BMPs in Georgia
frank
looks like green with grey dabbed over it, one that strangely looks
almost like how the US did 3 colors with a black stick like squiggle
on it.
Any signifance to any of this? Local news just runs tape, has no idea
what its looking at.
there isn't enough to see unit markings, anything like that.
Jack Linthicum
You might try models, this group has a t least two styles. There is a
strong possibility that some of the model magazines show the different
camo schemes and even explain why they are different from one another.
frank
wrote:
Thanks, they had 4x4 SUV van that I guess the Russians are using for
troop transport or supplies. Almost looks like a VW van. You see those
running in the news shots and it is strange to see with all the BMPs
and armor.
News reports said Russians took over 4 Hummers Georgians were going to
return to the US, guess there was some stuff that was going to be
shipped out of the country.
tankfixer
913736...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, dhssres...@netscape.net
says...
> I'm seeing roughly 3 camo patterns on the BMPs, all green, one that
> looks like green with grey dabbed over it, one that strangely looks
> almost like how the US did 3 colors with a black stick like squiggle
> on it.
>
> Any signifance to any of this? Local news just runs tape, has no idea
> what its looking at.
Three different guys painted them....
>
> there isn't enough to see unit markings, anything like that.
>
--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.
frank
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> >> Any signifance to any of this? Local news just runs tape, has no idea
> >> what its looking at.
>
> > Three different guys painted them....
>
>
> Of course, they'll be nowhere as detailed as the ones used by the
> Germans - we had a manual for each different type of vehicle, with
> drawings from all sides specifying the camo pattern, so that for
> example each 2t Unimog would have EXACTLY the same pattern on it, with
> less than an inch of variation (if any)
>
> Don't ask me why, it's probably something in the genes... ;-)
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> When you're swimming in the creek, And an eel bites your cheek, That's a
> moray! - Fabulous Furry Freak Bros.
No, there's probably a bureaucrat somewhere, I seem to recall the
Luftwaffe had hand tooled leather seats installed in their WWII
fighters. Sort of slows down the production line, US puts in a metal
pressed seat, says you want comfort, use your parachute pack...
Some were saying we needed to emulate the German General Staff system.
Then there are people like Chargin Charlie Beckwith. Read his books,
well worth it, especially the Iraq rescue mission. I'm not sure we
make them like we used to, then again, every generation says that.
frank
tankfixer
juergen.nie...@arcor.de says...
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> >> Any signifance to any of this? Local news just runs tape, has no idea
> >> what its looking at.
> >
> > Three different guys painted them....
>
Ours used to. An entire huge manual of silhouettes of front and side
showing the pattern to paint.
Not that anyone bothered to actually pay much attention to them..
>
> Of course, they'll be nowhere as detailed as the ones used by the
> Germans - we had a manual for each different type of vehicle, with
> drawings from all sides specifying the camo pattern, so that for
> example each 2t Unimog would have EXACTLY the same pattern on it, with
> less than an inch of variation (if any)
>
> Don't ask me why, it's probably something in the genes... ;-)
No doubt.. ;')
Jack Linthicum
> In article <Xns9B005969E16Ejuergennieve...@nieveler.org>,
> juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de says...
You could diddle through all the little videos of tanks and equipment
pulling into and out of Georgia. They ought to be moderately accurate.
Most of the tanks have cobham armor and therefore no real color.
Richard Casady
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Most of the tanks have cobham armor and therefore no real color.
Of course there is no armor that you can't paint.
There is such a thing as chobham armor. You can't tell for sure by
looking, unless you have x-ray vision. Like another composite used on
the Abrams, it is bulkier than steel. What I saw was reactive armor,
blocks of explosive that will defeat a RPG by disrupting the jet from
the shaped charge.
Casady
Felix Reuthner
> Of course, they'll be nowhere as detailed as the ones used by the
> Germans - we had a manual for each different type of vehicle, with
> drawings from all sides specifying the camo pattern, so that for
> example each 2t Unimog would have EXACTLY the same pattern on it, with
> less than an inch of variation (if any)
When I heard this first, I wondered if these patterns are already stored
in some kind of targeting computers. If a computer knows exactly what
pattern to look for, it should be able actually identify a "camouflaged"
vehicle much easier than a plain green one, right?
> Don't ask me why, it's probably something in the genes... ;-)
Or memes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Felix
tankfixer
@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net says...
> On Aug 20, 3:40 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> > In article <Xns9B005969E16Ejuergennieve...@nieveler.org>,
> > juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de says...
> >
> > > tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> >
> > > >> Any signifance to any of this? Local news just runs tape, has no idea
> > > >> what its looking at.
> >
> > > > Three different guys painted them....
> >
> > > Surely the Red Army has manuals covering that sort of thing?
> >
> > Ours used to. An entire huge manual of silhouettes of front and side
> > showing the pattern to paint.
