Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mk.IV

[Purpelia]

I still can't find no AeroGavin

[Daemyrs]

Are any of you good with coming up with vehicle specs?
I've got armor, but no specs

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

Yes.

I thought practical ETC (as in advantages outweigh just fitting a slightly bigger gun) wasn't possible in 2012. Or is this that wanky 'MT' that now +10 years?

Something about power generation and increased use of space in the turret.

Most of the advantages of ETC wouldn't be achieved with by switching to a bigger gun.

Of course, everyone on NS knows putting "ETC" after "140mm L50" is like saying "Masterwork 140mm +1", so what do I care?

[Galla-]

That depends on your definition of MT; IIRC, ETC is supposed to be ready for combat 2017 or something like that. If you RP your nation as one that is very technologically advanced on NS, I think that having ETC guns in the early 2000s is plausible (although possibly slightly pushing it).

2017 is Rheinmetall assuming best case scenario, and it was actually ">2017", which means probably twice as far into the future if you're wanting to be average.

ETC is also p. |: for tanks. Better to upgun, because men make their shots hit and don't need 40+ rounds of ammunition (or consistent powder burn across a varied, wide range of temperatures which is the real advantage of ETC). This is why Sheridan was such a man tank. If you missed, your tank was punished brutally for the transgression and you got thrown backwards, so you made sure you didn't miss or else you'd have to fire again.

[Neo Sinica]

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Say, anyone know how thick the roof armor of a tank should be? Is 40mm enough? Do I need more? (That is all before ERA of course)

GAU-8 can deliver 30-100mm RHA penetration, which is apparently not offered by tanks pre-1980s.
You've seen images of things like Leopard 2 Revolution? Or Merkava III/IV? That add-on roof armour is thick.

Go on.

Sparky and armoured doctrine is like me and electronics.
I have no idea about anything at all, but will speak anyway.

Just search this thread and its previous three versions for "mike sparks" or "para" (ignoring reference to myself, when it comes to 'para').

[Purpelia]

Say, anyone know how thick the roof armor of a tank should be? Is 40mm enough? Do I need more? (That is all before ERA of course)

GAU-8 can deliver 30-100mm RHA penetration, which is apparently not offered by tanks pre-1980s.
You've seen images of things like Leopard 2 Revolution? Or Merkava III/IV? That add-on roof armour is thick.

Thing is, looking at images tells me absolutely nothing about the actual numbers. 3D modeling is a precise art, it's not like drawing where you can just fudge lines until it looks about right.

Just search this thread and its previous three versions for "mike sparks" or "para" (ignoring reference to myself, when it comes to 'para').

I just want a link to the AeroGavin. That thing sounds perfect.

[Ularn]

Just search this thread and its previous three versions for "mike sparks" or "para" (ignoring reference to myself, when it comes to 'para').

I just want a link to the AeroGavin. That thing sounds perfect.

No.

[Purpelia]

I just want a link to the AeroGavin. That thing sounds perfect.

No.

Seriously, I want to know what it is. But I can't find it. When I google it all I get is a bunch of forum references and a youtube video that shows me a loading error.

[Ularn]

No.

Seriously, I want to know what it is. But I can't find it. When I google it all I get is a bunch of forum references and a youtube video that shows me a loading error.

On my phone so can't link to the accompanying YouTube video but hope this suffices:

http://www.combatreform.org/flyingapc.htm

[Immoren]

Seriously, I want to know what it is. But I can't find it. When I google it all I get is a bunch of forum references and a youtube video that shows me a loading error.

On my phone so can't link to the accompanying YouTube video but hope this suffices:

http://www.combatreform.org/flyingapc.htm

*reads topic of page*
"Luftpanzerjaegers"
why.jpg

[Samozaryadnyastan]

-derp-

[Samozaryadnyastan]

On my phone so can't link to the accompanying YouTube video but hope this suffices:

http://www.combatreform.org/flyingapc.htm

*reads topic of page*
"Luftpanzerjaegers"
why.jpg

Oh yeah, he faps to the WWII German arsenal and proclaims it as massively superior to that of the States at the time.

[Yes Im Biop]

*reads topic of page*
"Luftpanzerjaegers"
why.jpg

Oh yeah, he faps to the WWII German arsenal and proclaims it as massively superior to that of the States at the time.

...Besides the Fapping part, The Panzers were better than the Sherman...Though that's not saying much.

