Jump to content

KV7

Members
  • Content Count

    2,542
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About KV7

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I largely agree with this, with the exception that' excess egalitarianism' played a major role. There were large income differentials under Stalin but this was partially reflecting large differential in productivity which were themselves largely a consequence of the demographic transition - i.e. huge migration from the countryside alongside a limited capital stock meant that there was ample unskilled labour, which also meant that finding almost any industrial task for them to do allowed for large productivity gains. Prior to the revolution the whole agrarians sector had huge excess labour sup
  2. Can you elaborate here ? Do you mean that too unrealistic promises were made - e.g. to have consumption levels similar to the US ?
  3. They are not saying that cyber attacks are what will turn the tide in a conventional war, they are saying they are an alternative means of escalation that avoids what Russia asserts (with good reason) would be a one sided conventional war.
  4. It is Tall Track. And there are two of them. And there is also an 67N6E GAMMA-DE on a mast. It is more resistant to jamming and will also serve for early warning of ballistic and cruise missile attacks.
  5. If it is for interdicting fishing boats etc. on the high seas it should have much less weaponry and crew but include a helo hangar. If it is for military use it may as well be a bit larger and carry some militarily useful weaponry, i.e. be a frigate.
  6. You are giving them too much and not enough credit at the same time. The western political class largely have no grand objectives, not even very bad ones like wanting to deplete the Russian population. They largely just want to stay in power and insulate their power from 'messy' democracy - hence their love for various forms of unelected commissions etc. and the EU in general. They realise though that they need some ideological justification for their existence and to keep the system internally coherent. The reasons they give are neoliberal technocratic ('our neoliberal institutions bring
  7. Chinese cavalry border guards near Tajik border, Pamir Mountains.
  8. The other, probably larger issue is that thin roofs can be hit by plunging fire, either direct fire at long ranges or indirect fire. If you make a roof plate thick enough to resist eg. 75mm HE or 81 mm mortar rounds, then you may as well angle the same plate and turn it into an 'upper glacis' like structure, as say a 20mm plate at 85 degrees will stop basically any AP round available in WW2, and in doing so you get a reduction in the frontal area the lower glacis needs to protect. This is exactly what is done on the Abrams, though the angling is sharper given APFSDS rounds being arou
  9. On the IS-3 and T-10 the sloping side armor was quite efficient space wise as the sloping was bulging outwards and over the tracks from the lower hull, which was necessary to allow a larger turret ring without the hull itself becoming very wide. The T-54/55 layout was not better for space efficiency, but it was much easier to produce. The T-34 and Panther style deep inward sloping of the upper side armor became infeasible with larger turrets and had no rationale with lower hulls.
  10. Well against HE the argument is invalid, because the force from the HE charge is always roughly normal to the plate, no matter the slope. But as above for the same areal density, the sloped plate will be thinner and more susceptible to breaking. But also sloping also partially replaces thin roofs with thicker glacis plates etc. so the performance of sloped plate is actually usually better vs plunging HE.
  11. Right the alleged argument of the anti-sloping engineers is that on non-sloping plates the side plates can be directly behind the front plate, and the force after a hit is transmitted largely by compression forces and barely at all by shear. It isn't a good argument, but the presenter is only saying that that is what was given at the time, and he even agrees that it isn't very good.
  12. Gotcha. In that case it makes total sense. I was thinking more in terms of transport where the whole formation is in one vehicle, e.g Mi-17 or similar.
  13. Weakly sloped armor was never efficient. Welds breaking etc. isn't an issue, as the welds are longer the more slope you have, and in a deflection there is less transfer of momentum. Thin sloping armor isn't very good vs lowish velocity HE though, at least if it fuses, because the HE charge itself can break a thin highly angled plate even if it is enough to deflect the round on delay, and in the early periods a common threat (or perceived threat) is going to be infantry guns and medium field guns etc. firing HE, as dedicated AT guns are somewhat rare. But by the start of WW2 these consideration
  14. For infantry formations that are restricted in size by transports you can always get a triangular formation though by using smaller squads. e.g 3 * 7 rather than 2 * 11 or 3*8 instead of 2*12. I think this is likely better, - you can have the HQ in a support squad, and then have two assault/rifle squads. For special forces you probably want an integral sniper too, and the support squad can have some stuff you usually don't see at the company level, if the unit is expected to operate independently.
  15. Two tank platoons or sections is probably optimal for urban warfare. Any more and you will often struggle to find any way to keep them in contact and able to see anything.
×
×
  • Create New...