NATION

PASSWORD

Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mark 8

A place to put national factbooks, embassy exchanges, and other information regarding the nations of the world. [In character]

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
New Vihenia
Minister
 
Posts: 3290
Founded: Apr 03, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Vihenia » Sat Jul 18, 2015 8:36 am

well... for coolness.. i would love to adopt Ob-477 "Molot" :p as my nation's 1980-early 1990 tank.
We make planes,ships,missiles,helicopters, radars and mecha musume






User avatar
The Teutonic Republic
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 148
Founded: Jul 06, 2015
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Teutonic Republic » Sat Jul 18, 2015 8:58 am

Gallia- wrote:rl tanks are meant to look cool too


Image

I know it's a dressed up CV90120-T, but MEIN UBER-STEALTH PANZERKAMFWAGEN

Anyways some RTS vidya have realistic-ish vehicle designs. The Europeans and JSF from Endwar come to mind as do the Americans from CnC generals.

On an unrelated note how practical is it to have your IFV double as a SPAAG?

User avatar
The Kievan People
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11387
Founded: Jul 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby The Kievan People » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:04 am

The Teutonic Republic wrote:Anyways some RTS vidya have realistic-ish vehicle designs. The Europeans and JSF from Endwar come to mind as do the Americans from CnC generals.


No. Just no.
RIP
Your Nation's Main Battle Tank (No Mechs)
10/06/2009 - 23/02/2013
Gone but not forgotten
DEUS STATUS: ( X ) VULT ( ) NOT VULT
Leopard 2 IRL
Imperializt Russia wrote:kyiv rn irl

Anemos wrote:<Anemos> thx Kyiv D:
<Anemos> you are the eternal onii-san

Europe, a cool region for cool people. Click to find out more.

User avatar
Takistan DR
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 12
Founded: Jul 16, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Takistan DR » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:05 am

Would these vehicles work for a middle eastern nation: http://www.nationstates.net/nation=takistan_dr/detail=factbook/id=454054 ?

Note, I still have dedicated SAM systems (Tor, Osa, Buk; all part of the Air Defense Forces) and most of the older stuff (T-34s, T-54/55) is only for training and reserve purposes. The army will mostly be facing rebel groups and other low-tech armies.
The Democratic Republic of Takistan
Ambassador to the WA: Hanni Al-Qawee
Our Factbook

User avatar
Fordorsia
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20347
Founded: Oct 04, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Fordorsia » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:05 am

The Teutonic Republic wrote:On an unrelated note how practical is it to have your IFV double as a SPAAG?


Not at all. SPAAGs need a lot of ammo, which they wouldn't have if they carried troops.
Pro: Swords
Anti: Guns

San-Silvacian wrote:Forgot to take off my Rhodie shorts when I went to sleep.
Woke up in bitches and enemy combatants.

Crookfur wrote:Speak for yourself, Crookfur infantry enjoy the sheer uber high speed low drag operator nature of their tactical woad

Spreewerke wrote:One of our employees ate a raw kidney and a raw liver and the only powers he gained was the ability to summon a massive hospital bill.

Premislyd wrote:This is probably the best thing somebody has ever spammed.

Puzikas wrote:That joke was so dark it has to smile to be seen at night.

User avatar
The Teutonic Republic
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 148
Founded: Jul 06, 2015
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Teutonic Republic » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:27 am

The Kievan People wrote:
The Teutonic Republic wrote:Anyways some RTS vidya have realistic-ish vehicle designs. The Europeans and JSF from Endwar come to mind as do the Americans from CnC generals.


No. Just no.


????

The JSf artillery is the prototype N-LOS , their IFV is basically the XM1206, their transport heli is a futurized v-22, and their strike fighter is pretty much a dressed up f-22. The EU artillery is basically the archer, their cargo helicopter is a modernized chinook, and their fighter is an updated version of the dassault rafale. Even some of the Russian stuff is passable for RL designs. Their attack heli is a ka-50, their transport heli is an mi-24, and their strike fighter is an su-47.

As for the Americans from CnC Generals most of their stuff is actual US military equipment. Pretty sure that counts as "realistic" although all the laser cannons and the particle beam superweapon seem a bit far-fetched.

