The thing that jumps out at me again here is the turret issue, which came
up a couple of weeks ago. I had thought we had solved that, but that could
be another case of where I remember all of the course of action
consideration and mental energy better than I do the discharge of energy
when you actually put it to paper.
> I saw in my notes from 97'ish when I did the first design that it was
> wacked (I put an "?!") next to the time but don't ever recall discussing
> it
> on TML or TNE-RCES, etc. I remember the penetration "issue" but don't
> really have a problem with it. Exotic rounds get expensive fast, which is
> the real limiting factor - it's not an issue so much for players or small
> groups as much as it is for, say a government that needs to procure and
> set
> up a logistics train to support hundreds, if not thousands of them. It's
> the reason that while an M1A2 and Leo II A5/6 are a better individual
> tank,
> the number of M1A1 brigades in the US Army (maybe with a USMC Tk Bn or two
> ;) would roll over their more advanced brethren, though admittedly most
> likely with some lopsided casualties for those at the tip of the spear.
> ;)
> Logistics and industrial base would just move beyond CPR rounds even
> though it would be well within their technical capability. This partially
> "answers" the issue for some of the canon proclivities towards certain
> techs IMO (Zhos and their heavy lasers... well they're probably still an
> oddball but we've seen all sorts of strange in the history of military
> procurement here on Earth, many of which defy battlefield logic and have
> to
> due to the politicians either being naive or corrupt and/or just having a
> non-military interest to their military-industrial decision (if not a
> mixture).
>
> Speaking of sloped... Reminds me of an issue I'm seeing with the Abrams
> design. Not so much the abrams but I loved that it captured the basic
> concept of adding additional armor as well as the slope. Slope should be
> more detailed or at least have one more category if not be relatively open
> for AFV designers to choose their own angle and plug it into the
> appropriate calculation. I am taking the Abrams to be the more aggressive
> slope and not "moderate?" Where would that put the Merkava? I would
> think
> WWII tanks would be largely unsloped and something like the M60 or
> Chieftain would have the moderate. Maybe Merkava should be 'radical' and
> Abrams/Challenger, are "moderate?"
>
> I think the flow be better if it designed the turret as a separate sub
> vehicle than with the standard assumption. I'll have more on this line
> when I present the Abrams. I'll probably do the Rheinmetal L/55 next when
> I'm done doing all the rounds for the M68/L7
>
up a couple of weeks ago. I had thought we had solved that, but that could
be another case of where I remember all of the course of action
consideration and mental energy better than I do the discharge of energy
when you actually put it to paper.
> I saw in my notes from 97'ish when I did the first design that it was
> wacked (I put an "?!") next to the time but don't ever recall discussing
> it
> on TML or TNE-RCES, etc. I remember the penetration "issue" but don't
> really have a problem with it. Exotic rounds get expensive fast, which is
> the real limiting factor - it's not an issue so much for players or small
> groups as much as it is for, say a government that needs to procure and
> set
> up a logistics train to support hundreds, if not thousands of them. It's
> the reason that while an M1A2 and Leo II A5/6 are a better individual
> tank,
> the number of M1A1 brigades in the US Army (maybe with a USMC Tk Bn or two
> ;) would roll over their more advanced brethren, though admittedly most
> likely with some lopsided casualties for those at the tip of the spear.
> ;)
> Logistics and industrial base would just move beyond CPR rounds even
> though it would be well within their technical capability. This partially
> "answers" the issue for some of the canon proclivities towards certain
> techs IMO (Zhos and their heavy lasers... well they're probably still an
> oddball but we've seen all sorts of strange in the history of military
> procurement here on Earth, many of which defy battlefield logic and have
> to
> due to the politicians either being naive or corrupt and/or just having a
> non-military interest to their military-industrial decision (if not a
> mixture).
>
> Speaking of sloped... Reminds me of an issue I'm seeing with the Abrams
> design. Not so much the abrams but I loved that it captured the basic
> concept of adding additional armor as well as the slope. Slope should be
> more detailed or at least have one more category if not be relatively open
> for AFV designers to choose their own angle and plug it into the
> appropriate calculation. I am taking the Abrams to be the more aggressive
> slope and not "moderate?" Where would that put the Merkava? I would
> think
> WWII tanks would be largely unsloped and something like the M60 or
> Chieftain would have the moderate. Maybe Merkava should be 'radical' and
> Abrams/Challenger, are "moderate?"
>
> I think the flow be better if it designed the turret as a separate sub
> vehicle than with the standard assumption. I'll have more on this line
> when I present the Abrams. I'll probably do the Rheinmetal L/55 next when
> I'm done doing all the rounds for the M68/L7
>