Technology Stats Help

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1280325883' post='2392435']
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.
[/quote]
A bunker buster missile is also vulnerable to anti-missile missiles that impact from the side. The enemy would need large amount of the bunker buster missiles since each prefabricated bunker is only suited for two people.

[king of cochin]

A prefab bunker/pillbox like this could most likely be taken down by a 2000 pound gravity bomb if not an Armor piercing 155mm artillery round. The lifespan of static defenses in a combat situation is determined only in minutes. Especially so for a pillbox like this, which does not have any earthen defenses.

[JerreyRough]

I think dropping in a series of small basic mazes with random trip mines in them would be more effective than this pillbox IMO.

These bunkers would be easilly seeable from long distances away that, unless you built them and then hid them very well in a forest or something, infantry would either go around or take out a man portable device to destroy it. Or call in artillery/aircraft to take care of it. So I would be wary of making such outposts unless your building this on frozen tundra...

This bunker isn't as effective as you may think it is, but then again this is CNRP. Modern warfare hasen't seen two major armies fight with modern weapons on a large scale, and such bunkers could be useful when people are throwing soldiers at each other (...soldiers that could have man portable weapons...).

[HHAYD]

The prefabricated bunkers would be used in forested, snowy, or urban environments. They will be camouflaged and hidden. Most of the time they would only get spotted if the machine gunner or missile launcher soldier fires first.

In fact, I might as well as RP deploying fake bunkers, bunkers made out of thin cheap concrete with nothing in it yet look like the actual ones. Inside the bunkers would be life sized dolls with small heat packs in it and are equipped fake weapons. There is no way of telling to difference since all GLP body armor suits completely cover everything, including the face.

Czech hedgehogs+razor wires+camouflaged hostile bunkers+fake bunkers to waste enemy's ammunition and time=pain for invaders.

This was what I intended the prefabricated bunkers for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog_defence

Edited July 28, 2010 by HHAYD

[king of cochin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280332582' post='2392509']
The prefabricated bunkers would be used in forested, snowy, or urban environments. They will be camouflaged and hidden. Most of the time they would only get spotted if the machine gunner or missile launcher soldier fires first.

In fact, I might as well as RP deploying fake bunkers, bunkers made out of thin cheap concrete with nothing in it yet look like the actual ones. Inside the bunkers would be life sized dolls with small heat packs in it and are equipped fake weapons. There is no way of telling to difference since all GLP body armor suits completely cover everything, including the face.

Czech hedgehogs+razor wires+camouflaged hostile bunkers+fake bunkers to waste enemy's ammunition and time=pain for invaders.

This was what I intended the prefabricated bunkers for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog_defence
[/quote]

The fake bunkers is an excellent idea, it would help in spreading out combative power of enemy and make you better able to do effective counter attacks. Also if the bunkers are camouflaged and hidden, again a good thing. It would not need all these armor anyway, as you must accept that sooner or later the enemy would advance.

A determined offensive can never be stopped by just bunkers, so instead of wasting precious armor on these, make use of greater natural and cheaper armor. Use rocks, use concrete with good thickness for the static protection and make sure that there are good egress routes for the bunkers. Soldiers should not be made to fight till death, when their situation is untenable they should be able to withdraw in orderly fashion. This is why I RPd lots of APCs for my Border Guard brigades and a multilayered static defenses with concealed egress routes, so that when one position is untenable, the troops can withdraw to secondary and tertiary defense lines.

The function of static defense like pillboxes, bunkers etc are not to fend off enemy forever, but to slow down the offensive so that more capable units can take them down.

Always remember Napoleon's admonition of spreading force too thinly.

[MostGloriousLeader]

Hey, I was looking through this thread and found that pimp my gun thing and that was pretty cool. I like just playing around with it and all. I just want to know, is there something similar for vehicles? Anywhere I can make a custom model? Cause I remember my cousin said he just used MS paint for all his stuff but I'd like to see something like that cause I don't think I'd be able to use MS paint to make a detailed vehicle.

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='Altarian Republic' timestamp='1280353300' post='2392926']
Hey, I was looking through this thread and found that pimp my gun thing and that was pretty cool. I like just playing around with it and all. I just want to know, is there something similar for vehicles? Anywhere I can make a custom model? Cause I remember my cousin said he just used MS paint for all his stuff but I'd like to see something like that cause I don't think I'd be able to use MS paint to make a detailed vehicle.
[/quote]
As far as I know, there isn't. Some people like Uberstien and Il Terra Di Agea use Sketchup to make vehicles designs, but they can only do that because it's a damn hard program to master and they're really good at it.

[iKrolm]

[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]

But to look only around the Spratly Islands, you'd have to know the cables were there in the first place.



[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]

Also, all (properly-built) underwater cables are buried. Without an extensive search, which wasn't RP'd, I don't think one could know they were there without metagaming.

[HHAYD]

Is it possible to use a 1890kg 11,000hp Europrop TP400 aircraft engine (without the propellers and covering) inside a tank that has a similar size to a M1 Abram? Or would the tank be too large or unsuitable to cram the engine in?

[Zoot Zoot]

Just throw a jet engine inside your tanks mate.
Abrams and Challengers twos both have jet engines

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1280427093' post='2394140']
Just throw a jet engine inside your tanks mate.
Abrams and Challengers twos both have jet engines
[/quote]
Abrams use the Honeywell AGT1500C engines, which have a max of 1,500 hp. Besides, the engine that I asked if I could use is a modified version of a gas turbine that puts all of its power into the shaft which spins the propellers.

EDIT: On a a second thought, I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-12

14999.3496 horsepower

1,155kg

Edited July 29, 2010 by HHAYD

[Zoot Zoot]

Those are the engines for russian strategic bombers HHAYD.. how big is your bloody tank?

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1280430641' post='2394222']
Those are the engines for russian strategic bombers HHAYD.. how big is your bloody tank?
[/quote]
Never mind about them, I don't think they would fit inside a tank that is similar size of a M1 Abrams tank. Though I am not sure about the TP400 engine. I think it would fit based on photos of it with the people to compare its size to in the background.

Edited July 29, 2010 by HHAYD

[Zoot Zoot]

HHAYD, why dont you just real RL tanks instead of crazy tech?

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1280433219' post='2394275']
HHAYD, why dont you just real RL tanks instead of crazy tech?
[/quote]
You tell that to other RPers who are not using RL vehicles or even weapons. I am trying to build a tank that is better than other RL tanks yet meets the laws of physics and has at most a 2020 technology. The Challenger 2 tanks were designed in the 1998s and M1 Abrams back in 1980s, armor, defensive, and engine technology had changed by now.

Edited July 29, 2010 by HHAYD

[Sargun II]

I already have tanks better than RL tanks yet meet the laws of physics. It took about five minutes of wikipedia to do. The 2020 cap is a damn good thing.

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280434972' post='2394301']
You tell that to other RPers who are not using RL vehicles or even weapons. I am trying to build a tank that is better than other RL tanks yet meets the laws of physics and has at most a 2020 technology. The Challenger 2 tanks were designed in the 1998s and M1 Abrams back in 1980s, armor, defensive, and engine technology had changed by now.
[/quote]
And yet the U.S. Army is still fielding the Abrams...imagine that. Also, according to Wikipedia, there have been NO, I repeat, NO M1 Abrams tanks lost in any current wars. The only Abrams destroyed have been by friendly forces, and I quote,

[quote]Further combat was seen during 2003 when US forces invaded Iraq and deposed the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. As of March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks were forced out of action by enemy attacks. Nevertheless, the campaign saw very similar performance from the tank with no Abrams crew member being lost to hostile fire during the invasion of Iraq, although several tank crew members were later killed by roadside bombs during the occupation that followed.

Several Abrams (irrecoverable due to loss of mobility or other circumstances) were destroyed by friendly forces to prevent their capture, usually by other Abrams, who often found them very difficult to destroy despite their firepower.[/quote]

If that isn't an argument to use Abrams tanks in RP, then I don't know what is.

[Uberstein]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1280357684' post='2393070']
As far as I know, there isn't. Some people like Uberstien and Il Terra Di Agea use Sketchup to make vehicles designs, but they can only do that because it's a damn hard program to master and they're really good at it.
[/quote]
I'm always open for free commisions, though only with tanks and I require full details before I try to design it and no deadline besides "a few months at most."

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1280436168' post='2394321']
And yet the U.S. Army is still fielding the Abrams...imagine that. Also, according to Wikipedia, there have been NO, I repeat, NO M1 Abrams tanks lost in any current wars. The only Abrams destroyed have been by friendly forces, and I quote,
[/quote]
In CNRP, when you are going up against other M1 Abrams, even more advanced tanks, missile spammers, or fighting in urban combat against enemies that have AT weapons that can make mincemeat of the M1 Abrams from above, below, side, or rear, there will be losses. None of the M1 Abrams in RL were killed by hostiles because they used RPGs which was basically shooting someone with an airsoft gun and inferior T-72s that were never designed to withstand KE shells and were getting hit outside of their effective firing range by the M1 Abrams. Plus, there were even reports of T-72s getting hit by KE shells that punched through another T-72, buildings, sandbags, or etc.

Edited July 29, 2010 by HHAYD

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280436803' post='2394335']
In CNRP, when you are going up against other M1 Abrams, even more advanced tanks, missile spammers, or fighting in urban combat against enemies that have AT weapons that can make mincemeat of the M1 Abrams from above, below, side, or rear, there will be losses. None of the M1 Abrams in RL were killed by hostiles because they used RPGs which was basically shooting someone with an airsoft gun and inferior T-72s that were never designed to withstand KE shells and were getting hit outside of their effective firing range by the M1 Abrams. Plus, there were even reports of T-72s getting hit by KE shells that punched through another T-72, buildings, sandbags, and etc.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but did you even read the second part of that quote? It had trouble destroying another downed Abrams. That alone says that it's still a damn good tank.

EDIT: I haven't seen anybody RP urban combat for a long, long time.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Markus Wilding

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1280437022' post='2394341']
I'm sorry, but did you even read the second part of that quote? It had trouble destroying another downed Abrams. That alone says that it's still a damn good tank.

EDIT: I haven't seen anybody RP urban combat for a long, long time.
[/quote]
I wanted tanks that can out-run the M1 Abrams, fairly light (around 40 tons), aren't freaking fuel guzzlers (Abrams have .33 mpg compared to Challenger 2s' 2 mpg, not impressive), and aren't a pain on lean military forces that don't have massive logistic capabilities since the Abrams tanks demand heavy specialized tools instead of commercially available tools, and of course, lots of fuel, which means more fuel trucks and depots to blow up.

Yes, I am RPing logistics. I know that the M1 Abrams are good, but they are fighting with one foot cemented in a bucket given the amount of logistics they need.

Edited July 29, 2010 by HHAYD

[Pikachurin]

Question: am I allowed to create a robot identical to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO"]ASIMO[/url] at my current tech level?

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Pikachurin' timestamp='1280454658' post='2394654']
Question: am I allowed to create a robot identical to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO"]ASIMO[/url] at my current tech level?
[/quote]
Yes, at your tech level you can RP a tech level between 2010 and 2020. What do you plan on using the ASIMO-like robot for?

[Pikachurin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280455095' post='2394656']
Yes, at your tech level you can RP a tech level between 2010 and 2020. What do you plan on using the ASIMO-like robot for?
[/quote]
Nothing really, if you look at it from a national development point of view. I just want my Ministry of Science and Technology to make a smexy robot that can do things similar to ASIMO.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1280438178' post='2394361']
I wanted tanks that can out-run the M1 Abrams, fairly light (around 40 tons), aren't freaking fuel guzzlers (Abrams have .33 mpg compared to Challenger 2s' 2 mpg, not impressive), and aren't a pain on lean military forces that don't have massive logistic capabilities since the Abrams tanks demand heavy specialized tools instead of commercially available tools, and of course, lots of fuel, which means more fuel trucks and depots to blow up.

Yes, I am RPing logistics. I know that the M1 Abrams are good, but they are fighting with one foot cemented in a bucket given the amount of logistics they need.
[/quote]

MBTs are heavy gas guzzlers because of their armor and munitions. Tanks already get the best in engine technology, turbojet diesels. The power and torque required for a tank is different from that required by an aircraft, different type of power is required. Want to consider better engines for tanks? look for the best truck engines and modify them to have an insane starting torque, ability to sprint.

Now if you want a lean military force, you would have to compromise on your heavy stuff. It is after all unreasonable to have a Jessica Alba body when you are carrying more guns than Arnold Schwarzenegger in Commando.

Of course you can have light tanks, with efficient engines, fast, efficient fuel consumers, but you would have to design them to have correspondingly lesser weight.

I dont think there is any existing or currently hypothesized engine design which is capable of powering a 65ton vehicle to sprint at 60kmph and have decent fuel efficiency.