Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Tranche 7

[Aelas]

Good! But if you put your image urls in img brackets, like "[img]CommiePic.jpg[/img]" it'll show up on the Factbook page.

I know, but the images would be so big as to be obstructive.

Ahh ok

[Questers]

As to the metal-liner, it perhaps uses a sufficiently soft metal that can deform on impact. Yeah it probably does not help its penetrative capabilities much... but again see above.

Actually, the more malleable and dense the liner is, the better penetration you'll get from it.

Also, Questers, why is your LFP more heavily armored than your glacis? The glacis is a lot more likely to be hit than the LFP in the sort of combat you're envisioning for this vehicle.

The lower front hull presents a much, much larger target and is easier to armour because it takes up horizontal space as opposed to vertical space. The glacis is not exactly a cakepiece relative to modern tanks anyway - it doesn't matter, the glacis is sufficient for what it needs to do. It has the fuel cells behind it too so you're looking at an extra 100-150mm maybe of KE protection that isn't listed on the sheet. Ultimately a tank can't be thickly protected everywhere. On the defensive, the glacis will be concealed. On the offensive, it will present a smaller target than the lower front hull (it's also quite well sloped - anything hitting it will be at 35-45 degrees of obliquity) and be covered in applique or ERA.

[Questers]

My nation has a nasty habit of buying vehicles for "evaluation", then reverse-engineering them to build our own indiginously. We are quite modern (like I said, like if the USSR had not gone stagnant), so we can afford plenty of stuff on our own. I think 1700 Black Eagles or so wouldn't be pushing too much, and I think it would be plenty to accomplish our goals.

Just finished a WIP of my army, what do you guys think?

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=unit ... /id=297704

Not really a useful format or layout.

An Army should be described or shown first by doctrine and relative size, second by structure & geographical employment, third by equipment. So far it tells me nothing at all about your Army except that it uses Soviet equipment.

[United Marxist Nations]

My nation has a nasty habit of buying vehicles for "evaluation", then reverse-engineering them to build our own indiginously. We are quite modern (like I said, like if the USSR had not gone stagnant), so we can afford plenty of stuff on our own. I think 1700 Black Eagles or so wouldn't be pushing too much, and I think it would be plenty to accomplish our goals.

Just finished a WIP of my army, what do you guys think?

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=unit ... /id=297704

Not really a useful format or layout.

An Army should be described or shown first by doctrine and relative size, second by structure & geographical employment, third by equipment. So far it tells me nothing at all about your Army except that it uses Soviet equipment.

Hmm, think I can make a whole factbook about doctrine and structure.

[San-Silvacian]

iiwiki > factbooks

[Questers]

yeah factbooks are a bit gay honestly

[United Marxist Nations]

yeah factbooks are a bit gay honestly

I mostly use them to store shit.

[Organized States]

yeah factbooks are a bit gay honestly

*Cries because only has factbooks and is too lazy to make a IIwiki

So, about the XM2001, even though it was cancelled, would it be the best replacement for the M109?

[United Marxist Nations]

I don't even know how to make an IIwiki.

[San-Silvacian]

yeah factbooks are a bit gay honestly

*Cries because only has factbooks and is too lazy to make a IIwiki

So, about the XM2001, even though it was cancelled, would it be the best replacement for the M109?

depends on what you want to achieve for a replacement.

there are a number of upgrades that made the M109 a capable modern SPG (It still is, kinda, however its lack of an autoloader is a serious issue, also the lack of an L/52 caliber gun). These upgrades were autoloaders, a L/52 gun from the Pzh 2000, chassis improvements, etc.

One could, get these upgrades for the L/52 gun and autoloader along with A6 digitization, then A7 chassis upgrades.

[Radictistan]

I don't even know how to make an IIwiki.

Start writing and you'll figure out the syntax pretty quickly. Hit the edit key on other people's pages and you can see how the pros do it.

[Questers]

factual objectivity is the key to a good wiki. a wiki is an encyclopedic entry on your country, not your view of it.

[Aelas]

One of these days I'll get around to reformatting my first factbook entry to look more professional with actual indentations and stuff... one of these days

[United Marxist Nations]

When I finish my factbook, it would be nice if someone on here could make an iiwiki thing for it.

[Aelas]

Or more probably, I'll just shift it over to a wiki page. I have my own wiki for my novels and stuff --- Ælas was actually created for a novel idea of mine, and I ended up making an NS account out of it...

But I think I need a new one, since I don't want people to run into all that other stuff too and be like "wut?"

[Questers]

No

In that case, don't the shells want to be the other way around so the loader can grab them stub first?

I considered it, but I left them that way for now.

[The Akasha Colony]

IMO, the trick to writing a wiki page is to make it neutral and to make sure only relevant details are included. Often in very long GE&T storefronts, there's a tendency to go over the history of every part of the armor or powerplant, down to the exact research paper that spawned the idea.

This simply isn't necessary in a proper wiki article, which is meant to give a factual evaluation of the vehicle and its broad history, but which is also meant to exist in the wider context of supplementary information. Many times relevant supporting information can be linked to via the very useful {{wpl}} template, which creates a link to the named Wikipedia article.

"Salesman-speak" is also common in GE&T, not surprising since people are trying to sell things, but it's usually fairly biased or subjective. The goal isn't to sell things on IIWiki, it's to describe them.

That said, I suppose IIWiki could use a military wikiproject or some such to improve cross-listing and linking of related articles.

[Doppio Giudici]

I need help looking this over for functionality & mistakes.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... rmine3.pdf

I want the DPR to this tank, I'm not even going to make it.

I just want to look over it for technology I don't have and copy what is new.

[Imperializt Russia]

I recognise that image of the gun bore, isn't that from the Top Gear episode?

[Doppio Giudici]

I understand what ETC guns are, but I'm not entirely sure how much better they are even in a vague guess.

Like the jump from 100mm to 125mm is something I have a vague idea about. Same goes for the jump from AP rounds to HEAT.

I just can't quite understand how much of a tactical advantage ETC guns give.

IMO, the trick to writing a wiki page is to make it neutral and to make sure only relevant details are included. Often in very long GE&T storefronts, there's a tendency to go over the history of every part of the armor or powerplant, down to the exact research paper that spawned the idea.

This simply isn't necessary in a proper wiki article, which is meant to give a factual evaluation of the vehicle and its broad history, but which is also meant to exist in the wider context of supplementary information. Many times relevant supporting information can be linked to via the very useful {{wpl}} template, which creates a link to the named Wikipedia article.

"Salesman-speak" is also common in GE&T, not surprising since people are trying to sell things, but it's usually fairly biased or subjective. The goal isn't to sell things on IIWiki, it's to describe them.

That said, I suppose IIWiki could use a military wikiproject or some such to improve cross-listing and linking of related articles.

I really prefer storefronts that give you the long and short explanation of their goods. If I can't understand your tank, how would I know if it's any good?

[Purpelia]

I just can't quite understand how much of a tactical advantage ETC guns give.

Well basically they are decent if you have already reached the practical limit of how big your tank guns can get and still need to squeeze out yet more power.

[Lydenburg]

I understand what ETC guns are, but I'm not entirely sure how much better they are even in a vague guess.

Like the jump from 100mm to 125mm is something I have a vague idea about. Same goes for the jump from AP rounds to HEAT.

I understand the AP rounds in WWII were solid shot and shell. HEAT isn't. If anything else, it probably makes the projectile lighter and easier for a loader to manhandle all day.

[Vitaphone Racing]

ETC = pwer of 140mm in 120mm shell

[Questers]

I need help looking this over for functionality & mistakes.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/870 ... rmine3.pdf

I want the DPR to this tank, I'm not even going to make it.

I just want to look over it for technology I don't have and copy what is new.

unfortunately for you there are no DPR (as it says in the writeup)

[Questers]

I recognise that image of the gun bore, isn't that from the Top Gear episode?

Yes, lol...