@TemDesBur The Nebelpardner IIK was held in great respect by both the Zulu and Boer forces. It's armor was tough, was quite mobile, and it had a gun which was more powerful than their weapon. Defeating them involved tactics that needed incredible coordination from several arms such as infantry and artillery, a variety of weapons systems, and high degree of discipline and skill on all participants.
However, as difficult as it was to defeat the Nebelpardner IIK, it was not impossible, and not unique. The A-103 series posed similar issues, as it benefited from a similar set of systems, and required similarly complex and highly coordinated tactics to destroy. But the key is that it wasn't invincible. Once soldiers got that in their head, then the rest is a matter of practice.
Nebelpardners were destroyed in a variety of means. Many were largely intact but combat-ineffective due to damage from mines, massed rifle grenade and RPG volleys, and close-range attacks by infantry. While the armor was never breached in these attacks, other external system such as the optics and tracks were engaged, rendering the tank blind and immobile. In some cases, infantry drove crews out by activating the external fire extinguisher switch in close-distance attacks.
In other cases, they were engaged with volleys of anti-tank missiles from hidden positions and in the case of the Kornet, at distances beyond the effective range of its weapons. Anti-tank guns on the Victoria and Zamburak could penetrate the frontal armor at distances of 2,000m with relatively high effectiveness.
Artillery strikes often immobilized the tanks, and Copperhead missiles from the 155mm howitzer were deadly weapons.
While the gun-armed Ratel and Commando had limited capability against the Nebelpardner IIK, they were still useful against its supporting units such as dismounted Panzergrenadier, Puma IFV, and logistics. While not directly hurting the tanks, they made it much easier to destroy them.
Just because the armor can't be penetrated does not mean that it is invincible. Many Nebelpardner which were disabled had intact armor and all internal systems were functional. However, what use is that if it can't aim its weapons and get to somewhere it is needed?
This scenario is all entirely plausible. Attacking the Prussian holdings were unsuccessful due to the concentration of firepower and a natural defender's advantage.
However, this led to significant overconfidence with the Prussian forces, and they made a bid to strike South Africa, an area important to the AU's industrial base. However, doing so basically threw away the defensive hegemony enjoyed by Prussian forces.
Against them is a Boer-Zulu force with ostensibly less firepower. The only machines which could contest the Nebelpardner's armor from the front at any range was the limited number of Zamburak self-propelled guns, Victoria tanks, TOW-carrying Commando armored cars and Cedco pickup trucks, and Ratels with their ATGMs.
The African force had numerous advantages not realized by General Runge; mobility, intelligence, familiarity with terrain, and numbers. Both the Zulus and Boers inhabited the land for centuries, and were very familiar with the terrain. Gen. Dumisa was particularly familiar with the area, given his heritage. Afrikaner, the language spoken by Boers, is derived from Dutch, a Teutonic language like German. This allowed them to quickly translate intercepted Prussian communications. Much of the African force employed wheeled vehicles, where the Prussians used tracked machines. Given the terrain, the wheeled vehicles were faster and could take up positions more quickly. Only their tanks were tracked, a necessity given the incredible weight. Finally, numbers. The Prussian force was decisively outnumbered on a 4-1 basis.
In short, the Prussian force could hit well above its weight, but was relatively slow, predictable, in the dark, and much smaller than the force sent to confront it.
1) Likely. The system was designed for use on trucks of 5-ton capacity.
2) It's a strictly indirect fire only. Here is how this system puts shells on target.
3) This will satisfy your desire for MRLS derived from this chassis. @GermanWarMachine
Legally, we can't use them against infantry because of their high permanent wounding potential and low lethality against them. In other words, they can insure someone to the point of incapacitation, but it cannot kill them quickly.
@WorldClassMods Airplanes are notoriously fuel inefficient as cargo aircraft. However, as passenger aircraft, they are reasonably efficient, comparable to hybrid cars when fully loaded.
The principal advantage of cargo aircraft is their speed and their accessibility. Planes are among the fastest forms of transportation; the fastest trains are not much faster than the slowest transport planes. Principally, they are far less constrained by infrastructure or geography, with many types only requiring a short stretch of dirt to takeoff and land from.
