IMHO

1. Is it really with slat armor? I got these pics for the batch. 2. Are the flexible screens on the turrets have some protective properties or they're just textile reinforced rubber?

Do you purchase them in formations or stand-alone? If purchased as part of the formation the prime mover comes with the gun. But you can limber the gun to any primer mover even if it's not part of the same formation.

You can tow (limber/unlimber) MT-12 by any appropriate vehicle - MTLB, truck...

Yeah, I believe K-5/Relikt are better than Nozh but I also believe K-5/Relikt are not up to today's standards. They're good against APFSDS of 80-90s but not of 2000+. And in T-72 vs. T-64 holy war I'm on T-64 side Malyshev's school was one of the few in Soviet Union that was setting trends for the rest of the world. It was way ahead of Omsk and Leningrad and probable decades ahead of Tagil. And KhBTM's diesel engine is still world class despite the lack of funds in Ukraine. Still much better than the one created for Armata in Chelyabinsk at the cost of tens and hundreds millions of dollars. So I'm not saying it's bad just because something comes from Ukraine. It's just today to develop weapons one has to have a home customer with enough money to pay for mass production. Unfortunately even sufficient financing for R&D won't help without mass production. Better have a less advanced but mass produced weapon than a disruptive idea that's not rolled out into industrial scale. And actually I believe the Russian situation in MIC is exact replica of Ukrainian just on a grander scale. You try to match Russian lineup of weapons and Russia tries to do the same with US. Both tasks are not up to their respective pockets.

Not so big - they allocated 30 mins (with or without questions?). The original name of the report is "UKRANIAN ARMOURED VEHICLE PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK FROM THE DONBASS" by Col. Vadim Slyusar, Principal Research Fellow, Arms Institute, Ukraine Armed Forces

How do you know? 2008 testing was very limited. Not a full scale testing against at all angles, all speeds, testing after ERA blocks were partially deformed by lower-caliber fire or artillery fragments etc. @Sgt.Squarehead, so I did a quick search on the scientific papers databases. I was travelling so I did it from my phone - it's really quick and dirty search. The papers I found are not in liner shaped charge applications to the Nozh conditions but rather an optimum use of circular EFPs. If we make an assumption that circular EFP results give a rough idea of the best application of EFP then Nozh is far away from them as possible. So: As a sum of traits copper is very good for EFP liner. Nozh uses copper. To properly form into slug-like projectile copper EFP needs about 60ms and by that time it will travel about 100m. That corresponds to the military EFPs that are ranged at 100-200m. After 60ms/100m the slug is travelling at 1700m/s and further velocity loss is relatively low. Energy density for copper after the slug is formed is 0.169kJ/g. For circular EFPs at 0.5-1.0m from the barrier (conditions the Nozh is used) the liner still looks exactly like a flat pancake at travel at about 500-700m/s. IMO things to note: The form is a flat pancake Velocity is just 500-700m/s Energy density is about 1/3 of the maximum What do you think? The long rod Nozh is supposed to act upon will be 7-10kg at 1'500-1'800 m/s and having over 10MJ of energy.

Are you into this field? I read the post till the end and my first off the cuff thoughts are: Am I correct to say that to fully form an EFP the flyer plate needs to cover many radii of itself? EFP interaction with the barrier it aims to break is not hydrodynamic so EFP mass directly behind its interaction with the barrier is very significant? There's a big question mark about what happens when. Like detonation velocity is 3-5Km/s, EFP velocity is 1.5-2.0Km/s vs. certain distance it needs to cover before fully forming. And all of this against a long rod penetrator flying at 1.5-2.0Km/s. Does it make sense what I write or it's all bull****?

Thanks! Very good stuff! A lot of relevant information in one piece!

Fair enough, my sincere apology if I sounded offensive. It checks with other sources to the same effect. There are enough publications discussing Nozh drawbacks. It corresponds to the basic physical principles of how EFP and HEAT work. I don't think it makes sense to discuss it further. You'd believe only an official statement by UA government to the effect that Nozh is ineffective and that's an improbable course of events I mentioned at least two points that should make people question the veracity of the report. 152mm top-attack EFP penetrator that we yet to find in the former Soviet Union arsenal and the use of photo dated to at least before June, 1, 2013 when illustrating the Nozh performance in Donbass conflict.

Russian maskirovka

Soviet 152mm 2.5Kt nuclear shell The funny thing is the shell was developed in a Nuclear Research Center named after member of Acadimy of Science Eugeny Zababakhin. That loosely translates like Eugeny Big-Ka-Boom

Here's the reality of Ukrainian weapons production. https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/4425155.html And And here's the reality of Ukrainian war machine in general: https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/4427305.html The resolution of the Special Parliamentary Commission into the multiple mysterious fires at the Ukrainian ammo storage facilities: It's too long to translate - Google may help but in short: The ammo storage was blown up not by Russian saboteurs as was stated by then Ukrainian Chief Prosecutor but by Ukrainian SoF detachment "Sarmat". They concealed the explosive devices in fire extinguishers. The reason why the facility was blown up was because an audit of Feb, 28, 2017 discovered a lack of ammo to the tune of 23 mln USD and a secondary audit to confirm the results of the first one was planned to take place on March 30, 2017. But the facility was blown up on March 23. The results of the preliminary investigation were delivered to Petro Poroshenko - then the President of Ukraine. Poroshenko ordered to stop further investigation into the matter.

Principles are well known - you and I know them as well. But to implement these principles in an efficient device one needs to do a lot of live fire testing. Really A LOT - e.g. Bradley ERA acceptance testing involved 1'500 live fires. And that means a lot of money - something KhBTM is in dire need of. Firstly I think I read enough Ukrainian source material - interviews etc. to have an opinion. And the fact that Morozov's plant is not capable of producing anything at the moment - that's a sum of these sources not my own opinion. Secondly I consider this obvious that if a company has no money for payroll and it reneges on a contract that spells its life or death - that probably indicates that the company is not capable of any serious undertakings. You're saying that's not so and there was some secret plan behind it. I'd say the burden of proof is on your side Ummm... Ok, here's Thai Oplot order. Thai Army has some examples of Nozh ERA and, presumably ,Thai Army representatives were shown the results of Nozh tests before buying it. Does it mean Thai Army can go and design a new ERA? The same with tank designers, they take an element - ERA in this case - check that it meets their requirements and bolt it on on their new shiny tanks. Knowing design principles for ERA would me mean having knowledge and results of tests. What will happen if you you this or that plate material? If it's a steel what happens if you make it harder but brittle or vice verse? What if you make it thicker or thinner? What happens if you put in more or less insensitive explosives? How ERA interfaces with solid rods and composite rods? What happens if you increase or decreas the rod speed? How blunt or sharp nosed rods interacts with the plate and explosives? Etc. - a million questions. So what makes you believe that KhBTM has this understanding and a multitude results of tests on hand whereas they don't have money to pay salaries and pulled the rug under their crucial customer? Is it the first "Nozh uber alles" stuff you've come across? Believe me you can look up many more of them They write a lot of words yet they don't do the first thing every honest producer would do - they do not do range testing. AFAIK the only limited range testing they did was done 12 years ago and it was done with a couple . Many more penetrators were developed since that time both in Russia and in the West. How come they mention 152mm top-attack EFP no one heard of? When they mention Mango and provide a picture for the results. https://topwar.ru/28864-bronetehnika-ukrainy-itogi-potencial-perspektivy.html Here's the article dated to June, 2013. You can see the same picture that's given in the presentation. Presentation (look at the left bottom corner): Article of June 1, 2013 So "Nozh defeating Mango in Donbass war" is a straight lie, no one heard of 152mm top attack EFP they claim were defeated by Nozh... Well, well, well

KhBTM used to build tanks with thermals, does it mean Morozov's plant can produce I2 matrices? KhBTM used to build tanks that shoot DU projectiles, does it mean they know uranium metallurgy? Morozov's plant chose to delay the delivery on Thailand's order for three years - a feat that forever deprived them of whatever future as tank producer they might have had, - yet somehow they continue investment into R&D. Yeah, we do believe in fairy tales! There are no "their designs". "Nozh" design was created by NII Stali in late 60s - early 70s like every other Soviet ERA since NII Stali was responsible for all ERAs in Soviet Union. They created and tested Nozh, Kontakt/Relikt and a bunch of other more exotic designs. Back then they decided that Kontakt/Relikt was the most promising. What reports? I'd say you what report would be most welcome - a report on full scale range testing of Nozh. AFAIK the first and the only limited test of Nozh was conducted 12 years ago. As far as I remember the full list includes four companies but BTsKT Mikrotek is listed as the main designer in every publication.

They're bigger - not 152mm. We'd have had pictures with sensor modules and whole unexploded submunitions. Not for tube artillery - we couldn't fit the sensor module

You'll have licensing issues. Will a symlink do?

Kontakt-5 was developed by Moscow NII Stali. Nozh ERA is a product of Ukrainian Mikrotek company. The same that produced a copy of Soviet APS. I'd seriously doubt Morozov's design capabilities - 35 years passed since their glorious time in Soviet Union. They're absolutely cash-starved - unable even to pay salaries in full. They've received pre-payment for BTR-4E and still were not able to deliver the vehicles and produced one new tank for the Ukrainian Army during the past 10 years (sic!).

It's the same system. 'O' of Russian is sometimes substituted for 'i' in Ukrainian. English 'cat' is 'kot' in Russian and 'kit' in Ukrainian.

I mean does anyone heard of a 152m top attack EFP in the Russian service. AFAIK they don't exist but maybe I missed something.

Who knows a Russian 152mm top attack EFP munition? 8-0

RPGs in PvE games are a piece of cake in most cases. TacAI will invariably launch RPG as soon as you come within the range of the weapon despite the fact that first-hit probability for a fast moving vehicle is negligible if you don't come closer than something like 200-250m (depending on the RPG team skills). So you have about 300m of almost risk-free range that you can use to bait TacAI into shooting and revealing itself. Just expose the vehicle a tiny bit over the time needed to place a shot - usually about 5 secs for the first pop-up, 2-3secs if you pop-up again at the same place. And having done this few times and seeing no shot directed at you you can be sure there's no hidden RPG team. ATGMs are way more dangerous - one has to be very precise with calculations. A second less and they don't launch at all and you never know if they're lurking somewhere or not. A second more and you're toast. PS Numbers are for CMBS - CMSF can differ.

I don't have them - it's been almost two months. I finished the game the day I did the post and those two crazy air-guards were the only and unnecessary casualties. I made a post to understand how often it happens in CMSF2. So I got the answer. I play mostly CMBS and the behavior is different there. I play PvE at having zero casualties on my side. It produces very different game style. Unfortunately placing Strykers closer is a necessary evil. But having measured vehicle exposure down to a second of time or meter of terrain gives an acceptable level of risk.

Thanks! Will read it!

Sorry, but I don't think it makes sense to continue this discussion before you get at least a 100 tests on suppression under your belt. As of now you pull your ideas out of thin air. IMO in this particular case the Stryker's use is different from Bradley's. I use Stryker's speed not the Bradley's armor or Bradley's capability to suppress adversaries before they even have a chance to lay a shot. In my CM experience trying to quick-dash a Bradley from cover to cover under credible RPG threat is a recipe for disaster - Bradley's too slow. While Stryker is good at it if one does not get greedy about a distance to cover in one hop and provides Stryker with enough room to gain speed before exposing itself.

So you say I should avoid playing some scenarios altogether or at least go for sure losses instead of just a (non existent - see below) risk of same losses because that's not the dogmatic use of Strykers as written in some Field Manuals? I guess you didn't do extensive "lab" tests of CMxx, did you? There's no margin of error in suppression in CM. Suppression unlike spotting is more or less an exact science in CM. You don't need to GUESS about suppression - you look up the weapon dwell time in an Excel table, you count the seconds and voila and you KNOW the unit is now suppressed.