You know what else could have exterminated the force with no losses?
An M1115 armored car with a Combination Light Weapons Turret. Which has an M2 Browning and a 40mm automatic grenade launcher.
It's has 4-wheel drive, steers like a car, and is resistant to .50 cal at any range. Appliqué armor can improve this to up to 30mm APDS. Against ATGM, it can be fitted with APS such as Hunter and Curtain. Configured, it can be carried under heavy-lift helicopters or airdropped from planes. Crew is landed separately, although airborne crew can fast-rope out of the helicopter.
An M1115 configured as such, fielded against an incompetent force lacking the most basic anti-armor weapons, would be far more effective. The 15-ton armored car would also cost far less to run and operate than a 50-ton tank. @PyrusEnderhunter
@PyrusEnderhunter So the A-103 Mk II was proven by beating up a loose band of incompetent and poorly-equipped guerilla units?
The Victoria's baptism of fire came in the 1982 Indo-Awwam War. Equipping the 15th Lancers and 3rd Cavalry, the Victoria proved itself against a competent foe.
Despite the 70-ton weight, the Victoria easily scaled the mountainous terrain of the Kargils. Her heavy composite armor, an efficient and powerful turbine engine, and a powerful and accurate 120mm smoothbore cannon was mated to an advanced navigation and fire control system that allowed the tank to engage targets at 1,500 meters while moving with minimal loss of accuracy.
Her performance? Nothing less than spectacular. She was truly the Queen of the Kashmir.
I will concede that the A-103 Mk II was virtually untouchable to the most powerful weapons the opposition had, much like the Victoria.
However, the Victoria had to face volleys of anti-tank weapons and duelled with enemy tanks of a proven record. The most powerful weapons the A-103 Mk II had to face were old shotguns and rusty Kalashnikovs.
@PyrusEnderhunter The standard M192 60mm mortar, while lacking the power or accuracy to destroy a modern tank like a Victoria or A-103 Mk II, is capable of rendering it unfit for combat when fired in concentrated volleys. Which in a practical sense, is adequate.
The blast effect is sufficient to inflict a mobility kill by severing the tracks or damaging road wheels. It is also capable of inflicting a mission kill by damaging optics and sensors.
In addition, the 60mm mortar has special anti-material HEAT shells with contrast seekers that can engage the thinner top armor of armored vehicles. These shells were most prominent for their use in bounding mines; rigged with a contact fuse and positioned to strike the underbelly of a passing vehicle, they proved deadly to Soviet vehicles. This was especially true for the T-15B, whose ammunition was stored in the floor in unprotected areas due to automatic loader design, which the A-103 Mk II does not share.
As for the M82 or M107, the frontal section of the tracks need be exposed in order to maximize its effectiveness at climbing obstacles. Coupled with HEIAP multi-purpose ammunition, they were capable of severing tracks easily. This round has the striking power of a 20mm cannon.
Placing all your sensors in a single point is a dangerous flaw, as its destruction will render the tank blind and count as a mission kill.
A tank is a powerful, but vulnerable piece of kit. The emphasis on heavy frontline equipment above all else is a critical flaw in the thinking of most members on the community.
@PyrusEnderhunter Against an opponent who actually know how to defend against tanks such as your average Paternian infantry company, the Mk II would likely fall to indirect fire from light mortars, AT weapons teams, AT mines, and the like.
Even without them, a Paternian unit can render it useless without dedicated anti-tank weapons. Paternian EOD teams with Barrett M82 and M107 anti-material rifles on many occasions halted entire Soviet tank regiments by knocking out sensors and optics and breaking the tracks. HE demolition grenades were quite useful at damaging optics and disabling tracks. Infantry units have driven back tank assaults by targeting the relatively unprotected infantry. The tanks often fell back to prevent their destruction by close-in infantry attack. Disabled tanks were often destroyed by thermite charge to the roof, burning a hole and filling the interior with acrid smoke and forcing the crew out. On several occasions, this caused an ammunition detonation.
