Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Glorious Arstotzka

17 (16%)

Glorious Moskurg

13 (12.3%)

Ingloriously Didn't Play

76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106

[andrea]

2 RDN-41-3 Deadliest Ray Mk. DEADLY: evictedSaint, Madman
4 UF-ERA-42 'Blood Eagle': Powder Miner, Jilladilla, NAV , 10ebbor10
1 UF-MT-41 'Demolisher': Andrea

Voting for tank, to keep it in the game.
Just, lets remember that we need a lander soon, if we want to disrupt their titanium oeprations.

[Kot]

The main reasoning was to use existing gun, in hopes of not making the design too fucking hard (new chassis+new engine+new gun?). We do not need new gun. We have enough good gun. Just pick one.
90mm AA/AT gun from Moskurg, Arstotzkan 80mm artillery or the Moskurg 100mm artillery gun.
The 90mm AA/AT gun equivalent would be the 88mm KwK 36 from Tiger and other famous German tanks, which originally was an heavy anti-aircraft gun or the 85mm D-5 of Soviet T-34-85 fame, which was originally also an anti-aircraft gun, or the American 90mm anti-aircraft gun, mounted on Pershings and M36s.

The rough equivalents for 80mm artillery and 100mm artillery would be Soviet 122mm artillery guns, which ultimately ended as main gun on IS-2, the 100mm tank gun which originally was an naval cannon, or whatever, since I am too lazy to look further. The point stands - we can reuse existing guns, we just need to equip them with proper ammo and mount them on self-propelled chassis, be it a turreted tank, or casemate tank destroyer. The quivalent for the 150mm naval cannon would be of course the 152mm ISU-152 cannon mentioned before.

As reusing goes, we could also hope to reuse the Haast (or whatever, as long as it's not a fucking turbine please) engine, as using aircraft engines in tanks was also a thing.

This way we take out the new gun and new engine out of the equation, reducing difficulty, which leaves us only with chassis. If we wanted to go even lower, we could use the AS-33 with new gun in casemate, effectively reducing the new tank to what amounts to really hard revision.

[Taricus]

2 RDN-41-3 Deadliest Ray Mk. DEADLY: evictedSaint, Madman
4 UF-ERA-42 'Blood Eagle': Powder Miner, Jilladilla, NAV , 10ebbor10
2 UF-MT-41 'Demolisher': Andrea, Taricus

Fixed the link, and also voting for the tank.

[piratejoe]

2 RDN-41-3 Deadliest Ray Mk. DEADLY: evictedSaint, Madman
5 UF-ERA-42 'Blood Eagle': Powder Miner, Jilladilla, NAV , 10ebbor10, Piratejoe
2 UF-MT-41 'Demolisher': Andrea, Taricus

Goyrl to Blood Eagle, best Eagle, greatest bird in world.

[stabbymcstabstab]

2 RDN-41-3 Deadliest Ray Mk. DEADLY: evictedSaint, Madman
6 UF-ERA-42 'Blood Eagle': Powder Miner, Jilladilla, NAV , 10ebbor10, Piratejoe, Stabby
2 UF-MT-41 'Demolisher': Andrea, Taricus

[VoidSlayer]

2 RDN-41-3 Deadliest Ray Mk. DEADLY: evictedSaint, Madman
6 UF-ERA-42 'Blood Eagle': Powder Miner, Jilladilla, NAV , 10ebbor10, Piratejoe, Stabby
3 UF-MT-41 'Demolisher': Andrea, Taricus, voidslayer

Tank, woo!

[evictedSaint]

I have some issues with the Demolisher.

I'd prefer if the calibur of the main gun be bumped up to 100 mm to overmatch medium armor on the Bull's sides, or at least 88 mm to make ammo interchangeable with our German allies.

The turret is a hexagon, which provides the enemy with nice, flat "shoot me here" targets (unless the hexagonal shape is actually the cross-section rather than the perimeter shape, in which case it provides the enemy with attractive shot-traps which is even worse).  I'd like it to be a cast dome rather than have a geometric box turret - I know it's easier to manufacture a geometric box than it is to cast something that thick and cast steel is more brittle, but it actually provides non-flat surfaces for better shot deflection (think IS-2 or the IS-3).

There's no mention of an auto-loader; this might be intentional with the semi-automatic casing ejector, though, but I was under the impression we had a rudimentary system we developed with our Overcompensators for auto-loading? It would certainly give the tank a lower profile.

I do like the gyroscopic stabilized barrel, though - that's a nice touch.  Even if nothing is changed, this new tank would definitely surpass our aging t-33.

