Its one thing to have high tech weapons but its another to be able to use them properly. Like, that SK destroyer Cheonan that was sunk without ever detecting a threat (they weren't even on alert and the Captain was jacking off in his stateroom when it happened LOL).
South Korea did not buy any Russian weapons. Russian gave weapons for free to South Korea (thousands of METIS-M Anti Tank Missiles, KA-32s, T-80Us, BMP-3s, IGLAs) to pay for debts they owed to South Korea lol
@sangyuni96 LOL u have no logic at all, SK gave Russia money till 2025 in 90th. In favor of military-tech cooperation with Russia SK decided to BUY some modern tech(weapons) and make new ones using its 1,5 bln dollars Russia already has. Why Russia decided to sell its weapons to SK instead of using the 3d biggest reserve? cuz its really making and selling its products (its our jobs etc) + investment of capital into SK economy. SK did not want to get its debt by cash. It's the fact!
What does logic have too do anything with Russia paying its debt with weapons instead of cash?? Russia proposed paying back its debt with military gears back in 1990s and South Korea accepted Russia's proposal through program known as "불곰사업". South Korea received Russian trainer plane, METIS, KA32, T80Us, BMP3s and IGLAs
@sangyuni96 it was in 90th (30 T-80U were delivered, in 2005 SK asked more tanks and materials) but now i hope u don't deny russian-SK military coop in much more wider field
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new "Cheol Mae" AA
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new "Cheol Mae" AA
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new "Cheol Mae" AA
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new air defense missile
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new air defense missile
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new air defense
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new air defense missile
@sangyuni96 the money they got its just some zeros on some bank's account but what we have now is more jobs for 2 countries. i pointed out that if SK had asked only money we would have given money anyway, but they asked weaponry as well( That time trade of T-80U was normal and many countries got them as for sale) what's wrong? Russia will never like NK to have ready nukes and missile tech. U also forgot about china. they could be interested in tech transfer into NK much wider.
@sangyuni96 Wow, cool, I didn't know that. During the cold war, right? Kind of makes sense, all USSR had was weapons. Why did Russia owe debt to ROK though?
@kkksskkk Well what he says is true, but he's not explaining well enough. What I know is, when the Soviet Union collapsed Russia was in serious need of a loan (for obvious reasons) and they turned to Korea for aid, which we have given. Unfortunately, the repayment on the said loan kept getting postponed by the Russians and it almost seemed they weren't going to pay us back at all. So the Koreans struck a deal and they paid us back in weapons instead. (Tanks, MANPADs, even some ships.)
@Hashishtani Hahahaha you are such an idiot. Look above comment. Shtora and Arena systems are not used in Korean tanks. Idiots like you should not be posting comments here.
@WhySoSerious0020 "An export variant, named Arena-E (Арена-Э), is available, worth an estimated $300,000. According to the Russians, it was selected to be used on the South Korean K2 main battle tank" - from wikipedia. You Koreans are all ignorant, rude, morons it seems.
@Hashishtani and it seems you are an two digit IQ idiot who makes statements off of wikipedia. You are the igrnorant, rude, dumb, low class who's living in a third world country. So be it. Maybe it's your parents fault who cannot provide you the education, respect, and manner. You are a definition of human trash.
@Hashishtani Dunno what wiki says, but that definitely stands nowhere near Arena. Arena consists of separate charges set in a ring on the turret, not the case here. Plus these ones are round, Arena has flat ones. These appear to be directed to give 360 coverage, not the case with Arena. All in all more complex than Arena, not necessarily more effective at that though.
Maybe Koreans bought it for trails and tests, so did Americans btw.
@MetalGearArmA Prefix 'X' is attached to weapons that are in developmental process. Short for 'eXperimental'. 'X' is erased once mass production for general field deployment begins. Thus, since K-2 is no longer in 'developmental' process, its just K-2 instead of XK-2.
Same goes for K-11 (formerly XK11, Korean OICW), KD (Korean destroyer program formerly XK2).
