Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Type 6

by **Orussia** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:05 am

Bloody hell, I thought mounting a 180mm HV cannon on an assault gun chassis was bad.

Also, top of page pr0nz.

by **The Kievan People** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:06 am

Questers wrote:I hate this fucking thread. I wish Anemos had put a restriction on "dumb shit" in the OP like I was going to do.

Can we ban discussions about 22cm tank guns?

by **Goryeo Hegemony** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:09 am

My SALC can withstand anything
Crew: +45
Weight: 34 tons
Length: 25 ft.
Speed: 35 mph
Weapons: Flamethrower, 5 barrage canons, 4 semiautomatic mounted guns

by **Orussia** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:12 am

Goryeo Hegemony wrote:My SALC can withstand anything

Stats?

by **Goryeo Hegemony** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:18 am

Orussia wrote:
Goryeo Hegemony wrote:My SALC can withstand anything

Stats?

My SALC can withstand anything
Crew: +45
Weight: 34 tons
Length: 25 ft.
Speed: 35 mph
Weapons: Flamethrower, 5 barrage canons, 4 semiautomatic mounted guns

by **Macedonian Grand Empire** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:26 am

Goryeo Hegemony wrote:
Orussia wrote:Stats?

My SALC can withstand anything
Crew: +45
Weight: 34 tons
Length: 25 ft.
Speed: 35 mph
Weapons: Flamethrower, 5 barrage canons, 4 semiautomatic mounted guns

Yeah right...

by **Anemos Major** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:27 am

Goryeo Hegemony wrote:
Orussia wrote:Stats?

My SALC can withstand anything
Crew: +45
Weight: 34 tons
Length: 25 ft.
Speed: 35 mph
Weapons: Flamethrower, 5 barrage canons, 4 semiautomatic mounted guns

Forty-five men, thirty four tons, one crew cabin... anything could happen.

Mmm... it's getting hot in here.

(this won't work, by the way - for all sorts of reasons)

by **Orussia** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:28 am

Goryeo Hegemony wrote:
Orussia wrote:Stats?

My SALC can withstand anything
Crew: +45
Weight: 34 tons
Length: 25 ft.
Speed: 35 mph
Weapons: Flamethrower, 5 barrage canons, 4 semiautomatic mounted guns

You plan to stuff 45 people into a vehicle weighing 34 tons? Your 'withstand everything' SALC will be as well-armored as a school bus.

by **Stickcountry** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:29 am

--Tanks--

* Al-Khalid tank

* Type 10

*Merkava

*M1 Abrams

*Zulfiqar

--Rocket Artillery--

* ZCRS-122

*Panzerwerfer

*Hatf-I

by **Lydenburg** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:01 am

Dostanuot Loj wrote:
Lydenburg wrote:
Funny you should mention that. The Chileans replaced all their Sherman 76mms with the 60mm I was describing.

Actually they replaced the Israeli 105mm guns with it on the Shermans the Israelis sold them.

The 60mm HV is an awesome gun. I just don't like it for some reason. I'd rather use a full on 76mm Oto Melera gun.

In fact... there's another idea for an IFV fun-gun.

In the late '80s, Sandock-Austral mounted an OTO Melera 76 from the Rooikat project on a Ratel chassis for the SADF's IFV replacement project. They even produced a brochure for any takers, but nobody was interested so it got shelved. 76mm was just considered too undergunned by the rest of the world, which is why Denel had to substitute a 105mm on the Rooikat for export.

by **Luepola** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:09 am

Anemos Major wrote:
Forty-five men, thirty four tons, one crew cabin... anything could happen.

Mmm... it's getting hot in here.

(this won't work, by the way - for all sorts of reasons)

omg im dying

Would this be sig-worthy?

by **The Akasha Colony** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:24 am

Purpelia wrote:
Questers wrote:They did. The IS-3. It even had a bigger gun.

Centurion too was developed at the end of WW2, as was Pershing. Modern tank design kind of begins at the end of WW2.

You are asking why someone in 1901 didn't invent the AKM.

The two are not comparable at all. I am not talking about making a MBT or anything revolutionary like that. And I am definitively not talking about making a heavy tank. I am asking about applying a hemispherical turret shape and general low profile features with a contemporary medium tank. Take say a Panzer IV G. It ticks all my points by having a HV 75mm gun, a weight of 25 Mg and generally being a medium tank. Why didn't anyone make a Panzer IV G equivalent but with a hemispherical turret and sloped front armor?

For the Americans, Soviets, and British, their existing tanks worked fine, so why would they bother developing a completely new tank that broadly copies capabilities they already had? For the US and USSR, it would have required developing an entirely new gun as well, with new ammunition and all the attendant accouterments, since they didn't have a 75 mm HV design at the time (they did have 76 mm designs though).

For the Germans, it would have required developing a casting infrastructure, which is expensive and time consuming at a time they could not afford it. It was also well outside their engineering practice at the time, which is the real reason it wasn't considered. Unlike NS, the belligerents of WWII didn't get to cherry pick engineering practices wholesale for free from whoever they liked.

Anemos Major wrote:
Goryeo Hegemony wrote:My SALC can withstand anything
Crew: +45
Weight: 34 tons
Length: 25 ft.
Speed: 35 mph
Weapons: Flamethrower, 5 barrage canons, 4 semiautomatic mounted guns

Forty-five men, thirty four tons, one crew cabin... anything could happen.

Mmm... it's getting hot in here.

