Home
Latest images
Register
Log inlyle6 wrote:
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 18 GPtwTqBW4AAcsJq?format=jpg&name=medium](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPtwTqBW4AAcsJq?format=jpg&name=medium)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 18 GPtwTqZWsAACeaZ?format=jpg&name=large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPtwTqZWsAACeaZ?format=jpg&name=large)
The armour looks illogicaly thin, especially the frontal array. Even with advanced ERA they would not be able to get adequate protection with that.
+45
Atmosphere
marcellogo
PapaDragon
George1
william.boutros
runaway
GarryB
thegopnik
The-thing-next-door
BenVaserlan
lyle6
caveat emptor
Begome
Sprut-B
Walther von Oldenburg
xeno
mnztr
Backman
diabetus
Broski
RTN
lancelot
Swgman_BK
galicije83
AlfaT8
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
limb
Mir
franco
JohninMK
ludovicense
flamming_python
Werewolf
Arrow
Arkanghelsk
Kiko
TMA1
ALAMO
DerWolf
sepheronx
Big_Gazza
Isos
sputnik
PhSt
Hole
49 posters
[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1394
Points : 1450
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
The armour looks illogicaly thin, especially the frontal array. Even with advanced ERA they would not be able to get adequate protection with that.
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Hahaha... what thin armour are you talking about?
You do understand that is the vehicle shell and the composite armour goes on top of that.. plus of course the NERA and further proteciton from coatings (nakidka type materials) and of course APS systems and jamming systems on top of that...
You do understand that is the vehicle shell and the composite armour goes on top of that.. plus of course the NERA and further proteciton from coatings (nakidka type materials) and of course APS systems and jamming systems on top of that...
Big_Gazza and Hole like this post
lyle6- Posts : 2599
Points : 2593
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
The-thing-next-door wrote:
The armour looks illogicaly thin, especially the frontal array. Even with advanced ERA they would not be able to get adequate protection with that.
And yet NATO is set to introduce a heavier caliber main gun firing significantly more powerful armor piercing ammo just for this particular armor...
Curious. Its almost as if Russian armor technology has evolved to reduce the need for extensive air spaces in their design while maintaining or improving the protective qualities of the armor.
GarryB and PapaDragon like this post
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1394
Points : 1450
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
What I was saying is that these images seem wrong. Particularly the turret armour thickness would mean that it would be extremely vulnerable to light autocannon and that the UFP armour cavity is either thin to the point it needs extensions for the idler wheels to be mounted or even thinner in that it goes between what is shown in the image and the ERA and in that case not even solid uranium alloys would be sufficient.
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
It is the base armour, the composite armour goes on top of it... just look at the hull image.
Look at where the front wheels are and the angle of the front plate... and think about the shape of the tank hull front...
That is not a vertical front it is angled backwards... but the T-14 has a steep forward under hull shape and the front wheels are not where near the front hull point.
Equally the turret structure that holds the optics and other equipment inside the turret... compare the shell above with the size of the turret of the T-14 which looks about the size of a manned turret, but much of it will be armour layers and empty space and redundant components all in the way of any shells hitting the turret.
The whole idea of an unmanned turret is so you don't need heavy armour because there is so little to actually protect.
It is vulnerable from the sides and rear... all turrets are vulnerable to the sides and rear.
If you want a tank that has side and rear and belly and top armour strong enough to protect it from anything you will end up with a tank bigger and heavier than a Maus... and it likely still wont be safe from Kh-29s and even Kh-25s let alone Kh-38s or LMUR.
What is the point of putting 20 tons of armour on the turret to protect the gun if all the enemy needs to do is take out your tracks...
Look at where the front wheels are and the angle of the front plate... and think about the shape of the tank hull front...
That is not a vertical front it is angled backwards... but the T-14 has a steep forward under hull shape and the front wheels are not where near the front hull point.
Equally the turret structure that holds the optics and other equipment inside the turret... compare the shell above with the size of the turret of the T-14 which looks about the size of a manned turret, but much of it will be armour layers and empty space and redundant components all in the way of any shells hitting the turret.
