However countrary to Andrei's silly manipulated estimations and lies, we have real messures done on a real tank.
Unfortunetly, because of rules on this forum, I can't post these photos right now, when this strange prohibition rule will end I or Militarysta will post these photos with messures made on real Leopard 2A4.
Interesting, i return from work and find the happy duo at...work .
Damian losing even only 2 or 3 minutes you would have discovered that the "photo" in question has been not only posted here very long time ago but also examined (for what can be useful losing even only a minute of live at examine them...),
we have real messures done on a real tank.
M1 Abrams has not , T-90 has not , T-72 has not ,Challenger 2 has not, Ariete has not, T-80 has not, K2 BP has not ,Type -90 has not, Al-Khalid has not, Leclerc has not ,Type-99 has not, Merkawa has not, etc....etc....etc.... for luck of your nation and its military insider service security protocols also Leopard-2,obviously, has NOT
any type of armour's LOS live measurement maked on a real Leopard-2A4 and circulating without any problem in internet in the hands of a pair of guys with definitely too much time at theirs disposition.
This type of information is one of the most stricly surveiled information among any Army Ground Forces worldwide, not differently than aircraft radar operating frequency in Air Forces,or crushing deep threshold of a particular submarine in Navy etc..etc... their total absence , in public accessible sources for any
of those systems operative worldwide is a clear proof of that.
On a personal note ,i can say that the thing has even recalled to my mind a funny episode of several years ago : when a collague of mine staged all the model pics and the elements measurement (including the ratio with several others!!) in the program of a secondary component, and the "target" of the joke ,an engineer at the time working in ours same departement, expended almost four days to realize what was wrong with that component
Now ,admitting that you even know the funny chap author of this "operation" ,i think that you could give to him some suggestions for the next time:
While is surely appreciable its attempt to avoid to present in the pics two or more structural elements (or ,even worse, a panoramic photo of the turrett) which would have obviously offered the chance to execute element's ratio metric computation adn ruined all in fewe seconds, it should have avoided, for this same reason, completely the third pic -forcing it also to a clumsy,even if funny, attempt to increase the supposed armor's LOS measuring from centre of periscope area but ,even more important, you could also educate him on the concept of aplomb
,so at least in the first pic the "virtual" line of gun mask in the background shouldn't appear so comically out of position.
I understand perfectly that the guy in question (likely an upright insider operative that has gone along its humor sense and the repeated requests from some petulant civilian, without obviously surrender any sensitive information very dangerous for the security of its Nation and.... for it ) has ,ostensibly, not losed too much time for the thing ,but at this stage it is truly unacceptable for a trained eye ; it is not different from pics of giant mans in South America or UFO ships in Virginia
You must be a moron to think that the drawing in defence journal form 1994 don't have any mistake. BTW: ratio of the width of the hull (3,7m) to the "A" LOS give us on the picture ~750-760mm LOS. This missing ~80mm is natural drawing error - is probably clear for evry normal person
"You must be a moron" ... Ha Ha ,Sorry the mean attempt to change the type of the discussion on another level with me fail from the beging ,procede.
"ratio of the width of the hull" .....ratio with width of the hull ?
The claimed measure of A fail horribly against ANY know metric of Leopard-2A4 structure !! : overall lenght ,median of the turret, ratio with side turrett armor figure, ratio with claimed B figure (and consequently the ratio between B and the side of tureet wideness above it ) it is a complete disaster
Do you know this type of things happen in those instances ; ratio between measures of constructive elements are highly resilient to attept to overstrech them
....you twist one and the others litterally explode. The problem is that
what is, in this drawing, is indicated as A2
is ,obviously and unescapably ,almost equal to
the armour block section area indicated as A1
Naturally the attempt to claim figures so different ,over the self evident incongreuncy between the measure of the two segments, force the designer to other "adjustements" ( only to name one : attempt to reduce the wideness of the turret ,reducing the wideness of the armour of right side turrett section -that meanly not identified by a letter- in resepct to the left side) ,obviously nothing work.
The almost perfect capability to overlap of the two LOS segments (A1 adn A2 ) like its ratio with the inescapable physical limits of the LEO-2A4's structure itself, and total inconsistenmcy of the 84 cm figure result absolutely clear in pratically any pics of real LEO-2A4.
Even in one of the same pic used just some months ago just by you mylitarista (note : seem that your figures have change very quickly lately ,in particular after this funny photo hoax ..... even worse than the tons of worthless words produced after the equally funny staged pics of PAKFA'sduct with exposed compressor face
Anyone can note in this image from top as a LOS segment in the area named here G and that in the area named E would be almost equal ,moreover is equally clear as a figure of 84 cm for E's LOS would create a turrett more than 3 meters wide !!!
That irreconcilable incongruency between the claimed figure of 84 cm and the ratio with the other constrcutive elements of the turret and its physical constraints is as very clear here : Real
photos ,showing integrally
the elements of real
Leo-2 are very quick at disperse the mist generated by claims totally irreconcilable with parametrical reality.