Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 624
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's interesting. Presentation (which contains this page) which available now on ontres.se is 110 pages long about 2-and-a-half years ago i've downloaded on my computer presentation which was 119

Waffentrager YOU FAKE BULLSXXT and FXXK OFF In case you guys here cannot read Japanese: It says "Height of lens assembly is about 380 mm" May be taken from a manual of digital came

I don't think there is a possible explanation, because people are beginning the argument from the wrong direction. People are making assumptions about the protection level, then try to find sources su

Well, Andriej - consider the fact that there is slighty diffrence between trying to keep some way of opspec due to our countries law resons and delibery mayking fake news based on language barrier. This last think makes me angry.

And in term this user it's not the first time -but on other forums (WoT gamers itp)

 

Anyway and back to the topic:

 

Photoshoped or not?

654e80a0b3e61.jpg

 

If not (Im doubt to be honest) we can se IMHO at least 3 NERA plates:

 

c3f8f5d4956f0.jpg

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Guys, it's not over yet. 

080251p0mw55mznh2hglg0.png

And yes, I do have the original file, but for some obvious reasons I add some watermarks. 

 

Waffentrager is doing the same thing as he did on Warthunder forum. 

He is just bluffing with unknown source screenshots or photoshopped fake “documents”.

He deleted every post arguing the pictures' authenticity to make himself “invulnurable”. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm Miller Z from Waffentrager's personal blog as well as Warthunder forum. I once argued about the Japanese WWII Type 5 gun tank with Waffentrager in his blog and because I post out the correct information, not his fake ones, he deleted my replies. For details and more info you guys here can visit this link(post), it's in Chinese but you can still understand what I said with the help of translators or something else, or from the screenshots I gave. Just want every of you here know that this guy is a FAKE, a totally ignorant one.

 

Here is the link:

http://www.zhuangjiacheliang.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=797&extra=page%3D1

If you can't see the pictures in the link above, here is an alternative way. It's the same article I post somewhere else:

https://www.weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404213101531682050

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jagdika said:

I'm Miller Z from Waffentrager's personal blog as well as Warthunder forum. I once argued about the Japanese WWII Type 5 gun tank with Waffentrager in his blog and because I post out the correct information, not his fake ones, he deleted my replies. For details and more info you guys here can visit this link(post), it's in Chinese but you can still understand what I said with the help of translators or something else, or from the screenshots I gave. Just want every of you here know that this guy is a FAKE, a totally ignorant one.

 

Here is the link:

http://www.zhuangjiacheliang.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=797&extra=page%3D1

If you can't see the pictures in the link above, here is an alternative way. It's the same article I post somewhere else:

https://www.weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404213101531682050

Welcome to SH. We look forward to your fact based clubbing of one of our older members. That's just how we roll. And if you don't back your attitude with facts?  That generally doesn't work out so well.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9.03.2018 at 10:46 AM, SH_MM said:

 

 

Methos, can You confirm (or not) is this really 2AV armour (hull)?

 

(right - polish smile NERA, left - pretend to be some german erly NERA armour)

a05792aac974c.png

 

 

Thickness added by some otvaga user:
eeb12663390c5.jpg

 

Well firstly I was tniking it have no sense, but if we assume that 2AV indeed have max 300mm RHA at front then this layout have sense -

circa 190mm RHA + NERA + fuel tank (as I understand) after front armour.

 

 

 

 

Hull 2AV:
5e6ca8bc3b4f9.jpg


194bcaf75ead5.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and one more think - I have heard that M1IP and M1A1 armour could be just NERA like in M1 but after that placed SiC bricks whit steel sheets - just to incarase protection mostly against KE. Meybye stupid rumors, meybe not.

This cermics-steel armour pretend to be only in turret and hull front placed AFTER NERA layers. AL something something tiles or corundium bricks.

Somethink like this:

rR7CLI4.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Belesarius said:

Welcome to SH. We look forward to your fact based clubbing of one of our older members. That's just how we roll. And if you don't back your attitude with facts?  That generally doesn't work out so well.

