Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Lord_James

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    576
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Lord_James

  1. by the SAA, against the SAA, or in general?
  2. I didn’t mean for it to be a joke... sorry if I was offensive.
  3. Did they run out of BMP and MT-LB chassis’ to slap those turrets on?
  4. I would think it's similar to the Achzarit's transmission, considering they both have a rear transmission and door: On a separate note: what kind of (preferably free) drawing software could I get, or what do you guys use, for making some of these designs? Or would my Mk.1 Hand and Mk.2 Ruler suffice, and I could just scan it into my computer?
  5. Anyone want to have a raffle on the next questionably responsible country to develope nuclear weapons? My vote is for either Venezuela or Egypt.
  6. Just another nail in the "Russia-Trump" conspiracy coffin. Eventually it will die... eventually.
  7. What kind of rifle is that? Or is it a homemade sniper/AT rifle?
  8. I was more referring to how they tried to seed clouds in a very arid environment, where there was basically no moisture to make clouds! Also the size of the rockets were between the size of someone’s forearm to the size of their leg, so the amount of particles placed probably wouldn’t have cause any meaningful changes in rain (or lack there of). Either way, I doubt the Saudi farmers would know that, so this could be somewhat lucrative, so long as no one tells the local sheikh or cleric
  9. Hehehehehe, I like this thread. Reminds me of, back in the “Dust Bowl”, when salesman came around promising to make it rain. They’d talk about how in WWI it often rained after a heavy battle because of all the dust and dirt kicked up from explosions. They would have a rocket with them and proclaim that, “for a small fee”, they could launch the rocket and give the atmosphere some dust to make clouds with... needless to say, it was a total sham, and never worked, but people still bought into it. Edit: you think the same thing could work in Saudi? They are having a water problem...
  10. ... cheap? Or maybe they take pride in their garbage? I guess the argument could be made that the average layman wouldn’t be able to tell it’s a bad idea...
  11. quick question: How many M1 Abrams were irrecoverably lost in operation desert storm/shield?
  12. Oh, forgot about that thread, I took it more of as a joke/shitpost thread. Though the T-64 post is still WiP... I was thinking of doing something similar for the warthunder forums, as they’re moving into modern territory. Could educate some people at least, since Gaijin seems to have boarded the “quantity” and “screw sources” trains. But let’s drop that topic.
  13. Might as well make a new bloody vehicle with all those changes. Maybe something like a 105mm armed VBCI or the Vextra 105? Or maybe just build a totally new vehicle from the ground up specifically for urban/sub-urban combat. Could probably give it MRAP capabilities stock and not have to worry about a damn 2 ton upgrade package... Thinking about it, the newest Centauro sounds like a pretty good fit, just add some extra boxes to the hull sides/turret bustle and you’re pretty close to those requirements.
  14. Geez this was a long thread to read through, though interesting none the less. 3 things: 1. Relating to the BMPT argument: weren’t there fuel tanks in the hull sides next to the driver? Wouldn’t the extra AGL gunners necessitate the removal of those fuel tank, reducing the range of the vehicle (as there’s no where else you can put the fuel tanks)? 2. Also relating to the BMPT: why not just slave the AGL or MG to the commander’s sight like on the newest T-90M and T-14? Now the commander has a weapon to fight with, which is an advantage in urban combat (multiple weapon systems firing in multiple directions). 2.5 Since urban combat requires different weapons firing in many directions, wouldn’t something like a T-28/T-35 be somewhat effective for urban combat? I mean, don’t use those tanks specifically, but the concept is somewhat sound... right? 3. What ever happened with that T-series identification guide @LoooSeR? I didn’t see it anywhere on the forum, unless I missed it (which is a real possibility). If you forgot about it, I could help make it: 2 of my classes end this week so I will have some more free time, and I will be finished on May 3rd, which will totally free up my schedule until summer courses start (May 18th I believe).
  15. I heard through a grapevine that several Russians were killed in the recent Tomahawk strikes... I pray these aren't true.
  16. I have found my spirit animal, now all I need is for this picture to be small enough to fit in my signature
  17. Here you go, I took the transverse engine idea and moved the ammo to the rear (with a blow out panel and armored door) as well as replaced the front ammo rack with a fuel tank to make up for the displaced fuel. I call it the "Leopard 2S" (S for safe). Edit: could also add an inert gas replacement system to the fuel tanks to help reduce fuel fires (I saw some concern about that in the "Western Tank Rumble" thread).
  18. The BMT-72 is the only one with roof hatches only, the BTMP-84 has a rear hatch like the Achzarit: http://www.military-today.com/tanks/btmp_84_images.htm Though it could be semi useful for pier vs. pier wars as you can carry infantry within the heavy armor of the MBT and have those infantry right there instead of having a less armored (and typically slower) APC/IFV following. Idk, I might be trying to justify others ignorance/idiocy again. On a side note: how do you post something directly from your computer? I have a (mediocre) paint drawing of a change to the Leo 2 but I don't know how to post it What am I missing?
  19. Oh, (from what I understand) like the T92, Ob'yekt 490A Buntar, and Stryker M1128. My thoughts were to maximize RoF, as the cleft turret has to reset the gun to reload, though if it means this fantasy tank can have the Buntar's awesome looking turret, I'm all in. I didn't know what else to call it, other than a "fuel tank rack". On a separate note; troop carrying MBTs: BTMP-84 BMT-72 Made by those krazy Kharkovites. Discuss.
  20. Couldn’t you (theoretically) place that extra ammo in a wet rack? I mean, if fuel could become an issue, why not just add that extra capacity by placing a fuel tank around the ammo? I’m not saying remove the blow out panels, but integrate the wet storage into the safe storage.
  21. The problem I see with that loader is the shells are stored in reverse, which would require another assembly to flip the shell over, which would reduce the load time. Though, the gears in my head are spinning, and I wonder if something like a hybrid of that Meggitt loader (turned so the shells face forward) and an oscillating turret could happen; would have a great RoF while still retaining the 34 round rack [see AMX-50 Surbaisse autoloader]. PS. I also adhere to the design philosophy of the front mounted engine and rear crew compartment, which (managed properly) can provide additional crew survivability, IMO the most important part of a tank.
  22. Why not have a bustle loader like the Leclerc or T-84 Yatagan? Would allow for a roof mounted turret and a long bustle over the crew capsule. Also, first post from a ~2 month lurker. Hey Xoon, Alzoc, Ramlaen and Zuk
×
×
  • Create New...