ApplesauceBandit

I don't think I ever posted my especially shiny B76 in here.  I also managed to get quite the rare catch recently as well (which is very similar to another recent acquisition).
 
Had a lot of overcast skies lately, so have been able to snag less shitty pics.
 



 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 

I haven't been posting many of my odd acquisitions here lately



 

Few photos (from my phone so pardon for the quality). I will add some more later. 
 
Artilery casemate R-S-79 of Hanička fortress (north-east Czechia). It shall have been armed with three 100 mm rapid firing howitzers which were never installed (plus several MGs and granade tubes). This type of objects was the largest in the whole fortification system. It is made of 5600 tons of reinforced concrete and the walls and roof are up to 3,5 meters thick (same for all object of artilery fortresses). By the late 1938 neiter Wehrmacht nor Luftwaffe had any weapon capable of guaranteed penetration. You can see damage caused by German tests. They achieved some penetrations only when firing salvos point blank from the rearward side. Hanička fortres was used for development of special Röchling bunker-penetrating shells and hand-held cumulative bombs. I am not able to recognize damage potentially caused by them. For sure one Röchling shell is displayed (badly corroded) in the fortress. 

 
Infantry casemate R-S-78 of fortress Hanička. It was one of the object used to defend the main artilery object. Its main armament was a cupola armed with heavy twin MG (plus several other MGs and grenade tubes). Unfortunately what You see is only an observation cupola (light MG could have been fired from it) not the heavy MG one. As You can see all weapons were installed behind a deep moat with grenade tubes and covered by a thick roof from the top. Generally the heavy Czechoslovak fortresses were similar to the French ones but as I don't know those very well I can't tell you how exactly they differed. In the war the object would have a camouflage coloring and net. 
 
 
Stand-alone infantry casemate R-S-87 covering a road over a mountain ridge. It's main armament is a 90 mm mortar installed in the moat. Also 47 mm anti-tank gun and two twin heavy MGs and several light MGs. Its walls are up to 1,75 meters thick and it's therefore one of the less resistant heavy objects however it is placed in difficult terrain. The bunker is private and the chimney is of course not original. 

 
Here would be the mortar.

 
Twin heavy MG and a light MG on the left side of it. The firing posts are not original as those were removed probably for Atlantic Wall. 

 
Famous hedgehog and behind it you can see the anti-tank gun in a spherical armoured post.  

 
47 mm AT gun.

 
Stand-alone heavy infantry casemate R-S-81 after German tests (with armored firing posts taken to Atlantic Wall I believe). This object was built in the same resistance class as the one upon. Since it is one of the lightests heavy objetcs the results of the artilery tests on the normally inaccessible walls are not very impressive. 

 
An exampe of anti-infantry obstacles with a light object vz.37 in the background (this time from the southern border with Austria). Where armor attack was expcected the obstacles were made of mixture of concrete moats and steel or older concrete hedgehogs. The firing lines were of course free of trees which was advantage and disadvantage in the same time. Large majority of Czech border areas is hills, mountains and forests. That made it much more difficult for attackers but on the other hand the free of trees firing lines were clearly visible from the air.  

 
This is how the pillbox looks from the side of the enemy. Even these light pillboxes had walls up to 80 cm (120 cm for less common but still widely used reinforced variant). Together with stones and earth on the front side they are claimed to be capable to withstand 88 mm Flak fire (per German tests) or 105 mm howitzer hits (150 mm for the reinforced variant). The crew of max. seven men (depending on the type) had light MGs, grenade tubes and personal weapons. 

 
Detail of the firing post for the vz.26 light MG (sometimes also old heavy MG vz.24 was used I think - the MG vz.24 was rechambered Schwarzlose for 8 mm Mauser ammo). You can see how the firing post is covered by the  shielding wall from the fire coming from the enemy. These pillboxes covered basically all enemy borders (except extremely difficult terrain where only field fortifications weere used) and usually in several lines. Nearly 10000 of them were finished. Unlike in France there was nowhere to pass around. At the end of the war there was a skirmish between Wehrmacht and US army where German soldiers tried to use these pillboxes. They could however use them basically only as a shelter because at that time the fans were removed and when someone fired from inside the pillbox was immediately full of exhaust gasses. 

