It depends on the design. Heavier, long-range designs such as the B-10, M40, and L6 Wombat need to employ tripods or heavier mount, where lighter weapons such as the 84mm Carl Gustaf, the Panzerfaust, RPG-2, 84mm disposable Bofors AT4, 90mm M67, or 57mm M18 can be fired from the shoulder. These designs sacrifice range and accuracy for portability.
It should be noted that the M18 can use an M1917 machine gun tripod, and the M67 and Carl Gustaf can employ a bipod. The AT4 and Panzerfaust are not reloadable and the launch tube be disposed of. The RPG-2 is employed in a manner similar to the RPG-7, as it retains the basic form. @EternalDarkness
It would be understandable if you confused encounters with us and Unity, since we use similar equipment, tactics, and the like. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
Then ours is more effective. It can engage enemy armor more reliably, has more devastating behind armor effects, and can be used by a conscript if so needed. @KillShot86
If a nation like America, Britain, the Soviet Union, or France made this jet, it would have sold to dozens of nations worldwide in the thousands.
It would have seen seen in every clime, on every inhabited continent. The world would laud its power, and would have served in large numbers for a long time.
But alas, it was made by Sweden, who did a fine job making it. Probably better than any other nation who could have made it. But because it was made by Sweden, it never fired a shot in anger. It served a few air forces, and even made its way to America as a test pilot training aircraft. In every service it was well regarded by its users.
While it served for a very long time, it never fired a shot in anger. Such is the wasted potential of an excellent design, but there you go.
The M16 assault rifle can reliably hit targets at distances up to 550m. The average combat distance is 300m.
Studies from virtually every conflict point to the fact that for the average infantryman, the main determinant of who wins a firefight is who can put more lead down a two-way firing range.
Thus, full-power rifles were simply excessively powerful and bulky for the role. The only people who can take advantage of the greater power and range are machine guns and sniper rifles.
Frankly, the M16 is superior to this regard versus this thing in most combat situations. @KillShot86
@TemDesBur In Soviet doctrine, the commander remains buttoned up. This is why the hatch opens forward instead of backwards like on other tanks I designed. A forward-opening commander's hatch would double as a shield when open, useful if bailing out of a burning vehicle.
Seeing over it would mean the commander would be excessively exposed to fire. However, doing so would usually be done in a non-combat environment, where getting shot at is a non-issue.
The only purpose for the commander's MG would be for anti-aircraft purposes. Even so, such a weapon's presence in this role would largely be psychological; modern attack helicopters can engage tanks at distances much farther than a 12.7mm machine gun, and are generally protected against such weaponry.
Its only use would be against tactical observation aircraft, although such is generally not done since firing simply reveals your position for them to bring something that will make your day pretty bad.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation @Alix451 We found this issue redundant since (a) the gunner's sight is a periscopic variable magnification (1.5x-2x-6x) sight on the right side of the turret for gunner ergonomics, (b) the gun mantlet is off-center to the centered mantlet on the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2, so such is not an issue IRL, and should not be an issue here, and (3) gun mantlet is a cover for a hole in the front armor to stick the gun out of. Smaller mantlet = smaller hole in the front armor = stronger turret.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Certainly.
Gato is uncooperative, but I'll BS a reason how I got several pieces (captured by the GLA in Algeria).
@Franticmatty Thanks! I'm not a great ship builder at all.
There's others out there who build much better ships.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation I will compare this and the EA-65 with the M440.
@melojam Original gun used an inferior system.
It's a compensator. @Ephwurd
@1gman4evr Yes.
Yes they did. Algeria is very close by, so yeah.
Fourth.
I've made a similar vehicle to this. Inspired by it, but completely fictional.
One question. Does it use AK mags? @KillShot86
Permission to do so?
Meh, I can make it look prettier.
Np! @EternalDarkness
It depends on the design. Heavier, long-range designs such as the B-10, M40, and L6 Wombat need to employ tripods or heavier mount, where lighter weapons such as the 84mm Carl Gustaf, the Panzerfaust, RPG-2, 84mm disposable Bofors AT4, 90mm M67, or 57mm M18 can be fired from the shoulder. These designs sacrifice range and accuracy for portability.
It should be noted that the M18 can use an M1917 machine gun tripod, and the M67 and Carl Gustaf can employ a bipod. The AT4 and Panzerfaust are not reloadable and the launch tube be disposed of. The RPG-2 is employed in a manner similar to the RPG-7, as it retains the basic form. @EternalDarkness
That leaves Unity.
It would be understandable if you confused encounters with us and Unity, since we use similar equipment, tactics, and the like. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
Same. It seemed that neither the Paternian nor Awwami commanders sought combat with each other.
