HHAYD Posted July 11, 2010 Report Share Posted July 11, 2010 [quote name='king of cochin' date='11 July 2010 - 03:54 PM' timestamp='1278881669' post='2367213'] A rail gun is an effective direct fire weapon but the light weight of rail gun projectile and its mechanical characteristics mean they may not exactly go through successive layers of opponents like the heavy bullets of .50 caliber in HMGs. The gatling gun mechanism could be workable, but not sure. [/quote] So should I use 60mm shells? All of the shells that the railguns use are made of tungsten carbine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted July 12, 2010 Report Share Posted July 12, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Fizzydog' date='11 July 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1278902065' post='2367632'] I'm betting you looked at the GDR Space Elevator? That was reserved for the space elevator he built, which is literally a huge space elevator. So you do not need extra land to do space missions unless you have over 1,000 tech and feel like building a space elevator. derp, sorry. I don't know if this portains to the map or not, but I believe it is close enough. Okay? Sorry. I don't mean to run off topic. [/quote] The rules have changed since then and I don't think another space elevator can be build, right? Edited July 12, 2010 by iKrolm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted July 12, 2010 Report Share Posted July 12, 2010 [quote name='iKrolm' date='12 July 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1278942269' post='2368055'] The rules have changed since then and I don't think another space elevator can be build, right? [/quote] If someone Rps it extensively enough and does the science, etc well enough in addition to gathering the support of a dozen and more nations, I'd approve of another elevator. The other GMs may veto that, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 13, 2010 Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 [quote name='Lynneth' date='12 July 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1278956058' post='2368246'] If someone Rps it extensively enough and does the science, etc well enough in addition to gathering the support of a dozen and more nations, I'd approve of another elevator. The other GMs may veto that, though. [/quote] Hmm...would it even be possible to raise the support necessary now? I think the world's too fragmented atm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted July 13, 2010 Report Share Posted July 13, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='12 July 2010 - 09:17 PM' timestamp='1278987411' post='2368855'] Hmm...would it even be possible to raise the support necessary now? I think the world's too fragmented atm... [/quote] One small group of countries: "All for it." [i]Gives the builder country full access to the contributing countries' bank accounts.[/i] 2nd group: "I like you, but..." [i]Mails one cent.[/i] 3rd group: "meh..." [i]Does do something else.[/i] 4th group: "Hey, lets blow up the elevator with nukes at its opening!" [i]Starts plotting a plan to knock down the 2nd space elevator at the opening, without getting curbstomped. That includes using the "[b]My janitor activated, armed, and guided the nuke. Don't ask why he had full access."[/b] tactic[/i] 5th group: "$%&@ you." [i]Proceeds to spam the main builder country with insults.[/i] 6th group: "[b]WTF!? OMFG! I CALL BS ON THAT! THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE![/b] Wait, why does the GDR Space Elevator still exists?" [i]Proceeds to take the OOC argument to the GM Court, CNRP OOC thread, here, or in the construction thread.[/i] Edited July 13, 2010 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted July 21, 2010 Report Share Posted July 21, 2010 If it's indeed possible, how would one go about locating an SOSUS system? Because they're basically underwater microphones, right? Passive sensors and if properly hidden you'd never know they were there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 The only way would probably be to spy on the stations that receive their data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) Is it possible for an engine to use diesel mixed with small amount of oil-based liquid explosives? Is is okay for me to attach single EMP cannon onto my close-combat tanks?: http://gizmodo.com/5454295/this-emp-cannon-stops-cars-almost-instantly Edited July 27, 2010 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280245102' post='2391225'] Is it possible for an engine to use diesel mixed with small amount of oil-based liquid explosives? [/quote] Why in the world would you put and already flammable liquid in the same place as a liquid explosive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1280245664' post='2391229'] Why in the world would you put and already flammable liquid in the same place as a liquid explosive? [/quote] To improve a tank's mph, but after thinking about it, I am not so sure about safety... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280245102' post='2391225'] Is it possible for an engine to use diesel mixed with small amount of oil-based liquid explosives? Is is okay for me to attach single EMP cannon onto my close-combat tanks?: http://gizmodo.com/5454295/this-emp-cannon-stops-cars-almost-instantly [/quote] Oil based liquid explosive? I believe what you are looking for is petrol or diesel. Also EMP cannon would be ineffectual against weapon systems already proofed against EMP. I mean, if you want to use it anyway, I dont support it could hurt. If you are going to permit an enemy vehicle to come closer than 1 or 2 kilometers, you are dead anyway. Also at 200 meters i think a 7.62mm machine gun would be much better to stop a car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280248160' post='2391287'] Also EMP cannon would be ineffectual against weapon systems already proofed against EMP. I mean, if you want to use it anyway, I dont support it could hurt. If you are going to permit an enemy vehicle to come closer than 1 or 2 kilometers, you are dead anyway. Also at 200 meters i think a 7.62mm machine gun would be much better to stop a car. [/quote] What about in urban combat where tanks engage against other tanks at an even closer range or use the hide-hit-run tactic? Edited July 27, 2010 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280248374' post='2391293'] What about in urban combat where tanks engage against other tanks at an even closer range or use the hide-hit-run tactic? [/quote] For one thing in urban combat and in close range a tank would be ineffectual, big time. Hit and run wont work. Again if you have to do hit and run, a round from that big 120mm cannon, or an ATGM would be far more effective than EMP pulse which wont work against shielded electronics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280248702' post='2391303'] For one thing in urban combat and in close range a tank would be ineffectual, big time. Hit and run wont work. [/quote] That includes small tanks that are similar size to a SUV and have low-caliber yet rapid firing cannons? A 90mm AP shell fired from a few meters away will kill a M1 Abram, especially in the side or rear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280249211' post='2391318'] That includes small tanks that are similar size to a SUV and have low-caliber yet rapid firing cannons? A 90mm AP shell fired from a few meters away will kill a M1 Abram, especially in the side or rear. [/quote] Ah! Then you should have mentioned them as Light Tanks or Armored Personnel Carriers. By a tank, we mostly mean a Main Battle Tank. And yes a 90mm AP shell fired from a few meters away into the side or rear would definitely kill an MBT, but this same vehicle could be engaged by the .50 cal turret mounted gun or the 7.62mm coaxial gun! The weapon system already exists, why the need for wasteful EMP? Also a gun can put more rounds for greater lethal effect in the time taken by this EMP cannon to fire successive pulses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280250201' post='2391340'] Ah! Then you should have mentioned them as Light Tanks or Armored Personnel Carriers. By a tank, we mostly mean a Main Battle Tank. And yes a 90mm AP shell fired from a few meters away into the side or rear would definitely kill an MBT, but this same vehicle could be engaged by the .50 cal turret mounted gun or the 7.62mm coaxial gun! [/quote] I don't plan on using the EMP cannon. As for the light tank, you can't kill it with .50 caliber bullets if it has tungsten carbine armoring. Last question, would this be useful in tank armoring?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10569761 The current armoring material that all of my vehicles use are NERA rubber plates, tungsten carbine, Kelvar mixed with the body armor liquid, and air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280250815' post='2391354'] I don't plan on using the EMP cannon. As for the light tank, you can't kill it with .50 caliber bullets if it has tungsten carbine armoring. Last question, would this be useful in tank armoring?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10569761 The current armoring material that all of my vehicles use are NERA rubber plates, tungsten carbine, Kelvar mixed with the body armor liquid, and air. [/quote] Yeah non-Newtonian Liquids like that are good armor materials, but I dont know how effective it would be in a tank. They could be used as interstitial layers between the outer reactive armor, the main armor, and the inner chambers of the tank. It has a lot of advantages, but it should be used in such a way that a less shearing force, which can be better withstood by the heavy armor of the tank would not rupture its containers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280251561' post='2391368'] Yeah non-Newtonian Liquids like that are good armor materials, but I dont know how effective it would be in a tank. They could be used as interstitial layers between the outer reactive armor, the main armor, and the inner chambers of the tank. It has a lot of advantages, but it should be used in such a way that a less shearing force, which can be better withstood by the heavy armor of the tank would not rupture its containers. [/quote] I was thinking that the tungsten carbine and NERA rubber plating would take the brunt of the impact, the liquid mixed Kelvar would prevent the armoring from buckling and serve as backup armor in case if the outer armoring fails, and the inner layer absorbs and spreads out the impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280252036' post='2391381'] I was thinking that the tungsten carbine and NERA rubber plating would take the brunt of the impact, the liquid mixed Kelvar would prevent the armoring from buckling and serve as backup armor in case if the outer armoring fails, and the inner layer absorbs and spreads out the impact. [/quote] Why do you use Tungsten Carbi[b]d[/b]e as armor? Tungsten Carbide is used in Armor "Piercing" not in armoring. And yeah, Kevlar lined multiple chamber jackets of Non Newtonian liquids if placed beneath conventional armor can prevent a round from getting further inside. Also what is NERA rubber plating? If it is explosive armor, what is rubber to do with it? Linky pls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280252517' post='2391400'] Why do you use Tungsten Carbi[b]d[/b]e as armor? Tungsten Carbide is used in Armor "Piercing" not in armoring. And yeah, Kevlar lined multiple chamber jackets of Non Newtonian liquids if placed beneath conventional armor can prevent a round from getting further inside. Also what is NERA rubber plating? If it is explosive armor, what is rubber to do with it? Linky pls [/quote] NERA, Non-Explosive Reactive Armor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armour#Non-explosive_and_non-energetic_reactive_armour I use tungsten carbide since they are slightly denser and stronger than depleted uranium. EDIT: Is it possible for a 40 ton tank to have a max speed limit of a high 50 mph? Edited July 27, 2010 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280252925' post='2391410'] EDIT: Is it possible for a 40 ton tank to have a max speed limit of a high 50 mph? [/quote] Strip off the vast majority of the armor and give it an ungoddly powerful engine, and you probably can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 Uh, I suppose so... if you are on a smooth surface with no cracks or friction at all, and you have no armor or heavy weapons... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) I plan on operating a defensive/stealth based naval fleet. Aka submarines, battleships, and stealth destroyers. I wanted to have three battleships geared toward firepower, armoring, and survivability. ------------------------------- Battleships (3 super heavy ones): Length: 342 m Displacements: 106,300 tons Long range armaments: eight 250mm cannons, eight 175mm cannons, two five-barreled rail guns, 24 long range missile launchers, and 24 long range torpedo launchers. Short range armaments: ten 120mm cannons and a dozen of 60mm cannons. Defensive systems: 24 anti-air missile launchers, 24 anti-missile missile launchers, and 24 anti-rocket/missile/bomb 40mm turrets. Average armoring's thickness: One meter (half of it consists of the shock absorbent gel and Kelvar/Non-Newtonic liquid) Armoring material from outer to inner: Welded tungsten carbine plates Welded steel alloy plates Non-newtonic liquid mixed with Kelvar Thin layer of welded steel alloy plates Shock absorbing gel Thin layer of welded steel alloy plates Additional armoring are covered over vital systems, such as the nuclear reactors. Power systems: Two small nuclear reactors, two steam turbines Propulsion: 4 propellers Range: Nearly unlimited, enough fuel to last the ships 5 years before needing to refuel. Max speed: 30mph Pumps: Each battleship has 24 emergency pumps in case of water leaks in. Note: Each battleship is split into four compartments separated by dual plating with spacing in between(combined are 1 meter thick), each two (right top and bottom, left top and bottom) with half of the armaments and nuclear reactor. If one compartment is punctured, then all passage ways, ventilation ducts, water, sewage, gas, and other ducts are immediately close as soon as water starts seeping into the other compartment, with the exception of pipes connecting to the pumps in the unharmed compartment. The compartment is sealed off if an explosion or the nuclear reactor is damaged to prevent damages from spreading to the unharmed one via sensors (if too many goes dead suddenly, sealing would kick in). If sinking or utter destruction will occur soon, the battleship can be set to sail into the middle of enemy ships' formations and detonate the nuclear reactors along with the fuel and ammunition. ----------- Is it realistic enough? ---------- [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1280266763' post='2391646'] Strip off the vast majority of the armor and give it an ungoddly powerful engine, and you probably can. [/quote] An M1 Abram tank weighs nearly 67 tons yet has a top speed of 42 mph. I don't see how a 40 ton tank can't go faster than a M1 Abram. Edited July 27, 2010 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 (edited) [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280252925' post='2391410'] EDIT: Is it possible for a 40 ton tank to have a max speed limit of a high 50 mph? [/quote] 50 mph is going to be tough. More like 35mph. Edited July 28, 2010 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1280275721' post='2391781'] 50 mph is going to be tough. More like 35mph. [/quote] Then how come a M1 Abram 67 ton tank can have a max speed of 42 mph? Edited July 28, 2010 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.