 

Thank you for your warm-hearted welcome! I am actually planning to post some articles regarding some older (IJA) Japanese tanks on the forum, I will always use the original and official archives. I hate cheaters and liars as much as you do :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Laviduce said:

Guys do think this diagram  is still a  legitimate estimate of the location of the turret composite modules of the Type 90 MBT:

 

Talk about Type90, i got some information from Chinese document which mention about the armor composite used on Type88 which is the prototype for Type90 recently. Not sure the exact truth but i would like to share.

fULE9sy.png

“Japanese Type88 tank's turret and hull composite armor were trying to use different ceramic material (Alumina、Silicon oxide or Silicon carbide ceramic cut in rectangle or hexagon),each layer using binder to bonded together. The protection of this armor can reach up equal to 400mm thick of armour steel (BK) and is capable of defeat 120mm high density KE projectile (muzzle velocity>1600m/s) fired from 200meters at 0 degree, and also capable to protect against the 120mm HEAT shell which capable of penetrating 600mm of armor.  Besides, there are many of different type of armor plate, the use of ceramic material and it's ability of protection giving the armor research development a new direction”

 

IZULarS.jpg

image10  Type88 tank's spaced (composite) armor structure.

陶瓷板=Ceramic plate    毫米=mm

 

Other than this,japan seems are developing some kind of Kevlar composite

tD2JKM2.png

It says:"Japan is currently develop a Kevlar fiber with Titanium alloy or aluminum structured multi-layer composite armor "

 

Of course those are just for the prototype of type90, but we can try guessing the armor from this 

 

source:

<<间隔(复合)装甲——现代坦克的主要装甲结构>>(1982)      (Composite armor--the main structure of the armor for modern MBT) (1982)

<<国外复合装甲中非金属材料的应用和研究概况>>(1983)      (Summarize of the use and research of non-metallic material in foreign composite armor)(1983)

 

ft. Akula_941

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2.3.2018 at 4:30 PM, Militarysta said:

Thanks to Paweł Przeździecki (Przebzdziello on  TnakNet)

 

a few pages later on the same report:

gXAIUVr.jpg

 

pasted%20image%200%20(1)_245dae4de9cdb8c

 

pasted%20image%200%20(3)_fa17bc45fbcd767

 

The British had some odd ideas about main battle tanks, although they wanted their MBT-80 to be more advanced in some aspects than the Challenger 2 currently operated by the British army...

  1. The lack of an indendepent sight for the commander was disliked
  2. The laser rangefinder of the M1 Abrams was incompatible with the thermal imager (?)
  3. For some reason the British military thought it was a bad idea to integrate daysight and thermal imager into a unitary optic
  4. The M1's fire control system resulted in a low hit probability (confirmed by statemens from US and German sources regarding the comparative trials of XM1 & Leopard 2AV)
  5. The armor of the M1 Abrams could be penetrated at ranges of 4,000 m by the 125 mm gun according to British estimates
  6. Storing ammo below the turret ring is/was seen as better than having a separated ammunition compartment at the rear of the turret because some US test proved that it might not always work with 105 mm ammo and wasn't tested with 120 mm; also the blast door needs to be open for reloading (silly complaint)
  7. Leopard 2's protection was "imbalanced" (sounds like the same complaint of the US military - too little side armor) and insufficient to stop a 125 mm APFSDS round (est. penetration 445 to 460 mm steel at 1,000 m according to the document)
  8. Shir 2 (that became the Challenger 1) was too heavy and also underpowered
  9. British believed it was impossible to modify XM1 Abrams' armor to stop 125 mm APFSDS ammo

 

10 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

 

Methos, can You confirm (or not) is this really 2AV armour (hull)?

 

(right - polish smile NERA, left - pretend to be some german erly NERA armour)

a05792aac974c.png

 

 

Thickness added by some otvaga user:
eeb12663390c5.jpg

 

Well firstly I was tniking it have no sense, but if we assume that 2AV indeed have max 300mm RHA at front then this layout have sense -

circa 190mm RHA + NERA + fuel tank (as I understand) after front armour.

 

Hull 2AV:
5e6ca8bc3b4f9.jpg


194bcaf75ead5.jpg

 

 

The drawing is from a 1975 patent by Krauss-Maffei. At this time the Leopard 2AV was being designeed. The patent topic are different ways to mount special armor in a main battle tank in order to allow replacing damaged armor modules, allow easier upgrading and allowing to completely remove the armor modules (which Krauss-Maffei suggested for traveling during peace time).