The whole idea of an unmanned turret is so you don't need heavy armour because there is so little to actually protect.
It is vulnerable from the sides and rear... all turrets are vulnerable to the sides and rear.
If you want a tank that has side and rear and belly and top armour strong enough to protect it from anything you will end up with a tank bigger and heavier than a Maus... and it likely still wont be safe from Kh-29s and even Kh-25s let alone Kh-38s or LMUR.
What is the point of putting 20 tons of armour on the turret to protect the gun if all the enemy needs to do is take out your tracks...
Big_Gazza and lyle6 like this post
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1394
Points : 1450
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
Look at where the hull ends relative to the idler wheels.
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 18 456144_O](https://overclockers.ru/st/legacy/blog/413830/456144_O.jpeg)
If the images you posted and your hypothesis are bothe correct then the hull composite array is only around 30cm thick.
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 18 Unlike10](https://i.servimg.com/u/f42/19/80/85/84/unlike10.png)
This would be inadequate even if made of solid DU and even if the ERA could reduce the penetration of projectiles by 60%.
If the images you posted and your hypothesis are bothe correct then the hull composite array is only around 30cm thick.
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 18 Unlike10](https://servimg.com/r/4219808584/unlike10.png)
This would be inadequate even if made of solid DU and even if the ERA could reduce the penetration of projectiles by 60%.
lyle6- Posts : 2599
Points : 2593
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
Paralay made a very accurate model back on page 15 that is corroborated by this new model...
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
You are not getting it... look at the image of a T-14 tank... the tank hull front armour is not sloped like that... the hull front is a wedge shape with the point facing forward not a back angle slab.
The blue bit you drew in needs to have another wedge added to it to create the front sort of like this...
OK, I am not artist but I have drawn a red circle to show where the front wheel goes and a rough red line showing the rough outline of the hull front shape that can be composite and layers and air pockets and all sorts of protection from the front.
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 18 Untitl10](https://i.servimg.com/u/f46/15/11/39/27/untitl10.png)
Remember the Armata has the entire crew in the front hull so that is where all the armour is... there is bugger all armour in the turret, but it is still the heaviest modern Russian tank so you actually think the front of the hull is paper thin?
Really?
That is just the hull structure without the composite armour added... that blue bit you added is inside the area where the frontal armour is located but it is not structural, it is modular so in the future it can be changed with new materials and designs. We have already seen a new frontal armour array being fitted that is thicker that has a different shape from the first prototypes.
The blue bit you drew in needs to have another wedge added to it to create the front sort of like this...
OK, I am not artist but I have drawn a red circle to show where the front wheel goes and a rough red line showing the rough outline of the hull front shape that can be composite and layers and air pockets and all sorts of protection from the front.
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 18 Untitl10](https://servimg.com/r/4615113927/untitl10.png)
Remember the Armata has the entire crew in the front hull so that is where all the armour is... there is bugger all armour in the turret, but it is still the heaviest modern Russian tank so you actually think the front of the hull is paper thin?
Really?
That is just the hull structure without the composite armour added... that blue bit you added is inside the area where the frontal armour is located but it is not structural, it is modular so in the future it can be changed with new materials and designs. We have already seen a new frontal armour array being fitted that is thicker that has a different shape from the first prototypes.
kvs, Hole and Broski like this post
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1394
Points : 1450
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
GarryB wrote:You are not getting it... look at the image of a T-14 tank... the tank hull front armour is not sloped like that... the hull front is a wedge shape with the point facing forward not a back angle slab.
The blue bit you drew in needs to have another wedge added to it to create the front sort of like this...
OK, I am not artist but I have drawn a red circle to show where the front wheel goes and a rough red line showing the rough outline of the hull front shape that can be composite and layers and air pockets and all sorts of protection from the front.
That is a possibility, and would make some degree of sense given the availability of mass budget and limitations on space, even if most analysts do not model it that way. One must ofcourse consider that a wedge shaped array offers rather inconsistent protection due to its variable thickness.