In short, the guys you killed were plain incompetent against armor.
Curtain Active Protection System's Protection Modules
Radar unit detects and tracks offending projectile. It then makes calculations on trajectory and determines which protection module to detonate and when.
The Protection Module then goes off, defeating the offending projectile with a directed explosion from an oblique angle not unlike a claymore or shaped charge.
All happening within 0.56 seconds. Derived from the IRL AMAP-APS. @JakeTheDogg
@PyrusEnderhunter Tigers were more reliable because although they suffered from the same issues as Panther, they often had the means to overcome it. That is, with a skilled crew.
Other than that, they were quite reliable, provided that you accommodated your logistics for a 60-ton tank.
@PyrusEnderhunter I also feel Tigers are overrated.
Their primary value was psychological; the mere fact that it exists and that it is as powerful as it is claimed is enough to put fear into Allied troops. The instances where they did actually appear merely reinforced this perception.
Most Tiger tank sightings in combat were in fact lighter vehicles such as the Panzer IV; both tanks featured a boxy hull and turret in addition to a long-barreled gun with muzzle brake. At a glance under less-than-ideal visibility, it is easy to see how they could be confused.
@PhantomBladeCorp Nice! I've got a similar machine (the M9 Stingray).
Basically a Stingray light tank with an AGS turret. In service with the Paternian Army as 105mm Self Propelled Gun M9 Stingray, since they have no light tank category (abolished when the M65 MBT was adopted in 1959, although the M41 Walker Bulldog was always referred as a light tank until its retirement in 1975).
They were trying to use this to replace the M65, but that job went to Victoria (which is basically my version of the M1 Abrams) and supplemented the Victoria. Why?
Victoria, for its logistical burden (70 ton tank!) was effective, available, and proven; the Indian Army used 150 of them against the Awwami Army in the Kashmir, successfully negotiating mountainous terrain with ease better than other designs, and establishing itself as the Kashmiri Queen due to its heavy firepower, armor, and mobility.
@ThatTotalRando I am aware of that. However, the long list of broken promises of things that were supposed to be on release date will forever tarnish its reputation.
I've already got two: the 105mm Howitzer M484 and 155mm Howitzer M135 Paladin. The M484 is very similar to this, except it has a very different mount that faces backwards to allow the weapon to engage in direct fire. The M135 Paladin is a tracked vehicle influenced by the IRL M109 Paladin. @ErvenDynamics
And you spent a fortune doing so, when lighter, cheaper vehicles could be employed with greater success.
I should mention that the M1115 can carry between 6-12 individuals inside in addition to the crew, depending on weapon mount.
This is why we win wars, and you don't. @PyrusEnderhunter
You know what else could have exterminated the force with no losses?
An M1115 armored car with a Combination Light Weapons Turret. Which has an M2 Browning and a 40mm automatic grenade launcher.
It's has 4-wheel drive, steers like a car, and is resistant to .50 cal at any range. Appliqué armor can improve this to up to 30mm APDS. Against ATGM, it can be fitted with APS such as Hunter and Curtain. Configured, it can be carried under heavy-lift helicopters or airdropped from planes. Crew is landed separately, although airborne crew can fast-rope out of the helicopter.
An M1115 configured as such, fielded against an incompetent force lacking the most basic anti-armor weapons, would be far more effective. The 15-ton armored car would also cost far less to run and operate than a 50-ton tank. @PyrusEnderhunter
Yes.
I kill the leader with the plastic spoon, and then they all kill each other over who's in charge now. @PyrusEnderhunter
Thanks! I'm going to strap the turret on a Stallion and call it something new! @Liquidfox
You can kill someone with a plastic spoon. @PyrusEnderhunter
@Marine She's quite hefty.
The same can be said about a plastic spoon. @PyrusEnderhunter
That's the weight of the M5A4 Victoria, standard Paternian main battle tank. @Marine
Not sure if I can do that stuff. A mortar round is a subsonic round.
