watch_your_fire

6 hours ago, Zach9889 said:

While it is silly to use Wart chunder as a reference, it's not to farfetched to state that the ZTZ-96/99 series are protected over a smaller frontal arc than their Western and Russian counterparts, based on geometry.

Smaller arc than Russian tanks for sure considering the lack of side ERA on the hull, but not much different than western tanks, better in the sense that at least the turret sides have ERA.

The LFP is somewhat problematic but it's still statistically unlikely to be hit so not a big deal.

Also I really like how the Chinese (finally) fixed the old cleavage weakspot that the original ZTZ99 inhereted from the T-72 (and goes all the way back to the T-64). You can tell if you look at a ZTZ99A without ERA that it doesn't have as much of a weakened zone for the drivers periscope.

I think they might have reclined the drivers position like in a Chieftain to do this but I'm not sure.

On 7/27/2022 at 3:40 PM, LoooSeR said:

BMO-T, ANNA news reporter:

 

These are both cheap to produce and apparently fairly useful, and yet very few built.

On 10/25/2021 at 2:25 PM, TINDALOS said:

More photo of ZTZ-99 prototype took in late 90s and early 2000s, stolen from weibo

Damn it looks nice without ERA

21 hours ago, mr.T said:

Lots of frendly fire for RuAF lately 2 planes in two days shot down by own SAMs

 

First a Su-34 now it seems Su-35

 

https://t.me/RVvoenkor/20282

That post doesn't say what aircraft it was or who's it is...

5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

So far our side lost 4.5k dead according to BBC data, i was expecting around 6k at this point. Note that 4.5k is Russian army+VDV+Rosgvardia+FSB+volunteers, but without DPR and LPR losses.

This is very interesting but I have to point out that not all bodies are recovered and buried, so, take 4.5k as the minimum number of dead, not the maximum.

On an unrelated note, does anyone know what's going on with Russia buying those Iranian drones? Any official statement from either party?

https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-drones-russia-ukraine-war/31943572.html

12 hours ago, Beer said:

An interesting thing is the lack of evidence of any distinctive western-supplied weapons being destroyed by the Russians. AFAIK there are only about 3 confirmed destroyed M777 howitzers out of 110 or so, one M109A3 damaged/destroyed and one Bushmaster MRAP destroyed. No Krab, no Caesar, no PzH 2000, no Dana, no RM-70 (plus Vampire), no FH-77, no M113 and no HIMARS, , nothing destroyed or captured on any photos/videos. Some of these are confirmed to be used in combat, others are most likely kept in newly created brigades, i.e. not yet used in combat. From heavy weapons supplied by us we know only about one or two confirmed losses of "our" T-72M1 (the second one is ex-Bulgarian but it was possibly supplied from Czechia) and one Pbv-501 destroyed in Kherson area. These were delivered already in April and have been there for three months (just like Dana and RM-70). Also our Mi-24V have been in Ukraine for two months but even a first photo of them appeared only last week.  

 

It's quite likely that something more was destroyed but definitely not in any large numbers because those would result in some footage. 

I've seen some here and there on telegram. Russia claimed HIMARS knocked out but I think that was a lie. But definitely some M777s and the like being destroyed on camera.

This is supposed to be a Russian T-90A firing on a Ukrainian tank. I'm not so sure that's actually the case, but either way it shows off the sights pretty well.

2 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

To replace them before the lease contract ends. They were leased from Sweden in 2005 (the airframes were newly built and have in average around 2500 hours now I think)) as a temporary solution due to the lack of money after countrywide devastating floods but as usually the temporary solution became permanent. The planes themselves are good and everybody is happy with their service record but the current leasing contract ends in 2025 (or 2027 as a 2 years long prolongation is possible per the contract) hence why it's necessary to order the replacement as soon as possible to get the new planes in time (everybody is ordering now). 

Oh that makes sense, good to be proactive with fighter procurement.

