Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

What did the big bad Russians do to you anyway?

 

 

I live in Russia, asshole. I do know what Russian propaganda is, while rednecks like you don't.

 

Quote

Is it wrong?

 

Yes, it's wrong, because this myth is spread by people who know nothing about this tank. I'd rather ask them where did they read about problems with aiming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Something interesting about Merkava III's armor protection(in Chinese): Some of these images are come from Chinese course book《装甲防护技术基础》(The basic technology of armor protection), and others are

Couple more of the Mk.3-based Ofek    

7 minutes ago, VPZ said:

asshole
while rednecks like you 

You are quickly getting closer to getting out of here, stalker. Переходить на личности тут очень не любят.

 

7 minutes ago, VPZ said:

I live in Russia, asshole. I do know what Russian propaganda is

   Great, now please show us who/which one of them are spreading those myths in English part of internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LoooSeR said:

   Great, now please show us who/which one of them are spreading those myths in English part of internet.

 

I know that this myth appeared in Russian internet several years ago. This youtuber said nothing new, he just repeated what he had read on some forum, probably AW, or any other military forum popular among Russians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

I know that this myth appeared in Russian internet several years ago. This youtuber said nothing new, he just repeated what he had read on some forum, probably AW, or any other military forum popular among Russians.

Source. Who are those Russian propaganda who spreads those myths in English part of internet? And about forums, you know that idiots exist everywhere?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Source. Who are those Russian propaganda who spreads those myths in English part of internet?

 

There was an article, that was discussed on russian forums. Maybe it was from topwar. It's hard to remember now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

There was an article, that was discussed on russian forums. Maybe it was from topwar. It's hard to remember now.

   So Russian propaganda spreading those myths on English part of Internet through some military-related Russian language site where random people can post their articles? Great, who here ever heard of topwar? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LoooSeR said:

   So Russian propaganda spreading those myths on English part of Internet through some military-related Russian language site where random people can post their articles? Great, who here ever heard of topwar? 

 

Those Russian, who participate in discussions on English forums. Is it really so hard to understand? 

 

BTW, this article is much older than I thought:

https://topwar.ru/29321-konstruktivnye-uyazvimosti-osnovnoy-boevoy-mashiny-aoi-merkava-mk4.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

Those Russian, who participate in discussions on English forums. Is it really so hard to understand? 

 

BTW, this article is much older than I thought:

https://topwar.ru/29321-konstruktivnye-uyazvimosti-osnovnoy-boevoy-mashiny-aoi-merkava-mk4.html

   You understand how dumb this whole thing sounds? Some badly informed Russians that saw a random article on random military-related site in Runet in 2013, posted somewhere in English forums a nuanced myth about Merkava and all this is a part of.... Russian propaganda?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   You understand how dumb this whole thing sounds? Some badly informed Russians that saw a random article on random military-related site in Runet in 2013 posted somewhere in English forums anuanced myth about Merkava and all this is a part of.... Russian propaganda?

 

That's how Internet works - reposting. BTW, why a hell should I know where did he read it? Just ask him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

I know that this myth appeared in Russian internet several years ago. This youtuber said nothing new, he just repeated what he had read on some forum, probably AW, or any other military forum popular among Russians.

This mythe is simply a basic of armoured vehicle design you have to take into account. 

When Tal introduced the Mk3 around May 1989, it was a part of the discussion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Serge said:

This mythe is simply a basic of armoured vehicle design you have to take into account. 

When Tal introduced the Mk3 around May 1989, it was a part of the discussion. 

 

Yes. And there are many vehicles with frontal engine. Do all of them have problems with aiming?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:
3 hours ago, MRose said:

 

There's been some stuff published on the subject. I'd imagine Hezbollah would be very interested in the conflict in Ukraine, although Russia used a lot of techniques derived from the Israelis.

   That article is garbage. There are far more instanses of Russian military cooperating with Liwa Al-Quds during past few months than with Lebanon Islamic Resistance in 4 years. Liwa Al-Quds didn't suddenly became much better than they were. Hell, PMC training probably did more positive for their training than Russian Army "support" ever did. 5th assault corps was made out of garbage left from Soviet times like T-62Ms and similar crap like tin-can BMPs in ATGM-filled enviroment of Syrian war.

   In short Russian Army showed very little commitment to train or equip troops that we were supporting in Syria.

   On top of that Islamic Resistance had very few operations where both Russian and their side even participated in the same time with 2 of them comming to my mind now - Battle for Aleppo and push to Deir EzZor.

   On top of that i don't know what we can give to Islamic Resistance training wise, as Russian Army ground troops are not exactly super-well trained or more experienced.

