@WorldClassMods That causes a lot of wear and tear on the tank's tracks and suspension.
Tracked vehicles have a tendency to tear up roads and tanks are notoriously fuel inefficient. Yes, a train on its own will consume more fuel than a tank. However, a train can carry hundreds of tons of cargo, passengers, and anyting per mile at speed, for much less fuel than if the material was moved by other means.
The only cargo mover which I could see as more fuel efficient is a large, fully-loaded cargo ship.
However, the problem at hand is with the technical limitation of transportation. Anyways, rail is how most armies transport their tanks to the front when available.
I chew them up in my Sherman tank. Because you'll need gold to have a good chance at punching through the turret front. And who shoots gold at Shermans? Aside from Jumbos.
@Botfinder That's the name of the set. The turrets come from various companies such as Bandit Conglomerate, KRIEG, Paternian Defense Industries, Unity Defense Systems, and Dragon Defense Corporation.
It doesn't seem too hard to modify the exterior of the G11 to accept Picatinny rails. After all, the M16 wasn't designed to accept external attachments, except for perhaps a scope.
@Baldeagle086 I'm basically covered for making turrets.
Matter of fact, I'm thinking of releasing a series of turrets under the Paternian Armed Forces Standardized Protected Weapon Systems. Which cover everything from ring mount GPMG and mounted infantry weapon systems to artillery and missile systems. Even tank turrets are under this.
@RamboJutter That's no fault of the design. Japan lost only three of its 230 Starfighters in the 24 years of service, two to a mid-air collision. Italy, while losing about 38% of its fleet over a 50 year span, had an accident rate of 14.2 flight hours per 100,000 hours, a fairly average rate for an aircraft of its era. Spain, who flew 17,000 flight hours with its 21 aircraft over 12 years, lost none.
As the above statistics show, it's not exactly an unsafe aircraft when flown correctly. The fault for the accidents were Lockheed's unscrupulous marketing, which in my opinion should not mar an objective assessment of the aircraft.
@F104Deathtrap That is true. The bribery scandals definitely blemished a fantastic jet. Still, I think the F-104 is a decent jet that was unscrupulously marketed for roles which it has no business in.
I should mention that the Paternian Air Force (the guys which this machine was attempted to be sold to) employed them with success in air combat. Accident rates were rather low, although this is attributed to the fact they were never used for ground strike missions and were almost always flown by reservists, who were more experienced. They were fairly successful in operations against the ISFOS in Australia, flying from New Zealand bases, refuelled extensively, and savaging subsonic jets which really stood no chance.
Ironically, it was because of operations in Australia that it was replaced. The F-4 Phantom II, despite small numbers employed, proved to be instrumental in the coalition victory. The high performance, heavy weapon load, and advanced avionics basically made it the ideal aircraft to shatter air defenses and wipe out their air force on the ground overnight. The effectiveness was such that the rest of the ISFOS air force was too scared to fly.
So that's the story of the F-104 in Paternian service. It was good, but the Phantom was miles above it.
@F104Deathtrap I think we cancelled Valkyrie because of things like the S-75 Dvina SAM. You know, Francis Gary Powers and his U-2 spyplane got knocked out of the sky.
Because of things like that, the meta changed to low-altitude penetration with cruise missiles. In that role, the projected performance of B-52, B-58, and XB-70 would be not much greater. And the B-52 was a far more versatile system.
Development thus went toward low-altitude, high-speed systems such as the F-111 and B-1, which served the US well.
As for the F-104 being a deathtrap, the aircraft was relatively safe as long as you weren't an idiot. I believe in the 17,000 flight hours in the Spanish Air Force, they did not lose a single aircraft. Likewise, the JASDF only lost three out of their 210+ machines in their 24 years of fending off frequent Soviet intrusions.
Then again, these guys only used them as interceptors, as intended. The air forces that suffered the most losses were those who did not use the plane ot their strengths.
