NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC:

Okay, I'm not too common on the II boards, as I tend to maraud the NS section more prominently. However, I was going to launch a "New Tank" thread, and that fits much more with the II spirit than the NS, so here I am. Oy.

The meat and potatoes of the deal are this: I like story, even in tech threads. This means, I'm going to talk about the history of the tank, and why the Heavy Battle Tank (HBT) faded in favor of the Main Battle Tank (MBT). In real life, this was because of the success of ATGM (laser guided missiles) in the Yom Kippur War, where the Israeli tank divisions got eaten alive by two-man rocket teams. In NS, this war has (probably) never happened, but due to comparatively similar techs and nations, there's probably been some sort of parallel.

Basically, would someone mind if I dropped their name(s) as people involved in this scenario. Country A, with a history of heavy arms maneuver, got taken by Country B with light Anti-Tank Weaponry, causing the fall of the HBT from common use?

If you have a history of armored warfare, and can explain a similar scenario, let me know, and you'll appear in the post where they go over the new HBT I'm building.

(And yes, I might sell it, and it will be K-stan precise; that's better known as "works great, costs a bitch".)

ooc: well generally in II, ATGMs don't even dent tanks, much less destroy them.

But then again, HBTs and MBTs have their uses in NS. However, armor is beginning to drop, due to the fact that KEs can pierce 10000mm+ RHA these days.

ooc: well generally in II, ATGMs don't even dent tanks, much less destroy them.
I'd prefer to work with logic, and ignore the kind of insanity you just mentioned above. Hence, a nation I used would have to have a rational (aka pseudo-realistic) military.

But then again, HBTs and MBTs have their uses in NS. However, armor is beginning to drop, due to the fact that KEs can pierce 10000mm+ RHA these days.
I never claimed MBTs are less usefull. Good God, it's the most heavily armed and armored weapon on the land battlefield, and a keystone in modern maneuver/shock warfare. However, even accounting for the "bigger is better" mindset of some players (including the reason I'm building an HBT ;) ), the HBT should not be nearly as common as the MBT.

For this same reason, the Assault Gun and Tank Destroyer should have faded, but obviously, on NS, would remain in some niche use among nations who favor those weapons.

This new HBT better be better than Intelligent Neighbor's Pz-5 Wolfbane (shameless plug!), or I wont buy it.

One of my allies requested that I design an HBT for his military, and I'm going to do so, but I'm going to do it in such a way that I can be proud of it, such as having a history with it. Because of this, I can't use the real world events, but the real life situations would probably occur.

(Same places, same basic people, some linking history, same tech.)

Divergence from reality would occur on two situations: altered tech/tactics, which I would note in the post as "Nation X, however, has continued to demonstrate that *blank* can still function under these stipends..."; and ignorance of reality, which I would ignore, since it wouldn't have happened (this is the "my HMMWV soaks up Javelin hits" type crap).

This new HBT better be better than Intelligent Neighbor's Pz-5 Wolfbane (shameless plug!), or I wont buy it.
The main purpose is not to sell it, but I'm leaving the option open to encourage help. Oh, and trust me, it'll be nice.

One of my allies requested that I design an HBT for his military, and I'm going to do so, but I'm going to do it in such a way that I can be proud of it, such as having a history with it. Because of this, I can't use the real world events, but the real life situations would probably occur.

(Same places, same basic people, some linking history, same tech.)

Divergence from reality would occur on two situations: altered tech/tactics, which I would note in the post as "Nation X, however, has continued to demonstrate that *blank* can still function under these stipends..."; and ignorance of reality, which I would ignore, since it wouldn't have happened (this is the "my HMMWV soaks up Javelin hits" type crap).
Id just like to state that you have made my day... Sticking to your guns and creating a product you can be proud of even if its not perfect for everyones use is something I wish I saw more of in I.I.

Though not as historically based (Im a tech geek what can I say^_^ ) Ive got a Modern tech MBT I recently released that didnt get much publicity (most people dont want to read long write ups despite the amount of work that went in to it) if youd like to read it to get some ideas, or such.

OOC: A history of armored warfare...my inner writer is intrigued. I've actually considered doing that as an off-the-wall kind of RP thing and as a means of setting foundations for my nation. Have a few ideas bouncing around, too. I'll let you know when I get something workable ready. Or, alternately, you can get ahold of me on AIM/MSN, which should be as simple as clicking on the icons under my name. Theoretically speaking. Maybe.

Mekugi: Always happy to serve the public. :D

Juumanistra: Interesting...

ooc: well generally in II, ATGMs don't even dent tanks, much less destroy them.

But then again, HBTs and MBTs have their uses in NS. However, armor is beginning to drop, due to the fact that KEs can pierce 10000mm+ RHA these days.

Well, if an ATGM with a warhead larger than that of the Javeline hits my tank at Mach 6 (I know it's high, from Mach 4 to Mach 6), I'm going to count it as a kill. The Javaline is said to be able to penetrate up to three thousand millimeters of armor. So, they're most likely going to kill the tank.

Oh, this pains me... but, I have no recourse...

Bump

This is awesome, and back when I was MT, I always wanted to be a war-mongerer. So feel free to include Al-Imvadjah.