Well, if it's a joke to you, Japan's Type 10 tank is a stupid comedy because a 44-ton paper tank doesn't belong to today's 3~3.5 generation heavy-armored MBTs.
Why such a funny tank for Japan? Type 10 had to sacrifice many MBT features, especially the main armors, as it had to fit into the weight limitation in Japan's domestic roads, bridges and railroads. It is only for Japan's own use. No one would buy such a ridiculously light tank as a MBT even if selling is allowed.
@youngk9lover He didn't say that the tank is a joke...only about the video. Like, the music and stuff. And Type 10 tank is not a stupid comedy by any means, it's actually a very good armored vehicle.
>> He didn't say that the tank is a joke...only about the video.
People are not fools and know exactly what it means. The expression "This video is a joke" is used to ridicule a video and means that everything shows or argues in the video is a shitty joke.
@youngk9lover The fact that English is your first language has absolutely nothing to do with this, you probably understand this? Even if it had, it wouldn't matter because the guy who left the comment was Japanese - and I guarantee to you that his native language is not, never was, and never will be english. The context you see in his comment may be non-existent to him. You have to look it from that perspective.
probably a good choice for taking out anti tank missiles but projectile based APS are simply too slow to effectively counter KE rounds travelling at 1600 m/s and more
@Keh0ol The muzzle velocity is 1450-1650m/s for the German guns and 1600-1800m/s for Russian guns. The muzzle velocity however is not the velocity at which the projectile impacts the target at range. And even if it would be shot from close range having peak velocity - tests have shown that it is not an issue.
@Keh0ol More like 1650m/s from L44 and 1750m/s from L55 (not used by US tanks). But thats irrelevant.
Im pretty sure they lose far more than 30-50m/s per km knowing the massive amount of air resistance present at such speeds. At 2500m it would drop to like half the initial velocity, maybe even less.
I know 2 APS that have been tested on KE. One being the Israeli Iron Fist and the other the Ukrainian Zaslon. The Israeli one is counter-projectile based, the Ukrainian one isnt.
@Keh0ol Well 2500m is their practical application limit. The difference between its effect on target on 2000m and 2500m is quite substantial, as much as 30% according to the graph i have. It drops really fast becoming ineffective past that range.
At the first KM they may lose like 30-50m/s, but after that they lose much more much faster. They arent that much different from bullets. If they would lose only 30m/s per EVERY km then it could travel like 50 miles, impossible.
@Keh0ol I doubt the graph is wrong as it is from the Chinese military and is identical to that of the Russian also as far as i can tell. They top out the maximum effective engagement range at 2500m for APFSDS and 4000m for HEAT.
FS employs the fins to make the projectile spin, same effect as rifling. FS however cant be used with rifled guns but only smoothbore and smoothbore guns have a massive MV advantage over rifled.
MAYBE 20km, in theory arc shot, no one has done it though.
@Buuub08 actually APFS don't have to spin at all, that's why they're called APFS and not APSS.. it's even counterproductive because any energy that goes into spin will reduce velocity
HEAT generally has a smaller effective range than APFS simply because they will lose velocity much faster due to their higher drag and are fired with smaller velocities to start with which reduces first shot hit probability
the challenger 2 employs subcalibre ammunition using ball bearings to counteract the rifling
@Keh0ol Oh it does spin, it has to or it will tumble. The fins on a APFS work exactly the way they work on darts. You throw the dart but the fins make it go into a self-stabilizing spin. Even a perfectly balanced projectile would tumble without spin and lets face reality - not even the best APFSDS is a perfectly balanced projectile.
Look up some slow-mo shots - FS projectiles DO spin.
HEAT has a higher effective range because it doesnt rely on speed like KE does.
@Keh0ol They do spin. Seriously man, dont argue over this. RPGs, recoil-less rifles, rockets, missiles all the use the same principle - fin educed spin for stabilization. If they dont spin they tumble over because most of the generated drag is at the very tip of the projectile and that would pull the tail forward which in turn will result in the projectile impacting off-center. Youre mistaken thinking ANY form of spin doesnt work on long projectiles but only RIFLING induced doesnt.