Remember the Armata has the entire crew in the front hull so that is where all the armour is... there is bugger all armour in the turret, but it is still the heaviest modern Russian tank so you actually think the front of the hull is paper thin?
Really?
I was actually suggesting that the proportions of the model posted were wrong.
lyle6 wrote:Paralay made a very accurate model back on page 15 that is corroborated by this new model...
His T-14 model is more like what I would expect, though I will stand by my view on his T-15 model's total lack of composite arrays being unrealistic.
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
One must ofcourse consider that a wedge shaped array offers rather inconsistent protection due to its variable thickness.
WHAT?
The hull front upper armour layer of the Abrams tank is about 20mm thick and could be penetrated by 30mm cannon shells fired from above. It achieves acceptable levels of protection because its protection is measured from shots taken from the front at a near horizontal angle that most ATGM or tank fire AP round would be following.
The reason the Leopard IIs and Abrams and Challenger tanks were so easily taken out by Russian fire was their thin top armour because all three have horribly thin top armour... most tanks have horribly thin top armour.
I was actually suggesting that the proportions of the model posted were wrong.
In what regard... the distance between the turret ring and the front nose tip of the hull with armour array fitted is quite large because it contains the entire crew of three men.
His T-14 model is more like what I would expect, though I will stand by my view on his T-15 model's total lack of composite arrays being unrealistic.
Look at the actual turret and the model of the turret above... essentially the T14 turret is pretty much all composite armour and empty space for optics and systems and equipment.
Broski likes this post
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1394
Points : 1450
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
GarryB wrote:
WHAT?
The hull front upper armour layer of the Abrams tank is about 20mm thick and could be penetrated by 30mm cannon shells fired from above. It achieves acceptable levels of protection because its protection is measured from shots taken from the front at a near horizontal angle that most ATGM or tank fire AP round would be following.
The reason the Leopard IIs and Abrams and Challenger tanks were so easily taken out by Russian fire was their thin top armour because all three have horribly thin top armour... most tanks have horribly thin top armour.
Simple geometry. A triangular profile array with have a variable thickness depending on the point of impact, please not we are not talking about angle of impact as it is rather unlikely for most non top attack threats to hit from a significant elevation.
You were clearly thinking of sloped arrays like are on T-64/72 type hulls which are effectively rhombus profile arrays, hence with the exception of the drivers port and area around the LFP has a constant LOS thickness when viewed from the direct front. A triangular profile array on the other hand such as the area between the two red lines you drew has an LOS thickness of between 0 and from the back of the triangle to the tip of the triangle depending on where it is hit, again assuming a hit from the direct front for simplicities sake.
In what regard... the distance between the turret ring and the front nose tip of the hull with armour array fitted is quite large because it contains the entire crew of three men.
The front of the crew compartment appears too far forward not leaving enough space for an array of more than 30cm average LOS thickness, hence the hull armour would be comparable to the LFP of an abrams with added ERA, that is to say as protective as wet toilet paper unless of course the ERA is so good that it can reduce the penetrating power of the round to a third or less of what is would normally be.
Look at the actual turret and the model of the turret above... essentially the T14 turret is pretty much all composite armour and empty space for optics and systems and equipment.
I have never seen anything to suggest the T-14 has composite armour in the turret, only that it appears to have ERA on the turret roof. If it does have composite armour on the turret it could not be very thick as the bare turret one can see below the outer layer is not much bigger than the machinery inside it.
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
It is just basic physics, you can see the model above has a flat front angled slightly back.
What shape would you like them to place in front of that to give max protection?
Putting a triangle on there with a slight down slope, so it is not an equilateral triangle with the point in the centre... the shape of the lower hull needs to allow for a dozer blade to be fitted for self emplacement and also mine roller equipment.
Assuming the threat comes from a distance the penetration path is likely to be angled downwards slightly which would mean a triangle gives a chance for a full calibre HEAT round to be deflected slightly hitting the steeply angled upper surface, or having to go through the most material possible by hitting below the point of the triangle.
