FanT yes. FT No.
Advertisement
by Yes Im Biop » Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:42 am
by The Akasha Colony » Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:43 am
by Yes Im Biop » Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:46 am
The Akasha Colony wrote:Altito Asmoro wrote:
In FT
FT assumes the use of handwaving so there's no need for any path to be paved. Notice how FTL is a very common technology in FT, and yet we've made no progress on it, and probably won't without some massive reworking of our fundamental understanding of the universe.Yes Im Biop wrote:
FanT yes. FT No.
FT and FanT are functionally interchangeable given that they both require handwaving. FT simply prefers handwaving of a different sort than FanT.
by Altito Asmoro » Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:47 am
by The Akasha Colony » Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:50 am
Yes Im Biop wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:
FT assumes the use of handwaving so there's no need for any path to be paved. Notice how FTL is a very common technology in FT, and yet we've made no progress on it, and probably won't without some massive reworking of our fundamental understanding of the universe.
FT and FanT are functionally interchangeable given that they both require handwaving. FT simply prefers handwaving of a different sort than FanT.
Aw. I figured FT was grounded in some reality and FanT was Warhammer40K Crazy stuff.
Altito Asmoro wrote:But the design of KURATAS is amazing.
by Arthurista » Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:25 am
The State of Czecho-Slovakia wrote:I've decided to go with two Konig class ships, minimally upgraded with catapults.
by Stalingradna » Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:28 am
by Samozaryadnyastan » Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:34 am
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Elan Valleys » Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:48 am
Arthurista wrote:The State of Czecho-Slovakia wrote:I've decided to go with two Konig class ships, minimally upgraded with catapults.
I suggest Queen Elizabeths, which were fast by WWI standards. It might cost you a bit initially, but overall costs will be down a lot as they remain useful even in to the 40s while most surviving WWI dreadnoughts were relegated to mere shore bombardment duties.
by Crookfur » Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:01 am
Sedikal wrote:The communist government had a good amount of Chauchats from WWI which we licensed from France. Just as shitty but still domestic copies that were laying around for "emergency situations" so we have had a lot. Guns were hard to get ahold of as well and the Chauchat and AKM's were about the best they could get from armory raids.
Probably should have put that in the question actually. But yeah I guess the same situation and question still applies.
by European Prussia » Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:05 am
by The Corparation » Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:12 am
| Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
| Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Samozaryadnyastan » Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:15 am
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by New Vihenia » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:13 am
by Samozaryadnyastan » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:31 am
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by European Prussia » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:32 am
by Altaiire » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:04 am
Lolzieristan wrote:Basque Socialist States wrote:You can use GLATGMs to the same effect, and then the box launcher can be dropped, reducing weight and allowing reactive armor to be more evenly mounted (i.e. where the box launcher would have been).
At first I was thinking of pointing out that external ATGMs could serve as an emergency secondary weapon, if you were caught reloading by another tank and it was an every-second-counts situation.
But, then again, I think that the time involved in waiting for a missile to hit its target would be longer than to just put a new shell in there.
Another reason I'd shy away from them is that, from the battlefield accounts I've heard, intense tank battles tend to strip things off of the sides of tanks. Antennae, kit, etc. tends to get sheared off even with the most insignificant glancing blow. Now, imagine putting a box full of really, really explosive missiles right next to your critical and fragile comms equipment, your optics, and generally all the important stuff. Somehow I think that might be a bit of a bad idea. Plus, GLATGMs can be reloaded in battle, whereas a box of two or four missiles (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) usually need to be reloaded manually by supply personnel. Which is hard to do when you're in a firing position.
EDIT:
By the way, guys, the top five results in a cursory Google search for "GLATGMs" come out as Nationstates or the NS Draftroom.
What the hell is wrong with us? Does the rest of the Internet not do this kind of thing?
by Samozaryadnyastan » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:50 am
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
by Lolzieristan » Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:39 am
Altaiire wrote:Lolzieristan wrote:-snipsies-
What you mentioned was the approach I intended to use the box launcher for. It isn't necessarily about being able to launch missiles via tank in which case a GLATGM would be preferable: I want to use the box-launched ATGMs to allow the tank to engage multiple targets simultaneously in the event the tank is outnumbered and ambushed, or during a chaotic battle with enemies in multiple directions. A last ditch attack in a 1-on-1 scenario while the gun is reloading, like you said, wouldn't be enough to save the tank, especially considering the longer flight time (at least I assume) of a top-attack vs. a TOW, let alone whether you could reload the gun faster or not (which you easily could.) In theory, at least it's better to fire off those missiles and knock out the tank that knocked you out.
As for things getting stripped off the tank during a firefight, this is interesting / helpful. I suppose in theory there would be a way to secure the box launcher without it getting knocked off. Is the equipment getting torn off from a hit on that particular side of the tank or merely getting hit in general (I.E. a round ricocheting off the turret breaking off the antenna, etc.)? Getting hit on the side of the tank carrying the box launcher is a problem (like you said, if the missiles go off it'll do some serious damage to anything sensitive on the turret/hull.) Could you design the launcher in such a way that the explosion of the missiles is concentrated parallel to the turret, or design the missiles to be inert until launched, etc.? I was planning on keeping the launcher separated from the turret's side by a bit so that ERA tiles could be fitted between it and the turret.
by The Akasha Colony » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:20 pm
Altaiire wrote:Lolzieristan wrote:
At first I was thinking of pointing out that external ATGMs could serve as an emergency secondary weapon, if you were caught reloading by another tank and it was an every-second-counts situation.
But, then again, I think that the time involved in waiting for a missile to hit its target would be longer than to just put a new shell in there.
Another reason I'd shy away from them is that, from the battlefield accounts I've heard, intense tank battles tend to strip things off of the sides of tanks. Antennae, kit, etc. tends to get sheared off even with the most insignificant glancing blow. Now, imagine putting a box full of really, really explosive missiles right next to your critical and fragile comms equipment, your optics, and generally all the important stuff. Somehow I think that might be a bit of a bad idea. Plus, GLATGMs can be reloaded in battle, whereas a box of two or four missiles (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) usually need to be reloaded manually by supply personnel. Which is hard to do when you're in a firing position.
EDIT:
By the way, guys, the top five results in a cursory Google search for "GLATGMs" come out as Nationstates or the NS Draftroom.
What the hell is wrong with us? Does the rest of the Internet not do this kind of thing?
What you mentioned was the approach I intended to use the box launcher for. It isn't necessarily about being able to launch missiles via tank in which case a GLATGM would be preferable: I want to use the box-launched ATGMs to allow the tank to engage multiple targets simultaneously in the event the tank is outnumbered and ambushed, or during a chaotic battle with enemies in multiple directions. A last ditch attack in a 1-on-1 scenario while the gun is reloading, like you said, wouldn't be enough to save the tank, especially considering the longer flight time (at least I assume) of a top-attack vs. a TOW, let alone whether you could reload the gun faster or not (which you easily could.) In theory, at least it's better to fire off those missiles and knock out the tank that knocked you out.
As for things getting stripped off the tank during a firefight, this is interesting / helpful. I suppose in theory there would be a way to secure the box launcher without it getting knocked off. Is the equipment getting torn off from a hit on that particular side of the tank or merely getting hit in general (I.E. a round ricocheting off the turret breaking off the antenna, etc.)? Getting hit on the side of the tank carrying the box launcher is a problem (like you said, if the missiles go off it'll do some serious damage to anything sensitive on the turret/hull.) Could you design the launcher in such a way that the explosion of the missiles is concentrated parallel to the turret, or design the missiles to be inert until launched, etc.? I was planning on keeping the launcher separated from the turret's side by a bit so that ERA tiles could be fitted between it and the turret.
New Vihenia wrote:About to make my Radar range calculator lot simpler and more "user friendly"... perhaps including a PDF manual.
Should the manual contain the whole theory behind the calculator like say "why the range equation contain that 4xphi".. which is known as "factor of proportionality" or just simply explaining "this couloumn" do this and typical value are this to this ?
There could be additional feature that allow the sheet to consider atmospheric absorption effect..using similar method as Blake Chart for Pulse Radar Range Calculation. So basically i will provide a graph or table containing 2-way absorption coefficients for typical radar frequencies which user may use as input.
by Altaiire » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:23 pm
Samozaryadnyastan wrote:Just in case you hadn't seen it earlier.Samozaryadnyastan wrote:
Longbow works by being up above the battlefield. On a tank, it's going to be at max three metres above the battlefield (which will give you a distance to the horizon of less than 6200m).
Leave long-range missile interdiction of enemy armoured vehicles to vehicles designed to do just that.
Lolzieristan wrote:Generally, what we're talking here is that there is so much metal flying around on the battlefield that everything strapped to the outside of your tank will most likely get filled with holes very quickly. Artillery shells bursting around your tank aren't particularly dangerous to the vehicle or the crew (unless it's a bullseye), but all those bits of shrapnel will put the outside of your tank through what amounts to a gigantic sandblaster. Same for autocannon rounds, grenades, smaller landmines like anti-personnel mines, etc. etc. While they don' t destroy your tank's core functionality or kill your crew inside, they'll screw up what's on the outside. Unless you wrap that box in almost as much armor as the hull has, you'll face that problem. But I suppose it's worth the risk to have a chance of having them if you need them.
I suppose that if you managed to create a box launcher that retracted to be flush against the turret like the Bradley's, and perhaps stuck a bit of armor on it, you'd have a viable system.
by Yes Im Biop » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:56 pm
by Altaiire » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:16 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:
Unless your tank has several targeting systems, it won't matter. And ATGMs, which would presumably fire-and-forget if you want them to be last-ditch weapons, are a bad idea in a chaotic battle, and top-attack would be difficult to use in a short-range ambush (most have a minimum range).
I'd assume that at most the box launcher would add an extra foot~ish in one direction to the width of the vehicle. I'm not too concerned about that. As for the blowout panels, this is what I was thinking of. I do appreciate Lolzieristan's retractable armored method.As Lolzieristan mentions, just about anything on the battlefield will shear off, or worse detonate, a vulnerable box launcher. If you have a Western-style tank, chances are your turret already tanks up the full width of the chassis, so adding the launcher also widens the tank and reduces its usefulness in tight quarters. Blowout panels might be possible but would add complexity to the design. And the missiles are probably inert anyway by general standards, but the sorts of things that get lobbed around on the battlefield could provide enough shock to set them off anyway.
Given its potential for self-harm and intended use primarily as a last-ditch weapon, IMO the disadvantages clearly outweigh the advantages. Better to put that money into ways to avoid getting into desperate situations or to improve the armor in general, since the box-launched ATGMs are still going to need some lock-on time in which you could have just reloaded the gun, and they're not going to have that much off-boresight capability, so you'd still have to slew the turret to face the target.
by The Kievan People » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:51 pm
by Samozaryadnyastan » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:53 pm
Malgrave wrote:You are secretly Vladimir Putin using this forum to promote Russian weapons and tracking down and killing those who oppose you.
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Atlantic Isles, Greater Marine, Lurinsk
