Your Nation's Main Battle Tank [Part 2]

[Estovakiva]

Well his <version> is using a 100mm gun, mehh the dirwolf wil win, xP.

Which is pretty fun, since the guns look like the have the same dimensions just through a quick glance at the image.

Exactly, it seems a tad shortned tough and the barrel-muzzle has been changed.

[United States of PA]

In his defense there's only so many ways you can draw an MBT.

Too bad the only thing he has done is change the color, change the main gun, add some MGs, cover some up, put a Sat. Dish on the one Radio Antennae, and change what i presume is the IR viewer or laser rangefinder ever so slightly.

When it looks similar, thats one thing, when you can place one over the other and see exact lines, that a completely different thing, and illegal too.

[United States of PA]

Which is pretty fun, since the guns look like the have the same dimensions just through a quick glance at the image.

Exactly, it seems a tad shortned tough and the barrel-muzzle has been changed.

Its not shortened at all, front end is changed around somewhat to accommodate that stupid HMG (Which is itself just a copypasta of the LY60 Lyras made behind the rest of the image.)

[Amerikians]

In his defense there's only so many ways you can draw an MBT.

Too bad the only thing he has done is change the color, change the main gun, add some MGs, cover some up, put a Sat. Dish on the one Radio Antennae, and change what i presume is the IR viewer or laser rangefinder ever so slightly.

When it looks similar, thats one thing, when you can place one over the other and see exact lines, that a completely different thing, and illegal too.

...

Good point. Fuck why didn't I notice that? Oh right, no artistic ability what so ever.

[Estovakiva]

Exactly, it seems a tad shortned tough and the barrel-muzzle has been changed.

Its not shortened at all, front end is changed around somewhat to accommodate that stupid HMG (Which is itself just a copypasta of the LY60 Lyras made behind the rest of the image.)

Look again it is "slightly" shorther, move your mouse from the tip of the Direwolfs cannon then up to his copy-tank then you wil see, seeing the two tanks are beside eacother. : o

[United States of PA]

Different gun barrel and muzzle brake, so what?

He went from a HV 140mm to a LV 140mm. Hell, hes even got the exact same fucking bore excavator.

[Galla-]

ffs use a HV ETI 160mm or nothing at all

):<

[Estovakiva]

Different gun barrel and muzzle brake, so what?

He went from a HV 140mm to a LV 140mm. Hell, hes even got the exact same fucking bore excavator.

Well, im stil wondering why he is even calling it a 100mm lol, xDwhen its clear it is not.

[United States of PA]

ffs use a HV ETI 160mm or nothing at all

):<

congrats on your 90+ tonne tank.

You cant use a HV ETI 140mm on 70 tonne range tanks without one helluva Muzzle Brake, let alone a 160mm.

[Galla-]

ffs use a HV ETI 160mm or nothing at all

):<

congrats on your 90+ tonne tank.

You cant use a HV ETI 140mm on 70 tonne range tanks without one helluva Muzzle Brake, let alone a 160mm.

well...

81 tonnes w/ roantank-style muzzle brake

\:

[Estovakiva]

ffs use a HV ETI 160mm or nothing at all

):<

congrats on your 90+ tonne tank.

You cant use a HV ETI 140mm on 70 tonne range tanks without one helluva Muzzle Brake, let alone a 160mm.

And congratulations when coming to a river and the only bridge cant handle your tanks, or the permafrost terrain of some nations loots of options when it comes to that.

[Purpelia]

The rear facing MG is not a good idea for two reasons.

Firstly, your rotating top MG should be able to depress it self to cover the rear anyway and by doubling up weapons like that you are taking up space that could be used for ammunition. Say you have 1000 rounds per MG with the 2MG's, you would be much better off with using all that space to store some 2500 rounds for one MG that has all round coverage.

Secondly, your rear MG is positioned in the turret bustle, right where the spare rounds for the main gun are stored. So your gunner will be leaning back between your rounds. Not a good position to be in.

[United States of PA]

lol.

Ground Pressure matters not when doing stuff like that (Except for bridges, which do actually care about your overall weight), even on permafrost.

Remember, if you can briskly walk across something, Abrams can drive across it. Unless it actually cares about overall weight like a bridge. Permafrost dont.

[Interstellar Britannia]

congrats on your 90+ tonne tank.

You cant use a HV ETI 140mm on 70 tonne range tanks without one helluva Muzzle Brake, let alone a 160mm.

And congratulations when coming to a river and the only bridge cant handle your tanks, or the permafrost terrain of some nations loots of options when it comes to that.

Tanks can ford some rivers. Otherwise the Engineers need some exercise.

[United States of PA]

plus there are Pontoon bridges that can bet set up in a matter of hours that can take literally hundreds of metric tonnes of weight at any one time.

There was this WW2 soviet one that could support 500 metric tonnes at a time and that took just a few hours to set up.

In WW2. Now you can set up a Abrams supporter in about 2 minutes over a 60-80ft span.

[Galla-]

congrats on your 90+ tonne tank.

You cant use a HV ETI 140mm on 70 tonne range tanks without one helluva Muzzle Brake, let alone a 160mm.

And congratulations when coming to a river and the only bridge cant handle your tanks, or the permafrost terrain of some nations loots of options when it comes to that.

rofl

pontoon bridges can take 120+ metric tons and that is deployed from two ZIL trucks

[Estovakiva]

lol.

Ground Pressure matters not when doing stuff like that (Except for bridges, which do actually care about your overall weight), even on permafrost.

