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

[Madman198237]

Hm. We could probably make a 10-km-range missile variant, or similar short-ranged version, because last I checked we don't have 5 Oil, and it'd be really awesome to have a Cheap SAM. Also, shortening range exponentially decreases fuel requirements (and thus size requirements), meaning we'll be sending more warhead per pound of rocket. Oh, and also sending less rocket, which makes it cheaper in every way.


Anyways, Sensei says a light tank (that can threaten MBTs) would be a usable thing. Probably be less difficult than night vision as well. Assuming roughly-1940s ballistics performance, a 40mm cannon is capable of punching through Medium armor, which is what the Bull has on its sides and rear. So here, a revision that directly aids the ground instead of being "more air control", which we probably don't really need at all whatsoever.

UF-LT-44 'Hayat'
A T-25 tank with the side and rear armor thinned down to just 25mm of mangalloy and front armor reduced to 30mm of mangalloy, both machineguns and the 50mm cannon turret removed, and a new electrically-rotated turret installed. The turret has no roof, 20mm of RHA all around, and only comes up to slightly past the gunner's shoulders (his two loaders sit slightly lower and are completely concealed). The vehicle's armament is composed of two 40mm cannons mounted right next to each other, and loaded from the outsides by the two loaders. The 40mm cannons are copies of the Bofors 40mm antiaircraft gun using whatever firing system is easiest for us to make (APIB or copy of the Bofors system, whichever), capable of firing AP (or HEAT if we can make a 40mm HEAT that's more effective than a 40mm solid AP) and HE. The turret is capable of depressing to fire at infantry and armored vehicles at close range, and elevating far enough to shoot at low-flying (i.e., like 35 degrees max elevation) aircraft (especially improbably armored helicopters). Part of its armor thickness is, of course, in a slat-armor configuration with ERA, just like the newest Salamander.

Alternatively, how about a use for our newly-superior air power?

UF-AGU-44 'Endless Vigil' [the budget version]
The Endless Vigil is a Reckless Effect, but with combat capability. For killing power, the Vigil brings to the battlefield a Bjorn cannon mounted in the side, and on the same side is a pair of 30mm autocannon. The aircraft has full flare packages and lots of ammo, but no paratroopers or cargo space (except for the ammo, of course). The aircraft is capable of loitering above a battlefield for longer than a helicopter, and carries more firepower (and is more survivable), while also being very stable and capable of engaging from a much longer range than said helicopter.

Finally,

UF-SAM-44 'Hangman's Knot'
The Hangman's Knot is a short-ranged version of the Noose, ranging only to about 12km. This reduces the size of the rocket motor and rocket body substantially. It can be mounted on the same mounting as the Noose, in all the same places.

I'm presenting these previous suggestions as proof that just because it wasn't good enough once, doesn't mean it can't be good enough later. Or, you know, maybe I'm just incapable of using too much imagination in one week, or maybe I'm just fixated on my previously-suggested designs.

(1) UF-NVD-44 "Garlic": Kashyyk
(1) UF-SPAAS-44-2 "Garlic": Andrea
(1) UF-LT-44 'Hayat': Madman

[Kot]

the bulk of the ASWANG

That's actually the lamp, ironically enough. The actual scope is much smaller.

The 40mm cannons are copies of the Bofors 40mm antiaircraft gun

Why the heck do you have such a hard-on for Bofors guns lol. Also, 40mm is not going to threathen an MBT.

UF-AGU-44 'Endless Vigil' [the budget version]
The Endless Vigil is a Reckless Effect, but with combat capability. For killing power, the Vigil brings to the battlefield a Bjorn cannon mounted in the side, and on the same side is a pair of 30mm autocannon. The aircraft has full flare packages and lots of ammo, but no paratroopers or cargo space (except for the ammo, of course). The aircraft is capable of loitering above a battlefield for longer than a helicopter, and carries more firepower (and is more survivable), while also being very stable and capable of engaging from a much longer range than said helicopter.

You know, the... biggest problem for me with this is the Bjorn cannon. It's not a relatively big but already dampened howitzer like on AC-130, it's a goddamn high-velocity tank cannon. I can easily see this failing due to difficulty because of dampening systems. Lose the cannon, maybe put a Sarukh launcher somewhere, or I don't know, figure something out, just without the ridiculous tank cannon. I'd still vote for either of the Garlics but I find it hard which to decide which is better, though the mental image of a Cannalan turning his NV on just to see the last thing in his life which is a rapidly turning quad autocannon is pretty hilarious.

(1) UF-NVD-44 "Garlic": Kashyyk
(2) UF-SPAAS-44-2 "Garlic": Andrea, Kot
(1) UF-LT-44 'Hayat': Madman

[Madman198237]

Actually, because the Bull has Medium side armor (max 50mm), a 40mm cannon will be able to punch through at middling ranges. In the jungle and while playing peekaboo around dunes in the desert, the 40mm will be able to take out Bulls pretty well, especially since this stripped-down T-25 should be fairly maneuverable.

As for the Vigil, you are overestimating the kick of a tank cannon. It's got recoil-dampening systems, you can't put guns in tanks without them. The Reckless has more mass, probably, than a tank, and isn't going to move even as much as the tank does.

[andrea]

the bulk of the ASWANG

That's actually the lamp, ironically enough. The actual scope is much smaller.
[/quote]

The bulk of the Difficulty, kot. Not the bulk of the mass.