Both surfaces covered in ERA... I would assume steeply angled ERA is more effective and could actually deflect the penetrator to a parallel course instead of a penetrating one.
Hitting the bottom of the triangle means minimal thickness but also means missing the hull and going underneath the vehicle so extreme armour protection would not be required.
The crew compartment starts very close to the turret ring... where do you think they could move it back to exactly?
Look at the drawing again... the actual structural hull of the vehicle is behind the front wheel... do you see the front wheel sticking out of the front of the tank?
That means the frontal armour array is at least the full diameter of the road wheel and is actually rather more than that...
What shape would you like them to place in front of that to give max protection?
Putting a triangle on there with a slight down slope, so it is not an equilateral triangle with the point in the centre... the shape of the lower hull needs to allow for a dozer blade to be fitted for self emplacement and also mine roller equipment.
Assuming the threat comes from a distance the penetration path is likely to be angled downwards slightly which would mean a triangle gives a chance for a full calibre HEAT round to be deflected slightly hitting the steeply angled upper surface, or having to go through the most material possible by hitting below the point of the triangle.
Both surfaces covered in ERA... I would assume steeply angled ERA is more effective and could actually deflect the penetrator to a parallel course instead of a penetrating one.
A triangular profile array on the other hand such as the area between the two red lines you drew has an LOS thickness of between 0 and from the back of the triangle to the tip of the triangle depending on where it is hit, again assuming a hit from the direct front for simplicities sake.
Hitting the bottom of the triangle means minimal thickness but also means missing the hull and going underneath the vehicle so extreme armour protection would not be required.
The front of the crew compartment appears too far forward not leaving enough space for an array of more than 30cm average LOS thickness,
The crew compartment starts very close to the turret ring... where do you think they could move it back to exactly?
Look at the drawing again... the actual structural hull of the vehicle is behind the front wheel... do you see the front wheel sticking out of the front of the tank?
That means the frontal armour array is at least the full diameter of the road wheel and is actually rather more than that...
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E- Posts : 737
Points : 753
Join date : 2016-01-20
- Post n°438
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 18 Empty](https://2img.net/i/empty.gif)
Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:37 pm
New Leopard from KNDS – Leopard-2 A-RC 3.0. with unmanned turret.
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 18 GP5JgV9XQAEZAcd?format=jpg&name=900x900](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GP5JgV9XQAEZAcd?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Germany's defense industry is the first to react seriously to the T-14 concept and take over a lot. Also note the reduction in weight.
Germany's defense industry is the first to react seriously to the T-14 concept and take over a lot. Also note the reduction in weight.
PapaDragon likes this post
lyle6- Posts : 2599
Points : 2593
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
>Bustle autoloader
Probably shouldn't have bothered in the first place.
Probably shouldn't have bothered in the first place.
GarryB and flamming_python like this post
Hole- Posts : 11125
Points : 11103
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
Sure.revolutionary gun laying system
GarryB and kvs like this post
Atmosphere- Posts : 311
Points : 315
Join date : 2021-01-31
So of course the concept of the T-14 is flawed until NATO adopts it then it becomes revolutionary.
GarryB, Big_Gazza, kvs, galicije83, LMFS, Hole, lyle6 and like this post
galicije83- Posts : 211
Points : 213
Join date : 2015-04-30
Age : 44
Location : Serbia
This german cat have oscilatorn turret or gun in this case and its similar to the prototypes of us and french tank in 50s and 60s...AMX lorient or AMX 50 series of tanks or smaler ones AMX 13...or T69/67 us tanks...
So this is just modernized variant of this oscilator turrets/gun...nothing revolutionar in this concept...T14 is one step ahead of this tank...
So this is just modernized variant of this oscilator turrets/gun...nothing revolutionar in this concept...T14 is one step ahead of this tank...
