So tsundere.
Advertisement
by Gallia- » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:09 am
by The Kievan People » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:33 am
Immoren wrote:Can double barreled SPGs halve the number of vehicles needed, or would there be some other problems for effects in fire?
I was thinking that if you've half number of double barreled SPGs you wouldn't notice difference when firing a small target are, but might be problematic, if you've to cover larger area at expense of density of fire.
Or not.
by San-Silvacian » Wed Oct 29, 2014 1:22 pm
by Gallia- » Wed Oct 29, 2014 1:26 pm
by Rich and Corporations » Wed Oct 29, 2014 1:30 pm
Corporate Confederacy DEFENSE ALERT LEVEL PEACE ▓ Factbook [url=iiwiki.com/wiki/Corporate_Confederacy]Wiki Article[/url] | Neptonia |
by Heicliffe » Wed Oct 29, 2014 1:33 pm
by Novorden » Wed Oct 29, 2014 1:37 pm
Rich and Corporations wrote:man, they will totally win in the next Wargame by Eugen.
Lineart
Old designs
Newer Designs
by Yukonastan » Wed Oct 29, 2014 1:49 pm
Heicliffe wrote:Been playing around with a multipurpose tracked vehicle. I plan to squeeze an APC, IFV, SPAAG, Mortar Truck, Cargo Truck, and Fuel Truck out of this thing. Somehow.
(That's why the rear portion is empty at the moment.)
I'm already thinking that where the door is placed might be awkward with the turret there as well. Entry was planned to be done entirely through either the side door(s) or the door between the [insert weapon/cargo/transport layout here] and the crew compartment.
Plis don't eat me. :<
by Heicliffe » Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:02 pm
Yukonastan wrote:Heicliffe wrote:Been playing around with a multipurpose tracked vehicle. I plan to squeeze an APC, IFV, SPAAG, Mortar Truck, Cargo Truck, and Fuel Truck out of this thing. Somehow.
(That's why the rear portion is empty at the moment.)
I'm already thinking that where the door is placed might be awkward with the turret there as well. Entry was planned to be done entirely through either the side door(s) or the door between the [insert weapon/cargo/transport layout here] and the crew compartment.
Plis don't eat me. :<
Put tracks on a GTK Boxer.
by Orussia » Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:22 pm
The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:His penetrator is MASSIVE!
Talon independent nation wrote:And so missiles did come unto man, and man did see it was good, and did smite down the land battleships of his foe with totally awesome explosions.
by Novorden » Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:39 pm
Lineart
Old designs
Newer Designs
by Orussia » Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:47 pm
The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:His penetrator is MASSIVE!
Talon independent nation wrote:And so missiles did come unto man, and man did see it was good, and did smite down the land battleships of his foe with totally awesome explosions.
by Novorden » Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:53 pm
Lineart
Old designs
Newer Designs
by Orussia » Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:08 pm
Novorden wrote:I think the general idea is that if it is a hard armoured target you would be using APFSDS
The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:His penetrator is MASSIVE!
Talon independent nation wrote:And so missiles did come unto man, and man did see it was good, and did smite down the land battleships of his foe with totally awesome explosions.
by The Greater Luthorian Empire » Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:35 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:They told me I could be anything, so I became a razor blade.
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:10 pm
The Greater Luthorian Empire wrote:Novorden wrote:I think the general idea is that if it is a hard armoured target you would be using APFSDS,
Still, making HEAT be a subcalibre round decreases the potential explosive payload making it less effective against infantry, buildings, and light helicopters. The main advantage which was plainly stated in your text is higher velocity, which is of dubious usefulness if your primary targets with HEAT are infantry, buildings, and light vehicles.
by The Greater Luthorian Empire » Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:15 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:In comparison, the relatively minor reduction in explosive radius against infantry is a non-issue, as is the loss of penetration.
Imperializt Russia wrote:They told me I could be anything, so I became a razor blade.
by Spirit of Hope » Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:26 pm
The Greater Luthorian Empire wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:In comparison, the relatively minor reduction in explosive radius against infantry is a non-issue, as is the loss of penetration.
While the latter may be true the former hardly is. Hell one of the main reasons that Americans opposed the adoption of the 76 mm gun on Shermans in WW2 was due to the fact that it would decrease explosive payload. It isn't like tanks primarily fight tanks, most of their targets will be infantry, light vehicles, and buildings, and with modern FCS I doubt that the lower velocity of full bore HEAT is a crippling factor against vehicles.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Rich and Corporations » Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:27 pm
The Greater Luthorian Empire wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:In comparison, the relatively minor reduction in explosive radius against infantry is a non-issue, as is the loss of penetration.
While the latter may be true the former hardly is. Hell one of the main reasons that Americans opposed the adoption of the 76 mm gun on Shermans in WW2 was due to the fact that it would decrease explosive payload. It isn't like tanks primarily fight tanks, most of their targets will be infantry, light vehicles, and buildings, and with modern FCS I doubt that the lower velocity of full bore HEAT is a crippling factor against vehicles.
Corporate Confederacy DEFENSE ALERT LEVEL PEACE ▓ Factbook [url=iiwiki.com/wiki/Corporate_Confederacy]Wiki Article[/url] | Neptonia |
by The Greater Luthorian Empire » Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:32 pm
Rich and Corporations wrote:The Greater Luthorian Empire wrote:While the latter may be true the former hardly is. Hell one of the main reasons that Americans opposed the adoption of the 76 mm gun on Shermans in WW2 was due to the fact that it would decrease explosive payload. It isn't like tanks primarily fight tanks, most of their targets will be infantry, light vehicles, and buildings, and with modern FCS I doubt that the lower velocity of full bore HEAT is a crippling factor against vehicles.
I make this argument so many times, although there is merit to differentiating between HE and sub-caliber HEAT rounds.
Imperializt Russia wrote:They told me I could be anything, so I became a razor blade.
by The Akasha Colony » Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:03 pm
The Greater Luthorian Empire wrote:While the latter may be true the former hardly is. Hell one of the main reasons that Americans opposed the adoption of the 76 mm gun on Shermans in WW2 was due to the fact that it would decrease explosive payload. It isn't like tanks primarily fight tanks, most of their targets will be infantry, light vehicles, and buildings, and with modern FCS I doubt that the lower velocity of full bore HEAT is a crippling factor against vehicles.
The Greater Luthorian Empire wrote:Well I think part of this conversation branched off from Galla's idea for only using two types of munitions, APFSDS and HEAT. If you were to only field two types of munitions like that the explosive payload of HEAT becomes much more important. Otherwise I honestly couldn't care less, APFSDS for tanks, HEAT for other vehicles, and HE for infantry and buildings. HEAT can work against infantry but if you field dedicated anti-infantry HE anyway it is more of a secondary role and is of less importance.
by Gallia- » Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:29 pm
The Greater Luthorian Empire wrote:It isn't like tanks primarily fight tanks
The Greater Luthorian Empire wrote:Rich and Corporations wrote:I make this argument so many times, although there is merit to differentiating between HE and sub-caliber HEAT rounds.
Well I think part of this conversation branched off from Galla's idea for only using two types of munitions, APFSDS and HEAT. If you were to only field two types of munitions like that the explosive payload of HEAT becomes much more important. Otherwise I honestly couldn't care less, APFSDS for tanks, HEAT for other vehicles, and HE for infantry and buildings. HEAT can work against infantry but if you field dedicated anti-infantry HE anyway it is more of a secondary role and is of less importance.
by The Kievan People » Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:37 am
Orussia wrote:Doesn't a smaller-diameter warhead reduce the penetration of the jet? Forgive me for not comprehending possible advantages of this design.
by Lydenburg » Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:41 am
Gallia- wrote:The Greater Luthorian Empire wrote:It isn't like tanks primarily fight tanks
How do you intend for your medium tanks to act as a spearhead if they can't kill other tanks? The US Army was fully and totally aware of the anti-tank battle fought by armour. The Tank Destroyers were for mass actions against regimental and division strength armoured spearheads while operating in battalion-brigade strength on the defensive, or for defending the flanks of the armour with the armoured infantry, effecting the exploitation by providing strong anti-armour direct fires to the infantry.
In the end, tank destroyers ended up getting used more as tanks than tank destroyers, being used piecemeal to augment the anti-armour capability of companies of mediums, since the massed armoured spearheads never materialised except at El Guettar where the 601st Tank Destroyer Battalion destroyed a Panzer Regiment on the offensive.
by New Vihenia » Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:42 am
The Kievan People wrote:
It shouldn't be a problem. Modern guns are remarkably consistent, so much so that achieving a useful spread against an extended area target is a problem. But this can be overcome by adjusting the aim point with each shot - easy to do with a computer. Conveniently this also decouples the spread of shells from the number and location of the guns firing them. Four double barrel howitzers should be able to execute the same mission with the same effect as eight conventional howitzers.
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Bilancorn, Daphomir, Google [Bot], Heldervin
Advertisement