> >
> > Not that anyone bothered to actually pay much attention to them..
> >
> >
> >
> > > Of course, they'll be nowhere as detailed as the ones used by the
> > > Germans - we had a manual for each different type of vehicle, with
> > > drawings from all sides specifying the camo pattern, so that for
> > > example each 2t Unimog would have EXACTLY the same pattern on it, with
> > > less than an inch of variation (if any)
> >
> > > Don't ask me why, it's probably something in the genes... ;-)
> >
> > No doubt.. ;')
> >
>
> pulling into and out of Georgia. They ought to be moderately accurate.
> Most of the tanks have cobham armor and therefore no real color.
Sorry but those boxes are not Cobham armor.
That's reactive armor to disrupt any shaped charge wareheads.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:51:46 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
> >Most of the tanks have cobham armor and therefore no real color.
>
> Of course there is no armor that you can't paint.
> There is such a thing as chobham armor. You can't tell for sure by
> looking, unless you have x-ray vision. Like another composite used on
> the Abrams, it is bulkier than steel. What I saw was reactive armor,
> blocks of explosive that will defeat a RPG by disrupting the jet from
> the shaped charge.
>
> Casady
Who am I to argue with an expert. Can you really paint ceramic armor?
And the old joke about the Soviet Union being Rumania with a big army
might have been passed by. Russia appears to have an army equipped
from an old clothes sale and the remains of some rural armory. Wait,
that may be literally true.
A military observation ...
Many journalists reporting on the present situation in Georgia use
standard phrases expressing Russian "power" and "might" etc. But if
the photographs show the present state of the Russian army, then it is
not in a good state at all. For first-class Russian frontline units,
there is strange mixture of obsolete and semi-obsolete armoured
vehicles, with tanks in particular ranging from truly ancient T-54s to
mid-life T-70s smothered in reactive armour. The use of this appliqui
armour alone shows somewhat primitive tank thinking as compare to up-
to-date Western models.
Reactive armour is a cheap and cheerful form interim anti-tank
protection pending the arrival of new tank models, and never used on
Western tanks. Ceramic Cobham armour is used on Challenger 2 and
Abrahams tanks, and the Russians appear not to have developed this.
Also, it is surprising for a first-class tank unit to have some of its
vehicles show appliqui armour whilst others show no such things. Also
there appears to have been no attempt by lackadaisical tank crews to
camouflage their vehicles and break up profiles.
The Russian transport, mainly, 1960s-design Ural trucks, is equally as
ancient, and their thinly-armoured BTR armoured personnel carriers are
of a model which hardly compares as with such advanced vehicles as the
British Warrior, the US Bradley, or the US state-of-the-art Stryker
vehicles, all of which which sprout multi-tasking aerials all over the
place. On the Russian BTRs, here is no sign of anti-RPG bar armour,
and absolutely no sign of mine-protected vehicles which have proved so
necessary in Iraq. The Russians columns appear not to be alert as
concerns mines or possible ambushes. The single aerials installed on
all vehicles show that the internal VHF communications suites are
almost of 1960s standard.
The state of the Russian infantry as observed is even more worrying.
Their uniforms are not standard, their vehicle discipline looks
casual, and the foot deployment of infantry is sloppy, with rifle and
kit not properly adjusted, with Kalshnikovs pointing all over the
place. Frankly, it is enough to make a British Sergeant-Major go
apeshit. Also, the infantry have no body armour (or even steel
helmets), and lacking man pack aerials, appear to have no good
communications kit at all.
The age range of some of the Russian infantry must also be worrying to
Russian trainers and instructors. I have seen men of well over thirty
in infantry sections, and any number of over-plump tummies on display.
There is also a racial mix which must present problems to any basic
training programme as concerns language difficulties. Infantry appear
in particular are drawn from every conceivable area in Russia, which
must make for training and co-ordination difficulties.
Frankly, on detailed technical observation, this display the Russian
army shows it appearing to have sunk to a third-world standard which
only succeeded in this case by confronting a numerically inferior
force. If the Russians had any alert propaganda sense at all, on this
spotlight occasion, they would have fielded a modern elite force
instead of the dog's breakfast as observed. On this evidence, goodness
only knows what their second line units are like.
Colin Bennett
Author, London
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080819153144AASfrKj
Jim Yanik
> Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>
>> Of course, they'll be nowhere as detailed as the ones used by the
>> Germans - we had a manual for each different type of vehicle, with
>> drawings from all sides specifying the camo pattern, so that for
>> example each 2t Unimog would have EXACTLY the same pattern on it, with
>> less than an inch of variation (if any)
>
> When I heard this first, I wondered if these patterns are already stored
> in some kind of targeting computers. If a computer knows exactly what
> pattern to look for, it should be able actually identify a "camouflaged"
> vehicle much easier than a plain green one, right?
that's what thermal imagers are for.
Camo doesn't matter with those.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
frank
>
> that's what thermal imagers are for.
> Camo doesn't matter with those.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net
They were doing some optics research way back in the 80s on shape
recognition, i.e. this is a BMP, this is a M113 and a nice guy do not
target. Programming was a bitch. Don't know where it ever went.
For some reason Army was not thrilled that weapons release would be
based on a program, especially it they were in the area.
Big problem was different weather conditions, particulates in the air
and how things look different from different angles.
tankfixer
@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net says...
> On Aug 20, 4:33 pm, richardcas...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady)
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:51:46 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> >
> > <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >Most of the tanks have cobham armor and therefore no real color.
> >
> > Of course there is no armor that you can't paint.
> > There is such a thing as chobham armor. You can't tell for sure by
> > looking, unless you have x-ray vision. Like another composite used on
> > the Abrams, it is bulkier than steel. What I saw was reactive armor,
> > blocks of explosive that will defeat a RPG by disrupting the jet from
> > the shaped charge.
> >
> > Casady
>
> Who am I to argue with an expert. Can you really paint ceramic armor?
I'l like you to point out an armor vehicle that has ceramic armor
exposed to be painted.
Andrew Chaplin
news:Xns9B015891BB8E...@nieveler.org...
> frank <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> They were doing some optics research way back in the 80s on shape
>> recognition, i.e. this is a BMP, this is a M113 and a nice guy do not
>> target. Programming was a bitch. Don't know where it ever went.
>
> people stick camouflage to their tracks
>
>> Big problem was different weather conditions, particulates in the air
>> and how things look different from different angles.
>
>
> After Desert Storm many people seem to think that tanks simply drive
> around looking just like they did after they rolled out of the factory,
> maybe a bit dirtier... yeah, right ;-)
We came up with thermal imaging recognition training (TIRT) for our ADATS, TOW
and TUA detachments, but the emphasis remained on visual recognition training.
I did not get a good look at TIRT because many of the images were classified
but, from what I gathered, sticking bushes on AFVs was not much help depending
on the IR band you used to observe.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Jack Linthicum
> In article <5b471500-b4a7-4d74-9a9e-8b43e7c6b6a8
Define "exposed", pretty much useless if it isn't exposed
Richard Casady
<juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
>> I'l like you to point out an armor vehicle that has ceramic armor
>> exposed to be painted.
>
>And a ceramic that is so smooth it won't take paint.
Glass will take paint.
Casady
Richard Casady
In the case of ceramic tank armor, non exposed means covered with
metal. Paint it and it is non exposed.
Casady
William Black
"frank" <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3c52d1f0-8e9b-4d4b...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> They were doing some optics research way back in the 80s on shape
> recognition, i.e. this is a BMP, this is a M113 and a nice guy do not
> target. Programming was a bitch. Don't know where it ever went.
It died...
They used a neural network and taught the thing how to spot tanks.
They ran it up on pictures from the appropriate department who takes
pictures of various tanks...
Then they did a live test and it couldn't see them.
They made enquiries and discovered that tanks were always photographed on
sunny days, and they'd trained a hugely expensive neural network to spot
tanks only on sunny days...
By that stage they'd run out of money and nobody wanted to go and ask for
any more on the perfectly reasonable grounds that if asked 'How far have you
got so far' when they told them all they'd get would be gales of laughter...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"frank" <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote in message
:news:3c52d1f0-8e9b-4d4b...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
:
:> They were doing some optics research way back in the 80s on shape
:> recognition, i.e. this is a BMP, this is a M113 and a nice guy do not
:> target. Programming was a bitch. Don't know where it ever went.
:
:It died...
:
:They used a neural network and taught the thing how to spot tanks.
:
Really? In the 1980s? Hard to believe, since pattern recognition
using neural networks wasn't really developed until the end of the
1980s (the patent was issued in the mid-1990s).
:
:They ran it up on pictures from the appropriate department who takes
:pictures of various tanks...
:
:Then they did a live test and it couldn't see them.
:
:They made enquiries and discovered that tanks were always photographed on
:sunny days, and they'd trained a hugely expensive neural network to spot
:tanks only on sunny days...
:
:By that stage they'd run out of money and nobody wanted to go and ask for
:any more on the perfectly reasonable grounds that if asked 'How far have you
:got so far' when they told them all they'd get would be gales of laughter...
:
Sounds like one of those stupid urban legends in the class of "look
how stupid the military-industrial complex is".
Cite?
I'd bet it 'died' because it's a bloody hard problem, no matter how
you go about it.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
frank
> "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ::"frank" <dhssresearc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
I dont remember who the contractor was. I think part of the impetus
was to be able to automatically count items on photographs. Fly over
something, find so many tanks. Computers don't teach well. Or learn.
