Technology Stats Help

[Kankou]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280275971' post='2391787']
Then how come a M1 Abram 67 ton tank can have a max speed of 42 mph?
[/quote]


The engine. The Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine has 1,500 hp.

Also, actually, scrape what I said. There is a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80"]42.5 tonnes tank[/url] that goes at 43 mph.


PS: Which ton are you using?

Edited July 28, 2010 by Kankou

[Uberstein]

[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]
NERA won't do anything against a kinetic round, it's only meant to stop HEAT and HESH rounds.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' timestamp='1280276672' post='2391808']
NERA won't do anything against a kinetic round, it's only meant to stop HEAT and HESH rounds.
[/quote]
Which is why I have tungsten carbide plating, steel alloy, and Kelvar mixed with non-newtonic liquid underneath. Nobody likes to drive around in rubber armored tanks anyways.

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1280276236' post='2391796']
The engine. The Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine has 1,500 hp.

Also, actually, scrape what I said. There is a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80"]42.5 tonnes tank[/url] that goes at 43 mph.


PS: Which ton are you using?
[/quote]
I think short ton.

I might as well as load a Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine onto my 40 ton tank. There, I fixed it.

Edited July 28, 2010 by HHAYD

[Kankou]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280277282' post='2391826']
I might as well as load a Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine onto my 40 ton tank. There, I fixed it.
[/quote]
Have fun trying to fuel that beast.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1280277677' post='2391833']
Have fun trying to fuel that beast.
[/quote]
Since when do people RP logistics?

On serious note, Perkins CV-12 Diesel 1,200 hp that the Challenger II uses would work fine. I did a rough calculation and my 40 ton tank would have about 50 mph, just a little better than the M1 Abram. Although the Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine is very inefficient, you can cram any type of (looted) fuel ranging from gas, diesel, jet fuel, etc (not nitric acid...) and it would work fine, assuming if the enemy didn't use scorched earth tactic or sabotaged all of the fuel left behind.

Edited July 28, 2010 by HHAYD

[Kankou]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280280163' post='2391872']
On serious note, Perkins CV-12 Diesel 1,200 hp that the Challenger II uses would work fine. [/quote]

It happens to be more than 1.5 times as heavy (1888 kg) as as a Honeywell AGT1500C (1134 kg) or a GTD-1250 turbine (1050 kg). Just use the GTD-1250 turbine (the one in the T-80U)


More important, how big is the tank? I'm not sure if you can fit the engines in it if it's small.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1280280600' post='2391887']
It happens to be more than 1.5 times as heavy (1888 kg) as as a Honeywell AGT1500C (1134 kg) or a GTD-1250 turbine (1050 kg). Just use the GTD-1250 turbine (the one in the T-80U)


More important, how big is the tank? I'm not sure if you can fit the engines in it if it's small.
[/quote]
Oh, I see.

My Punisher and Lion MBT is about the same size of a Challenger II. The close combat Fox light tank is slightly smaller by about 20 centimeters of length and width. The remote controlled/automated close combat Troll light tank is slightly larger than an average eight seat SUV.

The GTD-1250 turbine would barely fit inside the Fox tank, but you can't cram that engine in the Troll tank, right?

EDIT: What about my battleships? Are they practical? Their sizes are based on the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), a supercarrier.

Edited July 28, 2010 by HHAYD

[HHAYD]

Yet another question:

Is it possible to be able to deploy prefabricated bunkers? I was thinking that they could be shipped with long pointed rods attached to the base to anchor it down into the ground, dropped onto the ground, and then hammered it down with one of those construction vehicles that are designed to hammer steel rods into the ground as a base for skyscrappers. The weight that would be dropped and pulled back up would be much heavier, and if the prefabricated bunker cracks or caves in, then it is a faulty one that won't able to survive a direct artillery/missile hit. Although they aren't as good as ones built on site, they are much faster and easier to build.

Is it also possible for the same construction vehicles to do the same thing with dragon teeth and Czech Hedgehogs (with a much smaller weight to avoid flatting/crushing them)?

I plan on RPing GLP's military to be geared toward rapid defensive building, wearing down superior enemy forces, and strain their logistics.