@Keh0ol Wings are an entirely different concept. APFSDS doesnt have wings and on-board propulsion AFAIK.
Fin-stabilized inst the same as spin-stabilized, i never claimed it to be. Thats not the point. The point is - FINS induce spinning. Even a fucking arrow shot from a bow SPINS because of fins, and it has been so since the stone age FFS!
You cant grasp the principles and forces at play obviously, if you would even bother to spend 2 minutes on looking it up youd know how wrong you are.
As i told you before - look up slow-mo footage to see with your own eyes how projectiles shot from a smoothbore look and behave. Slow-mo RPGs, rockets, grenade launchers so forth.. look up anything that is FIN-stabilized, even an arrow will do. They ALL spin. The rate at which it happens, however, is by far lower than a spin induced by rifling and it doesnt take up energy. Thus a smoothbore gun can fire the same round as a rifled one with up to a 500m/s higher MV. Thats the difference.
@Buuub08 "The rate at which it happens, however, is by far lower than a spin induced by rifling and it doesnt take up energy. " if it absorbs no energy it has no effect on stabilization whatsoever
yet you claimed it has and didn't even have the decency to admit you were wrong and instead tried to twist the facts to make it look like i was wrong.. tough luck
@Buuub08 "Thus a smoothbore gun can fire the same round as a rifled one with up to a 500m/s higher MV."
500 m/s are you actually serious? my god.. you do realize the higher velocity in KE projectiles mostly stems from their much smaller mass right? i give up you're a hopeless pretender full of half knowledge
I said the SAME PROJECTILE, meaning ANY projectile if BOTH fire the SAME, fired from a smoothbore gun can have as much as 500m/s more. Which is ALSO a simple fact of science.
Why do you have to twist my words? Makes no sense really. I thought you were a decent guy but now you pretty much lie to yourself.
Look up slow-mo shots and see WITH YOUR OWN EYES what fins do on ANYTHING that FIN-stabilized. It takes FAR LESS time than to write a stupid comment.
@Keh0ol How about you look it up for once? The practical limit of a rifled gun is about 1500m/s, smoothbores can go to about 2000m/s. You will NEVER get a projectile to go like 1800m/s from a rifled gun (unless you counter the rifling like in C2), that is physically impossible for that type of gun.
Arrows wouldnt topple over they would turn sideways so that the drag is even. Just fucking shoot an arrow without fletching and see for yourself - it tumbles and does NOT fly straight.
YOU said that APFS and bullets use the same principle for stabilization
don't try to wiggle your way out of it
"FS employs the fins to make the projectile spin, same effect as rifling."
this is simply wrong
wrong wrong wrong
no matter what way you put it
the tiny bit of spin APFS get when fired from a barrel is too small to have any stabilizing effect and believe me if engineers could they would make sure there is none at all
"FS employs the fins to make the projectile spin, same effect as rifling." is what i said. Same EFFECT not same principle. The EFFECT is a stabilized projectile in both situations. Whats wrong there? NOTHING.
Arrows spin ENTIRELY from the fins, thats the ONLY thing that makes it spin and if it wouldnt spin the it would tumble over. For fucks sake just fucking look up slow-mo shots. Stop arguing over something you know nothing about.
or did you honestly believe the wings on their tail are just for changing the direction of the plane and looking pretty? a plane wouldn't even be able to fly straight without them
you are the one not getting basic aerodynamics here obviously
discussion over
someone who believes to know everything while at the same time talking so much nonsense is not worth my time
@Keh0ol Planes, and some missiles, are WING stabilized not FIN. MASSIVE difference. WINGS give lift and FINS dont. Also you are obviously unaware that the on-board computer does as much as 200 corrections per second to keep the plane straight.
