Chilibird Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Greetings officers of the Liveship Rbenteus. I have for you today, a new battle tank, which will certainly move our technology foward by great strides on the battlefield. Presenting, the Rames R7 long range battle tank! This tank boasts a longer barrel, and a MUCH higher muzzle velocity than the Thor Main Battle Tank you know today. Though it has not been tested in combat situations, this is believed to be able to pierce the point defense ion shields that forstall many a battle operation. However, due to it's sheer velocity, the Turret is not capable of a full 360 degree turn, as the danger of flipping the tank becomes too great when turned too far. It will rotate approximately 30 degrees to either side, which is more than enough to target and engage your enemy. Also, due to the Ramses large ammo capacity, boasting 60 Armor Piercing rounds, 30 High Explosive Anti-Tank rounds, and 15 High Explosive rounds, there is no room for a coaxial machine gun, so you will want to avoid the front line combat. The Ramses Main Gun is one of the most powerful ever produced out of our liveship. It has a 6000 Meter per Second muzzle velocity when firing Armor Piercing, and High Explosive Anti Tank rounds. Due to the combustibilty factor of High Explosive rounds, the targeting computer will automatically reduce the power behind the gun when firing High Explosive rounds to approximately 3000 Meters per Second. In addition to possibly being able to pierce point-defense shields, it is also belived that an armor piercing shell will be able to peirce the hull armor of a Hurricane from 3000 meters away. The Ramses has enough armor to withstand one or two direct hits from a low calibur gun, though it may possibly damage key components. Any higher power gun, such as those from the Main Battle Tank, or close shots from light tanks, will almost certainly penetrate the tank's armor. The tank's fuel systems, engine, and drive train are all encased in redundant housings. Due to advancements in technology, including a hydrogen powered motor, a penetrating shot on the engine, or the fuel cell, will not cause an explosion. However, there is a risk that the components will short-circut, and catch fire. The downside to this technology is two sided. First, the engine is larger than typical AntiMatter motors, presenting a larger target. Second, the components to the engine are more sensitive, so it is far easier to disable. This means that you don't want to present your hull to the enemy to be hit, so learn to use your Hull-Down positions. The Ramses Turret and Gun are mounted high for this reason! Lastly, I give you one of the largest improvements on battle tanks today. The Ramses is the first to boast this technology. All ammunition is housed in the turret, and is encased in a antimatter-fortified, Reenforced, 3 inch thick steel container. That means that even a direct hit WILL NOT cause the tank to explode. However, your ammuntion and computer-gunnery controls will almost certainly be destroyed in this case, so you will want to extract as fast as possible. So, gentlemen, I'm sure you're curious what this new tank looks like, with all of it's hype. This picture was taken during testing on a remote base. Remember, the details of this tank are classified level Phi. Any leaks of information are punishable by death. Dismissed! ((Any thoughts or suggustions are appreciated. I finally got this to how I like it, I'd like to know what people think)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aittam Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 may be a little more effort in the turret design? just taste like spare parts..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Could you put a Thor or an Apollo on its side to get a feel for the size of the Ramses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilibird Posted October 12, 2006 Author Share Posted October 12, 2006 Aittam-> I'll see what I can do with the turret. I'm just aiming for something that puts the gun higher. Posel-> It is slightly smaller than the Thor. I'll try to work that screenshot, though. I may scale it up, just due to the massive power of the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilibird Posted October 12, 2006 Author Share Posted October 12, 2006 Alrighty, The turret has been upgraded. Looks more suited to what it'll be doing. (FYI- The textures will be made better in due time) New Turret Next to the Thor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_au Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 what a dumb design... where is the main gun recoil going to go.... DERRRRR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdevlin Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 thats not a very constructive thing to say, dark_au. Kevin - I think the turret does look a little small in that last revision, especially in relation to the length of the barrel. like the texture so far. -Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaytoniousRex Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 A great start, Iceman. A dedicated long-range, direct-fire platform that is balanced by vulnerability at short range is a very interesting game design idea that can work out very well! It's also very interesting to see some creativity with the internal components - branching out from the same formula used on other vehicles can add some real variety. Learning to effectively use vehicles like this with truly different properties makes for real fun for all of us. Of course there's some work left to do on the turret and aesthetics. This is the most laborious and time consuming part of any new vehicle but I think you've taken the right approach by getting the gameplay mechanics the way you want them first before worrying too much about the visual details. Those take ages to complete so you want to make sure your design is sound before going the extra mile on them. It's always nice to have a real write-up like that, too! Excellent start, Ice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aittam Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Originally posted by jdevlin: Kevin - I think the turret does look a little small in that last revision, especially in relation to the length of the barrel.the tracks need some care too, some additional small wheels or something, right now it looks like there's no hull behind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilibird Posted October 13, 2006 Author Share Posted October 13, 2006 I agree, Aittam. I'll see what I can do to fix up the hull. I think I might drop the side-skirts, or lower the hull close to tread level. Or both... or something I had a design idea hit me for the turret, so I'm going to get to work on that. Dark_Au-> If you want my consideration, start acting like an adult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilibird Posted October 13, 2006 Author Share Posted October 13, 2006 Alrighty, this here is the new turret. I have not changed anything about the hull yet. That's next after the turret is more satisfactory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jalinth Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 That is quite an improvement. Looking good sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander SquidLord Williams Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 The barrel seems a bit long for that turret. I know you want a long-barreled vehicle for accuracy, but visually, I think it needs to be balanced by a bit more weight behind the turret. Think of where that hinge fulcrum has to be. You might get some milage out of widening the turret a bit as it moves toward the rear. The sides of the turret are awfully verical; you'd really like to have flanking shots deflect up and away, given how low the armour is overall. That'd also give the rear of the turret a little more visual bulk and help balance that long, long barrel extending out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilibird Posted October 13, 2006 Author Share Posted October 13, 2006 The gun actually doesn't extend too far past the nose of the vehicle. The angle of the shot just makes it look that way. Though, I do like the idea of widening the rear-end of the turret... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 In your description you limit the turret to an 60 degree arc. Yet there is no mechanical reason for that (except for recoil and toppling over). If IIRC your older design had no explicit turret at all. Why did you drop that? A turretless design would provide the stability for the gun and explain the limited firing arc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilibird Posted October 13, 2006 Author Share Posted October 13, 2006 The original design housed the gun inside of the chassis, which would have made the "Ammo explosions are isolated" theory moot. I also didn't care much for how it looked. As for a mechanical reason.. I could cite the weight of the turret, but like you said, that can be overcome. Out of Reality, it's a game balance thing. If this thing could swing its turret a full 360 degrees, it could target anything with relative ease, which is not what I wanted to do. I'd rather have a weapons platform that requires some skill to use. Eh, I'll think about it, but I like the turret I have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Not to be nitpicky but this tank carries 105 shells of ammunition which is confined in a special reinforced chamber. This is a LOT more than the Thor carries and the Thor has the bigger turret and not that special feature. If the ammo confinement doesn't explode the tank then it doesn't matter if its in the turret or not. The result is the same. Don't get me wrong - I like the idea of a limited arc, long range shooter. But (currently) design and description IMHO do not fit together well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_au Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 I don't see why I should sugar coat things iceman, Design of a tank is a job for engineers not people who play this silly game. NONE of the tank designs I've seen on this forum are practical or even well thought out. No one has considered what their aesthetic ideas means in a practical sense. There are reasons why tank turrets are the size, shape and position they are in. Also while people keep talking about shot traps and sloped sides to deflect rounds its clear that no-one knows squat about how contemporary rounds or armour works. There was a design where someone had the turret forward of the road wheels, without a thought of what that would do to the front wheels and suspension. (if you want a clue read about the problems with off centered turrets and tank destroyers in WW2 especially the JgPz IV L70 ). I mean just look at the length of your gun compared to the turret and apply some mechanical leverage to it... If you understand that then you may have a clue what I'm talking about. Also look at the length of the gun, add the breach and work out how much room is left for the recoil... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilibird Posted October 14, 2006 Author Share Posted October 14, 2006 You are correct. However, in this 'silly game' WE ARE the engineers. However, I'm not creating this tank to be superrealistic, I'm creating it to add some new elements to the game. If it happens to conform to the perfect reality, then woohoo, but I won't loose any sleep if it doesn't. This game is an arcade simulation. Let's save the tank physics and "This and that are real" for the real life battlefield. Posel-> You've got a point there. I might lower ammo capacity a bit, just having realized how much it can carry I see what you're saying about the missing turret idea. I might see if I can work a new design idea into the chassis instead.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konstantine Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Nice work. Look forward to trying it out. Why not make the turret box longer (i.e. extend it rearwards) to accomodate all those extra rounds? That will reinforce the notion of a limited arc--if you traverse the turret too far suddenly there's a lot more to shoot at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilibird Posted October 16, 2006 Author Share Posted October 16, 2006 It's not perfect, but you get the general idea. (I'm gonna try and re-triangulate that front area so that the shading doesn't get quite so weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander SquidLord Williams Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 That's a bit better, actually. Can we get front-on, side-on, and top-down shots so we can have a better sense of the space of this thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilibird Posted October 16, 2006 Author Share Posted October 16, 2006 Certainly! I couldn't really get a top-down shot, unless I'm missing something. Anywho, hope that helps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_au Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Why set the turret so far to the back. If you move it forward and elongated the turret to account for the breach and recoil it would be better. Youn need to allow say 1/3rd to 1/2 of the exposed barrel length for the breach assembly and probably half of that for recoil. It would also make the nessecary counter weight for the gun. On a technical side i think you need to make your tracks shells to get rid of that Disappearing track problem. If you did that it would look like the chaffee. Have you thought of making it a touch smaller, giving it the 90mm turret and calling it a light tank?. That I could see a niche for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilibird Posted October 17, 2006 Author Share Posted October 17, 2006 I can see what you're saying with the gun assembly. Not a bad idea, actually.. I'll look into that. The only thing I'm thinking is since the turret is stationary, that it would make more sense to have the back of the chassis and the back of the turret be one surface. Yeah, I should probably do that. That disappearing track problem is pretty bad :\ Thanks for the suggustion. You are right, there, in terms of the niche. However, even at high velocity, would a 90mm shell be capable of peircing armored targets at a distance? (Ideal engagement range would be ~3,000 m) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts