ApplesauceBandit

At least when I went around shopping a month or so ago, there seemed to be plenty of .22lr around at $5 for 50, and I'm sure I could get a .22 rifle of some sort from my uncle. I know he has a Marlin 60 with a longer barrel and short tube underneath, as well as probably a few other different ones kept at a friend's place. Those guns come from my grandfathers collection, same as the pump .22. The only places without .22 ammo were the two Walmarts I went to, but all the gun shops and pawn shops had plenty. One pawn shop had these giant bulk boxes full of the 50 round packs, so I grabbed a few from there. I'll be a bit busy the next couple days, so I won't have time today to look too deeply into those Glocks. I've shot a couple of them in the past and thought they were fine guns, though I also haven't been around all too many guns either. My issue with a Glock 19 is I don't think I could use a wallet holster on it in my pocket like a MDE, which is what I'd need to do. A lot of the time, keeping something at my waist wouldn't be a good option, and a pea shooter shaped like a wallet is a lot easier to not notice. Something like this is what I have in mind, including buying it from a site that uses the joker font in their banner. http://www.pocketholsters.com/Desert_Eagle_Micro_Pocket_Hols/desert_eagle_micro_pocket_holster.html The friend I've been talking to about the MDE happens to have one as well that he uses as a carry gun all the time, so I asked him to clarify on how it felt to shoot. To quote him, "I wouldn't call it a chore, but it isn't super pleasant either. But it is a tiny tiny gun, and it is far more comfy than other 380s". He's a big fan of the thing, and often calls it "the only 380 pocket gun that is actually meant to be shot". While he's too far away for me to actually visit and try the thing, he's the sort of guy that believes very strongly in the "buy something once that you can use for the rest of your life" belief, applying that even down to the pen he uses. The review I linked in my previous post has the guy liking the trigger after having put some shots through it. Those 500 shots in a row were dirty lead hand loads too, and it went another 500 without any hiccups then either. A guy in the comments from the review I linked say it's actually got a rather good trigger for a DOA, and the majority of other people in the comments have some pretty high praise for it most of the time as well. http://www.dayattherange.com/?p=1230 To repost a comment from the review I linked: Thanks for the feedback though. Should have time Thursday or Friday to look more into it.

I just finally finished binge reading this entire thread, all 292 pages of it. While that pump .22 I posted a few days back is in the family, I've not really got any gun to call my own. I figured I would start either with some affordable semi auto surplus rifle (probably an SKS), or a handgun I could use for conceal carry. Going off of the TFB post about what you should look for in buying a gun, the handgun would probably be more useful for me. Looking around and from talking with a friend, I think that handgun would be a micro desert eagle. For a .380 pocket pistol the thing comes across to me as being quite sturdy, and thanks to the all metal construction and .380 round, not as much of a pain to shoot as a lighter platform probably would be. I don't intend on carrying anything too big and bulky around considering my usual clothing of choice, which is another reason I went for .380. the MDE doesn't really have any obnoxious safeties or point outy things that would get it stuck on much either if I got in a hurry. While I do intend to be able to have it around for self defense on occasion, being able to shoot it for fun is also an important piece for me. I don't want some Kel-tec popgun that will explode on me after 500 rounds, or anything like whatever that awful pocket 9mm I shot a while back was that I hated after the first shot. To expand on it being sturdy, while I generally don't have an issue with polymer being used in guns, when your gun is smaller than the glorious Pilot G2 pen, I begin to question if they'll have enough room for the plastic to really make it sturdy enough. I found a review online a while back where a guy put 500 rounds through the thing at once without anything in between and didn't have a single hiccup. http://www.dayattherange.com/?p=1230 Bonus points given for it looking like the pistol from Halo, as well as having a really snazzy looking wooden grip available. While I don't know how soon I'd be able to get this, I'd like to hear what some of the more knowledgeable people here might have to say about it.

I could be wrong here, but I think I found what might be the turret from that AMX 13 with a 105mm howitzer in a turret I posted a few pages back. Picture is at Saumur museum, the turret in question being in the upper right.

I've always liked these little Finnish vismod deals

I should be in bed by now since I'm pretty busy tomorrow, but here we go. I lowered the camera a couple inches, as well as slimmed off some useless space at the front of the turret to block the camera less when looking down. First one is the new turret design in front of the old. The green bar with blue scribbles it the 9ft limit.

Poop. I forgot to doublecheck the height, but it's exactly 1" too tall for a C-130 if you're keeping the panoramic camera. Too late for me to change my submission now, but I don't think it's too unreasonable to think I could make that specific area an inch lower, especially since there's not really much under there in the turret. You could always have some special sight for air transit or take it off or something too. The 95" height was from the tracks to the top of that bump on the turret.

