Vehicles of the PLA: Now with refreshing new topic title!

[LoooSeR]

[Khand-e]

On 8/5/2017 at 2:44 AM, Iron Drapes said:

Are those IFV targets somehow different? Because 2A72 is NOT capable of such accuracy. In fact, the Chinese team had quite miserable shooting results at the Suvorov attack competition in Russia last year. 

 

Hey, this is the PLA vehicles thread, not the "post videos from ever so unbiased "RT" channel and then complain that some Russian team lost in an ultimately pointless biathlon thread and clearly the Chinese can't beat such Russian Ubermen" Thread.

 

Just going to politely tell you that now.

[Iron Drapes]

51 minutes ago, Khand-e said:

 

Hey, this is the PLA vehicles thread, not the "post videos from ever so unbiased "RT" channel and then complain that some Russian team lost in an ultimately pointless biathlon thread and clearly the Chinese can't beat such Russian Ubermen" Thread.

 

Just going to politely tell you that now.

 

I don't know what you are talking about. I am merely stating that the 2A72 has horrendous accuracy and is unsuitable for long range shooting, even in single shot mode, and it is incredible that the Chinese team could somehow hit so many targets with them. I am not even talking about the Type-86A, just the gun itself, which is known without a doubt to be terribly inaccurate. If you cannot even consider my comment without accusing me of subversion or whatever, then maybe you are seeing this as a "Chinese can beat Russian Uberman any day" thread.

[Khand-e]

38 minutes ago, Iron Drapes said:

 

I don't know what you are talking about. I am merely stating that the 2A72 has horrendous accuracy and is unsuitable for long range shooting, even in single shot mode, and it is incredible that the Chinese team could somehow hit so many targets with them. I am not even talking about the Type-86A, just the gun itself, which is known without a doubt to be terribly inaccurate. If you cannot even consider my comment without accusing me of subversion or whatever, then maybe you are seeing this as a "Chinese can beat Russian Uberman any day" thread.

 

I'm calling out your comments for what they are, 1 of which was a biased video from RT of all sources (which even most of my Russian friends will call out), and second was you freaking out over a comment LoooSeR (not me) made over a simple score sheet, LoooSeR posted, not me. (and LoooSeR wasn't trying to start any fights or prove anything, he was doing it as a matter of fact post.) and you freaked out and said how it must be fake or rigged or some shit because clearly Chinese can't shoot well and the 2A72 proves they couldn't have won....even though the Russians were also using the 27A2 gun in that same trial.

 

I'll ask once more, contribute to the topic at hand, this doesn't.

[Iron Drapes]

On 8/9/2017 at 1:45 AM, Khand-e said:

 

I'm calling out your comments for what they are, 1 of which was a biased video from RT of all sources (which even most of my Russian friends will call out), and second was you freaking out over a comment LoooSeR (not me) made over a simple score sheet, LoooSeR posted, not me. (and LoooSeR wasn't trying to start any fights or prove anything, he was doing it as a matter of fact post.) and you freaked out and said how it must be fake or rigged or some shit because clearly Chinese can't shoot well and the 2A72 proves they couldn't have won....even though the Russians were also using the 27A2 gun in that same trial.

 

I'll ask once more, contribute to the topic at hand, this doesn't.

 

What? That RT video isn't reporting news or anything, it was a livestream covering the biathlon. Biased as RT is, how good do you think they are at editing live footage in real time to show that the Chinese team missed a couple of their shots? What value does that even have, and why would they want to do that? You think that the Russian government wants to spark a dispute with China over something as petty editing the scores in a shooting competition via RT? What are you smoking? It's just a livestream of the event, and the Chinese team did not hit as many targets as they should have given the advanced armour and skilled crews they brought to the biathlon. That is what I am saying. You are projecting whatever delusions you have into my statement. Now, back to the Suvorov Attack:

 

I am not talking about the score sheet, and I am not talking about the Chinese team winning overall, because the Type-86 IFV is clearly faster than the BMP-2.  I am talking about the shooting accuracy of the Chinese team at 3:15 of the video: https://youtu.be/R1IhN07EJtI and https://youtu.be/R1IhN07EJtI. The 2A72 is not known for its accuracy, and AFAIK Type-86 doesn't have a ballistic computer, so I suspect something fishy. Maybe the Chinese team used APDS or APFSDS or something like they did in the 2014 tank biathlon when they used 125mm APFSDS instead of 125mm HEAT like everyone else. And how come we don't see any tracers and we hardly see any signs of impacts? Take a look at these two instances of the Chinese team doing their shooting in the 2016 Suvorov Attack: https://youtu.be/feUNb8pmI3g?t=12m48s and https://youtu.be/ulRAOOUqqgM. In both examples, we clearly see tracers, but none during the shooting in the 2017 event. Now look at the Angolan team's shooting at 56:02: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1IhN07EJtI&feature=youtu.be?. Here, you can see multiple tracers flying over the target as they miss again and again. Why? Now I strongly suspect that it is because Chinese team got some higher velocity ammo like APFSDS, and since APFSDS is so fast, you can't see the tracer. So yes, it is very suspicious to me. No, I am not blaming the misses the Angolan team made on sabotage, because I know that the competency of the Angolan crew is very low, and they are not very familiar with the vehicle as they had some problem before commencing the shooting stage and Chinese technicians had to assist them.

 

No, I don't care that the Russian team missed one of the targets when it was their turn to shoot, because that is already considered quite a good result by the standards of the BMP-2, which has a very crude FCS. BTW, Russians were not using 2A72 in the same trial, because BMP-2 is equipped with 2A42. 2A42 has a fixed 38.5 kg barrel measuring 2416mm with short stroke recoil dampening device, and the 2A72 has a 36 kg barrel measuring 2500mm in length and it uses long recoil action with an unsupported cantilever barrel. You tell me: All things considered, which cannon will tend to have better accuracy? 

 

I feel that these are very constructive comments indeed. This is a PLA discussion thread, not a PLA glorification thread, right? Right?

 

Edited August 11, 2017 by Iron Drapes
wrong TB year (2016 -> 2014)

[Khand-e]

16 hours ago, Iron Drapes said:

 

What? That RT video isn't reporting news or anything, it was a livestream covering the biathlon. Biased as RT is, how good do you think they are at editing live footage in real time to show that the Chinese team missed a couple of their shots? What value does that even have, and why would they want to do that? You think that the Russian government wants to spark a dispute with China over something as petty editing the scores in a shooting competition via RT? What are you smoking? It's just a livestream of the event, and the Chinese team did not hit as many targets as they should have given the advanced armour and skilled crews they brought to the biathlon. That is what I am saying. You are projecting whatever delusions you have into my statement. Now, back to the Suvorov Attack:

 

I am not talking about the score sheet, and I am not talking about the Chinese team winning overall, because the Type-86 IFV is clearly faster than the BMP-2.  I am talking about the shooting accuracy of the Chinese team at 3:15 of the video: https://youtu.be/R1IhN07EJtI and https://youtu.be/R1IhN07EJtI. The 2A72 is not known for its accuracy, and AFAIK Type-86 doesn't have a ballistic computer, so I suspect something fishy. Maybe the Chinese team used APDS or APFSDS or something like they did in the 2016 tank biathlon when they used 125mm APFSDS instead of 125mm HEAT like everyone else. And how come we don't see any tracers and we hardly see any signs of impacts? Take a look at these two instances of the Chinese team doing their shooting in the 2016 Suvorov Attack: https://youtu.be/feUNb8pmI3g?t=12m48s and https://youtu.be/ulRAOOUqqgM. In both examples, we clearly see tracers, but none during the shooting in the 2017 event. Now look at the Angolan team's shooting at 56:02: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1IhN07EJtI&feature=youtu.be?. Here, you can see multiple tracers flying over the target as they miss again and again. Why? Now I strongly suspect that it is because Chinese team got some higher velocity ammo like APFSDS, and since APFSDS is so fast, you can't see the tracer. So yes, it is very suspicious to me. No, I am not blaming the misses the Angolan team made on sabotage, because I know that the competency of the Angolan crew is very low, and they are not very familiar with the vehicle as they had some problem before commencing the shooting stage and Chinese technicians had to assist them.

 

No, I don't care that the Russian team missed one of the targets when it was their turn to shoot, because that is already considered quite a good result by the standards of the BMP-2, which has a very crude FCS. BTW, Russians were not using 2A72 in the same trial, because BMP-2 is equipped with 2A42. 2A42 has a fixed 38.5 kg barrel measuring 2416mm with short stroke recoil dampening device, and the 2A72 has a 36 kg barrel measuring 2500mm in length and it uses long recoil action with an unsupported cantilever barrel. You tell me: All things considered, which cannon will tend to have better accuracy? 

 

I feel that these are very constructive comments indeed. This is a PLA discussion thread, not a PLA glorification thread, right? Right?

 

 

Ok, look bitch, now you've pissed me off, you didn't take the hint the first 2 times and instead chose to insult me after I asked you to change your conduct in this thread, so let me just stamp it down in plain fucking English for you.