I was MT for quite some time last year, I did ALOT of tank warefare, and always wanted to be remebered as a war mongerer, so please use my name. ( I hardly ever lost )

Well Crookfur Heavy tanks have never really been in a situation where they were at the mercy of ATGMS but they have demonstrated the difficulties in using them outside of certain situations and the huge logisitcs base to support them.

I coudl write up soem stuff about the various problems faced by the various models of the T-7 gilgamesh (namely crew fatigue, lack of bridges, lack of air transport etc etc) and why then went to the 40ton T-8 Grey Mamba

Basically, would someone mind if I dropped their name(s) as people involved in this scenario. Country A, with a history of heavy arms maneuver, got taken by Country B with light Anti-Tank Weaponry, causing the fall of the HBT from common use?

If you have a history of armored warfare, and can explain a similar scenario, let me know, and you'll appear in the post where they go over the new HBT I'm building.

Lesse...

For DA, it is approximately like this:

Period #1 (Early NS, up until Civil War #1 in approximately May/ June/ July 2003):

Light and Medium designs were preferred, as speed and maneuverability were generally considered to be more important than armour/ firepower. The whole development cumulated in a major tanks vs. paratroopers battle against a NYNJ force paradropping in central DA during the aforementioned civil war (They were saved due to peace breaking out), which (According to Griffith) effectively proved the theories this early force was based on to be correct. According to critics, this force never actually saw an armoured opponent (Indeed, DA forces never saw an actual tank vs. tank battle, this explaining a lot).

This rather conventional strategies were mainly based on the believes of Marshall Griffith Steward (Deceased) & his flock of students who looked upon the 'average', so to speak.

The average design saw main guns in the 10.5cm- 12.5cm range, as well as light & heavy machine guns and autocannons & sometimes missile launch mechanisms. Armour was comparatively poor (In fact, it has always been comparatively poor). The most notable design was the Mk IV MBT (Also used as chassis for a variety of different things).

Period #2 (Juli 2003 up to about January 2004):

With DA concentrating on spacedy deveopments, much less interest was concentrated on the ground forces who were additionally suffering from the total privatisation that turned them into a nationalised mercenary force. The GDODAD invasion in Knootoss was the most important conflict DA took part in, however, it was effectively fought with infantry & air force (Hard to transport sufficient amounts of tanks by air). The growing interventionist tendencies in DA, as well as the excessive (And continuing) urbanisation it was experiencing, led to new developments, mainly concentrating on light designs/ mechaesque designs (Think tachikoma). Heavy and even medium tank designs were effectively running out of fashion, while the (Formerly shunned) artillery gained importance.

This course of development cannot really be fixed on a single individual or even a group of individuals. It just... Happened. However, the distinct lack of actual tank vs. tank battles during the Knootian War (SATO/ GDODAD War) seemed to prove this concept to be correct.

An important design was the Kusanagi Heavy Infantry Support (The 'Heavy' is missleading. It was a MG/ Heavy Autocannon Carrier. With legs).

Period #3 (January 2004- Present, including the second civil war going on since Juli 2004)

Influences from GMC Military Arms and the apparent inability of the light designs of the past to cope with their possible opponents led to an interesting 'switch'. Medium tanks still seemed to be irrelevant for the developers, as they were considered to be too hard to transport to a battlefield where they would be useful, and too vulnerable in DA's own, hyperurbanised world, however, super-heavy designs (Supposed to deal with entire fortresses) as well as light designs (Urban combat & Extraplanetary use) were now viewed with equal interest and were developed accordingly.

Incidentally, this new developments were not led or even assisted by actually competent soldiers, but by technicians, engineers, scientists with a distinct lack of knowledge regarding actual battlefield conditions. The technicians didn't really care about practicality, it just had to be *massive*, an intriguing, magnificient construction, an exercise in skill for the engineer. Combat efficiency became a secondary problem, with occasional help/ inspiration from GMC MA technicians.

Major Angstian developers include James 'Oh, SHINY!' Weisshaupt, Franco 'Mammoth!' Kawakura and Erika Smith (Who owns one of GMC's Death Adders), all of which concentrated mainly on the new, superheavy designs.

The most... 'Intriguing' design would probably be the 'Rolling Fortress' (Commonly called the 'Crime against tank design' by the rest of the world) with excessive armour, four main guns in single turrets (About 12cm), a single mortar (about 25cm), four point defence turrets (All laser), four 1.2cm heavy machine guns and two quadruple missile launchers, a very impressive design (According to its statistics) and a very pointless design (When acknowledging the amount of maintenance it needs, the frequency with which something breaks, the amount of bullet-catching corners, its rather low velocity and its tendency of irradiating things when shot (Fission Reactor).

You could use the 'Massacre of Lindisfarne Pass' from my history (I never RPed it, just it's a bit of historical background to a few old characters), since there the 63rd Legions MBT's (similar to Challenger II's) were ripped apart by loyalist AT teams of the 1st Legion and units of the Shadow Brigade (using a re-named LAW/MILAN units), the 63rd being pretty much destroyed in the fighting.

You're move than welcome to use that as some kind of example, I should really write it up anyway. Give me a day and I will have done :)

I'm too ashamed to even bring up our AT Uhlan Hussars.

Yeah, I play FT now, but used to MT. You can use me if you want.