While a few are capable of carrying very heavy loads, their value comes from their high speed and the ability to go virtually anywhere with a suitable clearing. Regularly shipping cargo by aircraft is among the most expensive forms of transportation.
@WorldClassMods That causes a lot of wear and tear on the tank's tracks and suspension.
Tracked vehicles have a tendency to tear up roads and tanks are notoriously fuel inefficient. Yes, a train on its own will consume more fuel than a tank. However, a train can carry hundreds of tons of cargo, passengers, and anyting per mile at speed, for much less fuel than if the material was moved by other means.
The only cargo mover which I could see as more fuel efficient is a large, fully-loaded cargo ship.
However, the problem at hand is with the technical limitation of transportation. Anyways, rail is how most armies transport their tanks to the front when available.
I chew them up in my Sherman tank. Because you'll need gold to have a good chance at punching through the turret front. And who shoots gold at Shermans? Aside from Jumbos.
First. And hopefully, not last.
@GermanWarMachine We're fine.
No problem, comrade. @grizzlitn
@TemDesBur The Nebelpardner IIK was held in great respect by both the Zulu and Boer forces. It's armor was tough, was quite mobile, and it had a gun which was more powerful than their weapon. Defeating them involved tactics that needed incredible coordination from several arms such as infantry and artillery, a variety of weapons systems, and high degree of discipline and skill on all participants.
However, as difficult as it was to defeat the Nebelpardner IIK, it was not impossible, and not unique. The A-103 series posed similar issues, as it benefited from a similar set of systems, and required similarly complex and highly coordinated tactics to destroy. But the key is that it wasn't invincible. Once soldiers got that in their head, then the rest is a matter of practice.
Nebelpardners were destroyed in a variety of means. Many were largely intact but combat-ineffective due to damage from mines, massed rifle grenade and RPG volleys, and close-range attacks by infantry. While the armor was never breached in these attacks, other external system such as the optics and tracks were engaged, rendering the tank blind and immobile. In some cases, infantry drove crews out by activating the external fire extinguisher switch in close-distance attacks.
In other cases, they were engaged with volleys of anti-tank missiles from hidden positions and in the case of the Kornet, at distances beyond the effective range of its weapons. Anti-tank guns on the Victoria and Zamburak could penetrate the frontal armor at distances of 2,000m with relatively high effectiveness.
Artillery strikes often immobilized the tanks, and Copperhead missiles from the 155mm howitzer were deadly weapons.
While the gun-armed Ratel and Commando had limited capability against the Nebelpardner IIK, they were still useful against its supporting units such as dismounted Panzergrenadier, Puma IFV, and logistics. While not directly hurting the tanks, they made it much easier to destroy them.
Just because the armor can't be penetrated does not mean that it is invincible. Many Nebelpardner which were disabled had intact armor and all internal systems were functional. However, what use is that if it can't aim its weapons and get to somewhere it is needed?
@TemDesBur Which I am.
This scenario is all entirely plausible. Attacking the Prussian holdings were unsuccessful due to the concentration of firepower and a natural defender's advantage.
However, this led to significant overconfidence with the Prussian forces, and they made a bid to strike South Africa, an area important to the AU's industrial base. However, doing so basically threw away the defensive hegemony enjoyed by Prussian forces.
Against them is a Boer-Zulu force with ostensibly less firepower. The only machines which could contest the Nebelpardner's armor from the front at any range was the limited number of Zamburak self-propelled guns, Victoria tanks, TOW-carrying Commando armored cars and Cedco pickup trucks, and Ratels with their ATGMs.
The African force had numerous advantages not realized by General Runge; mobility, intelligence, familiarity with terrain, and numbers. Both the Zulus and Boers inhabited the land for centuries, and were very familiar with the terrain. Gen. Dumisa was particularly familiar with the area, given his heritage. Afrikaner, the language spoken by Boers, is derived from Dutch, a Teutonic language like German. This allowed them to quickly translate intercepted Prussian communications. Much of the African force employed wheeled vehicles, where the Prussians used tracked machines. Given the terrain, the wheeled vehicles were faster and could take up positions more quickly. Only their tanks were tracked, a necessity given the incredible weight. Finally, numbers. The Prussian force was decisively outnumbered on a 4-1 basis.