 
Pillbox vz.37 from the rear (friendly) side. The biggest problem of these bunkers was absence of any anti-tank weapons but by the time of Münich no fielded German tank had more than 14,5 armour and even the MGs could be dangerous for them since the gaps between the bunkers were usually short. Of course AT guns could and would be used in field positions to support the lines of bunkers. Another issue was with the ammo. It was simply not possible to store much ammo inside therefore the bunkers needed ammo supplies (unlike large fortresses with underground warehouses and even own water wells). 

 
Part of the pillboxes on the iron curtain were in use by the army till 1990' and are therefore in good condition. They have however often different firing posts (for UK vz.59) and often more stone and earth cover (officially to prevent overturning them by nuclear explosion). Normally the pillbox has some 2 meters of concrete undeground. 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Hello guys,
I think that possibly some of you might be interested in our interwar Czechoslovak stuff. For starter I've decided to share with you a wonderful online document about our fortification system. At the very beginning I'd like to say that I have nothing common with its creators. It's just an incredible gem that deserves to be shared with you. If you know it, sorry for that, nevertheless I think most of you don't. Since I am new here I will not waste your time debating what if scenarios. Don't worry.  
 
Well, enough of talking. What I want to share with you is a massive interactive map of our fortification system containing nearly 11 thousand objects with information about every single one of them. You can switch on even such crazy details like cable networks or construction facilities used for building of the fortifications. The map is directly linked with an online database of the fortification buildings where more than 2000 objects are listed with detailed description (plans, 3D models, photos, weapons, crew, important dates, recent state etc.). Unfortunately this database is only in Czech language but it can be a great source of information for you anyway (especially when linked with the map). The good thing is that the map alone supports other languages and you can easily switch them.  
 
This is the base view where I have already switched on all objects. You can change background map type, information etc. on the left side and visualise everything what You want to see on the right side. 
 
Let's zoom in a little bit. Here You can see one of the strongest fortified places - a valey at Králíky in north-east Czechia. As you can see the object marks have different shapes, colours etc. The shape is matching the menu on the right side. Triangles are concrete pillboxes vz. (mark) 36. Small circles are pillboxes vz. 37. The letter inside means type of the object (with one firing post, two on each side, angled one etc.). The color can be decoded from the information table in the bottom right corner. Basically it shows whether the object was actually built, if it was later destroyed or the works were only started or even not so. The heavy objects are the large circles. The numbers have also a meaning. It's a resistance class (1 -> 2 -> I -> IV from the lowest to the most resistant). 

 
You can switch on also the ground plans of the artilery groups (fortresses with underground network between the casemates). You can see it here (fortress Hůrka). 

 
You can also switch on the firing lines. Here You can see heavy artilery coverage of the most fortified section of the line (the sad thing is that no heavy artilery pieces were installed by the time of Münich crisis - but lets leave such details aside for now). 

 
You can switch on the firing lines even for the pillboxes as you can see here on the example from the souther border. Nearly all Czechoslovak objects were built for side fire having superheavy resistance frontal walls with stone and earth covers. 

 
If You zoom even more and switch for satelite map you get something like this. In this case the red color shows anti tank 47 mm guns and the blue color is 7,92 mm (sometimes double) heavy machine guns of a heavy separated casemate (possible use of light machine guns in observation cupolas is not marked). The grey color shows vz.26 light machine guns of the neighbouring pillbox. 