   Also, our side showed more will to help to Israeli side in Syria than Iran or Islamic Resistance (airstrikes, story about Russian SFs searching body of dead Israeli, etc).

 

All I'm saying is that Hezbollah is the by far more competent regime troops and the Russians aren't exactly bringing plentiful manpower. I'd imagine Hezbollah has learned how to make better use of combined arms operations. Remember the drone that had to be shot down with a patriot missile. Didn't a lot of the guys in Syria, also serve in Ukraine?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

Yes. And there are many vehicles with frontal engine. Do all of them have problems with aiming?

Yes. 

And they have other problems such as :

- complexe cooling (big problem for the SPz-Puma),

- bad field of view for driver. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Is the assertion that hot air would interfere with a thermal sight (hello emissivity) or that distortions in light caused by hot air would interfere with the sights, be they thermal or day?

Do you asking about the driver field of view ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MRose said:

 

All I'm saying is that Hezbollah is the by far more competent regime troops and the Russians aren't exactly bringing plentiful manpower. I'd imagine Hezbollah has learned how to make better use of combined arms operations. Remember the drone that had to be shot down with a patriot missile. Didn't a lot of the guys in Syria, also serve in Ukraine?

 

   This discussion should be moved here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, N-L-M said:

2 has a new powertrain with the Renk RK304 transmission, which necessitated changing the entire engine deck area, exhaust routed into the coolant air exhaust manifold, as well as turret changes like the mortar and special armor slapped on.

The drivetrain of the 2 is closer to that of the 3 than it is to the 1.

This point is interesting. 

So, do you regard Mk-1 and 2 as both different generations of the Merkava program or do you think they are the same generation ? In this case, the Mk-1 is the first batch and the Mk-2 is the first standard generation of Merkava tanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Being high and to one side interfering with a drivers view is a bit intuitive.

The main problem here is the minimum distance you need to see the ground. 

At hight speed on an open ground, it’s not tricky. But, when driving on narrow tracks, it’s better to see the ground very close to the front of the chassis. 

So, when considering the position of the driver, designers try to place the driver as much as the front as possible. 

With the front engine configuration, you have the transmission wich move the driver backward. This is not good. 

To compensate, they are force to raise its position or to work on the slope of the UFP and so, to lower the front protection. 

For exemple, with the Leclerc MBT, we are very satisfied considering this point.

 

An other point to take into account is how easy it’s to use a doser blade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VPZ said:

I live in Russia, asshole. I do know what Russian propaganda is, while rednecks like you don't.

Hoo boy that's a lot of implied implications in one line. 

One at a time:

-You living in Russia means you have a special sense for Russian propaganda.

-I do not know what Russian propaganda is

-I am a redneck

-Rednecks do not know what Russian propaganda is

 

Despite half of that being flat out wrong, it's mildly amusing that your only response is that you're russian, and not actually anything of content or value.

Also flattery will get you nowhere.

 

1 hour ago, VPZ said:

Yes, it's wrong, because this myth is spread by people who know nothing about this tank. I'd rather ask them where did they read about problems with aiming.

 

And here we have:

-It's wrong

-it's a myth

-the people spreading this claim know nothing about the tank

-the above is the reason for it being wrong

So, ignoring for a moment the whole stopped clock business (idiots saying something right doesn't automatically make it wrong), do you have any basis for your claim that people discussing it know nothing about the tank? Cause you sure seem to have a high opinion of your own knowledge of the vehicle.

 

Also for the record, I do not believe there would be a problem firing within the frontal arc, what with the way the Merk throws the hot air back and to the side. But the hull itself is highly likely to light up for all to see IMO.

 

1 hour ago, VPZ said:

appeared in Russian internet several years ago

I note we jumped from "Russian propaganda" to "Russian media" to "randos on Russian forums".

As an aside, it was an issue raised in Western defense publications at leadt as far back as the Mark 3s introduction if not the Mark 2s. It is a potential issue that many have spotted. IIRC it was also discussed to death on the Steel Beasts forums, for what it's worth.

 

None of this however smells of propaganda, as much as it does of idle speculation. Crying propaganda is not good for your health or credibility.

2 hours ago, VPZ said:

That does appear to be a base for most of the shitty assumptions and numbers in the vid in question, good catch.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Serge said:

So, do you regard Mk-1 and 2 as both different generations of the Merkava program or do you think they are the same generation ?

The 2 is what the 1 always should have been IMO. Based on what @Walter_Sobchakhad to say about it, the reason the Merk 1 had the CD850 was that Allison were being shitters and not cooperating with Continental on newer better transmissions for tanks at the time, and the Izzys had to then go to Renk for assistance.

