NationStates Jolt Archive

NEWS: T-8 Sprite now for sale in main storefront only. Thread closed.


Previous News T-8 gets high praise from resident II critics!!
Actually for once it isn't too bad, i don't know hwere pople are getting the idea that 112mm is in anyway big for a 50ton tank

Aside from the fact that he claims to be shielding radios in Faraday cages, it really isn't too bad based on what he's telling us.


[OOC: please keeps ooc comments to a mninimum and this particular tank was in the design phase for a long time and will not be changed]

The nation of Exponent wishes to purchase 1,000 of these tanks. We will ship the 2.2bil shortly. If possible, we would also like production rights. Keep us informed of your new developments, as it looks like you are making a number of new vehicles.

Order confirmed, production rights will be made avalble after the tank saturates the market.

A 112 mm Main gun is to big for a light tank to handle, but if there is a smaller main gun option, perhaps a rifled barrel, the United States of Nikocujo would like to purchase 10 for trial purposes in armored Reconnaissance to determine further investments.

No

OOC: Ouch
IC: The Horde of Doom would like 5 for testing. Can we get these for free?

RL: real quick, I don't want to bring down you design, but coming from a military rich family, just letting you know that a main gun that big would blow that tank apart on the recoil. Having a smaller main gun option would be better.

We will be happy to provide them to you if you give them back when you are done or buy them later.



Nikocujo:
Too bad you are wrong. Don't worry I won't tell your family.

so is this a remake of the t-7 fast tank

No, this is an entirely diffrent tank.

ok

OOC- I would like to know how such a small tank mounts Stinger and Anti-tank missiles, considering it is smaller than a Leclerc. Also, Nikocujo is somewhat right, the size of gun chosen Not only reduces logistics and availablilty of ammunition on the battlefield, but also due to size allows less Rounds to be carried.(I'm extreamly doubtful of this carrying 43 rounds)

OOC- I would like to know how such a small tank mounts Stinger and Anti-tank missiles, considering it is smaller than a Leclerc. Also, Nikocujo is somewhat right, the size of gun chosen Not only reduces logistics and availablilty of ammunition on the battlefield, but also due to size allows less Rounds to be carried.(I'm extreamly doubtful of this carrying 43 rounds)
Standard sizes in TPM are 112mm, 128mm, 140mm and 200mm. A 105mm or 120mm gun would be an odd caliber to us. And check your math, 112mm is not that much bigger than 105mm in fact is only about 0.2 inches bigger.

It was not meant to have 12 stingers that is from the description of another one of my tanks which I copied the template from and I have corrected it.

bump

There's no point arguing with this guy about how flawed his tank designs are, as he effectively refuses to take any criticism on board. Check his Centaur thread if you don't believe me. That one shot from the cannon had better be a good one to justify the tank becoming so much scrap metal.

To date, I have sold over 1 million of my "flawed" tank designs, not including this one. And stay out of threads where it says stay out.

Actually for once it isn't too bad, i don't know hwere pople are getting the idea that 112mm is in anyway big for a 50ton tank, i mean you get 40ton class tanks in RL with 120 and 125mm guns...

[OOC: Aside from the fact that he claims to be shielding radios in Faraday cages, it really isn't too bad based on what he's telling us. Then again, as always, he hasn't posted an armour stat and so, like his previous vehicle, is practically impossible to assess or indeed RP with.]

Faraday Cages
http://www.ce-mag.com/ARG/01SprCE_072b.jpg
ALL Phoenix Dynamix vehicles have key components encased in faraday cages, along with additonal conductive and counter-conductive shilelding. This is in additon to the emp-resitant precautions taken when the vehicles themselves were originally engineered and built.
A faraday cage is essentially a cage placed around sensitvie electronics designed to prevent electromagnetic waves and pulses from nuclear or other types of EMP weapons from damaging the hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

Vehicles should already be quasi-faraday cages, except for windows and such...which is why generally you don't put windows on tanks... as for the fact something can shoot through it. IIRC, if a lightning bolt hits a car the people inside won't die...except,again, for the windows.

periscope =!= window

much of the tank is non conductive materials (carbon composites, cermaics) therefore the faraday cages are needed.

