NationStates

The Kievan People wrote:

Zeinbrad wrote:The Twat, the main tank of the Fusiliers, is more of the classic infantry tank, and the Prick is an actual infantry tank in function(Slow but well-armored and armed).

Then why do you need this to be an infantry tank to?

Registug wrote:Those names are... unfortunate

Gallia- wrote:British tank names tend to be named after castles, magical animals, or Welsh things and start with "C".

Oaledonia wrote:

Gallia- wrote:British tank names tend to be named after castles, magical animals, or Welsh things and start with "C".

Or chess pieces.

Gallia- wrote:

Oaledonia wrote:Or chess pieces.

Wow no.

I will draw you a plane that is pretty btw.~

Zeinbrad wrote:

Registug wrote:Those names are... unfortunate

I was bored,and decided that having the enemy tankers yell "It's a prick!" was funny for some reason.

And I couldn't really think of British sounding names.

Zeinbrad wrote:I figured since it's has weak armor, it would be wiser to stay behind infantry sections before unleashing hell on enemy positions.

The Twat, the main tank of the Fusiliers, is more of the classic infantry tank, and the Prick is an actual infantry tank in function(Slow but well-armored and armed).

The Akasha Colony wrote:

Zeinbrad wrote:I figured since it's has weak armor, it would be wiser to stay behind infantry sections before unleashing hell on enemy positions.

The Twat, the main tank of the Fusiliers, is more of the classic infantry tank, and the Prick is an actual infantry tank in function(Slow but well-armored and armed).

Infantry tanks are slower and heavily armored because their job is to support infantry with their armor, being able to break through fortifications the infantry would otherwise have a hard time penetrating. They don't need to be that fast because foot infantry aren't fast to begin with, and their ability to wade into fire to protect infantry when needed is what makes them valuable.

Cavalry tanks are designed to be faster so that they can provide the mobility generally associated with cavalry tactics, allowing them to exploit breakthroughs and strike more vulnerable enemy positions.

Nowadays of course both are merged into the main battle tank, which is as fast as the old cavalry tanks and as armored as the old infantry tanks.

Gallia- wrote:British tank names tend to be named after castles, magical animals, or Welsh things and start with "C".

Mitheldalond wrote:

Gallia- wrote:British tank names tend to be named after castles, magical animals, or Welsh things and start with "C".

Off the top of my head, the Conqueror, Crusader, Cromwell, Comet, Centurion, Challenger, Cruiser III and IV, Matilda, Valentine, Sherman Firefly, and Covenanter all disagree with you for various different reasons.

Mitheldalond wrote:

Gallia- wrote:British tank names tend to be named after castles, magical animals, or Welsh things and start with "C".

Off the top of my head, the Conqueror, Crusader, Cromwell, Comet, Centurion, Challenger, Cruiser III and IV, Matilda, Valentine, Sherman Firefly, and Covenanter all disagree with you for various different reasons.

Spirit of Hope wrote:

Gallia- wrote:Answer: Use more planes.

More targets to get shot down.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
Centerline cargo, side seats?

Hard to paradrop soldiers alongside vehicles. Humans and vehicles shouldn't occupy the same airspace.

Zeinbrad wrote:

Registug wrote:I thought paratroopers aren't supposed to drop into heavily defended areas at all, air defense or conventional.

Unreleased your a Ragon ParaJager, in which you are expected to go into heavily defended areas and win.

If your pilot doesn't crash before you get there, that how much Ragon pilots suck.

Mitheldalond wrote:

Gallia- wrote:British tank names tend to be named after castles, magical animals, or Welsh things and start with "C".

Off the top of my head, the Conqueror, Crusader, Cromwell, Comet, Centurion, Challenger, Cruiser III and IV, Matilda, Valentine, Sherman Firefly, and Covenanter all disagree with you for various different reasons.

Mitheldalond wrote:

Gallia- wrote:British tank names tend to be named after castles, magical animals, or Welsh things and start with "C".

Off the top of my head, the Conqueror, Crusader, Cromwell, Comet, Centurion, Challenger, Cruiser III and IV, Matilda, Valentine, Sherman Firefly, and Covenanter all disagree with you for various different reasons.

