agusto

It happened like 2 months ago or something. The new forum has lots of new functions too, if you have time, you should check them out.

@John: The fact that you react the way you do to people revealing your "unconventional" views is one of the reasons they keep doing it. The other reason is to reduce the weight of your arguement by attacking your credibility in general (which is in no way ungentlemanly or boorish as you called it but a legitimate arguemental tactic). Trying to invoke pitty in order to keep people from legitimately attacking your credibility is usually an ineffective tactic and, given that this is arguement on the internet, quite pathetic and disproportional.

According to RT there is nothing wrong with that BUK in the video. That fire was intentional, you know? It was part of the show that some of the vehicles were leaking burning fuel, they do that every year to impress the crowds!

Here is some music to listen to while watching the parade:

Maybe check his facebook.

What about the Silent Hunter series?

Unfortunately there are no other options: http://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/help/article/127862

That is not physically necessary. Of course you are right that attaching ERA tiles to a surface that can withstand the explosion of the ERA tile is technically desirable, but from a physical point of view the ERA tiles explosion, given that the charge is large enough, would destroy the metal spike of a HEAT round even if the surface to which the ERA tile is attached can not withstand the explosion of the ERA tile. Same concept as a recoilless gun.

I said it once and i will say it again: it could be spaced armor. Panzersaurkrauftwerfer said he thinks it is probably not, but if it isnt a place holder and it isnt a thick armor plate, spaced armor AFAIK is the only thing left that it could be. What else should it be? Sapced armor is compareably thin. The future will tell whether or not it's a place holder.

That leads to an interesting question: Is it reasonable to ask for counterproof in a discussion of which both parties agree that it is a purely speculative matter? Personally i would recommend you to stay away from words like "certain" or "impossible" in general. It is often too easy to attack statements that claim that something is certain, impossible, etc. Arguements based on probabilities are, on the other hand, much harder to attack, because constructing a single situation that contradicts the initial statement wont collapse the whole arguement. You can always claim it's an exception or just anecdotal evidence and the burden of proof that it's not will lie with your opponent.

Sorry for "sniping" at someone in this thread again, but: This sentence contradicts itself. If nobody knows, you cant be certain of what is going to happen either, unless you are nobody of course. But if you were nobody, you couldnt have written that post, which means that you cant be nobody. Thus if only nobody can predict the future with certainity and you are not nobody, you cant be certain of your predictions. There is no certainity outside of closed logical systems like math. What you are saying can be categorized as much as speculative as what Steve is saying.

Probably not every US soldier has them. Look at officers and vehicle crews, they most likely carry pistols instead of or alongside their service rifle.

Hmm. You might be right regarding the Armatas armor. But what is a petasusavor? I get 0 results if i google it.

I disagree with that. The Leopard 2s V-shaped add-on armor is empty and also not particularily thick. Its only purpose is to destabilize sabots and prematurely trigger HEAT rounds. It is entirely possible that the Armatas turret follows the same concept and much of the turret is just "empty". Leopard 2 add-on armor inside: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Keilpanzerung_Leopard_2A5.jpg http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/ulrich_wrede/leopard_2a6_tower/images/leopard_2a6_tower_01_of_27.jpg and mounted on a vehicled: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Pics/LEOPARD2A6-BIG-08.jpg EDIT: The correct term for the Leopard 2s armor is 'spaced armor'. Wikipedia has a short description of how the Leopard 2s V-shaped armor works: "An example for this construction is the armour of the Leopard 2 tank, which provides a slanted first armour stage (disturber), a specially hardened second stage (disrupter) and a softer third stage with high ductility (absorber). The disturber is to ideally deflect or at least manipulate the direction of incoming kinetic energy penetrators, which are then shattered and fragmented when hitting the disrupter. The absorber stage finally erodes and contains spalls and fragments." The Russians could use the same technlogy in their Armata tank, which would explain the bulky turret.

In terms of looks, my favorite is the Leopard 2:

Hahaha, nice photoshop work . Send it to a newspaper, it looks good enough to trick someone .

That is what i thought it does. I usually only use the combination of Hide + Target Arc for ATGMs, if i want to make absolutely sure they dont fire and waste ammo or more importantly give away their position prematurely. Basically what i want my ATGMs to do is to hold fire AND keep their heads as low as humanly possible. AFAIK just issueing a target arc will make them hold fire but they will still kneel and look for targets and by doing so they themselves become more likely to be spotted, and that is what i want to avoid.

LOL that is awesome. Everything you see in that video probably happens in less than maybe a tenth of a second. a- The author of the text was not aware of "medium tank" beeing an onsolote classification. b- They (the Russians) are planning for a heavier model of a tank that is still a secret. c- The T-14 is classified as "medium tank" because it is signficantly lighter than its western counterparts. Needless to say all of the above is pure speculation.

Cant you combine hiding and a covered arc?

The climate in finland isnt that bad though. In July and August tempratures regularily reach values above zero.

But are those actual photographs or just images of the hull with the planned turret photoshopped on them? I mean is the above just "concept art" or are those actual vehicles in your post? EDIT: Ah, i see. I should have clicked on the links you mentioned before posting.

Yeah the Armatas turret looks a bit odd to me too, a bit small, but i guess that is because of the crew beeing located in the hull. It also looks like the Russians dropped their concept of round turrets.

Thanks LoackAndLoad. Looks like there are lots of high tech sensors mounted on those turrets. The Kurganez 25 looks especially nasty. I cant wait to get some info on how they (would) perform in combat.

1) That was a 50 yard test vs the BWs tests which were conducted at ranges between 100 to 300 m (109 yards to 328 yards). 2) The gun possibly had time to cool down while they were setting up the camera. They mentioned that in the video, but we cant say anything about the significance of the cool down time bebause we dont know how long it was. But great video, i hope he makes the 100 and 200 yards test as well.

The Battle of Cannae on 2 August 216 BC resulted in 70.000 out of 80.000 Romans KIA, 10.000 POWs. During the Battle of Carrhae on May 6 53 BC 30.000 of 52.000 Romans died.