NationStates

Amerikians wrote:

Kouralia wrote:Why do you need Tactics and strategy to beat NS Supertanks?

You need tactics and strategy to approach any combat situation.

Ofc with Titanium Armor; bring flamethrowers...

If it has an exhaust, it can be clogged.

If it has wheels, they can be fucked with.

Nothing is invincible.

Whatever tank is manufactured, it'll be easier, and much cheaper, to manufacture a one-use ATGM that can kill it. At least, that's the golden rule.

Osaea wrote:Whatever tank is manufactured, it'll be easier, and much cheaper, to manufacture a one-use ATGM that can kill it. At least, that's the golden rule.

And for every ATGM, there's a guy with a pistol that can kill him for much cheaper.

Alowwvia wrote:

Osaea wrote:Whatever tank is manufactured, it'll be easier, and much cheaper, to manufacture a one-use ATGM that can kill it. At least, that's the golden rule.

And for every ATGM, there's a guy with a pistol that can kill him for much cheaper.

True. But can the guy with a pistol kill the tank? Only if he's Mattias Nilsson.

Osaea wrote:

Alowwvia wrote:And for every ATGM, there's a guy with a pistol that can kill him for much cheaper.

True. But can the guy with a pistol kill the tank? Only if he's Mattias Nilsson.

Win. Don't mind if I sig this?

What kind of warfare and terrain was the M60A3 made for? It seems like a great tank, but for Cold War tank slugging matches? I'm a much smaller nation than any of my neighbors, and the terrain is pretty much Afghanistan.

Note: Not sand dune after sand dune. Really quite like this.

Discordant Schism wrote:What kind of warfare and terrain was the M60A3 made for? It seems like a great tank, but for Cold War tank slugging matches? I'm a much smaller nation than any of my neighbors, and the terrain is pretty much Afghanistan.

Note: Not sand dune after sand dune. Really quite like this.

Patton was meant for the fields and valleys of Europe and North America, slugging it out with T-72 and T-80 alongside the MBT-70 (M1 Abrams, Leopard 1/2)

A-Stan is more friendly to...Horses I guess, helicopter gunships as well.

I mean you can use it in that terrain, just to less effectiveness.

Discordant Schism wrote:What kind of warfare and terrain was the M60A3 made for? It seems like a great tank, but for Cold War tank slugging matches? I'm a much smaller nation than any of my neighbors, and the terrain is pretty much Afghanistan.

Note: Not sand dune after sand dune. Really quite like this.

Tanks work fine in Afghanistan.

The Kievan People wrote:

Discordant Schism wrote:What kind of warfare and terrain was the M60A3 made for? It seems like a great tank, but for Cold War tank slugging matches? I'm a much smaller nation than any of my neighbors, and the terrain is pretty much Afghanistan.

Note: Not sand dune after sand dune. Really quite like this.

Tanks work fine in Afghanistan.

Apart from the heat, they need modding for that.
Some have dust issues, too.

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:

The Kievan People wrote:
Tanks work fine in Afghanistan.

Apart from the heat, they need modding for that.
Some have dust issues, too.

You are correct many militaries were unable to anticipate they might need AC. In a desert. Sadly.

The Kievan People wrote:

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Apart from the heat, they need modding for that.
Some have dust issues, too.

You are correct many militaries were unable to anticipate they might need AC. In a desert. Sadly.

Given that most of these tanks were intended to be used during or following a nuclear exchange, I find it odd that AC was not considered in the original design process.

Moriskov wrote:

Osaea wrote:
True. But can the guy with a pistol kill the tank? Only if he's Mattias Nilsson.

Win. Don't mind if I sig this?

Go ahead.

Purpelia wrote:So a big gunned TD might be a solution to these and allow you to use more practical tanks for everything else a tank is supposed to do like supporting infantry.

That's how my PMT concept for the Ymir works out. (Although it is an abortive result of such a project but lets not nitpick)

Purpelia wrote:Flexibility. A gun armed TD doubles as a good assault gun and stuff. A missile tank is just a one trick pony.

Now you are just going in circles.

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:

The Kievan People wrote:
You are correct many militaries were unable to anticipate they might need AC. In a desert. Sadly.

