|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
With the early tanks, the crew would often be injured from spalling when rifle and machinegun bullets hit the armour near them - the reason spall liners are basically standard equipment in AFVs today.
Have you modelled that somehow?
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Standard Manufacturing Excalibur 20mm Vulcan SHORAD
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Standard Manufacturing Rough Terrain variable height transporter.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I wanted to have vehicles to compare to existing ones in T2K, not re-invent the combat system, particularly where at the moment I don't contemplate actually using these designs in a game. But i'll bear that in mind for if an when I consider using these vehicles. Uncle Ted Last edited by unkated; 04-06-2016 at 04:24 PM. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Pretty much any projectile which hits has the potential to cause spalling - the thicker the armour, the larger the impact or explosion needs to be though. For more modern vehicles spalling is not much of an issue as they're almost invariably fitted with spall liners.
For early AFVs (up to the late 1930's and into the 40's I believe) spall liners where not standard and from what I can find were really only developed in response to the introduction of HESH rounds by the British in the 1940's. In WWI, AFV crews had to wear armoured masks similar to the one pictured to protect the face and especially eyes from flying shrapnel spalled off the inside of their vehicles armour. Even just the impact of ordinary rifle bullets could be enough to blind a crewman close to the point of impact (a gunner for example looking for targets). While this is not an issue for T2K era vehicles, probably not even the left over WWII ones (which were likely retrofitted with liners) it is probably something which should be kept in mind if an earlier vehicle was used. Attachment 3711
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem Last edited by Legbreaker; 04-29-2021 at 04:56 AM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, so there have been plenty of vehicles designed and tested over the years, and the best is not always chosen, for various reasons. What vehicles do you guys think should have been adopted instead of the ones the military picked?
Last edited by Draq; 09-18-2016 at 10:03 AM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I would have liked to see the prototype Abrams with 25mm coax. Once you up-gunned to the 120mm having a coax that can take out the light armor would have been nice.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
You mean like the 20mm secondary anti-soft-skin gun the MBT-70 had?
__________________
"Let's roll." Todd Beamer, aboard United Flight 93 over western Pennsylvania, September 11, 2001. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Very close, I remember way back when I was at Knox (93') and stopped by the Patton Museum they had one of the XM1's and it had a 25mm (same as the Bradley) as its coax, before it went to production they had swapped it with the M240 of today as the ammo carried was not enough they thought (I think it was something like a 1000rds for the coax, but do not remember for sure.)
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 19 (0 members and 19 guests) | |
|
|