@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Well, in my opinion, you're placing your weapons in a highly exposed position. If we were able to cut off Europe, then everywhere else will be left with little to fight.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Where? You may have bases in France and Anatolia, but our union with Katipunia means that we can use Katipunian territory to establish a military presence. You don't.
One side of the Straits of Gibraltar is owned by Katipunia and the other by Sals, and by extension, us, via our base in Ceuta and soon, Gibraltar. In addition, we have bases in Tangiers, Casablanca, Malta, Dhekelia in Cyprus, Heraklion in Crete, Naples, Genoa, Venice, and Sicily.
The only other outlet is the Suez Canal, whose eastern bank is under your jurisdiction.
I doubt you would challenge a navy who has equipment, numerical, and personnel parity and a clear geographical superiority. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
True, but borders change, and the most practical way to reinforce it is through the Mediterranean Sea from ports in Syria, Israel, Turkey, and through the Suez Canal, into ports in France.
Thus the security of your most convenient shipping lanes into Europe is controlled by Katipunia and Paternia, and to a lesser extent, the GAE.
In a worst-case scenario where these forces are not on your side, things can go very badly, very quickly for forces which are in Europe. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
From a defensive standpoint, I suggest finding new ownership of Europe. They have proven that they don't like Awwam very much, and of all Awwami territories, will be hardest to defend. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Sorry if it came across that way. It was simply my take on the type. I assumed that any faults with the type is irrelevant in your employment, as vehicle design is all about compromises, and an enhancement of capability in one aspect is a degradement of capability in another aspect.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation It's based on the Cadillac Gage Commando and its modernization, the M1117. Not the prettiest vehicle, but something that does the job well.
Our AH-2B Devastator, while smaller and faster, is certainly not as well-armed.
Of note, over-rotation of the turret could lead to aircraft destruction. Suggested is the revision of the turret weapon mount to move the weapon from the sides to the front in order to remedy this issue.
The AH-2 does not have this issue because it fixes the gun to the bottom of the fuselage, simplifying aiming. Where there must be some complex system for the pilot to aim the gun in addition to flying the craft, the AH-2 pilot can simply point the helicopter at the target, which it should be facing anyways, since that's the direction the missiles and rockets are facing.
The AH-2 also has a copilot. Although the pilot does all the flying and use of weapons, the copilot does a lot of coordination with ground troops in acquiring ground targets, so the pilot can busy itself with flying and shooting. The fact we have twice the amount of eyeballs in our helicopter allows us to detect and identify targets more efficiently than if you left that responsibility solely on one man, who also must fly the plane.
However, I assume that any technical flaws in the aircraft from our perspective is irrelevant due to whatever tactical doctrine you employ. In Paternian service, attack helicopters double as scouts, and therefore while not as well-armed, are fitted with plenty of sensors, since airplanes are equally precise and can carry more ordnance than a helicopter, and the strength of a helicopter is its ability to operate closer to ground forces and its endurance over the target. You seem to employ them less as armed reconnaissance and more as weapons platforms, in which this aircraft is undoubtedly superior.
The USMC uses the LAV-25, which is similar to the Stryker and the LAV III, and does have a Bushmaster M242 25mm chain gun, the same weapon used on the AH-64 Apache and MH-60 Blackhawk DAP. I feel this weapon is more than capable of dealing with enemy reconnaissance elements.
Given the expeditionary nature of the USMC, I believe it would be the USMC to conduct such aggressive reconnaissance.
The .50 caliber M2 or 40mm Mk 19 automatic grenade launcher is more than enough to put down a Toyota pickup truck.
In addition, there are variants with 105mm M68 rifled gun, 120mm mortars, and TOW missiles. I would not question the ability for a TOW missile, a 120mm mortar, or a 105mm high-velocity anti-tank gun, in its ability to destroy a reconnaissance vehicle. Heck, I think they have a good chance against something like a T-90MS in an ambush. @PINK
@PINK The troops like it. Technical flaws are irrelevant if the troops feel that it does the job.
Take the Browning Automatic Rifle M1918. Compared to weapons of the era, there were many technical issues that could be brought up to say it was a bad weapon compared to what was available.
Yet, the troops liked it, and therefore can be said to have been a good weapon. I tend to place the credence of field reports than technical characteristics.
Because according to the Germans, the 75mm L/70 on the Panther could reliably penetrate the front of a Sherman tank at 100m, assuming the tank was presented at an angle.
Of course, we know this is not true, based on field reports.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation I could see that.
Of note, there are numerous amphibious vehicles already.
One tip: dispense with the square blocks.
Fuselage blocks are your friend. Anything you could do with square blocks, you could do with fuselage blocks, for less parts, and for greater detail.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Well, in my opinion, you're placing your weapons in a highly exposed position. If we were able to cut off Europe, then everywhere else will be left with little to fight.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Where? You may have bases in France and Anatolia, but our union with Katipunia means that we can use Katipunian territory to establish a military presence. You don't.
Welcome back! @Mudkip
@YuukaNeko Never heard of it.
We have forces in Sals.
One side of the Straits of Gibraltar is owned by Katipunia and the other by Sals, and by extension, us, via our base in Ceuta and soon, Gibraltar. In addition, we have bases in Tangiers, Casablanca, Malta, Dhekelia in Cyprus, Heraklion in Crete, Naples, Genoa, Venice, and Sicily.
The only other outlet is the Suez Canal, whose eastern bank is under your jurisdiction.
I doubt you would challenge a navy who has equipment, numerical, and personnel parity and a clear geographical superiority. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
@DankDorito Deal.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation To cover the whole damn thing.
True, but borders change, and the most practical way to reinforce it is through the Mediterranean Sea from ports in Syria, Israel, Turkey, and through the Suez Canal, into ports in France.