Edited July 28, 2010 by HHAYD

[Kankou]

Not sure if what you would build can be considered bunkers. Sentry posts yes, but bunkers?

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280281530' post='2391915']
EDIT: What about my battleships? Are they practical? Their sizes are based on the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), a supercarrier.
[/quote]
I see a lot of problems with your battleships. The size is a big issue. Mainly, unless you secretly rebuild the St. Lawrence Seaway with locks 100m larger than the current ones, those boats are stuck in the Great Lakes. Secondly that ship is so big and heavy, I HIGHLY doubt it'll ever hit 30 knots. The Queen Mary 2, a vessel of comparable length, can barely hit 29 knots, and she's far lighter than your ships. Also, [b]never[/b] use an aircraft carrier for dimensions of a battleship. They are about as far apart as two ships could possibly be. Aircraft carriers have almost no superstructure, in comparison to battleships, which have an enormous amount of weight high above the waterline. Aircraft carriers are also barely armored, as opposed to battleships, which require heavy armor. Lastly, on ships, they're not called cannons, they're called guns. Seriously though, superheavy battleships usually end up being only superheavy targets (See Bismark and Yamato), so it would just be best sticking to ones that have already been developed and proven.

[Kankou]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1279679611' post='2381828']
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]

The hydrophones happen to be connected by underwater cables. If you have a general idea that there might be lines in the area, you could find it after some time.


@HHAYD: You have a nice imagination and such, but you should tone down on your stuff. It's getting ridiculous. Also, you can't really detonate the nuclear reactors unless you want to go for a radiation bomb-style thing.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Kankou

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1280307325' post='2392333']
The hydrophones happen to be connected by underwater cables. If you have a general idea that there might be lines in the area, you could find it after some time.

[/quote]

A general idea may not be enough to find SOSUS cables as they do not radiate energy, they are essentially massive antennae. It would take trial and error and a massive amount of luck to find this particular needle in haystack. The only ways for a SOSUS cable to be disrupted are through accidents, random events and natural forces. Any attempt at locating a SOSUS would be absolutely impossible to hide from whoever is manning the network.

[Kankou]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280308601' post='2392343']
A general idea may not be enough to find SOSUS cables as they do not radiate energy, they are essentially massive antennae. It would take trial and error and a massive amount of luck to find this particular needle in haystack. The only ways for a SOSUS cable to be disrupted are through accidents, random events and natural forces. Any attempt at locating a SOSUS would be absolutely impossible to hide from whoever is manning the network.
[/quote]

Unless the cables themselves are buried, it is actually quite possible to locate the cables. On the other hand, what you say about the user state knowing that someone is search is correct.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1280309187' post='2392349']
Unless the cables themselves are buried, it is actually quite possible to locate the cables. On the other hand, what you say about the user state knowing that someone is search is correct.
[/quote]

Cables need not be buried, they would still be undetectable! How will they be detected if they do not radiate any emissions?

[Kankou]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280309335' post='2392351']
Cables need not be buried, they would still be undetectable! How will they be detected if they do not radiate any emissions?
[/quote]

Hard to detect does not mean undetectable.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1280309538' post='2392353']
Hard to detect does not mean undetectable.
[/quote]

Please explain how you would detect these SOSUS cables and their layout under the sea? I think they are impossible to detect - undetectable - because I cant see any way by which they can be detected. If you know of a way, please share it.

[Captain Enema]

Dredging for them works pretty well if you have a rough idea where they are located and the equipment to dredge.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1280316217' post='2392380']
Dredging for them works pretty well if you have a rough idea where they are located and the equipment to dredge.
[/quote]

Precisely, a trial and error undertaking which involves the factor of luck and yes you need a very accurate rough idea where they are located, after all the oceans are pretty huge!

