Sparky doesnt know what to think

Advertisement

by Korva » Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:47 pm


by Padnak » Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:55 pm
Inquilabstan wrote:It is official now. Padnak is really Cobra Commander.
Bezombia wrote:It was about this time that Padnak slowly realized that the thread he thought was about gaming was, in fact, an eight story tall crustacean from the protozoic era.
Husseinarti wrote:Powered Borscht.
Because cosmonauts should never think that even in the depths of space they are free from the Soviet Union.
The Kievan People wrote:As usual, this is Padnak's fault, but we need to move on.
Immoren wrote:Again we've sexual tension that can be cut with a bowie.

by Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502 » Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:13 pm
Padnak wrote:>removal of vietcong intensifies
actually, that thing gave me an idea...
If you had a heavy truck and a tank with no tracks, could you put the tank on the back and use it like a crazy guntruck?
by The Kingdom of Rhamos » Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:39 pm
Padnak wrote:>removal of vietcong intensifies
actually, that thing gave me an idea...
If you had a heavy truck and a tank with no tracks, could you put the tank on the back and use it like a crazy guntruck?


by Dostanuot Loj » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:07 pm
New Vihenia wrote:Say.. what might be the consequences of lengthening the barrel of a tank gun. So far the pros would be increased muzzle velocity, more accuracy (less dispersion) And the cons as far as i see is Increased weight, burdening the hydraulics to raise them and somewhat a restriction on turret rotation (Say..Kelly's Heroes anyone ?)
But i wonder if there's any other detrimental effect i'm not aware of. Might also incorporate it into my Gun calculator.
thinking about lengthening the barrel of my tank gun. It's 138mm gun from previously 49.7 Caliber with total length of tube of 7.7 m. The new caliber would be 52 or 55 Cal With total tube length of some 8-9 m.

by Rich and Corporations » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:22 pm
Spirit of Hope wrote:
If you are carrying out internal security operations with the possibility of IED's you are no longer talking about SWAT team operations.
Corporate Confederacy DEFENSE ALERT LEVEL PEACE ▓ Factbook [url=iiwiki.com/wiki/Corporate_Confederacy]Wiki Article[/url] | Neptonia |

by Gallia- » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:37 pm
Spirit of Hope wrote:
If you are carrying out internal security operations with the possibility of IED's you are no longer talking about SWAT team operations.

by Korva » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:36 pm

by Dostanuot Loj » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:47 pm

by New Oyashima » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:52 pm
Dostanuot Loj wrote:
I don't see any MANPADS or any SAM system.
I do see something that looks like it could be a laser dazzler system, or anything of the sort, or even targeting system for a SAM, but there is no evidence of any launching tube.

by New Vihenia » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:54 pm
Dostanuot Loj wrote:
Dispersion will accually increase (and accuracy thus decrease) with longer barrels due to motion. The only ways to beat this are to stiffen the barrel (AKA, make it stronger and thus heavier) or don't move it around as much. This is one of the big reasons the US does not want to move to a longer gun.
I can not stress enough how much of a problem this can be if you are looking to do any kind of motion while firing, which includes slewing the turret of a stationary tank to aim. Especially as I think your existing 138mm would already be suffering from these problems due to its length.

by Dostanuot Loj » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:58 pm
New Oyashima wrote:First picture, side of turret.
New Oyashima wrote:I'm tired of noobs.

by The Kievan People » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:14 pm
New Oyashima wrote:Dostanuot Loj wrote:I don't see any MANPADS or any SAM system.
I do see something that looks like it could be a laser dazzler system, or anything of the sort, or even targeting system for a SAM, but there is no evidence of any launching tube.
First picture, side of turret.
I'm tired of noobs.

by Dostanuot Loj » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:18 pm

by Rich and Corporations » Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:44 pm
New Vihenia wrote:Dostanuot Loj wrote:
Dispersion will accually increase (and accuracy thus decrease) with longer barrels due to motion. The only ways to beat this are to stiffen the barrel (AKA, make it stronger and thus heavier) or don't move it around as much. This is one of the big reasons the US does not want to move to a longer gun.
I can not stress enough how much of a problem this can be if you are looking to do any kind of motion while firing, which includes slewing the turret of a stationary tank to aim. Especially as I think your existing 138mm would already be suffering from these problems due to its length.
Ah i see thanks.
Anyway how one define barrel length ? Is that the whole gun tube (including the breech, chamber etc) Or The "Projectile travel section" At the end of the gun chamber ?
Corporate Confederacy DEFENSE ALERT LEVEL PEACE ▓ Factbook [url=iiwiki.com/wiki/Corporate_Confederacy]Wiki Article[/url] | Neptonia |

by DnalweN acilbupeR » Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:44 am
Spirit of Hope wrote:
If you are carrying out internal security operations with the possibility of IED's you are no longer talking about SWAT team operations.
The Emerald Dawn wrote:I award you no points, and have sent people to make sure your parents refrain from further breeding.
Lyttenburgh wrote:all this is a damning enough evidence to proove you of being an edgy butthurt 'murican teenager with the sole agenda of prooving to the uncaring bitch Web, that "You Have A Point!"
Lyttenburgh wrote:Either that, or, you were gang-raped by commi-nazi russian Spetznaz kill team, who then painted all walls in your house in hammer and sickles, and then viped their asses with the stars and stripes banner in your yard. That's the only logical explanation.

by Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502 » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:29 am

by Imperializt Russia » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:30 am
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Crookfur » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:15 am
Checheyna wrote:Would a 90mm howitzer with a 5 shell autoloader be plausible on a modernized Panhard chassis?

by Checheyna » Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:47 am
Crookfur wrote:Checheyna wrote:Would a 90mm howitzer with a 5 shell autoloader be plausible on a modernized Panhard chassis?
Depends on what you mean by Panhard Chassis, they have built rather a lot of different vehicles over the years...
i assume you mean the AML in which case likely not as i doubt you could fit a big enough turret for a howitzer or be able to mount a fixed one.
Honestly you would better with a truck or a larger APC chassis to work from. The ERC chassis might work if you want to keep the panhard connection.

by Yukonastan » Tue Apr 21, 2015 9:56 am
Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502 wrote:What is the modern use of wheen AFVs armed with tank-caliber weapons but otherwise lightly armored? Like the Panhard EBR or Stryker MGS?

by Purpelia » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:07 am
Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502 wrote:What is the modern use of wheen AFVs armed with tank-caliber weapons but otherwise lightly armored? Like the Panhard EBR or Stryker MGS?

by Bratislavskaya » Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:26 am
J'ai vourdrais....
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Advertisement