45 minutes ago, Beer said:

Not yet official but it seems to be almost sure now that Czechia is going to buy 24 F-35A as a replacement for our 12+2 JAS-39C/D. The contract is expected to be signed this summer. 

To immediately replace the Gripen or to supplement them? IIRC Czechia has paid to lease them for a few more years still.

7 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

Cockerill turrets are usually fugly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Whether this turret is worth replacing the 1A5 turret I don't know (optics probably, firepower wise probably nothing meaningful). It does remove the need for a loader so that's always a plus for small budget country.

I would think that the country that still operate the Leopard 1 as an MBT and want to upgrade it, would like something more significant (probably a 120 mm along with a fix of the obsolescences).

From the last time someone tried a Leopard 1 with a 120mm we know that the gun is too large to fit the turret without substantially reducing the internal space available to the crew.

You could maybe design a new turret, but at that point your budget might allow for a newer tank anyway, so why bother. I guess the cockerill turret is at least a cheap upgrade, probably meant for the south american market (Chile, Brazil, Ecuador). I doubt anyone would buy it but who knows.

11 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

or you mean exact materials ?

No I was just curious how it worked

11 hours ago, Marsh said:

There is this on the web. https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/021-657-922-024-681/fulltext

 

The next link incorporates diagrams https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/94/0e/31/2c7f37e053a211/US7360479.pdf

 

Apologies if you already have these.

Marsh

 

The second one is exactly what I'm looking for! Thank you!

14 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Those both look like left “cheeks”, judging by the position of the smoke grenades on them, and the merk 4’s turret is pretty symmetrical on the outside, from the pictures I’m looking at. I think weidz was referring to the bolts, or how there is a cutout between the bolts on the closer module, while the further module is smooth between the bolts. 

Oh... yeah I don't have an answer for that

12 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

btw is there any good photos of V shaped holder ?

I'll ask if he can take some

Actually, giving it a closer look, I noticed the steel plate behind the gun shield is very thick so it shouldn't matter much that the shield itself and mantlet(?) is thin.

If anyone knows anything about the Merk 4's SLERA composite I'd love to learn more.

22 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Hmmm, the structures on the inside of the wedge are interesting: the bracing would suggest a physically heavy plate, or a lot of force is/can be applied to that area

Buddy says it's around a metric ton each, give or take.

22 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Also, I’m curious what could be on that Merkava’s fender that would warrant a censoring. 

It's my friends tank and I don't want him getting a visit from the Aman

13 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

interesting part is that modules seems to be a bit different 

Slight asymmetry is to be expected on 3 man turrets. The Abrams takes that to the extreme with the right cheek being an entirely different thickness and angle compared to the left cheek. But you'll find it on basically anything with a conventional loader.

Anyway, thick sideskirts too.

You can see that the area directly around the gun shield is fairly thin. This is normal, and is at least a smaller weakened zone than on a Chally 2 I think.

Has anyone ever found an official source that explains why the Merk 4 turret modules are listed as 'explosive'?

It's gotta be that SLERA idea they patented, right?

9 hours ago, Cobras said:

It can be 3 layer cuz the T-80BVMs are upgraded T-80B\BVs

But it was a T-80U instead of a BVM I think.

My thoughts are that the explosion may have made the filler fly out

Nvm figured it out. Someone was passing that image around twitter but I think it's just a bad angle

Still weird cuz it looks like a 3 layer rather than 5 layer glacis

Not my image, IDK why there's a T-64 in there

Anyway, what's up here?

@LoooSeRDoes the 'Z' stand for Zapad anyway? I've never gotten a solid answer on that question, even most Russians I've spoken to don't know what it means.

https://t.me/romanov_92/8962

I'm not sure if that video will embed properly so I'll just describe it.

Ukrainians taking a break on the side of the road. A T-72B3 is driving up. The Ukrainians, assuming it to be friendly, wave. The tank fires a 125mm HE shell right into them.