The drag generated by the fins in insignificant compared to the overall drag, thats a fact.
did activate the warhead of the enemy threat? little detail
krhonhos 1 week ago
they can't equip active protection on their K1A1 tanks right? btw whats happening to k2 production status right now? anyone?
junwson 1 week ago
quality is almost as good as in minecraft
C1MH 2 weeks ago
nice
Ivanov371 2 weeks ago
watch?v=NQQNLYNTsGY
K-2 = Copy of Leclerc
CrimeAvenger2 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
SuperDouglee 2 weeks ago
Its one thing to have high tech weapons but its another to be able to use them properly. Like, that SK destroyer Cheonan that was sunk without ever detecting a threat (they weren't even on alert and the Captain was jacking off in his stateroom when it happened LOL).
AccordGTR 2 months ago
what's up with music, guys?
vnyc88 3 months ago
Koreans bought Russian Shtora and Arena systems... this systems now used only on T-90 and South Korean Tanks.
Hashishtani 4 months ago
@Hashishtani
They aren't, stop lieing. We won't even buy russian made, only your chinese buddies.
ghoststrider45 4 months ago
South Korea did not buy any Russian weapons. Russian gave weapons for free to South Korea (thousands of METIS-M Anti Tank Missiles, KA-32s, T-80Us, BMP-3s, IGLAs) to pay for debts they owed to South Korea lol
sangyuni96 4 months ago 12
@sangyuni96 that's for sure. Is there an idiot who didn't know about this?
WhySoSerious0020 3 months ago
@sangyuni96 LOL u have no logic at all, SK gave Russia money till 2025 in 90th. In favor of military-tech cooperation with Russia SK decided to BUY some modern tech(weapons) and make new ones using its 1,5 bln dollars Russia already has. Why Russia decided to sell its weapons to SK instead of using the 3d biggest reserve? cuz its really making and selling its products (its our jobs etc) + investment of capital into SK economy. SK did not want to get its debt by cash. It's the fact!
DeathSetler 2 weeks ago
@DeathSetler Plus threat from NK made its decision to buy some S-300's
DeathSetler 2 weeks ago
What does logic have too do anything with Russia paying its debt with weapons instead of cash?? Russia proposed paying back its debt with military gears back in 1990s and South Korea accepted Russia's proposal through program known as "불곰사업". South Korea received Russian trainer plane, METIS, KA32, T80Us, BMP3s and IGLAs
sangyuni96 2 weeks ago
@sangyuni96 it was in 90th (30 T-80U were delivered, in 2005 SK asked more tanks and materials) but now i hope u don't deny russian-SK military coop in much more wider field
DeathSetler 2 weeks ago
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new "Cheol Mae" AA
sangyuni96 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new "Cheol Mae" AA
sangyuni96 2 weeks ago
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new "Cheol Mae" AA
sangyuni96 2 weeks ago
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new air defense missile
sangyuni96 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new air defense missile
sangyuni96 2 weeks ago
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new air defense
sangyuni96 2 weeks ago
did I ever deny S.Korea military cooperation with Russia? I just pointed out the fact that Korea did not buy Russian weapon but rather recieved them as compensation for previously-owned debts. I appreciate Russian relationship with S. Korea. Russian missiles (such as S300s S400s) suffered maintenance issues until S.Korea, with their advanced microchip technology, helped them solve such problem; Russia also transferred missile tech to S.Korea, which allowed them to develop new air defense missile
sangyuni96 2 weeks ago
@sangyuni96 the money they got its just some zeros on some bank's account but what we have now is more jobs for 2 countries. i pointed out that if SK had asked only money we would have given money anyway, but they asked weaponry as well( That time trade of T-80U was normal and many countries got them as for sale) what's wrong? Russia will never like NK to have ready nukes and missile tech. U also forgot about china. they could be interested in tech transfer into NK much wider.
