NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm proud to announce the release of a new MBT, the M1A4 King Abrams. Its basicly an improved M1A2, complete with SEP. It has increased armor in the front and side, and the engine is now protected by third generation chobham armor. Another improvement is a D9000 eletro-magnetic main gun, capable of defeating most modern armor. A distinctive feature that sets it apart from the A2 is a side mounted TOW missile rack. It has an ingenious reload method. A small panel under the missile opens up, and the rack folds into the loader section where it can be reloaded without endangering the crew. Due to the added weight, a new engine was also added to compensate, but the speed performance is still virtualy the same. Improved fire-on-the-move targetting systems make it more accurate than before. It also features a new coaxial mini-gun for added anti-infantry fire power, and a new weapon for the commander, a GAU19/A .50 gattling gun. There is an optional auto loader, but it hampers rapid target aquisition since it has to elevate the gun to a level postion every time it reloads. Production rights are available only to CAD members, 20% discount to allies.

Price without auto loader-6 million

Price with auto loader- 6.3 million

M1A4
Crew 4 - driver, commander, gunner, loader
Weight 80.11 tons
Dimensions
Length with gun forward 411 inches
Turret height 93.5 inches
Width 149 inches
Ground clearance 18 inches
Ground pressure 15.4 p.s.i.
Propulsion Gas turbine engine, 2000 horsepower
Transmission Hydrokinetic transmission, 4 forward gears, 2 reverse gears
Power-to-weight ratio 21.6 hp/ton
Performance
Maximum governed speed 45 m.p.h.
Speed cross country 40 m.p.h.
Speed, 10% slope 17 m.p.h.
Speed 60% slope 4.1 m.p.h.
Acceleration 0 to 20 m.p.h. in 7.2 seconds
Range 265 miles cruising
Obstacle crossing
Vertical 42 inches
Trench 9 feet
Main armament 120 mm ETC gun, D9000
Coaxial Weapon 7.62 mm minigun, M134
Loader's Weapon 7.62 mm machine gun, M240, on Skate mount
Commander's weapon 0.50 calibre machine gun, GAU19/A, on powered rotary platform
NBC protection: 200 SCFM, clean cooled air

OOC: This is the first time I tried this, tell me if its good or not.

My T-98 Super Heavy Tank, can still withstand a front and probably side from this M1A4. Also I probably outrange you. My T-98 main gun has a range of about 7,000 meters.

What kind of gun does it have? My gun's basicly a scaled down rail gun, so its got a good chance at penetrating.

Hmpf. Axis Nova's Admiral A-1 would crush that thing like a tin can.

And btw, it's rather too slow...

Axis Nova

Note: This tank wasn't meant to be built to compete with "super heavy tanks", or whatever you call them. Its meant to be able to pwn RL tanks, that's why I built it off an Abrams chassis.

It's still too slow though >.>

Axis Nova

My current tank is the M1A3 Abrams, i won't divulge the specifics of it here but if you wish, Doomingsland, i could tell you by telegram. Essentially it is better protected than any tank on the market, including the King, which is, i must say an adventurous and surprising project.

My current tank is the M1A3 Abrams, i won't divulge the specifics of it here but if you wish, Doomingsland, i could tell you by telegram. Essentially it is better protected than any tank on the market, including the King, which is, i must say an adventurous and surprising project.
Sure, you can send me the specs, I pretty much made this tank after seeing all the flames about the A2, so I took all the stuff they said made it sucked, and improved it. Actualy, the M1A3 is a real tank, it was a private venture by GM, or someone else.

erm... Your tank wouldnt work 1, because the M1A2 is NBC warfare tank [in which it cannot be penetrated by Radiation, Chemical or Biological Warfare] The TOW rocket reloading system would de-seal the entire tank. 2, The reloader in the M1A2 sits under the gunner, with the gunners legs just around his head so a major redesign of the tank would be called for. 3,Also as the M1A2 weighs 70 tonnes battle ready, i very much doubt this tank wouldnt weigh more than 90 tonnes easily, 4, The Ammunition section of the tank would only be able to hold about 10 extra rockets for the TOW, 5, The engine would need to provide the tanks speed to a new boost example take it to 55mph to keep up with the British Challenger 2 for example. 6, the armour used for "your tank" is a special british combination, and hasnt been released to the USA yet [M1A2 home country] also the gun would need huge amounts of power, so technically your tank is just a slow moving target for Artillery and A-10X Tankbusters. Why not just settle for a Battle Fortress from Red Alert 2.