GarryB, flamming_python and PapaDragon like this post
galicije83- Posts : 211
Points : 213
Join date : 2015-04-30
Age : 44
Location : Serbia
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 18 Cyx80QK_jUg](https://sun9-33.userapi.com/impg/7QAGvRGTdQm3_BTm_dA6o87VVqC_VrkqvCCYsA/cyx80QK_jUg.jpg?size=900x700&quality=95&sign=52a0716f2e769a08a6a818020ab90d8b&type=album)
Here it is...concept of new EU MBT.....so they copy armata concept...probably its their wunderwaffen
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 18 D5K2l87tFAA](https://sun6-22.userapi.com/impg/teRsu7-yEy3V1AUGMuAoEHJMUQJ4ampxkDwtOg/D5K2l87tFAA.jpg?size=1280x960&quality=95&sign=030a070f79fbe4e18f4ef732798a9edf&type=album)
GarryB and kvs like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The real question is how many countries are in each consortium to build these future super tanks and how long before disagreements in specs and more importantly where it will be built become toxic and lead to a breakup.
Fortunately the destruction of the German production industry means they will be producing theirs in the US.
Fortunately the destruction of the German production industry means they will be producing theirs in the US.
galicije83 likes this post
Big_Gazza- Posts : 4908
Points : 4898
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia
galicije83 wrote:Here it is...concept of new EU MBT.....so they copy armata concept...probably its their wunderwaffen
Lets see them build them for less than USD 20M per unit.
Kraut wunderwaffe are always over-priced. Leo 2 A7 is allegedly ~15.8M per copy, and the A6 is ~8.4M. How many T-90M can Russia buy for the ruble equivalent?
GarryB, kvs, galicije83, LMFS, Hole and Broski like this post
Mir- Posts : 3835
Points : 3833
Join date : 2021-06-10
I think they will be hard press to get it under 30 million!
GarryB, Big_Gazza and Broski like this post
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1394
Points : 1450
Join date : 2017-09-18
Location : Uranus
What I find amusing is that the display model not only has a turret bustle vulnerable to anything more serious than small arms fire, but they have not devoted any of the freed up mass to side armour, or seemingly even to armour in nay direction.
It seems that the wests desire to mak their tanks lighter will mean that the T-72B3 will be sufficient well into the 2060s.
It seems that the wests desire to mak their tanks lighter will mean that the T-72B3 will be sufficient well into the 2060s.
GarryB, Big_Gazza, kvs, lancelot and Broski like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40558
Points : 41060
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The sheep of the west are so well trained that when you tell them about how much these things are likely to cost the response is not shock or indignation... most of the time it is that the west is rich and they can afford it.
There is so much scope for a story along the lines of the Emperor with no clothes... if it is expensive then it must be the best... but the wests greatest skills is in sales and marketing and propaganda, which is why the west spends so much and yet gets so little.
I remember reading a SciFi short story that was written in the 1950s and it was set well into the future but it was really looking at our problems now where the west is going high tech and super expensive and experimental while the communist enemy just makes things that work that are basic but are easy to produce in large numbers, which they do produce in enormous numbers.
The story is basically the trial of the top scientist and the enemy commander and it goes on about all sorts of issues like their new destroyer is much bigger than the enemy space ships, but because of its complexity it needs a support ship almost as big as the destroyer to carry all the technicians needed to replace the valves as they fail and of course all the replacement valves needed for a given mission. (That shows when the story was written). Then it goes on about all the new technologies they were working on... like one system that bends space so if you are surrounded by enemy ships you push a button and the space around your ship is warped and becomes several light years distance. The enemy ships disappear. Of course it sounds great but it also means that while you are now out of range of their weapons they are out of range of yours. During testing it seems the stretching of space effected the navigation system so you turn it on all the enemy ships can no longer hit you but you can't hit them either. And when you turned it off you were often enormous distances away from where you were when you turned it on leading to space craft leaving the battle and not returning. All these new technologies had faults and problems and while money and resources and ship losses dogged their side, the other side pumped out simple but effective ships and took out all the enemy planets and won the conflict. The court case ends with the enemy general demanding his own head science officer be executed for sabotaging their war effort... a case of a focus on technology for technologies sake instead of making things practical and able to be produced in useful numbers to have an effect.
