Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

10 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:

 

nknf9jb7xyk01.png

 

I made these based on diagram and other references:

 

Type90turret_modules.jpg.80ac76e07500cb7

Type90turret_module_volumes.jpg.386c0115

 

Considering it turned out WaifuTrucker is a lying dick, I'm not trusting this one. Especially since it has some of that "oooh look at me typing text and blacking it out im so secret" stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 629
  • 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

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

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

4 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Considering it turned out WaifuTrucker is a lying dick, I'm not trusting this one. Especially since it has some of that "oooh look at me typing text and blacking it out im so secret" stuff.

He made a mistake by believing what was posted without veryifying it. The numbers that were used do not seem to that far removed from the actual value,s making it even more confusing.  This has happened to me too before when i believed this chart to be of CIA origin:

CIA_Abrams_protection_assessment_7.jpg.c

That a lot these values correspond to other estimates and declassified values made it even more convincing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Registering and logging in worked for me. Also Google Translate doesn't work on pictures. :P

Don't worry, I am currently translating my article from Chinese/Japanese to English. I will start a new topic here when I'm done. It is a little hard for non-Chinese native speakers to understand that by only using the translator. (because it contains slang words) :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jagdika said:

Don't worry, I am currently translating my article from Chinese/Japanese to English. I will start a new topic here when I'm done. It is a little hard for non-Chinese native speakers to understand that by only using the translator. (because it contains slang words) :) 

We appreciate you taking the time and effort to translate stuff for us. TY!

 

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

He made a mistake by believing what was posted without veryifying it. The numbers that were used do not seem to that far removed from the actual value,s making it even more confusing.  This has happened to me too before when i believed this chart to be of CIA origin:

CIA_Abrams_protection_assessment_7.jpg.c

That a lot these values correspond to other estimates and declassified values made it even more convincing.

He knew what he was doing, and did it multiple times. Did you not read Jagdika's topic?

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

We appreciate you taking the time and effort to translate stuff for us. TY!

 

 

13 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

Registering and logging in worked for me. Also Google Translate doesn't work on pictures. :P

 

I have finished my translation and started a new topic, you can see it now:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@

Laviduce  Amaizing job! Respect!

 

And now question - polish Leopard 2A4 armour weight is forr turret only 8900kg - gun mantled maks (630kg) = 8270kg no idea including frontplate and backplate or not. 

Are You able to assume ho thick (in mm) shoud be hipotetycial RHA armour at weight 8270kg and volume as You notice for turret?

 

Exept gun mantled mask couse it weight  exatly: 630kg  and volumen is (as You notice)  0,19m3

How thick will be hypotetical RHA plate whit weight 630kg and able to put in gun mantled mask whit volumen 0,19m3???

 

 

 

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

@

Laviduce  Amaizing job! Respect!

 

And now question - polish Leopard 2A4 armour weight is forr turret only 8900kg - gun mantled maks (630kg) = 8270kg no idea including frontplate and backplate or not. 

Are You able to assume ho thick (in mm) shoud be hipotetycial RHA armour at weight 8270kg and volume as You notice for turret?

 

Exept gun mantled mask couse it weight  exatly: 630kg  and volumen is (as You notice)  0,19m3

How thick will be hypotetical RHA plate whit weight 630kg and able to put in gun mantled mask whit volumen 0,19m3???

 

 

 

I will look into this! I will also update my Type 90 volume model.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Militarysta said:

@

Laviduce  Amaizing job! Respect!

 

And now question - polish Leopard 2A4 armour weight is forr turret only 8900kg - gun mantled maks (630kg) = 8270kg no idea including frontplate and backplate or not. 

Are You able to assume ho thick (in mm) shoud be hipotetycial RHA armour at weight 8270kg and volume as You notice for turret?

 

Exept gun mantled mask couse it weight  exatly: 630kg  and volumen is (as You notice)  0,19m3

How thick will be hypotetical RHA plate whit weight 630kg and able to put in gun mantled mask whit volumen 0,19m3???

 

 

 

 

630 kg of steel is only 0.08 m^3, so treating the mantlet as a prism with constant cross-sectional area and 420 mm thickness you get about 180 mm of steel

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

 

630 kg of steel is only 0.08 m^3, so treating the mantlet as a prism with constant cross-sectional area and 420 mm thickness you get about 180 mm of steel

Thanks!   The frontal cross section area of the mantlet is about 0,4 m2 .   I set the density of steel to around 8000 kg/m3. Knowing this, the steel block LOS thickness comes to about 197 mm of steel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

TybL0ixBZbc.jpg

translated by user North_Eleanor

 

turret special armor weight - 1381kg (690kg on each module)

hull special armor weight - 1249kg

Thank you very much for this information. The turret modules seem to be asymmetrical, making one potentially heavier than the other. Anyway, from where did you get this ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Thank you very much for this information. The turret modules seem to be asymmetrical, making one potentially heavier than the other. Anyway, from where did you get this ?

google "90式戦車" and found this

 

https://www.zhihu.com/question/59141011

 

scroll down or try to find this "PS:10式" in text 

 

about "armor modeling", main idea is simple if you get very complex and not optimized( have irregular thickness on welded constructions)shape of armor module then you might be wrong

 

DOud_Cyw-NQ.jpg

 

and btw there is some scheme claimed that hull front - fuel cell, don't know is it BS from modelers, or really Type 90 have this

 

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

google "90式戦車" and found this

 

https://www.zhihu.com/question/59141011

 

scroll down or try to find this "PS:10式" in text 

 

about "armor modeling", main idea is simple if you get very complex and not optimized( have irregular thickness on welded constructions)shape of armor module then you might be wrong

 

DOud_Cyw-NQ.jpg

 

and btw there is some scheme claimed that hull front - fuel cell, don't know is it BS from modelers, or really Type 90 have this

 

This is very confusing. I used this diagram and other digrams to generate the front hull module volume. Here it is being described as a (fuel) tank ?  This is rather confusing

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

google "90式戦車" and found this

 

https://www.zhihu.com/question/59141011

 

scroll down or try to find this "PS:10式" in text 

 

about "armor modeling", main idea is simple if you get very complex and not optimized( have irregular thickness on welded constructions)shape of armor module then you might be wrong

 

DOud_Cyw-NQ.jpg

 

and btw there is some scheme claimed that hull front - fuel cell, don't know is it BS from modelers, or really Type 90 have this

 

This illustration probably came from Japanese magazine Maru special: Tanks of JGSDF(丸 別冊 陸上自衛隊の戦車), which seems to be convincing. 

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

This illustration probably came from Japanese magazine Maru special: Tanks of JGSDF(丸 別冊 陸上自衛隊の戦車), which seems to be convincing. 

Thank you ! But is block A a fuel tank or a special armor block. I treated it as a special armor block(s).

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Thank you ! But is block A a fuel tank or a special armor block. I treated it as a special armor block(s).

There is no way this isn't a fuel tank. Considering its odd shape.

Also, fuel tanks are usually placed in the front because they're a great extra layer of protection.

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...