Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

N-L-M

Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

    575
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Reputation Activity

  1. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from LostCosmonaut in Competition: Californium 2250   
    Well, now's as good a time as any for the great announcement:
     
    ATTENTION COMPETITORS:
    @Toxn
    @Collimatrix
    @LostCosmonaut
    @Lord_James
    @DIADES
    @Datengineerwill
    @Whatismoo
    @Kal
    @Zadlo
    @Xoon
    And any others I may have missed:
    The time of submission is approaching, and the DPRC is getting ready to evaluate your designs!
    Detailed submission guidelines will be posted soon in a dedicated thread.
    The date of submission is in 3 weeks from the time of posting, Tuesday the 11th of June at 23:59 GMT.
     
    Incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.
  2. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to LostCosmonaut in Martin XB-68   
    The Martin XB-68 is, in my opinion, one of the best looking stillborn aircraft projects of the 1950s.
     

     
    Development of the XB-68 began in 1954, in response to a USAF request for a supersonic tactical bomber to satisfy the WS-302A requirement. A top speed in excess of Mach 2 was envisioned, with the aircraft conducting the bombing run at high altitude. Three companies, Martin, Douglas, and North American, submitted designs. Martin's design was assigned the internal company number 316. Initial concepts off all three entries clearly show aircraft optimized for high speed flight;
     
    Martin;
     

     
    Douglas:
     

     
    North American:
     


     
     
    (Douglas and North American images via source (1))
     
    (I am not certain if there is any connection between the design of the Vigilante and North American's WS-302A entry. Given the similar operational requirements and the timeframe, it is highly likely the A3J was as least somewhat based on the WS-302A design).
     
    As can be seen, the original design of the XB-68 had roughly 45 degrees of wing sweep. Additionally, it was to have used the J67 turbojet engine, an American version of the Rolls Royce Olympus. (The J67 was also considered for several other aircraft, including the XF-103). Both of these features would change as the XB-68 evolved. At this time, the aircraft had a maximum weight of about 96,000 pounds, and 900 square feet of wing area. Two crewmembers sat in tandem in a highly streamlined cockpit.
     
    The Martin 316 was selected as the winner of the competition in 1956, and selected for further development. At the time, plans were for the aircraft to enter service in the early 1960s. As the design underwent further development, several changes were made. The J67 engines were discarded, and replaced with J75 turbojets. The exact reasoning behind this was unknown, but the J67 (built by Curtiss-Wright) had a very troubled development and was ultimately stillborn. In contrast, Pratt & Whitney's J75 was successfully used in several other aircraft, including Martin's P6M that was also being developed in the 1950s. (The dihedral on the stabilizers of both the P6M and XB-68 shows common Martin influence).
     
    The second change was moving to a less swept, trapezoidal wing, rather than the swept wing of the initial design. Studies in the NASA Langley wind tunnel (4) showed that a wing swept at only 19.2 degrees had less drag at high mach numbers than the 45 degree sweep wing, due to the thinner airfoil that could be used. The result was an aircraft that resembled another 1950s aircraft intended to operate at Mach 2 at high altitudes; the F-104 Starfighter.
     

     

     
    The design of the XB-68 was finalized by approximately 1957. The final aircraft had a maximum takeoff weight of 100,000 pounds, with a wing area of 875 square feet. (3). With a length of 109.8 feet, but a wingspan of only 53 feet, it was more than twice as long as it was wide. Using the two J75s, top speed at the maximum altitude of 57,250 was to have been 1357 knots, roughly Mach 2.35.
     
     
     

     

    However, when fitted with a water injection system, the XB-68 could have reached altitudes in excess of 60,000 feet, and a slightly higher top speed. According to (3), this limit was imposed by the structure of the aircraft (likely aerodynamic heating).
     
    The primary armament of the XB-68 was never fully decided on; according to (3), up to 8,500 of bombs would have been carried in a rotary bomb bay (this was the payload over a short range, at maximum range the payload would have been limited to about 4,000 pounds). Given the time and the aircraft's intended mission,  munitions could have included the Mark 7, Mark 10, and Mark 28 nuclear weapons. The XB-68 was also to have been equipped with a 20mm T171E2 rotary cannon mounted at the extreme rear of the aircraft.
     
     
     
    The XB-68 made it as far as mockup form, before being cancelled in the late 1950s;
     

     
    With how ambitious the XB-68 was, the aircraft would likely have not entered service until the mid-1960s. A development time of over a decade, while short today, was a relative eternity in the 1950s. Another problem was the development of surface to air missiles such as the S-75. The development of these missiles, and the Soviet deployment of them in Europe would have placed the XB-68 in severe danger. Granted, the XB-68 would have performed well at low level. Source (3) indicates it was projected to achieve Mach 1.25 at sea level, and the high wing loading (114 lb/ft2, vs 148 lb/ft2 for the F-104) would have given it excellent stability at low level. While the similar looking F-104 suffered severe accident rates in the low level strike role, the XB-68 would certainly not have been given to green West German crews. However, the F-104 was much cheaper, and had an air to air capability which the XB-68 lacked. However, it is possible that the XB-68 could have found a niche as a low level penetration bomber with superior range to the F-104. In this role it would have been soon eclipsed by the F-111, which first flew in 1964, around when the XB-68 would have entered service.
     
     
     
     
     
    Sources:
     
    (1)https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-weapon-system-302a-tactical-bomber-competition.22864/
    (2) https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/martin-model-316-xb-68-tactical-bomber.479/
    (3) http://www.up-ship.com/apr/v0n0.pdf
    (4) https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc64207/m1/2/
     
     
  3. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Walter_Sobchak in US Politics Thread: Year 2 of 1000 of the TrumpenReich   
    It's interesting to see my congressman, Justin Amash, in the national news.  Amash represents the 3rd congressional district of Michigan, which includes Grand Rapids, my home (the 3rd district used to be the 5th district, most famously represented by Gerald Ford.)  Amash is getting quite a bit of news coverage for being the first Republican congressman to call for the impeachment of Trump.  For those that have followed Amash, he has been a pretty consistent critic of Trump, so this is no surprise.  Anyhow, since I live in his district, I thought I might make some observations regarding his tenure as a representative.
     
    One thing I found amusing was Republican House leader Kevin McCarthy attacking Amash as voting "more with Nancy Pelosi than he ever votes with me. It's a question whether he's even in our Republican conference as a whole."  This claim is pretty absurd.  Amash is extremely conservative, although in a more traditional, libertarian fashion than the current strain of Trumpian conservatism.  Conservative vote tracking groups give Amash scores of 90-100% conservative in terms of his voting record.  One thing I will say about his voting record, he is not afraid to take unpopular positions if he thinks something violates his libertarian principles.  There have been a few times where he has been either the only dissenting vote, or one of a handful of dissenters on certain bills he sees as flawed.  He came into office as part of the Tea Party movement, and is a founding member of the Freedom Caucus.
     
