You have a standard three-mile limit. Our ships are anchored half a mile further than that. From our ships we can see over 10 miles or further.
And in a war of alliances, you were not useful to me anymore. Makoink was in a better position to achieve our goals. Your position was heavily compromised.
You were no longer necessary to my goals. And nobody believes that you have hundreds of capital ships. @PyrusEnderhunter
@PyrusEnderhunter Most of your ships were sunk en route by Coalition forces.
The Kouilou River is completely unsuitable for navigation into the mouth due to the multiple sandbars. However, the Congo River is one of the largest rivers in the world, second to the Amazon. Smaller vessels could take refuge upriver.
In addition, we have every port in Gabon under our surveillance.
I suggest the surrender or scuttling of all vessels capable of blue-water operations in order to avoid conflict.
The AMX-13 can hold 12 shots with the 75mm gun. I think the 90mm version had 10 shots, and the 105mm had 8, but correct me if I am wrong.
Its autoloader has two drums, with half the autoloader's capacity in each drum.
The drum doesn't have nearly that capacity in WoT because of game balance.
Machines with automatic loaders are more than capable of serving as frontline vehicles. The main battle tank of the Paternian Army is the M6A4 UPS AUTO Ardent. It's got a rack-and-elevator autoloader system for a 120mm gun with a 16 shot capacity, with 32 reserve shells available. The Ardent, with its combination of mobility, firepower, and armor, is unmatched.
What was left of your navy, that is. Thanks to the fact that the Paternian Navy has invested considerably in naval reconnaissance such as scout submarines such as the PRN Abalone and machines like the S-2 Tracer, P-2 Neptune, and SH-4 Sea King helicopters, most of your naval strength rests at the bottom of the ocean.
We also have planted remote microphones at the sea floor in international waters surrounding the Gabonese and Congolese coastlines. Any warships that attempt to leave the Kouilou or Congo Rivers will be detected and interdicted.
@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.
You have a standard three-mile limit. Our ships are anchored half a mile further than that. From our ships we can see over 10 miles or further.
And in a war of alliances, you were not useful to me anymore. Makoink was in a better position to achieve our goals. Your position was heavily compromised.
You were no longer necessary to my goals. And nobody believes that you have hundreds of capital ships. @PyrusEnderhunter
Shooting down an unarmed reconnaissance aircraft in international waters is grounds for war.
And we know you don't have hundreds of battleships. Your people have barely anything to eat. @PyrusEnderhunter
Regarding what? @PyrusEnderhunter
The detailing is good enough. I've considered less detailed builds "detailed".
@PyrusEnderhunter Most of your ships were sunk en route by Coalition forces.
The Kouilou River is completely unsuitable for navigation into the mouth due to the multiple sandbars. However, the Congo River is one of the largest rivers in the world, second to the Amazon. Smaller vessels could take refuge upriver.
In addition, we have every port in Gabon under our surveillance.
I suggest the surrender or scuttling of all vessels capable of blue-water operations in order to avoid conflict.
Four rounds in an autoloader is pretty minimal.
The AMX-13 can hold 12 shots with the 75mm gun. I think the 90mm version had 10 shots, and the 105mm had 8, but correct me if I am wrong.
Its autoloader has two drums, with half the autoloader's capacity in each drum.
The drum doesn't have nearly that capacity in WoT because of game balance.
Machines with automatic loaders are more than capable of serving as frontline vehicles. The main battle tank of the Paternian Army is the M6A4 UPS AUTO Ardent. It's got a rack-and-elevator autoloader system for a 120mm gun with a 16 shot capacity, with 32 reserve shells available. The Ardent, with its combination of mobility, firepower, and armor, is unmatched.
@JakeTheDogg This is the shiet you bring into battle.
You can reload them all. @blackvultureaeroespace
You mean in Korea? @PyrusEnderhunter
I might try turn this into a Yak-3 some day.
After all, the Yak-15 was basically a Yak-3 with a reverse-engineered Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet.
What was left of your navy, that is. Thanks to the fact that the Paternian Navy has invested considerably in naval reconnaissance such as scout submarines such as the PRN Abalone and machines like the S-2 Tracer, P-2 Neptune, and SH-4 Sea King helicopters, most of your naval strength rests at the bottom of the ocean.
We also have planted remote microphones at the sea floor in international waters surrounding the Gabonese and Congolese coastlines. Any warships that attempt to leave the Kouilou or Congo Rivers will be detected and interdicted.
Basically, you pose no threat. @PyrusEnderhunter
@PyrusEnderhunter We've interdicted most vessels that dispersed.
Dispersing the ships in all separate directions made it really easy for us to find them, and interdict them one by one.
@PyrusEnderhunter Yes. Yes you can.
But given that most of your military is either demobilized, dead, at the bottom of the ocean, or piled up in scrap yards, it would be inadvisable.
And what build do you want to collab in particular?
@PyrusEnderhunter Dick moves have been allowed for a long time.
And no. Australia is part of the NSA.
@ChiChiWerx Yep. We're right now in the 1960's.
Nice!
Did you see my submission?
It actually has seven guns.
M16A1 + M203
M16A2 + M203
M4A1 + M203
M203
@A3 ALOHAnet became the basis of Ethernet and IEEE 802.11 protocols. The latter is most commonly known as "WiFi."
@PyrusEnderhunter I'd think it's a dick move to invade someone and turn them into a rump state.
It's also known as politics.
Also, the locusts were probably destroyed in the blast from bombs and also from the fact the Paternian Air Force loves incendiaries.
Like, a lot.
We also have DDT, so your locusts are going to die.
@ChiChiWerx The C&C roleplay.
@A3 Aloha to ALOHAnet.
@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