 

The patent suggest three ways of mounting armor:

  1. mounting armor plates using screws (as done on the M1 Abrams)
  2. using armor elements that fit into a cavity and together (like the Z-shaped ones) without any sort of additional attachment
  3. putting the armor elements into "cages" or "boxes" with rubber-lined edges. The rubber-lined "cages" then are inserted with pressure into the cavities

T3rjrsV.png

The patent menions that the Z-shaped layout would provide most protection but also requires most space. It is not mentioned what the armor elements are made of (only that they ideally use metal to allow easier mounting). As far as I understand all these drawings are placeholders and do not represent actual tanks or actual armor arrays.

 

We know that all fully-assembled Leopard 2AV prototypes in the United States did not include special armor, only weight demonstrators. The special armor was send as armor modules for ballistic testing, which were only connected to a mock-up hull and turret. If they had already decided how this special armor would be mounted or not is unknown to me.

 

IMO the most likely variant is the upper one (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8), i.e. the armor is mounted in boxes or cages. This would explain the box-shaped turret, makes replacing armor easier and fits to the drawings from Sweden. However I think that the actual armor might look closer to the Z-shaped arrangement form Fig. 5 (there is no reason why it should be impossible to mount the Z-shaped armor elements at different angles in a cage/box). The method using bolts seems to be the least likely, because the bolts would be visible from the outside, but only the smaller bolts holding the cover plate are visible on the Leopard 2AV and early batch Leopard 2 tanks - if the bolts were used, the coverplate would look like this:

JT8xdpr.png

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jagdika said:

I'm Miller Z from Waffentrager's personal blog as well as Warthunder forum. I once argued about the Japanese WWII Type 5 gun tank with Waffentrager in his blog and because I post out the correct information, not his fake ones, he deleted my replies. For details and more info you guys here can visit this link(post), it's in Chinese but you can still understand what I said with the help of translators or something else, or from the screenshots I gave. Just want every of you here know that this guy is a FAKE, a totally ignorant one.

 

Here is the link:

http://www.zhuangjiacheliang.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=797&extra=page%3D1

If you can't see the pictures in the link above, here is an alternative way. It's the same article I post somewhere else:

https://www.weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404213101531682050

Interesting. Are you talking about this?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jagdika said:

I'm Miller Z from Waffentrager's personal blog as well as Warthunder forum. I once argued about the Japanese WWII Type 5 gun tank with Waffentrager in his blog and because I post out the correct information, not his fake ones, he deleted my replies. For details and more info you guys here can visit this link(post), it's in Chinese but you can still understand what I said with the help of translators or something else, or from the screenshots I gave. Just want every of you here know that this guy is a FAKE, a totally ignorant one.

 

Here is the link:

http://www.zhuangjiacheliang.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=797&extra=page%3D1

If you can't see the pictures in the link above, here is an alternative way. It's the same article I post somewhere else:

https://www.weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404213101531682050

I can't see the pictures in either of those links, but I did register at the forum, maybe that helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Monochromelody
      70 years ago, January the 2nd, 1951. To the North of Seoul, in the mountains and hills near Go-yang-tong(高阳洞), British 1RUR dug in and fought against advancing PVA forces. 1RUR got a task force called Cooperforce to support, this is a tank unit from Royal Tank Regiment and Royal Artillery, equipped with Cromwell tanks. 
      When Matthrew Ridgeway assigned the order of withdraw in this afternoon, the US force covering British force's left flank quickly escaped from their sector, leaving the British were completed unawared and uncovered. 
      When the night falls, was cold and dark in the valley. 1RUR had to withdraw in the darkness. All of a sudden, a US spotter aircraft flew over the valley, drop some illumination flares upon the retreating convoy. 
      Fierce battle broke out when flares fall down, PVA firing from all directions, the cold valley became deadly kill zone. Some PVA soldiers put away their rifles, assaulting with hand grenades, satchel charges and Bangalore torpedoes. They even set up mortars on the hill, laying shells with direct fire. 
      200 British soldiers and artillerymen were killed or captured in one night. 1RUR's Battalion Commander Tony Blake was believed KIA. Cooperforce was completely knocked out, all 12 tanks were destroyed or captured by light infantry. Leader Ashley Cooper were also killed. 


    • By Zadlo
      I'm interested how good K21 would be as a torch in engagements against North Korean armour with such a lot composites in a structure.
       

    • By delfosisyu
      SH_MM once uploaed this piece of image on this thread
      and I want to know where this is from.
       
       
       
       
       
      Is there anyone who can tell me the name of the book?
       
       

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).

×
×
  • Create New...