Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  After 23 days of drinking booze and random disappearing, judges finally picked winners of this competition!

 

   In a 45 ton category we came to the conclusion that a member of this forum, who only recently joined to us, was able to surpass all other contestants with his tank design. He earns a title of The Glorious Tank Autist of SH - comrade @N-L-M!

   His XM-2239 "Norman" tank was chosen by all judges as the best submissions of this competition. His work was fighting with Toxn's heavy tank for a 1st place, and managed to overtake it.

 

tP8DKOD.jpg

 

   @Sturgeon's XM12 "Donward" was disqualified from the competition as it was not fitting into one of basic requirements (width, 3.35 meters without skirts vs 3.25 meters required). 

   @A. T. Mahan's 120mm gun tank T44 also was disqualified for use of armor tech that was out of competition-imposed industrial capabilities limitation (1940-1950s level of tech)

   @ApplesauceBandit's AFVs were also not in a competition as submission was lacking in any stats, so we couldn't understand if vehicle fits into basic requirements. 

 

 

   In 25 ton category a rivalry was stronger as more light tanks proposals managed to get through basic requirements. Judges examined several war vehicles proposed by A.T. Mahan, Sturgeon, NLM, Toxn, and made their choice. The winner of this category is no other than a Supreme Warrior of Napkinpanzers comrade @Toxn!*

 

*vehicle should receive a change in co-axial MG placement, as now it is a danger for driver's head when he is entering/exiting his station or anytime when he have his head outside of the hatch.

 

G6srlLM.jpg

Our Great AFV designer Toxn pictured with tank drivers that his tank is going to kill before modernization programm will be launched to reposition co-axial MG to a safer place.

 

3aWloAa.jpg

Place for a memorial is ready to accept new heroes of SH Tank design bureau.** 

**Not in Kharkov

 

   Winners of this competition now should receive their prizes, after that - locked in their houses and allowed to get out only to work on AFV designs until retirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

  After 23 days of drinking booze and random disappearing, judges finally picked winners of this competition!

 

   In a 45 ton category we came to the conclusion that a member of this forum, who only recently joined to us, was able to surpass all other contestants with his tank design. He earns a title of The Glorious Tank Autist of SH - comrade @N-L-M!

   His XM-2239 "Norman" tank was chosen by all judges as the best submissions of this competition. His work was fighting with Toxn's heavy tank for a 1st place, and managed to overtake it.

 

tP8DKOD.jpg

 

   @Sturgeon's XM12 "Donward" was disqualified from the competition as it was not fitting into one of basic requirements (width, 3.35 meters without skirts vs 3.25 meters required). 

   @A. T. Mahan's 120mm gun tank T44 also was disqualified for use of armor tech that was out of competition-imposed industrial capabilities limitation (1940-1950s level of tech)

   @ApplesauceBandit's AFVs were also not in a competition as submission was lacking in any stats, so we couldn't understand if vehicle fits into basic requirements. 

 

 

   In 25 ton category a rivalry was stronger as more light tanks proposals managed to get through basic requirements. Judges examined several war vehicles proposed by A.T. Mahan, Sturgeon, NLM, Toxn, and made their choice. The winner of this category is no other than a Supreme Warrior of Napkinpanzers comrade @Toxn!*

 

*vehicle should receive a change in co-axial MG placement, as now it is a danger for driver's head when he is entering/exiting his station or anytime when he have his head outside of the hatch.

 

G6srlLM.jpg

Our Great AFV designer Toxn pictured with tank drivers that his tank is going to kill before modernization programm will be launched to reposition co-axial MG to a safer place.

 

3aWloAa.jpg

Place for a memorial is ready to accept new heroes of SH Tank design bureau.** 

**Not in Kharkov

 

   Winners of this competition now should receive their prizes, after that - locked in their houses and allowed to get out only to work on AFV designs until retirement.

I am honoured to accept lifelong house arrest and confinement in the name of designing glorious tanks for our sacred motherland.

 

I will place the coaxial machinegun in a more suitable position where it can wound all crewman equally, so as to enact the egalitarian principles of our supreme state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   So i will do a post about competition as a whole, about submissions, give some advices and cover some other minute things. Will update this particular post with my views of each proposed AFVs. 

 

   In general

   Overal level of submissions was both higher and lower than previous time. Best designs of this competition were more detailed and thought out compared to last time, but we also had a surprising number of proposals that didn't even get through basic requirements, which were more generous than they were before. Several members of this forum who wanted to participate, didn't managed to finish their submissions, sadly. Combination of those 2 factors left judges with a strange situation when only 2.5 tanks designs in 45 ton category were available for actual judging.