You should still have steel in there... to you know.... confine the ceramics...since unconfined ceramics are worthless. And any opening is bad, although I'd suspect a small opening isn't as bad as a windshield.

They are contained in a Carbon Composite which contains some titainum and the frame is steel.

Rolled homogenous armor [homogenous] steel has been proven to be superior to anything else, including tungsten and titanium... and cheaper at that. You'd use low concentrations of carbon [~.23%] to reinforce the steel... pure carbon is.... bad.

its got Titainum, it's "higher strength-to-weight ratio coupled with good corrosion resistance and excellent ballistic protection offers appreciable weight reduction over the conventional steel and aluminum alloy"
"Titanium alloys offer many advantages. The alloys have a high mass efficiency compared with rolled homogeneous (steel) armor (RHA) and aluminum alloys across a broad spectrum of ballistic threats as well as good multihit ballistic capability. No additional appliqué armor is necessary. They have a high strength-to-weight ratio and excellent corrosion resistance, which results in lower maintenance costs. Titanium alloys are readily fabricated in existing production facilities and are easily recycled; scrap and mill revert is currently remelted on a large-scale commercial basis."

But its not a titanium tank, its ceramic, carbon composite, depleted uranium and titanium all mixed together in the best possible layering/distrubtion on to of a carbon steel frame.

Sourced to the International Journal of Impact Engineering, Volume 20, Pages 121-129, and told by Paul Lakowski:

"An interesting alternative to Aluminum is Titanium, which has a density of only 4.5 g/cm³ and offers resistance of 80-90% of RHA [APFSDS]. However, Titanium is many times the price of aluminum which itself is twice as expensive as RHA. Titanium is known to be used in select items of the M-1's armor toreduce weight and maybe used in the modern version of BDD armor in Russian tanks."

Since this is supposed to be a light tank, you can see why I used it.

I think what he's getting at is that Titanium doesn't offer the best protection, and even if you do use it extensivley, you probably need to up the price a hefty amount...

its mostly depleted uranium which is almost free to us and ceramic, carbon composite which we make tons of anyway.

its mostly depleted uranium which is almost free to us and ceramic, carbon composite which we make tons of anyway.
DU= Incredibly heavy... kinda negating the point of "Light"?

as said in the first post it is in a smaller amount than in our MBT

I thought the purpose of a light tank is for reconaissance and close infintry protection, Doesn't that Depleted Uranium weigh the tank down? And besides Most 50 ton vehicles cannot heft that kind of armor nor fire power. Way to heavy and besides, I'm telling you, now that I Think about it, We wouldn't want to purchase the tank. For instance, Take the Brand new Puma IFV (Infintry Fighting Vehicle). It's Germany's new toy that is replacing the 32 year old Marder. It is 43 tons with the class C armor ad ons.

design weight: 43 tons
weight (Protection Level A): 31.45 tons
weight (Protection Level C): 40.7 tons
crew: 9 (6+3);
Power plant :1073 hp (800 kW)
Suspension : hydropneumatic
maximum road speed: 70 kilometres per hour
power to weight ratio: 20 kW/t;
length: 7,330 mm
width: 3,430 mm
total height: 3,050 mm

http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Allemagne/vehicules_legers/Puma/Puma_Germany_Rheinmetall_01.jpg

Granted your design will not be housing 6 infintry soliers, I can assume the amount of ammo, I believe 43 rounds, would take up the same amount of space. As i said before, a 112 mm cannon can not be supported by a vehicle that ways only 50 tons. A 112 mm cannon is not that much smaller than a 120 mm cannon. To support a gun that size, Weight must be increased considerably to one: house ammunitions that large, and two, handle the tons and tons of pressure that is created by the escaping gases. It even needs a gas chute exit in the middle of the cannon (the bulge in the middle, to compensate some of the force. Your design doesn't allow that and so therefore, I hate to say it, your tank would be blown apart. Look at the weight to compensate the size of a cannon:

M1/IPM1 M1A1 M1A2
Length: 32.04 FT 32.25 FT 32.25 FT
Width: 12.0 FT 12.0 FT 12.0 FT
Height: 7.79 FT 8.0 FT 8.0 FT
Top Speed: 45.0 MPH 41.5 MPH 41.5 MPH
Weight: 60 TONS 67.6 TONS 68.7 TONS
Armament: 105 MM 120 MM 120 MM
Crew: 4 4 4

The IPM was the prototype, they had to up the size and weight to compensate the larger caliber cannons.

