Advertisement
by Satirius » Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:01 pm
by Bafuria » Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:04 pm
Satirius wrote:Turret basket is quite narrow.
by Satirius » Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:10 pm
by Bafuria » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:30 am
Satirius wrote:
That would make your gunner liable to get killed quite easily, and also the breech may punch him in the crotch or chin. How do you expect the gun to load too if the gunner is in the way?
You'll also want to move the top hatch forward. The way it is will make manning the MG a stone-cold bitch.
by Chernobyl-Pripyat » Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:45 am
The Grand World Order wrote:
Not to mention, the Abrams STILL might possibly survive the rockets. And, if the Mi-28 is flying low enough, the Abrams certainly could shoot it down via a flechette shell, or even the M2 mounted on top of it.
But, like you said, combined arms, so my point's pretty much redundant.
by Scandavian States » Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:30 pm
by New Zepuha » Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:51 pm
[13:31] <Koyro> I want to be cremated, my ashes put into a howitzer shell and fired at the White House.
by Satirius » Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:55 pm
by New Zepuha » Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:06 pm
Satirius wrote:Leman Russ whyyyyyyy
You'd at least expect that they'd still remember what a suspension was for in 40,000.
[13:31] <Koyro> I want to be cremated, my ashes put into a howitzer shell and fired at the White House.
by Dostanuot Loj » Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:37 pm
Scandavian States wrote:I would put money down right now that GD and the DoD aren in development of new upgrades for the Abrams.
EDIT: I said aren't instead of are.
by Zaku212 » Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 pm
by Hegstoria » Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:56 pm
Scandavian States wrote:I would put money down right now that GD and the DoD aren in development of new upgrades for the Abrams.
EDIT: I said aren't instead of are.
by Hegstoria » Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:01 pm
Hegstoria wrote:The Corparation wrote:Hegstoria wrote:The Corparation wrote:New Nicksyllvania wrote:Lizardiar wrote:Canadai wrote:Lizardiar wrote:Canadai wrote:Main Battle Tanks are really obsolete. Seriously guys. Even a heavy MBT can be taken out by an airstrike, and an IFV can pack similar punch while being faster and lighter; and carrying more troops.
K, thanks for the argument for the entire thread. This was the first argument, then it was that Mechs were tanks (THEY ARE NOT!!!) Now we're back to this.
MBTs can also be armed with Anti-Air capabilities..did you know that? I'm guessing you do since you know everything. Aside from that, MBTs don't act alone, they have SAM teams and vehicles and troops, IFVs, and their own aircraft to make sure that the exact situation you are saying doesn't happen.
IFVs can be given SAMs to, and they aren't exactly helpless against heavier armour.
Right...because of their superior guns...wait a second.....well...their (Half the range of the main cannon of a tanks) TOW missiles?
I believe he's reffering to the stryker series, and the BMP series had 105mm cannons and other kool shit
If your talking about the Stryker, the Stryker is basicaly a rip off of the Canadian LAV III which is itself a rip off of the Swiss Piranha III, so its the Piranha series of vehicles not the Stryker series.
Yes, yes, we stole it from the Canadians who stole it from the Swiss. But who cares because neither of them actually have a real army, the Canadians just have mounted Beavers and the Swiss have an army of cheese and chocolate. So obviously we deserve the credit for it.
Switzerland has an extremly well trained and equiped military, they just never use it.Hegstoria wrote:The Grand World Order wrote:
An Abrams shrugged off three or so DU-tipped sabots into the side at near point-blank (as far as tank warfare goes) in Iraq, from another Abrams (the former tank was stuck, and they had to destroy it to keep it from falling into Iraqi hands.)
God I love my countries military... Say what you want about us, but Jesus Christ we'll fuck you up with the awesomest tech around. It brings a tear to my eye. :')
The British Challenger 2 is better, only one has ever been destroyed (By another Challenger), one of them survived after taking 70 rpg hits, another withstood 8 rpg hits and a direct hit with a MILAN antitank missile, with the crew safe inside for several hours taking continuos small arms fire prior to recovery, and was repaired within 6 hours of being recovered.
LIES I SAY, LIES!!! The Swiss do not have an army, you made it up in your brain!!!!!!
Obviously you my friend have not played the Warpig mission in CoD Modern Warfare. That tank took like a gabbilion RPG hits.