    Based on my observations, he is well regarded in his own district for his adherence to his principles and his openness in explaining his votes (he has a fairly informative twitter feed).  He seems pretty immune to special interests, a rarity for congress critters.  More than once I have heard a liberal friend bemoan the fact that while they vehemently disagree with Amash's stand on issues, they respect his integrity.  I have never voted for him, and I don't plan to do so.  That said, I don't dislike him and respect the way he conducts himself as a representative.  Sometimes he may seem to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.  He is much more fiscally conservative than the Republican party as a whole right now, having advocated for smaller defense budgets rather than larger ones. He certainly fits more in the Rand Paul version of Republicanism than the Trump iteration of the GOP.
     
    One other thing I can say is that on the local level, his background as an Orthodox Christian of Palestinian and Syrian descent has never been an issue.  In fact, I suspect 99% of voters in the 3rd district have no idea what his ethnic background is.  It's only been in the past couple days since he has been in the national news that I have seen people mentioning it, typically in a derogatory way in comments sections.  
     
     
     
     
  4. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Toxn in Competition: Californium 2250   
    The concept of ATGMs is indeed well known, and basic conscan trackers can be fairly reliably produced. Extra advanced trickery is up to you.
  5. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to LostCosmonaut in J2M Raiden   
    Compared to the most well known Japanese fighter of World War 2, the A6M “Zero”, the J2M Raiden (“Jack”) was both less famous and less numerous. More than 10,000 A6Ms were built, but barely more than 600 J2Ms were built. Still, the J2M is a noteworthy aircraft. Despite being operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN), it was a strictly land-based aircraft. The Zero was designed with a lightweight structure, to give extreme range and maneuverability. While it had a comparatively large fuel tank, it was lightly armed, and had virtually no armor. While the J2M was also very lightly built, it was designed that way to meet a completely different set of requirements; those of a short-range interceptor. The J2M's design led to it being one of the fastest climbing piston-engine aircraft in World War 2, even though its four 20mm cannons made it much more heavily armed than most Japanese planes.
     
     

     
    Development of the J2M began in October 1938, under the direction of Jiro Hirokoshi, in response to the issuance of the 14-shi interceptor requirement (1). Hirokoshi had also designed the A6M, which first flew in April 1939. However, development was slow, and the J2M would not make its first flight until 20 March 1942, nearly 3 ½ years later (2). Initially, this was due to Mitsubishi's focus on the A6M, which was further along in development, and of vital importance to the IJN's carrier force. Additionally, the J2M was designed to use a more powerful engine than other Japanese fighters. The first aircraft, designated J2M1, was powered by an MK4C Kasei 13 radial engine, producing 1430 horsepower from 14 cylinders (3) (compare to 940 horsepower for the A6M2) and driving a three bladed propeller. The use of such a powerful engine was driven by the need for a high climb rate, in order to fulfill the requirements set forth in the 14-shi specification.
     
    The climb rate of an aircraft is driven by specific excess power; by climbing an aircraft is gaining potential energy, which requires power to generate. Specific Excess Power is given by the following equation;
     
    (Airspeed*(Thrust-Drag))/Weight
     
     
     
    It is clear from this equation that weight and drag must be minimized, while thrust and airspeed are maximized. The J2M was designed using the most powerful engine then available, to maximize thrust. Moreover, the engine was fitted with a long cowling, with the propeller on an extension shaft, also to minimize drag. In a more radical departure from traditional Japanese fighter design (as exemplified by aircraft such as the A6M and Ki-43), the J2M had comparatively short, stubby wings, only 10.8 m wide on the J2M3 variant, with a relatively high wing loading of 1.59 kN/m2 (33.29 lb/ft2) (2). (It should be noted that this wing loading is still lower than contemporary American aircraft such as the F6F Hellcat. The small wings reduced drag, and also reduced weight. More weight was saved by limiting the J2M's internal fuel, the J2M3 had only 550 liters of internal fuel (2).
     
    Hirokoshi did add some weight back into the J2M's design. 8 millimeters of steel armor plate protected the pilot, a luxurious amount of protection compared to the Zero. And while the J2M1 was armed with the same armament as the A6M (two 7.7mm machine guns and two Type 99 Model 2 20mm cannons), later variants would be more heavily armed, with the 7.7mm machine guns deleted in favor of an additional pair of 20mm cannons. Doubtlessly, this was driven by Japanese wartime experience; 7.7mm rounds were insufficient to deal with strongly built Grumman fighters, let alone a target like the B-17.
     
    The first flight of the J2M Raiden was on March 20th, 1942. Immediately, several issues were identified. One design flaw pointed out quickly was that the cockpit design on the J2M1, coupled with the long cowling, severely restricted visibility. (This issue had been identified by an IJN pilot viewing a mockup of the J2M back in December 1940 (1).) The landing speed was also criticized for being too high; while the poor visibility over the nose exacerbated this issue, pilots transitioning from the Zero would be expected to criticize the handling of a stubby interceptor.
     

    Wrecked J2M in the Philippines in 1945. The cooling fan is highly visible.
     
    However, the biggest flaw the J2M1 had was poor reliability. The MK4C engine was not delivering the expected performance, and the propeller pitch control was unreliable, failing multiple times. (1) As a result, the J2M1 failed to meet the performance set forth in the 14-shi specification, achieving a top speed of only 577 kph, well short of the 600 kph required. Naturally, the climb rate suffered as well. Only a few J2M1s were built.
     
    The next version, the J2M2, had several improvements. The engine was updated to the MK4R-A (3); this engine featured a methanol injection system, enabling it to produce up to 1,800 horsepower for short periods. The propeller was switched for a four blade unit. The extension shaft in the J2M1 had proved unreliable, in the J2M2 the cowling was shortened slightly, and a cooling fan was fitted at the the front. These modifications made the MK4R-A more reliable than the previous engine, despite the increase in power.
     
    However, there were still problems; significant vibrations occurred at certain altitudes and speeds; stiffening the engine mounts and propeller blades reduced these issues, but they were never fully solved (1). Another significant design flaw was identified in the summer of 1943; the shock absorber on the tail wheel could jam the elevator controls when the tailwheel retracted, making the aircraft virtually uncontrollable. This design flaw led to the death of one IJN pilot, and nearly killed two more (1). Ultimately, the IJN would not put the J2M2 into service until December 1943, 21 months after the first flight of the J2M1. 155 J2M2s would be built by Mitsubishi (3).
     
