@PyrusEnderhunter Although the F-4 only comprised of 5.5% of the total fleet of Coalition aircraft, it conducted 50% of all the air superiority sorties and 90% of all strikes against Sentian Air Force airfields.
@PyrusEnderhunter Then those semi-radar guided missiles are what I call "useless". The Hound missiles are represented by Guardians, which are Sidewinder missiles.
We found the E-1 Dragon can reach 850 mph at altitude, based on our trials.
The F-5 Tiger can reach 1000 mph, F-104 can reach 1,500 mph, the F-4 can reach 1,400 mph at the same altitude. The F-104 had the best performance, the F-5 was most maneuverable, and the F-4 was easily the most advanced.
Of the three, the F-4 Phantom II was regarded as the most feared due to its combination of performance, firepower, endurance, and BVR capability.
The F-5 Tiger (aka Northrop) didn't have a considerable speed advantage over the E-1, but could hold it's own in a dogfight, and was considered a match for the E-1. It wasn't that much different. While a good fighter-bomber, it didn't have the performance to challenge Sentian ground-based air defenses.
The F-104 Starfighter had superior speed and incredible acceleration over other types, but had limited range, poor maneuverability (the F-104 doesn't turn; it banks with the intent to turn) and limited war load. While boom and zoom strikes on E-1s were effective, they could be countered with good defensive flying techniques, which they had. While it had the performance to challenge Sentian ground-based air defenses, it lacked the weapon load and handling to be successful.
E-1 pilots felt confident when engaging Tigers and Starfighters because of these reasons.
The F-4 Phantom II was a different beast, however. It's advanced semi-active radar-homing missiles gave the F-4 a significant advantage at long range, able to knock out E-1 Dragons before they could even see the F-4. If they were to be challenged in close combat, the F-4 Phantom had the performance to survive with boom and zoom strikes, much like an F-104. In addition, the F-4 Phantom II could carry 18,000 pounds of ordnance and had the performance to challenge Sentian ground-based air defenses. In addition, it could carry TV-guided Walleye bombs that can kill hardened aircraft shelters with a 1,100lb shaped-charge warhead. In addition, it was a two-seat aircraft, which gave it an extra set of eyes and a brain, allowing it to visually acquire targets better than single-seat types.
@503rdAirborneSoldier Okay. He's not exactly happy with me in the RP for 1) rendering his air force impotent with Phantom jets and 2) PRN Albacore (SSN-103) [That submarine detected his massive armada to get picked apart. Never fired a shot but was the most important vessel in the destruction of Force Major].
The E-1 lacked any ability to hit targets beyond visual range. Also, it's a 1947 aircraft in a 1958 battlefield. It has no radar, no supersonic ability, and no ability to use semi-active radar-guided missiles such as the Sparrow. They were sitting ducks to hit and run strikes by F-104 Starfighters, dogfights with F-5 Tigers, and one-sided BVR engagements by F-4 Phantom II.
@Dllama4 It's true. He has like a dozen accessories on his guns. Suppressors, some optic of some sort, laser sights, foregrips, bipods, and who knows what.
I'm not a guy who puts accessories on a gun unless it's necessary, like a bipod on a sniper rifle or LMG, a suppressor on an assassination pistol, or a scope on a sniper or marksman rifle. Because last time I checked, iron sights and bayonets don't need batteries.
7.62x38mmR Nagant (will attempt to replicate appearance of gas-seal)
7.62x25mm Tokarev (which I could scale from my C96 build, since 7.62mm Tokarev is hot-loaded 7.63x25mm Mauser. In fact, German troops were often issued unmodified and captured PPSh-41 and Tokarevs with 7.63x25mm ammunition)
9x18mm Makarov
5.45x39mm
7.62x39mm
7.62x54mmR
12.7x108mm
14.5x114mm
I may include a Browning collection, featuring:
.25 ACP
.32 ACP
.38 ACP/.38 Super
.380 ACP
.45 ACP
.25 Remington
.30 Remington
.35 Remington
.50 BMG
Although .25 Remington, .30 Remington, and .35 Remington were not designed by him, they were introduced for the Remington Model 8, a firearm he designed.