(this won't work, by the way - for all sorts of reasons)

The Wolf of Wall Street-mobile?

by **Ea90** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:37 am

The Greater Luthorian Empire wrote:
Questers wrote:I dont knw any NS tank that claims 55t weight, >2000mm RHA protection and a 155mm gun. They are usually >75t, 2000mm and 155mm.

I've seen them. Regardless, wanked armour values is a pretty major thing when it comes to NS tanks, less of a thing with the better designed ones, but plenty of storefronts sell tanks with a redarded armour value slapped on. Also, is 2000mm RHAE vs KE really reasonable for a 75 ton tank? I mean most western values I've seen are claimed to be about 800-1000ish region, and it seems like it would take more than just ten tons to double the armour on the front, toss in a bigger gun, the ammunition for that gun, and a larger engine so your tank has some mobility.

48t, 2m LoS thickness frontal (probably about 1350mm RHAe vs. KE) existed IRL, so it's not that unreasonable, providing you make the right tradeoffs (the one I'm talking about had a two-man crew squished into the front of the hull and didn't have a gun yet).
IMO, the more pertinent question is why you would want 2m RHAe vs. KE, not how you would do it.

by **Riysa** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:41 am

Ea90 wrote:
The Greater Luthorian Empire wrote:I've seen them. Regardless, wanked armour values is a pretty major thing when it comes to NS tanks, less of a thing with the better designed ones, but plenty of storefronts sell tanks with a redarded armour value slapped on. Also, is 2000mm RHAE vs KE really reasonable for a 75 ton tank? I mean most western values I've seen are claimed to be about 800-1000ish region, and it seems like it would take more than just ten tons to double the armour on the front, toss in a bigger gun, the ammunition for that gun, and a larger engine so your tank has some mobility.

48t, 2m LoS thickness frontal (probably about 1350mm RHAe vs. KE) existed IRL, so it's not that unreasonable, providing you make the right tradeoffs (the one I'm talking about had a two-man crew squished into the front of the hull and didn't have a gun yet).
IMO, the more pertinent question is why you would want 2m RHAe vs. KE, not how you would do it.

Which tank was this?

by **Ea90** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:13 pm

Riysa wrote:
Ea90 wrote:48t, 2m LoS thickness frontal (probably about 1350mm RHAe vs. KE) existed IRL, so it's not that unreasonable, providing you make the right tradeoffs (the one I'm talking about had a two-man crew squished into the front of the hull and didn't have a gun yet).
IMO, the more pertinent question is why you would want 2m RHAe vs. KE, not how you would do it.

Which tank was this?

EGS

by **The Greater Luthorian Empire** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:28 pm

Ea90 wrote:
The Greater Luthorian Empire wrote:I've seen them. Regardless, wanked armour values is a pretty major thing when it comes to NS tanks, less of a thing with the better designed ones, but plenty of storefronts sell tanks with a redarded armour value slapped on. Also, is 2000mm RHAE vs KE really reasonable for a 75 ton tank? I mean most western values I've seen are claimed to be about 800-1000ish region, and it seems like it would take more than just ten tons to double the armour on the front, toss in a bigger gun, the ammunition for that gun, and a larger engine so your tank has some mobility.

48t, 2m LoS thickness frontal (probably about 1350mm RHAe vs. KE) existed IRL, so it's not that unreasonable, providing you make the right tradeoffs (the one I'm talking about had a two-man crew squished into the front of the hull and didn't have a gun yet).
IMO, the more pertinent question is why you would want 2m RHAe vs. KE, not how you would do it.

Where did the EGS have 2 m frontal LOS thickness? I can't see its turret or lower front hull having that much armour.

by **Muzztopia** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:50 pm

by **Vorkova** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:56 pm

Orussia wrote:Bloody hell, I thought mounting a 180mm HV cannon on an assault gun chassis was bad.

Also, top of page pr0nz.
(Image)
(Image)

What's the name of this one? It's Soviet IIRC.

by **The Akasha Colony** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:57 pm

Muzztopia wrote:-snip-

For the love of all that is holy, please spoiler this.

by **Connori Pilgrims** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:00 pm

Vorkova wrote:
Orussia wrote:Bloody hell, I thought mounting a 180mm HV cannon on an assault gun chassis was bad.

Also, top of page pr0nz.
(Image)
(Image)

What's the name of this one? It's Soviet IIRC.

2s7 Pion. Soviet/Russian 203mm/50 SPG

by **Kouralia** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:01 pm

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Muzztopia wrote:-snip-

For the love of all that is holy, please spoiler this.

mai eyes

mai eyes r dieing

by **Vorkova** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:01 pm

Connori Pilgrims wrote:
Vorkova wrote:What's the name of this one? It's Soviet IIRC.

2s7 Pion. Soviet/Russian 203mm/50 SPG

Thanks.

by **Vetok** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:02 pm

Muzztopia wrote:PICS

Holy picspam, Batman! Also, why have a sudden British Warrior IFV in there when you've got M113's, LAV's, and Bradley's?

by **Kouralia** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:02 pm

Vetok wrote:
Muzztopia wrote:PICS

Holy picspam, Batman! Also, why have a sudden British Warrior IFV in there when you've got M113's, LAV's, and Bradley's?

Because he can recognise superiority.

by **Vetok** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:07 pm

Kouralia wrote:
Vetok wrote:
Holy picspam, Batman! Also, why have a sudden British Warrior IFV in there when you've got M113's, LAV's, and Bradley's?

Because he can recognise superiority.

But he only recognises enough superiority to have just the Warrior and not a Scorpion/Scimitar/Striker/Challenger 2 combo?

Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Type 6

Who will OP the next MGVoYN[NM] thread?

Scorpion-ALC Assault Land Cruiser

Who is online