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

h44

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by h44

  1. These are the standard barrel length variant of the QBZ-191

    Chinese_soldiers_in_Tibet_receive_new_QB

    Spoiler

    qDhxVJe.png

    UzeN9a6.png

     

     

    New pictures of short barrel variant:

    763ba78fj00qq42v00013d200j600azg00hx00a9

    Spoiler

    ab887c25j00qq42v10016d200j600ezg00hx00dz

     

     

    Most likely the QBU-191, precision DMR version:

    CTd5ZO4.png

    Spoiler

    ca1349540923dd54167adcd571d5c7d99d824861

    d4628535e5dde711c4cecb6ca332ba1c9c166174

     

    They mention that the QBU-191 variant will each come with an LPVO similar to the Trijicon VCOG in this video. It's likely is that the QBU-191 comes with the MLOK type handguard since in the pictures with the rifles with those handguards also seem to come with a LPVO scope.

     

    One design requirement is that these rifles must be Wifi compatible (Actually the nightvision scope)

     

     

  2. 1 hour ago, Korvette said:

    Fofanov says the 125mm's recoil length on the MBT's are at 310mm hard stop, Rh120 is at 500mm (I think, the brochure doc for the gun has really unusual english). But Russian MBT's also don't necessarily have 'strong' suspensions like the NATO mbts and are much lighter. So they dont have to give much care to ground pressure and track size due to their weight being 20+ tons more than the West. And just as said the K2's hydro suspension will help a bit with absorbing the force from firing, just like the Leclerc and admittedly CR2, though watching them fire with the additional weight packages makes them seem like unmovable bunkers instead of 'stable firing platforms'.

     

    It really comes down to how heavy you are which makes it harder to push, how much is being absorbed and how stable you are. Russian tanks don't have a reason to care much for this since they're smaller, tighter, and lighter. Plus with a stabilized sight as with all modern vehicles have, you're not having your eyes forced off target for the next shot.

     

    Very interesting thanks. Also interesting is according to this website, they mention that "US studies on the gun concluded it was overly complex and expensive by American engineering standards, so a version using fewer parts was developed (such as a new coilspring recoil system, instead of an hydraulic one, like on the Rheinmetall 120mm L44), and designated the 120mm M256 gun." I also vaguely remember looking at a picture on here that someone posted with a M256 gun taken apart and you can see the recoil system but I can't find it now.

  3. Euro-Security-Defence.png?resize=1200,84

    Nat-Int.png?w=1134&ssl=1

     

    New family of Chinese standard issue weapons, this one being QBZ-191. Looks like they're also abandoning the bullpup for the conventional layout just as every other country who has adopted one already did. Definitely a good call.

     

    It is short stroke rotating bolt, and judging from the photo the barrel is free floated. Also seems like red dots will be commonly issued.

  4. I have a question to ask. Why is it that Russian/Chinese tanks seem to have significantly worse recoil absorption when compared to western tanks such as M1, Leopard but also K2.

    This obscure video demonstrates it. The video describes it as a comparison between stabilizers but I think it has more to do with hydraulic/recoil springs, recoil length, turret weight more than capability of the stabilizer.

    But it seems the Russians/Chinese didn't really place much design emphasis on this. Are they just cutting cost as usual? Does the superior recoil absorption provide a significant practical advantage? One advantage I can think of is crew comfort. But in a tank where you're only shooting once every roughly 10 seconds does this really provide much practical advantage?

  5. Hi, long time lurker here, first time posting. Just pointing out the very obvious here. The passage you cited says that 85% and 60% of the WEIGHT is RHA steel. That does not mean 85% and 60% of the thickness is RHA steel by simply multiplying the percentage of weight of RHA steel to get the thickness.

     

    For example, imagine an armor array of 1000mm thickness with 1mm RHA front plate and 1mm RHA back plate with 998mm of air gap in between. In this case 100% of the weight is RHA steel (air has no weight,) but you can't just multiply that by the thickness of the armor array and say that it has 1000mm RHA steel.

×
×
  • Create New...