User avatar
Husseinarti
Senator
 
Posts: 4772
Founded: Mar 20, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Husseinarti » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:29 am

The Teutonic Republic wrote:
The Kievan People wrote:
No. Just no.


????

The JSf artillery is the prototype N-LOS , their IFV is basically the XM1206, their transport heli is a futurized v-22, and their strike fighter is pretty much a dressed up f-22. The EU artillery is basically the archer, their cargo helicopter is a modernized chinook, and their fighter is an updated version of the dassault rafale. Even some of the Russian stuff is passable for RL designs. Their attack heli is a ka-50, their transport heli is an mi-24, and their strike fighter is an su-47.

As for the Americans from CnC Generals most of their stuff is actual US military equipment. Pretty sure that counts as "realistic" although all the laser cannons and the particle beam superweapon seem a bit far-fetched.


The Crusader Tank from C&C is a single manned design, the crewman sits in the hull of the vehicle operating the entire system.

Its highly impractical.

Also Laser Avenger is a real thing.
#FreeKekistan

Put this in your sig if you support a free and independent Kekistan.

User avatar
The Teutonic Republic
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 148
Founded: Jul 06, 2015
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Teutonic Republic » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:36 am

Husseinarti wrote:The Crusader Tank from C&C is a single manned design, the crewman sits in the hull of the vehicle operating the entire system.

Its highly impractical.

Also Laser Avenger is a real thing.


I said realistic-ish. It is a video game after all, not a full blown military simulation software. Lots of game developers will look to RL stuff for inspiration although it being a video game they're bound to change and exaggerate things for balance reasons or "rule of cool" or whatever.

Fordorsia wrote:
Not at all. SPAAGs need a lot of ammo, which they wouldn't have if they carried troops.


What if you have an unmanned turret? Could you cram a few hundred rounds of 35mm in there while the troops are carried in the troop compartment in the hull?

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54750
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Corporate Police State

Postby Imperializt Russia » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:44 am

Are you familiar with Swiss Army Knife Syndrome?

Your IFV has IFV things to do. It does not need SPAAG capabilities. It should have a 20-40mm gun with FCS that may be able to harass low-flying aircraft. It should have some description of heavy machine gun that may be able to harass low-flying aircraft. It should have some description of ATGM, which may be able to harass low-flying aircraft.

If you desperately want try AA capabilities, strap a MANPADS in the weapons locker for the dismounts to use. I would personally argue against this - I don't think the infantry section has much business waving around that kind of hardware. Leave it to dedicated units with dedicated systems.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

User avatar
The Teutonic Republic
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 148
Founded: Jul 06, 2015
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Teutonic Republic » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:48 am

Imperializt Russia wrote:Are you familiar with Swiss Army Knife Syndrome?

Your IFV has IFV things to do. It does not need SPAAG capabilities. It should have a 20-40mm gun with FCS that may be able to harass low-flying aircraft. It should have some description of heavy machine gun that may be able to harass low-flying aircraft. It should have some description of ATGM, which may be able to harass low-flying aircraft.

If you desperately want try AA capabilities, strap a MANPADS in the weapons locker for the dismounts to use. I would personally argue against this - I don't think the infantry section has much business waving around that kind of hardware. Leave it to dedicated units with dedicated systems.


True, I was just thinking since it already has a fast-firing autocannon it wouldn't be a huge stretch to give it SPAAG capabilities. Would something more logical be to make a dedicated SPAAG/SHORAD version of the IFV kind of like the m6 linebacker or CV9040 AAV?

User avatar
Husseinarti
Senator
 
Posts: 4772
Founded: Mar 20, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Husseinarti » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:50 am

Yeah but it'd belong somewhere at like, the battalion AA platoon.

Possibly brigade air defense company
#FreeKekistan

Put this in your sig if you support a free and independent Kekistan.

User avatar
The Akasha Colony
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Apr 25, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Akasha Colony » Sat Jul 18, 2015 12:02 pm

The Teutonic Republic wrote:True, I was just thinking since it already has a fast-firing autocannon it wouldn't be a huge stretch to give it SPAAG capabilities. Would something more logical be to make a dedicated SPAAG/SHORAD version of the IFV kind of like the m6 linebacker or CV9040 AAV?


