Technology Stats Help

[comrade nikonov]

hmm...

I'm considering this...

Basically, a large helium filled blimp made of modern composite materials, propelled by turboprops, and maybe even a turbofan for extra speed occasionally. Special thing is that the shape of the aircraft allows for a large gondola portion, which can hold maybe a total of about 24 VTOL aircraft. I'm hoping to shoot for a total helium capacity of 1,500,000 cubic meters, which can handle 1,570,000 kg of mass. The loaded weight of a F-35 is 20,100 kg, so i reckon 24 of them, utilizing about 480,000 kg of mass, with the rest for the weight of the frame and control center. Basically the gondola allows for retraction and extrusion, which allows the F-35s to take off from the airship. Landing it, may be a different story.

Also, I know that the size involved is quite large, but it will be a large project.

Any thoughts?

[Uberstein]

I suggest keeping airships for cargo lifting. <__<

[HHAYD]

I suggest keeping airships for cargo lifting. <__<

This.

That giant floating aircraft carrier is way too tempting for enemies to shoot it down. I would only suggest using it far outside of combat area and keep it under heavy protection. Even so, they would be able to track where all of the airplanes are coming from, and the next thing you will notice, anti-aircraft missiles puncturing the airship's helium filled sections.

[JerreyRough]

It's good if you like RL USA and don't need to worry about advanced aircraft shooting at it, perhaps some RPG's but not much else. But for the advanced world of CNRP where everyone has semi-advanced weapons? Na.

[HHAYD]

Is it possible for tanks to have multiple engines directly attached to the tracks instead of a single engine?

[Zoot Zoot]

*Thinks back to the hindenberg*

Airships are bad m'kay?

[Subtleknifewielder]

*Thinks back to the hindenberg*

Airships are bad m'kay?

That's because it was hydrogen used for those. Helium is not so flammable...

[Uberstein]

*Thinks back to the hindenberg*

Airships are bad m'kay?

That's because it was hydrogen used for those. Helium is not so flammable...

It was a combination of hydrogen, an electromagnetic storm, and orders to override safety proceedure and make a sharp turn against strong winds, which caused cables to snap.

These cables cut open a gas bag, static electricity arced from the skin to the metal frame, lighting the air/hydrogen mixture, and then things went downhill from there. When the Zeppelin LTD company heard about the incident and the kind of conditions they had tried to land in (under orders of a nazi official who wanted to be on-time no matter what), they were furious because it broke every safety code they had in place. The Hindenburg was the only accident a commercial airship from the Zeppelin company ever had.

Airships are very safe if you're not being shot at and you FOLLOW THE SAFETY RULES.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Safety rules should ALWAYS be followed when dealing with such substances...

[HHAYD]

Two tanks that I will incorporate into my military (images not available). I want to know if these tanks are realistic or not.

Demolisher:

Armoring type: Multiple layers of depleted uranium sheets, steel, insulators, mostly carbon nanotubes, and mostly bullet proof shock absorbing gel. Over half of it is gel and carbon nanotubes.

Body and turret's average armoring thickness: 1 meter

Bottom side's average armoring: 75 cm, bent slightly in a V shape to funnel explosions outward.

Tracks' front, back, and side armoring: 90cm

(Note: Extra armoring are used around the shatter/bullet resistant tempered windows.)

Max speed: 26 mph

Operational range: Up to 200 miles

Weight: About 80 tons

Engine system: Four small diesel or gas engines, two on each side.

Suspension systems: Designed to lock down on powerful impacts to reduce damages to it.

Weapons: 250mm cannon and an anti-aircraft missile launcher

Firing rate of the cannon: one shell per 10 seconds (due to recoil from the large shells)

Advantages: With an AP shell, it can disable or destroy almost any kind of tanks with one hit from a long distance. It can also take brutal punishments, with the exception of large AP or HE weapons such as bunker busters, fuel to air bombs, and heavy carpet bombings.

Disadvantages: It can not chase most modern tanks due to its epically slow speed, making it an easy target.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rapid Demolisher:

Armoring type: A single layer of depleted uranium mesh (2 cm thick, filled in with carbon nanotubes), carbon nanotubes stiffen with carbon fiber mesh, and even larger amount of bullet proof shock absorbent gel.

Body and turret's average armoring thickness: 1 meter

Bottom side's average armoring: 75 cm, bent slightly in a V shape to funnel explosions outward.

Tracks' front, back, and side armoring: 90cm

(Note: Extra armoring are used around the shatter/bullet resistant tempered windows.)

Max speed: 49 mph

Operational range: Up to 210 miles

Weight: About 60 tons

Engine system: 6 Gas/diesel and electricity hybrid engines. It gets some of its electricity by converting heat (from exhaust/engine/cooling systems) into electricity with thermoelectric generators.

Suspension systems: Designed to lock down on powerful impacts to reduce damages to it.