Most targeting stuff is IR or RADAR. Much easier to find things. There
are ways to look through camo. So they make smarter camo, smarter
sensors, and you're talking real tax dollars at work...
When J STARS disappeared for DS/DS they literally pulled it out of
testing, sent it out. I talked to crews afterwards, they never had a
lot of stuff calibrated, were trying to test stuff in real time, they
found stuff, sent it down line, it all got targeted, did a bang up
job, they were saying, yeah, but we never tested this to find errors,
tweaked it, all that. Even what they did do sent a lot of Iraqis
whereever they go when they get wasted.
Was at a show, had a Canadian firm, was using software to take raw
satellite data then find mineral deposits. How the guy did it was find
mineral deposits, look at the signature in how it looked in number of
sensors that fed into the image, then look for data that looked like
that in the data stream, target that. I think initially data from most
commercial satellites was 8 channels or something like that. He was
using 64 channels or something, maybe 256 in his code. Somebody in the
US government was very interested in talking to him. Hope he's retired
and very rich. Was 80s sometime, I quit doing stuff like that in 90s.
Jack Linthicum
Part of the idea that if we would just know how many men were in a
Soviet squad we could tell how many total there were in the whole
army. I've seen these guys at work and I think there were several
different schemes all working together, so your man may have been not
so fortunate.
Andrew Chaplin
news:f90d42e0-690a-4d87...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Judging by the success of aerial and satellite prospecting in this country,
I'd wager he is fat and happy, providing he stuck to that.
Richard Casady
<juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
>>> Any signifance to any of this? Local news just runs tape, has no idea
>>> what its looking at.
>>
>> Three different guys painted them....
>
>Surely the Red Army has manuals covering that sort of thing?
>
>Of course, they'll be nowhere as detailed as the ones used by the
>Germans - we had a manual for each different type of vehicle, with
>drawings from all sides specifying the camo pattern, so that for
>example each 2t Unimog would have EXACTLY the same pattern on it, with
>less than an inch of variation (if any)
My Unimog is bulldozer yellow, and so are the backhoe and endloader
that fit on it.
Casady
tankfixer
@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net says...
> On Aug 21, 12:02 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> > In article <5b471500-b4a7-4d74-9a9e-8b43e7c6b6a8
> > @k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 20, 4:33 pm, richardcas...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady)
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:51:46 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> >
> > > > <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > >Most of the tanks have cobham armor and therefore no real color.
> >
> > > > Of course there is no armor that you can't paint.
> > > > There is such a thing as chobham armor. You can't tell for sure by
> > > > looking, unless you have x-ray vision. Like another composite used on
> > > > the Abrams, it is bulkier than steel. What I saw was reactive armor,
> > > > blocks of explosive that will defeat a RPG by disrupting the jet from
> > > > the shaped charge.
> >
> > > > Casady
> >
> > > Who am I to argue with an expert. Can you really paint ceramic armor?
> >
> > I'l like you to point out an armor vehicle that has ceramic armor
> > exposed to be painted.
> >
>
not covered with a metal skin of some sort.
What tank do you know of that puts its ceramic armor on the outside ?
tankfixer
juergen.nie...@arcor.de says...
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> > I'l like you to point out an armor vehicle that has ceramic armor
> > exposed to be painted.
>
The plates on the inside of a M113A3 sure don't feel like metal...
Or plastic.
>
> Plastic would be another matter, but I haven't heard of any Teflon
> tanks so far ;-)
>
> Juergen Nieveler
Jack Linthicum
> In article <8e54db21-d9ee-4b25-a439-d58c097c8d68
> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net says...
M1 Abrams at War by Michael Green, Greg Stewart - 2005 - History - 127
pages
Just before the first Gulf War with Iraq in 1991, the Marine Corps
added thin ceramic armor tiles to the exterior of their wheeled light
armored vehicles ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0760321531...
and
The tests against rounds from heavy machine guns began Labor Day
weekend at the Aberdeen, Md., Proving Ground. At least one sample
ceramic tile -- which makes up the Stryker's exterior armor to protect
soldiers inside -- failed, Army officials said.
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/sep/08/20030908-121524-2253r/
tankfixer
dfc0b4...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net
says...
> On Aug 23, 10:28 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> > In article <8e54db21-d9ee-4b25-a439-d58c097c8d68
> > @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 21, 12:02 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> > > > In article <5b471500-b4a7-4d74-9a9e-8b43e7c6b6a8
> > > > @k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net says...
> >
> > > > > On Aug 20, 4:33 pm, richardcas...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady)
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:51:46 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> >
> > > > > > <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >Most of the tanks have cobham armor and therefore no real color.
> >
> > > > > > Of course there is no armor that you can't paint.
> > > > > > There is such a thing as chobham armor. You can't tell for sure by
> > > > > > looking, unless you have x-ray vision. Like another composite used on
> > > > > > the Abrams, it is bulkier than steel. What I saw was reactive armor,
> > > > > > blocks of explosive that will defeat a RPG by disrupting the jet from
> > > > > > the shaped charge.
> >
> > > > > > Casady
> >
> > > > > Who am I to argue with an expert. Can you really paint ceramic armor?
> >
> > > > I'l like you to point out an armor vehicle that has ceramic armor
> > > > exposed to be painted.
> >
> > > Define "exposed", pretty much useless if it isn't exposed
> >
> > not covered with a metal skin of some sort.
> > What tank do you know of that puts its ceramic armor on the outside ?
> >
>
> pages
> Just before the first Gulf War with Iraq in 1991, the Marine Corps
> added thin ceramic armor tiles to the exterior of their wheeled light
> armored vehicles ...
> books.google.com/books?isbn=0760321531...
I'd note it's note a tank by any means.
Since you asked if it's possible to paint them, were they ?
>
> and
>
> The tests against rounds from heavy machine guns began Labor Day
> weekend at the Aberdeen, Md., Proving Ground. At least one sample
> ceramic tile -- which makes up the Stryker's exterior armor to protect
> soldiers inside -- failed, Army officials said.
That doesn't say if the armor is inside or outside.
>
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/sep/08/20030908-121524-2253r/
tankfixer
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> > The plates on the inside of a M113A3 sure don't feel like metal...
> > Or plastic.
>
>
> I thought they only added some kevlar sheets against spalling?
Might be kevlar, didn't feel like it.
Dan
I'd lay dollars to doughnuts they weren't bare ceramic plates. I could
be wrong, of course, in the specific incident.
Dan
Dan
> In article <Xns9B04D6200AC5...@nieveler.org>,
> juergen.nie...@arcor.de says...
>> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>>
>>> The plates on the inside of a M113A3 sure don't feel like metal...
>>> Or plastic.
>> There's an M113 with added ceramic armor?
>>
>> I thought they only added some kevlar sheets against spalling?
>
> Might be kevlar, didn't feel like it.
>
>
the incoming round by fracturing, if needed).
On armor, the KE rounds have such high energy ceramic is practically
useless (it does offer some protection), but it definitely should not be
the interior surface as it fractures/spalls worse than steel. On armor,
its function is primarily as an anti-shaped-charge barrier, as its
thermal characteristics are quite different from steel (doesn't melt,
for instance). Modern armor uses layers of different materials to
reinforce each other, and to provide optimums against the different
threats expected.
This is strictly a lay, non-physicist, non-classified understanding.
I'm sure that at the energies involved there are additional factors that
I have not considered.
Anyone else?
Dan
Jack Linthicum
On that subject: is there any on line source that discusses modern
armor? Mostly it seems very general with no specifics. And since that
is all you have---an opinion---I accept it at the same rate I accept
anything else on this newsgroup.
Richard Casady
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > The tests against rounds from heavy machine guns began Labor Day
>> > weekend at the Aberdeen, Md., Proving Ground. At least one sample
>> > ceramic tile -- which makes up the Stryker's exterior armor to protect
>> > soldiers inside -- failed, Army officials said.
>>
>> >http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/sep/08/20030908-121524-2253r/
>>
>> I'd lay dollars to doughnuts they weren't bare ceramic plates. I could
>> be wrong, of course, in the specific incident.
>>
>> Dan
>
>On that subject: is there any on line source that discusses modern
>armor? Mostly it seems very general with no specifics. And since that
>is all you have---an opinion---I accept it at the same rate I accept
>anything else on this newsgroup
The fifty will penetrate at least half an inch of steel at the closer
ranges. I doubt the Army really expected the armor to resist HMG's.
although if the ceramic would surely resist fragments from roadside
bombs, and that would be quite useful.
Casady
Jim Yanik
news:48dc4f72...@news.east.earthlink.net:
Wikipedia has articles on modern armor.
begin with "Chobham armour",or "composite armor".
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
tankfixer
@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net says...
None that I know of.
Now if you presented the proper credentials and needed to know I might
describe what I've seen concerning M1 construction.
Jack Linthicum
> richardcas...@earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote innews:48dc4f72...@news.east.earthlink.net:
and they are all very general with no specifics. Not even a diagram of
how armor is emplaced,
Jack Linthicum
> In article <d3212641-9d9b-426a-9c5a-fb9ef61456c3
> @e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net says...
as I said "all you have ---(is) an opinion"
tankfixer
@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net says...
No, you have an opinion.
I have actual hands on experiance working on the vehicle in question.
That includes time at Annistion where they are rebuilt.
Fred J. McCall
:In article <bb39e691-58a5-4d94-a2e3-6a2aa616f161
:
Note: All of the following is from open sources
There are several light vehicles that have external 'ceramic' armor.