    By the time the J2M2 was entering service, the J2M3 was well into testing. The J2M3 was the most common variant of the Raiden, 260 were produced at Mitsubishi's factories (3). It was also the first variant to feature an armament of four 20mm cannons (oddly, of two different types of cannon with significantly different ballistics (2); the 7.7mm machine guns were replace with two Type 99 Model 1 cannons). Naturally, the performance of the J2M3 suffered slightly with the heavier armament, but it still retained its excellent rate of climb. The Raiden's excellent rate of climb was what kept it from being cancelled as higher performance aircraft like the N1K1-J Shiden came into service.
     

     
    The J2M's was designed to achieve a high climb rate, necessary for its intended role as an interceptor. The designers were successful; the J2M3, even with four 20mm cannons, was capable of climbing at 4650 feet per minute (1420 feet per minute) (2). Many fighters of World War 2, such as the CW-21, were claimed to be capable of climbing 'a mile a minute', but the Raiden was one of the few piston-engine aircraft that came close to achieving that mark. In fact, the Raiden climbed nearly as fast as the F8F Bearcat, despite being nearly three years older. Additionally, the J2M could continue to climb at high speeds for long periods; the J2M2 needed roughly 10 minutes to reach 30000 feet (9100 meters) (4), and on emergency power (using the methanol injection system), could maintain a climb rate in excess of 3000 feet per minute up to about 20000 feet (about 6000 meters).
     
     
     
     
     

     
     
     
     
     

     
    Analysis in Source (2) shows that the J2M3 was superior in several ways to one of its most common opponents, the F6F Hellcat. Though the Hellcat was faster at lower altitudes, the Raiden was equal at 6000 meters (about 20000 feet), and above that rapidly gained superiority. Additionally, the Raiden, despite not being designed for maneuverability, still had a lower stall speed than the Hellcat, and could turn tighter. The J2M3 actually had a lower wing loading than the American plane, and had flaps that could be used in combat to expand the wing area at will. As shown in the (poorly scanned) graphs on page 39 of (2), the J2M possessed a superior instantaneous turn capability to the F6F at all speeds. However, at high speeds the sustained turn capability of the American plane was superior (page 41 of (2)).
     
    The main area the American plane had the advantage was at high speeds and low altitudes; with the more powerful R-2800, the F6F could more easily overcome drag than the J2M. The F6F, as well as most other American planes, were also more solidly built than the J2M. The J2M also remained plagued by reliability issues throughout its service life.
     
    In addition to the J2M2 and J2M3 which made up the majority of Raidens built, there were a few other variants. The J2M4 was fitted with a turbo-supercharger, allowing its engine to produce significantly more power at high altitudes (1). However, this arrangement was highly unreliable, and let to only two J2M4s being built. Some sources also report that the J2M4 had two obliquely firing 20mm Type 99 Model 2 cannons in the fuselage behind the pilot (3). The J2M5 used a three stage mechanical supercharger, which proved more reliable than the turbo-supercharger, and still gave significant performance increases at altitude. Production of the J2M5 began at Koza 21st Naval Air Depot in late 1944 (6), but ultimately only about 34 would be built (3). The J2M6 was developed before the J2M4 and J2M6, it had minor updates such as an improved bubble canopy, only one was built (3). Finally, there was the J2M7, which was planned to use the same engine as the J2M5, with the improvements of the J2M6 incorporated. Few, if any, of this variant were built (3).
     
    A total of 621 J2Ms were built, mostly by Mitsubishi, which produced 473 airframes (5). However, 128 aircraft (about 1/5th of total production), were built at the Koza 21st Naval Air Depot (6). In addition to the reliability issues which delayed the introduction of the J2M, production was also hindered by American bombing, especially in 1945. For example, Appendix G of (5) shows that 270 J2Ms were ordered in 1945, but only 116 were produced in reality. (Unfortunately, sources (5) and (6) do not distinguish between different variants in their production figures.)
     
    Though the J2M2 variant first flew in October 1942, initial production of the Raiden was very slow. In the whole of 1942, only 13 airframes were produced (5). This included the three J2M1 prototypes. 90 airframes were produced in 1943, a significant increase over the year before, but still far less than had been ordered (5), and negligible compared to the production of American types. Production was highest in the spring and summer of 1944 (5), before falling off in late 1944 and 1945.
     
    The initial J2M1 and J2M2 variants were armed with a pair of Type 97 7.7mm machine guns, and two Type 99 Model 2 20mm cannons. The Type 97 used a 7.7x56mm rimmed cartridge; a clone of the .303 British round (7). This was the same machine gun used on other IJN fighters such as the A5M and A6M. The Type 99 Model 2 20mm cannon was a clone of the Swiss Oerlikon FF L (7), and used a 20x101mm cartridge.
     
    The J2M3 and further variants replaced the Type 97 machine guns with a pair of Type 99 Model 1 20mm cannons. These cannons, derived from the Oerlikon FF, used a 20x72mm cartridge (7), firing a round with roughly the same weight as the one used in the Model 2 at much lower velocity (2000 feet per second vs. 2500 feet per second (3), some sources (7) report an even lower velocity for the Type 99). The advantage the Model 1 had was lightness; it weighed only 26 kilograms vs. 34 kilograms for the model 2. Personally, I am doubtful that saving 16 kilograms was worth the difficulty of trying to use two weapons with different ballistics at the same time. Some variants (J2M3a, J2M5a) had four Model 2 20mm cannons (3), but they seem to be in the minority.
     

     
     
    In addition to autocannons and machine guns, the J2M was also fitted with two hardpoints which small bombs or rockets could be attached to (3) (4). Given the Raiden's role as an interceptor, and the small capacity of the hardpoints (roughly 60 kilograms) (3), it is highly unlikely that the J2M was ever substantially used as a bomber. Instead, it is more likely that the hardpoints on the J2M were used as mounting points for large air to air rockets, to be used to break up bomber formations, or ensure the destruction of a large aircraft like the B-29 in one hit. The most likely candidate for the J2M's rocket armament was the Type 3 No. 6 Mark 27 Bomb (Rocket) Model 1. Weighing 145 pounds (65.8 kilograms) (8), the Mark 27 was filled with payload of 5.5 pounds of incendiary fragments; upon launch it would accelerate to high subsonic speeds, before detonating after a set time (8). It is also possible that the similar Type 3 No. 1 Mark 28 could have been used; this was similar to the Mark 27, but much smaller, with a total weight of only 19.8 pounds (9 kilograms).
     
