Advertisement
by New Vaduz » Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:37 pm
by Taihei Tengoku » Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:58 pm
by New Vaduz » Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:53 pm
Taihei Tengoku wrote:The 90mm you're thinking of was used on the AML/Eland, which barely broke six tons. A BMP will be fine, it's not that powerful of a gun. That being said the BMP-2's gun doesn't really need replacing and a better way for the BMP-1 is probably some kind of one-man turret or remote weapons station with a better autocannon like 2A42 (if you have spares) or Bushmaster.
by Taihei Tengoku » Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:09 pm
by Fryske Ryk » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:14 am
by Dostanuot Loj » Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:52 am
by Purpelia » Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:58 am
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Purpelia wrote:Two questions:
1. Whats the lightest smallest armored vehicle that I could mount an autocanon in 40mm Bofors (40×364mmR) on?
2. Whats the lightest smallest armored vehicle that I could mount a single shot gun in ye-old 40mm Bofors (40×311mmR) on?
Assume a decently long barrel too.
You might find that something perfectly doable that would satisfy your first or second condition simply hasn't been done IRL. As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a whole lot of interest in light/ultralight AFVs mounting 40mm autocannons, so incidentally you just won't see them IRL.
With that being said, if you're willing to sacrifice some protection or other things there's nothing saying that a lighter vehicle than seen IRL wouldn't be feasible.
by Chinevion » Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:11 am
Elektrograd wrote:(Image)
(Image)
I have been advised by a certain someone to post here to get some critique, have someone look at it with fresh eyes.
It's a simple mockup so a bunch of things you see are still a subject to change, like proper DUKE antenna, suspension or RWS.
It's basically Object 490a Buntar on a different chassis, this time with a fully unmanned turret and waaay thicker armour. Whole crew sits in the front, a'la Armata. Two hatches on the side of the turret, one under the main gun. Whole thing would enter service in late 90's, armed with 140mm cannon. Overkill for sure, but whatever, I need to escape cartoon :not:leo2s.
by Laritaia » Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:33 am
Chinevion wrote: Also on a side note does anyone have a 1px:1inch track I can borrow? I will give credit.
Chinevion wrote:If the mbt-70 had been completed instead of being cancelled what do you guys think modern tanks would look like in USA
by Federated Kingdom of Prussia » Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:36 am
by Laritaia » Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:39 am
Federated Kingdom of Prussia wrote:Why did the T-34 and Tiger I both have so much armor on their rear? Especially in the case of the well-sloped T-34's rear, it seems like a wasteful design choice.
by Our Ladia » Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:34 am
by Our Ladia » Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:35 am
by Gallia- » Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:42 am
by Our Ladia » Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:42 am
by Gallia- » Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:47 am
by Purpelia » Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:16 am
Federated Kingdom of Prussia wrote:Why did the T-34 and Tiger I both have so much armor on their rear? Especially in the case of the well-sloped T-34's rear, it seems like a wasteful design choice.
by Husseinarti » Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:59 pm
Fryske Ryk wrote:(Image)
it grow
b = befel
m = mortier
ra = radar
elo = electromagnetic combat
gob = gun/artillery observer
ljoanra = light anti-tank rocket
kan = cannon
anlokan = anti-aircraft cannon
swianra = heavy anti-tank rocket
anlora = anti-aircraft rocket
last two might possibly be a fitter vehicle and a self-propelled howitzer
by Fryske Ryk » Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:00 pm
by Husseinarti » Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:21 pm
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Advertisement