However, such armor is not part of their basic armor package. It is
'applique' armor and is only added in the field when required. The
base armor of the vehicle is good against anything up through .50 HMG
fire. The applique is only put on the vehicle when increased
protection (up through 14.7mm HMG fire) is required. There's no
particular reason why it couldn't be painted, but there's no
particular reason why it would be, either.
The stuff is not 'ceramic' in the sense that most people think of it.
It is a metalized silica-based composite. What failed at Aberdeen was
non-standard composition applique plates from a German subcontractor's
subcontractor. How that company managed to build armor that was
non-standard in both composition and configuration (some of the plates
aren't properly sized) is an ongoing investigation.
There are not going to be any public sources that are going to go into
specifics about modern armor packages, as they tend to be highly
classified.
Tankie is correct in that there is no exposed ceramic on the Abrams.
The ceramic is only exposed on light vehicles that use it as applique.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Jack Linthicum
> In article <bb39e691-58a5-4d94-a2e3-6a2aa616f161
> @t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net says...
Still just an opinion, unless you can document your statements. Spent
lots of time with "experts" who "knew" things, until pressed for
actual documentation.
frank
> In article <bb39e691-58a5-4d94-a2e3-6a2aa616f161
> @t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net says...
Military channel on cable runs a good documentary on M1-A1 overhauls.
part on armor is classified and not described. but they do show a lot
of other material, redoing tracks, turrets, paint, all that. just
amazing. armor is done in a separate building, and as the Army guy
said, its top secret and we're not going to let you in there.
There are also some other shows on guys who are rebuilding some old
WWII armor that show up from time to time, well worth a watch. Amazing
what they do to get stuff rebuilt, in one case had two hulls they
literally cut in two with torches to get good halves they rewelded as
a new tank.
so if redoing a hot rod in the garage is old, there's a step up.
Jack Linthicum
Where is James Garner when you need him?
tankfixer
b7a0e3...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net
says...
> lots of time with "experts" who "knew" things, until pressed for
> actual documentation.
I have seen the turret without the forward face welded on.
Can you provide a need to know and a current clearance ?
They didn't allow us to photograph the bits laying around in various
states of dissasembly.
tankfixer
a1f6c5...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, dhssres...@netscape.net
says...
>
> Military channel on cable runs a good documentary on M1-A1 overhauls.
> part on armor is classified and not described. but they do show a lot
> of other material, redoing tracks, turrets, paint, all that. just
> amazing. armor is done in a separate building, and as the Army guy
> said, its top secret and we're not going to let you in there.
Did they show the machine tool that will handle an entire tank hull ?
Turn it on it's side and re machine it ?
And the test track ?
We tired to get one of the workers to tell what the lap record was but
none would say.
This being 40 some miles from Talladega you KNOW those good old boys had
kept track of who was fastest..
The engine shop is a nice too.
>
> There are also some other shows on guys who are rebuilding some old
> WWII armor that show up from time to time, well worth a watch. Amazing
> what they do to get stuff rebuilt, in one case had two hulls they
> literally cut in two with torches to get good halves they rewelded as
> a new tank.
The musuem on post is referbishing a IJA Type 97 light tank recovered
from a target range in Utah years ago.
They weled up the holes and have had it running but are having some
trouble sorting out the engine.
> so if redoing a hot rod in the garage is old, there's a step up.
>
--
Fred J. McCall
:In article <74fa331a-e480-44e7-bfe9-
:b7a0e3...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net
:says...
:>
:> Still just an opinion, unless you can document your statements. Spent
:> lots of time with "experts" who "knew" things, until pressed for
:> actual documentation.
:>
:
In other words, lots of people know more than Jack and they pretty
much universally refuse to endanger national security in response to
such a pathetic hook as Jack offers above.
:
:I have seen the turret without the forward face welded on.
:Can you provide a need to know and a current clearance ?
:
:They didn't allow us to photograph the bits laying around in various
:states of dissasembly.
:
Yeah, they're funny about stuff like that...
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Jack Linthicum
> tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> :b7a0e364e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net
> :says...
> :>
> :> Still just an opinion, unless you can document your statements. Spent
> :> lots of time with "experts" who "knew" things, until pressed for
> :> actual documentation.
> :>
> :
>
> In other words, lots of people know more than Jack and they pretty
> much universally refuse to endanger national security in response to
> such a pathetic hook as Jack offers above.
>
> :
> :I have seen the turret without the forward face welded on.
> :Can you provide a need to know and a current clearance ?
> :
> :They didn't allow us to photograph the bits laying around in various
> :states of dissasembly.
> :
>
> Yeah, they're funny about stuff like that...
>
> --
> "It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
> somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
> I am the law."
> -- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
If you aren't supposed to talk, why do you?