[NAV]

The "Flails of Doom!" is a specialized vehicle for clearing minefields. It consists of a t-33 medium tank with the turret removed and a large spinning drum covered in flails at the front. The flails spin rapidly and detonate any mines in the tank's path, whether anti-tank or anti-personnel, before they are close enough to do any damage. This way it can drive forward slowly and clear safe paths through minefields.

The "Flails of Doom!" was originally designed by a Moskurg engineer as a brutal close quarters weapon for tanks, completely flaying the flesh and pulverizing the bones of anyone stupid enough to get in its way. It was promptly rejected and ridiculed for being just as impractical as the Death-Ball, until another engineer realized that it could be used to completely trivialize enemy minefields. It will still serve the original purpose if anyone's stupid enough to get in its way.

The spinning drum has about 50 flails on it, it's held about 2 meters in front of the tank and powered by the tank's engine. The turret is removed, and the gunner replaced with a flail operator.

A few minor but important features: It has a pair of tall lit masts so mine clearers can operate in formation even when in the middle of a large dust cloud. They also feature an automated flag dispenser at the back to mark the safe path, and improved engine and crew air filters to deal with the large dust clouds created.

Land mines are still a major defensive factor for both sides. They just go unmentioned no side has an advantage and there haven't been any improvements to mine technology since the last game. But if we make a good way to clear Cannalan minefields while they still have no way to clear ours, advance suddenly becomes much easier. Especially in wide open terrain like the desert, which we are most likely fighting in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail

(1) UF-NVD-44 "Garlic": Kashyyk
(2) UF-SPAAS-44-2 "Garlic": Andrea, Kot
(1) UF-LT-44 'Hayat': Madman
(1) UF-MCV-44 "Flails of Doom!" Mine clearing vehicle: NAV

[Kot]

The Reckless has more mass, probably, than a tank, and isn't going to move even as much as the tank does.

As much as I'd like that fact changed, our tanks do not fly.

[Madman198237]

The Reckless has more mass, probably, than a tank, and isn't going to move even as much as the tank does.

As much as I'd like that fact changed, our tanks do not fly.

Heh....And? It's basic physics that the directional components of velocity are independent of one another, i.e., sudden acceleration in the x-direction does not produce an acceleration in the y-direction. Firing a tank gun sideways does not magically make the plane slow down. Maybe the structure would have problems...but I doubt it. Remember that the Reckless is known for being ridiculously durable for a transport plane.

[evictedSaint]

At this point, why not just strip armor off the Bjorn? The cannon can pen the front of the Bull and the Bull can pen the front of the Bjorn.  Just strip off the useless armor, slap on a passive radar detector, and boom - we have a cheaper Bjorn that can be alerted to incoming ATGM's.

[Madman198237]

Because it still wouldn't be as fast as a stripped-down T-25, and it'd be larger besides?

[evictedSaint]

It's got a twin-charged diesel engine, but has the armor of the Maus.  Strip it down to make it a "light" tank and it will outpace the T-25.  It has two decades of tank design packed into it over the T-25.

[Madman198237]

Is it smaller than the T-25 though? Even though it's a pancake tank I've been imagining it as still broad and probably as tall as the older and less-armored wedge that is the T-25.

EDIT: Because if it is smaller, then I'll just change "T-25" to read "Bjorn" and everything will be better.

[evictedSaint]

I dunno, honestly.  It was envisioned to be "Abrams" or "T-65" in size, though I'd need sensei to weigh in.

Why do you ask? Are you wanting it air-dropped?

EDIT: I hope I'm not coming across as confrontational

[Kot]

Heh....And? It's basic physics that the directional components of velocity are independent of one another, i.e., sudden acceleration in the x-direction does not produce an acceleration in the y-direction. Firing a tank gun sideways does not magically make the plane slow down. Maybe the structure would have problems...but I doubt it. Remember that the Reckless is known for being ridiculously durable for a transport plane.

It's not about slowing it down. It might fuck with the yaw of the plane, not to mention the you are essentially sending a plane flying sideways which will horribly fuck with it's ability to stay in the air for a while, and in general turbulence. There's a reason that 105mm howitzer on AC-130 has such effective dampening system it's essentially eliminated. It's not impossible, but I fear that if we don't focus on that the plane will fall out of the sky at worst or just won't be very accurate at best.
Not to mention that we'd probably want an actual howitzer to maximize explosive effect, not a tank cannon.
Also, regarding the Reckless Effect durability... the ramp.

[Madman198237]

Light tanks should be as small as possible, even if it loses a bit of speed in the process making it a smaller, lighter vehicle is all for the better, because being small also improves mobility in conditions like jungles and streets.

And yes, it if can be air-dropped that is nothing but a good thing, but not a goal.


Um, Kot? We fixed the ramp, the rest of the plane never had such issues, yes you'd kick the plane sideways but that doesn't stop air from flowing over the wings. Worst case is a sudden drop as you slide into undisturbed air, and that's only if our dampening system is absolutely useless as-is. Since it is a 100mm cannon, we don't need to worry about being ready for another accurate shot instantly. Heck, a fire-and-slide pattern like that would make it REALLY hard to hit. As for the 30mms....nobody cares if those things hit every shot anyway, they can stand to miss a couple.

And again, I don't even expect the gun to have that much recoil. It's really not that easy to move a transport plane full of ammo and guns like you're suggesting will happen.

[NAV]

Bull is far from the only thing our Bjorns are fighting. They still have to deal with the much more numerous Armadillo tanks, daybreaker raiders, infantry rocket launchers, artillery....stripping the armour off a Bjorn just because one major threat can penetrate it is stupid. It makes a terrible light tank.