Damian i want to split mine interventions in two posts : the first ,in two points, aimed at put a gravestone on some open questions, and the second post for respond to some interesting subject at which you have made reference ,ok?1 ) I want ,before anything, finish with the question of the staged pics.
I employed about a bit less than a pair of minutes to realize theirs falseness (....fields experts ,of the level of V. Murakhovsky or S. Mirkov, would have likely employed no more than 30-40 seconds for that...) already from the first pic .
Naturally ,like any person with even a minimum knowledge in the field , to ascertain the plausibility of those photos ,i have not observed even only for a second the meter and the "virtual" measure.
What has ,instead, immediately "punched" in my eyes (even before note the comical geometrical incongruities at which i have already make reference) was the very strange ,almost unnatural, position of the guy measuring the "virtual turret"; any person at world ,in fact, in the same instance wanting to measure the interested armor block placing the meter in the point of the turret showed in the pic, would have done that, standing on the front of the turret and not at contrary in this twisted position standing over the gun mask area ,at this point my attention was ,obviously, immediately captured by .... the shadow
Shadows have the great quality to allow, to the observer, to realize accurately the deepness
of a three-dimensional object pictured in a mostly two-dimensional way.
In this pic the shadow under the hand and under the meter over the length of the "virtual" LEO-2A4's turret armor block
allow to realize precisely the height from the surface
on which this supposed turret should stand : few centimeters !!!
(....that is naturally the funny motivation for the twisted position of the "measurer"
Moreover the shadow projection under the "virtual" turret's surface
allow to realize clearly also that the piece in question is obviously a plane metal piece
, nothing more than a plate.
This is a disassembled Leo-2A4s' turret ,for reference (also if i believe that this action would result even offensive ,because even a kid would be capable to realize,at this point, the laughable clumsiness of this stage's operation ).
Is possible,now, to continue with the handle
(moreover clearly welded just under the surface of the plate used to simulate the turret's armor block
) employed ,probably, to pathetically attempt to mimic a turrett structural element placed several dozen of centimeters lower
Or the shoe's track
just to the right of the filler's area with a "familiar" colour (the funny chap author has not even given attention to avoid to stain itself with the same grey paint used on the plate
Or the complete lack of the downward inclination of the turret's side armor block cavity
(an unlucky occurrence ,unavoidable when you employ for the simulation an unique plate.
If you want we can continue with the analysis of this one and of the other two pics, but i am sure that also you can easily realize that,at this point, this operation would result even pointlessly demeaning.
Instead i am more interested in a question at which i hope you will respond with sincerity, Damian, ok ?Wanting to exclude totally , absolutely, from the very beginning, that you
,and likely also militarysta, has been deceived for more than a pair of minutes by those very low level staged pics
(because imaging the contrary ,moreover for persons with specific interests/knowledges, would postulate an IQ halfway between proto-lemurs and high-invertebrated ...and it appear to don't be absolutely the case )i want to ask to you this question (i recommend to you sincerity ,ok?) :
"What is the rationale behind that operation ?
? I don't belive that ; is absolutely clear that none of you,in fact, are placed in a position in the sector to gain any advantage from that .
- Have fun for some months and after reveal the thing
? Possible, but that would render,obviously, any further analysis or note by your parts much less credible (a persons that ,for a joke, expend so much intellectual resources and ,even more, time is seen as not more serious enough or reliable at this point) .
- Attempt to hit ,indirectly, in a subreptitious way ,the name of Andrey Tarasenko
? Also that is possible ,but both of you was perfectly aware from the beginning that this operation, aimed at amateurs and naives wouldn't have even scratched or tarnished in any way its prestige in the field ,among insiders (without even take in consideration the possibility that crossing A. Tarasenko ,with the mental disposition at losing some time, in one of those secondary forums would have exposed yourselves to a very,very horrible poor showing ; it would have litterally eaten both of you alive).
Therefore i am sincerely puzzled for the possible rationale behind all this story , in particular for you Damian ,having a reputation of bright, knowledgeable, equilibrated person to defend.....2) I want to disperse another argument used often by militarysta , the question of Paul Lakowski citing similar figures in the past for LOS of the same left of turret armou block area.