DeathSetler 2 weeks ago
@sangyuni96 Wow, cool, I didn't know that. During the cold war, right? Kind of makes sense, all USSR had was weapons. Why did Russia owe debt to ROK though?
kkksskkk 1 week ago
in 1991, ROK gave loan of about 3957996769 ruble to Russia; I don't know the reason why
sangyuni96 1 week ago
@kkksskkk Well what he says is true, but he's not explaining well enough. What I know is, when the Soviet Union collapsed Russia was in serious need of a loan (for obvious reasons) and they turned to Korea for aid, which we have given. Unfortunately, the repayment on the said loan kept getting postponed by the Russians and it almost seemed they weren't going to pay us back at all. So the Koreans struck a deal and they paid us back in weapons instead. (Tanks, MANPADs, even some ships.)
Dynamokr 2 hours ago
@Hashishtani Hahahaha you are such an idiot. Look above comment. Shtora and Arena systems are not used in Korean tanks. Idiots like you should not be posting comments here.
WhySoSerious0020 3 months ago
@WhySoSerious0020 "An export variant, named Arena-E (Арена-Э), is available, worth an estimated $300,000. According to the Russians, it was selected to be used on the South Korean K2 main battle tank" - from wikipedia. You Koreans are all ignorant, rude, morons it seems.
Hashishtani 3 months ago
@Hashishtani and it seems you are an two digit IQ idiot who makes statements off of wikipedia. You are the igrnorant, rude, dumb, low class who's living in a third world country. So be it. Maybe it's your parents fault who cannot provide you the education, respect, and manner. You are a definition of human trash.
WhySoSerious0020 3 months ago
@Hashishtani Dunno what wiki says, but that definitely stands nowhere near Arena. Arena consists of separate charges set in a ring on the turret, not the case here. Plus these ones are round, Arena has flat ones. These appear to be directed to give 360 coverage, not the case with Arena. All in all more complex than Arena, not necessarily more effective at that though.
Maybe Koreans bought it for trails and tests, so did Americans btw.
Buuub08 2 months ago
Is this South Korean?
flamezealous 4 months ago
Hi
Mus1cbr34k 5 months ago
K-2 is not the XK-2 ??
MetalGearArmA 5 months ago in playlist More videos from sunyerang
Comment removed
Kalnaf 5 months ago
@MetalGearArmA Prefix 'X' is attached to weapons that are in developmental process. Short for 'eXperimental'. 'X' is erased once mass production for general field deployment begins. Thus, since K-2 is no longer in 'developmental' process, its just K-2 instead of XK-2.
Same goes for K-11 (formerly XK11, Korean OICW), KD (Korean destroyer program formerly XK2).
Kalnaf 5 months ago
this video is a joke
MrJapaneseboy1111 5 months ago
@MrJapaneseboy1111
Well, if it's a joke to you, Japan's Type 10 tank is a stupid comedy because a 44-ton paper tank doesn't belong to today's 3~3.5 generation heavy-armored MBTs.
Why such a funny tank for Japan? Type 10 had to sacrifice many MBT features, especially the main armors, as it had to fit into the weight limitation in Japan's domestic roads, bridges and railroads. It is only for Japan's own use. No one would buy such a ridiculously light tank as a MBT even if selling is allowed.
youngk9lover 5 months ago
@youngk9lover He didn't say that the tank is a joke...only about the video. Like, the music and stuff. And Type 10 tank is not a stupid comedy by any means, it's actually a very good armored vehicle.
OnlyLifeMatters 5 months ago
@OnlyLifeMatters
>> He didn't say that the tank is a joke...only about the video.
People are not fools and know exactly what it means. The expression "This video is a joke" is used to ridicule a video and means that everything shows or argues in the video is a shitty joke.
FYI, English is my first language.
youngk9lover 5 months ago
@youngk9lover The fact that English is your first language has absolutely nothing to do with this, you probably understand this? Even if it had, it wouldn't matter because the guy who left the comment was Japanese - and I guarantee to you that his native language is not, never was, and never will be english. The context you see in his comment may be non-existent to him. You have to look it from that perspective.