Thus the security of your most convenient shipping lanes into Europe is controlled by Katipunia and Paternia, and to a lesser extent, the GAE.
In a worst-case scenario where these forces are not on your side, things can go very badly, very quickly for forces which are in Europe. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
From a defensive standpoint, I suggest finding new ownership of Europe. They have proven that they don't like Awwam very much, and of all Awwami territories, will be hardest to defend. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
@TheBroadside Two days by rail.
It's really nothing, just exaggerated by the armor screens. @PINK
Thanks! It's a bit top-heavy, but then again, many vehicles of its class are. @Supermini555
P$150M. @TheBroadside
Cool! @YuukaNeko
It's .45 ACP. @TheBroadside
Ok. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
Cool!
Nice! Of note, can I modify it for my purposes for an RP?
@DankDorito Each vehicle is P$1.5M.
So that would be a clean 2,300 vehicles.
Five, with half a million to spare. @DankDorito
Indeed. How many do you want and for what price? @DankDorito
The configuration should allow for a 100% resizeable hull. @TheBroadside
@TheBroadside One tip: Use fuselage blocks instead of the standard blocks. Your build quality will improve dramatically.
The resizeable one.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation You occupy one continent completely and another halfway, the former being Australia and the latter being Asia.
@DankDorito Sure!
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation @TheBroadside lol
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Sorry if it came across that way. It was simply my take on the type. I assumed that any faults with the type is irrelevant in your employment, as vehicle design is all about compromises, and an enhancement of capability in one aspect is a degradement of capability in another aspect.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation On the other hand, I still do not get why PINK likes to have big windows on his armored cars.
Its as if he wants the crew inside to feel uncomfortably exposed.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation It's based on the Cadillac Gage Commando and its modernization, the M1117. Not the prettiest vehicle, but something that does the job well.
Thanks!
I'm assuming the ugly looks come from our standard mustard camouflage.
It's a color that works well in deserts and forests. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
Our AH-2B Devastator, while smaller and faster, is certainly not as well-armed.
Of note, over-rotation of the turret could lead to aircraft destruction. Suggested is the revision of the turret weapon mount to move the weapon from the sides to the front in order to remedy this issue.
The AH-2 does not have this issue because it fixes the gun to the bottom of the fuselage, simplifying aiming. Where there must be some complex system for the pilot to aim the gun in addition to flying the craft, the AH-2 pilot can simply point the helicopter at the target, which it should be facing anyways, since that's the direction the missiles and rockets are facing.
The AH-2 also has a copilot. Although the pilot does all the flying and use of weapons, the copilot does a lot of coordination with ground troops in acquiring ground targets, so the pilot can busy itself with flying and shooting. The fact we have twice the amount of eyeballs in our helicopter allows us to detect and identify targets more efficiently than if you left that responsibility solely on one man, who also must fly the plane.
However, I assume that any technical flaws in the aircraft from our perspective is irrelevant due to whatever tactical doctrine you employ. In Paternian service, attack helicopters double as scouts, and therefore while not as well-armed, are fitted with plenty of sensors, since airplanes are equally precise and can carry more ordnance than a helicopter, and the strength of a helicopter is its ability to operate closer to ground forces and its endurance over the target. You seem to employ them less as armed reconnaissance and more as weapons platforms, in which this aircraft is undoubtedly superior.
I suppose if we had to cede territory to a new nation, I can spare my South American territories (south of Panama) and you can spare Western Europe.
Seriously, you already have India and China. And half of Asia. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
Awesome! @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
@PINK The US does.
The USMC uses the LAV-25, which is similar to the Stryker and the LAV III, and does have a Bushmaster M242 25mm chain gun, the same weapon used on the AH-64 Apache and MH-60 Blackhawk DAP. I feel this weapon is more than capable of dealing with enemy reconnaissance elements.
Given the expeditionary nature of the USMC, I believe it would be the USMC to conduct such aggressive reconnaissance.
You stated the mass is 5 tons. @PINK
The Giganto model is too basic at this point for me to do anything. @TheBroadside
We do. @PINK
Thanks! @RailfanEthan
Lol @Johndfg
Stated mass is 11 tons.
The .50 caliber M2 or 40mm Mk 19 automatic grenade launcher is more than enough to put down a Toyota pickup truck.
In addition, there are variants with 105mm M68 rifled gun, 120mm mortars, and TOW missiles. I would not question the ability for a TOW missile, a 120mm mortar, or a 105mm high-velocity anti-tank gun, in its ability to destroy a reconnaissance vehicle. Heck, I think they have a good chance against something like a T-90MS in an ambush. @PINK
@PINK The troops like it. Technical flaws are irrelevant if the troops feel that it does the job.
Take the Browning Automatic Rifle M1918. Compared to weapons of the era, there were many technical issues that could be brought up to say it was a bad weapon compared to what was available.
Yet, the troops liked it, and therefore can be said to have been a good weapon. I tend to place the credence of field reports than technical characteristics.
Because according to the Germans, the 75mm L/70 on the Panther could reliably penetrate the front of a Sherman tank at 100m, assuming the tank was presented at an angle.
Of course, we know this is not true, based on field reports.
@PINK And the Stryker is a variant of the LAV III, which is based off the Piranha.
@PINK The Stryker isn't so bad, really. Troops like it.
Do you think I need something bigger to replace the Stallion? I was thinking along the lines of a 6x6, not unlike the Stryker. @PINK
Yep. Exactly my basis. @PINK
Look at the F-4 Phantom. Compared to jets of the era, it isn't sleek and shiny. It's rough and angular.
Yet it's beauty in flight is a majesty in its own right.
How? It was built for function than form. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation