Jump to content

Damian90

Member
  • Content Count

    1032
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Everything posted by Damian90

  1. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    M1 AA was a real proposal, but was never builded.
  2. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    ACV will be choosen this year. Stryker MSL is now undergoing tests. Bradley AA is under review for potential modifications. K30 was recently tested by US Army. MML also undergoes tests. Here is video showing Stryker MSL and K30 Biho tested at White Sands. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tnmOXMDKg2g Among many other new developments, like new 155mm artillery, and upgrades for armored vehicles. New AFV's are also under development. And there is much more, not covered by the media, but shhhhh. ;)
  3. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    But there are declassified docs, and easy to find too. ;) But eot.
  4. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Sure, unfortunetaly, development cycle is always long and painfull, so as always no promises. ;)
  5. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    What i speak about are real world US military programs... Not RHS plans.
  6. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    You are very wrong, but then again why i should talk about things i know...
  7. Damian90

    RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

    Actually US Army is rebuilding its anti-air defence capabilities. For example new air defence variant of Bradley is in development, or new Stryker MSL, as well as improved Avenger that can be mounted on JLTV. And there is much more, like the new MML launcher as well as new upgrades to Patriot system, altough these two are not a SHORAD solutions per se, MML is something between Avenger, Bradley AA and Stryker MSL and Patriot system. USMC might get their improved Avenger on JLTV and perhaps Stryker MSL equivalent based on their new ACV 1.1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M1sPfIWe0hI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HWmz45KRjI0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DG745FM7CFA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3buvu4hK8oU US Army is also interested in turret and armament of of south korean K30 Biho. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tlURopG665Y So there is a lot of interesting development in US ground forces air defence in recent time.
  8. Damian90

    Vehicle Interiors - Feedback

    Panther just like real world Namer is based on tank chassis (Slammer or real world Merkava Mk4), and as such have armor protection levels comparable to a tank.
  9. Damian90

    Tanks - Damage improvements

    In reality ERA do not detonate when hit by small arms ammo or autocannons. It either do not react or only slightly deflagrate. This is because ERA ignites when a proper pressure is applied on it either by shaped charge jet or kinetic energy penetrator from a tank gun. However older ERA designs can receive mechanical damage if hit by autocannons, such ERA are Blazer and Kontakt-1, anything newer wont be affected much... Or at all.
  10. Damian90

    Tanks - Damage improvements

    40mm APFSDS round in the real world should not to be able to perforate (penetration technically is a different thing) front armor of any MBT, and also would not be able to perforate side armor if it have increased protection (composite armor modules, ERA modules, side skirts etc.).
  11. Damian90

    Tanks - Damage improvements

    This is also because today all modern tank guns uses caseless ammo where case is made from a material similiar to cardboard and is consumed during firing sequence. This means there is no way such ammo case will even delay propelant charge ignition.
  12. Damian90

    Tanks - Damage improvements

    I see you still do not understand. So please let me explain. Leopard 2 have isolated ammo storage with blow off panels for only 15 rounds in the turret bustle. In the hull the ammo rack for 27 rounds is not isolated and do not have blow off panels. This is because Leopard 2 was never designed with crew survivability in mind, in fact it was not even designed with composite armor in the first place, and received it only very short time before its trails were finished, after Germany received access to the Burlington/Starflower research and development program for special armor done by the UK and US. On the other hand the M1 tanks have it's entire ammo storage in the isolated ammo compartments with blow off panels. For the M1 and M1IP this was 44 rounds in turret bustle, 8 rounds in hull ammo storage between turret and engine compartment + an armored box for optional 3 rounds on the turret floor. In M1A1 and M1A2 it's 34 or 36 rounds in turret bustle depending if it's using older or newer generation ammo racks and 6 rounds in the hull ammo storage between turret and engine compartments. In fact all European MBT's, never had true safe ammo storage, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 stores entire ammo in crew compartment, C1 Ariete the same, Leclerc have 22 rounds in isolated turret bustle with blow off panels, but 18 rounds stored in crew compartment. The only tank that have comparable crew safety and survivability to the M1, is the newest Russian T-14. And this is the point. Furthermore, Turkish Army made no modifications to their Leopard 2A4's, these are tanks in their original standard configuration, because all Leopard 2 variants, in their standard configuration, store 27 120mm rounds in the crew compartment, exposed. And contrary to your claims I provide an actual evidence.
  13. Any tank can stuck in mud, and if crew is dumb enough not to keep attention to the terrain around them, they can get stuck very easy. There is no such thing as ground vehicles that don't get stuck easy.
  14. Damian90

    Tanks - Damage improvements

    I will patronize you because you listen to some liers and you are a kid. I even have photos of the Leopard 2 ammo storage. This is hull ammo rack, it's non isolated as we can see, and there are no blow off panels. So who you believe more, some random people in the internet claiming they served, or a photos of the actuall damn thing? BTW I was inside Leopard 2's, the A4 and A5 models, here are photos of tanks I was inside several times during various events. I was also inside many other vehicles, like I said, among them M1A2SEPv2, M2A3/M7A3, M1126, Patria AMV variants, T-72 variants, MT-LB's, and many many more. As a proof I have photos of few of these vehicles. So I am honest with you, Leopard 2 is the same deathtrap as a T-72, I can guarantee you this with my own life. PS. The image you posted is the Leclerc MBT, and the image do not show ammunition placement, but placement of some new components considered to be added under the Scorpion upgrade program.
  15. Damian90

    Tanks - Damage improvements

    No kid, only turret bustle ammo rack is isolated and have blow off panels, there are only 15 rounds there. Listen I was inside Leopard 2's, two series production variants, the A4 and A5, and one prototype. The hull rack for 27 rounds is non isolated and do not have blow off panels. Do you understand this simple thing? Or I really need to explain it further till your fantasy will finally fade away?
  16. Damian90

    Tanks - Damage improvements

    No the don't, Challenger 2 have entire ammo storage inside crew compartment. Leclerc have 18 rounds in crew compartment. Object 640 (there was never such thing as Black Eagle) have only 22 rounds in siolated autoloader module at the turret rear, more rounds could be stored inside hull and crew compartment altough, it never even reached prototype phase, only two technology demonstrators were made, that were only partially functional. Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 ammo storage looks like this. Challenger 2 after ammunition cook off event. Leclerc ammo rack (drum) seen in the hull crew compartment. One more extra, here is a photo of a Challenger 2 after fire accident in the UK, crew was lucky there was no ammo cook off event, andthey were able to bail out. However some of the projectiles stored inside can be seen. All propelant charges are stored in the hull, if fire would reach them, they would cook off. One note, Challenger 2 do not have wet armored bins for propelant charges, wet bins were used only in Chieftain tanks and some Challenger 1's, after tests it was discovered wet bins do not add any protection, and thus were replaced by dry bins.
  17. Damian90

    Tanks - Damage improvements

    Do you even sit inside a Leopard 2? I was inside many tanks, including M1A2SEPv2, Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2A5 just to name a few. Leopard 2 series, all of them, have blow off panels only for 15 rounds stored inside the turret bustle. While 27 rounds are also stored exposed in the hull in the crew compartment. This is hull ammo rack of the Leopard 2A5/A6, I do not see any isolation here in form of armored bulkhead or armored sliding doors, it's just plain and simple ammo rack. The T-14 have it's ammo in the hull yes, and it does not matter, you seems to not understand how the ammunition storage works kid. It does not matter if it's in the hull, turret, elsewhere. What matters is: 1: Is the ammunition isolated from the crew and rest of vehicle by armored bulkheads and armored sliding doors. 2: Do ammunition storage have blow off panels to vent away dangerous fire, pressure and gases outside vehicle. And you want to see these "allmighty" Leopard 2's? Here, an actuall ammo cook offs with dead crew, because how this overrated junk was never designed with survivbaility in mind, contrary to tanks like M1 and T-14. I will be nice enough to share some photos from my personal archives. ;) Two Leopard 2A4's after ammo cook off lost their turrets, one got it's hull nearly completely destroyed where the hull ammo rack is placed. Here is another one completely oblitarated when directly hit in hull ammo rack by ATGM, there is even a video. Now how the isolated ammo storage with blow off panels work, the best example are videos from tests of the M1 series. So when you see in combat M1 being hit and burning, it's just blow off panels venting the fire from the ammo storage. After that the crew can get out or even if the vehicle have capability to move, drive away to safety. I even have screenshots made from manuals about this. These manuals shows the M1's main gun ammo storage and procedures concerning it. So I want to ask you, you really want to further argue with what I said? Also remember, I work as a proffesional military journalist and I am former soldier, so I know this stuff through and through. ;)
  18. Damian90

    Tanks - Damage improvements

    You are very wrong, Leopard 2 is a same deathtrap for it's crew as a T-64, T-72, T-80 or T-90. I have plenty of photos of Leopard 2's after their hull ammo rack started to cook off and turret went fly away. And there is one video showing Leopard 2A4 hit in hull ammo rack, and tank just gets oblitarated. I have even photos of aftermath, the hull was literally disintegrated in to pieces. You are also wrong that fire extuinguishing system is capable to extuinguish ammunition fire. Nothing is capable of do this, propelant charges have their own oxidizers which means that stuff can burn under water. The only real solution to prevent ammo cook off to destroy the tank and kill the crew, is to place ammunition in isolated ammo storage with blow off panels. And the only two tanks, existing today that have this solution are M1 Abrams series, and the new T-14, other vehicles have their entire ammo storage or part of it stored inside crew compartments.
  19. The log itself is a time consuming thing. More efficent is use of ARV's.
  20. Damian90

    Tanks - Fire-control system

    What? As far as I know we also disabled physx for vehicles guns.
  21. Damian90

    Tanks - Fire-control system

    Actually in all comparative tests, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 had worse accuracy and general gunnery results than tanks armed with smoothbore guns. For example in Greece, Challenger 2 performance was poor compared to M1A2 and Leopard 2A5.
  22. One thing, shaped charge jet is not molten copper, actually there is nothing molten there, it's a misconception repeated by media that do not understand the shaped charge jet phenomena. Shaped charge jet is actually in solid state, as the copper or other material used as shaped charge insert, is deformed and propelled to extreme velocities by the explosion of explosive charge. The jet itself do not penetrate and perforate armor based on some melting or other fantasy, but is penetrating the armor through pressure and kinetic energy induced on a very small area. Also the temperature of the shaped charge jet is way below melting temperature of copper, so it's immposible there is anything melted there. As for behind armor effects, all these sparks are just heated up fragments of armor and jet itself. And EFP is a different thing altough also a shaped charge, but it uses insert that is shaped differently. In general shaped charge jet have greater penetration but it looses it's penetration properties in air, fuel, water etc. And it's much easier for various types of special armor like passive composites, ERA, NERA and NxRA to defeat it, while EFP will not loose penetration capabilities in air etc. but have much smaller penetration levels in itself. Just my two cents. ;)
  23. Damian90

    Redd'n'Tank Vehicles

    Question, you guys plan to make Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 family?
  24. Damian90

    2035: Russian Armed Forces (5.3.0)

    @Deathstruck Jane's is actually very poor source, I found that many times they were extremely wrong. Lack of coax makes no sense, and would be a serious flaw in design. Besides what would be purpose of that slit next to the main gun if not for coaxial machine gun, I doubt that UVZ engineers would make such serious design flaw, and design a slit next to the main gun that serves no purpose, besides being slit for coaxial machine gun. BTW all predecessors of T-14 developed in Russia, Soviet Union and Ukraine, by predecessors I mean 4th generation MBT projects, had coaxial machine gun, altough also poorly visible due to design of low profile or unmanned turrets, but coax was also placed in such poorly visible small slit next to the main gun, and it had ammo storage of continous belt of 2000 rounds. So by logical observations, we can safely assume that there is coax with 2000 rounds.
  25. Damian90

    2035: Russian Armed Forces (5.3.0)

    @Deathstruck Dunno if you seen my suggestion, but T-14 would need a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun. This small slit on the right side of the main gun, is a coaxial machine gun port. Cheers, and merry christmass. :)
×