Remember, if you can briskly walk across something, Abrams can drive across it. Unless it actually cares about overall weight like a bridge. Permafrost dont.

I belive we are talking about a 90+ ton-tank rather then the abreams 67+ tons, and when it comes to that it depends on the bridge itself as well to be said.

An when it comes you. pontoon bridges you are correct, the soviets could have built pontoon bridges over the volga into Stalingrad but they dident becouse they feared the germans would capture them and cross the river read it somwhere i belive, not <sure> exactly where or if the source was thrust-worthy.

Tanks can ford some rivers

Depends on said-river if its muddy/soft on the bottom the tank wil get stuck or even well disappear, as said <depends> not all rivers are suitable for that.

[Saphirasia]

Bit of a change-up in my country's front line tank units. We're cycling out the older T-84 models, giving the Category B units the Category A T-90s, and giving the Category A units the fully operational T-94B 'Black Eagle' (not the actual model number, i know, but i had to give it something). It is planned to be a gradual process, as there are 4 full Category A Army Groups. The T-94B has had some upgrades since the first prototype was seen in a Russian demonstration in the late 20th century, including a new 2A52 135mm SB cannon, capable of firing GLATGMs and fragmentation rounds. The engine is a 1500hp model of the APIC APS-2000V gas turbine, which has been shown to have similar fuel consumption rates in combat when compared to current diesel reciprocating engines, yet still generates more power than its closest competitor. Much of the new armor technology is still secret, but the tank has been proven capable of slowing and/or deflecting 120mm M829A3 APFSDS rounds. The tank also incorporates a new generation of Active Protection System, able to monitor and stop/deflect any high-speed object with a frontal area bigger than 20mm.

[Interstellar Britannia]

Bit of a change-up in my country's front line tank units. We're cycling out the older T-84 models, giving the Category B units the Category A T-90s, and giving the Category A units the fully operational T-94B 'Black Eagle' (not the actual model number, i know, but i had to give it something). It is planned to be a gradual process, as there are 4 full Category A Army Groups. The T-94B has had some upgrades since the first prototype was seen in a Russian demonstration in the late 20th century, including a new 2A52 135mm SB cannon, capable of firing GLATGMs and fragmentation rounds. The engine is a 1500hp model of the APIC APS-2000V gas turbine, which has been shown to have similar fuel consumption rates in combat when compared to current diesel reciprocating engines, yet still generates more power than its closest competitor. Much of the new armor technology is still secret, but the tank has been proven capable of slowing and/or deflecting 120mm M829A3 APFSDS rounds. The tank also incorporates a new generation of Active Protection System, able to monitor and stop/deflect any high-speed object with a frontal area bigger than 20mm.

Why all the downgrades?

[Saphirasia]

Bit of a change-up in my country's front line tank units. We're cycling out the older T-84 models, giving the Category B units the Category A T-90s, and giving the Category A units the fully operational T-94B 'Black Eagle' (not the actual model number, i know, but i had to give it something). It is planned to be a gradual process, as there are 4 full Category A Army Groups. The T-94B has had some upgrades since the first prototype was seen in a Russian demonstration in the late 20th century, including a new 2A52 135mm SB cannon, capable of firing GLATGMs and fragmentation rounds. The engine is a 1500hp model of the APIC APS-2000V gas turbine, which has been shown to have similar fuel consumption rates in combat when compared to current diesel reciprocating engines, yet still generates more power than its closest competitor. Much of the new armor technology is still secret, but the tank has been proven capable of slowing and/or deflecting 120mm M829A3 APFSDS rounds. The tank also incorporates a new generation of Active Protection System, able to monitor and stop/deflect any high-speed object with a frontal area bigger than 20mm.

Why all the downgrades?

I'm using MT. Also, how is a 'T-94' a downgrade from a T-84?

[Galla-]

Why all the downgrades?

I'm using MT. Also, how is a 'T-94' a downgrade from a T-84?

Because it is Russian.

Russians make shit tanks. Ukrainians have always been better.

[Saphirasia]

I'm using MT. Also, how is a 'T-94' a downgrade from a T-84?

Because it is Russian.

Russians make shit tanks. Ukrainians have always been better.

The only reason the Russian tanks were slightly inferior was the fact that they did not possess the high-tech electronics that the American tanks had. The Russians made excellent tanks with lesser technology. End of story.

And also, who do you think the Ukrainians based their tank designs off of?

[Interstellar Britannia]

Why all the downgrades?

I'm using MT. Also, how is a 'T-94' a downgrade from a T-84?

It's largely the replacement of the T-84s with the T-90. And the switch to gas turbines.

[Galla-]

Because it is Russian.

Russians make shit tanks. Ukrainians have always been better.

The only reason the Russian tanks were slightly inferior was the fact that they did not possess the high-tech electronics that the American tanks had. The Russians made excellent tanks with lesser technology. End of story.

And also, who do you think the Ukrainians based their tank designs off of?

The Ukrainians based their tanks off of the Ukrainian T-80-series, which was further development of the T-64. The T-64 was considered the premier Soviet tank its time, and was supposed to fill the role of engaging enemy armour and destroying heavy tanks. The T-72 and T-62 were infantry support tanks, intended to engage light vehicles and APC/IFVs.

If you're going to use a single one, might as well do what the West did and use the biggest, baddest motherfucker you have. The T-80.

[Imperial isa]

We recently upgraded to CT-V6A.

(Image)

so what with the Key for a barrel?