 
You can click on every single object and you get available details. The first icon shows detailed lines of fire including realistic range. Bellow the L: L1 M ZN 3-4 means: Left side: L1 = 47 mm anti tank gun with 7,92 mm coaxial heavy MG; M = twin 7,92 heavy MG; ZN is I think type of the cupola but I'm not actually sure about it. The codes for the weapons are shown at the table in the lower right corner (you need to keep the cursor on the question mark). 

 
The Second icon leads to a database of objects which is unfortunately only in our weird language. Anyway you can dig a lot of information from it as well (drawings, recent state, photos, exact location etc.).

 
 
The best thing is that most of the objects still exist till today (all of those heavy ones). The Germans managed to destroy roughly 2000 light objects (and gain some 11000 tons of steels from them). They managed to damage also many heavy ones when they were testing weapons and tactics for the future use duirng the WW2. They even moved some cupolas (and of course the famous hedgehogs) to other fortifications along the Atlantic wall or elsewhere. Many of them are made into better or worse museums today (large quantity is private now). Huge number of them is just left alone and freely accessible for anyone. If you are more interested I can give you tips which ones to visit. On the Czech map portal You can use a mode panorama which is basically the same thing as Google street view but it's much more up to date and it's nearly everywhere where they got at least with a motorbike. Since the fortifications are also visible there, you check where they are for easier access. 
 


 
If you are interested I can continue the fortification topic with some other information (I'm no historian but I have visited quite many of the objects myself and read some books about them). 
 
OK, so this was my first post on the forum. I hope you find it interesting and maybe for some of you it can be a reason for a trip, who knows :-) 
 
 
 
 

For the mean time:
 
 
Updated Special Armor Locations:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fuel Tank Locations:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main Gun Ammunition Locations:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Crew Locations:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Armament Locations:
 
 
 
 
 
Powerpack Location:
 
 
 
 
 
 

We may (very soon) get Constitutional carry in Kentucky.
Keeping my fingers crossed.
 
ETA-
IT PASSED.  Kentucky has Constitutional carry.   60 "yes" , while 37 found freedom "scary".

Yup, I like his stuff.  Won't have a computer till tomorrow evening, so haven't done any serious googling yet.  The gun's looks alone at the store caught my eyes, but the price tag stopped me from getting too interested until I got home and saw his video showing the guts of the gun.  The only other time that I've had such a mighty need for something was when getting my super vepr.  The B76 at the gun store is in a similar condition and price as the one on armslist right now, has the box too.
 
I seem to have developed an unfortunate habit of finding a cool gun, researching it, then seeing he's got a video on it.  For better or worse, I have developed a similar taste to him in terms of liking the whacky and well made, though the main difference is that he has the money to support that taste.  I have a Walther P5 that I'll be getting soon, though I at least got it and a spare mag for a lot less than it should have been.  No such deals are to be found on the B76 at the moment though it seems.

Yup, I like his stuff.  Won't have a computer till tomorrow evening, so haven't done any serious googling yet.  The gun's looks alone at the store caught my eyes, but the price tag stopped me from getting too interested until I got home and saw his video showing the guts of the gun.  The only other time that I've had such a mighty need for something was when getting my super vepr.  The B76 at the gun store is in a similar condition and price as the one on armslist right now, has the box too.
 
I seem to have developed an unfortunate habit of finding a cool gun, researching it, then seeing he's got a video on it.  For better or worse, I have developed a similar taste to him in terms of liking the whacky and well made, though the main difference is that he has the money to support that taste.  I have a Walther P5 that I'll be getting soon, though I at least got it and a spare mag for a lot less than it should have been.  No such deals are to be found on the B76 at the moment though it seems.