In all honesty though I hope you realize all of those were for lulz, I do know all of that, but I also know that the U.S. is continually upgrading it's military and all of our main systems are over 10 years old and will be getting either replaced or overhauled very soon. I would put money down right now that GD and the DoD are in development of new upgrades for the Abrams.
EDIT: I said aren't instead of are.
by Techno-Soviet » Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:08 pm
The Grand World Order wrote:Lizardiar wrote:K, let me show you where you went wrong....US Tactics (Or any other country's around the world) would never allow for a tank to go off on it's own for a little while. Abrams happen to be expensive and they don't want to possibly lose it in the situation you're suggesting.
These 2 Abrams would likely also have at least 2 squads of infantry with some form of anti-armor missiles. These squads would have the capability to call air support, so there goes your Mi-28. So then, your little BMP explodes in a giant fireball of metal and gas.
Not to mention, the Abrams STILL might possibly survive the rockets. And, if the Mi-28 is flying low enough, the Abrams certainly could shoot it down via a flechette shell, or even the M2 mounted on top of it.
But, like you said, combined arms, so my point's pretty much redundant.
by The Grand World Order » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:51 pm
Chernobyl-Pripyat wrote:The Grand World Order wrote:
Not to mention, the Abrams STILL might possibly survive the rockets. And, if the Mi-28 is flying low enough, the Abrams certainly could shoot it down via a flechette shell, or even the M2 mounted on top of it.
But, like you said, combined arms, so my point's pretty much redundant.
Definitely will not happen, Mi-28 is protected up to at least a 25mm cannon. As for the rockets, most tanks made after 1960 would survive the S-5 or S-8 unguided, but the ATGM it carries there's a good chance it would burn.
by Senestrum » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:57 pm
Bafuria wrote:Satirius wrote:
That would make your gunner liable to get killed quite easily, and also the breech may punch him in the crotch or chin. How do you expect the gun to load too if the gunner is in the way?
You'll also want to move the top hatch forward. The way it is will make manning the MG a stone-cold bitch.
The Gunner isn't behind the breech, he's is in the right part of the turret.
The left part of the turret contains a 12 shell cylinder. When that cylinder is empty, a speedloader behind the cylinder pushes another 12 shells into the cylinder.
The main gun is basically a massive revolver.
I planned to make the gunner sit up to use the MG, but now I can see how that would be problematic, I'll fix that.
by Techno-Soviet » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:36 pm
by Lizardiar » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:56 pm
by Techno-Soviet » Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:01 pm
by Satirius » Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:49 am
Senestrum wrote:Bafuria wrote:Satirius wrote:
That would make your gunner liable to get killed quite easily, and also the breech may punch him in the crotch or chin. How do you expect the gun to load too if the gunner is in the way?
You'll also want to move the top hatch forward. The way it is will make manning the MG a stone-cold bitch.
The Gunner isn't behind the breech, he's is in the right part of the turret.
The left part of the turret contains a 12 shell cylinder. When that cylinder is empty, a speedloader behind the cylinder pushes another 12 shells into the cylinder.
The main gun is basically a massive revolver.
I planned to make the gunner sit up to use the MG, but now I can see how that would be problematic, I'll fix that.
Have you actually drawn all that out, components and all, to make sure that it A: fits, and B: actually makes sense? Come on man, don't be like Lyras.
by Hurtful Thoughts » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:11 am
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War
Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....
by Techno-Soviet » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:14 am
Hurtful Thoughts wrote:@T-soviet:
95 mm nuke seems a bit small...
by Bafuria » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:28 am
Senestrum wrote:Bafuria wrote:Satirius wrote:
That would make your gunner liable to get killed quite easily, and also the breech may punch him in the crotch or chin. How do you expect the gun to load too if the gunner is in the way?
You'll also want to move the top hatch forward. The way it is will make manning the MG a stone-cold bitch.
The Gunner isn't behind the breech, he's is in the right part of the turret.
The left part of the turret contains a 12 shell cylinder. When that cylinder is empty, a speedloader behind the cylinder pushes another 12 shells into the cylinder.
The main gun is basically a massive revolver.
I planned to make the gunner sit up to use the MG, but now I can see how that would be problematic, I'll fix that.
Have you actually drawn all that out, components and all, to make sure that it A: fits, and B: actually makes sense? Come on man, don't be like Lyras.
by Chernobyl-Pripyat » Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:34 am
by Living Freedom Land » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:18 pm
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Asucki
Advertisement