Mike E wrote:In regards to HAP, of course not, almost nobody does. What I do know, is that it is one of the most advanced composites to date.
Certainly it is not most advanced composites to date, since it is a two decade old technology and technology has moved on and not to mention that we have Armata's unknown armor package that is the latest technology of armor there is on any tank right now. Further to "know" that one of any of the tanks using the most advanced composite armor, you would need direct knowledge of the composition of those armors and all necessary information of their protective capability to declare one of those tanks to have the best armor technology to date. You obviously have no knowledge of every tank, you have no knowledge of a single tank, such knowledge is restricted to only relative low number of people in design and manufactoring of those tanks and even those guys in the manufactoring facilities have no idea of the protective capabilities even if they know each component, since they are not the phycists nor those guys that evaluade armor capability in tests.
Mike E wrote:
BRL-2 was already considered to be advanced, but HAP brings in ____ improvements (rumored to be a co-development of Burlington) along with the DU kit. I fail to see how this is inferior to a steel/rubber based, passive composite.
I somehow fail to see how you know the armor of the T-90
A not to mention your attempt and notorious to portray armor like murican fanboys that constantly ignore ERA and dissmiss it as not relevant or paint russian armor as such inferior to need ERA, while the first tanks of Russia/Soviet Union that used ERA already were significant more armored than any western tank like T-55 which already weights 36t compared with heavier but less armored tanks like Chieftain.
Mike E wrote:
Diagrams show the turret being 550 mm at the flat-frontal section, and the sides being far greater. Mindstorm's post didn't debunk this or anything for that matter.
Damian and Militarysta may have been rude, but generally they know what they are talking about (outside of an undeniable bias, they are Polish after all).
Damian and Militarysta are known fanboys of the Abrams and even they know it better, they often tend to ignore or right out keep disadvantages of Abrams out of equation and discussion to let it appear better than it is, while constantly using any opponent of the Abrams in discussion comperision to be pointing out disadvantages to create a perception that is favoring the Abrams.
Here to show you what i mean, the fanboyism is undeniable.
Here he suggests the Abrams is almost perfect design, by re designing its frontal projection vulnerablility of the hull would mean to make it a) first smaller and b) use upgraded ERA to achieve a better protection from frontal projection for the hull (russian tank philosophy)
He mentions that the only frontal projection vulnerability of Abrams is the gun mantlet, while the frontal projection in safe maneuvering angles would be the entire turret side armor and especially the ammunition bustle.
Militarysta fanboyism claims the T-72,T-90,T-80 mobility is far worse than Leo2 or M1 Abrams, which tests in Sweden T-72 tests, Malaysian jungle which T-90 against the Leo2 and Abrams haven't even participated in, the Greek trails with T-80 have proven to be not the case.
Or his understanding or better to say his purposely grotesque purposely depiction of things he actually knows better like armor performance do depict and not understand the basics of protective capabilities, like depicted by him in the reply from GazB to him and his assertions and flawed comperisions.
Here another post by Damian, here you have to follow the conversation and his chosen words when he is talking about russian tank design conecepts and completley different terminology when talking about US tank design concepts.
http://fs2.directupload.net/images/150823/od7nmt8x.jpg
The russians are using "tricks" while even the basic rectangular design of the Abrams is a technology, which you can see in lot of his posts like the first one his praising for it and the fact that Abrams is inferior to Leopard 2 in almost everyway but still depiction of his favorite tank as superior is funny.
He is no authority, he is just as biased as others, the difference here is he actualy knows advantages and disadvantages but he ignored and right out lies in debates and discussions to portray his favorite tank as superior, meaning he is not reliable but actually harming for understanding of the matters. People that are ignorant and just believe based on their limited knowledge that one tank is superior to another is an entirely different thing, but to create perceptions with the goal to let appear one tank superior to another in discussions of different approaches, despite knowing better is just wrong.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
higurashihougi
