30 replies to this topic

[MSpencer]

They're still in the land of flying aircraft carriers and the USS Enterprise.
Understand I'm used to two worlds here. The practical, and science fiction. I like both, but I know where one ends and the other begins. This is just a little further in science fiction territory than cloning an army.

[Paladin58]

Well, at least I'm not doing that, or just materializing 50 nukes out of nowhere. Besides telling me to not even go through with it, perhaps you could give me some pointers, to help pull my HOUNDs out of the realm of sci-fi a little more.

[MSpencer]

I've been trying to do that, but each time, you've been saying "no, no no, that's not right", and citing the website for a video game...

1. Reduce the maximum speed. Nothing is going to get 80mph even on a hovercraft base. It's just not going to happen. 55mph is still in the realm of sci-fi for whatever vehicle had that as a top speed. That's the speed of the Abrams, and while, yes, it is on treads, it is much lighter than something standing up and its center of gravity is much lower.
2. Understand that the gear involved in many of these things will preclude them from being excellent in all areas. Like every armored vehicle in existence, they will have niches, but these will be more specialized due to their design.
3. Armor is a serious issue. You're not going to have something extremely well armored.
4. Tone down the defender's armament. Don't just tell me that's how it's going to be, it's not very possible or practical.

[Paladin58]

Ok, it just seemed like you were actually trying to say they wouldn't work, due to them not being tech that the normal world uses. So, for starters:

1. Would 60 mph be acceptable for the hovercraft, and between 35-40 be acceptable for the bipedal? I'll probably reduce the speed of the sniper as well, if that's the case.

2.This is what I know. I know also that they are more versatile than tanks in two areas: hills and mountains. As you may know, there is a mountain range towards the center of Yuktobania, where these are being designed and tested. They are going to be used mainly where tanks aren't the best suited for. As for tanks, that's why I'm keeping them around, to make up for what areas the Hounds cannot do very well, which is performing on even, flat terrain.

3. The Defender is pretty much the equivalent of a bulletsponge - it is there to soak up punishment, while the other Hounds do the killing. That's the reason why it has such thick armor. As for the others, I don't want them to immediately go up in a ball of fire when a soldier throws a grenade at it, so they have thick armor, but not nearly as thick as the Defender. Perhaps there is some armor that can take more than one tank shell, but not be as heavy as the Chobham or T-80 armor?

4. Perhaps one unguided scattermissile pod, and possibly a large flechette cannon? If there isn't such a thing, then I guess it'll have to be thought up and designed as well...

[MSpencer]

1. 50mph hovercraft on flat, perfect terrain. 35mph absolute maximum for anything bipedal.
2. These will have to replace a good percentage of your tank force. You can't keep both.
Also you never resolved the numbers on your tanks to my knowledge. Please post military figures in your information thread and I'll get to them in due time. At the moment I don't think anything is there, and with a war going on it would make for murder... you could just hypothetically godmod up an entire army...
3. Chobham is lucky if it can take a shot from a modern penetrator. A single shot. The armor used on any main battle tank is useful only to take one shot and hopefully get the crew out alive. If it's a good shot, the tank will go up like a roman candle. If it's an unlucky shot, it might strike a glancing blow, the penetrator might not completely penetrate, or the tank's armor will be unscathed. It depends on where it hits.
Look into the T-64 and the T-72 baseline armor, that's pretty much what you'll be limited to. If they get a good hit from a modern MBT, they're toast, just like anything else. It's weight which is the big drawback here, the light weight absolutely required by the chassis really puts you at a disadvantage as far as armor goes.
4. You'll have to design them.

[Paladin58]

1. Well, I can live with 35 for the bipedal. With the amount of weight for the Defender, would you say that 15 is acceptable?

2. Well, I'll most likely be taking a hit anyways, in terms of military force. Plus, I already didn't have that big of a military in the first place. And, i think I said my military numbers somewhere, I'll have to C&P. But, I do plan on growth in tank divisions, and since there will only be 30 in active service at any one time in the Yuktobanian military, there shouldn't be a problem.

3.Well, then, is there any kind of armor at all that can take more than one shot from a tank shell, besides the penetrators? I don't want my investment to go down the drain that fast. Perhaps some reinforcing of the inner superstructure would help?

4. Well, I already have some ideas for those, then. That's an easy one.

[MSpencer]

1. Just about.
2. Remember that each has a baseline operating cost at peacetime. You can't afford a huge army at peacetime, in general, no military force ever increases in numbers while at peace, things get retired and other things replace them, but there's only a real growth while at war.
3. Reinforcing the framework of the vehicle will make it heavier, cause it to move slower, and make it a more bulky target for tanks. Also, it won't stop anything from punching through the armor like it's tin foil.
More armor can't be added. There's nothing that would work here... at all. Tank armor is very heavy, and you're already dealing with a tall structure which is more heavy than a normal tank, and thus, is pushing the engine to its limits already. You can't just add more armor, and you can't add very heavy armor. If you do add very heavy armor, speed will drop like a rock and make it a larger target, thus making it useless.
As far as MBTs go, the best thing an armor designer can hope for is armor that will take one good solid hit from a penetrator and allow at least 2/4 crew members to escape alive.
4. Flechette weapons are very, very ineffective against armor, and have terrible range. I'd recommend using something else, unless it's supposed to be an anti-infantry weapon.

[chemical ali]

I think the idea spence is getting to you that you if you want mechs then you will have to decrease your army by 75% scrap all your tanks and be left with a useless to soon piece of kit.

[MSpencer]

Not so much that, but if the Army bought 30 very expensive machines like this tomorrow, they'd have to sell off a lot of surplus and redesignate a good chunk of an armored division to training with them and operating them, which would take a good year or two to do effectively..

[Paladin58]

The flechette weapon is mainly anti-infantry, with another use against lighter vehicles. And, I do plan on giving extensive training to each pilot of the HOUNDs. And, I know that that will put a dent in spending as well, as training costs are enormous. Also, since this is mainly a government-sponsored project, all profits from exporting them will go straight to the Army, and making more of them. I hope that won't be a problem.

[MSpencer]

Not a big problem, just some people might want some of those funds to fund their pipedream projects.
See: YAL-1B ABL
RAH-66 Commanche
DDG-23 Zumwalt
SSN-21 Seawolf
CVNX
USS Ronald Reagan
ISS
Kriegsmarine Z-Plan
Luftwaffe
Chinese Aircraft Carrier
Manhattan Project
Mexican Armored Division
Sea Shadow (Stealth Ships)
HIMARS
M1A2 SEP

Don't let anything of yours join this illustrious list...