Paul J. Adam
<paul.c...@gmail.comm> writes
>In article <89398dce-0a7c-4df8-baaa-
>a1f6c5...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, dhssres...@netscape.net
>says...
>> WWII armor that show up from time to time, well worth a watch. Amazing
>> what they do to get stuff rebuilt, in one case had two hulls they
>> literally cut in two with torches to get good halves they rewelded as
>> a new tank.
I think I remember that one - a M3, wasn't it?
>The musuem on post is referbishing a IJA Type 97 light tank recovered
>from a target range in Utah years ago.
>They weled up the holes and have had it running but are having some
>trouble sorting out the engine.
There's a group on the Isle of Wight that have done a couple of those
shows, and of course Bovington do some interesting rebuilds: they got a
Tiger I running recently.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
tankfixer
fmc...@earthlink.net says...
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote:
>
> :In article <74fa331a-e480-44e7-bfe9-
> :b7a0e3...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net
> :says...
> :>
> :> Still just an opinion, unless you can document your statements. Spent
> :> lots of time with "experts" who "knew" things, until pressed for
> :> actual documentation.
> :>
> :
>
> In other words, lots of people know more than Jack and they pretty
> much universally refuse to endanger national security in response to
> such a pathetic hook as Jack offers above.
>
> :
> :I have seen the turret without the forward face welded on.
> :Can you provide a need to know and a current clearance ?
> :
> :They didn't allow us to photograph the bits laying around in various
> :states of dissasembly.
> :
>
> Yeah, they're funny about stuff like that...
Kind of pissed us off since there was a SGT York out in the infield of
the test track.
And further down the lines of tanks a tank that looked to be one of the
prototypes for the M1.
tankfixer
9d2c7f...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net
says...
> On Aug 29, 12:13 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> >
> > :In article <74fa331a-e480-44e7-bfe9-
> > :b7a0e364e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net
> > :says...
> > :>
> > :> Still just an opinion, unless you can document your statements. Spent
> > :> lots of time with "experts" who "knew" things, until pressed for
> > :> actual documentation.
> > :>
> > :
> >
> > In other words, lots of people know more than Jack and they pretty
> > much universally refuse to endanger national security in response to
> > such a pathetic hook as Jack offers above.
> >
> > :
> > :I have seen the turret without the forward face welded on.
> > :Can you provide a need to know and a current clearance ?
> > :
> > :They didn't allow us to photograph the bits laying around in various
> > :states of dissasembly.
> > :
> >
> > Yeah, they're funny about stuff like that...
> >
>
Funny you ask that Mr exCIA man
tankfixer
ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk says...
> In message <MPG.232116137...@nntp.earthlink.net>, tankfixer
> <paul.c...@gmail.comm> writes
> >In article <89398dce-0a7c-4df8-baaa-
> >a1f6c5...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, dhssres...@netscape.net
> >says...
> >> There are also some other shows on guys who are rebuilding some old
> >> WWII armor that show up from time to time, well worth a watch. Amazing
> >> what they do to get stuff rebuilt, in one case had two hulls they
> >> literally cut in two with torches to get good halves they rewelded as
> >> a new tank.
>
> I think I remember that one - a M3, wasn't it?
Not sure, I didn't see that program.
Our museum folks took the bits of a half a dozen Liberty trucks and
built a running example.
I'll dig around and post some pics to alt.binaries.military
>
> >The musuem on post is referbishing a IJA Type 97 light tank recovered
> >from a target range in Utah years ago.
> >They weled up the holes and have had it running but are having some
> >trouble sorting out the engine.
>
> There's a group on the Isle of Wight that have done a couple of those
> shows, and of course Bovington do some interesting rebuilds: they got a
> Tiger I running recently.
You have to remember this is a rather small museum with not near the
resources of a place like Bovington...
Word is they will be inheriting the armory building on post with will
allow them to properly display much more of the collection.
Fred J. McCall
:In article <91318f6e-cd8c-4077-8a3e-
:9d2c7f...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net
:says...
:> On Aug 29, 12:13 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> > tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
:> >
:> > :In article <74fa331a-e480-44e7-bfe9-
:> > :b7a0e364e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net
:> > :says...
:> > :>
:> > :> Still just an opinion, unless you can document your statements. Spent
:> > :> lots of time with "experts" who "knew" things, until pressed for
:> > :> actual documentation.
:> > :>
:> > :
:> >
:> > In other words, lots of people know more than Jack and they pretty
:> > much universally refuse to endanger national security in response to
:> > such a pathetic hook as Jack offers above.
:> >
:> > :
:> > :I have seen the turret without the forward face welded on.
:> > :Can you provide a need to know and a current clearance ?
:> > :
:> > :They didn't allow us to photograph the bits laying around in various
:> > :states of dissasembly.
:> > :
:> >
:> > Yeah, they're funny about stuff like that...