[Kot]

Since most people go for ERA, tank won't probably win, still, use existing gun.

[Kashyyk]

2 RDN-41-3 Deadliest Ray Mk. DEADLY: evictedSaint, Madman
7 UF-ERA-42 'Blood Eagle': Powder Miner, Jilladilla, NAV , 10ebbor10, Piratejoe, Stabby, Kashyyk
3 UF-MT-41 'Demolisher': Andrea, Taricus, voidslayer

Caww, caww!

[Kot]

2 RDN-41-3 Deadliest Ray Mk. DEADLY: evictedSaint, Madman
8 UF-ERA-42 'Blood Eagle': Powder Miner, Jilladilla, NAV , 10ebbor10, Piratejoe, Stabby, Kashyyk, Kot
3 UF-MT-41 'Demolisher': Andrea, Taricus, voidslayer

If it loses, you all are going to gain a new pair of wings.

@Sensei pls.

[NAV]

It will probably be hard, slim chance of normal.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

The problem with using the DT33's cannon is the screw breech it uses. That will severely limit the fire rate of those guns, and trying to stuff aluminium on a tank will not work out well.

I seem to recall it being mentioned that an autoloader had essentially the same fire rate, so given that plus the heavy tank is already has a lot of new stuff, I decided to not err on the side of 'let's not make it harder to deal with'.

And you keep saying 'trying to stuff aluminium on a tank will not work out well', but would you kindly say why you think the specific implementation I am using won't work?  You're not proving a point if you keep on generalizing like that.

[Kot]

Aluminium is sometimes used in more modern AFVs, although mostly due to how modern vehicular combat tactics switched to focus more on mobility rather than protection, due to every grunt with an ATGM being able to fuck up every tankers day. I suppose it wouldn't be that bad to use aluminium for some parts, although not exactly as armour - rather as an way to lighten parts such as various external baskets, fuel drums, non-protective interior pieces, etc, and possibly spaced armour plates, although in that case I'm not certain of how effective they actually would be, since if it's too thin the plates will not even set-off HEAT fuzes and just be a pain in ass for the crews who will keep tearing them off on trees or shit, and too thick and the weight difference between that and regular steel is not worth it (the best case scenario, however, is mesh spaced armour, like the famous spring-beds on T-34s or the thick mesh fences Germans sometimes used in place of Schürzen later in the war. It provides adequate defence against HEAT with reduced weight, and mesh wire can be also bent around the tank in some form of more fitting cage).

[Taricus]

@Zan: Limited use isn't going to cut down costs, and more significant usage will impact the performance of the tank negatively. More to the point, putting a modernised, sliding block breach would allow our tanks to fire faster providing they have a good crew.

@ES: The lack of autoloader is intentional; we're better off not making the tank that much more harder to design in the first place. And while the hexagonal turret is a little issue, for the enemy to get a good flat shot on the sides they have to fire at quite an oblique angle. The Cannon is effectively means to be a high-velocity cannon; it trades of raw killing power for extra speed, allowing it's AP shells to more easily break through tank armour despite the calibre.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Aluminium is sometimes used in more modern AFVs, although mostly due to how modern vehicular combat tactics switched to focus more on mobility rather than protection, due to every grunt with an ATGM being able to fuck up every tankers day. I suppose it wouldn't be that bad to use aluminium for some parts, although not exactly as armour - rather as an way to lighten parts such as various external baskets, fuel drums, non-protective interior pieces, etc, and possibly spaced armour plates, although in that case I'm not certain of how effective they actually would be, since if it's too thin the plates will not even set-off HEAT fuzes and just be a pain in ass for the crews who will keep tearing them off on trees or shit, and too thick and the weight difference between that and regular steel is not worth it (the best case scenario, however, is mesh spaced armour, like the famous spring-beds on T-34s or the thick mesh fences Germans sometimes used in place of Schürzen later in the war. It provides adequate defence against HEAT with reduced weight, and mesh wire can be also bent around the tank in some form of more fitting cage).

Precisely why I used it for internal parts rather than for armor, though that mesh wire does sound like an intriguing alternate use.

@Zan: Limited use isn't going to cut down costs, and more significant usage will impact the performance of the tank negatively. More to the point, putting a modernised, sliding block breach would allow our tanks to fire faster providing they have a good crew.

I'm not using it for armor, but instead for internals.  If a shell somehow does manage to get past the very significant armor I've dropped on the design (One's got bloody Super Heavy forward armor on it bigger than the shells Cannala fires), there's honestly bigger problems as it would likely need to be a very large shell, which would do a ton of damage anyway.