     
     
    The first unit to use the J2M in combat was the 381st Kokutai (1). Forming in October 1943, the unit at first operated Zeros, though gradually it filled with J2M2s through 1944. Even at this point, there were still problems with the Raiden's reliability. On January 30th, a Japanese pilot died when his J2M simply disintegrated during a training flight. By March 1944, the unit had been dispatched to Balikpapan, in Borneo, to defend the vital oil fields and refineries there. But due to the issues with the J2M, it used only Zeros. The first Raidens did not arrive until September 1944 (1). Reportedly, it made its debut on September 30th, when a mixed group of J2Ms and A6Ms intercepted a formation of B-24s attacking the Balikpapan refineries. The J2Ms did well for a few days, until escorting P-47s and P-38s arrived. Some 381st Raidens were also used in defense of Manila, in the Phillipines, as the Americans retook the islands. (9) By 1945, all units were ordered to return to Japan to defend against B-29s and the coming invasion. The 381st's J2Ms never made it to Japan; some ended up in Singapore, where they were found by the British (1).
     

     
     
    least three units operated the J2M in defense of the home islands of Japan; the 302nd, 332nd, and 352nd Kokutai. The 302nd's attempted combat debut came on November 1st, 1944, when a lone F-13 (reconaissance B-29) overflew Tokyo (1). The J2Ms, along with some Zeros and other fighters, did not manage to intercept the high flying bomber. The first successful attack against the B-29s came on December 3rd, when the 302nd shot down three B-29s. Later that month the 332nd first engaged B-29s attacking the Mitsubishi plant on December 22nd, shooting down one. (1)
    The 352nd operated in Western Japan, against B-29s flying out of China in late 1944 and early 1945. At first, despite severe maintenace issues, they achieved some successes, such as on November 21st, when a formation of B-29s flying at 25,000 feet was intercepted. Three B-29s were shot down, and more damaged.

    In general, when the Raidens were able to get to high altitude and attack the B-29s from above, they were relatively successful. This was particularly true when the J2Ms were assigned to intercept B-29 raids over Kyushu, which were flown at altitudes as low as 16,000 feet (1). The J2M also had virtually no capability to intercept aircraft at night, which made them essentially useless against LeMay's incendiary raids on Japanese cities. Finally the arrival of P-51s in April 1945 put the Raidens at a severe disadvantage; the P-51 was equal to or superior to the J2M in almost all respects, and by 1945 the Americans had much better trained pilots and better maintained machines. The last combat usage of the Raiden was on the morning of August 15th. The 302nd's Raidens and several Zeros engaged several Hellcats from VF-88 engaged in strafing runs. Reportedly four Hellcats were shot down, for the loss of two Raidens and at least one Zero(1). Japan surrendered only hours later.

    At least five J2Ms survived the war, though only one intact Raiden exists today. Two of the J2Ms were captured near Manila on February 20th, 1945 (9) (10). One of them was used for testing; but only briefly. On its second flight in American hands, an oil line in the engine failed, forcing it to land. The aircraft was later destroyed in a ground collision with a B-25 (9). Two more were found by the British in Singapore (1), and were flown in early 1946 but ex-IJN personnel (under close British supervision). The last Raiden was captured in Japan in 1945, and transported to the US. At some point, it ended up in a park in Los Angeles, before being restored to static display at the Planes of Fame museum in California.
     
     

     
     
    Sources:
     
     
    https://www.docdroid.net/gDMQra3/raiden-aeroplane-february-2016.pdf#page=2
    F6F-5 vs. J2M3 Comparison
    http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/j2m.htm
    http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Jack-11-105A.pdf
    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015080324281;view=1up;seq=80
    https://archive.org/stream/corporationrepor34unit#page/n15/mode/2up
    http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html
    http://ww2data.blogspot.com/2016/04/imperial-japanese-navy-explosives-bombs.html
    https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/j2m/3008.html
    https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/j2m/3013.html
    https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/j2m/3014.html
     
     
    Further reading:
     
    An additional two dozen Raiden photos: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/japan/aircrafts/j2m-raiden/
     
     
  6. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Laviduce in French flair   
    After feedback, it might be best to differentiate between different types of "special armor" regions. I am very certain the turret bustle special armor (orange) is not the same as the primary special armor (red) or the side front hull special/spaced (?) armor (green):
     
     
     
     
     
  7. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Stimpy75 in Turkish touch   
    After a little bit research
    İn 2020 15 tanks will be produced
    and in 2021 another 25
    After these 40 vehicles the new ones will get domestic engine/transmission
    The first batch of 250 will be delivered very quickly. Qatar has also ordered 100 Altay s.
    So planning/wishing looks good,but we have to wait for next year how realistic that will be. 
    Complete 1000 are planned in 4 batches with each batch new version like a la Armata is planned.
  8. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Ramlaen in Bash the F-35 thred.   
    https://seapowermagazine.org/lockheed-develops-rack-to-make-f-35a-c-a-six-shooter/
     
     
  9. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Laviduce in French flair   
    The HL-70 CIV, HL-60 GPS and periscopes (bright green):
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Gun elevation mechanism (blue) and turret traverse mechanism (salmon):
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
  10. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Laviduce in French flair   
    Here is a diagram with the crew (blue) and special armor volumes (red) highlighted. Spaced armor (i.e. mantlet, heavy side skirts, right front hull, etc.) is not highlighted:
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
  11. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to Stimpy75 in Turkish touch   
    i am really exhausted
    my feet are killin me
    first i will try google pics
    if it doesnt i have to upload them to imgur
    feel free to share them(except for tanknet.forum! F.U. tanknet!)
    https://photos.app.goo.gl/hSSBM66MUsiYTteC8
  12. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to Lord_James in Competition: Californium 2250   
    I started drafting up the IFV and APC versions: 
     
    APC (SH-1A) 
    Crew: 4 + 10 
    Armament: either 23mm + 7.62mm machine guns in a low profile turret, or a 107mm recoilless rifle and 7.62mm coax (and 12.7mm spotting gun), with below armor reload. 
     
    The SH-1A is a modified version of the SH-1T MBT, trading the large turret and ammo racks for a small, 2 person turret and 10 dismount seats. It still incorporates the same armor cavities, but with a lighter array utilizing more spaced components and no special materials (non steel). The crew consists of the Driver, the Gunner and Commander in the turret, and a thespian assistant who removes spent MG and autocannon shells, or loads the RR if that turret is equipped. A third turret is in the works, similar to the RR turret, equipping an ATGM with under armor reload potential. 
     