CA

The Battle Fortress-your not serious?

The most slow-moving of all the Allied vehicles, every time it falls to something, as it would in RL if anyone was stupid enough to build it.

The design is sound, but the physics are not quite right-yet.

erm... Your tank wouldnt work 1, because the M1A2 is NBC warfare tank [in which it cannot be penetrated by Radiation, Chemical or Biological Warfare] The TOW rocket reloading system would de-seal the entire tank. 2, The reloader in the M1A2 sits under the gunner, with the gunners legs just around his head so a major redesign of the tank would be called for. 3,Also as the M1A2 weighs 70 tonnes battle ready, i very much doubt this tank wouldnt weigh more than 90 tonnes easily, 4, The Ammunition section of the tank would only be able to hold about 10 extra rockets for the TOW, 5, The engine would need to provide the tanks speed to a new boost example take it to 55mph to keep up with the British Challenger 2 for example. 6, the armour used for "your tank" is a special british combination, and hasnt been released to the USA yet [M1A2 home country] also the gun would need huge amounts of power, so technically your tank is just a slow moving target for Artillery and A-10X Tankbusters. Why not just settle for a Battle Fortress from Red Alert 2.

CA

First of all, the amunition would be much lighter, as they are long steel rods, so I wouldn't worry about the ammunition section.

Yes, obviously I can't reload the TOW in a contaminated environment, just as you can't open the hatches in a contaminated environment.

I have allies that use the Callenger II, so I just took their armor and put it on my tank.

I don't particularly care about keeping up with a Challenger, as I could blast it away from 5000 meters.

I'm not exactly a physics genious, so lemme just fix the stuff with the engines and tonnage.

well you'd still need to find out sum kind of solution to cool the weapon, and sort out the sealing of the Rocket Pod, and then how would the steel rods penetrate enemy tanks, wow a big hole, in the side of tank wont do damage, maybe if u placed a high explosive chemical inside the rod, that would work

I plan on making the gun water-cooled, and sealing the rocket in the same fashion the hatches are sealed. As for powering the main gun, I was thinking to channel emmisions from the engines, or something like that.

Kamered would like to buy 20 King Abrams tanks. Just tell us when it will arrive and the money will roll in.

The tanks will be shipped immdiatly. They will arrive in one NS week.

My current tank is the M1A3 Abrams, i won't divulge the specifics of it here but if you wish, Doomingsland, i could tell you by telegram. Essentially it is better protected than any tank on the market, including the King, which is, i must say an adventurous and surprising project.

Have you tested EVERY TANK on the market? I am confident that the Panzerkampfwagen Berglöwe would victor.

Whether or not this tank is good, its impractical. A 90 ton tank will destroy most bridges it tries to cross. With the larger size and weight, only one train cart would be able to hold it, whereas two m1a2's can fit on one. There are lots of times this tank would simply sink or crack the ground it goes through. Also, if one of these tanks gets wrecked, theres just about nothing that can support 90 tons, so you would have to take like 4 regular tanks and drag it however far it needed... Very unefficient for Logistics, and this tank pretty much seems to be a huge target for ATGM's.

[A well-designed and laid-out road can easily handle 90 tons, especially when the roads are rebarred. Also, tanks are wider than cars and sit lower to the ground, which helps with weight distribution. As for logistics, that's why you have an Engineer Corps, to find a solution to a problem and design that solution so that your industry can supply it.]

[A well-designed and laid-out road can easily handle 90 tons, especially when the roads are rebarred. Also, tanks are wider than cars and sit lower to the ground, which helps with weight distribution. As for logistics, that's why you have an Engineer Corps, to find a solution to a problem and design that solution so that your industry can supply it.]

Sure it can. But are you planning on just assuming your enemies will have roads and bridges that can stand 90 tons? The abrams main fault is that its so heavy and has trouble moving over some bridges, and its hard to carry with logistics, etc. Putting in a new engine, which will just make it take more gas than the hog already does, and more weight, which is going to make it a logistics nightmare, is just not that smart. Why would you take the worlds heaviest MBT, and add 20 tons? Thats just asking for problems.