And it still doesn't address the fact that the guys you romped would have been swept aside by something as light as an M1115. @PyrusEnderhunter
@Marine I shall attempt to prove you wrong.
@PyrusEnderhunter So the A-103 Mk II was proven by beating up a loose band of incompetent and poorly-equipped guerilla units?
The Victoria's baptism of fire came in the 1982 Indo-Awwam War. Equipping the 15th Lancers and 3rd Cavalry, the Victoria proved itself against a competent foe.
Despite the 70-ton weight, the Victoria easily scaled the mountainous terrain of the Kargils. Her heavy composite armor, an efficient and powerful turbine engine, and a powerful and accurate 120mm smoothbore cannon was mated to an advanced navigation and fire control system that allowed the tank to engage targets at 1,500 meters while moving with minimal loss of accuracy.
Her performance? Nothing less than spectacular. She was truly the Queen of the Kashmir.
I will concede that the A-103 Mk II was virtually untouchable to the most powerful weapons the opposition had, much like the Victoria.
However, the Victoria had to face volleys of anti-tank weapons and duelled with enemy tanks of a proven record. The most powerful weapons the A-103 Mk II had to face were old shotguns and rusty Kalashnikovs.
@PyrusEnderhunter The standard M192 60mm mortar, while lacking the power or accuracy to destroy a modern tank like a Victoria or A-103 Mk II, is capable of rendering it unfit for combat when fired in concentrated volleys. Which in a practical sense, is adequate.
The blast effect is sufficient to inflict a mobility kill by severing the tracks or damaging road wheels. It is also capable of inflicting a mission kill by damaging optics and sensors.
In addition, the 60mm mortar has special anti-material HEAT shells with contrast seekers that can engage the thinner top armor of armored vehicles. These shells were most prominent for their use in bounding mines; rigged with a contact fuse and positioned to strike the underbelly of a passing vehicle, they proved deadly to Soviet vehicles. This was especially true for the T-15B, whose ammunition was stored in the floor in unprotected areas due to automatic loader design, which the A-103 Mk II does not share.
As for the M82 or M107, the frontal section of the tracks need be exposed in order to maximize its effectiveness at climbing obstacles. Coupled with HEIAP multi-purpose ammunition, they were capable of severing tracks easily. This round has the striking power of a 20mm cannon.
Placing all your sensors in a single point is a dangerous flaw, as its destruction will render the tank blind and count as a mission kill.
A tank is a powerful, but vulnerable piece of kit. The emphasis on heavy frontline equipment above all else is a critical flaw in the thinking of most members on the community.
@PyrusEnderhunter Against an opponent who actually know how to defend against tanks such as your average Paternian infantry company, the Mk II would likely fall to indirect fire from light mortars, AT weapons teams, AT mines, and the like.
Even without them, a Paternian unit can render it useless without dedicated anti-tank weapons. Paternian EOD teams with Barrett M82 and M107 anti-material rifles on many occasions halted entire Soviet tank regiments by knocking out sensors and optics and breaking the tracks. HE demolition grenades were quite useful at damaging optics and disabling tracks. Infantry units have driven back tank assaults by targeting the relatively unprotected infantry. The tanks often fell back to prevent their destruction by close-in infantry attack. Disabled tanks were often destroyed by thermite charge to the roof, burning a hole and filling the interior with acrid smoke and forcing the crew out. On several occasions, this caused an ammunition detonation.
In short, the guys you killed were plain incompetent against armor.
@PyrusEnderhunter And this thing has two.
And the ability to actually kill things.
@Marine Do you reckon this could tow 70 tons?
@phanps Thanks!
Erm, repost much?
@Cedy117
@NirvashTech
Curtain Active Protection System's Protection Modules
Radar unit detects and tracks offending projectile. It then makes calculations on trajectory and determines which protection module to detonate and when.
