Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Tank “document” misleading


Recommended Posts

 

各位最近可能在WT论坛上见过这张图片,在一些争论陆上自卫队90式战车的讨论串里:

Some of you may have seen this pic recently on WT forum, in some thread arguing the protection of JGSDF Type 90: 

Discussion on WT forum

 

010421pbbjbpwk55f6jc54.jpg

 

我就直说吧,表格里的中文注解说了,这不过是个“猜想”,GUESSING。

To be straight, the Chinese annotation in the table said it is just a GUESSING.

注解内容可能完全是编造的,但不幸的是,不同语言间的障碍使你们无法看穿这点。

This annotation could be totally nonsense but unfortunately a barrier between languages prevent you guys see throught it. 

 

实际上,这又是一份关于陆上自卫队10式战车的文件,说的并不是90式。

In fact, again, this document itself is about JGSDF Type 10 MBT, not Type 90.

同样的花招,不一样的人,是吧?

Same trick, different people, huh?

010419iujyjj0hzh0j499z.png

↑陆上自卫队的10式战车规格书

JGSDF specification handbook of Type 10 MBT

010420q1vtmltnmqstpggt.png

↑59页,附录B,性能(规定)以及诸元

page 59, Appendix B, performance (regulations) and data

 

下面简要说说这些性能规定如何编写、如何加密。

Let's talk about these regulations and how they were made and encrypted. 

 

大家可能知道日语中有平假名和片假名,和拉丁语中的字母还有大写字母是差不多的。

You may know that Japanese have Hirakana and Katakana, like Latin have letters and capital letters. 

 

正如图中所示,一些最关键的数值和描述用平假名、片假名、罗马字(拉丁字母)隐去了。

As you can see, some of the most crucial numbers and descriptions are covered by a Hirakana or Katakana or Romaji(Latin letters).

 

这些数值和描述被归在一起,编入附属的手册,称为“别册”。

These numbers and descriptions were collected and listed in some append book, called Bessatsu(別冊). 

 

在查阅别册时,就好比在看试卷的答题卡。但如果把别册里面的数值和描述涂黑,你就根本不知道说啥。

When you look up to the append book, just like viewing the answer sheet of an exam paper. But when numbers and descriptions were censored, you'll never know what it said. 

 

比如说,正面防护:

For example, the frontal protection: 

 

“耐弾性 - 正面 - 正面要部は、【あ】に射距離【え】m相当存速において、貫徹されない。”

 

读起来是这样的:

耐弹性 - 正面 - 正面重要部位可抵御【あ】以相当于射击距离【え】米存速的射击,不会贯穿。

It read like this: 

Protection - Frontal - Frontal crucial part should withstand 【あ】 firing at a distance of 【え】meter speed reduce equivalent, and not penetrate. 

 

【あ】代表某种弹药,可能是尾翼稳定穿甲弹,但不知道是量产弹种还是实验弹种。

【あ】stands for certain type of ammunition, probably APFSDS, but don't know whether it is production shot or experimental.

 

【え】代表某个射击距离,可以是1000、1500或2000(米),但这么远的距离,炮弹会受到风力和重力影响,故无法精确瞄准靶车的防护区域。

【え】stands for certain firing distance, could be 1000 , 1500 or 2000 (meters), but on such a long distance, shot could be effect by wind and gravity, thus cannot aim on the protection area of target vehicle precisely.

 

一个常见的解决方式是在更近的距离上开火,比如说200到550米,同时减少推进药量,使得穿甲弹的终点速度符合特定距离的速降。这是一种等效方法。

The usual solution is to fire from a much closer range, from 200 to 550 meters, while reducing the propellant charge so that the end speed of AP shot could match the speed drop on certain distance. This is an equivalant method. 

 

有的人争辩说90式战车可以抵挡另一辆90式战车发射的穿甲弹(JM33),距离大约250米。这一说法源自一段未知视频片段,具体什么视频他们自己也没看过。较近的射击距离是为了能更好的瞄准,为此可能使用了减装药来模拟远距离终点速度,但也无法证明。

Some people argue that Type 90 MBT can withstand AP shot (JM33) firing from another Type 90 MBT, on a distance about 250 meters. The source of this statement came from an unknown video clip, which they have never seen. Firing on closer range is for better aim, and they could have use reduced charge to simulate a much longer range, but we cannot prove. 

 

 

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 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 Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
       
       
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
       
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.
    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      Does anyone know of any military studies that analyzed the reload speeds for different tanks? The question occurred to me when I watched this video tour of the T-55's interior: 
       
      https://youtu.be/TEDhB9evPvw
       
      At the 10:00 mark, Mr. Moran demonstrates how the loader would put a shell into the tank's cannon, and the effects of the turret's small size and of the loader's awkward seating make it clear that the process would be slow. My question is: how slow? 
       
      Side question: Am I right to assume that storing the tank shells all over the inside of the turret like that is an inherent design flaw of the T-55 that makes it inferior in that regard to modern tanks? 
       
      Thanks in advance. 
    • By Collimatrix
      Sturgeon's House started with a community of people who played tank games.  At the time, most of us were playing World of Tanks, but I think there were a few Warthunder and even Steel Beasts players mixed in there too.  After nearly five years, we must be doing something right because we're still here, and because we've somehow picked up a number of members who work with, or have worked with tanks in real life.

      I know that @AssaultPlazma served as an Abrams loader, @Merc 321 and @Meplat have helped maintain and restore privately-owned armor, and @Xlucine has volunteered in a tank museum.  I'm sure I'm missing several more!

      So, what are your favorite personal tank stories?
×
×
  • Create New...