Xlucine

That'd be easy to fix with a pair of gears between the engine and transmission, if you wanted to run the thing off a high speed engine. Just a transfer case like the M7

With a single disk, the problem is balancing lift on both sides where one is advancing and the other retreating. The retreating has to have a higher AoA to compensate, and therefore stalls first.
With contra disks, you can have a different swashplate for each rotor set. The retreating blades on each side can get a 0 AoA and therefore wont stall.

Ho ho ho Merry x-mas
 
T-72M1 durability and relability
 
All based on "CONSIDERATION OF WEAPON SYSTEMS AVAILABILITY IN EARLY OPERATION PhASE"


Translate: PT-91 Twardy tank, during 3 yers and 2 months for 144 tanks.
 


 
During trials period (1174 days) we had 510 PT-91 falitures whit avarage time to repair 27 days.  Avarage faliture ratio was 3 per tank but during trials it was between 1 to 14 for eacht tank.
Important: falitures under factory warranty  was in number ca 364 so up to 71%. All was procedure due to factory production. 
Translation from english for normal users here: up to 71% falitures was cased by non-existin quality control in Bumar-łabędy and fucked up production process.
 
Summary in one table:

 
And compare  old Leopard 2A4 and PT-91:
(black - Leopard2A4 white - PT-91)
 

 
 
 
 

https://www.janes.com/article/85132/brazil-transfers-m41c-light-tanks-to-uruguayan-army
 
CHAFFEE IS ETERNAL

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/british-army-demos-new-challenger-2-urban-operatio/

 
 

Meteor missile deployed on ops with typhoon:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/typhoons-launch-with-new-missile

Challenger 2 Streetfighter Concept Demonstrator



External Storage for Breaching Tools
External Storage for dismounted equipment
Turret mounted Mortar
Commanders GPMG and Loaders HMG
Enhanced Situation Awareness (Fixed Cameras, and Panoramic 360 Thermal)
Barrel cameras to see left and right at junctions without exposing the platform
Camera Feeds streamed to Dismounts Soldier Systems

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6476755319853764608

Here's a document (2002) from technicatome (designer of the reactor) from the INIS database
 
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/33/048/33048066.pdf
 
 
If I translate the block relevant to the Barracuda program it gives something like that:
 
 
So all in all the reason given to stick to LoE is that it's cheaper in our case and that apparently they hope to achieve a 10 year period between each refueling even with LoE.

First Barracuda (Le Suffren) is starting to look complete, and should be put in water around summer 2019:
 

 
 
Next to it we can see sections of the second ship of the class (Duguay-Trouin) waiting to be assembled:
 

 
 

Was rather busy at the time so wasn't able to give the full video a proper watch through, but the person I originally got that from neglected to mention that the person speaking was some dude stretching things to intentionally make it sound bad. I couldn't really find much at the time of posting that to fact check with, including the actual document, but my time has freed up now.   How bad it actually is probably depends on how pessimistic you are, but reads to me like it doesn't really change anything.
 
https://undocs.org/A/CONF.231/3
 
Relevant area is objective 17 "Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration"
 
 

And then taken to a triage utilizing only homeopathic remedies.

https://www.livescience.com/62689-otzi-iceman-mummy-heart-disease.html
 
 

Worst Of Tanks is giving away free shit; https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/announcements/well-deserved-reward-1118/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-defence-equipment-plan-2018

Ajax is £25m under-budget and 6 months ahead of schedule.

Warrior upgrade is £231m over-budget and 4.4 years behind schedule.
If you include the original planning then it's actually about £700m and 11 years for double the vehicles.
Even if it hits current targets then it will only have a service life of about 15 years.
 

Wire cutters have been standard on most british vehicles for a while:

Do you mean the same "physical measurements" mentioned by heretic88 about five pages ago, which only focus on the gun mantlet, assume that it is completely made of armor-grade steel and not hollow at all? That's not reliable, just like the "solid titanium trunion of the Leopard 2, which doesn't exist. I've never seen any measurements of the actual M60A1 turret frontal armor aside those mentioned in the Soviet reports.
 
The turret cheek armor seems to be ~100 mm thick at most (not accounting for slope), just as written in the Soviet reports.
 
 
 
The weight difference between the turrets is much less than 10 tonnes. Add to this different profiles + armor technology (cast steel is less effective than normal RHS, spaced armor formed by rolled steel plates is more effective than RHS) and you got your explanation.
 
 
Because in reality steel hardness and normal distributions in protection and penetration performance matter. The BR-412B and BR-412D with their blunt-shaped tips managed to retain most of their performance against sloped armor. The upper hull front of M48 Patton (110 mm at 60° = 220 mm LOS) was vulnerable to blunt-tipped versions of 100 mm AP rounds, when the impact velocity was in the range 880-900 m/s. The M60A1's hull armor is thinner but slightly better sloped (228 mm LOS).
 

 
This is a ballistic limit according to Soviet criteria, meaning that 75-80% of all rounds will manage to penetrate the armor at this velocity. From the US perspective - caring about the protection - another criteria would be used, as you don't want to stop only 20-25% of all rounds at the desired range, but a reasonable amount (75-100%). That is why the ranges for protection are larger than the ranges for penetration of the same target in certain instances.
 
 
Steel hardness was changed in 1978 for the M60A3, the M60A1 production ended around the same time. Most likely all M60A1 tanks were made with the softer steel. The Soviets (for most of their tanks, but the T-80 is apparently an exception) and the British used cast steel with a hardness of 260-280 HB, which supposedly was 5-15% weaker than RHS according to Soviet sources. German sources say that cast steel was "up to 20% worse" (20% more armor required to reach the same protection level) than RHS, similar statements are made by Sweden (cast steel being 10-20% worse than RHS).
 
The Leopard 1A3 as mentioned by Wiedzmin uses steel plates with a hardness 301 HB and 370-410 HB for the frontal armor,  up to 490 HB for the side armor plates and 260-300 HB for the roof armor. So there is quite a significant difference.
 
 
The Chieftain was designed with a 45° frontal arc (±22.5 degrees), the M60A1 wasn't. Its armor relied much more on slope in the horizontal plane, very similar to the welded turrets of the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2K/PT. IIRC it was designed with a protected frontal arc of 30° (±15 degrees) or smaller.
 
 
As Wiedzmin already stated, the Soviet reported that the "mantlet and cradle" provide protection against spall and bullets only, while not stating anything about the mantlet surviving 115 mm APFSDS rounds. You keep beating the same statement and ignore the fact that the same article from Andrei actually lists the gun mantlet as a weakspot!

 
So the Soviets, who actually captured a M60A1 found the mantlet to be badly armored, but they must be wrong, because someone on WarThunder forums measured the exterior (!) without knowing anything about the composition (RHS vs mild steel, hollow or solid) of the mantlet...
 
And btw. that the turret front at 0° could be penetrated "at a close range" by 100 mm, 122 mm and 115 mm projectiles doesn't mean that it is immune to these and also doesn't mean that this range is identical for all these rounds.

You vs. the guy she told you not to worry about  

A cool spear was found
 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/yukon-atlatl-ice-patches-1.4809947?cmp=rss
 

I made a model of the T-34M:



Astute viewers will notice that the commander's cupola is wrong - it's supposed to be a T-50 cupola rather than the T-34/85 model I stuck on.
 
Rivet counters will notice that the exhausts don't have the crazy bolt arrangement they should have (and are kind of the wrong shape), the front hooks are missing, the radio antenna is missing, the hull periscopes are missing, and that the turret periscopes are of the wrong type.