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

Mike E

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mike E

  1. I noticed that. Historically Russian vehicles favor a greater number of smaller blocks, and not the opposite. As you mentioned this could be the new NERA/ERA solution as shown on the roof of the vehicle, but that still is fried in one shot.
  2. I should have specified earlier; the turret base, with no modules, is THS. The modules/boxes could be anything the French want it to be, ceramics, maybe even NERA. On T-14's turret yes, but the important section is the hull, or Glacis to be specific. Supposedly T-14 has an armor package based on weight, with the shown models being the "middle" option with a stripped variant, and a loaded one.
  3. Chieftain has always been overrated in regards to armor, and IMO same goes for the Challenger series. Sure does look thin...and the modular turret (as in, the one hiding under the add on armor) does too. It has been an outside claim for years at this point. "Merkava putting the engine at the hull front protects the crew further" almost sounds like a consensus at this point, even if it isn't really true. I agree; "if anything it is just 'well-armored' but with good methods of containing a penetration" ​Fuel tanks really would not do much outside of HEAT, and if the Abrams' is using JP...a DU penetration wouldn't be nice. Abram's glacis is just plain steel, albeit angled more.
  4. Thanks for the very informative response, I appreciate it. 1) If that's true the Leclerc is not as well armored as I originally thought. I know for a fact its' armor is based on THS with possible ceramic inserts. LOS of the Leclerc is greater than that though, so it must contain a lot of spacing. 2) Correct...though 44c seems somewhat easy to work. Makes me wonder why they didn't just have it be the primary steel. 3) The idea is to have the high-hardness steel be part of the composite or laminate, not just a stand-alone. Not knowing Armata's ME is killing me for some unexplainable reason... Almost certainly it is higher than the older Soviet vehicles because of using ceramics. NxRA worked good but not fantastic.
  5. Kind of doubt that... It appears like the Glacis is a simple two-material laminate or composite angled at around or just over 60 degrees. My guess would be it is roughly 100 mm thick, and unless it has a super high ME that angling will only make it a few hundred RHAe. Though RHAe can not simulate the effects of a composite on any round. I think IDF took the easy excuse of "well the engine is up there" in order to get away with this. That picture also makes the hull roof look to be around half of the Glacis in thickness.
  6. That's the Glacis of a Mk.4? Doesn't look all that thick to be honest...nor is it sloped enough to not need to be well-sloped... Corvettes need to bring back the pop ups Also, the modular turret armor won't hold up if it gets un-angled in any way. I used to think the Merkava was super-heavily armored, if anything it is just "well-armored" but with good methods of containing a penetration.
  7. Now that we know Armata won't be using the new steel for its' armor, does any one have a clue what specification steel it will use? Leclerc uses Triple-Hardness and the Type-10 one superior to that... I'm by no means worried about T-14's protection but using an advanced steel wouldn't hurt, maybe outside of budgets. And is there any credible information on the ME of Armata's armor as a whole? Sorry for the questions
  8. Sputnik can be...very off in regards to military-focused articles. 120 mm mortars are small enough to be mounted on Kurganets or even BMD-4M's platform, no need for them on Armata IMO. So Koalition will be used for ground-to-ground, ground-to-ship, and ship-to-wherever.
  9. Thank you for completing my thoughts. Wankels have a few advantages (very compact in size & literage, light weight, and a high torque curve IIRC) but they also require a load of maintenance when stressed. They also are legendary for burning oil (probably due to the simple yet complex design they use) and not being the most fuel-efficient thing out there. Making a diesel version would be more of a pain, because the diesel requires high-pressures to ignite. The inherit design of Wankels mean the gas gets super-compressed into one of three stages, and then ignites. It is seemingly possible for the diesel to hence ignite early, and cause engine failure. The fact that diesel Wankels have not been produced says it all, IMO.