They seemed reluctant to shoot Muslims.
However, the story is different with Berus and Unity, who did the majority of the fighting there. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
@JakeTheDogg What season is it then?
@EternalDarkness Lighter recoilless rifles can be fired from the shoulder. Heavier ones do require a mount of some sort, such as a tripod.
@EternalDarkness It's based off this, the Carl Gustaf.
Which can be fired from the shoulder.
.50 BMG = bigger bullet = more you can do with it = HEIAP. @KillShot86
@KillShot86 For anti-material role, we have the M28 and M34, both in .50 BMG.
The M28 is a single-shot bolt-action rifle, and the M34 is the M28 with a 5-round detachable box magazine.
We also operate captured 14.5mm rifles.
@Gmanndo1000 It's actually pretty simple.
I find a good model, and modify it.
Granted, my modifications are of high quality compared to most builds made like this.
@KillShot86 1) Might want to revise that message. 2) Our RPG can actually kill the target.
@Flash0of0green That's okay. I'll probably get to making an Uzi sooner or later. In the meantime, enjoy the MP5.
Iron sights on a Y-Tech build? What is this sorcery?
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation By "forces" I mean "special forces".
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Sounds good. Our forces typically use what local forces use.
Which is often the old Kalashnikov.
Does a flatcar with a main battle tank on it count?
Then ours is more effective. It can engage enemy armor more reliably, has more devastating behind armor effects, and can be used by a conscript if so needed. @KillShot86
@KillShot86 Our RPGs use HEAT Ammunition.
We have an RPG.
A rocket launcher. With a HEAT round that makes steel flow like mud. @KillShot86
@Halphas Okay. Sounds good!
Nice ship! Although I think it is best you start from scratch with the North Point.
If a nation like America, Britain, the Soviet Union, or France made this jet, it would have sold to dozens of nations worldwide in the thousands.
It would have seen seen in every clime, on every inhabited continent. The world would laud its power, and would have served in large numbers for a long time.
But alas, it was made by Sweden, who did a fine job making it. Probably better than any other nation who could have made it. But because it was made by Sweden, it never fired a shot in anger. It served a few air forces, and even made its way to America as a test pilot training aircraft. In every service it was well regarded by its users.
While it served for a very long time, it never fired a shot in anger. Such is the wasted potential of an excellent design, but there you go.
We have better weapons against tanks. @KillShot86
The M16 assault rifle can reliably hit targets at distances up to 550m. The average combat distance is 300m.
Studies from virtually every conflict point to the fact that for the average infantryman, the main determinant of who wins a firefight is who can put more lead down a two-way firing range.
Thus, full-power rifles were simply excessively powerful and bulky for the role. The only people who can take advantage of the greater power and range are machine guns and sniper rifles.
Frankly, the M16 is superior to this regard versus this thing in most combat situations. @KillShot86
It's okay.
But a single-shot rifle versus an M16? Yeah.
@TemDesBur In Soviet doctrine, the commander remains buttoned up. This is why the hatch opens forward instead of backwards like on other tanks I designed. A forward-opening commander's hatch would double as a shield when open, useful if bailing out of a burning vehicle.
Seeing over it would mean the commander would be excessively exposed to fire. However, doing so would usually be done in a non-combat environment, where getting shot at is a non-issue.
The only purpose for the commander's MG would be for anti-aircraft purposes. Even so, such a weapon's presence in this role would largely be psychological; modern attack helicopters can engage tanks at distances much farther than a 12.7mm machine gun, and are generally protected against such weaponry.
Its only use would be against tactical observation aircraft, although such is generally not done since firing simply reveals your position for them to bring something that will make your day pretty bad.
@DankDorito Thanks!
@Botfinder The T32 was an American prototype heavy tank based off the M26 Pershing.
@Baldeagle086 Nice gun.
Wait, is that a revolver?
I might just refine this.
@Dllama4 It is good, but the magazine could use some work.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation @Alix451 We found this issue redundant since (a) the gunner's sight is a periscopic variable magnification (1.5x-2x-6x) sight on the right side of the turret for gunner ergonomics, (b) the gun mantlet is off-center to the centered mantlet on the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2, so such is not an issue IRL, and should not be an issue here, and (3) gun mantlet is a cover for a hole in the front armor to stick the gun out of. Smaller mantlet = smaller hole in the front armor = stronger turret.
It was so that I can fit the main gun and the coaxial on that mantlet without making it larger. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
I was working on your T-90.
Why was the first one deleted?
True. @PhantomBladeCorp
Actually, it's turret could rotate fully. However, it could only do so on the move.
Yep. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
I can make an elevation system for it.
Imma go make this look ten times better.
On second thought, I might as well make a Tokarev or Makarov for you.