Still, I think that such would probably happen again because the trend of joint tank projects between Western countries tend to result in two very similar machines that basically do the same thing. Kind of like AMX-30 and Leopard 1.
However, the whole reason why M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 are so similar was because both were born out of a joint US-German program to make a fast, 60-ton main battle tank with a 120mm smoothbore gun. They started it in the aftermath of MBT-70, and like the MBT-70, proceeded to disagree with everything about how exactly to make a fast, 60-ton main battle tank with a 120mm smoothbore gun.
It's not inconceivable that this would be the case.
@Flash0of0green What determines its effectiveness is whether it's abilities and characteristics are best suited to the whole situation at hand.
Let's take the scenario of a police issue sidearm. It's a sidearm, which precludes any long arm of any description due to their bulk. It's also going to be mostly worn, occasionally brandished, and rarely fired. So a pistol would be ideal, since although a pistol lacks a lot of firepower, range, accuracy, and capacity compared to something like a shotgun or rifle, it is significantly lighter and handier. Which is important if it's mostly going to be carried.
Lovely story! However, I do feel that if the story is to be more authentic, then the story should have the US get mad that their own design wasn't chosen and decided to adopt their design over the German for political reasons. Officially, it wasn't adopted due to the differing requirements the US had over the German.
US-German tank collaboration usually goes about as well as a train wreck. It would also give you a canonical reason to build a similar design. @NANOMAN
The Carlton Lightning Rifle is a top-eject weapon, and their shotgun, the Lightning, is a bottom-feed, bottom-eject, like an Ithaca 37. @Flash0of0green
@General360 I forgot to mention that Sherman tanks in the Israeli Army knocked out T-55 and T-62 of the Arab coalition that tried to kill Israel, failed, and got decimated.
I must clarify that the Sherman tank saw iterative improvements over the production cycle, including improvements in ergonomics, firepower, engine power, suspension, armor, and tracks.
The British simply had a lack of tank-building industry and a good design, being completely underfunded throughout the interwar period.
The Soviets realized the nature of the conflict, and given the heavy losses incurred during Operation Barbarossa, sought to replace and then expand their forces. Thus, production was prioritized for a large quantity of adequacy. @General360
The Paternian Army does acknowledge these flaws, but feel the advantages in lower profile, reduced weight, reduced crew requirements, and upgradability offered by these turrets outweigh the drawbacks.
Given that the Victoria is a massive vehicle with a sizable frontal profile, and incredible weight, the potential benefits are fairly substantial. The frontal profile is significantly reduced, especially if the machine is hull-down. And where standard Victoria weighs 70 tons, this weighs 50.
The commander is provided a separate wide-angle camera atop the turret, in addition to the one on the RCWS.
As for complexity, the automatic loader is a refinement of those employed on previous M23 Chariot, M120 SPG, and M55 Ardent II. While the M23's carousel system had significant issues with the autoloader, the M55's elevator system did not, and its system was employed by the M252 FSV with success. We simply built a new turret around this system. @PINK
@EternalDarkness In Hawaiian and other Polynesian languages, "mako" means "shark". In fact, it would be the Maori (indigenous New Zealanders) variant which would be used for the name of the shark species.
While factory M4A3E2 had the 75mm general-purpose gun, it came with a T23-inspired turret, the T23 turret being used on machines armed with the 76mm anti-tank gun.
It's one of the few cases where American TDs actually did their job as intended; rush to halt an enemy counter-offensive that broke though the line.
As for the flammability of the Sherman, it was no more flammable than other tanks. However, only the Sherman would receive wet ammo storage, which significantly reduced instances of fire.
And the Sherman, of any WWII tank, was perhaps the safest, except for early tanks which lacked a loader's hatch (they added one later). The hatches are large and spring-loaded, so opening them is easy and getting out from them is easier. Given that the average casualty rate for Infantry was 17%, and tankers at 3% (of which half that number came when they weren't in the tank, such as sentry duty or getting shot evacuating a burning tank), my bet goes to tankers living. @cobalT
Principally NATO and Warsaw Pact. @AdrianFlyingAce
@RailfanEthan @MadBomber Thanks!
@Flash0of0green That is true. The AR-10 and AR-15 are among the most versatile firearms ever made.
I do believe that it is fine that a weapon is specialized, as long as you recognize it's specialist nature and work around it.
@phanps No problem!
@ReischetzFokke That "Msomething" is the M2/M3 Howitzer.
@phanps Go ahead. Permission is unnecessary for my builds.
Oh yay. Welcome to the club.
@NANOMAN Apologies.
Still, I think that such would probably happen again because the trend of joint tank projects between Western countries tend to result in two very similar machines that basically do the same thing. Kind of like AMX-30 and Leopard 1.
@Flash0of0green I mean, you wouldn't call a sniper rifle a bad weapon, even though it is easily one of the worst options in close-combat warfare.
@Flash0of0green I intended on cameras, but forgot to do so.
@NANOMAN That is true.
However, the whole reason why M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 are so similar was because both were born out of a joint US-German program to make a fast, 60-ton main battle tank with a 120mm smoothbore gun. They started it in the aftermath of MBT-70, and like the MBT-70, proceeded to disagree with everything about how exactly to make a fast, 60-ton main battle tank with a 120mm smoothbore gun.
It's not inconceivable that this would be the case.
@Flash0of0green What determines its effectiveness is whether it's abilities and characteristics are best suited to the whole situation at hand.
Let's take the scenario of a police issue sidearm. It's a sidearm, which precludes any long arm of any description due to their bulk. It's also going to be mostly worn, occasionally brandished, and rarely fired. So a pistol would be ideal, since although a pistol lacks a lot of firepower, range, accuracy, and capacity compared to something like a shotgun or rifle, it is significantly lighter and handier. Which is important if it's mostly going to be carried.
Lovely story! However, I do feel that if the story is to be more authentic, then the story should have the US get mad that their own design wasn't chosen and decided to adopt their design over the German for political reasons. Officially, it wasn't adopted due to the differing requirements the US had over the German.
US-German tank collaboration usually goes about as well as a train wreck. It would also give you a canonical reason to build a similar design. @NANOMAN
Np! @NANOMAN
Neat.
Ah, neat. @melojam
Cool! The most comparable system is either an M250 APC or M125 APC with a mortar in the floor, with an open roof. @MadBomber
It's okay. Not particularly easy to get the shape. @Zandgard
Turret is a bit off, but otherwise looks fantastic.
@General360 @Dllama4 Thanks!
@Flash0of0green The name "lightning" refers to the speed which the weapon's action could be operated.
Np! I'm thinking of a collab to build a railway gun.
You can design the carriage, and I can get to the gun design itself, a 240mm howitzer. @RailfanEthan
The Carlton Lightning Rifle is a top-eject weapon, and their shotgun, the Lightning, is a bottom-feed, bottom-eject, like an Ithaca 37. @Flash0of0green
The scopes are for use with slug rounds. Basically, a giant bullet.
Some slugs need a rifled barrel, where others can use a standard smoothbore barrel. Accurate to 150m. @PhantomBladeCorp
@Supercraft888 Np!
@JakeTheDogg Quad Vulcan?
Yep. @Bobplanes322
Thanks! @GrOuNdZeRo
@Supercraft888 Np!
Nice heli. Lemme guess, based off the Mi-28, with a Fenestron rotor.
Pretty cool design.
Nice! @Dllama4
@FlyingFanatic lol
@General360 Actually, it's the M50 and M51 Sherman.
The M50 Sherman had the gun of the AMX-13-75, which in its own right a copy of the Panther's 75mm gun.
The M51 Sherman had a shortened GIAT 105mm cannon (from the AMX 30) loaded with HEAT ammo.
The only Sherman tanks referred to as "Super Sherman" by the Israeli military was those armed with the 76mm M1.
@General360 I forgot to mention that Sherman tanks in the Israeli Army knocked out T-55 and T-62 of the Arab coalition that tried to kill Israel, failed, and got decimated.
@General360 Perhaps. I get a bit fed up when people tell me that the Panther is the best tank of WWII.
To this date, I know of no Panther tank that knocked out a T-55.
Thanks!
I must clarify that the Sherman tank saw iterative improvements over the production cycle, including improvements in ergonomics, firepower, engine power, suspension, armor, and tracks.
The British simply had a lack of tank-building industry and a good design, being completely underfunded throughout the interwar period.
The Soviets realized the nature of the conflict, and given the heavy losses incurred during Operation Barbarossa, sought to replace and then expand their forces. Thus, production was prioritized for a large quantity of adequacy. @General360
The Paternian Army does acknowledge these flaws, but feel the advantages in lower profile, reduced weight, reduced crew requirements, and upgradability offered by these turrets outweigh the drawbacks.
Given that the Victoria is a massive vehicle with a sizable frontal profile, and incredible weight, the potential benefits are fairly substantial. The frontal profile is significantly reduced, especially if the machine is hull-down. And where standard Victoria weighs 70 tons, this weighs 50.
The commander is provided a separate wide-angle camera atop the turret, in addition to the one on the RCWS.
As for complexity, the automatic loader is a refinement of those employed on previous M23 Chariot, M120 SPG, and M55 Ardent II. While the M23's carousel system had significant issues with the autoloader, the M55's elevator system did not, and its system was employed by the M252 FSV with success. We simply built a new turret around this system. @PINK
@Supercraft888 It is heavily inspired by the F-15.
@EternalDarkness Np! Gotta love the helicopter update. Brought life back into the old Trojan.
@EternalDarkness In Hawaiian and other Polynesian languages, "mako" means "shark". In fact, it would be the Maori (indigenous New Zealanders) variant which would be used for the name of the shark species.
@Potkuri I feel the pain. :(
@DogeMaster14 This vehicle is the E8 variant.
While factory M4A3E2 had the 75mm general-purpose gun, it came with a T23-inspired turret, the T23 turret being used on machines armed with the 76mm anti-tank gun.
Could use some detail. But other than that, wonderful build.
Now I'll go find the Finn so that someone can look at the Buffalo and say it's good.
Because for the most part, nobody liked the Buffalo. Except for the Finns.
@Liquidfox Thanks.
@Flash0of0green Thanks!
@PyrusEnderhunter That looks more ISFOS than actual ISFOS tanks.
@PyrusEnderhunter Built a new tank.
The results of El Guettar tell me otherwise.
It's one of the few cases where American TDs actually did their job as intended; rush to halt an enemy counter-offensive that broke though the line.
As for the flammability of the Sherman, it was no more flammable than other tanks. However, only the Sherman would receive wet ammo storage, which significantly reduced instances of fire.
And the Sherman, of any WWII tank, was perhaps the safest, except for early tanks which lacked a loader's hatch (they added one later). The hatches are large and spring-loaded, so opening them is easy and getting out from them is easier. Given that the average casualty rate for Infantry was 17%, and tankers at 3% (of which half that number came when they weren't in the tank, such as sentry duty or getting shot evacuating a burning tank), my bet goes to tankers living. @cobalT
Credit goes to PhantomBladeCorp for the hull. @CRJ900Pilot
@PhantomBladeCorp And thanks.