The US didn't use the F-104 because the idea of a relatively lightweight air superiority fighter was not desirable. The US Air Force wanted heavier fighter-bombers and missile-laden interceptors, something which the F-104 isn't that good for. That being said, they did see service in Vietnam. They didn't bring down any MiGs and lost three (one from a Chinese MiG-19 copy and two which crashed into each other trying to chase it down) in combat, but they were considered effective at protecting strike aircraft.
@LatteCoffee55 Is interested. Will probably build own version based off yours, with emphasis on simplification so that the poor with crappy devices can run it.
And so I can modify it more easily to mount Defender missiles.
Got it. I've got an AA vehicle. @GermanWarMachine
I must disagree. @AverroesIndustries
@GermanWarMachine Can't wait to see it.
@WorldClassMods That causes a lot of wear and tear on the tank's tracks and suspension.
Tracked vehicles have a tendency to tear up roads and tanks are notoriously fuel inefficient. Yes, a train on its own will consume more fuel than a tank. However, a train can carry hundreds of tons of cargo, passengers, and anyting per mile at speed, for much less fuel than if the material was moved by other means.
The only cargo mover which I could see as more fuel efficient is a large, fully-loaded cargo ship.
@WorldClassMods That is true.
However, the problem at hand is with the technical limitation of transportation. Anyways, rail is how most armies transport their tanks to the front when available.
@PhantomBladeCorp Looks good!
I chew them up in my Sherman tank. Because you'll need gold to have a good chance at punching through the turret front. And who shoots gold at Shermans? Aside from Jumbos.
@WorldClassMods Trains can tow hundreds of tons of cargo. The strongest flatbed cars can hold at least 150 tons.
If you absolutely, positively, must shift a large, constant flow of cargo anywhere, look no further than a train.
The problem with trains, is the inflexible infrastructure.
Thanks! @Cedy117
@WorldClassMods A train.
@Cedy117 I don't need you for trucks anymore!
Yeah, but a Sherman is easier. Much easier. @WorldClassMods
Thanks! @grizzlitn
@AverroesIndustries I must disagree.
@SledDriver Neat!
@grizzlitn No problem!
@grizzlitn I can send you a special version of my M1115 and M1118 without the additional systems such as the turret and active protection systems.
@SledDriver Thanks!
@SledDriver Not a day in the military. But I am a really big history buff, especially military history.
@SledDriver As long as the target and the battery do not have a direct line of sight.
@SledDriver This mount is very much a direct fire emplacement, since you are relying on observing the fall of shot from the battery.
@SledDriver Indirect fire is shooting without relying on a direct line of sight from the batteries.
Think of mortars.
@AverroesIndustries Just stumbled onto this thing again.
Man, this takes me back.
@Botfinder That's the name of the set. The turrets come from various companies such as Bandit Conglomerate, KRIEG, Paternian Defense Industries, Unity Defense Systems, and Dragon Defense Corporation.
@YuukaNeko Conceptually, that is.
It doesn't seem too hard to modify the exterior of the G11 to accept Picatinny rails. After all, the M16 wasn't designed to accept external attachments, except for perhaps a scope.
@RailfanEthan Np!
@YuukaNeko That is true. Although if anything is to replace the M4, the closest thing that would qualify would be the HK G11.
@YuukaNeko That is true. Although if anything is to replace the M4, the closest thing that would qualify would be the HK G11.
@Baldeagle086 I'm basically covered for making turrets.
Matter of fact, I'm thinking of releasing a series of turrets under the Paternian Armed Forces Standardized Protected Weapon Systems. Which cover everything from ring mount GPMG and mounted infantry weapon systems to artillery and missile systems. Even tank turrets are under this.
@YuukaNeko Also, the M4 series is basically timeless. The M4 is basically an assault rifle perfected.
@YuukaNeko Oh yes, we've got them covered.
Matter of fact, I was going to release a few new trucks and then make a portable radio set, the AN/PRC-89 Wireless Field Telephone
Certainly, although there are more advanced versions of this such as the M1115 and M1118. @grizzlitn
@SledDriver Not really.
I likely won't, since most artillery pieces I make are designed for indirect fire.
@SledDriver Thanks!
First.