RE: FOIA #14-0097 RE: Freedom Of Information Act - Technical Data (UNCLASSIFIED)

This email serves as a follow up response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for Technical reports on the MTU 6R890 and MTU 883 engines, particularly data regarding fuel consumption (for JP-8 and ASTM-D975), mean time between failures, power output, torque curves and heat generation.

Your email dated April 7, 2014 suggested I check with the Ground Combat Vehicle Project Management Office (GCVPM). This email is to confirm the Ground Combat Vehicle Project Management Office never tested these engines. General Dynamic Land System is the prime contractor using this engine for the GCV program so you will have to contract them or MTU directly for this information.

I was also told the GCVPM tested an older version of the MTU 883 engine in the late 1980s, Technical Report #13461 dated March 1991. This report can be obtained by contacting Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)

Zeinbrad wrote:

Registug wrote:Those names are... unfortunate

I was bored,and decided that having the enemy tankers yell "It's a prick!" was funny for some reason.

And I couldn't really think of British sounding names.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

Zeinbrad wrote:I figured since it's has weak armor, it would be wiser to stay behind infantry sections before unleashing hell on enemy positions.

The Twat, the main tank of the Fusiliers, is more of the classic infantry tank, and the Prick is an actual infantry tank in function(Slow but well-armored and armed).

Infantry tanks are slower and heavily armored because their job is to support infantry with their armor, being able to break through fortifications the infantry would otherwise have a hard time penetrating. They don't need to be that fast because foot infantry aren't fast to begin with, and their ability to wade into fire to protect infantry when needed is what makes them valuable.

Cavalry tanks are designed to be faster so that they can provide the mobility generally associated with cavalry tactics, allowing them to exploit breakthroughs and strike more vulnerable enemy positions.

Nowadays of course both are merged into the main battle tank, which is as fast as the old cavalry tanks and as armored as the old infantry tanks.

Zeinbrad wrote:

Gallia- wrote:No, that's fine. Lots of sensible people have proposed casemate guns in the modern era.

Not many sensible people propose parachuting commandos directly onto enemy troops. That's the sort of thing you'd see CAR doing.

The Ragon are in sci-fi tech through.

The Gaiaverse warfare is basically two different kinds, during Rebellions and dealing with rebels, it is more modern, mobile and greater focus on lighter vehicles.

When two nations square off, it becomes like Korea,WW2 and one, trench warfare, large tank battles, aerial dogfights, grueling urban warfare and even beach landings if I'm in the mood.

Vetok wrote:

Zeinbrad wrote:The Ragon are in sci-fi tech through.

The Gaiaverse warfare is basically two different kinds, during Rebellions and dealing with rebels, it is more modern, mobile and greater focus on lighter vehicles.

When two nations square off, it becomes like Korea,WW2 and one, trench warfare, large tank battles, aerial dogfights, grueling urban warfare and even beach landings if I'm in the mood.

If you're wanting to drop troops directly onto an enemy, even in FT/sci-fi, you're officially worse at tactics than...dare I say it? Steppe. I said it.

Also drop the names. Even a machinegun as awkward as the M60 only got called the 'Pig', and as a British person, I'd laugh my tits off hearing someone call a tank 'prick' with a straight face.

Zeinbrad wrote:

Vetok wrote:
If you're wanting to drop troops directly onto an enemy, even in FT/sci-fi, you're officially worse at tactics than...dare I say it? Steppe. I said it.

Also drop the names. Even a machinegun as awkward as the M60 only got called the 'Pig', and as a British person, I'd laugh my tits off hearing someone call a tank 'prick' with a straight face.

I didn't have a straight face when I made their names,which are temporary, I just wanted to have fun.

I know, but as an excuse, the Ragon warfare is....unconventional to say the least.

They still use melee troops, as shock troops and to drive enemies out of cover.

Vetok wrote:

Zeinbrad wrote:I didn't have a straight face when I made their names,which are temporary, I just wanted to have fun.

I know, but as an excuse, the Ragon warfare is....unconventional to say the least.

They still use melee troops, as shock troops and to drive enemies out of cover.

Oh. Purposefully incompetent army.

Ah well, fair enough then. Moving on, question for the topic at large; I'm looking at designing an MGS for motorised battalions. Should I take 105mm's off some of my defunct light tanks, or carry on with the 90mm Cockerill MP gun?