In short, the Prussian force could hit well above its weight, but was relatively slow, predictable, in the dark, and much smaller than the force sent to confront it.
Yes. @marcox43
Thanks! @jlewisifer
Of course you would have a word with this.
And yet here I am. @TemDesBur
@Zerokiller3 Far from it. Derived from LAV-25AD, the air defense variant of the US Marine Corps' LAV-25.
@GermanWarMachine I've got a twin 30mm cannon mount.
@Blue0Bull Thanks!
Thanks! @bjac0
1) Likely. The system was designed for use on trucks of 5-ton capacity.
2) It's a strictly indirect fire only. Here is how this system puts shells on target.
3) This will satisfy your desire for MRLS derived from this chassis. @GermanWarMachine
@Johnnyboy9 Thanks!
@SledDriver 0.o
lol @DeezDucks
@Flash0of0green It should.
@Stellarlabs Oh. We do have a 12" railway howitzer.
@Stellarlabs Thanks!
And I've got other artillery pieces, fixed and self-propelled.
@Supercraft888 It's a fairly substantial barrel shroud.
@KidKromosone Thanks!
@Supercraft888 Np! Exterior looks... well it could be improved.
Interior cockpit is gorgeous though.
Well said.
@SledDriver Thanks!
Oh btw, my M150 has a piston-elevated mechanism.
@Ahtzee Somewhere between a few villages to a small town.
Holy passenger capacity.
I am aware of that. As of now, the .50 stays. @GermanWarMachine
No. @Dalton02
@AudioDud3 If it is any comfort, British pubs are required by law to sell beer by the pint.
@GermanWarMachine Thanks!
Legally, we can't use them against infantry because of their high permanent wounding potential and low lethality against them. In other words, they can insure someone to the point of incapacitation, but it cannot kill them quickly.
Use against vehicles are perfectly acceptable.
@XxMlgSwegxX Go ahead.
@sexylips35 @phanps Thanks!
@grizzlitn Same.
Sure. All my builds are open-source. @grizzlitn
Oh the humanity.
Are you still open to an armored train?
Chuga-chuga boom-boom.
Forgot to mention that VTOL = Flaps. @Viper28 @ESIOTROT121
Good to know. @Viper28
@SledDriver It's a neat concept.
Lovely as always! The S-Tank was an interesting concept to say the least. @PhantomBladeCorp
Basically a BMP-T Terminator?
@WorldClassMods To the contrary.
@WorldClassMods Airplanes are notoriously fuel inefficient as cargo aircraft. However, as passenger aircraft, they are reasonably efficient, comparable to hybrid cars when fully loaded.
The principal advantage of cargo aircraft is their speed and their accessibility. Planes are among the fastest forms of transportation; the fastest trains are not much faster than the slowest transport planes. Principally, they are far less constrained by infrastructure or geography, with many types only requiring a short stretch of dirt to takeoff and land from.
While a few are capable of carrying very heavy loads, their value comes from their high speed and the ability to go virtually anywhere with a suitable clearing. Regularly shipping cargo by aircraft is among the most expensive forms of transportation.
Got it. I've got an AA vehicle. @GermanWarMachine
I must disagree. @AverroesIndustries
@GermanWarMachine Can't wait to see it.
@WorldClassMods That causes a lot of wear and tear on the tank's tracks and suspension.
Tracked vehicles have a tendency to tear up roads and tanks are notoriously fuel inefficient. Yes, a train on its own will consume more fuel than a tank. However, a train can carry hundreds of tons of cargo, passengers, and anyting per mile at speed, for much less fuel than if the material was moved by other means.
The only cargo mover which I could see as more fuel efficient is a large, fully-loaded cargo ship.
@WorldClassMods That is true.
However, the problem at hand is with the technical limitation of transportation. Anyways, rail is how most armies transport their tanks to the front when available.
@PhantomBladeCorp Looks good!
I chew them up in my Sherman tank. Because you'll need gold to have a good chance at punching through the turret front. And who shoots gold at Shermans? Aside from Jumbos.
@WorldClassMods Trains can tow hundreds of tons of cargo. The strongest flatbed cars can hold at least 150 tons.
If you absolutely, positively, must shift a large, constant flow of cargo anywhere, look no further than a train.
The problem with trains, is the inflexible infrastructure.