 

This is my thread, not yours, you don't get to tell me what my thread is or isn't, which is a "neutral" (key word) topic to discuss PLA and other Chinese vehicles, I could in theory make this thread a "PLA glorification" thread if I wanted to, and so long as neither of the admins disagreed, it would be fine, but it isn't, so stop trying to pull your retarded mental gymnastics. You came in here and posted dumb shit that was more ranting or biased shit posting, when I called you on this politely and asked you to stop 2 times only for you to get butthurt and try to insult me in my house? no, fuck that, and fuck you for doing so and thinking you're going to get away with it because you suck at being subtle.

 

"I'm not saying the Chinese team cheated, but I suspect the Chinese team cheated based on some evidence I'm pulling out of my ass and also I'm going to bring up 2016 for no real reason, not because I'm biased, I'm simply being "objective". Yeah, no one believes your shit, sorry to tell you.

 

You're like someone who just comes into ones house party uninvited, and when you piss on the rug and get smacked on the neck with a newspaper like a dog for doing so and asked to clean it up, you freak out and say how It's your fault and you have a right to piss in this house and tell the owner what he wants to do with his house or not.

 

Sorry to tell you that you don't, and you've worn out your welcome here, now get the fuck out of my thread until you pick up a dictionary and learn what the fuck "Cognitive Dissonance" means and decide you actually want to contribute to the topic, the only delusions here being projected are from you, I've met a lot who fit this particular posting profile, they're all banned or posting on complete shit holes, fix your shit.

[Bronezhilet]

Ah yes, of course the heavier barrel will be the most accurate one!

 

Time for lead barrels, everyone! Iron Portieres has spoken! I can't wait to see the looks on the soldiers' faces because they have to carry lead barrels around because Iron Accouterments has concluded that weight takes a vital role in the accuracy of a weapon! Iron Shutters, does this also mean that we can make a short lead barreled just as accurate as a long special steel alloyed barrel? Because if that is the case, Steely Toggeries, we can make very short weapons, which is obviously great news! 

 

Everyone, meet Pig Buggeries, our newest weapons expert!

[Iron Drapes]

9 hours ago, Khand-e said:

 

Ok, look bitch, now you've pissed me off, you didn't take the hint the first 2 times and instead chose to insult me after I asked you to change your conduct in this thread, so let me just stamp it down in plain fucking English for you.

 

This is my thread, not yours, you don't get to tell me what my thread is or isn't, which is a "neutral" (key word) topic to discuss PLA and other Chinese vehicles, I could in theory make this thread a "PLA glorification" thread if I wanted to, and so long as neither of the admins disagreed, it would be fine, but it isn't, so stop trying to pull your retarded mental gymnastics. You came in here and posted dumb shit that was more ranting or biased shit posting, when I called you on this politely and asked you to stop 2 times only for you to get butthurt and try to insult me in my house? no, fuck that, and fuck you for doing so and thinking you're going to get away with it because you suck at being subtle.

 

"I'm not saying the Chinese team cheated, but I suspect the Chinese team cheated based on some evidence I'm pulling out of my ass and also I'm going to bring up 2016 for no real reason, not because I'm biased, I'm simply being "objective". Yeah, no one believes your shit, sorry to tell you.

 

You're like someone who just comes into ones house party uninvited, and when you piss on the rug and get smacked on the neck with a newspaper like a dog for doing so and asked to clean it up, you freak out and say how It's your fault and you have a right to piss in this house and tell the owner what he wants to do with his house or not.

 

Sorry to tell you that you don't, and you've worn out your welcome here, now get the fuck out of my thread until you pick up a dictionary and learn what the fuck "Cognitive Dissonance" means and decide you actually want to contribute to the topic, the only delusions here being projected are from you, I've met a lot who fit this particular posting profile, they're all banned or posting on complete shit holes, fix your shit.

 

lol

[Iron Drapes]

4 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Ah yes, of course the heavier barrel will be the most accurate one!

 

Time for lead barrels, everyone! Iron Portieres has spoken! I can't wait to see the looks on the soldiers' faces because they have to carry lead barrels around because Iron Accouterments has concluded that weight takes a vital role in the accuracy of a weapon! Iron Shutters, does this also mean that we can make a short lead barreled just as accurate as a long special steel alloyed barrel? Because if that is the case, Steely Toggeries, we can make very short weapons, which is obviously great news! 

 

Everyone, meet Pig Buggeries, our newest weapons expert!