Secretary of Maritime Combat, The United States of Nikocujo

I thought the purpose of a light tank is for reconaissance and close infintry protection, Doesn't that Depleted Uranium weigh the tank down? And besides Most 50 ton vehicles cannot heft that kind of armor nor fire power. Way to heavy and besides, I'm telling you, now that I Think about it, We wouldn't want to purchase the tank. For instance, Take the Brand new Puma IFV (Infintry Fighting Vehicle). It's Germany's new toy that is replacing the 32 year old Marder. It is 43 tons with the class C armor ad ons.

design weight: 43 tons
weight (Protection Level A): 31.45 tons
weight (Protection Level C): 40.7 tons
crew: 9 (6+3);
Power plant :1073 hp (800 kW)
Suspension : hydropneumatic
maximum road speed: 70 kilometres per hour
power to weight ratio: 20 kW/t;
length: 7,330 mm
width: 3,430 mm
total height: 3,050 mm

http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Allemagne/vehicules_legers/Puma/Puma_Germany_Rheinmetall_01.jpg

Granted your design will not be housing 6 infintry soliers, I can assume the amount of ammo, I believe 43 rounds, would take up the same amount of space. As i said before, a 112 mm cannon can not be supported by a vehicle that ways only 50 tons. A 112 mm cannon is not that much smaller than a 120 mm cannon. To support a gun that size, Weight must be increased considerably to one: house ammunitions that large, and two, handle the tons and tons of pressure that is created by the escaping gases. It even needs a gas chute exit in the middle of the cannon (the bulge in the middle, to compensate some of the force. Your design doesn't allow that and so therefore, I hate to say it, your tank would be blown apart. Look at the weight to compensate the size of a cannon:

M1/IPM1 M1A1 M1A2
Length: 32.04 FT 32.25 FT 32.25 FT
Width: 12.0 FT 12.0 FT 12.0 FT
Height: 7.79 FT 8.0 FT 8.0 FT
Top Speed: 45.0 MPH 41.5 MPH 41.5 MPH
Weight: 60 TONS 67.6 TONS 68.7 TONS
Armament: 105 MM 120 MM 120 MM
Crew: 4 4 4

The IPM was the prototype, they had to up the size and weight to compensate the larger caliber cannons.

Secretary of Maritime Combat, The United States of Nikocujo
Wrong
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t80tank.htm

As i said before, a 112 mm cannon can not be supported by a vehicle that ways only 50 tons.Yeech.

1.) Can we slowly back down on the OOC chatter here?

2.) It's quite possible to stick a big gun on a little vehicle. The Abrams way isn't the only way. Heck, if you don't mind light armoring, you can stick a 152mm gun on a 17 ton vehicle. (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m551a1.htm) It's all a question of armor weight, speed, and fuel/ammo storage as to what you can stick on there.

3.) On the armor... what being superior depends on what you're measuring from.

DU is good from a volumetric sense, because it's incredibly dense.

Titanium is good from a weight standpoint, because it has high strength for its weight. It'll give you about 1.4x the protection for the same weight as steel armoring, but it costs about ... oh... $5-10,000 per ton or summat, while steel costs about $500/ton. If you used the same protection levels and had 20 tons of primarily steel armor to start with, your cost might be about $100,000 more to use primarily titanium, your tank would increase a few inches in radius, and you'd drop about five and a half tons of weight.

50 tons is in some ways a desirable tank weight. (http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/2-15098.asp)

[OOC: please keeps ooc comments to a mninimum and this particular tank was in the design phase for a long time and will not be changed]

I had a whole list to say, but I be nice and I promise this will be my last occ reply to any of your designs. But that statement of yours is just begging to be corrected. My favorite Part (design phase for a long time and will not be changed)- you know, you'll make a good General- I'm wrong your right- I know whats better. LMAO.