Have you tested EVERY TANK on the market? I am confident that the Panzerkampfwagen Berglöwe would victor.

Axis Nova's Admiral A-1 is designed to be able to shrug off direct hits from thermoelectric cannons and railguns, and is so large that it has it's own onboard point defense systems.

Axis Nova

Rail guns are not modern tech, electrothermal guns are.

Sure it can. But are you planning on just assuming your enemies will have roads and bridges that can stand 90 tons?

[Of course not, but that's why tanks are designed as off-road vehicles.]

[Of course not, but that's why tanks are designed as off-road vehicles.]

Thats not a very plausible design now, as everywhere is becoming urbanized.

Thats not a very plausible design now, as everywhere is becoming urbanized.

[My military's doctrine on dealing with urban areas is to send cavalry Troops into said area to draw fire so that they can direct air support or artillery to obliterate any resistance. Either that, or use a couple of divisions to surround a city and starve it out while the rest of whatever military presence I have in the enemy country takes care of business in the field. I don't mess with urban areas and I have neither respect nor sympathy for countries that use their urbanized population for a shield.]

I'm proud to announce the release of a new MBT, the M1A4 King Abrams. Its basicly an improved M1A2, complete with SEP. It has increased armor in the front and side, and the engine is now protected by third generation chobham armor. Another improvement is a D9000 eletro-magnetic main gun, capable of defeating most modern armor. A distinctive feature that sets it apart from the A2 is a side mounted TOW missile rack. It has an ingenious reload method. A small panel under the missile opens up, and the rack folds into the loader section where it can be reloaded without endangering the crew. Due to the added weight, a new engine was also added to compensate, but the speed performance is still virtualy the same. Improved fire-on-the-move targetting systems make it more accurate than before. It also features a new coaxial mini-gun for added anti-infantry fire power, and a new weapon for the commander, a GAU19/A .50 gattling gun. There is an optional auto loader, but it hampers rapid target aquisition since it has to elevate the gun to a level postion every time it reloads. Production rights are available only to CAD members, 20% discount to allies.

Price without auto loader-6 million

Price with auto loader- 6.3 million

M1A2
Crew 4 - driver, commander, gunner, loader
Weight 89.59 tons
Dimensions
Length with gun forward 411 inches
Turret height 93.5 inches
Width 149 inches
Ground clearance 18 inches
Ground pressure 15.4 p.s.i.
Propulsion Gas turbine engine, 2000 horsepower
Transmission Hydrokinetic transmission, 4 forward gears, 2 reverse gears
Power-to-weight ratio 21.6 hp/ton
Performance
Maximum governed speed 45 m.p.h.
Speed cross country 40 m.p.h.
Speed, 10% slope 17 m.p.h.
Speed 60% slope 4.1 m.p.h.
Acceleration 0 to 20 m.p.h. in 7.2 seconds
Range 265 miles cruising
Obstacle crossing
Vertical 42 inches
Trench 9 feet
Main armament 120 mm electro-magnetic gun, D9000
Coaxial Weapon 7.62 mm minigun, M134
Loader's Weapon 7.62 mm machine gun, M240, on Skate mount
Commander's weapon 0.50 calibre machine gun, GAU19/A, on powered rotary platform
NBC protection: 200 SCFM, clean cooled air

OOC: This is the first time I tried this, tell me if its good or not.

Very well done!

I will buy 10,000 of them (with auto loaders), for a total of $63,000,000,000.00 Money will be wired upon confirmation. Thanks!

You took 20% off for the ally discount right? The order will take one NS year to complete.

You took 20% off for the ally discount right? The order will take one NS year to complete.

I get a discount? Wow, thanks! Money has been wired.

Since EZ-Codes and I don't get along, I'll have to settle for the old-fashioned method of inserting quoted text.

