Jump to content

Olof Larsson

Members
  • Posts

    1,294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sweden

Recent Profile Visitors

559 profile views

Olof Larsson's Achievements

Crew

Crew (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. I have a front canopy for the J35. It is not large.
  2. The Bofors uses a spring driven rammer, to kick the cartridge into the chamber. But it uses a similar ejector to the Madsen. The breachblock and the cartridge-feeder, that pulls the cartridges down is also operated by a cam. In the case of the cartridge feeder, it is not disimilar to the feeding arm and the pawls on a belt feed mechanism, but with the track fixed with the recoiling components and with one of the sets of feed pawls mowing in a strait line up and down via a roller in the track. On the CV90 the munition is pushed up with a spring in stead.
  3. And the glacis of the M1 Abrams constitutes a shot trap v.s. some munitions.
  4. And let's not forget the Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust, that would also be used against strongpoints. And the same with Bazookas, PIAT's and so on.
  5. And the Mk41 VLS, the MFOM and so on. And the same for ground launched SAM's. In the case of MFOM, Israel, South Korea and Turkey have all had so resort to develop their own MLRS/HIMARS equivalents, that uses similar but incompatible rocket pods, despite all three nations operating the MLRS at the same time. So key US allies like Poland, South Korea, Turkey and Israel have systems near identical to MLRS/HIMARS, where the allied partners cannot fully (or at all) share munition with one another. In the future the number of allies that have MLRS/HIMARS-equivalents with incompatible rocket pods is likely to get longer, with nations like Norway, Finland, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands and Germany. All because the US is to shortsighted and greedy in this reguard. As for the Mk41 VLS we see similar partial or complete incompatibility with the US vs. the navies of UK, France, Italy, Poland, Singapore, Greece, Turkey, Finland, Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, New Zeeland and South Korea, as well as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Brasil and Chile. And there might also be a few cases where allied nations have opted for domestic torpedos, rather then a rocket launched version with the same torpedo, because the US doesn't allow it's allies to integrate their own weapons in the Mk41 VLS.
  6. And yet (at least on paper) the F-111 was lighter, faster, had much superior flight ceiling, longer range and could carry far more weapons. The TSR-2 had ~30% more internal fuel then the F-111, but with the Olympus engines, it needed that. But if you intended to fly low and marginally faster then a Buccaneer all the way, with a short & slightly supersonic burst with a fairly small weapons load, the TSR-2 might have been better.
  7. Which is somewhat odd, as APCBC-rounds had been around since the 1910's, was well established technology, that many nations were very capable of developing, manufacturing and used as standard AP-munition. In the navies that is.
  8. Welding was tricky at first, and got exponentially trickier with thicker armour, as the volume of the weld increases with the square of the plate thickness and as thicker plates disipates heat faster, creating a weaker weld or requires preheating of the material. In the Iowas for instance, they didn't even try to weld thick armour against thick armour. They had to resort to welding brackets to the backsides of the plates and mechanical joints in stead to joint different plates together. That is probaly a big reason, why casting became so common in medium and heavy tanks post war, while light tanks continued to use welder armour.
  9. I would argue, that another reason that battleships was not built after the war, was that no potential adversary to those nations that had modern battleships (USA, UK and France), could build battleships. And the single digit of Soviet light cruisers after the war, was a problem that could be handled very easily by existing fast battleships and the US CA's. Britain on the other couldn't afford to maintain a sufficient number of fast BB's & their CA's were old, worn out and very poorly armoured, so there the later Sverdlovs was an issue. So the absence of major Japanese, Italian and German navys and the impotence of the Soviet navy made new construction of BB's & CA's in the west unecessary in the late 1940's and the 1950's, and only in the early 1960's did new production of major artillery ships become impractical, because of missiles (AShM's and SAM's) and all wheater capable naval strike aircrafts.
  10. Well, it didn't hurt that the coalition had a numerical superiority in the air of 3 to 1, a huge advantage in competence and that the flat and open terrain made things even harder for the weaker part. Compare that to Yugoslavia, where the NATO-coalition had better aircrafts, a huge numerical superiority, but the terrain favoured the weaker party, while the weaker party was also competent. There the weaker party was not defeated, even after 2&1/2 mouths of bombings. Or the Ukraine war, where Russia have more and more modern aircrafts, and still doesn't have aerial superiority over the frontline, after more than 500 days.
  11. It took Russia 16 months to advance 7 kilometers vs. Ukraine in Putins Blyatkrieg, but only a day to advance 500 kilometers in Prigozhins Vodka Run.
  12. The engine was not a huge issue for the Mirage 2000. It had 90% the power of the engine of the F-16. So more power than the F-20 or Gripen. For the Mirage F1 on the other hand, power was truly lacking, having about 65% the amount of power of the F-16. That makes the fact that they were able to make a single engine, multi role aircraft, with radar guided AAM's, anti ship missiles and air to ground PGM's in the form of the F1E, quite impressive.
  13. SImilar tech has been used on tanks for decades. The JA37 had a system, where the fire control system, had partial controll of the aircraft (the Viggen didn't have a FBW-system) in air to air mode and when the trigger was depressed. In a modern aircraft, giving the FCS full controll of the FBW-system and only firing when the FCS calculates that the aircraft might hit, shouldn''t be to hard. Unless you go after waves of drones and/or cruise missiles, and runs out of missiles, no matter what. We might also se drones armed with autocannons.
  14. Considering the microscopical numbers, I'd say it's for training, PR and perhaps some very, very small colonial policing mission.
×
×
  • Create New...