Hes a little history I suggest you listen too- really listen too. Thier has never been nor will their ever be a perfect design coming fresh out of the works from the design phase. Ever vehicle- ever piece of equipment ever created by man has had problems when it was first created. Seeing something on paper and having it work and interact with the real world are two different things my young friend.

Heres a small list for you to go do some research on. Of Military and civilan equipment alike that was built and still proved it need more work.

1. Classic Example- The M-16- boy it worked well on the drawning boards and inside- but once it got sent to the troops (where it had to contend with the real world), man oh man- having your weapon jam in the middle of contact with the enemy- equals a bad day for you. It was years before alot of those problems were solved with the M-16, even today the M-16 is still a pain in the ass to clear.

2. Another Classic Example- The Titantic, on the drawing board it was unsinkable- in real life- well I'm sure everyone knows what happen on the nice first voyage as the ship got its test run. I called that a bad test run.

3. The German Panther Mark V Tank- On the drawning board it was the best tank in the world. But, once it got into the hands of the soldiers and people who used them- I guess they forget to get raid of the enginie and transmission problems during the design phase. LMAO, silly them.

4. The P-38, on the drawning board it was the best- on its first test flight, well lets just say that test pliot had alot to complain about.

5. The Comet, perfect on paper- crash in real life. Maybe they should of spent more time to get raid of that design flaw with the window they had no idea about.

6. The Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle- I suggest you either read the book by James G. Burton titled The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard or watch the movie with the same name. It will show you just what a great general you would make in being closed minded to anything but what you think.

Those are just some examples- I can give you thousands if need be, but I hope you get the point. Their is no perfect design- so when people know what their talking about and try to give you sound advice and you ignore them, well as I said, you'ld make a good General. You are dismissed, son.

Unfortunately I, like most NS players, lack the finances to actually build my designs, if I did they would be field tested extensively and you wouldn't have anything to say about them since they would be the best things ever made for the purpose of war... and I would take over the world after building a massive multinational arms manufacturing company... but that is another story.

I'm talking as a Secretay of War. We will not buy them because as I said, There is no way that design works. Sure you can put any cannon on an armored vehicle, but a cannon that big depletes the role of a light tank: armored recon and close infintry protection. Like you said, it fills a hole in the armored division that needs filling. That is the role. That tank with that armor and fire power: big main gun, and Stinger missles, well, that is a medium tank if not a compact MBT.

Speaking as Phoenix Dynamix's CEO, There are no stinger missiles, its a small gun, lightly armored, heavier than the T-80, Russias permier MAIN BATTLE TANK WHJICH MOUNTS A 125mm GUN and we have now banned you from purchasing from our stores and have issued an injusction so you can not buy from our factories in Allanea, Johnified America, Antarctica123, Falcania, or Afslavistakistania and will sugest that Geneticon bans your from purchasing Phoenix Dynamix technology due to your low opinion of our supeiror technology, and if you ever want a demonstration, feel free to declare war upon us.

There's no point arguing with this guy about how flawed his tank designs are, as he effectively refuses to take any criticism on board. Check his Centaur thread if you don't believe me. That one shot from the cannon had better be a good one to justify the tank becoming so much scrap metal.

I second that.

Half of his designs will get you ignored by experienced RPers in a war.

Velkya you are still on my ignore list please refrain from posting in my threads.

bump for winners

1.) Can we slowly back down on the OOC chatter here?

Um, TJ, OOC comments are allowed in weapon sales threads as long as they're concerned with criticism of the design rather than criticism of the designer.

Um, TJ, OOC comments are allowed in weapon sales threads as long as they're concerned with criticism of the design rather than criticism of the designer.
I did ask in the first post for them to be kept to a minimum. Wouldn't the same rules apply as in a closed RP

I did ask in the first post for them to be kept to a minimum. Wouldn't the same rules apply as in a closed RP

No. Sales threads can at most be split into IC and OOC components, but most normally a sales thread is regarded as part-IC-part OOC because the design can be analysed from both aspects; if something is literally impossible to build at whatever tech level is claimed, you can't address it IC because it can't exist.

As long as criticism of the design is not confined to ridiculous hair-splitting ['No tank should carry TWO SHOVELS!!1'], trolling ['This tank is so pwned, har har'] or personal attacks ['No tank should be designed by you!1'] it's allowable.