----
"erm... Your tank wouldnt work 1, because the M1A2 is NBC warfare tank [in which it cannot be penetrated by Radiation, Chemical or Biological Warfare] The TOW rocket reloading system would de-seal the entire tank. 2, The reloader in the M1A2 sits under the gunner, with the gunners legs just around his head so a major redesign of the tank would be called for."
----

Actually, the environmental seals on an Abrams don't render it any more resistant to radiation than any other mass of thick metal plating. The "nuclear" part of "NBC capability" simply indicates that the tank's crew compartment is sealed against fallout and nuclear contamination. Radiation will still be a hazard.

Also, the loader doesn't sit under the gunner. That would make reloading and firing the gun a bit awkward to say the least :) . The loader sits on the left side of the turret, the TC and gunner are on the right. Check this site for details:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm


----
"well you'd still need to find out sum kind of solution to cool the weapon, and sort out the sealing of the Rocket Pod, and then how would the steel rods penetrate enemy tanks, wow a big hole, in the side of tank wont do damage, maybe if u placed a high explosive chemical inside the rod, that would work"
----

Actually, there's no need for explosive chemicals. APFSDS (Armor-Piercing, Fin-Stabilsed, Discarding-Sabot...see why it gets turned into an acronym?) ammunition is the current standard for heavy armor killing, and it's nothing more than a metal 'dart'...usually tungsten alloy or depleted uranium.

Armor penetration isn't magic, it's simple energy transfer...the penetrator is a hard, usually pointed object, moving at several thousand feet per second. When it hits a solid object, something has to give...and it's usually the solid object. (For a demonstration, slam an ice pick into the side of a soda can).

When it penetrates a target's armor, the transfer of kinetic energy from projectile to armor causes fragments of red hot (or hotter) metal to spall off the inside of the plating and ricochet around the crew compartment, with seriously detrimental effect on the crew, and on equipment. The effect is worse if one of those hot fragments hits a main gun round, or penetrates a fuel tank.

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/apfsds.htm

And how do you plan on powering the gun? The US Navy has developed a 5" Rail Gun for their destroyers, the first of which is scheduled to be put in service in 2008, but it has a Nuclear Reactor and it requires 95% of the power from the Reactor to fire, basically they have to shut off the engines and all non essential equipment to fire the gun, which is not as a big a deal in the water since the ship will still keep moving, but your tank would have to stop to fire, and it would have a range of over 5,000 meters easily.

Rail guns are not modern tech, electrothermal guns are.

Bull shit they aren't, I have built one, it is easy when the projectile is just a 1" nail, but the amount of energy required is quite a bit, you either get it going really realy fast or not at all.

[Actually West Pacific, the DD(X) is going to be powered by a diesel turbine and as I understand it ther power requirement leaves 95% of the power free. And the first one isn't going to enter service until 2013.]

I would like 4000 of these
*25.2 billion is wired*
You should be giving me a discount for being a superior nation.

I would like 4000 of these
*25.2 billion is wired*
You should be giving me a discount for being a superior nation.
Money recieved. Order will be complete in two NS months.

Money recieved. Order will be complete in two NS months.

Hmm, you're still around. I thought the CAD was demolished by Levex Ambassador. Oh well, at least Crimsdale is gone.

Hmm, you're still around. I thought the CAD was demolished by Levex Ambassador. Oh well, at least Crimsdale is gone.
That was you doing that?

That was you doing that?

Me doing what?

Me doing what?
Oh, I get it. You were watching from the sidelines as he pissed us off.

well you'd still need to find out sum kind of solution to cool the weapon, and sort out the sealing of the Rocket Pod, and then how would the steel rods penetrate enemy tanks, wow a big hole, in the side of tank wont do damage, maybe if u placed a high explosive chemical inside the rod, that would work
You know what a sabot round is?

Rail guns are not modern tech, electrothermal guns are.

Bull, railguns are modern tech.

You can make gauss rifles with stuff in your very own home! Gauss rifles work on the same principle (accelertaing a caseless projectile at high speeds using magnets/electromagnets/etc), and all you need is a ruler, some ball bearings, and magnets.


Clicky (http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/gauss_rifle/slomo5.gif)

You really dont get it do you, listen to what people say hes firing Steel Rods not fuking shells for god sake, Listen to what people say, oh yea you wanna talk about tanks i do no a hell of a lot about them seeing as my uncle commands a Challenger 2 Main battle Tank [powerfulest in the REAL world] so go fuk

Sye would like to buy 100 King Abrams tanks, if we like them we will order more. Money will be given once they come in.