The Protection Module then goes off, defeating the offending projectile with a directed explosion from an oblique angle not unlike a claymore or shaped charge.
All happening within 0.56 seconds. Derived from the IRL AMAP-APS. @JakeTheDogg
@AverroesIndustries Thanks!
Thanks! @WEAPONSMITH
Thanks! @phanps
@AstleyIndustries Squak?
@JaketheDogg You could say that this M65A1 Ardent is cosplaying the MBT-210 Kodiak.
distant caw of a bald eagle
@PyrusEnderhunter Tigers were more reliable because although they suffered from the same issues as Panther, they often had the means to overcome it. That is, with a skilled crew.
Other than that, they were quite reliable, provided that you accommodated your logistics for a 60-ton tank.
@PyrusEnderhunter I also feel Tigers are overrated.
Their primary value was psychological; the mere fact that it exists and that it is as powerful as it is claimed is enough to put fear into Allied troops. The instances where they did actually appear merely reinforced this perception.
Most Tiger tank sightings in combat were in fact lighter vehicles such as the Panzer IV; both tanks featured a boxy hull and turret in addition to a long-barreled gun with muzzle brake. At a glance under less-than-ideal visibility, it is easy to see how they could be confused.
@greatnova Some high-powered guns with gold have the pen to challenge portions of the T32's frontal turret.
A few can potentially challenge it with standard rounds. However, they are very few and far between.
Those are spaced non-explosive reactive armor modules, to defeat tandem-charge warheads. @Flash0of0green
@PyrusEnderhunter lol
Can you believe people actually use these things?
And I don't mean airshows. I mean shooting things.
The Lebanese Air Force has several on-hand. Just retired in 2014, in storage.
I think you missed the most notable achievements of the aircraft, notably long-distance flight.
In particular, John Alcock and Arthur Brown flew a modified Vimy in the first nonstop crossing of the Atlantic in an airplane in 1919.
Great build nonetheless.
@RailfanEthan I'm still open to a war train collab.
Chuga-chuga boom-boom.
Certainly. @Liquidfox
@LiamW Thanks!
Thanks! @RailfanEthan
Thanks! @shipster
@PhantomBladeCorp Nice! I've got a similar machine (the M9 Stingray).
Basically a Stingray light tank with an AGS turret. In service with the Paternian Army as 105mm Self Propelled Gun M9 Stingray, since they have no light tank category (abolished when the M65 MBT was adopted in 1959, although the M41 Walker Bulldog was always referred as a light tank until its retirement in 1975).
They were trying to use this to replace the M65, but that job went to Victoria (which is basically my version of the M1 Abrams) and supplemented the Victoria. Why?
Victoria, for its logistical burden (70 ton tank!) was effective, available, and proven; the Indian Army used 150 of them against the Awwami Army in the Kashmir, successfully negotiating mountainous terrain with ease better than other designs, and establishing itself as the Kashmiri Queen due to its heavy firepower, armor, and mobility.
I was wondering whether you could make a non-Mad Max version of this truck.
I am interested in such a project.
@TemDesBur It never saw service with the Paternian Army, but there were some export customers.
@TemDesBur Polish?
@Dynamicneedle Who did that?
@Dynamicneedle Ah thanks!
@ThatTotalRando I am aware of that. However, the long list of broken promises of things that were supposed to be on release date will forever tarnish its reputation.
Np! @F4f879
It's okay. Everything I have is open-source, so feel free to use them at your pleasure. @Hayhayjam664
Thanks! @BaconRoll
@helilover03 https://discord.gg/uX9hgG Discord invite.
I've already got two: the 105mm Howitzer M484 and 155mm Howitzer M135 Paladin. The M484 is very similar to this, except it has a very different mount that faces backwards to allow the weapon to engage in direct fire. The M135 Paladin is a tracked vehicle influenced by the IRL M109 Paladin. @ErvenDynamics
Thanks! @phanps