    IFV (SH-1V)
    Crew: 5 
    Armament: 2x 45mm autocannons (SM-7 or NS-45 derivatives / maybe 4 if I think I can fit them) + 4x 107mm RRs + 107mm mortar (same as SH-1T) + 2x 7.62mm MGs (coax and commander’s MG). 
     
    Also based off the SH-1T, the SH-1V is a heavily armed supplement vehicle to armored forces in the DPRC. Fulfilling a role similar to the ancient BMPT, it is designed to assist infantry and act as heavy armor in urban or mountainous environments, and to provide rapid and heavy suppressing fire for armor groups moving through hostile terrain. The crew consists of a Driver, Gunner and Commander in the turret, and 2 thespian assistants to clear the vehicle floor of spent casings, and to reload the externally mounted RRs. As ATGMs mature, the RRs can easily be replaced with missile systems on a volumetric basis (probably 2 RRs to 1 ATGM). 
     
    Also in the drafting phase are an AA variant, an artillery variant, a heavy mortar variant, and CiC, medevac, CBRN, radio relay, EW, and others. 
     
     
    PS. SH-1(x) is the company designation for the vehicle; military designations will be given when/if these vehicles are accepted for service. 
     
    PSS. I’ve been either too busy, or unable to access the internet for the past couple of days, which has lead to delays. But I should be getting back on track later today or tomorrow, now that all of the shit is out of the way. 
  13. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to BkktMkkt in Tanks guns and ammunition.   
    Some my models
     
     
  14. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Laviduce in French flair   
    For the mean time:
     
     
    Updated Special Armor Locations:
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Fuel Tank Locations:
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Main Gun Ammunition Locations:
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Crew Locations:
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Armament Locations:
     
     
     
     
     
    Powerpack Location:
     
     
     
     
     
     
  15. Funny
    N-L-M reacted to ZloyKrolik in Your Tank Stories   
    Another time when I was driving an M60A3 in the LTA (Local Training Area), I was the 2nd tank in the column as we approached a rather large mud puddle. More like a mud pit. My buddy Ray was driving the lead tank, the platoon leader's. He comes up to the hole and drives right in, not slowing down much. SPLASH! SPLAT!  The mud flew up and splattered the TC, the 2LT wasn't happy, but Ray was drenched in mud as he was driving with the hatch open. Just as they cleared the pit, I rolled up, fortunately I had slowed down as to not run into them and the mud only flowed up to, but not into, the driver's hatch. I didn't get a mud bath, but Ray did. He was covered in mud, dripping all over the place, I saw him reach into the driver's hatch and pull out his camera case, covered in mud. Luckily it was well sealed and the camera was fine. It took Ray a couple of days to clean out the interior of his tank when we got back to the motor pool. 
     
    So always slow down before driving into a mud puddle if you have your hatch open.
  16. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Merc321 in Your Tank Stories   
    One of my favorite memories when it comes to working on and driving my Daimler Ferret was the time I took it to an off-road park. It was very entertaining to watch the ATV and jeep guys look completely shocked when an armored car was going through mud that they were afraid to drive into. I very much have a love hate relationship with British wheeled armor. At this point in time I have one running Ferret, one that is awaiting restoration, and a Saracen that is also awaiting further restoration. The reason for my love hate relationship with them is that while they are a ton of fun to drive, maintaining them can be difficult at times, especially if you have to deal with an electrical issue. Despite the many, many, ups and downs I've had with working on British armor, it's always rewarding when you fire up the engine and take them for a drive, be it off-road or on a run into town.
  17. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from BaronTibere in Mechanized Warfare is now a moderated subforum   
    Gather round, ye posters of Mechanized!
    Recent events have indicated that a refresher course on the posting standards of this forum is needed, and so:
    Reminder that SH is primarily, first and foremost, a document-based forum. While there is a gentlemen's agreement kind of deal whereby you are not expected to post your sources with every post you make, it is implicitly assumed that you actually have such sources and that they actually say what you claim they do. Furthermore, it is expected that when requested, you post the relevant sources.
    While it is known that not all the information relating to the subjects discussed on this forum is public domain, and that therefore informed speculation is a large part of any debate, it is expected that:
    A. your speculation have some basis in reality (which can in turn be backed up with at least circumstantial evidence), and:
    B. that it be presented as such.
    Here is a very good example of how not to post:
     
    You would note that the poster in question is extremely confident in their tone with no indication to the average reader that this is in fact complete bullshit, and has no basis whatsoever for the claims he is making. This is in fact the exact kind of posting that is not desired on this forum.
     
    On the other hand, here is a good example of speculation done right:
     
    The poster in question clearly explains, by analyzing available imagery and using basic logic, why in fact they have reached their conclusions, and backs it up with references to available literature on the topic. No wild assumptions are fielded as fact, nor are any major claims presented without at the very least circumstantial photographic evidence. And all speculation is presented as such- "a seems to be true", "b seems to be better than c", "I'd say d is the case", and so on. Even a poorly-informed reader can easily distinguish between what is implicitly assumed, what is actually known and what is fresh new (grounded) speculation.
     
    For those of you who are new, or just rusty, the posting rules are fairly clear:
    Kindly re-familiarize yourselves with the rules.
     
    And last but not least, remember that the forum motto is  Referte avt morimini, link or die. Hiding behind sources that cannot be confirmed, that have mysteriously disappeared, or that "you seem to remember" do not count. While nobody is expecting you to have all your sources at hand at any given moment, it is expected that you either post them at the nearest possible convenience or back off the claims which remain unsubstantiated until further notice. Failure to do so is considered poor taste, to say the least. Many posters who are no longer with us did not heed the warnings and therefore chose themselves the "morimini" route.
     
    The management thanks you for your voluntary cooperation.
  18. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Lord_James in Mechanized Warfare is now a moderated subforum   
    Gather round, ye posters of Mechanized!
    Recent events have indicated that a refresher course on the posting standards of this forum is needed, and so:
    Reminder that SH is primarily, first and foremost, a document-based forum. While there is a gentlemen's agreement kind of deal whereby you are not expected to post your sources with every post you make, it is implicitly assumed that you actually have such sources and that they actually say what you claim they do. Furthermore, it is expected that when requested, you post the relevant sources.
    While it is known that not all the information relating to the subjects discussed on this forum is public domain, and that therefore informed speculation is a large part of any debate, it is expected that:
    A. your speculation have some basis in reality (which can in turn be backed up with at least circumstantial evidence), and:
    B. that it be presented as such.
    Here is a very good example of how not to post:
     
    You would note that the poster in question is extremely confident in their tone with no indication to the average reader that this is in fact complete bullshit, and has no basis whatsoever for the claims he is making. This is in fact the exact kind of posting that is not desired on this forum.
     
    On the other hand, here is a good example of speculation done right:
     
    The poster in question clearly explains, by analyzing available imagery and using basic logic, why in fact they have reached their conclusions, and backs it up with references to available literature on the topic. No wild assumptions are fielded as fact, nor are any major claims presented without at the very least circumstantial photographic evidence. And all speculation is presented as such- "a seems to be true", "b seems to be better than c", "I'd say d is the case", and so on. Even a poorly-informed reader can easily distinguish between what is implicitly assumed, what is actually known and what is fresh new (grounded) speculation.
     
    For those of you who are new, or just rusty, the posting rules are fairly clear:
    Kindly re-familiarize yourselves with the rules.
     
    And last but not least, remember that the forum motto is  Referte avt morimini, link or die. Hiding behind sources that cannot be confirmed, that have mysteriously disappeared, or that "you seem to remember" do not count. While nobody is expecting you to have all your sources at hand at any given moment, it is expected that you either post them at the nearest possible convenience or back off the claims which remain unsubstantiated until further notice. Failure to do so is considered poor taste, to say the least. Many posters who are no longer with us did not heed the warnings and therefore chose themselves the "morimini" route.
     
    The management thanks you for your voluntary cooperation.
  19. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Belesarius in Mechanized Warfare is now a moderated subforum   
    Gather round, ye posters of Mechanized!
    Recent events have indicated that a refresher course on the posting standards of this forum is needed, and so:
    Reminder that SH is primarily, first and foremost, a document-based forum. While there is a gentlemen's agreement kind of deal whereby you are not expected to post your sources with every post you make, it is implicitly assumed that you actually have such sources and that they actually say what you claim they do. Furthermore, it is expected that when requested, you post the relevant sources.
    While it is known that not all the information relating to the subjects discussed on this forum is public domain, and that therefore informed speculation is a large part of any debate, it is expected that:
    A. your speculation have some basis in reality (which can in turn be backed up with at least circumstantial evidence), and:
    B. that it be presented as such.
    Here is a very good example of how not to post:
     
    You would note that the poster in question is extremely confident in their tone with no indication to the average reader that this is in fact complete bullshit, and has no basis whatsoever for the claims he is making. This is in fact the exact kind of posting that is not desired on this forum.
     
    On the other hand, here is a good example of speculation done right:
     
    The poster in question clearly explains, by analyzing available imagery and using basic logic, why in fact they have reached their conclusions, and backs it up with references to available literature on the topic. No wild assumptions are fielded as fact, nor are any major claims presented without at the very least circumstantial photographic evidence. And all speculation is presented as such- "a seems to be true", "b seems to be better than c", "I'd say d is the case", and so on. Even a poorly-informed reader can easily distinguish between what is implicitly assumed, what is actually known and what is fresh new (grounded) speculation.
     
    For those of you who are new, or just rusty, the posting rules are fairly clear:
    Kindly re-familiarize yourselves with the rules.
     
    And last but not least, remember that the forum motto is  Referte avt morimini, link or die. Hiding behind sources that cannot be confirmed, that have mysteriously disappeared, or that "you seem to remember" do not count. While nobody is expecting you to have all your sources at hand at any given moment, it is expected that you either post them at the nearest possible convenience or back off the claims which remain unsubstantiated until further notice. Failure to do so is considered poor taste, to say the least. Many posters who are no longer with us did not heed the warnings and therefore chose themselves the "morimini" route.
     
    The management thanks you for your voluntary cooperation.
  20. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Sturgeon in Mechanized Warfare is now a moderated subforum   
    Gather round, ye posters of Mechanized!
    Recent events have indicated that a refresher course on the posting standards of this forum is needed, and so:
    Reminder that SH is primarily, first and foremost, a document-based forum. While there is a gentlemen's agreement kind of deal whereby you are not expected to post your sources with every post you make, it is implicitly assumed that you actually have such sources and that they actually say what you claim they do. Furthermore, it is expected that when requested, you post the relevant sources.
    While it is known that not all the information relating to the subjects discussed on this forum is public domain, and that therefore informed speculation is a large part of any debate, it is expected that:
    A. your speculation have some basis in reality (which can in turn be backed up with at least circumstantial evidence), and:
    B. that it be presented as such.
    Here is a very good example of how not to post:
     
    You would note that the poster in question is extremely confident in their tone with no indication to the average reader that this is in fact complete bullshit, and has no basis whatsoever for the claims he is making. This is in fact the exact kind of posting that is not desired on this forum.
     
    On the other hand, here is a good example of speculation done right:
     
    The poster in question clearly explains, by analyzing available imagery and using basic logic, why in fact they have reached their conclusions, and backs it up with references to available literature on the topic. No wild assumptions are fielded as fact, nor are any major claims presented without at the very least circumstantial photographic evidence. And all speculation is presented as such- "a seems to be true", "b seems to be better than c", "I'd say d is the case", and so on. Even a poorly-informed reader can easily distinguish between what is implicitly assumed, what is actually known and what is fresh new (grounded) speculation.
     
    For those of you who are new, or just rusty, the posting rules are fairly clear:
    Kindly re-familiarize yourselves with the rules.
     
    And last but not least, remember that the forum motto is  Referte avt morimini, link or die. Hiding behind sources that cannot be confirmed, that have mysteriously disappeared, or that "you seem to remember" do not count. While nobody is expecting you to have all your sources at hand at any given moment, it is expected that you either post them at the nearest possible convenience or back off the claims which remain unsubstantiated until further notice. Failure to do so is considered poor taste, to say the least. Many posters who are no longer with us did not heed the warnings and therefore chose themselves the "morimini" route.
     
