can go through 120mm RHA at 0.5km and fire it at the ERA. By the above logic, I'd expect it to achieve 120mm (rated) - 50mm (ERA RHAe) =70mm. In practice, the reactive armor will chew it up such that it penetrates notably less backing as a residual effect. And for a SC example, a given single shaped charge 100mm in diameter will go through say 600mm 220 BHN at optimal standoff. A reactive layer cuts that down to 100mm. From here I get a "RHAe" of 500mm. Shaped charge penetration is known to scale linearly with size for a given design at similar non-dimensional standoffs. So we take a 0.8 scale ie, 80mm) version of the last warhead. It'll go through 480mm 220 BHN steel. Applying the equivalency logic, we'd expect the residual penetration to not exist, as the armor equivalency is greater than the rated penetration. In practice, it's going to have residual penetration, on the order of 80mm. Big error there from a difference of a mere 20% in scale. See the problem? Trying to measure RHAe for reactives is problematic because their method of operation is fundamentally different. Not only is it inconsistent within a class, it's inconsistent for a single given projectile design as well! If you want to start plotting "RHAe of Kontakt-5 vs M829A1 as a function of range" as well as the usual obliquity testing, you will very quicky find that in practice you are to within a fairly tight confidence interval merely drawing a rescaled and slightly offset ballistic chart for the M829A1 itself, which if you don't think is silly (considering you then need to do this for all known projectiles, even of similar designs), well then have fun I guess. The data you compile by this method is mostly useless at that point. Having different fitted models for different threat types and even design styles is legitimate. But when you have to individually fit each independent penetrator with a model of its own *which is also dependent on the particular state of the projectile at impact, well clearly you’re doing something wrong.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.idf.il%2F76384%2F Israel's 6th Dolphin sub to be named Dragon and not Dakar as previously reported; the next class of submarine will be called the Dakar Class.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a554529.pdf A fairly exhaustive look at the work of Prof. Dr. Manfred Held (PBUH), and the science of reactive armor initiation.

That is SEPv3. Somebody must have forgotten to rename the contracts.

Shit, that's around $4mil per tank upgraded. Cost of being cutting edge I guess.

Because when you make a robotic vehicle you do it for one of 2 main reasons: 1. As a technical demonstrator 2. As a useful vehicle In the first case, using old tanks is silly because theyre crazy expensive to run. You can run a M113 or MT-LB if you want a tracked vehicle, or a fancy ATV if you don't, all of which are waaaay cheaper to run than a tank. For the second case, you want a useful vehicle even in the face of enemy fire. If you don't want to stop enemy AT fire, your choices are the same as the above, plus the option of a purpose built compact vehicle. If you do want to stop enemy AT fire, the old tanks aren't up to it and need at the very least to be uparmored; and by being significantly larger than they need to be (as computers are smaller than crewmembers), this ends up being significantly larger heavier and more expensive when compared to a purpose-built vehicle. In either case, the old tanks aren't really worth it.

Those are garbage bags. MGs do not like being exposed to the elements for any length of time, they get all wet and therefore rusty and all the oil runs off and shit. Wrap them in a garbage bag and duct tape it shut and you have a fairly effective quick and disposable environmental shield.

That's a Sparky vid. You can tell by the distinctive spastic red and yellow text overlaid with no consideration of contrast over background images. Sparky and his opinions belong in the trash. The most powerful tank gun actually fielded on serially produced tanks was probably the US M58 120mm gun.

Lmaoing@indians Stay mad with your shit tank, shit rifle and even shitter development office. Reminder that as of today another year has passed and the NAG missile STILL isn't in service.

Hint- it's retardedly easy. You have a radar, which detects incoming rounds. And a shutter, which can stop them. You use the radar to cue the shutter. You can even have 2 different kinds- the shutters on the radars and optics close only during the calculated time of impact, and otherwise stay open. The shutters on the interceptors stay closed except for launch. Easy, your APS is now resistant to anything smaller than what your shutters are rated for. You could do this for 14.5mm KE if you really wanted but the servos would get a bit fat. 35mm KETF cannot compete.

I disagree, it's retardedly easy to defend against light frag like the proposed system uses.