Jammersix Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) I just realized what's missing! The vehicle must have the ability to launch and control disposable recon/laser designator drones. Now I suppose we need a separate spec sheet for the drones... The main thing that's obvious is that they have to be able to designate targets for both the main gun and the Bushmaster, and they need to cost less than ten cents apiece. That way, with appropriate ammo, the vehicle (code name OMGWTFBBQ) can fire indirectly if necessary. Edited October 21, 2016 by Jammersix 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammersix Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 You know, I just had another thought. What if, instead of starting with an Abrams, we started with an Apache, and added the main gun and armor from an Abrams, the Bushmaster, the squad, and so on? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUAN DEAG Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 If you can slap the amphibious capability of the tactical dolphins on that then you have a contract with the U.S. Army in no time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammersix Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 I'm thinking we'd need some kind of interrupting gear with the mortar and the rotars. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VladimirTarasov Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 AWACs capability onto the Apachbrams AHM64A2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Hey guys! I think I found the contractor tech demo for the M2A4 Bradley 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 6 hours ago, Jammersix said: How much weight and space will it save if they replace all that diesel with a nuclear reactor? Well, assuming that the crew are impervious to radiation (they are American soldiers after all), we can dispense with shielding and save tons of weight that way. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 59 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said: Hey guys! I think I found the contractor tech demo for the M2A4 Bradley Oh man, I think I just had an orgasm! Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 17 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said: Oh man, I think I just had an orgasm! Michael More disturbingly, here's some video raising some serious doubts about the protective package on what is suspected to the production model Armata: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VladimirTarasov Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 11 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said: More disturbingly, here's some video raising some serious doubts about the protective package on what is suspected to the production model Armata The simulation has spotting issues as far as I'm concerned, the optics need to be tweaked which could have resulted in a different outcome. Plus crew survivability has not been modeled correctly... Big let down if this is true IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Monster movies have attained a magnitude that directors in the 1950s could only have dreamt of. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Yes, it's quite amazing how the tech has advanced from when I used to work in the biz. Sometimes I wish I were born 20 year later. One the other hand I think life seems a lot tougher for younger folks these days and I feel sorry for most. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 (edited) Hm... I see a few potential problems with this. 1. We'll need doors now because it'll be hard for the crew to get in through the top hatches. I'm thinking armored Delorean style doors to be exact. 2. This thing is going to stick out like a sore thumb 3. The radome might be a little to low to the ground Overall though, the AWACS Abrams looks like it could be a huge hit! Edited October 22, 2016 by Raptorx7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Raptorx7 said: 3. The radome might be a little to low to the ground I took me a few seconds to figure out what I was looking at. I felt a certain consternation at first because it looked like a box of facial tissues and I wondered what the hell that could be doing on a tank! Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VladimirTarasov Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Raptorx7 said: Hm... I see a few potential problems with this. 1. We'll need doors now because it'll be hard for the crew to get in through the top hatches. I'm thinking armored Delorean style doors to be exact. 2. This thing is going to stick out like a sore thumb 3. The radome might be a little to low to the ground Overall though, the AWACS Abrams looks like it could be a huge hit! Yes, I'm glad you've decided to go with that design choice. The hatches should be through the blow out panels that have transparent ammo in them so the loader, gunner, and commander can get through. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammersix Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Personally, I'd be somewhat concerned with using cardboard as armor, but I'm not a tanker. I'd have to bow to their expertise. "It'll work, STFU and get in." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Jammersix said: Personally, I'd be somewhat concerned with using cardboard as armor... Well, they had to cut costs somewhere, didn't they? Otherwise Congress would never have approved. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammersix Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 I think we should go with what we need, and if congress balks, we'll just send in more hookers. I'm playing with the idea of a trailer, but I'm torn between hauling more ammo or setting up a mobile barracks for each squad. I suppose it could be ammo, if we increase all units army wide to the training standards the 75th uses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HUSKER2142 Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 It seems to me, or RPG's will be even easier to aim? Мне кажется или гранатометчику будет ещё легче целится ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 In terms of profile, not especially. The hull is really your reasonable point of aim for an RPG, trying to get a turret hit on anything that's not a tank-sized turret is pretty sketch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrTom Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 That thing looks remarkably like a BTR and an Bradley had some kind of nasty love child to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 8 hours ago, HerrTom said: That thing looks remarkably like a BTR and an Bradley had some kind of nasty love child to me. Lol exactly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.