The Merk 2 also benefits from being a few years later and incorporating some lessons learned from the fielding of the Merk 1 (both field trials and combat), but on the whole the 2 is the M1IP to the Merk 1's M1. (And in this analogy the Merk 3 is the M1A1, the Merk 3 Baz is the M1A1 AIM and the Merk 4 is the M1A2 with the Barak being the M1A2C, but this whole analogy is a bit of a stretch).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

If you actually bother to look at how the Merks 1-3 and the AVDS-1790 are put together....

If you actually bothered to read anything, or watch the video, you'd know the debate is specifically about the Mark 4. So right off the bat you've allegedly started a debate with the following:

  1. An insult with no logical addition to the debate.
  2. An offtopic debate.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 The Merk 4 also what looks like layered sponsons around the exhaust grate, which the 3 lacks; so that area too should be better off than it was. These tanks however also have solid steel hulls, which the engine can and does heat up through its mounting points (as you need pretty solid mounting points to hold down a 1000+HP diesel), and the hull extends forwards to the nose (and to the non-modular sponsons on the Merk 3), giving a large area in the front radiating away. It should also be noted that transmissions produce non-negligible quantities of waste heat, as do the brakes (torque converters too, yay viscous fluid shear), for obvious reasons; more so that the engine if you're doing anything other than standing still. And having those stacked right up close against the steel hull is asking for it to heat up.

 

I don't remember seeing any thermal view of the Merkava 4 online. 

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

Regarding the pic you posted, there's a certain component that deserves some attention there. Specifically, the tires on the roadwheels. You may note, that they are white and therefore cold. Now, what do we know about roadwheels on tanks?

So by the fact that the wheels are cold, we know that the Merk you posted has not been moving, and indeed one cannot tell how long the engine has been running; nor can the LFP, which is by all accounts part of the steel hull, be seen. Using a photo such as that to demonstrate the effect of the engine on the thermal signature is disingenuous at best.

 

True, but the grate is hot, which wouldn't really make sense as when idling, the tank uses an APU instead of the engine. But we can't just assume they used the APU, so that begs the question - even though it's idling, shouldn't at least SOME heat be radiated from the front?

As I've said, I don't have any other available thermal image of the Merkava 4. But we can see here that there is no heat emitted from the UFP at least.

As soon as we get more footage, then we can properly debate this.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

The LFP is a thing on the Merk 4 too, you know; and considering how the rest of your treatment of this point is "I'd rather have a damaged engine", you're effectively trying to squirrel out of the fact that yes, the engine on the Merk is more vulnerable than it is on MBTs.

 

The point of that argument was that it makes no sense to list it as a downside, or a problem, in the Merkava. Of course the engine is more vulnerable, but it is at least going to result in a mobility kill while otherwise it would be a mission kill.

The LFP is indeed a weak spot, as a penetration of roughly 50% of its area can result in substantial damage to the transmission, but statistically it's not considered vulnerable enough to be prioritized for additional armor compared with areas like the belly, sides, or top.

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Not if said conventional design had, y'know, armor there, like, I dunno, the Abrams or Leo 2.

 

You're assuming the Merkava 4 has no armor on the front, an assertion that is objectively incorrect considering the vast evidence presented in this very thread. If you wish, I could link these photos again.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Again, do you have a single fact or source to back that opinion up?

 

I thought the consensus here was that engines and associated components are made of materials that are too light to make any substantial addition to protection against KEPs. I just rolled with that consensus, as it was explained by members more knowledgeable than me. I believe it was Bronez who explained it, though I don't remember entirely.

Why are you keen on breaking that consensus? And why are you not offering any information to dispute it?

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

And, as usual, you are ignoring a much more vital component than the engine, care to guess what it is and why?

 

The transmission that is more dense?

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

In actual competently designed tanks post-1973 there are no fuel tanks in the crew compartment (excluding derivative designs which inherited them), so that's a bit of a moot point. Most modern tanks keep the fuel in the engine bay and/or the sponsons, and not in the front of the hull where armor belongs.

 

So the Abrams keeping fuel tanks around the driver is a sign of an incompetently designed tank?

The point also wasn't that any tank keeps fuel tanks with a potential to leak into the crew compartment. It was to ridicule the maker of that video.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

I find that hard to believe, you wouldn't happen to have a source for that would you?

Cause if we take that at face value, that would make the Merk the first tank designed without armor compromises since what, 1916?

Also the multiple generations of modules and sideskirts spotted on Merks suggests that that is not actually the case.

