• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Discussions on Russian Armour

Status
Not open for further replies.

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
661
Reaction score
23
Abraham Gubler said:
The reports about the effectiveness of Kontakt 5 ERA are certainly not fake and any internet denizen claiming such is clearly just a forum fool, ego driven debater and not an informed opinion. However claims that it made tanks “immune” to APDFS fires are exaggerated. Kontakt 5 was found to reduce the penetrative ability of long rod KE penetrators by around 25% with a lot or variable based on striking angle. 25% was enough of a degradation to stop penetration of a turret face at the outer edge of effective range (2.5-4km). So the capability of Western long rod KE penetrators was upgraded to ensure they could still penetrate Kontakt 5 equipped T-72s, T-80s and T-90s out to 4km in range. The physics of this effectiveness is being used by the latest crop of hard kill active protection systems to defeat long rod KE penetrators. They precisely position their application of force to the long rod so as to impact significant yaw to its flight attitude. Off axis yaw of +30-45 degrees affecting striking angle to what is known in the English speaking world as a “belly flop” will reduce penetration effectiveness by 80-90%.
Ego? Abraham I rarely meet people on forums as ego driven (and as hypocritical) as yourself, and your petty little insults and past childish behavior are a clear example of that. The fact is that an extended, modified version of that article had been faked and was going around the internet for some time. Yet the one posted by collins355 is indeed the real version.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
112
I was referring to the desire to claim an article as faked when it is clearly available in published form. Stepping aside from your all too typical personal attack in response to having your pet theories, beliefs and other such exposed as inaccurate - an activity which you mistake for “ego” or “childish behaviour” - how would you define such behaviour? That is for someone to claim a published article was a fake because it didn’t align with their pet theories, beliefs and other such?

Clearly it is low order activity, much like your response to my post. The day that you actually contribute something to this forum apart from a legion of inaccurate posts, constant sponging and your upset, undeserved self-righteousness will leave me stunned and flabbergasted.

Colonial-Marine said:
I've read on some other forums that that cited Jane's article is a fake.
This is a long way from what you now claim and was a totally negative contribution to this already strained thread. Get you basic understanding right before you post rather than running off at the mouth just to hear the sound of your voice (ego) and all to common inaccurate, confused content (childish behaviour).
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
661
Reaction score
23
Abraham Gubler said:
I was referring to the desire to claim an article as faked when it is clearly available in published form. Stepping aside from your all too typical personal attack in response to having your pet theories, beliefs and other such exposed as inaccurate - an activity which you mistake for “ego” or “childish behaviour” - how would you define such behaviour? That is for someone to claim a published article was a fake because it didn’t align with their pet theories, beliefs and other such?

Clearly it is low order activity, much like your response to my post. The day that you actually contribute something to this forum apart from a legion of inaccurate posts, constant sponging and your upset, undeserved self-righteousness will leave me stunned and flabbergasted.

This is a long way from what you now claim and was a totally negative contribution to this already strained thread. Get you basic understanding right before you post rather than running off at the mouth just to hear the sound of your voice (ego) and all to common inaccurate, confused content (childish behaviour).
How would I define childish, narcissistic, and egotistical behavior? Hmm... I suppose the way one of out every four of your posts includes some snide comment or insult would be a start. Then there is the 'holier than thou' attitude combined with the occasional "you filthy people are ruining my forum" rant. Also there's your habit of holding grudges, denying you do so, and the way you're all too often horribly guilty of what you accuse other individuals of. You've shown this behavior continuously yet you have the nerve to go around calling other posters childish.

Maybe some grade-school lessons in civility are in order. Because when somebody has wrong information at least I don't immediately start with pathetic personal insults and jump to wild conclusions about that person. Being a human being I do make mistakes, and my view the article was faked was one of those. Indeed there was a faked version of that article out there which was the source of that confusion.

Yet you don't care, because what you really want is an excuse to insult others and look better than them in order to satisfy your own ego. You'll conjure up any number of reasons so you can pretend otherwise and continue to expect people to kiss your ass, then thank you for the right to do so. What you'll fail to understand is that nobody is attacking your contributions to the site, rather your belief that said contributions entitle you to act like a smug, condescending asshole.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
112
Colonial-Marine said:
Yet you don't care, because what you really want is an excuse to insult others and look better than them in order to satisfy your own ego.
[flash=200,200]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsogswrH6ck[/flash]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top