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.
@Botfinder That's the name of the set. The turrets come from various companies such as Bandit Conglomerate, KRIEG, Paternian Defense Industries, Unity Defense Systems, and Dragon Defense Corporation.
It doesn't seem too hard to modify the exterior of the G11 to accept Picatinny rails. After all, the M16 wasn't designed to accept external attachments, except for perhaps a scope.
@Baldeagle086 I'm basically covered for making turrets.
Matter of fact, I'm thinking of releasing a series of turrets under the Paternian Armed Forces Standardized Protected Weapon Systems. Which cover everything from ring mount GPMG and mounted infantry weapon systems to artillery and missile systems. Even tank turrets are under this.
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.
Thanks! @Cedy117
@WorldClassMods A train.
@Cedy117 I don't need you for trucks anymore!
Yeah, but a Sherman is easier. Much easier. @WorldClassMods
Thanks! @grizzlitn
@AverroesIndustries I must disagree.
@SledDriver Neat!
@grizzlitn No problem!
@grizzlitn I can send you a special version of my M1115 and M1118 without the additional systems such as the turret and active protection systems.
@SledDriver Thanks!
@SledDriver Not a day in the military. But I am a really big history buff, especially military history.
@SledDriver As long as the target and the battery do not have a direct line of sight.
@SledDriver This mount is very much a direct fire emplacement, since you are relying on observing the fall of shot from the battery.
@SledDriver Indirect fire is shooting without relying on a direct line of sight from the batteries.
Think of mortars.
@AverroesIndustries Just stumbled onto this thing again.
Man, this takes me back.
@Botfinder That's the name of the set. The turrets come from various companies such as Bandit Conglomerate, KRIEG, Paternian Defense Industries, Unity Defense Systems, and Dragon Defense Corporation.
@YuukaNeko Conceptually, that is.
It doesn't seem too hard to modify the exterior of the G11 to accept Picatinny rails. After all, the M16 wasn't designed to accept external attachments, except for perhaps a scope.
@RailfanEthan Np!
@YuukaNeko That is true. Although if anything is to replace the M4, the closest thing that would qualify would be the HK G11.
@YuukaNeko That is true. Although if anything is to replace the M4, the closest thing that would qualify would be the HK G11.
@Baldeagle086 I'm basically covered for making turrets.
Matter of fact, I'm thinking of releasing a series of turrets under the Paternian Armed Forces Standardized Protected Weapon Systems. Which cover everything from ring mount GPMG and mounted infantry weapon systems to artillery and missile systems. Even tank turrets are under this.
@YuukaNeko Also, the M4 series is basically timeless. The M4 is basically an assault rifle perfected.
@YuukaNeko Oh yes, we've got them covered.
Matter of fact, I was going to release a few new trucks and then make a portable radio set, the AN/PRC-89 Wireless Field Telephone
Certainly, although there are more advanced versions of this such as the M1115 and M1118. @grizzlitn
@SledDriver Not really.
I likely won't, since most artillery pieces I make are designed for indirect fire.
@SledDriver Thanks!