 

I am not saying that barrel weight is the culprit, but barrel thickness, and I also mentioned the long recoil operation and unsupported barrel. There is a very, very good reason why most of the turrets using the 2A72 include some sort of frame to support the barrel. BTR-3U, BTR-4, BMP-3, Uran-9, 30mm RCWS from Tigr-M and so on. The barrel of the 2A72 is not supposed to be unsupported, because accuracy drops very fast when you start shooting. Every 2A72 barrel has a pair of guide rings around them, and they are supposed to fit inside a support sleeve. So yes, 2A72 is indeed less accurate, and everyone knows it. Look at the ZBL-09 and ZBD-05.

 

 

 

 

[Sturgeon]

@Iron Drapes, your signal-to-noise ratio is too low. Making unsupported statements and expecting them to be accepted without question is not something the members of this forum have ever responded favorably to. I will refresh you on the forum rules:

 

Quote

As the title suggests, please read this post before you yourself posts.

First, it's appropriate for me to introduce this forum to the new posters that may be reading this. Sturgeon's House is a forum for those concerned with technical topics. Those of us that make up the core of the website are those who value good information over bad, who value the best sources and documents over those poorly executed. We thrive on sharing primary sources with each other and discussing them. As I once said on another forum, it doesn't matter if the airplane looks good, it matters how well it flies. That's how we feel about sources and documents here on SH. It has to make sense, and it has to fit within the ever-refining context in which it exists. In short, SH is a document-based forum, in the same way that 4chan is an image-based forum. 

 

Before you post, I think it's fair that you know that in this forum I intend to hold everyone to a - relatively speaking - higher standard of posting. It's my goal to make this forum a place with not only a high signal to noise ratio, but also a place with a high level of cultivated humor and levity. So at once, I expect posters to take posting seriously, but also to not take posting seriously. It's easier than it sounds, I think. Perhaps, instead, I should say: "The quality of posts should be high, but the subject need not be serious."

If you're new to the forum, the safest course of action to being accepted here is to try to post sources without commenting on them, and to pay attention to the forum Nobility (they are tagged as such). If you find something interesting, post it without making any comment of your own. For instance, perhaps post a documentary and ask "what does the forum think of this?". Be sure to pay attention to the responses you get, especially those of the Nobility. They should tell you a lot about how we do things at SH, and what a good or bad document looks like.

If I were a new poster here, I'd tackle technical subjects first (by posting sources without commentary), then once you've gotten a few likes from the Nobility, maybe try your hand at humor or the more recreational areas. I would not try to post anything about politics or religion until you are very well established on the forum.

I do not enforce any moral codes here on SH, only anti-obnoxiousness and anti-spam rules. Your language will not be censored, but your content may well be, especially if it contributes nothing to the discussion or is otherwise a deliberate attempt to reduce the value of content on this website. The lack of censorship here at SH is not an excuse to be a cad.

 

There are three basic guidelines to posting at SH that were for a long time unspoken but understood by everyone here. However, since we have grown in membership, it is worthwhile to state them openly:


1. This forum was created to be a place where technical discussions can take place without drama. That is a burden every single poster needs to bear, and it comes before anyone's honor, reputation, etc.

 

2. No one on this forum is an "untouchable"; not even I am, though as a general rule it's stupid to piss off an admin.

3. Any shitstorms that occur are to be worked through, and must not be allowed to wreak permanent havoc on the forum's membership. This is the Internet, and no grudges or bad blood are really very real. If you have a problem, you can work it out like adults. There is no "or else", just work it out.

 

4. Keeping the post quality high here is a group effort. Think of it like a group hike - you don't have to like everyone you're marching with, but if someone stumbles or trips up you pick them up and help them, you don't break your own leg in escalation. Posting here is like that - if someone else, regardless of what you think of them - falters in posting well, do what you can to keep the conversation on track and the posting quality high.

 

[Sturgeon]

@Iron Drapes, my explicit recommendation to you to improve your post quality is to dump some documents into the Documents Thread, without any commentary. Simply provide a link and a brief description of the document.

[Iron Drapes]

20 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

@Iron Drapes, my explicit recommendation to you to improve your post quality is to dump some documents into the Documents Thread, without any commentary. Simply provide a link and a brief description of the document.

 

Noted. I will be sure to follow this guideline to make high quality posts such as this:

 

11 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Ah yes, of course the heavier barrel will be the most accurate one!

 

Time for lead barrels, everyone! Iron Portieres has spoken! I can't wait to see the looks on the soldiers' faces because they have to carry lead barrels around because Iron Accouterments has concluded that weight takes a vital role in the accuracy of a weapon! Iron Shutters, does this also mean that we can make a short lead barreled just as accurate as a long special steel alloyed barrel? Because if that is the case, Steely Toggeries, we can make very short weapons, which is obviously great news! 

 

Everyone, meet Pig Buggeries, our newest weapons expert!

 

[Sturgeon]

5 minutes ago, Iron Drapes said:

 

Noted. I will be sure to follow this guideline to make high quality posts such as this:

 

Bronez has been here a long time, and we know his degree of expertise very well. You have not been here for very long. Should Bronez have been rude? No, probably not. That could be as much my error as his, because without looking at the thread I told him he did not have to be gentle. Regardless, you worry about you. Remember this guideline:
 

Quote

4. Keeping the post quality high here is a group effort. Think of it like a group hike - you don't have to like everyone you're marching with, but if someone stumbles or trips up you pick them up and help them, you don't break your own leg in escalation. Posting here is like that - if someone else, regardless of what you think of them - falters in posting well, do what you can to keep the conversation on track and the posting quality high.

 

[Sturgeon]

Eventually, you'll get the hang of the forum, if you stay long enough. There are both spoken and unspoken lines here, as with any community. I'm telling you - post documents in the documents thread. That is what impresses us here.

[Iron Drapes]

2 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Bronez has been here a long time, and we know his degree of expertise very well.
 

 

I worry.

[Sturgeon]

Just now, Iron Drapes said:

 

I worry.

Well, I doubt you'll find a place on the Internet where people enjoy being corrected as much as SH. But that doesn't mean you don't have to work at it a bit. We'd be fools if we let any random person come in here and yank the facts around.

 

If you know what you're talking about, we'll probably find out with time.

[Iron Drapes]

3 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Well, I doubt you'll find a place on the Internet where people enjoy being corrected as much as SH. But that doesn't mean you don't have to work at it a bit. We'd be fools if we let any random person come in here and yank the facts around.

 

If you know what you're talking about, we'll probably find out with time.

 

Absolutely. I am sure that window lickers like me will fit right in.

[LoooSeR]

   Iron Drapes is right about 2A72 being hilariously inaccurate compared to other 30 mm ACs if it is not supported by some sort of sleeve, i posted photos of BTR-82A with such sleeve, Uran-9 UGV have it, Tigr with 30mm RCWS, Vikhr UGVs have it as well, BMP-3s, Ukrainian APCs and IFVs with Skval RCWS are equipped with it and so on.

   I didn't bothered to watch whole video from competition, but there are problems with scores counting in tank biathlon as well, some teams got additional scores for "hits" that were actually a missies, something is wrong with judging/spotting. And Iron also right about Chinese team using APFSDS rounds during last year TB competition compared to all other teams using HEAT and i will not be surprised to see something similar this year. 

 

[barbaria]

31 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

  I didn't bothered to watch whole video from competition, but there are problems with scores counting in tank biathlon as well, some teams got additional scores for "hits" that were actually a missies, something is wrong with judging/spotting. And Iron also right about Chinese team using APFSDS rounds during last year TB competition compared to all other teams using HEAT and i will not be surprised to see something similar this year. 

 

 

TBH, they all used HEAT training munition last year and also this year. The Chinese HEAT munition doesn't have a tracer though so it looks different. 

 

[LoooSeR]

2 minutes ago, barbaria said:

 

TBH, they all used HEAT training munition last year and also this year. The Chinese HEAT munition doesn't have a tracer though so it looks different. 

 

Marks on targets shows APFSDS rounds were used. I think i even posted screengrabs that showed very well what kind of rounds were used.

[barbaria]

1 minute ago, LoooSeR said:

Marks on targets shows APFSDS rounds were used. I think i even posted screengrabs that showed very well what kind of rounds were used.

 

Last year wasn't 2014. The Chinese did use APFSDS then. On top of that 125 mm HEAT munition have fins just like APFSDS.

[LoooSeR]

2 minutes ago, barbaria said:

 

Last year wasn't 2014. The Chinese did use APFSDS then. On top of that 125 mm HEAT munition have fins just like APFSDS.

China didn't participated in 2014 competition. HEAT caliber is 125 mm, holes were much smaller. I will try to find photos. Chinese team use of APFSDS were pretty widely discussed on russian forums.

 

[barbaria]

2 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

China didn't participated in 2014 competition. HEAT caliber is 125 mm, holes were much smaller. I will try to find photos. Chinese team use of APFSDS were pretty widely discussed on russian forums.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_biathlon#1st_Tank_Biathlon_World_Championship.2C_2014

[LoooSeR]

1 minute ago, barbaria said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_biathlon#1st_Tank_Biathlon_World_Championship.2C_2014

Then my memory failed me with years. 

[LoooSeR]