Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About lavictoireestlavie

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

4,482 profile views
  1. Hello guys, I want to apologize for all the drama my thread has caused. After reading through the responses of the members I have come to the conclusion that some of my contributions will always directly or indirectly violate the rules of the forum because of the nature of the subject matter. I have realized that I will not be able to just ignore declassified, classified data, secret, released data when i compile information and do modeling just to suit someones or some groups believe system. In the end I want to present plausible solutions based on facts. To avoid any further complications
  2. Your post no longer violates the forum rules.
  3. Ahh, what happens if i were to stumble on a leaked or declassified Chinese report that contain the word "機密 " (secret) and post it here ? What would you do if a declassified or leaked Russian report with секретно (secret) written on it was partially posted on here or other platforms? Will you have to inform the Chinese and/or Russian MoD ?
  4. " I think such a thread should have been kept open. At most editing ( or technically censoring) out specific documents deemed "classified" ( should they actually be so) would have been a heather option instead of shutting down an entire thread. " - Kev2go Thank you guys for the feedback, I appreciate it. To be honest, i was pissed off to see my thread deleted just like that after having spent a couple of hours just compiling the yet incomplete information package. My measured initial response to the classified,leaked information, declassified drama would have just been to "
  5. Since that thread was deleted I would like to know your guys feedback whether or not you would like my input minus any classified information. Your honest response would be appreciated.
  6. Official documents from national archives will not get much more primary when it comes to sourcing. As i said earlier, i am looking at the protection schemes of a couple of vehicles that seem to be a bit off if we follow recently revealed sources. I want to address those.
  7. I will create a separate thread on this in the tactics forum so I do not clutter or sidetrack this thread. There are many private SB customers that like to research these kind of topics on their own and do not see a burden in that. I myself am glad to maybe help imrove Steel Beasts. If there are multiple independent and verifiable sources that point in a different direction, i will most certainly take a second look at my original data if there is a discrepancy. Just because the information is posted in other forums does not make the information any less valid if the informatio
  8. 1) A crewable Leclerc (Serie 1, Serie 2,etc.)! 2) A crewable Merkava and/or just another Merkava (e.g: Merkava III, IIID) 3) Adjustment of the KE protection levels of various tanks to realistic KE protection levels. Im looking at Leopard 2A5 type vehicles and Challenger 2 in particular. Given the recent revelations some of the KE values seem to be off by literally 100% For instance, Challenger 2 turret cheeks are around 600-650 mm RHAe KE if we follow recently declassified British government documents. In Steel Beasts it is around 1250 mm RHAe against KE threats. The
  9. Now they should mate a Leopard 2A7 turret on a Leclerc Serie XXI hull !!!!! Do it !
  10. Neat ! A question concerning the Abrams, am i right in the assumption that the US Abrams follows this special armor developmental cycle: US Army: M1 (1980 - Burlington 1) -> M1IP (1984 - Burlington 2) -> M1A1 (1986 - Burlington 2) -> M1A1 HA (1988 - Burlington2 + 1st gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A2 early (1992 - Burlington 2 + 1st gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A1 HA+ (1995 - 2nd gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A2 (1995- 2nd gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A2 SEP (2001 - 3rd gen. Heavy Armor Package). USMC: M1
  11. I had my doubts about earlier but i did not want to believe that it could be fake.
  12. Wow! From where did you get the information that they exchanged information and that those were the values that they exchanged? Could it be that these values are actually frontal arc values and that they actual front values are actually higher? The Armed Forces Journal treated from 1989, before the end of the cold war, used practically identical values over the frontal arc: Figures from a CIA report: However these values were obtained, it seems the CIA considered these figures realistic enough to include them in their repo
  • Create New...