  10. All being said, this 'vehicle' he drew up lowers his already bottom-level reputation. As a response to him; A crew of five would be a disaster and everyone knows it. Combine a smallish-vehicle with a mid-size turret and five crewmen...yeah it doesn't work well. Low profile vehicles like the T-72 and T-90 can get away with having a small crew compartment because they don't need to store a fourth crewman. Having two loaders means the turret needs to accommodate at least three crewmen, AT LEAST, along with a load of armor per the Abrams and Leopard 2. That simply won't work...and why have two loaders in the first place? NATO rounds are exclusively single-piece in tanks, and two men aren't needed to lifting a single rounds. All that will do is make the turret more crowded, making it harder AND slower to load as a result. Being as I've followed his content for the past seven years; I can tell you his argument for more crew is that if need be, you have more man-power to be mobilized outside of the vehicle...but they are in a vehicle, mobilizing them is pointless and risks more lives. All that means it more people will be fatally injured if the vehicle is penetrated or destroyed. T-72's take half of fourteen seconds to reload, and one would be hard-pressed to find a loader that could reload in four seconds...never mind in repetition. By "smaller less powerful" ammunition he was referring to Soviet & Russian carousels, which have historically had a maximum length cap of the ammunition, namely APFSDS. Still no reason for him to generalize, as almost every other type of autoloader (note this problem lies in the way of storing munitions....not even the AL) can fire long-length projectiles. And while autoloaders introduce a new possible failure point, manned vehicles have one too; it's called the loader. Heavy ammunition breaking the AL is so off it almost isn't funny. Diesels do not have sparkplugs but a lot of them use a 'hotplug' (whatever they are called) which are basically elements....but they almost never need replacing, and I'd be worried if the average tanker couldn't replace one (a decimated engineer is just...without words). Referring a tanks armor profile with percentages is beyond retarded. 20% Chobham....whhhaaaaaaa? Colli nailed the problem with such nano-particles. They are strong at the nano-scale, because of their carbon bonds... At the larger scale, imperfect bonding would be numerous and the quality of the material low. It's just like steel armor; simple imperfects at the smallest of levels can compromise performance. This is why RHA was developed, and also why steel continues to be improved with changes in grain. The difference is that Carbon won't be easy to worth with, like steel... Larger than an Abrams but much lighter... Must be that 60% Carbon :/ Why bother making the vehicle larger *even it were lighter*, simply put it means a larger target, and one that's considerably harder to transport...yet BTD hates on weight, for making vehicles harder to transport... Once again, there are no words to describe this insanity. Low-ground pressure from the vehicle being LOW? Please.... He doesn't seem to realize that wider-tracks are *heavier*, and actually lower the agility of said vehicle. Ground pressure is important not that important...and since is making a vehicle unrealistically wide a good thing? At 16 feet wide, it could hardly fit on a road regardless of lanes, never mind bridges, tunnels, or dare I say it; aircraft! In regards to thinking ground pressure will solve all the vehicles problems; I....just....don't...know... Has more power and torque and weighs less; in his imagination. Yes, no current tank could catch up to one that is in mans' head. Wankels by themselves are on the boundaries of being failures for any use... They guzzle fuel and oil like nothing else out there. - His main argument against the Abrams was it not being fuel efficient. Oh, the irony. (Oh, and it being a diesel....) And a howitzer....it's like he removed his brain and threw it out the window. To begin, the gun he is describing would not be a howitzer... The 2A82-1M gun (still 125 mm) has 17% more muzzle energy than the LONGER L/55 gun, which itself has noticeable improvements over the L/44. Euro 140 mm guns would have even more power than the 2A82, never mind a 145 mm... Honestly he must have made this all up on the spot. Muzzle energy =/= effective range, at least not directly. Didn't a Chally or Chally 2 nail a tank at over 5 km once? The effective range of the L/44 probably isn't much over that, especially with heavy ammunition like the M829A3 (it travels at under 1600 m/s point-blank...so I doubt it'll go very far out past 4 km). Newer FCS/gun could probably manage a hit on an Abrams before the Abrams could directly hit it...but the chances of a penetration are almost nil. As for areas of engagements where this would be possible; don't ask me. BTD also apparently doesn't understand rifle ammunition. Surprise surprise. How can a MANNED TURRET be stabilized? That's stupid beyond belief....and exactly what is a hull stabilizer? Torsion bars are used because they are cheap and easy to maintain, if needed they can be further improved with hydro-pneumatic add-ons, as rumored to be on Armata. I laughed when he claimed a tank-mounted autocannon lessens the need of SPAAG systems... Whatcha going to do, point it in the air and blind fire? This sounds less and less like a tank design and more of toddlers creation. He even acts like it will fend off fixed wing aircraft, sure it will...just...sure... In the comments he actually made it SIX crewmen...not five, SIX. I guess the whole engineer thing was serious. I also love how he came up with fake figures, like the turret being 20 tons and able to traverse 360 in four seconds. Must have taken BTD 'four seconds ' to think that up. He also continues the argument that if one crew member in killed in a T-62, you lose 1/3 of the crew. He fails to mention that in the "T-Wolf", two crewmembers would be lost...at least... Then he claims rifled guns are superior to smoothbores... BTD posted this eight years ago, but he deserves no mercy. An absolute idiot he must be...