Faraday Cages
<image>
ALL Phoenix Dynamix vehicles have key components encased in faraday cages, along with additonal conductive and counter-conductive shilelding. This is in additon to the emp-resitant precautions taken when the vehicles themselves were originally engineered and built.
A faraday cage is essentially a cage placed around sensitvie electronics designed to prevent electromagnetic waves and pulses from nuclear or other types of EMP weapons from damaging the hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
Yes, I do in fact know what a Faraday cage is. I also know (unlike, it appears, you) putting a radio in a faraday cage = radio doesn't work anymore.

Yes, I do in fact know what a Faraday cage is. I also know (unlike, it appears, you) putting a radio in a faraday cage = radio doesn't work anymore.
Well when I said all electronics I meant all essential electronics :p


Such as targeting computer, mp3 player infared stuff, radar internals, laser internals, power generator, electric engine, gun traverse system, etc

Can't you use a Farraday cage itself as part of the antenna assembly? Have some sort of overload fuse on the incoming antenna connection on the radio to prevent an EMP pulse from wiping out the radio?

in case the EMP kills the radio the commanders of our tanks are trained to yell really loud

Um, TJ, OOC comments are allowed in weapon sales threads as long as they're concerned with criticism of the design rather than criticism of the designer.Sure, but it's still nice to keep it brief if they don't really want feedback. ;) There's not much point in badgering endlessly.

Frankly, I don't think of 50 tons as being all that light for a tank, but ... *shrug* it is compared to the Abrams, and I guess that's what everybody wants to compare it to.

compare it to the T-80 which several people on these boards would have you believe is better than the M-1 and is 46 tons :D

We would like to buy 600 of these tanks in a snow camo pattern with .50 and 7.62mm option.

Order confirmed.

Speaking as Phoenix Dynamix's CEO, There are no stinger missiles, its a small gun, lightly armored, heavier than the T-80, Russias permier MAIN BATTLE TANK WHJICH MOUNTS A 125mm GUN and we have now banned you from purchasing from our stores and have issued an injusction so you can not buy from our factories in Allanea, Johnified America, Antarctica123, Falcania, or Afslavistakistania and will sugest that Geneticon bans your from purchasing Phoenix Dynamix technology due to your low opinion of our supeiror technology, and if you ever want a demonstration, feel free to declare war upon us.

OOC- Um, the Russian Federations premeire main battle tank at the moment is the T-90, not the T-80 (Although the T-80U is fielded frequently.)

And the T-90S (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90) is 46.5 tons

The T-90 MBT uses a basic Steel Product that doesn't offer as much protection as Chobham does. Chobham is a heavier composite. In essence, the T-90 is a much larger tank then your T-8. Making yours very heavy for a light tank. Therefor, rendering it useless for the role that was needed.

Seeing how my light tank is 28 tons lighter than my main battle tank, i really don't see what you are talking about.
Im also not using the 1960's era Chobham armour...

The T-90 is a MBT. It weighs less than your tank. You have a large main gun. Most light tanks today, (to serve the purposes of light tanks) is to provide close proximaty protection to infintry soldiers and for rconaissance. You said in your first post that the role of this tank was to fill a hole that planners need to fill. The armor and fire power don't fit the criteria needed on a modern battlefield. We already have MBT with that Fire power and armor, Heck, we even have medium tanks that meet this criteria. But this tank does not fullfil the purpose if was created for. And I'm pretty sure that before you edited the first post there was stinger missles included because someone else also brought it up.

Speaking as Phoenix Dynamix's CEO, There are no stinger missiles, its a small gun, lightly armored, heavier than the T-80, Russias permier MAIN BATTLE TANK WHJICH MOUNTS A 125mm GUN and we have now banned you from purchasing from our stores and have issued an injusction so you can not buy from our factories in Allanea, Johnified America, Antarctica123, Falcania, or Afslavistakistania and will sugest that Geneticon bans your from purchasing Phoenix Dynamix technology due to your low opinion of our supeiror technology, and if you ever want a demonstration, feel free to declare war upon us.
This isn't a small gun. Most MBTs heft a 120 mm cannon. Don't worry. The role that is needed isn't fulfilled by this tank. If i wanted this power from a tank, I'd go with a medium tank. If i wanted a light armored vehicle I'd go with a a Bradley or a Puma.