   Submissions themselves also varied in quality. Lack of at least basic guidlines is probably one of reasons. Some of them were simply hard to read, others had way too much useless information for judges to go through. In my personal case this isn't really a problem, but we have people who have not much time for going through internet stuff. I will propose few things here. @A. T. Mahan's and @Sturgeon's posts are what i am thinking right now. Writing all text in bold IMO is just a step less obnoxious than writing everything IN CAPS. Writing a War and Peace is not needed for short description of your submissions, either.

   During disussion of vehicles, i also found hard to find specific values that were needed for one or another reason. We need some sort of general layout for submission that will allow for judges to compare designs more... fairly, i guess. Even location of description of features is sometimes confusing when jumping from bookmarks/pages between 3-5 different vehicles. In my case, i managed to miss a feature of gunner optics of @N-L-M Norman.

 

   Improvements for submissions

   First of all i propose to introduce a general layout of submission, that will help to orginize and standartize each entry in this competition, and will help for competitors to better represent their creations. For judges this will allow for easier comparison between entries/submissions. 

 

  Submission (Name, etc)

  1. Short description of what the fuck is this thing and why it have 5 tracks, 3 main guns and rotor blades in the bottom
  2. List or table of stats, matching with list or table of requirements. Will allow you to understand if you fucked up something as basic as size and for judges it will help to see if they need to pay attention to everything below this part of submission
  3. Nice MS Paint pics of your creation
  4. Description of design, general features and some thoughts
  5. List of features, maybe a place for "advanced" requirements stats. Stats should go in this order - Protection Survivability, Armament, FCS, Mobility, etc
  6. Few more pics and detailed stats
  7. Trashbin for everything else, in spoiler.

 

   This should allow for less random or strange crap from happening and generally will help to improve quality of our time spend on competitions.

 

 

   About designs that were eliminated from competition.

   In this contest judges (i was one of 3 judges) threw several vehicles outside of our SH bar because they were too drunk, and left them under cold rain of non-acceptance, drugs and diseased prostitutes. I already posted about this, but some people wanted more details.

 

  • ApplesauceBandit for lack of any stats to work with
  • Sturgeon's Donward was too fat for requirements, even with side skirts removed.
  • A.T. Mahan's T44 was proposed by me to be disqualified based on number of features that will be covered in more details. 

   I want to point out that all i will say here were my thoughts on this subject, other judges could have their own view on a submission.

 

   1) Armor was one of reasons why this vehicle was outside of general level of tech, suggested in a competition.

Quote

Central to our design is the incorporation of highly advanced composite armors...

/.../

we have managed to develop an armor package similar in concept to the BRL-1 and HAP-1 armor packages used on various models of early model pre-war M1 Abrams tanks.

/.../

The Type IIIA, used on the turret face, ......a layer of depleted uranium

/.../

It is worth mentioning that this armor design package more-or-less requires the production of a gaseous-diffusion uranium enrichment cascade and the production of weapons-grade uranium.

   As was discussed several times on different forums depleted uranium is a type of material that is very hard to work on safely. They are problems with it during machining process and other crap which would make it too hard or too costly to produce with 1940-1950s level of industry. Making just M1 Abrams-type armor is directly going against the background/backstory of contest. Simple ERA like Kontakt-1 or Kontakt-5 is ok for me, as those could be produced in given timeframe (they were not produced in 1940s or 50s for other reasons). But if we are going with ceramic-polymer layered armor with DU and similar, all other contestants could start to put MERAs, Active cell T-80U-like armor packages, APS, jammers and so on, on their basic vehicles. This is 100% sure against proposed timeframe quoted by Lost.

 

   2) WTF is happening with a weight of T44?

Quote

In summary, the T44 medium tank meets all of the required design specifications:

  • It is 90,000lb unloaded, and 128,000lb at combat weight.

   So it is 41 metric tons unloaded, and 58 tons loaded. Does this mean that you need to strip 17 tons of equipment from a vehicle in order for it to fit into required weight? Did you know that T-90A weight as much as M4 Sherman?*

 

*if you strip 17 tons from it by removing ammunition, fuel, ERA, turret, autoloader and probably an engine as well.

 

 

   3) This reason was less of a problem from requirements point of view, but cemented my view of this vehicle as Abrams wankery.

Quote

The second powertrain is derived from prewar work on gas turbines.