    The management thanks you for your voluntary cooperation.
  21. Funny
    N-L-M reacted to Xoon in Competition: Californium 2250   
    Pfft, of course not, who would want to squeeze more power out of  it? he he
     
    * discreetly crumples paper and throws in trash*
  22. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to Sturgeon in Forum Improvements and Changelog   
    Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
  23. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to SH_MM in StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)   
    It is quite a mess:
    The requirements of the Czech army aren't finished yet. They are still working on them, adding new ones and increasing the overall length of the documents containing the requirments - it has reached more than one hundred pages (DIN A4). Only four pages of requirements were given to the defence industry (BAE Systems, General Dynamics, PSM and Rheinmetall) before they started bidding/show-casing their offers.   Only European companies (and trans-European such as Turkey and Israel) were asked and allowed to bid. South Korea, despite being a large industrial partner, was ignored. The requirements didn't specify a manned or unmanned turret until recently - that's why three our of five IFVs tested in Libava had unmanned turrets. The new requirement for a manned turret was added - according to Czech journalists who asked a spokesperson of the Czech MoD - because Australia demands a manned turret for LAND 400 and the United States have showncased optionally manned turrets on the Stryker. This new requirement invalidates test results and eliminates the Puma, the ASCOD 35 and the CV90 CZr from the competition. All IFVs tested in Libava were configured for nine men (crew of 3 + 6 dismounts) as originally required - but the requriement for crew capacity was changed to eleven men (crew of 3 + 8 dismounts). None of the vehicles tested in Libava is capable of transporting 11 men with a manned turret. The bidding companies have time until some point of time in May to submitt their offers, the rather short time between the changes of requirements and the deadline is a huge problem. The Czech army doesn't want to be the first user of a new infantry fighting vehicle, they want to buy a vehicle that is already in service with at least one user. This effectively eliminates the Lynx KF31, Lynx KF41, ASCOD 35 and Ajax/ASCOD 42. In combination with the manned turret and the dismount requirements, there is no IFV meeting all requirements oof the Czech army.  The Czech government demands that the state-owned company VOP CZ will act as system integrator, manufacturer of components and provider of maintenance services. The army dislikes this, because it will increase the costs of the new IFVs. Side note: while it has been previously reported that the Puma hit 37 out of 40 shots at targets at Libava, the results of the other contenders have been rather unknown. According to the article, the next best result was 19 out of 40 shots hit. A lot of people are really pissed, because quite a lot of money was invested into the development, search for industrial partners and marketing of vehicles that are now eliminated from the tender. The ASCOD 35 with Samson Mk. 2 RWS and the CV90 CZr with Kongsbergt MCT 30 turret were more or less specifcally developed for the Czech tender (well, CV90 CZr already existed earlier, but as unfinished variant), while PSM held multiple expensive conferences to find industrial partners.
  24. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from LoooSeR in Israeli AFVs   
    Now answer the question of how you do the same with drivetrain components that aren't optimistically tiny, and a conventional turret- cause shoving the gun turret waaay the fuck back to balance the thing and forcing the trunnions into the stratosphere to get your desired depression may be fine with an overhead weapons mount, but it quickly gets you to unreasonably large and tall turrets if you want to have any actual armor on them as well.
    In short, it results in a bloat tank, and bloat is not generally seen as a positive feature of tanks.
    Congratulations! you have found A Source!
    Only problem is, it doesn't say what you says it does! At no point does that state that the switch to the MTU is what allowed them to increase the volumes allocated to armor because of the powerpack length. FFS, you're the one who's supposed to be able to read these sand runes.
    I'mma assume you mean similar module construction, cause if you actually mean they use the same module, lel. But even if that is the case, you'd note that I was actually praising the Namer for having a better hull armor layout than the Merk 3.
    The Namer is indeed taller, but there's much more to it than that. For a start, the Namer has an actual armor module in front of the transmission access door, above the fuel tanks, which is conspicuously lacking on the Merk 3, despite there being no good reason for the fuel tanks not being a couple centimeters shorter in compensation, y'know, the way it is in the Merk 4 and Namer. Likewise, the Namer's transmission cover module is much better laid out than that of the Merk 3. The Merk 3's cover wastes a lot of the available space between the transmission and the gun depression swept volume on inane shit like the travel lock and the bump stops for opening, which could just as easily have been placed over the fuel tanks, where there's more room to work with. So yeah, the armor layout on the Merk 3 could be much better despite using the AVDS, and the Namer proves it.
    wew lad >implying
    I'm mocking you for no having put in 30 minutes of critical thought on a subject close to your heart is what's going on.
    AAAAAAND WE HAVE A WINNER!
    Yes, the relevant parameter is the height of the powerpack as a function of longitudinal location.
    What's missing from the MTU catalog I posted is the cooling system for the engine- the MTU is liquid-cooled, as opposed to the AVDS, which as its name implies is air-cooled. The practical upshot of which is that the design of the cooling system is much more flexible, so that on the MTU powerpack for the Merk 4 the limiting factor is the height of the transmission, with the rest of the cooling being crammed in under the sloping deck rearwards, clearing up the needed volume. On the earlier Merks with the AVDS, the limiting factor is in fact the shroud for the frontal cooling fan on the engine, which is the exact height of the rear one- which is not exactly well-suited to cramming in under a sloping deck, necessitating the hump.
    Which is again not to say that the same hump coudn't have been significantly better protected than it is, but there is a reason it's there.
    Referte Avt Morimini.
    True, but any tank designed after TYOOL 1990 should ideally be designed with properly separated ammunition, but clearly the Merk 4 wasn't. Missed opportunities I suppose.
    Cause it really isn't the same. Also, seeing as the Merk isn't abroad very often, and a quick googling doesn't suggest that IDF tank crews get sent abroad to train like the paratroopers do, nor have very many foreign tanks been reported to have visited the Levant for cross-familiarization, I'd say that "close cooperation" needs some work.
    I see you are referring to the GPS. My bad, I thought you were referring to the commander's independent sight. Sorry, you are 100% correct regarding the location of the GPS.
    True, but that does not actually contradict what I said.
    Also if anything I've read about the Wadi Saluki battle is correct, the Merks were fine in terms of crew casualties when penetrated (except for when they kaboomed, but that's the case for any non-Abrams tank), but were surprisingly easily poked in the first place. Yes I know that included older Merks.
    So again this, and again it doesn't say what you says it does. In this case, they're talking about moving the air filters and batteries. Now, where did they sit in the older Merks?

    You see the yellow module on the side of the turret ring? the box underneath that is the air filter. As you can easily see, the width of the air filter means that the yellow module is greatly constrained in width, as is the red module aft of it, thanks to those stowage (and presumably battery) compartments.
    On the Merk 4, on the other hand:

    We see that the side modules are extra thick, and that there are cutaways on the aft of the hull, presumably to make room for the air filters. The stowage boxes along the side are likewise MIA to make room for the modules.
    So, as we see, this has nothing to do with the UFP as you claimed.
    You're supposed to know about the Merk, I shouldn't have to spoonfeed you this stuff.
    And you don't even have the excuse of reading this article you linked via the vagaries of Google Translate.
    lol no. All of those have a UFP armor module, which the mine plate sits on top of:

    See the module, with its 6 mounting bolts? Also, you can see the escape hatch under the driver's spot, so definitely no mine plate in this vehicle.
    The "horns" sticking out from under the module and welded to the hull are non-standard, but I strongly suspect that they're there to provide a good indexing point for the mine plate. This is what a Magach looks like with a mine plate attached:

    As you can see, the mine plate itself extends roughly up to the welded "horns".