Given that most of these tanks were intended to be used during or following a nuclear exchange, I find it odd that AC was not considered in the original design process.

British Tanks w/ most superioriorest modification.

"Battlefield too irradiated to survive?
MAKE TEA, MAGGOT"

Moriskov wrote:Guise. Guise. Is this a -72 or a -64?
(Image)

T-72B

The Kievan People wrote:

Purpelia wrote:So a big gunned TD might be a solution to these and allow you to use more practical tanks for everything else a tank is supposed to do like supporting infantry.

That's how my PMT concept for the Ymir works out. (Although it is an abortive result of such a project but lets not nitpick)

Purpelia wrote:Flexibility. A gun armed TD doubles as a good assault gun and stuff. A missile tank is just a one trick pony.

Now you are just going in circles.

No I am not. Just because this thing is not intended to be used as a MBT but as a TD does not mean it should not be flexible enough to do other things besides its primary function. It just won't be doing the same things a MBT would. Just like it is too heavy and slow to be used as an MBT effectively the huge gun lets it be useful in ways conventional MBT's just aren't and in ways that a missile tank can't be.

Specialization is good. But overspecialization is for insects.

Alowwvia wrote:

Amerikians wrote:
You need tactics and strategy to approach any combat situation.

Ofc with Titanium Armor; bring flamethrowers...

If it has an exhaust, it can be clogged.

If it has wheels, they can be fucked with.

Nothing is invincible.

Any part of the vehicle is susceptible to thermite.

Purpelia wrote:No I am not. Just because this thing is not intended to be used as a MBT but as a TD does not mean it should not be flexible enough to do other things besides its primary function. It just won't be doing the same things a MBT would. Just like it is too heavy and slow to be used as an MBT effectively the huge gun lets it be useful in ways conventional MBT's just aren't and in ways that a missile tank can't be.

Specialization is good. But overspecialization is for insects.

Not an arguement against missile armed TDs. Quite the opposite in fact.

The Kievan People wrote:

Purpelia wrote:No I am not. Just because this thing is not intended to be used as a MBT but as a TD does not mean it should not be flexible enough to do other things besides its primary function. It just won't be doing the same things a MBT would. Just like it is too heavy and slow to be used as an MBT effectively the huge gun lets it be useful in ways conventional MBT's just aren't and in ways that a missile tank can't be.

Specialization is good. But overspecialization is for insects.

Not an arguement against missile armed TDs. Quite the opposite in fact.

Are you reading what I am saying?

To sum my words up once more for you. Specialization is all well and good. But overspecialization is a bad thing. And a missile armed TD is overspecialized compared to a gun armed one that can also fire missiles. As the Soviets have found out time and time again with their various missile tank experiments.

Purpelia wrote:

The Kievan People wrote:
Not an arguement against missile armed TDs. Quite the opposite in fact.

Are you reading what I am saying?

To sum my words up once more for you. Specialization is all well and good. But overspecialization is a bad thing. And a missile armed TD is overspecialized compared to a gun armed one that can also fire missiles. As the Soviets have found out time and time again with their various missile tank experiments.

I don't think a missile armed TD would be that overspecialized. with the right missile load out it could also engage helicopters, and infantry relatively easily. Also it could work with infantry/other units to fire at targets outside of its line of sight.

Get to the forth minute and wait.

I'm assuming this man was a certain Gordan Freeman?

Can I get away with my tank's armor stopping 152mm shells from the front, 140mm shells from the sides, 120mm from the rear, 155mm artillery direct hits, top-attack ATGMs, and all current ATGMs?

Just want to ask this before I say something for sure.

Osaea wrote:

Alowwvia wrote:And for every ATGM, there's a guy with a pistol that can kill him for much cheaper.

True. But can the guy with a pistol kill the tank? Only if he's Mattias Nilsson.

You mean Tom Hanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apBywAsxunU

The Republic of Lanos wrote:Can I get away with my tank's armor stopping 152mm shells from the front, 140mm shells from the sides, 120mm from the rear, 155mm artillery direct hits, top-attack ATGMs, and all current ATGMs?

You aren't me. So no.