OnlyLifeMatters 5 months ago
@OnlyLifeMatters
Sounds so generous to one side. Why not be so to the other side then? The meaning isn't changed no matter what.
youngk9lover 5 months ago
@MrJapaneseboy1111 Your military technology and power is shit compared to other nations.
FallenLightx 5 months ago
@FallenLightx He just said that the video was a joke, not the tank you screaming idiot.
OnlyLifeMatters 5 months ago
@OnlyLifeMatters You mad bro?
FallenLightx 5 months ago
great defensive weapons as well,k-2 and k-21 is at trhe top of there class,love the feed system of the k21. wonder if it was a ful s.k design?
hotrod4you2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ching chang chongity chang!
manbearpig6427689 7 months ago
이 노래는 이제 그만
AnhOOful 7 months ago
most anoing music ever !
MrJapaneseboy1111 7 months ago 10
또 이 노레 ㅠㅠ
epicfail86 7 months ago
ㅅㅂ 군사동영상 올릴때 라젠카좀 올리지마라..졸라 듣기 싫다
toj1024 8 months ago
@toj1024 ......같은 말이라도...그 따위로 말을 하냐?
근본이없는 글로벌 댓글 에티켓
그건 그렇고, 나도 한마디 합니다...
"다른 음악도 사용 해 주세요~~~"
rnqjsdkdlel 7 months ago
probably a good choice for taking out anti tank missiles but projectile based APS are simply too slow to effectively counter KE rounds travelling at 1600 m/s and more
Keh0ol 9 months ago
@Keh0ol The muzzle velocity is 1450-1650m/s for the German guns and 1600-1800m/s for Russian guns. The muzzle velocity however is not the velocity at which the projectile impacts the target at range. And even if it would be shot from close range having peak velocity - tests have shown that it is not an issue.
Buuub08 6 months ago
@Buuub08 actually the DM 53/63 travel at around 1800 m/s and these types of projectile only lose around 30-50 m/s per kilometer traveled
i would love to see some info on such a test however
to my knowledge projectile based APS are too slow to handle these velocities reliably
Keh0ol 6 months ago
@Keh0ol More like 1650m/s from L44 and 1750m/s from L55 (not used by US tanks). But thats irrelevant.
Im pretty sure they lose far more than 30-50m/s per km knowing the massive amount of air resistance present at such speeds. At 2500m it would drop to like half the initial velocity, maybe even less.
I know 2 APS that have been tested on KE. One being the Israeli Iron Fist and the other the Ukrainian Zaslon. The Israeli one is counter-projectile based, the Ukrainian one isnt.
Buuub08 6 months ago
@Buuub08 US tanks don't use the DM 53 anyways
their uranium penetrators travel at 1500-1600 (only tungsten penetrators even need such a velocity to achieve better penetrating power)
combined with their high mass the air resistance doesn't account for much at such short distances
argospress.c om/jbt/Volume7/7-1-1.pdf
it's a stub but it should suffice
if they lost half their speed over the main engagement distance of 2,5km they'd be fairly useless at penetrating armor
Keh0ol 6 months ago
@Keh0ol Well 2500m is their practical application limit. The difference between its effect on target on 2000m and 2500m is quite substantial, as much as 30% according to the graph i have. It drops really fast becoming ineffective past that range.
At the first KM they may lose like 30-50m/s, but after that they lose much more much faster. They arent that much different from bullets. If they would lose only 30m/s per EVERY km then it could travel like 50 miles, impossible.
Buuub08 6 months ago
@Buuub08 then that graph you have may be wrong
the effective (i.e. effective penetration against MBTs) range of the DM 53 is listed as 4km
it could of course travel much farther but greater distances aren't effective due to a number of reasons
bullets are spin stabilized APFS rounds aren't.. big difference
in your calculation of 50 miles you forgot to factor in that the projectiles would have to be fired in a ballistic arc to reach maximum distances
however distances of 30+km have been reached
Keh0ol 6 months ago
@Keh0ol I doubt the graph is wrong as it is from the Chinese military and is identical to that of the Russian also as far as i can tell. They top out the maximum effective engagement range at 2500m for APFSDS and 4000m for HEAT.