   Why would anybody even look at gas turbines while having 1950s level of tech? Gas turbines have reason to exist only with level of tech of around 1980s or now, with computerized control. In 1950s nobody had 1000 HP compact gas turbine on a 40-50 tons tank in serviceable condition.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this template idea too.  I already mentioned the main reason for me not bothering to figure out any hard stats (some classes I'm in right now already having a lot of this same sort of work), but seeing how much math and detail everyone else was putting into their submissions at the time was giving me the impression that I'd have to calculate out all sorts of junk if I wanted to have a chance to compete with them.  One of my classes I'm in has me designing some gadget down to the last nut and bolt, so I wasn't exactly feeling too motivated to go do nearly the same thing in my free time too.  I've got little knowledge when it comes to designing cartridges or understanding engines, so going into serious detail about either of those was a worry as well.

 

A lot of those restrictions I felt were self-imposed on my end, but I'd have probably felt more motivated to complete my submission if I had a clearer idea of when the math would stop giving credence to the design and would start becoming mere fluff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had already said that it was evident my decision to do a fake history on this one counted against me. I'm not sure I like this fact (I deliberately chose to do a fake history since I did a fake proposal last time), but it should have been obvious to me ahead of time since LoooSeR was one of the judges. I did include a full spec sheet based on those in Hunnicutt for reference.

 

I'm a little annoyed that the Roach got dropped down the memory hole since it was my primary submission for the 45t requirement. Why was the Roach disqualified, @LoooSeR?

 

And as I've said many times before on the Discord, I didn't expect to win anyway, but it is something of an itch for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

I had already said that it was evident my decision to do a fake history on this one counted against me. I'm not sure I like this fact (I deliberately chose to do a fake history since I did a fake proposal last time), but it should have been obvious to me ahead of time since LoooSeR was one of the judges. I did include a full spec sheet based on those in Hunnicutt for reference.

 

I'm a little annoyed that the Roach got dropped down the memory hole since it was my primary submission for the 45t requirement. Why was the Roach disqualified, @LoooSeR?

 

And as I've said many times before on the Discord, I didn't expect to win anyway, but it is something of an itch for me.

Roach wasn't disqualified. My memory was wrong, it was.

 

Quote

Medium / Heavy Tank

  • Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters)

 

Quote

Width: 3.29 m

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I bet it was. @N-L-M's was a great design, and I knew I couldn't compete. Kinda weird to hear no feedback, though.

As i said, i will update a post above with my reviews of vehicles (Donward was also examined even if it didn't made through requirements). 

 

Quote

Hey @LoooSeR, divide 10.8 by 3.28 for me.

   This is another reason why we need some sort of standart. Width was given in both metrics, you posted stats in metrics and i went with metrics in requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Ah. I thought your post of 7 hours ago was the review. Pardon me.

   I reviewed almost all vehicles, but it usually was done late at nights and only few short notes are left. They need to be rewritten and expanded a lot, don't really want to do this now.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      @Toxn
      @Dominus Dolorem
      @Lord_James
      @A. T. Mahan
      @delete013
      @Sten
      @Xoon
      @Curly_
      @N-L-M
      @Sturgeon
       
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Saturday the 10th of July at 23:59 CST.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.

      PLEASE REMEMBER ALL ENTRIES MUST BE SUBMITTED IN USC ONLY
       
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name
       
      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here]
       
      Table of basic statistics:
      Parameter
      Value
      Mass, combat
       
      Length, combat (transport)
       
      Width, combat (transport)
       
      Height, combat (transport)
       
      Ground Pressure, zero penetration
       
      Estimated Speed
       
      Estimated range
       
      Crew, number (roles)
       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.
      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.
      3.     Transmission - type, arrangement, neat features.
      4.     Fuel - Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.
      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.
      6.     Suspension - Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.
      Survivability:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Link to Appendix 2 - armor array details.
      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks - low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.
      Firepower:
      A.    Weapons:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Main Weapon-
      a.      Type
      b.      Caliber
      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)
      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.
      e.      FCS - relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.
      f.      Neat features.
      3.     Secondary weapon - Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.
      4.     Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached.
      B.    Optics:
      1.     Primary gunsight - type, associated trickery.
      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.
      C.    FCS:
      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.
      2.     Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.
      Fightability:
      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.
      Additonal Features:
      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.
      Free expression zone: Let out a big yeehaw to impress the world with your design swagger! Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.
       
       Example for filling in Appendix 1
       Example for filling in Appendix 2
       Example for filling in Appendix 3

      GOOD LUCK!
    • 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 Toxn
      This is the competition entry thread.
       
      Please submit your complete entries here (all entries will be judged complete when judging begins in the first week of November) and keep the other competition thread for discussion and chatter.
       
      Once judging is complete I will make a post here to discuss the entries and announce a winner.
       
      Best of luck!
       
      Update: final submissions should be in hand by the 22nd of November 2020.
    • 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...