    Another, with the horns visible and therefore no belly plate.

    Another view of what the belly plate looks like, so you can see that none (bar one) of the photos I linked in the last post had one. You can also see some LFP modules in this (sadly low-quality) pic.

    Another pic with the horns and the lower hull visible, no belly plate here!

    And one more because it's a nice pic with the bare lower hull peeking out and no mine plate in sight.
    And while we're at it, the Puma also has an armored LFP in addition to the mine plate.
    Without mine plate:



     
    And with:
    without armor modules:

    with both modules and mine plate:


     
    So yeah. Conclusion- the IDF has indeed up-armored the LFP of magachs (and that isn't just the mine plate adapter), and have also armored the LFPs of Pumas; or in other words, the IDF has not ignored the LFP when it comes to armoring rear-engined vehicles, whether MBTs or not. Git larned.
     
    I'm simply tired of the confident tone you use while spouting bullshit, and you deserve to be mocked for being so confidently wrong in great detail. And so here I am.
    If you want me to take you seriously and actually debate you need to stop being such a credulous individual when it comes to your pet statelet's products and y'know actually A. have sources B. that actually say what you say they do and C. Referte Avt Morimini.
    "I seem to remember reading this somewhere" holds no water, particularly when the only source you have presented hasn't said what you claimed it did.
    But I suppose neither of us will get what they want, eh?
  25. Metal
    N-L-M got a reaction from heretic88 in Israeli AFVs   
    Consider the geometry of actual armor without ignoring the LFP.
    In addition, the mass of the ammo is almost insignificant (25 kg per round and 40 or so rounds in the hull is 1 ton, vs 2 tons each for the engine and transmission plus fluids).
    That's not how tracked vehicles work, at all.
    You keep throwing this around without sourcing it. While I get that the Merk 4 is better protected than the previous ones, I'm interested in hearing what the actual professionals have to say.
    Also, the Namer shows that when sufficiently motivated even the Izzys can adequately place armor around an AVDS if we ignore the LFP as usual.
    The Mark 2D seems to show that the guys in charge disagree about the driver's visibility and armor on that side. On the engine side, continuing the hull line at the hump forwards to the beak instead of having it drop would make room for an armor module in front of the engine. That area is not in the FOV of the driver's central periscope nor in the FOV of the right one, which looks out over the engine deck.
    Please don't throw around things like this, they betray just how little you actually know.
    Let's compare the AVDS-1790-5A as found in the Merk 1 to the MTU 883 in the Merk 4, shall we?
    First, the AVDS:

    And then the MTU:

    Notice something? The AVDS is nominally approximately 4" longer. But that includes the turbo arrangement, which isn't included in the MTU engine dimensions. Once you include the turbo, the MTU 883 is longer.
    But wait, you say, the powerpack isn't only the engine! The Merks have used CD-850 Allsions and RK-304 and RK-325 Renk transmissions!
    So let's take a look at those now.
    First, the CD-850:

    Note that the depth of the transmission, 29", is approximately 730mm.
    next, the RK-304:

    and finally, the RK-325:
    https://www.renk-ag.com/en/products-and-service/products/vehicle-transmissions/rk-325/
    Dimensions: 1,910 x 830 x 960mm
    that's L*W*H.
    So, in fact, the RK-325 as found on the Merk 4 is longer than the transmissions in any previous Merk model, as is the MTU engine.
    So yeah, the "significant reduction in length of the powerpack unit" is a simple sign that you don't actually know what you're talking about, care to guess again?
    You should know the drill by now. Source this claim.
    You're zigzagging from "theres no problem with armoring the front along with the engine, slight weight bias forwards is a good thing" to "need to restore balance by uneven wheel spacing".
    Also that's not the only reason for having wheels spaced unevenly, care to guess what the other ones are?
    Again you're not bringing your A-game, step it up.
    2 has a new powertrain with the Renk RK304 transmission, which necessitated changing the entire engine deck area, exhaust routed into the coolant air exhaust manifold, as well as turret changes like the mortar and special armor slapped on.
    The drivetrain of the 2 is closer to that of the 3 than it is to the 1.
    Well you'd also expect them to realize that ammo separation is the objectively correct way to go, but I suppose you can't get everything.
    Also how exactly would you expect them to realize that the alternative is better when they don't have any experience with rear engine tanks newer than the M60A3, anyway?
    Reminder that the Merk 3 has a roof sight.
    There's a difference between making something work and it being a good idea which gives you what you actually want.
    Red is not russian, even if you can't tell Eastern European accents apart.
    What did the big bad Russians do to you anyway?
    You're dragging the forum discourse level and SNR waaay the fuck down with your shitposting, cease.
     
    Hybrids bring their own host of problems, not least requiring more volume and weight than equivalent mechanical transmissions. Also, why would you go to all the trouble of putting the drive sprockets in the front, if you decouple them from the engine? it's objectively a worse location for them.
    This bit we've been over before, and I'm just qouting it again to rub your face in how wrong it is and how you never bothered to perform 10 minutes of googling because you lack any self-critical thinking ability.
    You're gonna have to source this too, this claim in particular is interesting, as on the Merk the air filters were never in the way of the UFP in the first place!
    Aaaand you're confirmed for never having viewed anything through a camera resting above a hot surface.
    That's not only an incredibly asinine statement, considering how the IDF hasn't designed any rear-engine MBTs, but it's nevertheless still wrong:



     
    In short, @Mighty_Zuk, you have a lot of unsubstantiated claims to back up, Referte Avt Morimini.
    You've also said a lot of bullshit that betrays a basic and fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter. Git larned, and kindly match the confidence displayed in your posts to your actual level of knowledge in the subject matter, and not to what you'd like others to believe it is. You are invited to step up your game and keep the baseless speculation and denial to other forums like AW, and refrain from overly nationalistic fanboyism.
    Also, if you don't know something, even in a field which is close to your heart, just admit it. there's no shame in not knowing shit, but there's quite a lot in pretending to know stuff you don't and being flat out wrong.
    Kindly raise the standard of your posting, we really don't want this place devolving into AW or worse, DFI. Which is unfortunately the current posting standard you are representing.
     
    Sure, if you like your tanks immobile.
     
×
×
  • Create New...