Advertisement
by Novorden » Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:55 pm
Lineart
Old designs
Newer Designs
by Lydenburg » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:02 pm
Novorden wrote:Anyone have any suggestions for Half track variants?
Prototype, Flat bed, Troop transport, Closed top troop transport, 75mm gun carrier, 75mm L54 gun carrier. (all WIP)
by New Tsavon » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:12 pm
Novorden wrote:Anyone have any suggestions for Half track variants?
Prototype, Flat bed, Troop transport, Closed top troop transport, 75mm gun carrier, 75mm L54 gun carrier. (all WIP)
by Purpelia » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:13 pm
by New Tsavon » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:14 pm
Purpelia wrote:AA search light.
by Purpelia » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:15 pm
by Lydenburg » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:16 pm
by Purpelia » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:18 pm
Sd.Kfz. 251/5 - Schützenpanzerwagen für Pionierzug. Assault Engineer vehicle with inflatable boats stored in the side storage lockers, and light dismantleable assault bridges stored inside through loss of a seat for more storage space. Early command vehicles for Pioneer platoons (Pionierzug) were equipped with a 37 mm Pak 36 anti-tank gun mount.
Sd.Kfz. 251/16 - Flammpanzerwagen. Fitted with two flame projectors and initially a rear mounted flamethrower, detachable but still connected to the vehicle, to be operated by dismounted infantry. This was in addition to the standard forward machine gun mount. Six Sd.Kfz. 251/16 Flammpanzerwagens were authorised for issue to each Panzergrenadier regiment.
by The Yuktobanian Republic » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:26 pm
by Purpelia » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:27 pm
by Crookfur » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:31 pm
Novorden wrote:Anyone have any suggestions for Half track variants?
Prototype, Flat bed, Troop transport, Closed top troop transport, 75mm gun carrier, 75mm L54 gun carrier. (all WIP)
by Purpelia » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:35 pm
by The Ashkenazi » Mon Dec 23, 2013 4:19 pm
Novorden wrote:Anyone have any suggestions for Half track variants?
Prototype, Flat bed, Troop transport, Closed top troop transport, 75mm gun carrier, 75mm L54 gun carrier. (all WIP)
by Rich and Corporations » Mon Dec 23, 2013 6:18 pm
Corporate Confederacy DEFENSE ALERT LEVEL PEACE ▓ Factbook [url=iiwiki.com/wiki/Corporate_Confederacy]Wiki Article[/url] | Neptonia |
by The Kievan People » Mon Dec 23, 2013 6:33 pm
Rich and Corporations wrote:Question time. The Soviets used a high technology tank and an incremental upgrade tank of nearly equal weight throughout the Cold War.
The United States practiced incremental upgrades during the early Cold War, and then switched to designing from the bottom up during the late Cold War.
In NS, everyone seems to practice bottom-up revolutionary designing, except Questers.
Given NS circumstances, should one adopt a high technology medium tank and a high technology heavy tank? Or a higher technology heavy tank? Or a high technology medium tank and a standard technology medium tank? Or only use heavy tanks?
by The Akasha Colony » Mon Dec 23, 2013 6:34 pm
Rich and Corporations wrote:Given NS circumstances, should one adopt a high technology medium tank and a high technology heavy tank? Or a higher technology heavy tank? Or a high technology medium tank and a standard technology medium tank? Or only use heavy tanks?
by Lemanrussland » Mon Dec 23, 2013 11:31 pm
Rich and Corporations wrote:Question time. The Soviets used a high technology tank and an incremental upgrade tank of nearly equal weight throughout the Cold War.
The United States practiced incremental upgrades during the early Cold War, and then switched to designing from the bottom up during the late Cold War.
In NS, everyone seems to practice bottom-up revolutionary designing, except Questers.
Given NS circumstances, should one adopt a high technology medium tank and a high technology heavy tank? Or a higher technology heavy tank? Or a high technology medium tank and a standard technology medium tank? Or only use heavy tanks?
by Dostanuot Loj » Mon Dec 23, 2013 11:57 pm
Kouralia wrote:So basically, we've determined that the IFV was badly maintained, and that's why there was smoke like everywhere. Then we've also determined from RandC that... Diesel engines at normal operational standards... don't have that much smoke output.
Which then proves the first point.
Lemanrussland wrote:Rich and Corporations wrote:Question time. The Soviets used a high technology tank and an incremental upgrade tank of nearly equal weight throughout the Cold War.
The United States practiced incremental upgrades during the early Cold War, and then switched to designing from the bottom up during the late Cold War.
In NS, everyone seems to practice bottom-up revolutionary designing, except Questers.
Given NS circumstances, should one adopt a high technology medium tank and a high technology heavy tank? Or a higher technology heavy tank? Or a high technology medium tank and a standard technology medium tank? Or only use heavy tanks?
I think it's a misconception by Western analysts that the Soviets used a two-tank system (low-tech and high-tech). The T-62, T-64, and T-80 all just failed in different ways, and failed to become the main Russian tank. The NATO analysts believed that the T-72 was a low-cost complement to the T-64, when in reality it was the T-64's (as well as T-62's) replacement.