And the T-90S (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90) is 46.5 tons


Russian tanks also mount an autoloader, which reduce the weight considerably.

Did you see a "loader" listed in my tank as crew? No you didn't obviouly there is an autoloader.

112mm is a small gun, its 28 tons less than my MBT which has a 140mm gun, it has a fast cross country speed and thus qualifes as a light tank.

If you can fucking read I said the 12 stingers werre a typo copied from another tank whcih I used as a template.

Now, stop spamming my thread with OOC garbage that is just regurgiatating the same arguments I have already adressed.

Did you see a "loader" listed in my tank as crew? No you didn't obviouly there is an autoloader.

112mm is a small gun, its 28 tons less than my MBT which has a 140mm gun, it has a fast cross country speed and thus qualifes as a light tank.

If you can fucking read I said the 12 stingers werre a typo copied from another tank whcih I used as a template.

Now, stop spamming my thread with OOC garbage that is just regurgiatating the same arguments I have already adressed.
This isn't OOC. Im saying why we don't want to buy. Can you show me a MBT that has a 140 mm cannon. I have yet to see one. Next: You said the purpose of this tank is to fill a gap where MBT and other tanks couldn't go. You still haven't adressed this. The speed is not that much faster Than a M1A2 and yet that M1A2 is 14 more tons. Speed doesn't define whether it is a light tank or not nor does waight: From Wikipedia:

Weight-based classifications are useful, but only in reference to a period's other tanks (for example, a light tank at the end of World War II would have been considered a heavy tank at the beginning). Light, medium, and heavy have other meanings than just weight, e.g., relating to gun size, the amount of armour, or speed.

You may have speed by a little bit, the armor and firepower match that of lighter MBTs. So please tell me why you would want that big of a cannon on a tank that isn't needed in armor to armor fighting. After all it is the "T-8 LIGHT tank" For instance, the current light tank of Argentina is the TAM:

http://www.enemyforces.com/tanks/tam.htm

It has a 105 mm cannon. A light tank has no use of a 112. If it were that big, it would mean that you want it to fight bigger armor. Armor that could rip that apart.

You have now been ignored for regurgating the same argument. Come back when you have been around NS designs for a while. Many tanks on NS use larger than 120mm cannons, 135mm is most likely the average. You are also contradicting yourself.

"Speed doesn't define whether it is a light tank or not nor does waight"

"Light, medium, and heavy have other meanings than just weight, e.g., relating to gun size, the amount of armour, or speed."

Please refrain from posting on any of my threads in the future.

Well since you ignored my main argument as to the role of the tank You can't answer. There is alot of criteria to consider. But the role of this tank isn't for what you specified.

Please stop spamming my thread.

You have now been ignored for regurgating the same argument. Come back when you have been around NS designs for a while. Many tanks on NS use larger than 120mm cannons, 135mm is most likely the average. You are also contradicting yourself.

"Speed doesn't define whether it is a light tank or not nor does waight"

"Light, medium, and heavy have other meanings than just weight, e.g., relating to gun size, the amount of armour, or speed."

Please refrain from posting on any of my threads in the future.

Like you ?.....<.<

Stop Spamming

Office 4
1217 Government Way
Balkan City, 85546
Druid Province, Armed Holy Democratic Empire of Asgarnieu

OFFICIAL MESSAGE FROM THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF ASGARNIEU

TO: The Phoenix Militia, Creator of T-8 'Sprite' Light Tank
FROM: Vice Chancellor William G. Throckmorton of Asgarnieu
SUBJECT: Purchase of Tanks


Greetings. The Collective Armed Forces of Asgarnieu wish to purchase 1,000 T-8 'Sprite' Light Tanks. Also, The ANC Coalition in Asgarnieu wishes to purchase 1,000 as well. This amounts to a grand total of 4.4 Billion Dollars (USD). Upon successful confirmation of our order, the money will be wired to your bank account. We thank you for considering our offer, and hope to do business with you in the future.

