Jump to content


Photo

Flame weapons reintroduced


  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 Blodo

Blodo

    The one who disagrees

  • Project Team
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Eastern Europe
  • Projects:siteMeister, Mental Omega
  •  The wise guy

Posted 09 August 2006 - 06:36 PM

A short time after the takeover the new ruling party has gave the order to extract all the old information about ignited fuel and napalm weaponry. A quick research has been conducted and the designers found it rather easy to fit the standard T-80 design with a flame weapon.
The tank itself will be marked as a RT-80f design.

The weapon itself has been redesigned and based around new fuel, which allows it to spew a wall of flames up to 60m in front of it. The flamethrower will be mounted on the tank turret as a separate gun based to the left of the standard shell barrel. This will allow it to fire up to 85 degrees upwards, thus making it effective in urban warfare.

A new shell will also be introduced to the new RT-80f tanks, basically a shell that will detonate about 3-5 meters before it hits the intended target, completely covering it with ignited napalm. An armor-piercing variant is also planned. The mechanics of it would be a timed fuse, allowing the shell to knock itself through a vehicles armour plating, and detonating it's liquid napalm inside, effectively killing everyone in the affected vehicle.

The RT-80f design is virtually indistinguishable from the normal T-80 tank which will surely help the element of surprise. The fuel tanks itself are concealed under the armor in the back of the tank. The tank itself is expected to become a pinnacle of shock and terror tactics, effectively routing the enemy from the field of battle - or at least make them lose their will to fight.

The weapon has been tested, and is already in manufacture. 200 are planned to be produced.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users