To be fair, I did have someone on my team start the battle by shooting me. Running my M60 would probably be better, since that's both a good tear farming tank and people know where you get it. I also just today got the late turret KV-2 in WT today. Is it supposed to have a thinner turret roof and mantlet than the early turret? IIRC the late one is supposed to weigh less, but gaijin has them the same weight. From a quick search, I've not been able to find any good English sources on the KV-2, but I also know not to expect accuracy from gaijin.

Is it really racketeering when, at least from my understanding, those countries being told to spend more are in fact not spending at the levels promised? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that to me stood out as intentionally misleading.

Try connecting to CT2. I don't know if it was Auto or CT1 that was hanging up on me, but I'm on. Server population was too low for reasonable queue times, but I did get three battles in. I used a difference copy/paste for each one. LGBT, Hillary anal, then the American Punisher. Each one had better results than the last, though the LGBT I don't think had any replies. 2nd game 3rd game

I was able to get on during one of the first few days, but haven't done anything besides look at the new models and UI. Perhaps later tonight I'll try. Also, it's good I decided to check this thread, since I'm not following it and we could have had 9.15 live by the next time I checked,

I'm linking the actual video that's from, since it's about 50 times better than the gif that showed up on imgur

LCARV (Light Combat Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle) Final submission Specifications --------------------------------- General • 2 crew (driver, commander/gunner) • Target designation system to help fill role of gunner • Aluminum alloy armor supplemented with composite armor and conventional steel Mobility • Approx. 20 tons combat loaded (without armor packages) • 600 bhp diesel or 660 bhp diesel • 0.45m ground clearance • 0.45 kg/cm2 ground pressure, zero penetration • 4.4 cm2 total ground contact area Protection (without armor package) • STANAG IV protection from sides and rear • STANAG VI protection frontally • Hull floor and crew seats optimized for protection against mines and IEDs • Bulkheads, fuel, and engine provide additional protection to crew. • Turret design fully protects crew while hull down Firepower • 60mm smoothbore autocannon • 1 coaxial MG • -9°/+30° gun elevation • 99 cannon rounds on board. 75 in automated carousel system, 24 ready • Programmable (single or 3 round burst, 230 maximum burst RPM, shot placement, ammo) • HE with airburst capability, APFSDS Minimum size (tracks on) • 2.4m height, 6.2m length, 3m width Size with armor package, fenders, and cameras • 2.8m height, 6.4m length, 3.3m width • Armor package not available for air transit Other systems • 8 smoke dischargers mounted on turret • Modular panoramic camera system for commander • Target designation and tracking abilities, greatly decreasing workload of commander during gunnery • Automatic fire suppression systems • Mounting area over barrel for a variety of equipment Designed by Little Caesar's Enterprises, Inc. the LCARV is a novel design for rapidly delivering formidable firepower wherever it's needed. Mobility: With its small size and weighing just under 20 tons, the LCARV is able to be deployed from an AC-130 in a combat ready state. Its relatively low weight and ground pressure allow superb mobility over unfavorable terrain, and its powerful engine provides it with greater speed than most other tracked vehicles. In many ways, this LCARV is a spiritual successor of the RDF/LT, taking advantages of the latest improvements in technology and the changing face of war. The LCARV shares many parts with the M3 Bradely IFV, most notably the tracks, wheels, and various automotive components. Protection: In order to keep the weight low enough for air transport, armor-grade aluminum was chosen for protection, supplemented in vital areas with highly effective composite armors. In certain areas, conventional steel armor was used as well. The frontal placement of the engine, transmission, and fuel also improve the crew's visibility with little to no increase in weight. Beyond creating more material to protect the crew, land mines and IEDs are also more likely to direct most of the blow in the unoccupied portion of the vehicle. The low profile turret, reminiscent of prior projects, allows the LCARV to fire from a hull-down position while keeping the screw fully concealed. The ribbed armor on the front hull acts very similarly to the legendary S Tank, but with an even better 83° slope to counter more modern ammunition. Various packages are available, utilizing NERA, composites, ceramics, and modern APS systems. The goal of these is to greatly improve protection against various autocannons, ATGMs, and conventional shaped charge warheads for higher intensity conflicts. (Frontal coverage of armor pack shown) Firepower: The main gun is a modified version of the 60mm HMVS by Oto Melera. The gun is dual feed, allowing the commander to select between firing APFSDS or HE. The autoloading system pulls the ammunition from the automated carousel at the floor of the turret basket, up into the feeding system to be ready to fire. The main gun ammunition uses combustible cartridges, with experiments currently taking place with telescoping ammunition as well. The current projectiles are identical to what is used in the Italian HMVS. A machine gun is mounted coaxially to the main gun. The 60mm round was chosen for its versatility. Not only is it able to defeat certain older MBTs frontally in some situations, it is also able to effectively use programmable fuzes that would not be possible with smaller calibers. The 60mm HVMS from Israel and Italy also provide us with a more tried and tested design. Miscellaneous: A modular panoramic sight for the commander is located at the highest point on the vehicle, removing any potential blindspots. The LCARV uses target tracking and designation system similar to what may be found on other modern AFVs, allowing the commander to be much more efficient. After a target is designated, the systems is able to track up to four targets at once, firing on them automatically when ready. Additionally, doors at the rear of the vehicle serve both as emergency exits for the crew, and to dramatically ease the process of reloading the carousel. The turret is slightly sunken into the hull of the vehicle, decreasing the chances of a stray round or fragment jamming the turret. The turret ring diameter is shared with the M551 Sheridan as well. In terms of function, the LCARV outperforms the Bradley in mobility, protection, and firepower in exchange for its ability to carry troops. The superb mobility and small profile make the LCARV ideal for scouting roles. With armor packages, the LCARV is able to fill a more direct combat role. Very few vehicles on the battle field outside of an MBT would be able to beat it in firepower and make its protection irrelevant, while still performing recon roles as well the next day. In short, you would be hard-pressed to find a more versatile combat vehicle. Some numbers: Just like my tank crush, the HSTV-L, the thing I made is 95" in height Absolute height (tracks to panoramic sight) is 109" Length (end of tracks on either side) is 244" Length (end of rear tow to front applique) 254" Width (hull edge to edge) is 81" Width (armor skirts) is 126" Width (outer track edges) is 119" Width (track center-center) is 102" Track contact length: 164" Track width is 21" Total contact area: 6888"sq Track ratio wizardry: 1.61 15mm front "roof", 44mm UFP, 51mm "turret guard," and 63mm LFP in RHA provide ~110mm RHAe. 63mm turret face also provides that. Sides and rear at 38mm RHAe I think should stop 14.5mm API. With some of the new fancy 7xxx series alloys that have been showing up, I think that's possible under 20 tons. Unofficial side notes: Edit for hull down picture and armor coverage picture, forgot to mention steel. Typos, format issues, and incorrect numbers were corrected. Edit 2:o fuk I only had a drive wheel on one side. Thankfully, that's only visible in two of those pictures, one where it's a meaningful mistake. Too lazy to remake the multiview, but the first render is fixed. Typo in side notes corrected

thanks bronze from making it not be a double post for me, but I'm doing some number crunching right now to figure out the weight. I might not be done within the hour since I've got some other writing too, but writing is pretty much all that's left (and it ain't fancy) Had to leave for a bit to deal with someone, then backed out of (and lost) my post. I've got all the info I need, so I just have to type it again

Further evidence of the HSTV-L being best tank of all time

I'm really bad at alloys and such, but would anyone know off the top of their head how your average modern aluminum armor alloy would compare to RHA, specifically in terms of thickness? My impression is they're fairly close, with the main difference here being aluminum is a fair bit less dense. I'm guessing density is roughly 2.6-2.8 g/cm3, compared to 7.84 g/cm3 for RHA steel. Googling this all right now, but I said earlier, I'm bad@alloys I figure if the thickest armor on the hull is going to be ~50mm RHAe, aluminum should work. But yeah, while I still need to calculate the weight, this will be able to fit into a C-130 if you take off the tracks. Otherwise, it's both too tall and too wide (if you include the panoramic sight). I have no idea how I did this so perfect.

I better shuffalo the buffalo If I don't make a new post, I'll edit this one into the real deal. This will be more a place for me to horde the pieces of the final submission. Where my submission lacks in technical details, it makes up for it in eye candy. This design actually ended up being a lot smaller than originally planned, now that I'm measuring it compared to the people inside. In fact, I'd call it tiny. I might be able to fit the sucker in a plane, but I've have to check the weight and numbers. I'm getting this down here because I'm really tired and you can't stop me ~~~~~~werdz~~~~~~~~~ THIS IS NOT THE FINAL THING. Just like my bae HSTV-L, the thing I made is 95" in height Absolute height (tracks to panoramic sight) is 109" Length (end of tracks on either side) is 244" Length (end of rear tow to front applique) 254" Width (hull edge to edge) is 81" Width (armor skirts) is 129" Width (outer track edges) is 121.5" Width (track center-center) is 104" Track contact length is 164" Track width is 17.5" Total contact area is 5740"sq Track ratio wizardry is 1.57 Has 99 CANNON BULLETS 75 rounds in automated carousel system, 24 ready rounds Has MG ammo somewhere in there, I know it's got to be able to squeeze in somehow Gun is 60mm, 3 round burst Gun is feed by 2 separate belts Ability to equip APS, ERA, and other fancy things Can keep track of several designated targets at once and fire at them to ease workload on commander I accidentally made this too small, but I'm wanting at least STANAG IV protection from sides and rear, STANAG VI at the front. Dunno if I'll still get that now. Other stuff tomorrow

I suppose I could, but I've not exactly built this using real world measurements either. If I have the motivation and time, I'll do it. Trying to figure out the specifics on the internal layout and going from there. I know close to nothing about the automotive side of tanks, so I'll not bother picking a layout for there. Blocked out space inside to figure out ammo stowage and make sure there was room for things. Holds 99 rounds of ammo, with 75 rounds in a fancy carousel and 24 ready rounds. I guess it'll do a 3 round burst since I went for multiples of 3 and the ammo in the carousel is grouped in lines of 3. There's plenty of empty room behind the turret I'll need to decide what to do with.

3ds Max isn't very nice for telling you how much something will weigh and all that jazz, so I'm probably just going submit eye candy with backstory tacked on. That was pretty much my original goal anyway, but with less effort in mind on the eye candy part. Some parts still need to be worked on, but I'm fiddling with an extra armor variant as as well. Edit shows current head-on coverage I also added fenders/stowage space, rearranged wheel positions AGAIN, added a cap for filling up for fuel and other engine goodies, rear doors (subject to change), and a bunch of little tweaks here and there.

I should start cramming to finish mine

Yeah, pushing it back would be nice since I've been busy and I joined late. Haven't been able to work much these past few days. Settled on my idler wheel, working on the commander's main sights. I don't know if mine really counts as an entry either since I've not made an effort yet to use existing parts and I've not paid much attention to the guidelines.

Based on a true story:

I probably won't have actual time to work on my thing until Monday, but it keeps turning into a more and more serious submission in my mind. It's also turned more unto a heavy recon thing that doubles as mobile firepower. Currently trying to decide between a 2 man crew or 3 man. With those fancy new target tracking systems and autoloaders, the tank can occupy the role of the loader and half the role of the gunner. 2 crew means more ammo stowage and smaller size. 3 man crew takes up more space, but it's another guy inside to do things. I don't currently have an area set aside for number 3. Gun is likely a 60mm autocannon, with a coaxial MG for more dakka. Turret is weird. It's unmanned, but the gun stuff is partitioned off from the crew for NBC protection. Commander is positioned under that bump on the MG side of the turret. Road wheels and idler wheel are taken from existing designs. Protection without armor upgrades is supposed to be 30mm APDS on the frontal arc and 14.5mm from all other sides. I made the hull floor shape a bit better for mines. I guess that's another way to put it, ans it probably works better than my anology. Tomorrow I'll try to grab an example of the monstrosities I was talking about in 3ds max.I will say there's a reason why I've dealt so little with AutoCAD (I don't like it). It's free for me since I'm a student, and I've had to use it in a couple courses. Beyond that, I avoid it.

Seeing the screencap reminded me of the little I've worked on AutoCAD and I'm thinking it's an issue with 3ds max. With how 3ds max deals with the topography of objects, it spits out a whole bunch of extra and nasty junk if you chamfer much on an already complex shape. Other tools that would be important are rather fickle and also spit out a bunch extra junk that makes life tough. While 3ds max uses vertices and polies and all that, AutoCad and SolidWorks look like they operate more on fancy lines. While you can technically work with just lines in 3ds max, it's like using Microsoft Word for spreadsheets instead of excel. I'm too lazy to look for plugins and would rather learn solidworks.

I should probably do it in 6 segments like you said. I generally go about making drive wheels like that. I suppose what my issue here is that it's a pain in the ass in 3ds max to get those rounded edges on the spokes to both look good and have a topography that doesn't give me cancer. I'm fine for now with how it came out, and I only got a little cancer, but those complex curve in all 3 dimensions at once it what gets me. Image below is what I shat out and how it's made. What I always think of when I think of this sort of evil is the american MG tumor things. There was one like this I tried to make, except the part where the MG mantlet goes on is part of the same casting. Getting that extrusion there, the bumps for vision blocks, and the hatch all done without turning the mesh into a clusterfuck still eludes me. I probably want some fancy plugin for it, since the boolean tools in max are really annoying to use on complex shapes.

General question to other people making 3D models: Is making a complex curved surface like this wheel a massive pain in the ass in the programs you use too? Stuff like this and the fat patton cupolas are good examples.