I wanted to talk about this because it highlights a major issue with armor identification in the Russo-Ukrainian war. Ukrainians have been capturing Russian equipment and pressing them into service without doing much to mark them as captured, which I think is what is responsible for this.

In the future, Ukraine should come up with some sort of standardized symbol to mark their equipment like the Russians have with the Z. I think their trident would work fine.

Edit: Well there I go talking out of my ass again. Apparently that was a T-64BV. Hard to tell in blurry footage and I made a leap, my bad.

2 hours ago, RobertV said:

How the fuck did Putin managed to fuck up  this badly?  

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-officials-say-china-asked-russia-delay-ukraine-war-until-after-beijing-2022-03-02/

He invaded 1-2 months late, maybe at China's request. So, instead of having Germany by the balls on gas heating in the middle of winter, he invaded right as things were warming up and Russian gas was not particularly relevant to the quality of life in Europe. Reserves and other imports covered march and now it's warm. So, sanctions were made easy for the West.

The other thing that happens when you send tanks into Eastern Ukraine in the spring is the mud. How many Tunguskas and T-72s did we see stuck in thick mud in the first week? So, tanks forced onto roads. Armored spearheads pushing deep into enemy lines on roads, getting ambushed, with barely any infantry to cover the flank, if any at all.

Oh, and invading the longest front in all of Europe with a skeleton force because without a declaration of war Russia couldn't properly mobilize.

Those are the big picture things Putin himself is responsible for. The more small scale stuff you could pin on generals and army procurement (no encrypted comms in the 21st century lmao).

2 hours ago, Miroslav said:

The Ukrainian Nazi discussion is almost off-topic, but I am very confused by that narrative.

Wars, in the modern age, require a lot of political hoops and justifications. Denazification, WMDs, "harboring terrorists" etc. Ultimately politicians just say these things to avoid saying "we want power in this region and are going to take it by force". IMO Putin would have been better off going with a "protecting ethnic Russians" narrative than the denazification thing.

6 hours ago, Alzoc said:

Russia is still sticking to the "special operation" narrative, meaning the political cost of mobilization or sending conscript into Ukraine would be high. It would mean admitting to the Russian population that the scale of the invasion was much bigger than initially reported and that they took not insignificant losses. Russian ground forces have about 280 000 soldiers about which a bit over 100 000 are tied up in Ukraine.

Excellent point.

I've heard that Ukrainian forces, counting militia men and other irregulars, are coming to outnumber the total Russian forces in Ukraine. Of course, there's a big difference between a gopnik with an AK and a trained soldier, but still.

Russia likely intends to fill this gap with mandatory conscription in Donbass but that's a short term solution at best considering how most manpower there has already been tapped.

@LoooSeRWhat sort of options does Putin have constitutionally in Russia to fill manpower shortages without a declaration of war?

And what happens when the current 1 year service period for conscripts ends? Do they just get to go home?

Not sure what I'm looking at here but I think some comedian tried to make a homemade strela-10.

Ukrainians on the left guessing by the gear.

And here we have a Mi-28 knocked out a couple days ago supposedly by the British Starstreak missile.

I believe this is the first recorded use of Starstreak in combat?

On 3/29/2022 at 8:50 AM, Alzoc said:

Most important long term consequence will be, IMHO, that the dollar (and the euro to a lesser extent) will lose confidence as reference money for international trade and that the Yuan will profit from it.

Also, Russian internet has been separated from the west in a lot of ways.

https://www.keyfactor.com/blog/russia-creates-its-own-certificate-authority-ca-to-issue-tls-certificates/

Massive players like Facebook basically blocking Russians from using their services will have the unintended consequence of making non-american social media much more competitive within Russia and asia in general.

20 hours ago, mr.T said:

Ka-52 shot down day one

 

 

Very interesting how it was still controllable until touchdown, hydraulics still operable as well. Does anyone know what it was hit by?