Sye would like to buy 100 King Abrams tanks, if we like them we will order more. Money will be given once they come in.
Order confirmed and shipped. Expect arival in one NS week.

You really dont get it do you, listen to what people say hes firing Steel Rods not fuking shells for god sake, Listen to what people say, oh yea you wanna talk about tanks i do no a hell of a lot about them seeing as my uncle commands a Challenger 2 Main battle Tank [powerfulest in the REAL world] so go fuk
And what do you thing a SABOT round is? A steel rod stabalized by fins. If you really knew something about the Callenger, then you'd know they fire APDS, or armor piercing discarding SABOT, witch is a steel rod without fins. Just shut up and stop posting in this thread until you learn something about tanks.

The Challenger 2 ain't the 'powerfulest' as you so eloquently put it.

It has a diesel engine with a slightly bigger range, but the Abrams has amore reliable and more advanced Gas Turbine engine. One of the first MBT's to have a Gas Turbine engine actually, thus it is not as perfected as the Diesel engine is, but it will be and eventually will have a longer range for its fuel consumption. If you're talking powerful as in Rev Counts then the Abrams easily beats the Challenger, i've seen an Abrams rear up (near off the groundd) as one driver torqued the engine so hard it just went like a bolt off the mark, this technique used by the Tusker Brigade in Iraq on April 5th to jump over concrete highway dividers (reportedly, from tanks behind tanks, the ones that went the first few times actually left the ground completely, due to the extremely powerful engine).

However, the Challenger is a powerful tank and i currently use 2600 Challenger 2E's with enhanced FCS and Electrical sighting/scanning equipment.

[Actually West Pacific, the DD(X) is going to be powered by a diesel turbine and as I understand it ther power requirement leaves 95% of the power free. And the first one isn't going to enter service until 2013.]

Well, were both close, the designs are to be done and ready for construction by 2008, the first to be built by 2011. And yes, in order to fire power must be cut from the propulsion to fire the gun at maximum range, that is the key, maximum range, less power less distance, sorry about any confusion there, but to fire the full 250 KM the gun would need to use 95% of the ships power. But just imagine, a 5" gun destroying a target from that far away, hell the 16" guns of the Iowa Class Battleships of WWII look like oversized spud guns, not that they ever got used, the Japanese used a distraction and several hundred fishing trawlers, cargo ships, and anything else they could steal to distract Nimitz, think of how different the world could be if he had not taken the bait and destroyed the real Japanese fleet with those guns we might be using battleships today.
http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/rids/briefs/keydesign.html
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may_04_10.php

Guys, I'm trying to sell my tanks, could you take all the OOCness elsewhere?

You really dont get it do you, listen to what people say hes firing Steel Rods not fuking shells for god sake, Listen to what people say, oh yea you wanna talk about tanks i do no a hell of a lot about them seeing as my uncle commands a Challenger 2 Main battle Tank [powerfulest in the REAL world] so go fuk

Gee, here I though that the Leopard was considered to be the best MBT in the world, oh but those are experts, not biased people like yourself.

You actully have no idea what some of you are saying do you, i dont really care about these American Tank, you basically confussed everything saying tanks could lift off the ground they can because of powerful engines, the Challenger 2 is almost 5-6 tonnes in weight diffrence and currently holds the worlds longest kill, highest amount of armour, and most sophisticated [sp?] anti-armour technology so you can just shuit up, when you start working for the British Army and start running one of those you can talk to me about it. And Challengers use new ammunition called APFSDSR nowdays however put that one so ha screwwy

Seeing how Colonial Armies was the one that said my tank would weigh 90 tonnes, then seeing how much he really knows about tanks, I recalculated how much extra weight the new stuff on the tank would be, and calculated it would only be ten tonnes heavier, so it is now an 80 ton MBT (still pretty heavy, though).

Damm, Colonial Armies, you are the dumbest tank critic i have EVER come across, and trust me, i've argued for hours, sometimes days and weeks, with people about tanks. You know less than anyone i've ever come across.