  11. I like it...the vehicle tree system is well laid out and less intensive than WoT. Battles are hard to get into due to a lack of players but entertaining & dynamic nonetheless.
  12. Any of you guys have Armoured Warfare? Just got my account up.
  13. Well mocking him is no problem I'm saying he ain't worth our time in regards to "figuring him out". MS is almost certainly a fraud.
  14. Possibly this with 'India's Warrior' underneath? Hate to request, especially so late...but you do a great job!
  15. Undoubtedly inspired by the man doesn't mean it is him. IP however.... Sparks used to be a complete ****head to talk to, even politely. BTD is actually willing to talk on his videos, *most of* the time.
  16. Honestly I wouldn't know... 4S24 is the less potent side panel module and should have less mass explosives than say, K-5. 4S23 could easily have more due to its' multi-layer design. Because we are getting so specific into ERA we should continue the conversation there.
  17. Vice-versa as LoooSeR noted and described. Thank you to him. Maybe my source was mistaken... 4S24 uses 1/2 the explosives as 4S20. The set of K-5 weighs ~1.5 tons, and the larger (ie more coverage) Relikt kits on the T-72B2 supposedly weighed ~2.3 tons. Considering Relikt uses more mass in metal with multiple charges/plates, that is not a dramatic weight gain. I'd wager that it uses more explosives than K-5, but much more.
  18. I've been following his content for many, many years now (not to say I agree with it outside of a few things) and BTD doesn't seem to be connected with Sparks. They share a general opinion, but Sparks had his own channel for a while and just died off eventually. BTD raises a few good points on the validity of decisions US politicians and Army officials make, besides that it can be a lot of fluff.
  19. Thanks for letting me know.... IIRC Relikt does indeed use less explosives in mass than K-5, possibly I misunderstood and they meant each charge weighed 50%. Nozh is especially susceptible per; rather than the ideal... Thank you Sturgeon. @Tied Where I am at, 'based' just means you don't care what other people think, but it's fine.
  20. Thank you. I've seen those pictures and even a few others... It's all due to the large number and high explosive power of Nozh bricks. Nozh & Duplet in theory work great, but their design prohibits consistent performance. If the 'knives' do not break or shatter the incoming long-rods, they will have little impact. An impact flat on a brick will also yield little performance for the ERA, as the round will only be hit with one or maybe two 'knives'. Mind telling me what thread this was discussed in? This one here is what attracted me so I haven't had the time to look over any others. @Tied I'm pretty stuck in...but like anyone else, accepting to change opinion. Thank you as well.
  21. Pakistan is yet to have received a T-90MS for testing. Oplot-M going head-to-head will be with the MS will be interesting, to say the least...The Ukr/Paki nuts at PD were going nuts and claiming the Oplot will actually be acquired. Simply put, Pakistan has rejected the MBT-3000, and hence the Oplot-M is the only vehicle they current have in possession, that they are actually considering. - Ukraine does not have the industry to build a few, nevermind a few hundred. In regards to a possible deal with Ukraine, Pakistan would do it is as a way of keeping commonality with their T-80UD's, which will allegedly receive a few upgrades including either Nozh or Duplet. Outside of that, the Oplot-M didn't offer them anything that other vehicles do not. T-80UD's even had heat issues in the Pakistani Deserts, IIRC. This isn't completely relevant to the above, but Nozh (never-mind the more powerful Duplet) has major problems with detonating neighboring ERA modules, and even blowing inserts/track-covers off the vehicle... Ukraine went for the easy solution by adding more explosive, but that came with drawbacks (aforementioned issues and just the weight... Oplot-M has FIVE TONNES of the stuff). Relikt actually uses less mass of explosives (roughly 50% less) than K-5, yet achieves twice the performance against KE.
×
×
  • Create New...