Kethane Station Discussion

[NotAnAimbot]

Actually @Matuchkin, I have been able to build a rocket artillery system. The rockets are empty Oscar-Bs coupled with 3 separtrons, a hex drone and a small reaction wheel. The major problem is with rockets colliding and veering off path on launch, but at least 10 of the 16 rockets make it to the objective. The range is fixed and pretty small though, 3.2km.

[Matuchkin]

8 hours ago, NotAnAimbot said:

Actually @Matuchkin, I have been able to build a rocket artillery system. The rockets are empty Oscar-Bs coupled with 3 separtrons, a hex drone and a small reaction wheel. The major problem is with rockets colliding and veering off path on launch, but at least 10 of the 16 rockets make it to the objective. The range is fixed and pretty small though, 3.2km.

Well, 10 rockets over a spread of 3.2 km. I'm not sure about the effect of that, unless the rockets are high-explosive. I mean, the Uragan, for example, spreads something like 16 rockets over that area- rockets that break apart to dispense clouds of anti-personnel rounds. Older Soviet Russian systems had tens of high-explosive warheads. An important problem is the fixed range. To avoid counterbattery fire, I'll have to move to different protective positions. Of course, that will be much harder with a fixed range.

Nevertheless, for KSP, your artillery system sounds good. After all, it spreads approximately the amount of rockets an Uragan has, over the range that a TOS-1 Buratino has. Of course, in real life, one would want a range of 15-20 km for a rocket artillery system, but this is not real life. Though with KSP's limitations I believe it is more practical to put multiple roles into a single support aircraft. It will be more effective.

Good job with that artillery.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Matuchkin

[NotAnAimbot]

1 hour ago, Matuchkin said:

a spread of 3.2 km

A distance of 3.2km. The rockets fall into a 100-200m circle exactly 3.1-2 km away from the firing position.

[Matuchkin]

9 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said:

A distance of 3.2km. The rockets fall into a 100-200m circle exactly 3.1-2 km away from the firing position.

A 100-200 meter spread is in fact very nice...

A larger thing I am concerned about is the short range. The battery can easily be reached with howitzer or tank fire.

[NotAnAimbot]

3 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

The battery can easily be reached with howitzer or tank fire.

I'm still experimenting with different angles and engines for more range. I think the final product will have about 5 separtrons, as 3 is way too underpowered from what I'm seeing.

[Matuchkin]

18 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said:

I'm still experimenting with different angles and engines for more range. I think the final product will have about 5 separtrons, as 3 is way too underpowered from what I'm seeing.

By the way, see what happens if you remove the reaction wheels. I wanna see if the rockets can follow a parabolic arc, to hit targets warhead-first.

[NotAnAimbot]

1 hour ago, Matuchkin said:

By the way, see what happens if you remove the reaction wheels.

I've continued the tests, and single projectiles work fine. The problem is with decoupling multiple projectiles, the explosion from the decoupler and multiple rockets veering off to a wrong direction. Here's the subassembly rocket if you want to work on it. The range is of 9.6-7km now, which can be changed with pitch.

Edited May 8, 2016 by NotAnAimbot

[Greymangames]

More Craft have emerged....

XIF-29 'gunstar'

A 2 seat long-range interceptor/fighter designed to be able to deploy from distant airbases and get to the battlefield at high altitudes. She has a main propulsion system of 2 panthers and 1 whiplash engine. The two panther engines are designed to be used for low altitude combat while to whiplash engine is used for high altitude traverse and engagements. Alternatively, the pilot can activate all 3 engines at the same time to increase the pilots speed during engagements at the cost of the planes turn-rate. On take off, the pilot is to activate afterburner on the 2 panthers and ascend to above 10km, turning of the afterburner after a short period of time when the craft has gained speed and turn of the panthers afterward when air intake is not enough to sustain them, leaving the whiplash to carry the fighter to cruising altitude. The gunstar has an armarment of 4 sidewinder missiles and 2 AMRAAM long range missiles, along with 2  hidden vulcan cannons.

XF-582 'pilon' (pronounced pylon)

A short range defensive fighter designed to protect key military installations. It's small size, high turning rate, and high speed makes it a relatively hard target to hit. However, because of it's small size, it cannot go very far without needing a refuel, but because of the aforementioned small size, it is easy to produce them in masses (lets see how many people say "GMI must construct more pilons" in this thread and in upcoming videos). The pilon is propelled by 2 panther engines, giving it a TWR of about 2, and is equipped with 6 sidewinder missiles and 2 browning .50cals. 

B-52 Stratafortress

A high altitude bomber that carries a single rotary load of 1000Ib JDAM bombs. It has the same range as the 'gunstar', making the two planes inseparable from each-other; if you see one of these, you can bet that your going to see some 'gunstars'. In order to use her bomb compliment, the B-52 is equipped with a targeting pod. However, by using this targeting pod, the B-52 is left out in the open, but this does not make her defenseless. She is equipped with 3 Chain guns (2 waist-gunners, 1 tailgunner and 1 front gunner) and 2 .50cal turrets (1 top 1 bottom), giving her a 360 angle of attack in all directions.

Derek Anti-air missile system:

its basically just a patriot missile launcher on top of a moving wagon. What else is there to say?

Comes with it's own radar.

Not sure what else to say here....

It comes with cup holders?

Jacob Heavy tank:

A fearsome beast of a tank weighing in at 46 tons with 377 parts. She comes equipped with 4 M230s on each of her four corners and a single abrams cannon attached to her top. However, unlike previous models, where we could get away with covering the tank treads, these have had their covering removed in order to increase mobility. It also cannot go up steep inclines like some of the ones located at KSC, due to it's large size, therfore having to select optimal routes for it to traverse.

Also, try not to go to fast down or up slopes. The tires may break.

Camelback Infantry Tank:

The GME's response to Cytan's Vikus, the Camelback is an infantry mobilization vehicle designed to carry troops across a battlefield with minimal loss of life to the vehicle occupants. It is equipped with 2 anti-tank turrets mounted with tow missiles and a single Oerlikon Millennium Cannon mount on top, like the Vikus. However, this vehicle wouldn't be a viable response if the Camelback wasn't superior. This vehicle boasts a triple layered armor system and the 2 aforementioned anti tank turrets mounted on the front, providing protection from enemy tanks as the Camelback moves forward.

Also, it comes with a coffee machine.

----------------------------------------------------

Hopefully these will be a match for HKA's advance across the continent.

[Matuchkin]

Are those single sheets of structural plates? So like we're making tanks, but with the armour of light personnel carriers.

I see you're doing this the French way.

Speaking of French ways of building tanks, does the M1 Abrams have a stabilizer?

[Heckspress]

i wonder... Imagine you set a craft with drone-core missiles on it to the "target" autopilot setting and fire the missiles in a swarm, would all those missiles point at the target?

[NotAnAimbot]

7 minutes ago, Heckspress said:

Imagine you set a craft with drone-core missiles on it to the "target" autopilot setting and fire the missiles in a swarm, would all those missiles point at the target?

Approximately, but stock targeting isn't very precise.

49 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

Speaking of French ways of building tanks, does the M1 Abrams have a stabilizer?

Most modern tanks do.

[Matuchkin]

14 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said:

Most modern tanks do.

Yes, I know that the real-life M1 Abrams has a stabilizer. But what about in BD Armoury?

Also, most French tanks do not have stabilizers.

[Greymangames]

1 hour ago, Matuchkin said:

I see you're doing this the French way.

Oi! What's wrong with the french? (lol)

[NotAnAimbot]

Now, for Aimbot Lab's reply to the Vikus II; The ICV-1 Infantry Combat Vehicle. The ICV-1 was first put off as a project for a cheap fire support vehicle with light armor, and slowly became an IFV when the request changed. It is one of the heaviest armored and armed IFV at the time, mounting a 35mm Millenium turret and a limited traverse 105mm light howitzer, not including the ATGM. Unlike most other vehicles, the ICV-1 uses the Hellfire missile, giving it much more of a punch. The front armor can withstand up to three 120mm shots, and a similar number can be absorbed by the side armor. Interior space is cramped, but enough for two drivers, a gunner and a platoon of ten infantrymen.

1)Fire selected weapon

2)Switch weapon

3)Fire smoke

4)Toggle rear ladder

 

1 hour ago, Matuchkin said:

Also, most French tanks do not have stabilizers.

Most do actually. The French army has been using the AMX-30 series and the Leclerc, and from 1971 onwards, all AMX-30s have been modernized with stabilizers. The Leclerc came already equipped with them.

[Matuchkin]

9 hours ago, NotAnAimbot said:

Most do actually. The French army has been using the AMX-30 series and the Leclerc, and from 1971 onwards, all AMX-30s have been modernized with stabilizers. The Leclerc came already equipped with them.

Oh, that's nice. Guess I've not been up to date. I thought the AMX-30 had a lower-quality stabilizer.

[NotAnAimbot]

13 hours ago, Greymangames said:

vehicle boasts a triple layered armor system

What happens if you shoot the cockpit? Wouldn't that be a major weak point?

[NotAnAimbot]

17 hours ago, Greymangames said:

Oi! What's wrong with the french? (lol)

Nothing wrong, just that the French army, with experience from colonial fighting, has favored lighter armored, faster and better armed tanks during the cold war.

[Matuchkin]

18 hours ago, Greymangames said:

Oi! What's wrong with the french? (lol)

Nothing. As @NotAnAimbot said. You're just doing it their way.

Though I will, of course, choose the British or German armour doctrine instead.

[NotAnAimbot]

41 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

British or German armour doctrine instead.

Soviet one is best. Spam artillery, then attack with 5/1 numeric superiority.

 

[Matuchkin]

34 minutes ago, NotAnAimbot said:

Soviet one is best. Spam artillery, then attack with 5/1 numeric superiority.

Hey, you play wargame?! *high fives*

Anyway, in that case, you should know basic military strategy. A huge part of the game is based on real life (even the units of each nation are accurately simulated and historically accurate), so you should know things to avoid or do, like counter-battery fire, SEAD, slope warfare, manoeuvre warfare, etc. In fact, the game is named after the military doctrine that the A-10 Thunderbolt is built around- the doctrine that I am currently trying to base my weapons around. Also, don't spam units. You need to have a good variety of units for all purposes. Spread them out across an area, cover your front with napalm, and take up a defensive position in a tree-line, with the area in front of you acting as a killzone.

I do agree, the best doctrines are Soviet and German. The reason for that is their extensive use of reactive armour, and the thickness of the front armour of most of the Ts and Panzers. The T-90, for example, is one of the most protected tanks in the world (though it has a weak spot near its ammunition storage- not a good place to have a weak spot). The Soviet Union and Germany both have very similar doctrines right now. Britain, in fact, is currently catching up.

Nice to see someone as interested in military strategies as me. Keep it up.

By the way, the above video is a horrible, absolutely frighteningly stupid strategy. Rocket artillery will kill nearly no one, and is only meant for terror purposes. Also, numeric superiority does not matter in any conflict, and Soviet Russia learned that the hard way, too. Wait, do you even play wargame? Hold on...

Edited May 9, 2016 by Matuchkin

[briansun1]

13 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

Hey, you play wargame?! *high fives*

Anyway, in that case, you should know basic military strategy. A huge part of the game is based on real life (even the units of each nation are accurately simulated and historically accurate), so you should know things to avoid or do, like counter-battery fire, SEAD, slope warfare, manoeuvre warfare, etc. In fact, the game is named after the military doctrine that the A-10 Thunderbolt is built around- the doctrine that I am currently trying to base my weapons around. Also, don't spam units. You need to have a good variety of units for all purposes. Spread them out across an area, cover your front with napalm, and take up a defensive position in a tree-line, with the area in front of you acting as a killzone.

I do agree, the best doctrines are Soviet and German. The reason for that is their extensive use of reactive armour, and the thickness of the front armour of most of the Ts and Panzers. The T-90, for example, is one of the most protected tanks in the world (though it has a weak spot near its ammunition storage- not a good place to have a weak spot). The Soviet Union and Germany both have very similar doctrines right now. Britain, in fact, is currently catching up.

Nice to see someone as interested in military strategies as me. Keep it up.

By the way, the above video is a horrible, absolutely frighteningly stupid strategy. Rocket artillery will kill nearly no one, and is only meant for terror purposes. Also, numeric superiority does not matter in any conflict, and Soviet Russia learned that the hard way, too. Wait, do you even play wargame? Hold on...

Also MBTs that go 60+kmh.

Edited May 9, 2016 by briansun1

[panzer1b]

17 hours ago, NotAnAimbot said:

Nothing wrong, just that the French army, with experience from colonial fighting, has favored lighter armored, faster and better armed tanks during the cold war.

I always thought the french still use these things AND NEVER MADE MODERN TANKS

FT-17 is the best french tank ever made!

Edited May 9, 2016 by panzer1b

[NotAnAimbot]

3 hours ago, briansun1 said:

Also MBTs that go 60+kmh.

Most MBTs past the 70s could. The T-80 can rach 70 on-road, the M1 and Leopard can reach 72. Those are on-road speeds though, off-road speeds always hover around 50km/h. 

1 hour ago, panzer1b said:

I always thought the french still use these things AND NEVER MADE MODERN TANKS

They make pretty good ones. The Leclerc is the current western MBT with the best variant of the 120mm NATO gun. The FT-117 was already removed even before WW2.

 

[Matuchkin]

Hahahaha...

Dodge this:

What will France do?

[NotAnAimbot]

4 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

What will France do?

Depends when. This seems to be during the cold war, so France would have some variant of the AMX-30. It's pretty fast, 65km/h compared to the T-72's 65, so it would probably use maneuver warfare to its advantage. If the scenario happens today, the T-72/90s are pretty loveed, since the Leclerc has the second longest NATO gun, after the Leopard 2A6/7's L55 gun.