I have armored cars with more firepower than this, notably my M21A1 Beagle. The M21A1 Beagle weighs 10 tons, has fully independent 4x4 transmission, is amphibious, and has a 90mm cannon. It's also cheaper. And when I mean cheaper, I mean brand-new, out-of-the-factory, cheaper.
The M21A1 Beagle is why we don't really use light tanks. Because both light tanks and heavy armored cars both have the same armor (quite thin), firepower (passable), and weight (pretty light for something with armor). However, an armored car is faster on roads, easier to maneuver in urban terrain (since cities are designed around the use of wheeled vehicles), more fuel efficient, and easier to maintain.
While it is easier to puncture a tire than to knock off a track, a deflated tire is far more capable of continuing operation, especially if it is a run-flat type. However, a caterpillar track must be repaired, a time-consuming and laborious process.
Also, you're running this in a desert. In a desert, wheeled vehicles have similar mobility to tracked vehicles, yet are cheaper and more economical to run. I suggest divesting in tanks and investing in wheeled vehicles.
This doesn't mean that you should give up on tanks; tracked vehicles can be made heavier and feature greater armor and firepower without sacrificing too much mobility, which is undeniably useful. In urban environments, careful deployment can counter the inferior urban mobility of tanks, and using tanks confers both tactical and psychological influence on both friendly and hostile troops. In addition, tracked vehicles have superior off-road mobility than wheeled vehicles. Thus, lighter tracked support vehicles may be useful in support of tank operations, as both machines can pretty much go the same places.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation 1) Hull machine gun is in open port and weakspot. 2) 57mm gun isn't very useful against heavier fortifications and is very heavy with autoloader. 3) Two-man crew; it is generally accepted that a minimum of a three-man crew is needed if there is an automatic feed, and that a hull-machine gunner requires a separate crewmember. 4) It has a hull machine gun. Most tanks by now have dispensed with it as it compromises the integrity of the frontal armor.
@YuukaNeko "Back in my day, we didn't have suppressors on our barrels. We had a puny flash hider. It didn't do much, so they made it a bit bigger. It wasn't perfect, but it did the job and even made us work better! These young guns don't know how good they have it."
Looks cool! Grandpa Colt Commando is proud! Although he does have some commentary.
"Back in my day, we didn't have fancy optics and fore grips these whipper-snappers have. We had iron sights and a firm hold on the barrel. It was harder to control when you were on full auto. But we were better for it."
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation CAR-15 = M16 + collapsible stock - 9.5" of barrel length
@PyrusEnderhunter Although the F-4 only comprised of 5.5% of the total fleet of Coalition aircraft, it conducted 50% of all the air superiority sorties and 90% of all strikes against Sentian Air Force airfields.
Basically, the F-4 outclassed the E-1 to shiet.
@PyrusEnderhunter Then those semi-radar guided missiles are what I call "useless". The Hound missiles are represented by Guardians, which are Sidewinder missiles.
We found the E-1 Dragon can reach 850 mph at altitude, based on our trials.
The F-5 Tiger can reach 1000 mph, F-104 can reach 1,500 mph, the F-4 can reach 1,400 mph at the same altitude. The F-104 had the best performance, the F-5 was most maneuverable, and the F-4 was easily the most advanced.
Of the three, the F-4 Phantom II was regarded as the most feared due to its combination of performance, firepower, endurance, and BVR capability.
The F-5 Tiger (aka Northrop) didn't have a considerable speed advantage over the E-1, but could hold it's own in a dogfight, and was considered a match for the E-1. It wasn't that much different. While a good fighter-bomber, it didn't have the performance to challenge Sentian ground-based air defenses.