Was rather busy at the time so wasn't able to give the full video a proper watch through, but the person I originally got that from neglected to mention that the person speaking was some dude stretching things to intentionally make it sound bad. I couldn't really find much at the time of posting that to fact check with, including the actual document, but my time has freed up now.   How bad it actually is probably depends on how pessimistic you are, but reads to me like it doesn't really change anything.
 
https://undocs.org/A/CONF.231/3
 
Relevant area is objective 17 "Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration"
 
 

Was rather busy at the time so wasn't able to give the full video a proper watch through, but the person I originally got that from neglected to mention that the person speaking was some dude stretching things to intentionally make it sound bad. I couldn't really find much at the time of posting that to fact check with, including the actual document, but my time has freed up now.   How bad it actually is probably depends on how pessimistic you are, but reads to me like it doesn't really change anything.
 
https://undocs.org/A/CONF.231/3
 
Relevant area is objective 17 "Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration"
 
 

"Western Europe is part of the free world"
"Hate speech laws are OK and aren't a slippery slope ripe for abuse"
 
Guy states that some EU countries are set to sign a non-binding agreement on expanding hate speech legislation, especially in regards to criticism towards EU immigration policies.  When the EU first came to be, they probably should have gone for something that doesn't sound so much like "Soviet Union".  What a shitshow
 
    Found an article with a couple more details in it https://euobserver.com/foreign/143545
 
Full clip in spoiler
 

Bill Clinton is a fucking legend

Detailed look at each submission.
 
   Finally, my expanded review of each submission of this competition was put together, and now it is here. During 2nd phase of judging, all 3 judges were exchaning their opinion on vehicles, some of points made here could be covered in other judges posts, but i am still leaving them here for sake of completion. 
   Each vehicle was reviewed based on models shown (general level of skills of poster with 3d modelling was taken into account), description given and my own knowledges of subject. In those reviewes i will generally not get into stats or direct comparisons with other submissions much, but look at features of each design, viewing them in relation to requirements, basics of AFV design and common sense.
 
   @A. T. Mahan, @Whatismoo
57mm Gun Full Tracked Light Tank M48A4E4 “Koskiusko”
 
 
   Conclusion
   This light tank is not fulfilling requirements as much as it could on both weight and firepower sides, with main weapon system more optimised for Tank destroyers. Vehicle have  protection level of APC but with bloated profile thanks to oversized turret. For general purpose light tank M48A4E2 have awkward weapons, low frontal protection. For recon vehicle it have unnecessary big profile and no advanced recon/observation kit. Only tactical mobility is good on this vehicle, and maybe not bad FCS. 
   Combination of negatives for me did not outweighted positives, so this is why i considered this light tank as worse than several other submissions. Although, i thank use of not totally boring loading system on this vehicle, haha 
 
 
120MM GUN TANK T44
   As this vehicle was eliminated from competition i didn't made any serious/deep review of this vehicle. Leaving some questinable stats and features of this submission, few other things that jumped out for me:
 
   Conclusion
   This vehicle is outside of capabilities of industry to produce it with reasonable price. Some of features are not bad - extensive use of ERA is not a bad way to increase protection of vehicle while keeping inside of weight limitation. There are questions to main weapon very long barrel, but it does provide serious firepower that would allow to not bother with armament upgrades for long time. 
   But i can't say more on this vehicle as it jumped out for me as more of Abrams wankery than a submission for requirements, i felt it went against spirit of this competition.
 
 
@ApplesauceBandit
   Even if submission was not taken for "competitive judging", i looked at what we had on hand and made some notes about it.
 
   XM42 "Prettyboy"
   
   Conclusion
   This submission would have been a solid entry in this competition if more time was given to completing basic requirements. Turret shape could be changed for expected future upgrades with layered armor/NERA. Only you bothered to model SPG based on proposed tank chassis, too.
 
 
@Toxn
   As both vehicle have plenty of similarities, i made a combined notes on both.
 
 XM8 “Elk”
 
   Conclusion
   Well, Toxn's heavy was close 2nd place in 45t category and his light varaint was a winner in 25t category. Both vehicles are reasonable machines, but in few places those tanks are too "1940-50s" level of design (for example - wet ammorack instead of separated ammunition compartment). I liked first armor upgrade that could easily be used on basic proposal. Both vehicles were more mature and detailed in design and were more focused on requirements and their spirit.   
 