The autocannon is the cheap part compared to the expensive things you need to make it a real SPAAG, like a fast-tracking turret and an expensive radar system. And as others have mentioned, enough space dedicated to hold a significant quantity of ammunition onboard.

The Teutonic Republic wrote:The JSf artillery is the prototype N-LOS , their IFV is basically the XM1206, their transport heli is a futurized v-22, and their strike fighter is pretty much a dressed up f-22. The EU artillery is basically the archer, their cargo helicopter is a modernized chinook, and their fighter is an updated version of the dassault rafale. Even some of the Russian stuff is passable for RL designs. Their attack heli is a ka-50, their transport heli is an mi-24, and their strike fighter is an su-47.

As for the Americans from CnC Generals most of their stuff is actual US military equipment. Pretty sure that counts as "realistic" although all the laser cannons and the particle beam superweapon seem a bit far-fetched.


If only. Just carrying the name and general aesthetic of IRL vehicles doesn't make them "realistic." In fact, that's the exact problem people in this thread are so used to encountering. People who play these games, see that IRL vehicle names are tossed around, and then start thinking that this is how these pieces of equipment, and warfare in general, actually works. Then they come here and post a list of their vehicles taken from the game, extolling how they work according to game physics with things like "balance" and "rushing."

That somehow tanks don't bother using their machine guns against a horde of infantry that stand stock still and pummel it with their rocket launchers.

Gatling guns that require like 30 seconds to "spin up" to their maximum speed (wat).

Folding artillery barrels on a chassis that clearly isn't NLOS-C but is called NLOS-C anyway and gets random rocket pods attached (what happened to M270? Or NLOS-LS if you want to be all FUTUR).

Using a platform that was never designed for ground attack and was instead highly specialized as an air-to-air platform as a dedicated ground attack aircraft. There are a whole host of better ideas out there, but of course a futurized F-22 looks cool in marketing so let's go with that one. And for Europe how about a Rafale with LAZERS?

tl;dr: There's more to "realism" that copying a name and a vague aesthetic. Just because you have a tank with angled faceplates and called it an "Abrams" doesn't make it "realistic."
A colony of the New Free Planets Alliance.
The primary MT nation of this account is the Republic of Carthage.
New Free Planets Alliance (FT)
New Terran Republic (FT)
Republic of Carthage (MT)
World Economic Union (MT)
Kaiserreich Europa Zentral (PT/MT)
Five Republics of Hanalua (FanT)
National Links: Factbook Entry | Embassy Program
Storefronts: Carthaginian Naval Export Authority [MT, Navy]

User avatar
The Teutonic Republic
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 148
Founded: Jul 06, 2015
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Teutonic Republic » Sat Jul 18, 2015 12:11 pm

The Akasha Colony wrote:
If only. Just carrying the name and general aesthetic of IRL vehicles doesn't make them "realistic." In fact, that's the exact problem people in this thread are so used to encountering. People who play these games, see that IRL vehicle names are tossed around, and then start thinking that this is how these pieces of equipment, and warfare in general, actually works. Then they come here and post a list of their vehicles taken from the game, extolling how they work according to game physics with things like "balance" and "rushing."

That somehow tanks don't bother using their machine guns against a horde of infantry that stand stock still and pummel it with their rocket launchers.

Gatling guns that require like 30 seconds to "spin up" to their maximum speed (wat).

Folding artillery barrels on a chassis that clearly isn't NLOS-C but is called NLOS-C anyway and gets random rocket pods attached (what happened to M270? Or NLOS-LS if you want to be all FUTUR).

Using a platform that was never designed for ground attack and was instead highly specialized as an air-to-air platform as a dedicated ground attack aircraft. There are a whole host of better ideas out there, but of course a futurized F-22 looks cool in marketing so let's go with that one. And for Europe how about a Rafale with LAZERS?

tl;dr: There's more to "realism" that copying a name and a vague aesthetic. Just because you have a tank with angled faceplates and called it an "Abrams" doesn't make it "realistic."



I'm going to clarify my earlier post and say that I meant" realistic" as in purely the visual design, not the function.

User avatar
The Soodean Imperium
Senator
 
Posts: 4855
Founded: May 10, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Soodean Imperium » Sat Jul 18, 2015 12:17 pm

The Teutonic Republic wrote:I'm going to clarify my earlier post and say that I meant" realistic" as in purely the visual design, not the function.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zu4csNpMKrA/hqdefault.jpg

Here is a tank from Red Alert.

- It has non-split treads
- It has an engine (presumably it's in there somewhere)
- It has a one-gun turret

Yet these very fundamental features don't make it "realistic."

The problem with Endwar specifically is precisely that most of its equipment is a vague copy of a real-life design or prototype, often slightly out of proportion, which is then "futurized" through the addition of superfluous features that don't contribute to much other than aesthetics.
Last harmonized by Hu Jintao on Sat Mar 4, 2006 2:33pm, harmonized 8 times in total.


"In short, when we hastily attribute to aesthetic and inherited faculties the artistic nature of Athenian civilization, we are almost proceeding as did men in the Middle Ages, when fire was explained by phlogiston and the effects of opium by its soporific powers." --Emile Durkheim, 1895
Come join Septentrion!
ICly, this nation is now known as the Socialist Republic of Menghe (대멩 사회주의 궁화국, 大孟社會主義共和國). You can still call me Soode in OOC.

User avatar
The Teutonic Republic
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 148
Founded: Jul 06, 2015
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Teutonic Republic » Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:20 pm

The Soodean Imperium wrote:Here is a tank from Red Alert.

- It has non-split treads
- It has an engine (presumably it's in there somewhere)
- It has a one-gun turret

Yet these very fundamental features don't make it "realistic."

The problem with Endwar specifically is precisely that most of its equipment is a vague copy of a real-life design or prototype, often slightly out of proportion, which is then "futurized" through the addition of superfluous features that don't contribute to much other than aesthetics.


yeah but when you look at any tank from red alert you think "hey that looks pretty silly or cartoonish" but when you look at say the m5a2 from endwar it's more along the lines of "hey that looks like a real tank". Again both are video games with art designers that probably aren't engineers so you're bound to have stuff that looks cool rather than stuff that's actually sound from an engineering or tactical point of view. My point is that there are a few RTS games that have units that could visually (not functionally) pass as designs for real-world vehicles.

User avatar
The Akasha Colony
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Apr 25, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Akasha Colony » Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:32 pm

The Teutonic Republic wrote:
The Soodean Imperium wrote:Here is a tank from Red Alert.

- It has non-split treads
- It has an engine (presumably it's in there somewhere)
- It has a one-gun turret

Yet these very fundamental features don't make it "realistic."

The problem with Endwar specifically is precisely that most of its equipment is a vague copy of a real-life design or prototype, often slightly out of proportion, which is then "futurized" through the addition of superfluous features that don't contribute to much other than aesthetics.


yeah but when you look at any tank from red alert you think "hey that looks pretty silly or cartoonish" but when you look at say the m5a2 from endwar it's more along the lines of "hey that looks like a real tank". Again both are video games with art designers that probably aren't engineers so you're bound to have stuff that looks cool rather than stuff that's actually sound from an engineering or tactical point of view. My point is that there are a few RTS games that have units that could visually (not functionally) pass as designs for real-world vehicles.


And what point is this supposed to make?
A colony of the New Free Planets Alliance.
The primary MT nation of this account is the Republic of Carthage.
New Free Planets Alliance (FT)
New Terran Republic (FT)
Republic of Carthage (MT)
World Economic Union (MT)
Kaiserreich Europa Zentral (PT/MT)
Five Republics of Hanalua (FanT)
National Links: Factbook Entry | Embassy Program
Storefronts: Carthaginian Naval Export Authority [MT, Navy]

User avatar
Husseinarti
Senator
 
Posts: 4772
Founded: Mar 20, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Husseinarti » Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:33 pm

The Teutonic Republic wrote:
The Soodean Imperium wrote:Here is a tank from Red Alert.

- It has non-split treads
- It has an engine (presumably it's in there somewhere)
- It has a one-gun turret

Yet these very fundamental features don't make it "realistic."

The problem with Endwar specifically is precisely that most of its equipment is a vague copy of a real-life design or prototype, often slightly out of proportion, which is then "futurized" through the addition of superfluous features that don't contribute to much other than aesthetics.


yeah but when you look at any tank from red alert you think "hey that looks pretty silly or cartoonish" but when you look at say the m5a2 from endwar it's more along the lines of "hey that looks like a real tank". Again both are video games with art designers that probably aren't engineers so you're bound to have stuff that looks cool rather than stuff that's actually sound from an engineering or tactical point of view. My point is that there are a few RTS games that have units that could visually (not functionally) pass as designs for real-world vehicles.


The M5A2 doesn't look realistic.
#FreeKekistan

Put this in your sig if you support a free and independent Kekistan.

User avatar
The Teutonic Republic
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 148
Founded: Jul 06, 2015
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Teutonic Republic » Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:39 pm

The Akasha Colony wrote:
And what point is this supposed to make?


Some guy earlier wanted to base his military off the GLA from generals and thus wanted to know how "realistic" the GLA units where.

User avatar
Immoren
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 62702
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Immoren » Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:48 pm

New Vihenia wrote:well... for coolness.. i would love to adopt Ob-477 "Molot" :p as my nation's 1980-early 1990 tank.


Still can't take name "molot" seriously.
IC Flag Is a Pope Principia
I ᴛʜɪɴᴋ I'ᴠᴇ ᴊᴜsᴛ ʜᴀᴅ ᴀ ɴᴇᴀʀ Aʀᴀʀᴀɢɪ ᴇxᴘᴇʀɪᴇɴᴄᴇ.
— Death. Probably.

User avatar
New Vihenia
Minister
 
Posts: 3290
Founded: Apr 03, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Vihenia » Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:56 pm

Immoren wrote:Still can't take name "molot" seriously.


Well.. it means "Hammer"
We make planes,ships,missiles,helicopters, radars and mecha musume






User avatar
Immoren
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 62702
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Immoren » Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:57 pm

New Vihenia wrote:
Immoren wrote:Still can't take name "molot" seriously.


Well.. it means "Hammer"


Yes. In that particular language.
But in Finnish it would mean "Dicks".
:p
IC Flag Is a Pope Principia
I ᴛʜɪɴᴋ I'ᴠᴇ ᴊᴜsᴛ ʜᴀᴅ ᴀ ɴᴇᴀʀ Aʀᴀʀᴀɢɪ ᴇxᴘᴇʀɪᴇɴᴄᴇ.
— Death. Probably.

User avatar
Husseinarti
Senator
 
Posts: 4772
Founded: Mar 20, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Husseinarti » Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:01 pm

Immoren wrote:
New Vihenia wrote:
Well.. it means "Hammer"


Yes. In that particular language.
But in Finnish it would mean "Dicks".
:p


Well my dick is a hammer

so its synnomn
#FreeKekistan

Put this in your sig if you support a free and independent Kekistan.

User avatar
The Teutonic Republic
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 148
Founded: Jul 06, 2015
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Teutonic Republic » Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:03 pm

Immoren wrote:
New Vihenia wrote:
Well.. it means "Hammer"


Yes. In that particular language.
But in Finnish it would mean "Dicks".
:p


"Hammer" in Russian means "Dicks" in Finnish.

This can't be a coincidence

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54750
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Corporate Police State

Postby Imperializt Russia » Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:12 pm

It makes sense if we inexplicably apply anglophone idioms to the words, because you can hammer on someone, but you can also dick on them.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

User avatar
The Teutonic Republic
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 148
Founded: Jul 06, 2015
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Teutonic Republic » Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:21 pm

Wasn't the object 447 a sort of prototype for the later T-14 Armata that featured an unmanned turret and a 152mm smoothbore gun? I also recall it being the "FST-2/3" tank that prompted western nations to begin developing 140mm guns and ETC technology.

Edit: mean Object 477
Last edited by The Teutonic Republic on Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Factbooks and National Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A m e n r i a, Blazeville, Brilinako, Devernia, Great Nortend, Vallermoore, Yahoo [Bot]

Advertisement

Remove ads