Best 120x120x25mm fan that can deliver 70 CFM???

[Skybird]

that is because of very different kind of armour. i am no specialist for that, but I do know that steel armour, composite armour, chobham armour and what they all have are materials or clusters of materials that cannot be worked on all the same way. Where you can bend steel, you can't do that with certain composite armours, which comes in flat plates - this is why the russian tanks have bubble-turrets, while Abrams, Leo2 and Challenger have more squared surfaces (its also about size, design and components inside the tanks). The wedge at the front of the Leo2A5 for example,. which is new compoared to the A4 - we even do not know what it is, it is top secret. could be massive armour. Could reactive armour. could be hollow. Could be a bluff. I asked for that detail, but people from the Bundeswehr did not answer that and actively refused to do so. Also, the penetration power of projectiles from WWII and the present should,not be compared. In WWII, tank gun-projectiles bounced off hulls eventually, leaving a dent or a bump. If you look at todays armour, where a SABOT or even an uranium poenetrator hit, you see the material immediately penetrating, leaving star-shaped scratches if they were stopped by the armour, leaving a dead tank when they went through.So again, I have gotten confirmation that SABOT rounds do not that easily bounce off modern armour, but tend to heavily react with the surface. A SABOT penetratoris no giant bullet like they used in Napoleon'S times, it is a dart. Where the needle hits, it tries to pierce in. If you want to know more detaisl about that - I am no expert and can only rerpated what has been told to me - you need to visit the Steel Beast forum: lots of still active or ex tankers both from Abrams and Leo crews there that can answer your question with more expertise than I can. Concerning small and medium callibre fire and explosive warheads it maybe is like you say. SSnake (ex-Leo2-tanker) once said the riccocheting rounds that can be seen in Steel Beasts when a shot hits the ground at a shallow angle, or armour, actually are not meant to be the tank cannon rounds themsleves, but just sparkes and splitters. The rounds themselves, he said actually do not reflect off the ground or the armour, but penetrate more or less, always. I also was told that the wedge at the front of the Leo2A5-turret does not reflect rounds from tank cannons. I quote that "as is".http://www.steelbeasts.com/modules.p...f0cc271e8b21Do not compare Leo2 and Leo 1. Leo-1 was a heavy-class turret put on top of a medium-class chassis, giving it firepower and mobility/agility at the price of armour. Speed was considered to be a priority in those days of newly introduced AT-missiles that at that time defeated most armour there was. the prsent generation of MBTs are all heavy-class equipment: chassis, turret, and gun. Nevertheless they do not suffer in speed, acceleration and agility, which tells volumes on the developement in engine technology, traction, and tracks. Since the tactics have changed with the shift from M60/Lep1/T72 to M1/Leo2/T80/90 as well, one should not compare these generations to each other. Try Steel Beasts, and get yourself into an old Leo1. You do not stand a single chance to survive the first round that hits you full, even if the shot hits the frontal turret. It is different in the Leo2 A4, and again slightly diffrent in the A5. I also start to get a feeling for the M1 now (but it lags behind in ergonomics, especially for the commander).One wants to assume that the models that are used for these vehicles in the sim are not totally off target due to it's professional target audience.
Hope that Neals fixes the messed up Return-buttons and plenty of
, / and missing text formatting soon.