Your a typical Brit, having to be superior for some idiotic reason when half of your military equipment isn't even your own design, nor is it even built in the UK. Such as the Challenger 2, for the Sultan of Oman. (And btw, don't go calling me an 'XX American' coz i ain't American, but unlike British people i like Americans)

The Challenger 2 doesn't have the most sophisticated armour, it DID for a while, with Chobham 2, but now the Abrams M1A2 uses Chobham Generation 3 manufactured under licence in the USA. Plus, the Heavy Armour Pack for the M1A2 coats parts of the Tank in Depleted Uranium (DU) encased in steel, DU having a density of 250%. Not even the latest kinetic energy penetrators, i.e. APFSDS-AT, can penetrate it. THAT IS the most sophisticated armour of ANY MBT in the world.

Next time CA, seriously check your facts, it seems everyone else does-except you.

bump

OOC: It's a shame you won't be able to airdrop this tank, due to the ETC gun.

OOC:You can't airdrop an M1A2, so I don't see a diference.

I'm impressed with the M-1A4 King Abram but I already have M-1A2. Can you upgrade my older tanks to M-1A4s of course at a price. Please reply back quickly and I will wire you the money and tanks.

I can upgrade each tank for 1 million each, and can do about 5 tanks per NS day.

OOC: It's a shame you won't be able to airdrop this tank, due to the ETC gun.

[Why the hell do you think an ETC makes a difference? It really isn't all that different from a normal gun, it just requires a bit more thermal protection do to the plasma from the switched metal propellant.]

That will be 3,492 M-1A2s to upgrade at an aditional cost of $3,492,000,000 USD. Also I would like to order 8 more M-1A4 tanks to reach a total of 4,000 at a cost of totaling upgrade and new tanks at $3,542,400,000 USD

Money and tanks will be wired tommorrow.

Order confirmed. Waiting for money and tanks to arrive.

bump

bump

bump

What does bump mean guys

What does bump mean guys

it means posting so that your thread is bumped back to the top of the thread list, meaning more people will see it

That's exactly what bump means.

bump

bump

bump

Buy the M1A4 KING TIGER under Doomingsland nation. random input

Buy the M1A4 KING TIGER under Doomingsland nation. random input
Err, actualy its called the King Abrams.

bump

bump

Oh, so now it's a storefront?

Oh, so now it's a storefront?
It always was.

bump

Would you be willing to sell the production rights?

He siad at the beginning that production rights are only available to the region of C A D, of which I am a member. So the answer would be: NO.

Oops, unattentive me.

We would like to purchase 100 Auto-loading M1A4s, for $630,000,000.

Order is confirmed, expect delivery in one NS month.

how the hell do you work out these dates. NS year, Month things?

An RL day is considered a year, two hours is a month and so on and so forth.

bump

bump

You actully have no idea what some of you are saying do you, i dont really care about these American Tank, you basically confussed everything saying tanks could lift off the ground they can because of powerful engines, the Challenger 2 is almost 5-6 tonnes in weight diffrence and currently holds the worlds longest kill, highest amount of armour, and most sophisticated [sp?] anti-armour technology so you can just shuit up, when you start working for the British Army and start running one of those you can talk to me about it. And Challengers use new ammunition called APFSDSR nowdays however put that one so ha screwwy
1) No they dont. Challenger IIs have rifled guns and so cannot use 'APFSDSR' (You are in fact refering to APFSDS (Amour Piercing Fin Stabalised Discarding Sabot)) because rifled guns cannot fire APFSDS. They can fire APDS (Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot) which is less effective as the rifling slows down the round.

2) APDS works on the same principle as a railgun. It does not carry any explosive, it makes a hole, which causes shards of molten metal to spray around inside the tank killing the crew and setting of ammo boxes to cause secondary explosions. Even if it doesnt, the hole will seriously mess up the electronics and any systems that happen to be in the way.

You know very little about tanks, so please stop flaming people because of their supposed lack of knowledge.

1) No they dont. Challenger IIs have rifled guns and so cannot use 'APFSDSR' (You are in fact refering to APFSDS (Amour Piercing Fin Stabalised Discarding Sabot)) because rifled guns cannot fire APFSDS. They can fire APDS (Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot) which is less effective as the rifling slows down the round.

2) APDS works on the same principle as a railgun. It does not carry any explosive, it makes a hole, which causes shards of molten metal to spray around inside the tank killing the crew and setting of ammo boxes to cause secondary explosions. Even if it doesnt, the hole will seriously mess up the electronics and any systems that happen to be in the way.

You know very little about tanks, so please stop flaming people because of their supposed lack of knowledge.0
We've tried to explain this to him multiple times, but he can't grasp what we're saying.

Well, it doesn't entirely matter, because he will continue to disagree and he will continue to be wrong. Anyway, if I haven't already said it, nice tank (even if I think using any rendition of the Abrams is suicidal in NS.)

Well, it doesn't entirely matter, because he will continue to disagree and he will continue to be wrong. Anyway, if I haven't already said it, nice tank (even if I think using any rendition of the Abrams is suicidal in NS.)
Why thank you!

bump

erm... Your tank wouldnt work 1, because the M1A2 is NBC warfare tank [in which it cannot be penetrated by Radiation, Chemical or Biological Warfare] The TOW rocket reloading system would de-seal the entire tank. 2, The reloader in the M1A2 sits under the gunner, with the gunners legs just around his head so a major redesign of the tank would be called for. 3,Also as the M1A2 weighs 70 tonnes battle ready, i very much doubt this tank wouldnt weigh more than 90 tonnes easily, 4, The Ammunition section of the tank would only be able to hold about 10 extra rockets for the TOW, 5, The engine would need to provide the tanks speed to a new boost example take it to 55mph to keep up with the British Challenger 2 for example. 6, the armour used for "your tank" is a special british combination, and hasnt been released to the USA yet [M1A2 home country] also the gun would need huge amounts of power, so technically your tank is just a slow moving target for Artillery and A-10X Tankbusters. Why not just settle for a Battle Fortress from Red Alert 2.

CA

They way I understood it is that the reloading system is completely seperate from the crew compartment. -shrug-

What is the frontal, side and rear armor thickness in mm? If its less than 1,100 I could crush this with a hand held rocket.

I plan on making the gun water-cooled, and sealing the rocket in the same fashion the hatches are sealed. As for powering the main gun, I was thinking to channel emmisions from the engines, or something like that.

water cooled is very useful.... in the water. But try it in the middle of IRAQ. I assure you it doesnt work water cooling weapons (evaporation)

What is the frontal, side and rear armor thickness in mm? If its less than 1,100 I could crush this with a hand held rocket.
OOC: Do you think I would actualy export a vehicle that I use? I have a far supierior tank in service. Just wait till you land your guys, hehehe (note-this was OOC, so you wouldn't know of my other tank)

bump

bump

bump

bump

I'm proud to announce the release of a new MBT, the M1A4 King Abrams. Its basicly an improved M1A2, complete with SEP. It has increased armor in the front and side, and the engine is now protected by third generation chobham armor. Another improvement is a D9000 eletro-magnetic main gun, capable of defeating most modern armor. A distinctive feature that sets it apart from the A2 is a side mounted TOW missile rack. It has an ingenious reload method. A small panel under the missile opens up, and the rack folds into the loader section where it can be reloaded without endangering the crew. Due to the added weight, a new engine was also added to compensate, but the speed performance is still virtualy the same. Improved fire-on-the-move targetting systems make it more accurate than before. It also features a new coaxial mini-gun for added anti-infantry fire power, and a new weapon for the commander, a GAU19/A .50 gattling gun. There is an optional auto loader, but it hampers rapid target aquisition since it has to elevate the gun to a level postion every time it reloads. Production rights are available only to CAD members, 20% discount to allies.

Price without auto loader-6 million

Price with auto loader- 6.3 million

M1A4
Crew 4 - driver, commander, gunner, loader
Weight 80.11 tons
Dimensions
Length with gun forward 411 inches
Turret height 93.5 inches
Width 149 inches
Ground clearance 18 inches
Ground pressure 15.4 p.s.i.
Propulsion Gas turbine engine, 2000 horsepower
Transmission Hydrokinetic transmission, 4 forward gears, 2 reverse gears
Power-to-weight ratio 21.6 hp/ton
Performance
Maximum governed speed 45 m.p.h.
Speed cross country 40 m.p.h.
Speed, 10% slope 17 m.p.h.
Speed 60% slope 4.1 m.p.h.
Acceleration 0 to 20 m.p.h. in 7.2 seconds
Range 265 miles cruising
Obstacle crossing
Vertical 42 inches
Trench 9 feet
Main armament 120 mm electro-magnetic gun, D9000
Coaxial Weapon 7.62 mm minigun, M134
Loader's Weapon 7.62 mm machine gun, M240, on Skate mount
Commander's weapon 0.50 calibre machine gun, GAU19/A, on powered rotary platform
NBC protection: 200 SCFM, clean cooled air