@RamboJutter That's no fault of the design. Japan lost only three of its 230 Starfighters in the 24 years of service, two to a mid-air collision. Italy, while losing about 38% of its fleet over a 50 year span, had an accident rate of 14.2 flight hours per 100,000 hours, a fairly average rate for an aircraft of its era. Spain, who flew 17,000 flight hours with its 21 aircraft over 12 years, lost none.
As the above statistics show, it's not exactly an unsafe aircraft when flown correctly. The fault for the accidents were Lockheed's unscrupulous marketing, which in my opinion should not mar an objective assessment of the aircraft.
@F104Deathtrap And thanks!
@F104Deathtrap That is true. The bribery scandals definitely blemished a fantastic jet. Still, I think the F-104 is a decent jet that was unscrupulously marketed for roles which it has no business in.
I should mention that the Paternian Air Force (the guys which this machine was attempted to be sold to) employed them with success in air combat. Accident rates were rather low, although this is attributed to the fact they were never used for ground strike missions and were almost always flown by reservists, who were more experienced. They were fairly successful in operations against the ISFOS in Australia, flying from New Zealand bases, refuelled extensively, and savaging subsonic jets which really stood no chance.
Ironically, it was because of operations in Australia that it was replaced. The F-4 Phantom II, despite small numbers employed, proved to be instrumental in the coalition victory. The high performance, heavy weapon load, and advanced avionics basically made it the ideal aircraft to shatter air defenses and wipe out their air force on the ground overnight. The effectiveness was such that the rest of the ISFOS air force was too scared to fly.
So that's the story of the F-104 in Paternian service. It was good, but the Phantom was miles above it.
@WEAPONSMITH Thanks!
@F104Deathtrap I think we cancelled Valkyrie because of things like the S-75 Dvina SAM. You know, Francis Gary Powers and his U-2 spyplane got knocked out of the sky.
Because of things like that, the meta changed to low-altitude penetration with cruise missiles. In that role, the projected performance of B-52, B-58, and XB-70 would be not much greater. And the B-52 was a far more versatile system.
Development thus went toward low-altitude, high-speed systems such as the F-111 and B-1, which served the US well.
As for the F-104 being a deathtrap, the aircraft was relatively safe as long as you weren't an idiot. I believe in the 17,000 flight hours in the Spanish Air Force, they did not lose a single aircraft. Likewise, the JASDF only lost three out of their 210+ machines in their 24 years of fending off frequent Soviet intrusions.
Then again, these guys only used them as interceptors, as intended. The air forces that suffered the most losses were those who did not use the plane ot their strengths.
The US didn't use the F-104 because the idea of a relatively lightweight air superiority fighter was not desirable. The US Air Force wanted heavier fighter-bombers and missile-laden interceptors, something which the F-104 isn't that good for. That being said, they did see service in Vietnam. They didn't bring down any MiGs and lost three (one from a Chinese MiG-19 copy and two which crashed into each other trying to chase it down) in combat, but they were considered effective at protecting strike aircraft.
Glad I wasn't in that shitstorm of political discourse.
@QuantausAviation I have 155mm howitzers.
@LatteCoffee55 Is interested. Will probably build own version based off yours, with emphasis on simplification so that the poor with crappy devices can run it.
And so I can modify it more easily to mount Defender missiles.
@PyrusEnderhunter Tactics have changed now.
@SledDriver I suppose.
Love this ... aircraft. Reminds me of the T-1000 from Terminator 2.
You know, the liquid metal dude.
@SledDriver My music tastes are varied.
Lucy in the sky with diamonds!
Am interested. @DeathStalker627
That is true. @WNP78
@ItzGray Ik.
On one hand, there's 323 million Americans, and 65 million Britons, so you tell me who's right.
Ignore the 1.3 billion Indians of which 125 million speak English, 36.6 million Canadians, 24.4 million Australians, and 5 million Kiwis.
Which would be about 256 million people. Which is still about 67 million people short of those who spell it without "u".
Thus, we can safely assume that I am correct.
@WEAPONSMITH Thanks!