FS employs the fins to make the projectile spin, same effect as rifling. FS however cant be used with rifled guns but only smoothbore and smoothbore guns have a massive MV advantage over rifled.
MAYBE 20km, in theory arc shot, no one has done it though.
Buuub08 6 months ago
@Buuub08 actually APFS don't have to spin at all, that's why they're called APFS and not APSS.. it's even counterproductive because any energy that goes into spin will reduce velocity
HEAT generally has a smaller effective range than APFS simply because they will lose velocity much faster due to their higher drag and are fired with smaller velocities to start with which reduces first shot hit probability
the challenger 2 employs subcalibre ammunition using ball bearings to counteract the rifling
Keh0ol 6 months ago
@Keh0ol Oh it does spin, it has to or it will tumble. The fins on a APFS work exactly the way they work on darts. You throw the dart but the fins make it go into a self-stabilizing spin. Even a perfectly balanced projectile would tumble without spin and lets face reality - not even the best APFSDS is a perfectly balanced projectile.
Look up some slow-mo shots - FS projectiles DO spin.
HEAT has a higher effective range because it doesnt rely on speed like KE does.
Buuub08 6 months ago
@Buuub08
if you had ever looked at the fins of a subcalibre dart you'd have noticed they're perfectly symmetrical.. nothing there to make them spin
furthermore spin stabilisation does not work very well on projectiles of that length (compare a short and a long spinning top)
it is of course true that HEAT does not rely on speed; however speed is a crucial factor in first round hit ratio
hit rates with KE ammunition are much higher than with HEAT
KE rounds also allow a much lower firing arc
Keh0ol 6 months ago
@Keh0ol They do spin. Seriously man, dont argue over this. RPGs, recoil-less rifles, rockets, missiles all the use the same principle - fin educed spin for stabilization. If they dont spin they tumble over because most of the generated drag is at the very tip of the projectile and that would pull the tail forward which in turn will result in the projectile impacting off-center. Youre mistaken thinking ANY form of spin doesnt work on long projectiles but only RIFLING induced doesnt.
Buuub08 6 months ago
@Buuub08 no i won't argue about it because it is apparently pointless
how one can even claim that FIN STABILIZED projectiles are spin stabilized is beyond me
with your theory i wonder how planes manage to fly straight without spinning all the time buddy
"it would pull the tail forward"
can you not grasp the basic principles of aerodynamics?
spin stabilization (or angular momentum) works the same way as with a spinning top.. an overly tall spinning top won't spin as easily as a short one
so long
Keh0ol 6 months ago
@Keh0ol Wings are an entirely different concept. APFSDS doesnt have wings and on-board propulsion AFAIK.
Fin-stabilized inst the same as spin-stabilized, i never claimed it to be. Thats not the point. The point is - FINS induce spinning. Even a fucking arrow shot from a bow SPINS because of fins, and it has been so since the stone age FFS!
You cant grasp the principles and forces at play obviously, if you would even bother to spend 2 minutes on looking it up youd know how wrong you are.
Cheers.
Buuub08 6 months ago
As i told you before - look up slow-mo footage to see with your own eyes how projectiles shot from a smoothbore look and behave. Slow-mo RPGs, rockets, grenade launchers so forth.. look up anything that is FIN-stabilized, even an arrow will do. They ALL spin. The rate at which it happens, however, is by far lower than a spin induced by rifling and it doesnt take up energy. Thus a smoothbore gun can fire the same round as a rifled one with up to a 500m/s higher MV. Thats the difference.
Buuub08 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Buuub08 "The rate at which it happens, however, is by far lower than a spin induced by rifling and it doesnt take up energy. " if it absorbs no energy it has no effect on stabilization whatsoever
yet you claimed it has and didn't even have the decency to admit you were wrong and instead tried to twist the facts to make it look like i was wrong.. tough luck
Keh0ol 6 months ago
@Buuub08 "Thus a smoothbore gun can fire the same round as a rifled one with up to a 500m/s higher MV."
