NationStates

Turret basket is quite narrow.

Satirius wrote:Turret basket is quite narrow.

It doesn't have any. The Gunner lies on his back inside the turret.

Bafuria wrote:

Satirius wrote:Turret basket is quite narrow.

It doesn't have any. The Gunner lies on his back inside the turret.

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.

Satirius wrote:

Bafuria wrote:

Satirius wrote:Turret basket is quite narrow.

It doesn't have any. The Gunner lies on his back inside the turret.

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.

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.

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.[/quote]

As a matter of fact, they are. Given what's known at present about the upgrades, it's looking to be a scary SOB. Google "M1A3" to get an idea of what they're looking at.

And this is also a MBT.

Leman Russ whyyyyyyy

You'd at least expect that they'd still remember what a suspension was for in 40,000.

Satirius wrote:Leman Russ whyyyyyyy

You'd at least expect that they'd still remember what a suspension was for in 40,000.

They bristle with tickley guns!

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.

As a matter of fact, they are. Given what's known at present about the upgrades, it's looking to be a scary SOB. Google "M1A3" to get an idea of what they're looking at.[/quote]

And almost nothing on the internet about the upgrades are true. Anything you'll get on google from "M1A3" is going to be fantasy BS, at best.

New Zepuha wrote:

Satirius wrote:Leman Russ whyyyyyyy

You'd at least expect that they'd still remember what a suspension was for in 40,000.

They bristle with tickley guns!

Battlecannon spam ftw!

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.

As a matter of fact, they are. Given what's known at present about the upgrades, it's looking to be a scary SOB. Google "M1A3" to get an idea of what they're looking at.[/quote]
I KNOW!!!! JESUS CHRIST DID YOU NOT READ THE EDIT OR ARE YOU JUST THICK HEADED!!!!

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:

Canadai wrote:

Bafuria wrote:But they are helpless against 105mm DU shells.

Most things are.

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.

Okay everybody, since you clearly cannot read, I will explain this as simply as possible. In the above post I accidentally put an n't at the end of the underlined "are". So my intention was the exact oppisite of what was read. But, I did edit it and included an expinlation of what I did, which is in Italics. Now, for some reason, even after the edit some people still are replying to it as if I meant that we were not upgrading the Abrams, even though I clearly stated it was a typo and that I knew we were. I am not stupid people, only a retard would think that we weren't upgrading the Abrams.

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.

Hell, an Abrams could use it's M830A1 HEAT-MP rounds. Those things have proximity fuses for a reason:

http://www.military.cz/usa/armour/ammunition/120mm/m830/m830_h3.jpg

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.

Glass doesn't fare well against .50BMGs, nor do rotorheads, or those electronics at the nose of the thing.

Bafuria wrote:

Satirius wrote:

Bafuria wrote:

Satirius wrote:Turret basket is quite narrow.

It doesn't have any. The Gunner lies on his back inside the turret.

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.

Click for bigger.

Techno-Soviet wrote:

Click for bigger.

You drew this yourself and came up with everything?
Stunning...

Lizardiar wrote:You drew this yourself and came up with everything?
Stunning...

Eh, not really.

Senestrum wrote:

Bafuria wrote:

Satirius wrote:

Bafuria wrote:

Satirius wrote:Turret basket is quite narrow.

It doesn't have any. The Gunner lies on his back inside the turret.

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.

Apparently LY4A2 loads from the bottom

Somewhat like the first half or so of a T-72 loading cycle

@T-soviet:
95 mm nuke seems a bit small...

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:@T-soviet:
95 mm nuke seems a bit small...

...

Can I say it's attached to the front of the barrel, like a rifle grenade or the M388?

Senestrum wrote:

Bafuria wrote:

Satirius wrote:

Bafuria wrote:

Satirius wrote:Turret basket is quite narrow.

It doesn't have any. The Gunner lies on his back inside the turret.

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.

Yup, It fits alright, but it's very cramped in there.