 
@N-L-M
   As your heavy tank won, i will begin with light AFV that didn't managed to repeat a success of his bigger brother.
 
XM-2240 RED FOX
       
   Conclusion
   This wheeled death trap is focused on AT work and dealing with low-protected vehicles but leaves HE capabilities to be less than other proposed vehicles managed to show. MCLOS ATGMs also were considered to be not good enough compared to more boring classic medium caliber cannons for AT work, although they could be mentioned for future upgrades of this vehicle, when they would be SACLOS. All this combined with 10 tons of unused weight (15t vs max 25t) and generally low level of protection, bad cross country capabilities, this vehicle is too specialised on narrow type of warfare and losses in several key areas to other designs. 
   Wheeled death trap was pretty solid entry in this competition and unique compared to other proposals.
 
 
   XM-2239 NORMAN
 
   Conclusion
   Norman is most detailed and mature design with a lot of attention given to a crew and their working space. Well protected with balanced mobility, firepower and means for easy upgrades being built-in, this submission won first place for a reason.
 
 
@Sturgeon
   Now we came to a part of this post that you apperently really wanted to see. Let's begin with light tank
 
"Sandy"
 
   Conclusion
   Sandy in both configurations are vehicles with potential, but with problems that compromise this potential. "Light" version would have been a serious contender... in other competition. We didn't had requirements to be capable to be easily transportable by air, or be airdroppable. Light Sandy was designed with self-imposed objectives. It also have number of problems because of that, like very low level of protection, question with crew comfort and so on. 
   Heavy variant with new turret was much more serious contender in 25t category, but very low level of hull protection, questinable upgradeability of chassis and turret, layout of vehicle were it's main failings in my eyes.
 
 
M15 Roach

   Conclusion
   Roach was in my opinion mediocre vehicle. Submission lacked level of details and autism of NLM and Toxn's works, which would played against it. Shape of hull and turret was made without ease of upgradeability in mind, turret armor weakspots and few other things were other factors playing against Roach. Weapon upgrades, firepower and adequate FCS for it, general level of armor protection outside of weakspots and armor upgrades were positives of this submission. In my mind i put it on 3rd place out of all 45t category submissions, with a noticeable gap between it and 2nd place. 
 
   M12 Donward
   As it was eliminated from competition i did only a short review of it.
 
   Conclusion
   Donward have same problem as Roach - it is 1950s level of tech tanks without much of modern AFV design features considered for it, unlike what we see in Norman and to slightly less degree in Elk. Roach was re-mix of T-55, while Donward looks like be T110E5-inspired design. Turret and hull shape would be harder to match with advanced armor upgrades that should be expected by designers in this AH story. Turret also have problems in terms of protection outside of very narrow frontal arc, especially it will be more and more problematic to protect as time goes on and better shells appear.
   And this submission also lacks details, which mean that it feels less mature and thought out compared to NLM's and Toxn's entries. On top of not fitting into basic requirements.

I couldn't help myself and got a Slavic ghettoblaster.  Already removed the accursed safety, going to be ordering some nicer grips so it doesn't feel like holding a 2x4.  The clip holding on one of the grip panels was bent too when I got it, so would be nice to have both sides sitting in firmly.
 

I couldn't help myself and got a Slavic ghettoblaster.  Already removed the accursed safety, going to be ordering some nicer grips so it doesn't feel like holding a 2x4.  The clip holding on one of the grip panels was bent too when I got it, so would be nice to have both sides sitting in firmly.
 

Moved to the appropriate subforum.