[Kankou]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1280317097' post='2392383']
Precisely, a trial and error undertaking which involves the factor of luck and yes you need a very accurate rough idea where they are located, after all the oceans are pretty huge!
[/quote]

Well, in my case, I only searched around the Spratly Islands, which is relatively shallow. If we're talking about all around the world.... I'm not going into that particular insanity.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1280295234' post='2392220']
Not sure if what you would build can be considered bunkers. Sentry posts yes, but bunkers?
[/quote]
Prefabricated bunkers:

[img]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/8796/55128008.png[/img]


Second image shows one that is partially hammered into the ground. They are basically giant concrete/metal/Kelvar mixed with non-newtonic liquid/etc boxes with a long rectangular opening and a door on the back.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1280317810' post='2392387']
Well, in my case, I only searched around the Spratly Islands, which is relatively shallow. If we're talking about all around the world.... I'm not going into that particular insanity.
[/quote]

Shallow or not, how are you searching it? Optically? Acoustically? Electromagnetically? Thermally?

[HHAYD]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1280306619' post='2392331']
I see a lot of problems with your battleships. The size is a big issue. Mainly, unless you secretly rebuild the St. Lawrence Seaway with locks 100m larger than the current ones, those boats are stuck in the Great Lakes. Secondly that ship is so big and heavy, I HIGHLY doubt it'll ever hit 30 knots. The Queen Mary 2, a vessel of comparable length, can barely hit 29 knots, and she's far lighter than your ships. Also, [b]never[/b] use an aircraft carrier for dimensions of a battleship. They are about as far apart as two ships could possibly be. Aircraft carriers have almost no superstructure, in comparison to battleships, which have an enormous amount of weight high above the waterline. Aircraft carriers are also barely armored, as opposed to battleships, which require heavy armor. Lastly, on ships, they're not called cannons, they're called guns. Seriously though, superheavy battleships usually end up being only superheavy targets (See Bismark and Yamato), so it would just be best sticking to ones that have already been developed and proven.
[/quote]
I stated that I wanted [i]defensive[/i] battleships, not offensive or general-use ones. Does the Queen Mary has a nuclear reactor onboard? Reactors that produce more power than fossil fuel turbines without killing fuel efficiency? I doubt it. Passenger and luxury ships are usually not designed for speed.
tow
I also have direct access to the Hudson Bay. Although the Great Lakes is undefended, those two battleships could sail towards the entrance to the St. Lawrence Seaway (while staying outside of Disparu's territorial waters) and cut off supply line if the enemy did not invade via land. If USA for example, invaded me, then it would be up to my smaller ships to defend the Great Lakes. If I can't get my heavy ships in the Great Lakes, the enemy can't either unless if they built and stationed it there.

Using Yamato battleship's stats multiplied by 110% with some modification, two heavy battleships instead of three:

Length: 281.6 meters

Displacements: 78,824.9 tons

Long range armaments: Four rail guns (max range: 300 km, firing rate: dunno since it depends on how much heat), 36 missile launchers, , 36 torpedo launchers, and four large missile 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, 24 anti-torpedo torpedo launchers, and 24 anti-rocket/missile/bomb 40mm turrets. All of them can also be used against enemy ships (the missile/torpedo launchers have to use different ammunition) if there aren't enough threatening targets.

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 carbide 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: 26 mph (if rail guns are not firing, if all four are firing, then the speed will drop below 10 mph)

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).

All rooms that are below or near the water line are water-proofed.

If sinking or utter destruction will occur soon, the nuclear reactors are set to low production and are kept on standby for emergency shutdown.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280320682' post='2392396']
Prefabricated bunkers:

[img]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/8796/55128008.png[/img]


Second image shows one that is partially hammered into the ground. They are basically giant concrete/metal/Kelvar mixed with non-newtonic liquid/etc boxes with a long rectangular opening and a door on the back.
[/quote]

Those are not so much bunkers as they are pillboxes- besides, that wide opening is begging for a man-portable thermobaric round.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1280325486' post='2392428']
Those are not so much bunkers as they are pillboxes- besides, that wide opening is begging for a man-portable thermobaric round.
[/quote]
Pillbox=a type of bunker.

For the openings, I only intend them just large enough for someone to see out of and shoot.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280325783' post='2392433']
Pillbox=a type of bunker.

For the openings, I only intend them just large enough for someone to see out of and shoot.
[/quote]

Only, when someone says bunker it implies that said bunker has an extensive, or at least present subsurface infrastructure for structural integrity and protection. A 'bunker-buster' bomb would be extreme overkill against these.