We have a direct quote from the head of The ANC Coalition, Asgarnieu Division, Commander Thomas D'Elia:

"The T-8 is exactly what the ANC Coalition needs to provide accurate and deadly fire on enemy targets. I am sure that the Collective Armed Forces of Asgarnieu are in agreement with me on this issue. This tank is crucial to the security of Asgarnieu and our citizens."
-May 15, 2006: Asgarnian Collective Armed Forces address to Congress and Grand Parliment

Thank you once again.


Respectfully,

William G. Throckmorton
Vice Chancellor of The Armed Holy Democratic Empire of Asgarnieu

Thank you very much for your order and commentary. Please accept a full load of fuel and ammo for the tanks, free.

Order confirmed.

Can you show me a MBT that has a 140 mm cannon. I have yet to see one.
btw, not that I am unignoring you but:There is a prototype of the Leopard tank which used a 140mm gun
"KWS III consisted of the adoption of a 140mm main gun."
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

For future information, the 140mm gun was officially cast away as an impossible upgrade for the future Leopard 2, Abrams M1A2 and Challenger 2 tanks. They're looking at what the Nakíl has, or a high breech pressure 120mm as an interim solution until electrothermal-chemical or electromagnetic technology matures. In about one to two months I'll be driving a Leopard 2A6 [2E] though!

Just answer me this Pheonix: What role was needed? This is a MBT with a slightly smaller Gun. Fast yes, Maybe Impossibly fast for something that weighd this much. But the gun, armor, and additional firepower points to the role of a MBT. WHat role was needed to be filled?

bump for sales

For future information, the 140mm gun was officially cast away as an impossible upgrade for the future Leopard 2, Abrams M1A2 and Challenger 2 tanks. They're looking at what the Nakíl has, or a high breech pressure 120mm as an interim solution until electrothermal-chemical or electromagnetic technology matures. In about one to two months I'll be driving a Leopard 2A6 [2E] though!
Nevertheless, a working prototype was built and fired without blowing up its own turret after one shot as some people hereseem to think would happen.

http://pdfdirectory.modernwarstudies.net/images/china/140mm.jpg

Type 99 with a 140mm gun. Thank ZMI for that picture.

:)

Never thought I would see it. Anyways, heavy armor, I believe, is now becoming useless on a modern battlefeild. Especially if A World Power collided with a World Power. Hardly possibel especially, a stable democracy has never gone to war with a stabloe democracy.

That's why nobody is going to really mount a 140mm gun on a production tank. The idea of a 152mm on the T-80UM2 [Black Eagle] was cast away, along with the rest of the tank, as what happens when engineers have too much time on their hands and unrealistic goals.

And that is why the T-8(the tank that is the subject of this thread) has a 112mm cannon so you can all leave thank you.


Bye bye.

But we already have IFV and AFV for the role of the T-8. Why do you need that armor and firepower. What hole needed to be filled? you never answered me.

I read your post but I am going to ask you for the last time to STOP POSTING HERE

We do not have an IFV with a 112mm gun, that is why the T-8 was designed.

The End.

The Phoenix Milita, you have been told twice by a forum moderator that he does not have to leave. You have no right to kick him out as long as his posting is relevant to this tank.

that is not correct, I have him on ignore, he keeps spamming, you shoul leave too

Ummm...The Phoenix Militia...are you sure about that? ...


No. Sales threads can at most be split into IC and OOC components, but most normally a sales thread is regarded as part-IC-part OOC because the design can be analysed from both aspects; if something is literally impossible to build at whatever tech level is claimed, you can't address it IC because it can't exist.

As long as criticism of the design is not confined to ridiculous hair-splitting ['No tank should carry TWO SHOVELS!!1'], trolling ['This tank is so pwned, har har'] or personal attacks ['No tank should be designed by you!1'] it's allowable.

stop the spam

TPM, I beg of you to not act as immaturely as you are. You shouldn't post your designs on NationStates if you don't want criticism. But like GMCMA, a forum moderator said, we have a right to criticise if we want to. In other words, it is not spam. Next time, don't put up a thread?

It is spam when he is saying the same exact thing over and over in different words :gundge: and that is what he is doing