Weapons: 200mm cannon, an anti-aircraft missile launcher, and multiple circular saws attached to the front powered by their batteries (only equipped when the tank will engage enemy infantry)

Firing rate of the cannon: one shell per 8 seconds (due to recoil from the large shells)

Advantages: Although it has a weaker punch, it has the speed to outmaneuver many enemy tanks and hit them in their back or sides. Plus, they can use their speed to avoid heavy enemy fire by constantly staying close (and wreaking chaos) to enemy vehicles. They are also harder to hit when traveling close to their max speed/

Disadvantages: Once their depleted uranium mesh is punctured, that spot would be vulnerable to AP shells. The weapons needed to defeat a Rapid Demolisher tank is the same as the ones needed to defeat a Demolisher tank.

Edited December 24, 2009 by HHAYD

[Il Terra Di Agea]

A Post

Weight and speed on both are WAY off. An Abrams has a few centimeters of armor and weights nearly 70 tons, and goes 42 mph on road. Rate of fire would be quite a bit off (A 203 mm shell weighs 200 lbs, it would take at least two people to load it, not to mention aiming). That then means a crew numbering at least five (Commander, 2 Loaders, Turret operator, Driver [Honestly, probably more, as most of the guns take 6 men to load alone, from what I've found]). Then, that of course holds out on the fact that this thing would be HUGE. With all that armor, all the gun, all that everything, you would have a tank bigger than anything on the battlefield, and more fit to be technically mobile bunker that a tank engaging front-line infantry.

Though well thought out, I really do not thing that, as described, those tanks would be feasible...

HOWEVER, if you're willing to lower some specifications, I think that you could get a good tank, staying with your basic "Hellishly Big Death Machine" idea.

(IE: Armor thinner and more of a modular design strategy, Main gun fixed, save for vertical elevation controls, Modular weapons placements, etc.)

Hell, I'd make it in sketchup for you just to see how it would look

[HHAYD]

Weight and speed on both are WAY off. An Abrams has a few centimeters of armor and weights nearly 70 tons, and goes 42 mph on road. Rate of fire would be quite a bit off (A 203 mm shell weighs 200 lbs, it would take at least two people to load it, not to mention aiming). That then means a crew numbering at least five (Commander, 2 Loaders, Turret operator, Driver [Honestly, probably more, as most of the guns take 6 men to load alone, from what I've found]). Then, that of course holds out on the fact that this thing would be HUGE. With all that armor, all the gun, all that everything, you would have a tank bigger than anything on the battlefield, and more fit to be technically mobile bunker that a tank engaging front-line infantry.

Though well thought out, I really do not thing that, as described, those tanks would be feasible...

HOWEVER, if you're willing to lower some specifications, I think that you could get a good tank, staying with your basic "Hellishly Big Death Machine" idea.

(IE: Armor thinner and more of a modular design strategy, Main gun fixed, save for vertical elevation controls, Modular weapons placements, etc.)

Hell, I'd make it in sketchup for you just to see how it would look

Hm, I can thin the armoring but I would still prefer most of it consisting of the gel and carbon nanotubes (which are much lighter than steel). A punctured armoring though would cause the gel to leak out. Here is a redo of my suggestion:

Demolisher (obviously larger than the Rapid demolisher tanks):

Armoring type: 1 cm thick layer of depleted uranium mesh sheet (filled in with carbon nanotube), insulators, mostly carbon nanotubes (stiffen with carbon fiber so they won't warp), and mostly bullet proof shock absorbing gel. Over half of it is gel and carbon nanotubes. The entire covering of the tank is extremely sloped.

Body and turret's average armoring thickness: 16 cm

Bottom side's average armoring: 12 cm, bent slightly in a V shape to funnel explosions outward.

Tracks' front, back, and side armoring: 16cm

(Note: Extra armoring are used around the shatter/bullet resistant tempered windows.)

Max speed: 28 mph (without ammo)

Operational range: Up to 200 miles

Weight: About 79 tons (without ammo)

Ammo storage: (Don't know any realistic numbers, all I know is that 200mm shells are massive)

Engine system: Four small diesel or gas engines, two on each side.

Suspension systems: Designed to lock down on powerful impacts to reduce damages to it.

Weapons: Fixed 200mm cannon (can adjust its degree of firing, but not its rotation) and an anti-low flying aircraft missile launcher, both have automatic loaders and computers to correctly point the weapons toward the direction where the tank operators want to target. Weapons can be replaced but it would require rewiring and reprogramming of the tank so it won't try to use an automated .50 caliber machine gun to shoot down a helicopter two miles away.

Firing rate of the cannon: one shell per 11 seconds (due to recoil from the large shells)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rapid Demolisher:

Armoring type: .7 cm thick layer of depleted uranium mesh (filled in with carbon nanotubes), carbon nanotubes stiffen with carbon fiber mesh, and even larger amount of bullet proof shock absorbent gel. Insulators are also included. The entire covering of the tank is extremely sloped.

Body and turret's average armoring thickness: 14 cm

Bottom side's average armoring: 10 cm, bent slightly in a V shape to funnel explosions outward.

Tracks' front, back, and side armoring: 14cm

(Note: Extra armoring are used around the shatter/bullet resistant tempered windows.)