[Immoren]

*reads topic of page*
"Luftpanzerjaegers"
why.jpg

Oh yeah, he faps to the WWII German arsenal and proclaims it as massively superior to that of the States at the time.

My gripe is more about the fact that he chose word "panzerjaeger" which would *make sense* if he were talking about gavin based tank destroyers rather than APCs. As literal translation for panzerjaeger is tank hunter.

[Yes Im Biop]

...Why dose he italicize Gavin? Dose it make him feel special? After reading through the first few things i have another set of facepalms for his lunacy

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Iwas actually referring to the small arms arsenal, despite the fact that the Americans entered the war as the only nation to have already fielded an almost entirely self-loading arsenal. Every other military was still issuing bolt action rifles en masse and only just discovering the worth of the SMG.

Also, I also like italicising nicknames. I feel it looks more elegant than putting nicks in quotation marks every time, for some reason.

Oh yeah, he faps to the WWII German arsenal and proclaims it as massively superior to that of the States at the time.

My gripe is more about the fact that he chose word "panzerjaeger" which would *make sense* if he were talking about gavin based tank destroyers rather than APCs. As literal translation for panzerjaeger is tank hunter.

Yeah, but if Gavin will shoot down MiGs, then what good are tanks against it?

[Anacasppia]

Oh yeah, he faps to the WWII German arsenal and proclaims it as massively superior to that of the States at the time.

...Besides the Fapping part, The Panzers were better than the Sherman...Though that's not saying much.

Well yeah totally agreed. I believe German tanks and tactics were far superior to those of the allies, that said, the allies fielded their armor in far larger numbers and often had air superiority.

[Yes Im Biop]

...Besides the Fapping part, The Panzers were better than the Sherman...Though that's not saying much.

Well yeah totally agreed. I believe German tanks and tactics were far superior to those of the allies, that said, the allies fielded their armor in far larger numbers and often had air superiority.

And you can't make an economy and supply chain strong enough to keep up with a Blitz.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

...Besides the Fapping part, The Panzers were better than the Sherman...Though that's not saying much.

Well yeah totally agreed. I believe German tanks and tactics were far superior to those of the allies, that said, the allies fielded their armor in far larger numbers and often had air superiority.

They were powerful, but not especially reliable or mobile. They were heavy things, and full of far too many pieces of equipment and components. They broke down constantly, unlike the little T-34s and Shermans that just kept going (and were easy to repair in events of the unforeseen), and could be churned out at a much greater rate.

[Immoren]

Sherman was equal to Panzer IIIs and VIs of its time.

[Yes Im Biop]

Sherman was equal to Panzer IIIs and VIs of its time.

Give me a Hellcat or a king tiger over a Sherman any day

[Immoren]

Well yeah totally agreed. I believe German tanks and tactics were far superior to those of the allies, that said, the allies fielded their armor in far larger numbers and often had air superiority.

They were powerful, but not especially reliable or mobile. They were heavy things, and full of far too many pieces of equipment and components. They broke down constantly, unlike the little T-34s and Shermans that just kept going (and were easy to repair in events of the unforeseen), and could be churned out at a much greater rate.

Wasn't reliability rate mostly problem with late war designs? weren't panzers I-IV and VI reasonably reliable?

Sherman was equal to Panzer IIIs and VIs of its time.

Give me a Hellcat or a king tiger over a Sherman any day

Now you are comparing apples and oranges.

[Yes Im Biop]

They were powerful, but not especially reliable or mobile. They were heavy things, and full of far too many pieces of equipment and components. They broke down constantly, unlike the little T-34s and Shermans that just kept going (and were easy to repair in events of the unforeseen), and could be churned out at a much greater rate.

Wasn't reliability rate mostly problem with late war designs? weren't panzers I-IV and VI reasonably reliable?

Give me a Hellcat or a king tiger over a Sherman any day

Now you are comparing apples and oranges.

Ask yourself, Is this especially surprising? At least i got two destroyers from the same era...The King Tiger isn't the tank destroyer is it?

[Immoren]

Wasn't reliability rate mostly problem with late war designs? weren't panzers I-IV and VI reasonably reliable?


Now you are comparing apples and oranges.

Ask yourself, Is this especially surprising? At least i got two destroyers from the same era...The King Tiger isn't the tank destroyer is it?

Königstiger was a heavy tank. So you are in fact comparing apples, oranges and blueberries.