:> >
:>
:> If you aren't supposed to talk, why do you?
:>
:
Looks like it's time for me to repeat my 'policy' for posting to
Usenet again, since folks like Jack are persistently too stupid to
'get it'.
I will *NEVER* post something classified (or even a conclusion that
derives from specific classified information). In point of fact, I
will argue positions based on a preponderance of what I find in public
sources (whether or not I elect to cite them), EVEN WHEN I KNOW THEM
TO BE WRONG.
So how about you, Jack? What's your excuse for continually using the
crudest of possible Ego hooks to try to get people to disclose
classified information in public?
:
:Funny you ask that Mr exCIA man
:
Yeah, Jack's nothing if not funny.
And since he's NOT funny, well, you can draw your own conclusions...
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
frank
> You have to remember this is a rather small museum with not near the
> resources of a place like Bovington...
>
> Word is they will be inheriting the armory building on post with will
> allow them to properly display much more of the collection.
>
Yes, that was one group.
There is a US magazine, Military Vehicles that deals with getting
parts for old vehicles, has some information on shows, some articles
on what some of the vehicles looked like originally. A lot of US
vehicles, good if you're looking for parts or manuals to put that jeep
together your uncle sent home in the mail..
(that's an old joke from the TV show MASH, it also shows up among
people who worked in car plants, stole a part a day in their lunch box)
dott.Piergiorgio
>
> Looks like it's time for me to repeat my 'policy' for posting to
> Usenet again, since folks like Jack are persistently too stupid to
> 'get it'.
>
> I will *NEVER* post something classified (or even a conclusion that
> derives from specific classified information). In point of fact, I
> will argue positions based on a preponderance of what I find in public
> sources (whether or not I elect to cite them), EVEN WHEN I KNOW THEM
> TO BE WRONG.
>
> So how about you, Jack? What's your excuse for continually using the
> crudest of possible Ego hooks to try to get people to disclose
> classified information in public?
There's the strategic advantage of the "civilians" (in a broad sense,
people non involved with actual hard data) whose has enough knowledge &
abstraction to make accurate educated guess ;)
But also is the main tactical advantage of kooks & conspirowhackos :((((
But IMHO at least in theoretical & conceptual sectors public & open
disclosure (and discussion) can have huge advantage: the clamorous
advances in the cryptographic field by leaps & bounds after the
beginning of public discussions on crypto algorythms.
This, by the way, the rationale behind my opinion that is best to have
two distinct agencies, or branches, for crypto development and crypto
breaking, creating a mutual feedback whose can only beneficial, if one
keep much care to avoid the excessive espirit de corp whose is the root
issue of the US spook environment.
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Jack Linthicum
> In article <91318f6e-cd8c-4077-8a3e-
> 9d2c7f644...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net
Well, I see you telling all and I assume it must be unclassified
information. Where I have problems is all this "you can't tell from
the outside" bit. I did the Moscow May Day parade with our armor guy
and he picked a whole series of changes right off the face. I see
blocks as part of the outside of several models of armored vehicle and
casually assume those are the famous reactive and other "glue on"
armor.
Jack Linthicum
And the Soviet wheelbarrow thief
tankfixer
e12518...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net
says...
> On Aug 29, 11:27 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> > In article <91318f6e-cd8c-4077-8a3e-
> > 9d2c7f644...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net
> > says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 29, 12:13 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> >
> > > > :In article <74fa331a-e480-44e7-bfe9-
> > > > :b7a0e364e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, jacklinthi...@earthlink.net
> > > > :says...
> > > > :>
> > > > :> Still just an opinion, unless you can document your statements. Spent
> > > > :> lots of time with "experts" who "knew" things, until pressed for
> > > > :> actual documentation.
> > > > :>
> > > > :
> >
> > > > In other words, lots of people know more than Jack and they pretty
> > > > much universally refuse to endanger national security in response to
> > > > such a pathetic hook as Jack offers above.
> >
> > > > :
> > > > :I have seen the turret without the forward face welded on.
> > > > :Can you provide a need to know and a current clearance ?
> > > > :
> > > > :They didn't allow us to photograph the bits laying around in various
> > > > :states of dissasembly.
> > > > :
> >
> > > > Yeah, they're funny about stuff like that...
> >
> > > If you aren't supposed to talk, why do you?
> >
> > Funny you ask that Mr exCIA man
> >
>
> Well, I see you telling all and I assume it must be unclassified
> information.
It is.
> Where I have problems is all this "you can't tell from
> the outside" bit.
Because you can't.
> I did the Moscow May Day parade with our armor guy
> and he picked a whole series of changes right off the face. I see
> blocks as part of the outside of several models of armored vehicle and
> casually assume those are the famous reactive and other "glue on"
> armor.
Reactive armor is not ceramic armor...