The question borned the 26 January 2006, here:
With this statement :
"The Leopard 2 diagram is incorrect. OTMH the front cover thickness is about 5cm LOS While the cavity is > 60cm LOS and the rear plate ~ 13cm LOS ...All together about 83cm LOS thickness."
- Note that the LOS figures for the interested area depicted in all A. Tarasenko drawings (65-70 cm) are ,obviously, perfectly in line with the up cited figures
(and obviously, if would be even possible, render even more comical the staged pic measurement of the LOS of this armour cavity)all the difference
is constituted by the existence of this phantomatical rear plate
of more than 13 cms in LOS)
Naturally A. Tarasenko procede to show the total inconsistency of that claim , citing also a figure previously claimed by P. Lakowski of...... more than 1000 mmm LOS !!!
The response of Paul Lakowski is that ( 27 January 2006 same page )
Not sure what your refering to since I have never written an article for Armor mag...not yet atleast The 1100- 1300mm figures must be from very old work we did back in 1999? :unsure:The 830mm comes from two independant measurements made by two Leopard 2 tankers of their own tanks. When I get home I will post an interesting picture of Leopard 2 tank under construction showing the cavities, with markers reporting where the inner armor wall is plus scale drawing done to further illustrate the armor thickness.
Naturally , A. Tarasenko wait this famous in scale drawing from P. Lakowski...claimed to be from Leopard2A4 's tankers...
And the drawing arrive (at the following page 24 ,5th post ) ....this one
Please ,Damian, fix in your mind this drawing
(very badly made and evidently conceived by someone that has never seen in its whole life, even only for few seconds, the internal configuration of a LEO-2A4 MBT ...today exist a good 3D panoramic view to prove the total inconsistency of this 13 cm "rear plate" existency hipothesis ) and what was necesaary to Paul Lakowski to attempt to justify its new claim of 83 cm...after that of the 1100 mm of the last time
The question end..... at least in this thread.....with this exchange of blows between A. Tarasenko and Paul Lakowski
Lakowski -post 484-:
"Harkonnen your wasting your breath. As I already pointed out , these images and the scale drawings came from a LEOPARD-2 tanker who is much better placed to know the thickness of the armor of his turret. I have no trouble knowing whos data is more reliable....but go ahead and keep banging your head against a brick wall if you like "
Tarasenko -post 500-
"After the numerous distortions in your estimations of armor it is hard to trust you. So let me waste my breath and let others trust your estimates, not me.
Your scale drawings are incorrect, as most of your other data. The percent of correct guess is statistical."
But the question do not finish here
About ten days later -5 February- in another thread ( Tank turrets T vs M Russian and western approach to turrets ) Exel ,a real
former Leopard-2A4's operator ,which has more time provided very useful and detailed information on Leopard-2 questions, say -at post 70-:
"Harkonnen's numbers for the Leo2 turret are accurate. The only way to get more accurate than that is from factory blueprints or fact sheets, which I think none of us has access to."
Two page later, at post 104 ,it add :
"The LOS thickness of the Leo front armor configuration is closer to 60cm than 80cm. That's my estimate from having served in the vehicle. Never measured it with a ruler though."
Like you can see ,citing this figure of 83 cm for LOS of left frontal turret armour's block, from Paul Lakowski (after its more than 1000 mm pasted claim...) reveal itself as a clamorous autogol.
In fact to even justify a similar figure
someone should postulate and accept,(like do P. Lakowski and its phantomatical tanker's drawing
) the existence of a ridiculous 13-15 cm wide rear plate over the interested armour cavity's internal wall
as showed in the P. Lakowski drawing : a total, pantagruelic idiocy.
while refusing ,contestually ,LOS figures not only compatible with the ratio with any other LEO-2A4's structural elements (and with the same figures provided by the same P. Lakowsky for those LOS) but confirmed in first person
(no misty ,phantomatic and ..suspect third part claims) assertions by a real operator of this MBT.
I hope to have contributed, with direct links to all the interested statements and figures involved in the querelle, to extricate ,one time for all, the nodes on this pasted question ,often twisted up to its precise contrary of its content.