Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Interlinked

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Cold war era tanks

Recent Profile Visitors

184 profile views
  1. If the crew are seated further forward, the optics are also further forward, and so are the other components in the turret, which means that the turret cheek thickness is compromised, which means that no, the protected frontal arc is still very small.
  2. I second what methos said. This is pretty unremarkable.
  3. Thanks for the explanation, it makes far, far more sense that they sacrificed a certain degree of protection and production economy for the sake of a completely different type of economization - not for the merits of flat armour or whatever.
  4. I don't understand what you're saying. You don't use fewer industrial resources by needing to roll plates with different thicknesses, heat-treat them differently to account for their different thicknesses, and cut the edges with machine tools to fit them together with other plates. You consume more tungsten carbide (a strategic resource) grinding bits and you need more tools to outfit a larger production line, because the volume of work is greater when you have more plates to cut. By needing to cut more plates, you also waste more steel, and production time is increased. You also don't use few
  5. There would be virtually no possibility of a ricochet, even an upwards ricochet; the angle is simply too small. At best, it might reduce the number of shell fragments splashing down onto the transmission roof plate, but even then, it would only be a marginal effect. The idea behind the design was flawed. Using a stepped front hull design like those tanks increases the number of plates you need, and thus also the number of weld joints you need to make and the length of weld to join them all together. This increases weight, vulnerability, and cost. It's also highly inefficient to produce
  6. Smoothen that out a bit and you've got the concept of elliptical armour on your hands, there.
  7. This is basically pseudoscience, which I suppose is why they abandoned the idea with the Panther and Tiger II. Angled plates are not dislodged easier than flat plates attached at a right angle to other plates. Also, it doesn't matter if your front hull is flat or sloped if you angle your hull against a threat. You don't lose anything by doing that with a sloped front hull. On the contrary, you can gain even more protection because the compound angle increases the effective slope even more.
  8. Practically no effect, either positive or negative. It is simply too small of an angle. That's absolutely right. One of the problems with using stepped shapes is that a HE shell impacting on the recessed step can blast through the thin joining plate. For instance, if you fired a HE shell at the side hull of a Pz. IV, it can burst through the thin sponson floor, and if you fired a HE shell at the upper glacis, the shell can burst through the thin roof plate over the transmission. This isn't just a hypothetical situation, it's a real issue. To solve it, you increase the thickness of tha
  9. I wonder what he means by "strongly held in place". Did he mean riveting plates to a frame? You can make a frame to attach sloped armour to, easily. Welding sloped plates together? Well that isn't a problem, for either sloped or flat armour. The way it's described, it's nonsensical. Could you maybe give a direct translation of his own words, so that we could understand the context better?
  10. When the Swedes were evaluating the M113 as a technical case study for APC technology, they also evaluated ramps vs doors. Initially, an early prototype of the Pbv 302 was fitted with a powered ramp inspired by the M113 design, but the final production model Pbv 302 had two rear doors. They chose doors, because it permitted faster dismounting. https://www.ointres.se/pbv_302.htm "Inspired by the M113, the prototypes were fitted with a fold-down ramp at the rear, but it soon became apparent that depositing could be done faster if two rear doors were used instead."
  11. Don't read anything on russiadefence.net, most of the regular posters there seem to have mental issues and a disregard for objective research. T-72 gearboxes and steering system doesn't allow for more than 1 reverse gear, but I haven't found any reason why they couldn't just add an extra planetary gear to reverse the input, and thus convert the 7 forward gears into reverse.
  12. Is it a "field innovation"? They're doing that stretcher evacuation thing in training. I don't see how this counts as a "field innovation". Naturally you're not driving into battle with casualties on stretchers. Being able to have stretchers just means you can evacuate more people if you need to. This is a pretty strange drawback to cite. Which IFV gives you extra space to either put extra stuff or extra passengers, other than the number that they're designed with and have seats for? In a conventional layout where you have two rows of seats with the dismoun
  13. These seem like extremely trivial issues. From the way the Venezuelans practice it, the stretchers go in feet-first, and presumably they strap the stretchers to the ceiling. When you get out the back of any IFV, you become exposed from every angle except the front... And in such a dire situation, what could be done on any other vehicle, barring a BTR with side doors? Jump out into machine gun fire and run around the side to take cover? Obviously the connection is not nearly that strong, or the design of all BTRs would still have a one-man turret like the BMP-1. Commande
  • Create New...