First of all, the provisions you are outlining are not "loopholes" as they are explicitly outlined in Federal law. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1) from the 1968 Gun Control Act, the BATFE advisement about which states:
 
 
Provided that your state has no relevant prohibitions, then, yes you may acquire a handgun from a non-FFL ("unlicensed individual"), usually via gifting. I would be very careful how you conduct this as it's relatively easy to create a condition that could be regulated by state or Federal law. For example, if you live with your parents in a state with no additional regulations and are over 18, your father or mother may gift you a handgun without issue. However, if your father lives in another state, this would fall under interstate commerce and would be illegal, as interstate transactions must go through an FFL (who can't sell you the firearm).

Gun shows are dicey in this way because generally speaking you don't have any way to verify that the seller lives in your state or not. You can ask for ID, but that's not a surefire thing either. If you do decide to go this route, I would definitely insist on seeing an ID and photographing it.
 
Another thing to worry about is accidentally conducting a straw purchase. If, for example, you had the above case with your parent, but instead of a Christmas gift, you reimbursed them for the gun then that would become a straw purchase and a Federal crime. More confusingly, if this handgun were already owned by your parents (if for example it was Grandpa's gun), and you bought it off them, that would not be a straw purchase and would be legal. There are also, so far as I know, no regulations against trades of handguns between individuals who reside in the same state. So, conceivably, you could trade for a privately owned handgun, for example - but we enter yet another grey area if the gun you are trading for was purchased with the knowledge that you'd be trading for it. In this case it's possible that this could be considered a straw purchase in the same way as if you had bought the weapon from them with cash.
 
Given the above, I would go about acquiring a handgun very carefully. Some Don'ts, Dos, and Mays:
 
DON'T arrange for someone else to buy a gun for you from an online store or any place with an FFL. This is one of the key ingredients of a straw purchase - if they can prove you arranged the purchase ahead of time, bad day for you.

DON'T purchase from or trade with people who are not family members or very close friends (e.g., you've been to their house). It's the only way to be sure.
 
DON'T post on online message boards or Facebook groups conspicuous or incriminating requests for handguns

DON'T use Armslist to arrange a private sale. Armslist is a cesspit, full of scams and ne'erdowells, just avoid it. You'll thank me.
 
DON'T go "gun shopping" for a handgun with anyone who might want to sell or gift you a gun unless they agree not to buy anything from that store. Even if it's innocent, "hey dad, I want that one" followed by an attempted sale will give any decent gun store clerk the heebie jeebies.
 
DO let people you know and trust know you want a handgun, and which kind. As long as you don't plan for them to purchase a gun, this is fine. And you may get lucky, or find someone wants to sell a gun you'd be happy with. You never know without bringing it up.
 
DO inform those you know who may be willing to sell, trade, or gift you a handgun what the relevant laws are. Show them the BATFE regulations using your phone or computer. Make sure they do not think they are doing something illegal.

DO make an effort to shoot a variety of handguns before you buy. Since you are under 21, you generally can't rent handguns but you should have no problems accompanying a legal purchaser and shooting any guns they rent. Also, look out for folks who might be happy to let you shoot their guns at the range. A .22 LR rifle is nice for this, since you can shoot it anywhere you can shoot a pistol.

YOU MAY want to arrange a nice gift for someone who seems like they would be willing to gift or trade you a handgun. Doesn't hurt, right?
 
As for which handgun to pick, this choice is very personal. I shoot Glocks well, and most people do, so that's my default for you. Glock 19 or 17. I estimate there is an 80% chance it will work well for you. If not, you can sell it later for close to full value. If you are a part of that 20% of the population who just really does not agree with Glocks, I would give the well respected competing brands (S&W, SIG, CZ, etc, not Springfield) a try and see which one shoots best for you. "Feel" of the handgun can be related to your performance with them, but isn't necessarily. For example, the most comfortable handgun for me is the Browning Hi Power, yet I shoot Glocks better.
 
