NationStates

People were still figuring this whole 'tank' thing out.

Perhaps they still are?

Actually a new thing came up I want to ask which seems more important regarding my newest remote turret

At the back is the drum for the 40mm cannon shells. It's directly behind all four ATGMs. I figured the backblast could possibly have some less than positive effects, so I added those deflector plates to direct the blast upwards away from the drum. Are they necessary, or is the backblast not powerful enough to cause damage to something like a pretty robust drum?

Doesn't matter, you'd only hold like two rounds in that thing.

Fordorsia wrote:

Allanea wrote:Dual guns are necessary in situations where you want to have a volume of fire - primarily, that is to say, in AA applications.

Sure, so what was the reasoning behind things like the Pz I's and L3/35's twin guns?

The Panzer I was literally the first German interwar tank.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Fordorsia wrote:
Sure, so what was the reasoning behind things like the Pz I's and L3/35's twin guns?

The Panzer I was literally the first German interwar tank.

No one else considered putting two machine guns on a armored fighting vehicle, before or since!

As Allanea said, it's for volume of fire. The same reason Elands, LAVs, and M113s have twin machine gun turrets: shooting lots of bullets.

The other reason is that, at the time, 7.92mm machine guns were adequate for killing tanks.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Fordorsia wrote:
Sure, so what was the reasoning behind things like the Pz I's and L3/35's twin guns?

The Panzer I was literally the first German interwar tank.

The later Pz 1C also carried a 7.92mm semi-automatic anti tank gun instead of one of the MGs.

Gallia- wrote:Doesn't matter, you'd only hold like two rounds in that thing.

Thanks for not being helpful

Fordorsia wrote:

Gallia- wrote:Doesn't matter, you'd only hold like two rounds in that thing.

Thanks for not being helpful

I can't help broken.

The turret is far too small unless the ammunition is held underneath the turret. It would literally not be able to hold 40mm ammunition, unless they're like 40x53mm.

A 30mm turret for a Bradley is much larger than that, and consists of just the cannon and optronics.

Why can't we store ammunition in some kind of uninhabited box in the turret like literally everyone does?

e: Unless that's about the drum and not the lack of size.

Allanea wrote:Why can't we store ammunition in some kind of uninhabited box in the turret like literally everyone does?

because drums are teh futr

Approximately how big Ford's drum loader/turret will need to be.

Allanea wrote:Why can't we store ammunition in some kind of uninhabited box in the turret like literally everyone does?

NS military vehicles are designed by hipsters /s

Regardless if the drum needs to be bigger, it doesn't answer the question I asked, which is is the backblast of an ATGM strong enough to potentially damage something the drum.

Assuming the drum is sensibly constructed, I don't think so.

also it's not obvious how the 40mm ammo gets from this tiny drum to the guns, it's in the wrong position to feed directly.

Allanea wrote:Assuming the drum is sensibly constructed, I don't think so.

Thanks.

Laritaia wrote:also it's not obvious how the 40mm ammo gets from this tiny drum to the guns, it's in the wrong position to feed directly.

Already noticed. Split it into two drums and just put them on the sides instead.

Fordorsia is a Serb?

This ladies, gents, and everyone else, is the FAP-2026B Terminator.

Allanea wrote:(Image)

Fordorsia is a Serb?

This ladies, gents, and everyone else, is the FAP-2026B Terminator.

*giggle*

Allanea wrote:(Image)

Fordorsia is a Serb?

This ladies, gents, and everyone else, is the FAP-2026B Terminator.

Doesn't have enough guns, and isn't made to shoot up ground plebs = serb trash

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:40 mm HEAT is a bloody firecracker and anything you want to fire a 40 mm against is going to be dead anyway when you put a 140 mm HEAT through its front. Delete the 40 mm Bofors for more 140 mm rounds.
AMAP'd against the latest threats of the late 90's and Europowerpack. Good to go.

Well the intention was for the 40mm to fire at things that the 140mm would overkill and or waste ammo on such as things like IFVs, light vehicles and maybe to shoot at the occasional low flying helicopter.

Enginewise I'll probs just use the Europowerpack or something similar.

European Social States wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:40 mm HEAT is a bloody firecracker and anything you want to fire a 40 mm against is going to be dead anyway when you put a 140 mm HEAT through its front. Delete the 40 mm Bofors for more 140 mm rounds.
AMAP'd against the latest threats of the late 90's and Europowerpack. Good to go.

Well the intention was for the 40mm to fire at things that the 140mm would overkill and or waste ammo on such as things like IFVs, light vehicles and maybe to shoot at the occasional low flying helicopter.

Enginewise I'll probs just use the Europowerpack or something similar.

A tank's main gun is used for shooting at anything. A target is a target, and you want it destroyed.

Fordorsia wrote:

European Social States wrote:Well the intention was for the 40mm to fire at things that the 140mm would overkill and or waste ammo on such as things like IFVs, light vehicles and maybe to shoot at the occasional low flying helicopter.

Enginewise I'll probs just use the Europowerpack or something similar.

A tank's main gun is used for shooting at anything. A target is a target, and you want it destroyed.

True but it seems kinda wasteful firing one of the thirty shots at a say two guys hiding behind a wall when you can fire a burst of 40mm HE or APFSDS. As for helicopters I know that SPAAG should be dealing with helicopters but having a 40mm to shoot at them would be better than a 140mm right? I mean especially if you broke through Soviet lines and you're getting counter-attacked by Mi-24 Hinds and the SPAAGs are being overrun but then again I'm not an expert.