Edit: There is a 175 cm height limit in case you want to buy it

T-20 MBT



Length: 9.8m
Width: 3.9m
Height: 2.7m
Weight: 55 tons
Crew: 3
Armor: Tungsten-High Hardness steel composite, ERA, NERA
Engine: 1,300hp diesel engine
Power/weight: 26.9 hp/tonne
Suspension: Torsion bar
Speed: 70km/h road, 40km/h off road
Operational Range: 550km

Primary Armament: 125mm ETC smooth bore 2A66M[40rnds], ATGM capable[5 missiles;HUNTER ATGM, export 9M119M Refleks compatible]

Secondary Armament: 2A72 30mm dual-feed cannon[500rnds], 6P49 KORD on RWS mount[450rnds]

Systems:
--Commander
-PNK-4S/SR AGAT
--Gunner
-ESSA sight[1G46 gunner day sight, CATHERINE-FC thermal imaging camera, wind sensor]
--Driver
-TVN-5 day-night sight

- "BASTION" Battle Management System [absent on export tank]
- TShU1-7 EOCMDAS
- Electromagnetic protection system
- "Ironclad" ACtive Protection System[domestic, export will use ARENA-E APS]
- Relikt ERA
- 'Nakidka' camouflage kit
- Fire Suppression system
- NBC protection system, including anti-neuron liner
- Ainet fuse setting system
- Spalling liner
- grill armor on rear and engine block sides

Protection[ERA]:
Front, hull:
650mm[900mm] vs KE, 800mm[1200mm] vs CE
Side:
450mm[700mm] vs KE, 650mm[900mm] vs CE


The T-20 Main Battle Tank is the second high technology tank produced in Chernobyl-Pripyat, as part of the 2020 modernization program. It is intended as a tank suitable for all units, to replace older T-90A tanks and supplement the more costly T-100 tank that arms elite tank divisions. Compared to other vehicles in service, it's more advanced concerning fire controls and other systems. Mobility is one of the main advantages over the tanks it replaced and reportedly has superior mobility then the T-80UM tank according to trials conducted. It's use of a battle management network enables large numbers of vehicles to cooperate with friendly forces efficiently.

The T-20 is based on a modified T-100 hull, lacking depleted uranium meshing to save weight. A major difference is that the T-20 uses a unmanned turret, placing the gunner and commander in separate compartments behind and to the sides of the driver allowing for a low profile without compromising space. For increased protection against mines and IED, the tank's seats are attached to the hull roof, which greatly decreases energy transferred to the crew in the event of explosive detonation. Additionally the floor armor is thicker then that of the T-100 tank. The tank has ERA mounts over the front and sides, utilizing Relikt ERA and NERA[on turret top]. To increase protection, the T-20 utilizes both hard and soft kill measures, including the TShU1-7 "Shtora-1" and "Ironclad" hardkill system. The T-20 has full NBC protection, including an anti-neuron liner along with spall protection and Halon based fire suppression system.

The T-20 uses the 2A66M Electrothermal Chemical gun, fed by mechanical loader in the turret bustle. This was chosen over a convetional 125mm gun due to logistical reasons and that liquid propellent has a uniform ignition, increasing accuracy and boost in muzzle velocity. While compatible with most 125mm munitions, it is intended to be used with domestically produced APFSDS-DU-T, HEAT, HE-Frag and canister rounds. The 2A66 is capable of launching ATGMs, most notably the Nachmere-produced HUNTER missle, which has replaced other missiles in Chernobylskayan service. The tank can carry a maximum of 45 shells, but is typically equipped with 40 shells +5 ATGM during high intensity operations. Using the ESSA sight, accurate fire can be achieved out to 5,000–8,000 meters, and night fighting ranges out to 1,500m

Unlike most tanks, which typically utilize a 7.62mm caliber coaxle machine gun, it uses the 2A77 30mm dual feed cannon, allowing the T-20 to take out IFV without resorting to the main gun. This has a combat load of 500 rounds, and has a maximum range of 2,500m against soft ground targets.

While initial prototypes did not feature such, a 6P49 KORD 12.7mm machine gun with 450 rounds is equipped to a Remote Weapon Station electronically controlled by the commander.

Living Freedom Land has one tank nicknamed "Ole Faithful."