The biggest mistake in my humble opinion that a first-time handgun shooter can make is saying "hey, I'll buy a full-size or compact (G19) handgun and it'll be both my IDPA/training gun, and when I'm 21 it'll be my CCW too!" No. Do not do this. Yes, people can and have concealed full size guns every day. They are not you. You've never concealed a handgun before. You want the smallest, most concealable gun you can get that still offers good shootability and lethality (that would be a Glock 43 btw, plus maybe the SIG P365 in a couple years once it's debugged). Right now, I would just pick a good gun to build fundamentals on, and worry about what you want to carry when you get closer to getting your license. If after a year or two of actually carrying that smaller gun, you want to go up to a Desert Eagle or whatever, be my guess. But practice carrying with something that's less of a pain in the ass, first.
 
I would also keep an eye out for anything friends or relatives have that might be a good range gun, even if it's not exactly what you want. Remember, guns usually hold their value so if you don't end up liking it, you can sell it and usually lose less than the cost of renting it.
 
For your starter AR-15, there are a lot of good options. The baseline gun people are usually going to tell you to get is the Colt 6920. This gun offers basically zero nice features (like trigger, free float rail, etc) but it is mechanically still one of the best guns you can buy and makes an excellent host for upgrades. Many other guns below the $1000 mark today offer rail systems, triggers, midlength gas, and other upgrades, but in my case there aren't many of those packages that I really like as a whole, and chances are very good their quality won't be quite as high as the 6920. That's not to say the 6920 is the best rifle out there, but in terms of QC it has been the gun to beat for a while now. With a Colt OEM2, you get the rifle and none of the stuff that goes on it, too, and you are left with roughly $250 of your budget to slap on stocks, rails, etc. Even if it doesn't have all the modern creature comforts (it has a carbine gas system and the notorious GI trigger), it's hard to do better than taking one of those and decking it out the way you like. I've owned a 6920 for 8 years, and it's had close to 10,000 rounds through it. Nothing has broken. Everything still works as it should. The original upper still shoots 2 minute with quality ammo. The 6920 isn't good enough anymore that if you get anything else there'll be a riot, but if you do get one, nobody will question it either. And you'll be satisfied, I think.

The T114 is a meme mobile, that's about it. It can be nasty, but it can't carry. Plus side, you get to run it in a completely baller 6.7 American line up, and it doesn't care about facing 7.7s. In my opinion, it would come down to what BR you play at more.
 
I haven't driven T114s, but I've killed plenty, and I've only been killed by them a handful of times. They are great ambush vehicles. If you already have the T29, M26E1, and Super Hellcat, then yeah, go for it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/28/jair-bolsonaro-wins-brazil-presidential-election
 
Bolsonaro seems to have won in Brazil.

I like this template idea too.  I already mentioned the main reason for me not bothering to figure out any hard stats (some classes I'm in right now already having a lot of this same sort of work), but seeing how much math and detail everyone else was putting into their submissions at the time was giving me the impression that I'd have to calculate out all sorts of junk if I wanted to have a chance to compete with them.  One of my classes I'm in has me designing some gadget down to the last nut and bolt, so I wasn't exactly feeling too motivated to go do nearly the same thing in my free time too.  I've got little knowledge when it comes to designing cartridges or understanding engines, so going into serious detail about either of those was a worry as well.
 
A lot of those restrictions I felt were self-imposed on my end, but I'd have probably felt more motivated to complete my submission if I had a clearer idea of when the math would stop giving credence to the design and would start becoming mere fluff.

So i will do a post about competition as a whole, about submissions, give some advices and cover some other minute things. Will update this particular post with my views of each proposed AFVs. 
 