The F-104 Starfighter had superior speed and incredible acceleration over other types, but had limited range, poor maneuverability (the F-104 doesn't turn; it banks with the intent to turn) and limited war load. While boom and zoom strikes on E-1s were effective, they could be countered with good defensive flying techniques, which they had. While it had the performance to challenge Sentian ground-based air defenses, it lacked the weapon load and handling to be successful.
E-1 pilots felt confident when engaging Tigers and Starfighters because of these reasons.
The F-4 Phantom II was a different beast, however. It's advanced semi-active radar-homing missiles gave the F-4 a significant advantage at long range, able to knock out E-1 Dragons before they could even see the F-4. If they were to be challenged in close combat, the F-4 Phantom had the performance to survive with boom and zoom strikes, much like an F-104. In addition, the F-4 Phantom II could carry 18,000 pounds of ordnance and had the performance to challenge Sentian ground-based air defenses. In addition, it could carry TV-guided Walleye bombs that can kill hardened aircraft shelters with a 1,100lb shaped-charge warhead. In addition, it was a two-seat aircraft, which gave it an extra set of eyes and a brain, allowing it to visually acquire targets better than single-seat types.
Looks good! Although I suggest AR-18s, Colt 9mm SMGs, or CAR-15s since they are more compact.
@503rdAirborneSoldier Okay. He's not exactly happy with me in the RP for 1) rendering his air force impotent with Phantom jets and 2) PRN Albacore (SSN-103) [That submarine detected his massive armada to get picked apart. Never fired a shot but was the most important vessel in the destruction of Force Major].
The E-1 lacked any ability to hit targets beyond visual range. Also, it's a 1947 aircraft in a 1958 battlefield. It has no radar, no supersonic ability, and no ability to use semi-active radar-guided missiles such as the Sparrow. They were sitting ducks to hit and run strikes by F-104 Starfighters, dogfights with F-5 Tigers, and one-sided BVR engagements by F-4 Phantom II.
@PyrusEnderhunter
Lol @YuukaNeko
We can sell them. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
@bjac0 Thanks!
@PyrusEnderHunter We are also taking credit for blasting your air force away with this jet.
@Dllama4 @BaconAircraft Kind of busy. I'm reworking an F-4 Phantom atm.
@Dllama4 It's true. He has like a dozen accessories on his guns. Suppressors, some optic of some sort, laser sights, foregrips, bipods, and who knows what.
I'm not a guy who puts accessories on a gun unless it's necessary, like a bipod on a sniper rifle or LMG, a suppressor on an assassination pistol, or a scope on a sniper or marksman rifle. Because last time I checked, iron sights and bayonets don't need batteries.
@YuukaNeko If you made an M1 Carbine, I'd imagine it would look like this.
Lots. I might make an RF-4. @Kevinairlines
Technical time! @Cedy117
Np! I'm better a improving planes than really making them. @Kevinairlines
Permission to put a 12.7mm MG on top?
The rest of your plane is better than mine. @Kevinairlines
@PINK Will get to that.
7.62x38mmR Nagant (will attempt to replicate appearance of gas-seal)
7.62x25mm Tokarev (which I could scale from my C96 build, since 7.62mm Tokarev is hot-loaded 7.63x25mm Mauser. In fact, German troops were often issued unmodified and captured PPSh-41 and Tokarevs with 7.63x25mm ammunition)
9x18mm Makarov
5.45x39mm
7.62x39mm
7.62x54mmR
12.7x108mm
14.5x114mm
I may include a Browning collection, featuring:
.25 ACP
.32 ACP
.38 ACP/.38 Super
.380 ACP
.45 ACP
.25 Remington
.30 Remington
.35 Remington
.50 BMG
Although .25 Remington, .30 Remington, and .35 Remington were not designed by him, they were introduced for the Remington Model 8, a firearm he designed.
@PyrusEnderhunter You're asking the guy who orchestrated the taking of your land to guard it.
I see the irony.
I shall guard it as I see sufficient.
@YuukaNeko Hopefully helpful.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation It has 25.4mm of steel armor all around it.
Also, 22 rounds of 57mm ammunition is pathetic. The M21A1 can carry 25 rounds of 90mm ammunition.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Thanks! You're at 23.0k! So close to platinum!
