|
dusty posted:What's involved keeping these stealth aircraft stealthy? There's been a lot of reference in this thread to many hours on the ground needed to keep em up to scratch - can anyone shed some light on this for me? The other guys more or less covered it...short version is that LO is about shaping and RAM. Most of the time when people are talking "LO maintenance" it's in reference to keeping the RAM coatings and materials in top condition in order to maintain the aircraft's LO signature, taking care of damage/degradation caused by routine flight. However, as grover pointed out a not inconsequential portion of LO maintenance is pulling panels and doing panel restore as a part of other routine maintenance actions on the jet. The F-22 was designed as much as possible to enable maintenance without requiring a restore (access through weapons bays/landing gear bays/other routinely opened areas, some panels that are designed to be "quick access" and which don't require a full restore, etc) but even then there are still a significant amount of things that require a no kidding panel pull, which then requires a panel restore, which can be maintenance (and sometimes time) intensive. Forums Terrorist posted:Is there any work being done on materials that have many of the same properties as the coatings but are more resistant to environmental factors? If a good portion of the RCS reduction comes from the paint then integrating its properties into the skin material itself seems like a no-brainer requirement for active service. Unless you honestly think a stealth plane's niche being compromised by bird poo poo is acceptable, in which case you probably either work for or are a shareholder of Lockheed. Look at the progression from the F-117 to the B-2 to the F-22. While the Raptor still requires lots of LO maintenance, it is light years beyond both of those platforms. Leaving either of those aircraft in the weather in an operational environment is (or was, in the case of the F-117) almost unthinkable. There's a reason we've built climate controlled hangars in several locations around the world to support F-117 and B-2 operations (as well as why B-2s frequently operate direct from Whiteman) because using them operationally without climate controlled hangars is difficult. This isn't necessary with the Raptor, leaving them outside just increases the amount of time/effort/money in LO maintenance but it is possible to maintain an operationally acceptable LO signature without indoor storage...obviously it is preferred which is why individual cell type hangars have been built at many bases where F-22s are stationed, but it isn't required, which increases deployment flexibility (you can send F-22s to a bare base.) So in answer to your question, yes, a LOT of work has been and is continuing to be done on RAM that is more resistant to environmental factors, and the F-22 is walking proof of that when compared to legacy aircraft.
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 10:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
Yeah, the real way ahead for LO seems to be continuing to reduce maintenance as well as coming up with LO materials and shapes that work better on a wider array of types of radar systems and waveforms.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 13:32
|
|
|
I think it's time we brought this thread back a few years. Way back in February I made a few posts about the S-tank; the Swedish main battle tank from the late 60s to the early 90s. Now, the S-tank is somewhat obscure but still well known enough to be featured in the odd documentary. But how many of you knew it had a proposed successor?  This is Stridsvagn 2000 - a domestic design that never left the drawing board. The photos are of a wooden mock-up, which was the closest the system came to even being a prototype. The vehicle was developed between 1984 and 1991. Information about it is scarce and poorly sourced, with claims such as a "level of protection that not even the Strv 122(Leopard 2S) can't compete with" floating around on the net but no real data to corroborate them. Barely a dozen images seem to remain and the tank doesn't even have an English Wiki page.  Schematics of the "final" version.  Horizontal view of the "final" version (above) and an alternate, turret-less version with a raised 120 mm gun (below) More pictures of the mock-up:   A few things are known however. Chiefly, armament: - 1 x 140 mm smoothbore main gun - 1 x 40 mm autocannon - 1 x 7,62 mm coaxial machine gun - 1 x 7,62 mm (alt. .50 machine gun) Turret mounted but remote operated Suffice to say, its firepower would have been unsurpassed by anything in the world at the time. Those familiar with cold war tanks might recognize that mounting an autocannon is not necessarily a first - the AMX 30 sports a 20 mm, and a 20 mm was proposed on both the cancelled MBT 70 and AMX 32 prototypes - but a full 40 mm surely is. The plan was to fire only APFSDS with the main gun against heavily armoured targets and use the 40 mm against anything else - it was to be loaded with both APFSDS of its own and HE. This does come with drawbacks of course. From what I've gathered, the idea was to use a crew of only three (gunner, driver, commander) which would put considerable strain on the gunner who has to juggle three weapons, with two ammunition settings for the 40 mm. I've failed to find any information on the chassis or the power plant, besides noting its superficial resemblance to the S-tank chassis. Now, the armour... like I mentioned there are plenty of claims about superior protection to the Leopard 2 without any actual data. There are two things though: first, weight. The Stridsvagn 2000 weighed in at 59 tons, the Leo 2 at 62. This is roughly the same weight class - but the Stridsvagn 2000 appears somewhat more compact, especially with the slim turret, so the possibility of more armour is there. Second: sloping. As can be seen in the schematics, it follows the S-tank style of highly sloped frontal armour. This also suggests that the rumours might have been true. Finally there's one considerable failing to the design - no IRV. Instead, "Lyran" illumination mortar rounds were supposed to provide night-fighting capability. While somewhat understandable in the 80s this would have been almost instantly obsolete if it had won the competition and ended up being introduced in the late 90s. As for the competition, the Stridsvagn 2000 ended up facing three of the four dominating NATO MBTs of the 80s: the M1A1 Abrams, the Leclerk and of course the Leopard 2. The Challenger II apparently prioritized desert trials at the time and did not compete. In the end it finally lost out to the Leopard 2 which was chosen in 1994, mainly due to two things; high development cost and risk of delays and the implausibility of being able to export it to an already saturated market.  160 Leopard 2A4s were leased from Germany immediately following the decision to fill the now alarming inventory gap in the Swedish Army, which still used the obsolete S-tank, and entered service as Stridsvagn 121. 120 Leopard 2 A5s were ordered and modified to the (S) version which included improved armour as well as upgraded command and control systems. As of 2002, the strv 122 is the only MBT in service with the Swedish military with the strv 121s having been decommissioned. And that's all I've been able to find about this fascinating piece of machinery. If it had been adopted it would have been so in the late 90s and could very well have been the most powerful MBT in the world by a considerable margin, and likely with a price tag to boot. But we're not done just yet. While there may not be very many images of the Stridsvagn 2000, there are a few more I'd like to show you of another project. Remember that schematics with the elevated gun? That was actually based on a joint Swedish-German experimental design.  This is a version with a 120 mm gun mounted on, of all things, a Hägglunds Bv 206. This thing:  A more "conventional" (if you can call it that) version preceded it and used the Marder chassis:  The designs were called the UDES XX 20 and the UDES 03 respectively and were built to explore the possibility of designing a tank destroyer in this style. Here are some more pictures of the prototype:    The front unit carried the crew, the rear unit the ammunition for the gun. This vastly improved survivability. It never came to fruition because of the problems with actual being able to spot targets for the gun to hit from the chassis, and issues with the autoloader - not to mention that it would have cost 20-40 % more than actual conventional tank! Even so, it's certainly an interesting design. Very Sci-Fi. Oh, and it had feature that had never been used in an armoured vehicle before and probably won't be used in any others until the day we invent mechs - a personal elevator for the commander, to get him above the gun where he would actually be able to see something. EDIT: Grammar Stroh M.D. fucked around with this message at 14:49 on May 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 13:53
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:Awesome write-up. I remember playing Twilight: 2000 back in the day. The next gen of the M1 was supposed to be turretless, with the gun elevating on some kinda lift. I totally wanted to see this, and am thrilled to see the Swedes at least made an attempt. Semi-related, why did the Army build the Stryker instead of using the LAV-25?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:
I'm surprised they were putting serious effort (ie actual prototypes) into tank destroyers in the 70s-80s given how ATGMs were quickly filling that niche at the time. I guess nowadays its come full circle with the Stryker Mobile Gun System, although that's more of a direct fire support weapon than anything that would go against a tank. The Swedes sure put a lot of effort into maintaining their neutrality though - I remember visiting family in Varberg when I was a kid and being surprised by all the old coastal defense bunkers still standing along the beach to defend against the Germans (or the Danes  )
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 14:34
|
|
Swedish tanks
|
Oxford Comma posted:Semi-related, why did the Army build the Stryker instead of using the LAV-25? Well, the Stryker is an LAV, just an LAV-III vice the LAV-25 which is an LAV-II. So while there are significant changes to suspension, shape, drivetrain, etc. the Stryker is an updated LAV. Someone can probably provide much more details than I.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 14:35
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:I'm surprised they were putting serious effort (ie actual prototypes) into tank destroyers in the 70s-80s given how ATGMs were quickly filling that niche at the time. I guess nowadays its come full circle with the Stryker Mobile Gun System, although that's more of a direct fire support weapon than anything that would go against a tank. Nah, Barsebäck took care of the Danes for us. "With Plutonium we bring the Danes to their knees"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlTukY9fV9Y Now that the plants are closed, however, maybe its time to bring the bunkers back again?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:Nah, Barsebäck took care of the Danes for us. "With Plutonium we bring the Danes to their knees" The plant does guided tours, and they're totally worth it if you happen to be in Lund or Malmö. The place has been decontaminated to the point where you don't even need to suit up anymore to go over to the plant side. Groda fucked around with this message at 15:55 on May 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Well, the Stryker is an LAV, just an LAV-III vice the LAV-25 which is an LAV-II. So why did the Army just not use the LAV-25? It seems like that would be the less expensive option, as well as avoiding all the teething problems of a new design.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:So why did the Army just not use the LAV-25? It seems like that would be the less expensive option, as well as avoiding all the teething problems of a new design. The Stryker has improved electronics, control stations, sensors, etc and supposedly is easier to configure to different misisons and hardware variants. There's a lot more room inside a Stryker than a LAV-25. The infantry carrier variant of the Striker has 2 crew, plus room for a max of 9 infantry. Meanwhile, the LAV-25 can carries 3 crew plus 4 infantry. LAV-25s are considered Gen 2 as far as systems and capabilities, and the LAV-III/Stryker are considered Gen 3, though "gens" are often more about selling poo poo than hard combat capabilities.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:Nah, Barsebäck took care of the Danes for us. "With Plutonium we bring the Danes to their knees" I had to look this up. wiki posted:Barsebäck is a closed boiling water nuclear power plant in Sweden, which is situated in Barsebäck, Kävlinge Municipality, Skåne. Located just 20 kilometers from the Danish capital, Copenhagen, the Danish government pressed for its closure during its entire lifetime. This is loving hilarious to me for some reason. Building a nuclear power plant right next to another country's capital? I mean drat, what a dick move. How did they get away with it in the first place? Was it meant to be provocative? Tell us more Stroh M.D. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
fuf posted:I had to look this up. It wasn't meant to be provocative, but quite a few Danes certainly thought it was. Plans for the plant were laid down in 1965 and initially the Danes were supportive, to the point where they were even encouraging Sweden to build it that close to Copenhagen since it meant that they would be able to buy cheap and clean power for the capitol at a low price. The location was considered ideal - the area is the most densely populated in Scandinavia, with Copenhagen - Scandinavia's largest city - on one side of the strait and Malmö, Sweden's third largest, on the other. This was the same era as the Long Island plant was built, so it wasn't necessarily considered all that controversial. At the time, the Danes also had their own plans for nuclear power and viewed Barsebäck as a good place holder. But things changed though - throughout the 70s, public opinion was turning against nuclear power in general. The plant opened in 1975 and mere four years later we had the Harrisburg incident followed by the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. In Sweden, a national referendum was held in 1980 to decide the future of nuclear power - the middle of the road third option (typically) won out, to phase out nuclear power over time as alternatives emerged. Since no alternatives really emerged it took until 2005 for the plant to actually close. The Danes, who welcomed the result of the referendum, felt tricked and would continue to push for its immediate closure all the way up to that year. The clip I included and quoted in translation is actually from a Danish TV-series called "Riget" which is kind of "Twin Peaks" meets "Paranormal Activity" meets "ER" taking place at Copenhagen's largest hospital. It's both weird and wonderful, directed by Lars von Trier. The character is a Swedish doctor who is pretty much every hateful stereotype Dane's have about Swedes combined. Suffice to say, the idea that Barsebäck was in fact built were it was in order to give the Danes the finger has always been a fully Danish conspiracy theory, never a Swedish one. The quote, in full, goes like this: Ernst-Hugo Järegård posted:
It's just so wonderfully poetic and hammy
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 12:55
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:same era as the Long Island plant Speaking of Long Island plants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant $6 Billon, never went into service.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 12:58
|
|
|
Barsebäck "It's seemed like a good idea at the time". Planned in the early sixties (concurrent with the Swedish nuclear weapon program = need for a strong civilian nuclear infrastructure) it's situated in the most densely populated and industrialized area of the country (and dense Denmark)= market. While at the same time there's not that many in the immediate vicinity of the plant. 5km/3 miles is plenty distance, right? (Distance Pripjat/Chernobyl NPP; 37km/23 miles) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMaIf7E5Fv0&t=525s at 8min,45s e:f,b like a dane getting the swedish granite finger ThisIsJohnWayne fucked around with this message at 13:48 on May 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 13:43
|
|
Stroh M.D. posted:The quote, in full, goes like this: That's pretty funny because the version I was told is that the Danes made the Swedes shut down the power plant so the Danes could then sell the Swedes coal powered electricity from Denmark.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
Suck it Lane Public Library, you threw out a good book and got it to me for a few bucks  
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
movax posted:Suck it Lane Public Library, you threw out a good book and got it to me for a few bucks Excellent choice. Have you read it before?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Excellent choice. Have you read it before? Nope, I bought it because of this thread. I put it on my list of books to get, and finally got around to acquiring it. Also got this based on this thread. I do have a Kindle, but physical books are just way cooler.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 04:06
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:So why did the Army just not use the LAV-25? It seems like that would be the less expensive option, as well as avoiding all the teething problems of a new design. Because the LAVII is poorly suited to what the Army wanted and is a 40ish year old design. -The armor on LAVIIs is rated to 7.62NATO at 100m but I've seen a SAW penetrate the hull. Applique armor, which bumps it up to 14.5mm, adds its own problems in the form of increased component wear, decreased fuel economy, and decreased ability to traverse terrain. Strykers were designed with this weight in mind. They have a more powerful engine, beefier driveline, larger wheels and CTIS to account for the additional weight of their armor(ceramic applique and slat). -The fuel tank in the -25 variant doubles as the troop seat. In all other variants they're mounted on the interior against the side of the hull. LAVIII vehicles have external fuel tanks. -LAVIIIs are all around bigger; wider, longer and taller. The Aussies use a modified LAVII logistics variant to transport 7(on paper, it probably carries less than this irl). The -25 variant carries 4 rifleman comfortably and 6 in extreme discomfort. The Stryker carries 9; to match the capacity of 4 Strykers, you would need 6 LAV-Ls. LAVIIIs are also optimized to disembark the section rapidly through a drop down hatch rather than a set of manual double doors. -The LAVII was designed in a time when radios weren't digital. When LAVs were new, HF was the only long range comm asset. On really old LAVIIs, you can still find the additional gear required to send/receive encrypted. Now we have FBCB2, satcom, longer range VHF/UHF radios and satphones all networked into a digital intercom system. LAVIIIs were designed with these assets in mind; on LAVIIs, they're all jury rigged in there wherever they'll fit and it shows. -The Stryker costs $3mil/unit and an LAV-25 costs between $1.4mil/unit and $2.5mil/unit. I couldn't find a price for a base hull LAV-LA2 LAVIIIs existed before the Army started the acquisition process; the Canadians and the Kiwis both use them. I have no idea what sort of teething issues the Stryker endured during its introduction but I'm sure they weren't anything like those you would encounter in a totally new vehicle. In the end, it wouldn't make much sense to redesign an LAVII to fit the Army's specifications when LAVIIIs already exist and can be adapted to meet their future needs much more readily. Here's some pictures to make up for all the words:    mlmp08 posted:LAV-25s are considered Gen 2 as far as systems and capabilities, and the LAV-III/Stryker are considered Gen 3, though "gens" are often more about selling poo poo than hard combat capabilities. In this case, not really. Except for the gun and optics/fire control suite, GenIIIs are leaps and bounds ahead of of GenIIs.
|
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 09:56
|
|
|
I had no idea that a rifle round could penetrate the earlier LAV's. Jesus Christ, that wasn't acceptable 40 years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 12:10
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I had no idea that a rifle round could penetrate the earlier LAV's. Jesus Christ, that wasn't acceptable 40 years ago. M113s are the same, AAV7s have a little less.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 13:02
|
|
|
The M113 I can understand, that's late 50's tech and values were, uh, different when it was designed. Same with the AAV, it was designed later but for a different role, and when it was fielded an amphibious landing wasn't going to be like Normandy.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 13:14
|
|
|
Yeah, seriously, what the hell. Any poo poo with a DShK could rip an LAV to shreds? That seems ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 13:15
|
|
|
The only thing I can think of that makes it better is Marines are expendable. I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 13:16
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Yeah, seriously, what the hell. Any poo poo with a DShK could rip an LAV to shreds? That seems ridiculous. There's a reason M2 gunners train to shoot at APCs and the like. I didn't realize the LAV-II was that weak, but a LOT of APCs which look pretty serious are really quite vulnerable to Medium and Heavy MGs and somewhat vulnerable even to LMGs.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 15:47
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Yeah, seriously, what the hell. Any poo poo with a DShK could rip an LAV to shreds? That seems ridiculous. They all have applique armor now so the threat is somewhat diminished. Besides that, the odds of Joe Taliban getting a first burst hit against a moving LAV are pretty low. The odds of scoring a first burst kill from an LAV against a relatively immobile HMG are pretty good. The odds of spotting Joe Taliban and his DShK before he can even get his first burst off are also pretty good. LAR units aren't, by doctrine, a mechanized infantry force. In a big war, like OIF, they're used to screen ahead/to the flanks of an advancing Marine division and have a limited ability to attack/defend objectives. The lethality/value of the LAR Bn lies in its speed, optics, comm gear, flexibility and self-sustainability. VikingSkull posted:The only thing I can think of that makes it better is Marines are expendable. I guess. no priznat posted:Have they fixed the rollover risk on the LAV-IIIs and such? I recall there were a couple CF vehicles that rolled in the earlier days of Afghanistan. Probably ensuring the drivers don't do certain things would be the best defense against that. VVV vains fucked around with this message at 00:38 on May 24, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
Have they fixed the rollover risk on the LAV-IIIs and such? I recall there were a couple CF vehicles that rolled in the earlier days of Afghanistan. Probably ensuring the drivers don't do certain things would be the best defense against that.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 21:35
|
|
Veins McGee posted:LAR units aren't, by doctrine, a mechanized infantry force. In a big war, like OIF, they're used to screen ahead/to the flanks of an advancing Marine division and have a limited ability to attack/defend objectives. The lethality/value of the LAR Bn lies in its speed, optics, comm gear, flexibility and self-sustainability. So, Cavalry?
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 00:37
|
|
Armyman25 posted:So, Cavalry? Yeah, pretty much LAR=CAV with, I assume, a slightly different mentality. Everyone on the vehicle is trained as a rifleman, the vehicle crew obviously goes onto further training. On the other hand, none of the scouts receive any formal 'scout' training. They're supposed to be trained in light demo work, use/operation of the SMAW and SASR, some basic ford/bridge/route/etc recon and how to operate with the vehicles. The 0311 course covers none of these topics. There isn't a follow-on LAR scout course so there is little institutional knowledge to begin with. Coupled with 8 years of being used strictly as a COIN infantry type force and the knowledge is almost entirely gone. In OIF/OEF, LAR BNs seem to mostly get sent to low density spaces at the periphery of the battlespace where raw numbers(LAR platoon is ~25, with 13 dismounts, compared to 40-50 in an infantry platoon) are less important than ability to cover ground.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
Here's a random, awesome video. The F-8 Crusader, with bonus Grumman Avenger just because.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Here's a random, awesome video. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Look at the progression from the F-117 to the B-2 to the F-22. While the Raptor still requires lots of LO maintenance, it is light years beyond both of those platforms. Leaving either of those aircraft in the weather in an operational environment is (or was, in the case of the F-117) almost unthinkable. There's a reason we've built climate controlled hangars in several locations around the world to support F-117 and B-2 operations (as well as why B-2s frequently operate direct from Whiteman) because using them operationally without climate controlled hangars is difficult. This isn't necessary with the Raptor, leaving them outside just increases the amount of time/effort/money in LO maintenance but it is possible to maintain an operationally acceptable LO signature without indoor storage...obviously it is preferred which is why individual cell type hangars have been built at many bases where F-22s are stationed, but it isn't required, which increases deployment flexibility (you can send F-22s to a bare base.) I was visiting a YF-23 at the old Hawthorne Air Museum years ago, and while taking photos, the autofocus wouldn't work. What's wrong with this drat camera? Oh. Oh.  It can't...lock on... to a half billion dollar stealth prototype.  Seriously, it was just a lovely camera, but I had a moment there, dammit. Schindler's Fist fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Jun 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
http://blog.al.com/live/2012/06/skyraider_on_display_at_uss_ba.html Forfeited A1N Skyraider on display locally. Might have to go take a gander. Interesting story about how it got to where it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
n0tqu1tesane posted:http://blog.al.com/live/2012/06/skyraider_on_display_at_uss_ba.html quote:In a speech provided by Tunnell, Raymond Parmer, special agent in charge of Homeland Security, explained that in August 2008 inspectors from U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Savannah, Ga., found four cannons for a Douglas Skyraider AD-4N aircraft concealed in a crate shipped from France and destined for an address outside Birmingham. After the cannons were seized, according to Parmer, agents discovered that the Skyraider aircraft was located near the Birmingham area. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
grover posted:At first, I was pretty sympathetic about how the feds yanked his airplane away just because he neglected to file the right paperwork in his excitement. It kinda goes beyond missed paperwork, though... what the gently caress is USS Battleship?? e: also what is that hatch on the starboard side of the fuselage behind the canopy and wing root but before the US roundel? Suicide Watch fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Jun 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:what the gently caress is USS Battleship??
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:e: also what is that hatch on the starboard side of the fuselage behind the canopy and wing root but before the US roundel? The AD-4N is a three seater night attack variant. The other two crewmembers rode in the fuselage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Yeah, seriously, what the hell. Any poo poo with a DShK could rip an LAV to shreds? That seems ridiculous. I know I'm a touch late on this but:  I thought all modern American AFVs were armored up to 14.5mm rounds all around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
Better get the PTRD's outta storage tovarish! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I know I'm a touch late on this but: I dunno, 14.5mm rounds are pretty big, man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2012 03:17
|
|