Of course another point that both you and Red missed is that tank armor is designed to meet a reference threat. What that threat is is a different question, but considering how Egypt, Jordan and Syria all operate tanks which fling APFSDS and which the Merk 4 is at least notionally supposed to be able to go up against and win, the idea that its armor doesn't at least do something against KE is laughable, to say the least. What the CE threat is is also an open question. Red also clearly doesn't get how "special" armors work against CE.

 

The sources you're repeatedly asking me for, are a few articles written over 15 years ago. I've only read them a few times, so my memory is not the best. 

Now that I've found the articles, I'd like to make a correction - they overcame certain "basic" compromises or limitations, but these are irrelevant to this topic.

So if you were trying to argue about absolute values in an inherently relativistic statement, then you've absolutely won that one.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Again, fact to back that up? Cause without a source, that's just meaningless handwaving.

Cause even with the most modern turret modules seen on the Merk 4m, there doesn't seem to be any burster plate to prevent the blast from an ATGM disassembling the armor inside, the way we've all seen the pictures of it happening from 2006. If the declasified Brit Burlington docs are anything to go by, NERA arrays have trash multi-hit ability without burster plates, and there's no reason to believe the Izzys have some super duper sekrit sauce nobody else does to solve this problem.

 

The article about the Mark 4B having upgraded armor is very old. Not 15 years old, but old enough to get lost, and Yad La Shiryon didn't document it and save it like it did with the older articles you've asked me to link here.

However, since the only time we've seen the internals of the Merkava's armor was in 2006, and the upgrade came in response to that, we can't know for sure what the armor modules contain now. But since the context given was exactly the vulnerability of the armor to repeated hits, I assume a burster plate addition is a possible upgrade.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

That's a very strong statement to throw around unsubstantiated. You wouldn't happen to have anything resembling a source to support this claim would you? Official claims that this is indeed the case? Product page on one of IMI's websites that claims this gun ever existed? pictures of a testbed with the gun?

 

Not entirely sure about the source of this image:

2wrkz13.jpg

 

But basically Switzerland and IMI cooperated on the project, with Switzerland developing the gun, and IMI developing the APFSDS round. IMI was a government-owned company back then, and only took part in projects that would directly benefit the IDF.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

For reference, L/55 guns have a whole host of problems accompanying them, including balance issues, elevating mass and inertia, recoil impulse and length (same problem faced with more energetic ammo in L/44 guns), and so on. As part of the upgrade to the L/55 in the Leo (part of the A5 upgrade pack), the gun drives were replaced and the entire mantlet area redesigned -the newer mantlet is much narrower, and the gap is filled by armor boxes attached to the fixed turret structure, most likely to reduce the elevating mass and restore margins.

L/55 guns are enough of a headache that the US seems to have decided to not go that route because of the problems the testbeds had with them. Handwaving away integration issues like this as "no biggie" is being deliberately ignorant.

 

Yes, I am aware of the implications of introducing a larger gun to a tank. Is there anything NEW you'd like to add? Because you really need to stop speaking in absolutes all the time.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

We've already been over the whole thermals business and that picture, but what I don't get is even if we assume you are correct and the Trophy antennae are a stronger radiator in the relevant wavelengths*, how is this greatly increased thermal signature a point in favor of the Merk?

 

It's not a point in favor. It shows that at one point he takes issue with a side effect of the design that impacts its survivability by a certain margin, and then proceeds to talk about the Trophy so eagerly despite its radars actually being, in many cases, substantially more impactful in that regard.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

A. You are aware that the wonders of modular armor mean that armor packages can be changed mid-batch, and that therefore doesn't make it a 4a/4b difference.

B. If you think minor changes like that (and whatever internal changes to the armor module it covers) are enough to prevent the blast from a warhead shrekking the armor after a hit you're somewhere between deluded and hopeless.

 

An Mk 4B doesn't really technically exist. It's just a conglomeration of different upgrades implemented simultaneously around 2011-2012.

If you're so eager to find a source on this, I promise I will do some digging among the 50+ issues of the very long Shiryon magazine, but I can't promise much, and it certainly doesn't help that you once again choose to insult me to mask an inability to maintain a proper debate. 

 

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
      IDF had kept about 100 Tiran-6/T-62s since 1973, and remain service until 1990s. 
       
      I wonder if there's any modification on Tiran-6, like changing the powerpack into 8V71T+XTG-411, adapting steering wheel. 
       
      I also heard that British ROF had produce a batch of 115mm barrel for IDF, while MECAR or NEXTER produced high-performance APFSDS for 115mm gun. Did IDF really use these barrels for original barrel replacement? 
       
      And about protection, did IDF put Blazer ERA on Tiran-6? Or they use more advanced APS like Trophy? 
       
      Thank you. 
    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • 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).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       

×
×
  • Create New...