I suggest using armored cars for suppressing internal conflicts. It has a less threatening appearance. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
Thanks! @CaesiciusPlanes
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Tankette = useless.
I have armored cars with more firepower than this, notably my M21A1 Beagle. The M21A1 Beagle weighs 10 tons, has fully independent 4x4 transmission, is amphibious, and has a 90mm cannon. It's also cheaper. And when I mean cheaper, I mean brand-new, out-of-the-factory, cheaper.
The M21A1 Beagle is why we don't really use light tanks. Because both light tanks and heavy armored cars both have the same armor (quite thin), firepower (passable), and weight (pretty light for something with armor). However, an armored car is faster on roads, easier to maneuver in urban terrain (since cities are designed around the use of wheeled vehicles), more fuel efficient, and easier to maintain.
While it is easier to puncture a tire than to knock off a track, a deflated tire is far more capable of continuing operation, especially if it is a run-flat type. However, a caterpillar track must be repaired, a time-consuming and laborious process.
Also, you're running this in a desert. In a desert, wheeled vehicles have similar mobility to tracked vehicles, yet are cheaper and more economical to run. I suggest divesting in tanks and investing in wheeled vehicles.
This doesn't mean that you should give up on tanks; tracked vehicles can be made heavier and feature greater armor and firepower without sacrificing too much mobility, which is undeniably useful. In urban environments, careful deployment can counter the inferior urban mobility of tanks, and using tanks confers both tactical and psychological influence on both friendly and hostile troops. In addition, tracked vehicles have superior off-road mobility than wheeled vehicles. Thus, lighter tracked support vehicles may be useful in support of tank operations, as both machines can pretty much go the same places.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation 1) Hull machine gun is in open port and weakspot. 2) 57mm gun isn't very useful against heavier fortifications and is very heavy with autoloader. 3) Two-man crew; it is generally accepted that a minimum of a three-man crew is needed if there is an automatic feed, and that a hull-machine gunner requires a separate crewmember. 4) It has a hull machine gun. Most tanks by now have dispensed with it as it compromises the integrity of the frontal armor.
Yep. The noobtube's daddy. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation But how can you improve if there is no criticism?
@CaesciusPlanes @YuukaNeko @GoldenEagle
Wtf is this?
@PyrusEnderhunter Don't forget the M16 on top!
@YuukaNeko So, I decided that I should put accessories on my weapons.
Suppressors are overrated. At least compared to a grenade launcher.
This is a better model than mine.
I will make a variant.
@YuukaNeko It's the suppressor, isn't it?
I'm busy unfortunately. @Flash0of0green
This is much quieter. @PyrusEnderhunter
I only upvoted this once simply because you can only put one upvote per plane.
Thanks! From a pilot to a pilot. @thepilot04
@YuukaNeko "Back in my day, we didn't have suppressors on our barrels. We had a puny flash hider. It didn't do much, so they made it a bit bigger. It wasn't perfect, but it did the job and even made us work better! These young guns don't know how good they have it."
Looks cool! Grandpa Colt Commando is proud! Although he does have some commentary.
"Back in my day, we didn't have fancy optics and fore grips these whipper-snappers have. We had iron sights and a firm hold on the barrel. It was harder to control when you were on full auto. But we were better for it."
@Makoink Here's the RAF Pummeler.
@MrMecha Not now, but perhaps in the future.
So yet, I would like it.
@2344skyler Are you doing this on every gun build?
Welcome back, Sniper16.
Remember, June 3 is the date when I shall consider whether you can return.
Did you see my CA-47P?
As intended. Both weapons use a wrap-around bolt. @CaesiciusPlanes
Also, you can make concrete airstrips in Antarctica. And how long can the E-1 loiter over the target area? @PyrusEnderhunter
The Pummeler uses hit and run tactics. @PyrusEnderhunter
@PyrusEnderhunter Sorry for the rant. You mentioned "Pummeler."