Max speed: 52 mph (without ammo)

Operational range: Up to 210 miles

Weight: About 59 tons (without ammo)

Ammo storage: (Don't know any realistic numbers for this)

Engine system: 6 Gas/diesel and electricity hybrid engines. It gets some of its electricity by converting heat (from exhaust/engine/cooling systems) into electricity with thermoelectric generators.

Suspension systems: Designed to lock down on powerful impacts to reduce damages to it.

Weapons: 185mm cannon (can rotate, but can't reload or fire while rotating) with and an anti-low flying aircraft missile launcher, all have automatic loaders and computers to correctly point the weapons toward the direction where the tank operators want to target. Multiple circular saws are attached to the front, powered by their own separate batteries (only equipped when the tank will engage enemy infantry). Weapons can be replaced but it would require rewiring and reprogramming of the tank with the expectation of the circular saws since they only need to be glued onto the armoring.

Firing rate of the cannon: one shell per 7 seconds (due to recoil from the large shells)

How well would the Demolisher and Rapid demolisher tanks would survive against tungsten or depleted uranium AP shells?

Edited December 25, 2009 by HHAYD

[JerreyRough]

You could base your larger tank off the largest tank in

(not the artillery or bunker buster if they are in there); its large and tough. It lacks the missile launcher however, but that can be "assumed" to be where ever you wish. I could post additional pictures of the tank, or you can download the now-free game on fileplanet.com (just make a free profile if you do not have one). Edited December 25, 2009 by JerreyRough

[Il Terra Di Agea]

Alright, I'm working on a destroyer, for the RP right now, but am slowly realizing that I know very little about boats, especially of the larger persuasion.

Are there any problems with this as shown?

Anything that says "Further research needed" or something of the sort is cod for "I have no idea what this is;" Just to point out.

Any problems? Suggestions?

Thanks

[Uberstein]

Is an 8 meter barrel long enough for a 152mm gun?

I sure hope so. <__<

[Lynneth]

Uberstein: Tank barrels usually are 40 or 50 calibers long, depending on the use. Longer barrel->higher range, but lower power, usually. 50 calibers at 15.2cm would be 760 cm or 7.6 meters, so your gun actually is a bit too long.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Lynneth

[Uberstein]

Uberstein: Tank barrels usually are 40 or 50 calibers long, depending on the use. Longer barrel->higher range, but lower power, usually. 50 calibers at 15.2cm would be 760 cm or 7.6 meters, so your gun actually is a bit too long.

Well, I was going off a 52 caliber length, which is shorter than the modern 55 caliber length.

But I'll shorten it to 50 caliber if that will make it a better tank destroyer.

[Lynneth]

Well, I was going off a 52 caliber length, which is shorter than the modern 55 caliber length.

But I'll shorten it to 50 caliber if that will make it a better tank destroyer.

I was wrong with the 40/50 caliber lengths. It's 44/55, the modern, as you say.

Silly me. Anyways, if you want a Tank Destroyer, get something like the Javelin

[Subtleknifewielder]

Wrong thread...

Edited January 4, 2010 by Subtleknifewielder

[Uberstein]

I was wrong with the 40/50 caliber lengths. It's 44/55, the modern, as you say.

Silly me. Anyways, if you want a Tank Destroyer, get something like the Javelin

Bah, the Javelin isn't fun.

I might just use it as self propelled artillery that can take an anti-tank role.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

Bah, the Javelin isn't fun.

I might just use it as self propelled artillery that can take an anti-tank role.

You could get an old-fashioned tank destroyer. Those are pretty kewl.

[Subtleknifewielder]

I know lasers aren't permitted, but what about the feasability of Directed Energy Weapons? I have an idea for a non-lethal one that could be used for riot control.

Should note--sonic (sound) weaponry is one such DEW, though not what I had in mind. My idea involved more using solar power.

[Kevin Kingswell]

I know lasers aren't permitted, but what about the feasability of Directed Energy Weapons? I have an idea for a non-lethal one that could be used for riot control.

Should note--sonic (sound) weaponry is one such DEW, though not what I had in mind. My idea involved more using solar power.

Im not tech savvy guy but a lot of the technology in there is theory based so far and suggest that there may be side effects we don't know about but if you could explain the system then maybe people might let you use it or maybe they would let you use it without explanation. You never know .

Though id like a mini explanation if thats okay cause solar power in a gun system hads me kind of confused on its effectivness.

[Voodoo Nova]

Im not tech savvy guy but a lot of the technology in there is theory based so far and suggest that there may be side effects we don't know about but if you could explain the system then maybe people might let you use it or maybe they would let you use it without explanation. You never know .

Though id like a mini explanation if thats okay cause solar power in a gun system hads me kind of confused on its effectivness.

A Solar Power Gun would be relatively useless and I do not believe is possible in the near future.

Subtle, everything except the particle beam weapon is currently being tested, has been used or is currently being used as a weapon in a military.

[Subtleknifewielder]

The idea was that it would harness the solar power and then release it in a tight beam, not a laser, really, but still focused energy. Not enough to kill, as I stated, but enough to cause a painful burn.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Subtleknifewielder