Of course, the Russians kept their previous tanks in service and just modernized them. They didn't try to build a low-cost spammable tank and a high-cost high-tech tank, though.
by Anemos Major » Tue Dec 24, 2013 12:11 am
Dostanuot Loj wrote:A side note, the reason the two-tier system continued in practice effectively became to maintain the expertise in the primary tank design bureaus. A lot is said to how similar the T-64/T-72/T-80 were, but reality was the USSR benefited from a lot of real competition between the two design bureaus which were primarily responsible for them.
Imperial Factbook | Diplomatic Communications Channel | A Collection of Essays
Anemonian State Arms Export Authority | Aeryr IECpl | Imperial College Ismalyr
by Lemanrussland » Tue Dec 24, 2013 12:56 am
Dostanuot Loj wrote:Kouralia wrote:So basically, we've determined that the IFV was badly maintained, and that's why there was smoke like everywhere. Then we've also determined from RandC that... Diesel engines at normal operational standards... don't have that much smoke output.
Which then proves the first point.
Actually, it's been, what, two pages and still nobody has mentioned that the exhaust systems for Soviet tanks have fuel injectors in them to inject fuel into the hot exhaust gasses, causing it to partially burn, and smoke just like that to create a smoke screen. It's a feature on every Soviet tank and IFV/APC with a diesel engine since the mid 1940s.
Whether or not that's what's happening is up to debate. But it could be.Lemanrussland wrote:I think it's a misconception by Western analysts that the Soviets used a two-tank system (low-tech and high-tech). The T-62, T-64, and T-80 all just failed in different ways, and failed to become the main Russian tank. The NATO analysts believed that the T-72 was a low-cost complement to the T-64, when in reality it was the T-64's (as well as T-62's) replacement.
Of course, the Russians kept their previous tanks in service and just modernized them. They didn't try to build a low-cost spammable tank and a high-cost high-tech tank, though.
It's not a misconception that the Soviets had a two-tier tank system, because they did. Model numbers tend to confuse things. The T-64/T-80 line replaced heavy tanks in service, and were originally designed for that role. The T-62 was a direct replacement for the T-54/55, and the T-72 a replacement for the T-62. As you can imagine, that's not how it actually ended up.
In practical terms, T-64s replaced T-10s/IS-3s, etc. T-54/55 replaced T-34s, and T-62 replaced T-54/55 (Which went on to replace more T-34s). T-72 replaced T-62s, which were moved to replace more T-55s, which replaced T-54s. T-80s replaced T-64s, and so on.
By the time the T-72 came along, the system was two-tiered in practice only, as the differences in vehicle really stemmed from what replaced what in the previous system. Although the T-72 was never intended, or even fielded in a way, to replace the T-64 until the latter had become obsolete. The Soviets fully expected, and intended, to field them side by side. NATO analysis cued in on this and decided it was for specific purpouses related to prior doctrinal theory. While that's where it started, that's not what the result was by the end.
A side note, the reason the two-tier system continued in practice effectively became to maintain the expertise in the primary tank design bureaus. A lot is said to how similar the T-64/T-72/T-80 were, but reality was the USSR benefited from a lot of real competition between the two design bureaus which were primarily responsible for them.
A note: T-64/T-80 never failed, they were never intended to be the main tank. T-62 was, and it suffered from becoming obsolete before it replaced everything. But the T-62 is unrelated to the others.
by Rich and Corporations » Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:06 am
Dostanuot Loj wrote:A side note, the reason the two-tier system continued in practice effectively became to maintain the expertise in the primary tank design bureaus. A lot is said to how similar the T-64/T-72/T-80 were, but reality was the USSR benefited from a lot of real competition between the two design bureaus which were primarily responsible for them.
A note: T-64/T-80 never failed, they were never intended to be the main tank. T-62 was, and it suffered from becoming obsolete before it replaced everything. But the T-62 is unrelated to the others.
Corporate Confederacy DEFENSE ALERT LEVEL PEACE ▓ Factbook [url=iiwiki.com/wiki/Corporate_Confederacy]Wiki Article[/url] | Neptonia |
by Lemanrussland » Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:14 am
Rich and Corporations wrote:Dostanuot Loj wrote:A side note, the reason the two-tier system continued in practice effectively became to maintain the expertise in the primary tank design bureaus. A lot is said to how similar the T-64/T-72/T-80 were, but reality was the USSR benefited from a lot of real competition between the two design bureaus which were primarily responsible for them.
A note: T-64/T-80 never failed, they were never intended to be the main tank. T-62 was, and it suffered from becoming obsolete before it replaced everything. But the T-62 is unrelated to the others.
This is the perfect excuse to design fifty tanks.
Thought the T-62 was supposed to be a long range anti-tank tank.
by Rich and Corporations » Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:50 am
Wait what? It weighs the same, has nearly the same engine...Lemanrussland wrote:The T-62 was also about twice as expensive to manufacture as the T-54/55,
Corporate Confederacy DEFENSE ALERT LEVEL PEACE ▓ Factbook [url=iiwiki.com/wiki/Corporate_Confederacy]Wiki Article[/url] | Neptonia |
by Lemanrussland » Tue Dec 24, 2013 2:30 am
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Beridia, Nationalist Northumbria
Advertisement