OOC: This is the first time I tried this, tell me if its good or not.

no pic?

no pic?
Sadly, no. Just picture a regular Abrams with a TOW missile pod mounted on the side and a gattling gun mounted in place of the .50 cal, and that's pretty much what it looks like.

bump

We would like to purchase another 100 Auto-loading M1A4s, for $630,000,000. Money wired upon confirmation.

Order confirmed, tanks will arive in one NS month.

bump

I just read something that made me pause, it says it's armed with an electro-magnetic gun. That means that this thing is armed with a friggin rail gun. Did you mean to do that?

I just read something that made me pause, it says it's armed with an electro-magnetic gun. That means that this thing is armed with a friggin rail gun. Did you mean to do that?
Uhhh, that was kinda the point.

You do realize that a tank armed with a rail gun is not modern tech by any standard, right?

Err, yes it is, didn't you read that big debate on the earlier pages were they said it WAS modern tech?

No, I did not and no it isn't. The DD(X) program will feature a destroyer that is armed with a 6.1" rail gun and to free up power from its engines (which incidently will have 100 times more horsepower than your own and thus much more energy) it would have to slow down from its cruise speed. I seriously doubt a tank could provide enough power to the rail gun to make it work properly, especially with the standard diesel turbine.

Its not a "standard" diesel turbine, I put a bigger engine in. Besides, I'm not the only country with ETC armed tanks, there's tons of other people.

[Uh, an ETC is not a rail gun. In fact, an ETC is not even an electro-magnetic gun.]

[Uh, an ETC is not a rail gun. In fact, an ETC is not even an electro-magnetic gun.]
OOC: D'oh, someone could have told me that before. What is it then?

The projectile is loaded into the barrel, behind which there is a "propellant," which is a dot of light metal. A powerful electromagnetic force is applied to the metal, which causes its atoms to "switch" directions. This happens so violently that the metal turns to plasma, and this expanding gas then drives the projectile forward.

[That's from Kitsune's site. Yes, there are electromagnetics involved, but they are not directly applied to the barrel and projectile. Furthermore, the physics behind a railgun is somewhat complicated and several problems have to be resolved for them to become capable of combat use, primarily the power problem I mentioned earlier. ETCs on the other hand don't really function differently than a normal gun, the propellent and thermal shrouding is all that's different.]

Rail guns are future tech

Even Electrothermal guns are pushing it.

bump

Would it be possible if we can test 5 of the M1A4 "King Abrams"? If we think they are good for the terrain in Greece we will buy them.

Very well, the tanks have been shipped. Have a nice day. The gun has been edited to be an ETC.

ooc-nice

We will like to order 100 M1A4 King Abrams. The total price is 6 billion. Money will be transfered on confirmation of the order.

Order confirmed, have a nice day.

I have production rights, right?

Yes, that was the first thing I said.

Yes, that was the first thing I said.

Whoops, missed that part. I feel so stupid :p

I would like to buy 400 M1A4 Tanks with the auto-loader.

(money wired upon delivery)

Order confirmed, expect delviery in 5 NS months.

Err, yes it is, didn't you read that big debate on the earlier pages were they said it WAS modern tech?

It isn't...at all. I've been here for almost 2 years, and a rail gun has never been considered modern tech.

Our small nation is exploring the possibilities of manufacturing vehicles (rather than using since the nation is small and could not stand up to a larger nation in a war) and has read this little convo. Ameremont would like to know which tank is the most advanced on the market.

It isn't...at all. I've been here for almost 2 years, and a rail gun has never been considered modern tech.
No, I'm pretty sure it is. In fact, I've been in modern RPs in which rail guns were used.