   In general
   Overal level of submissions was both higher and lower than previous time. Best designs of this competition were more detailed and thought out compared to last time, but we also had a surprising number of proposals that didn't even get through basic requirements, which were more generous than they were before. Several members of this forum who wanted to participate, didn't managed to finish their submissions, sadly. Combination of those 2 factors left judges with a strange situation when only 2.5 tanks designs in 45 ton category were available for actual judging.
   Submissions themselves also varied in quality. Lack of at least basic guidlines is probably one of reasons. Some of them were simply hard to read, others had way too much useless information for judges to go through. In my personal case this isn't really a problem, but we have people who have not much time for going through internet stuff. I will propose few things here. @A. T. Mahan's and @Sturgeon's posts are what i am thinking right now. Writing all text in bold IMO is just a step less obnoxious than writing everything IN CAPS. Writing a War and Peace is not needed for short description of your submissions, either.
   During disussion of vehicles, i also found hard to find specific values that were needed for one or another reason. We need some sort of general layout for submission that will allow for judges to compare designs more... fairly, i guess. Even location of description of features is sometimes confusing when jumping from bookmarks/pages between 3-5 different vehicles. In my case, i managed to miss a feature of gunner optics of @N-L-M Norman.
 
   Improvements for submissions
   First of all i propose to introduce a general layout of submission, that will help to orginize and standartize each entry in this competition, and will help for competitors to better represent their creations. For judges this will allow for easier comparison between entries/submissions. 
 
  Submission (Name, etc)
Short description of what the fuck is this thing and why it have 5 tracks, 3 main guns and rotor blades in the bottom List or table of stats, matching with list or table of requirements. Will allow you to understand if you fucked up something as basic as size and for judges it will help to see if they need to pay attention to everything below this part of submission Nice MS Paint pics of your creation Description of design, general features and some thoughts List of features, maybe a place for "advanced" requirements stats. Stats should go in this order - Protection Survivability, Armament, FCS, Mobility, etc Few more pics and detailed stats Trashbin for everything else, in spoiler.  
   This should allow for less random or strange crap from happening and generally will help to improve quality of our time spend on competitions.
 
 
   About designs that were eliminated from competition.
   In this contest judges (i was one of 3 judges) threw several vehicles outside of our SH bar because they were too drunk, and left them under cold rain of non-acceptance, drugs and diseased prostitutes. I already posted about this, but some people wanted more details.
 
ApplesauceBandit for lack of any stats to work with Sturgeon's Donward was too fat for requirements, even with side skirts removed. A.T. Mahan's T44 was proposed by me to be disqualified based on number of features that will be covered in more details.     I want to point out that all i will say here were my thoughts on this subject, other judges could have their own view on a submission.
 
   1) Armor was one of reasons why this vehicle was outside of general level of tech, suggested in a competition.
   As was discussed several times on different forums depleted uranium is a type of material that is very hard to work on safely. They are problems with it during machining process and other crap which would make it too hard or too costly to produce with 1940-1950s level of industry. Making just M1 Abrams-type armor is directly going against the background/backstory of contest. Simple ERA like Kontakt-1 or Kontakt-5 is ok for me, as those could be produced in given timeframe (they were not produced in 1940s or 50s for other reasons). But if we are going with ceramic-polymer layered armor with DU and similar, all other contestants could start to put MERAs, Active cell T-80U-like armor packages, APS, jammers and so on, on their basic vehicles. This is 100% sure against proposed timeframe quoted by Lost.
 
   2) WTF is happening with a weight of T44?
   So it is 41 metric tons unloaded, and 58 tons loaded. Does this mean that you need to strip 17 tons of equipment from a vehicle in order for it to fit into required weight? Did you know that T-90A weight as much as M4 Sherman?*
 
*if you strip 17 tons from it by removing ammunition, fuel, ERA, turret, autoloader and probably an engine as well.
 
 
   3) This reason was less of a problem from requirements point of view, but cemented my view of this vehicle as Abrams wankery.
   Why would anybody even look at gas turbines while having 1950s level of tech? Gas turbines have reason to exist only with level of tech of around 1980s or now, with computerized control. In 1950s nobody had 1000 HP compact gas turbine on a 40-50 tons tank in serviceable condition.
 
 
 

It's like November 2016 all over again

pew

pew