There is so much scope for a story along the lines of the Emperor with no clothes... if it is expensive then it must be the best... but the wests greatest skills is in sales and marketing and propaganda, which is why the west spends so much and yet gets so little.
I remember reading a SciFi short story that was written in the 1950s and it was set well into the future but it was really looking at our problems now where the west is going high tech and super expensive and experimental while the communist enemy just makes things that work that are basic but are easy to produce in large numbers, which they do produce in enormous numbers.
The story is basically the trial of the top scientist and the enemy commander and it goes on about all sorts of issues like their new destroyer is much bigger than the enemy space ships, but because of its complexity it needs a support ship almost as big as the destroyer to carry all the technicians needed to replace the valves as they fail and of course all the replacement valves needed for a given mission. (That shows when the story was written). Then it goes on about all the new technologies they were working on... like one system that bends space so if you are surrounded by enemy ships you push a button and the space around your ship is warped and becomes several light years distance. The enemy ships disappear. Of course it sounds great but it also means that while you are now out of range of their weapons they are out of range of yours. During testing it seems the stretching of space effected the navigation system so you turn it on all the enemy ships can no longer hit you but you can't hit them either. And when you turned it off you were often enormous distances away from where you were when you turned it on leading to space craft leaving the battle and not returning. All these new technologies had faults and problems and while money and resources and ship losses dogged their side, the other side pumped out simple but effective ships and took out all the enemy planets and won the conflict. The court case ends with the enemy general demanding his own head science officer be executed for sabotaging their war effort... a case of a focus on technology for technologies sake instead of making things practical and able to be produced in useful numbers to have an effect.
flamming_python and kvs like this post
lyle6- Posts : 2599
Points : 2593
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
That's because they didn't spare much armor mass in the first place. The bustle autoloader in an unmanned turret would still require the same protection from the frontal arc as it would in a manned turret. And the ammo will still be exposed to off-angle attacks from FPVs, etc.The-thing-next-door wrote:What I find amusing is that the display model not only has a turret bustle vulnerable to anything more serious than small arms fire, but they have not devoted any of the freed up mass to side armour, or seemingly even to armour in nay direction.
It seems that the wests desire to mak their tanks lighter will mean that the T-72B3 will be sufficient well into the 2060s.
And yes, this also means they will not be able to provide enough armor mass to reliably protect against anti-armor fire from the T-14. A real challenger right there.
Btw the retarded two point trunnion mounting *lifts* the gun assembly everytime it has to shoot at something above the horizon to avoid the breech clipping the bottom of the turret (there is no turret basket that intrudes into the hull). Another excellence in armor design courtesy of the paste eating morons who brought you to the Leopard 2A4 sight weakspot.
GarryB, kvs, LMFS and lancelot like this post
kvs- Posts : 15861
Points : 15996
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Turdope's Kanada
What drooling fanbois and other morons fail to understand is that simplicity of design requires more effort than Rube Goldberg "sophistication".
Any retard can come up with a complex design by layering shit concepts on top of each other, but to make a "simple" and functional design
requires IQ and effort.
What is fobbed off as "primitive" coming out of the USSR and Russia is actually more advanced than the fragile "sophisticated" crap put out
by the "advanced" west by corporate parasites. The endless wunderwaffen drool during the course of the Ukraine war highlights this rather
well.
Any retard can come up with a complex design by layering shit concepts on top of each other, but to make a "simple" and functional design
requires IQ and effort.
What is fobbed off as "primitive" coming out of the USSR and Russia is actually more advanced than the fragile "sophisticated" crap put out
by the "advanced" west by corporate parasites. The endless wunderwaffen drool during the course of the Ukraine war highlights this rather
well.
GarryB, The-thing-next-door, LMFS, lyle6, Mir and Broski like this post