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

[Purpelia]

I am considering a 9K22 like mount combining the missiles from the 9K22 with a dual 40mm Bofors mount.
Good/Bad/Other?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I am considering a 9K22 like mount combining the missiles from the 9K22 with a dual 40mm Bofors mount.
Good/Bad/Other?

I would personally consider the 9K22 as-is superior.

[Purpelia]

I am considering a 9K22 like mount combining the missiles from the 9K22 with a dual 40mm Bofors mount.
Good/Bad/Other?

I would personally consider the 9K22 as-is superior.

Really? How so?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I would personally consider the 9K22 as-is superior.

Really? How so?

40 Bofors is probably a touch past it as a weapons system, and would seriously impact ammunition stowage. The volume required for a single 40 Bofors shell could probably accommodate four to eight 30x165 rounds.

[Elan Valleys]

40mm Bofors just fires too slowly.

[Ea90]

I wanna join TF, but I just can't give up this:

(Image)

Then join with an alt?

[Purpelia]

Really? How so?

40 Bofors is probably a touch past it as a weapons system, and would seriously impact ammunition stowage. The volume required for a single 40 Bofors shell could probably accommodate four to eight 30x165 rounds.

What about the round that cheats? As in 40mm Supershot or what ever that 40mm round that is a necked up 30mm one is.

[The Akasha Colony]

I put what is essentially a Roid Raging ZSU turret on the T-108.

Not enough 57mm.

Proper Russian overkill would be 2 57mm autocannons w/ twelve SAMs.

Otomatic master race.

Will 128mm be used by lots of TF nations, or is it just you?

It's technically NACO standard as others have mentioned. When it was realized both KC and NACO used 125 mm, we decided NACO should change to something else, and we didn't want to make it smaller, so we went up three millimeters to 128 mm.

As to who's using it, I was planning to continue using 155 mm on my new tank but the previous-generation T-74 that still equips the majority of the military can be retconned to a 128 mm gun.

Really? How so?

40 Bofors is probably a touch past it as a weapons system, and would seriously impact ammunition stowage. The volume required for a single 40 Bofors shell could probably accommodate four to eight 30x165 rounds.

inb4 telescoped rounds.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Which would then not be 40 Bofors.

[Sevvania]

Does anyone have a chart that shows variations in armor thickness of an M1A1 Abrams tank? What are the most vulnerable areas?

[San-Silvacian]

Does anyone have a chart that shows variations in armor thickness of an M1A1 Abrams tank? What are the most vulnerable areas?

le armor basics

[Ea90]

As to who's using it, I was planning to continue using 155 mm on my new tank but the previous-generation T-74 that still equips the majority of the military can be retconned to a 128 mm gun.

I'm gonna' keep using 115mm, because hipsterchinaswag.

[Purpelia]

Alright than. Here is an alternate question. What do you think about taking a 9K22 and rechambering the guns in that 40mm Supershot round that's really just a 40mm shell in a 30mm one.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Does anyone have a chart that shows variations in armor thickness of an M1A1 Abrams tank? What are the most vulnerable areas?

Courtesy of Steel Beasts.
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/image ... ontLOS.jpg

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Alright than. Here is an alternate question. What do you think about taking a 9K22 and rechambering the guns in that 40mm Supershot round that's really just a 40mm shell in a 30mm one.

Awesome idea.
Will it fit in 30 Russian?

[Purpelia]

Alright than. Here is an alternate question. What do you think about taking a 9K22 and rechambering the guns in that 40mm Supershot round that's really just a 40mm shell in a 30mm one.

Awesome idea.
Will it fit in 30 Russian?

No idea. My original would be built with 30mm Swiss anyway. And this would only be a modern upgrade to that.

[Sevvania]

Does anyone have a chart that shows variations in armor thickness of an M1A1 Abrams tank? What are the most vulnerable areas?

le armor basics

The top, back, and sides? How much more vulnerable are they in relation to one another? My friend and I are attempting to create a fairly realistic modern combat mod for Halo: Custom Edition on the PC, and are trying to decide how much damage should be dealt when striking specific areas of the tank with an RPG-7.

[Aqizithiuda]

Alright than. Here is an alternate question. What do you think about taking a 9K22 and rechambering the guns in that 40mm Supershot round that's really just a 40mm shell in a 30mm one.

Do it. I approve very much of it.

[Fordorsia]

le armor basics

The top, back, and sides? How much more vulnerable are they in relation to one another? My friend and I are attempting to create a fairly realistic modern combat mod for Halo: Custom Edition on the PC, and are trying to decide how much damage should be dealt when striking specific areas of the tank with an RPG-7.

I'd reckon Side>Back>Top. I think that's the case with most tanks.

Usually the engine and the ammo storage are the most vulnerable parts, wherever they are situated.

[San-Silvacian]

le armor basics

The top, back, and sides? How much more vulnerable are they in relation to one another? My friend and I are attempting to create a fairly realistic modern combat mod for Halo: Custom Edition on the PC, and are trying to decide how much damage should be dealt when striking specific areas of the tank with an RPG-7.

Striking the front of an M1A2 with an RPG-7 is going to make you dead really fast.
The sides are a better shot, provided it doesn't have TUSK, then you have to crack the turret's side. The rear is the weaklink, however it has some limited chemical warhead protection on the exhausts. Rear turret isn't going to blow the tank up, it'll just make the blow-out panels on the rear go boom.

[Purpelia]

The top, back, and sides? How much more vulnerable are they in relation to one another? My friend and I are attempting to create a fairly realistic modern combat mod for Halo: Custom Edition on the PC, and are trying to decide how much damage should be dealt when striking specific areas of the tank with an RPG-7.

Striking the front of an M1A2 with an RPG-7 is going to make you dead really fast.
The sides are a better shot, provided it doesn't have TUSK, then you have to crack the turret's side. The rear is the weaklink, however it has some limited chemical warhead protection on the exhausts. Rear turret isn't going to blow the tank up, it'll just make the blow-out panels on the rear go boom.

I am not so sure. There are those brand new RPG-7 dual tandem warheads that might be interesting to use. Especially if you manage to hit a weak point like the turret ring or slip one in from the side between the wheels. The front is a no go still thou.

[Rich and Corporations]

You're not going to go near six thousand rounds a minute of 30mm willingly.

The same can be said for 200-400 rounds of 57mm a minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skysweeper <-- nothing can shrug this off, especially if it uses modern PELE rounds

[Ea90]

Are most ifvs/apcs front engined or rear engined?

[Rich and Corporations]

Are most ifvs/apcs front engined or rear engined?

I believe they are front engined to make use of ~50mm extra RHA.

[The Akasha Colony]

Are most ifvs/apcs front engined or rear engined?

Front of the hull is the most common, but it's usually anywhere but the rear due to the need for a rear hatch. Those that do have a rear engine will cram it somewhere such as under the floor, as in the BMP-3.