500 m/s are you actually serious? my god.. you do realize the higher velocity in KE projectiles mostly stems from their much smaller mass right? i give up you're a hopeless pretender full of half knowledge
Keh0ol 6 months ago
@Keh0ol What has mass to do with all of it?
I said the SAME PROJECTILE, meaning ANY projectile if BOTH fire the SAME, fired from a smoothbore gun can have as much as 500m/s more. Which is ALSO a simple fact of science.
Why do you have to twist my words? Makes no sense really. I thought you were a decent guy but now you pretty much lie to yourself.
Look up slow-mo shots and see WITH YOUR OWN EYES what fins do on ANYTHING that FIN-stabilized. It takes FAR LESS time than to write a stupid comment.
Buuub08 6 months ago
@Buuub08 "I said the SAME PROJECTILE, [...]as much as 500m/s more. Which is ALSO a simple fact of science."
completely and utterly wrong
my gosh
you and your "facts" of science.. it's like an amish convention
arrows would topple over if they didn't spin!?!
hilarious!!
please stop making a fucking laughing stock out of yourself
everything you just said is 100% ridiculous
have a nice day.. maybe read an actual book on it not some "internet facts" before you start your next argument
Keh0ol 6 months ago
@Keh0ol How about you look it up for once? The practical limit of a rifled gun is about 1500m/s, smoothbores can go to about 2000m/s. You will NEVER get a projectile to go like 1800m/s from a rifled gun (unless you counter the rifling like in C2), that is physically impossible for that type of gun.
Arrows wouldnt topple over they would turn sideways so that the drag is even. Just fucking shoot an arrow without fletching and see for yourself - it tumbles and does NOT fly straight.
Buuub08 6 months ago
@Buuub08
no!
YOU said that APFS and bullets use the same principle for stabilization
don't try to wiggle your way out of it
"FS employs the fins to make the projectile spin, same effect as rifling."
this is simply wrong
wrong wrong wrong
no matter what way you put it
the tiny bit of spin APFS get when fired from a barrel is too small to have any stabilizing effect and believe me if engineers could they would make sure there is none at all
arrows use spin for an entirely different reason
Keh0ol 6 months ago
@Keh0ol
"FS employs the fins to make the projectile spin, same effect as rifling." is what i said. Same EFFECT not same principle. The EFFECT is a stabilized projectile in both situations. Whats wrong there? NOTHING.
Arrows spin ENTIRELY from the fins, thats the ONLY thing that makes it spin and if it wouldnt spin the it would tumble over. For fucks sake just fucking look up slow-mo shots. Stop arguing over something you know nothing about.
Buuub08 6 months ago
@Buuub08
planes work in the same way
they're FIN stabilized
or did you honestly believe the wings on their tail are just for changing the direction of the plane and looking pretty? a plane wouldn't even be able to fly straight without them
you are the one not getting basic aerodynamics here obviously
discussion over
someone who believes to know everything while at the same time talking so much nonsense is not worth my time
Keh0ol 6 months ago
@Keh0ol Planes, and some missiles, are WING stabilized not FIN. MASSIVE difference. WINGS give lift and FINS dont. Also you are obviously unaware that the on-board computer does as much as 200 corrections per second to keep the plane straight.
The drag generated by the fins in insignificant compared to the overall drag, thats a fact.
Buuub08 6 months ago
Impressive...most impressive. I love military technology!
TeraQuad 1 year ago
Will see if she ever comes out too many delays yet the Arjun had delays too but she out now.
starknight97 1 year ago
Kornet Russian delete this is protect
Natali88333 1 year ago
Your video are interesting, but don't you have another song? By the way, Korean girls are very pretty :)
harentrois 1 year ago
same song all the time?
darkdoom645 1 year ago