12 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

After achieving their independence, the FRR reverse engineered both the Rommel and Patton tanks of the Lyran Commonwealth. Due to production issues, they switched to a ICE engine instead of the original fusion engine, so both tanks lost about 10 kph of flank speed.

Since they are lower tech versions, I thought I would re-imagine them, using the basic outline of the Rommel, but modifying it for the simpler tech.

thought before doing a finished version I would get your critiques.

thx.

[Pariah Devalis]

Those nose guns seemed out of place, but otherwise great.

[Bishop Steiner]

Pariah Devalis, on 25 January 2014 - 07:42 PM, said:

Those nose guns seemed out of place, but otherwise great.

has 2 MG. Most tanks in the 3026 talk about miniguns, so I based them off the 20mm gun from the Huey Cobra.

[NautilusCommand]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 January 2014 - 07:44 PM, said:

has 2 MG. Most tanks in the 3026 talk about miniguns, so I based them off the 20mm gun from the Huey Cobra.

Rather than ball turrets you should go with normal swivel turrets like the actual turrets on the cobra.

[Iacov]

the mgs/miniguns look like they ware facing strictly to the ground - is that intentional? or is that a ball joint that they are attached to?

but besides that, i like the look of it, very T-90'ish
like your re-designs in general

[Bishop Steiner]

Iacov, on 26 January 2014 - 02:34 AM, said:

the mgs/miniguns look like they ware facing strictly to the ground - is that intentional? or is that a ball joint that they are attached to?

but besides that, i like the look of it, very T-90'ish
like your re-designs in general

ball turret. simplest way to give a full range of motion to AP weapons. A swivel turret would be of limited utility

[Bishop Steiner]

maybe if I elevated their angle, and moved them out to the front of the fenders?

[NautilusCommand]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 January 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

maybe if I elevated their angle, and moved them out to the front of the fenders?

I just don't like the ball turrets.

[ChapeL]

Those AP guns at the front really need to be on top of the turret for 360 motion range. Otherwise they are low to the ground and stuck with a rather limited firing arc regardless of ball mount, meaning the entire tank has to turn to track infantry sneaking by to blow off its tracks. Barring that, it would be better off with a single coaxial next to the main gun.

This is battletech, I'm probably overthinking it.

No matter, still an oustandidng piece of art

[Nathan Foxbane]

Ball joint turrets are significant weak points in armor as all sides found out during WWII. I take no issue with them since the rule of cool often applies in the BT universe, but I do take issue with the placement. Tanks run over lots of things and trees that would not slow a tank could damage the gun barrels. Cars would definitely damage them and possibly the joint itself. Should be fine as long as they are above the lower facing of the bow plate. The issue their current placement has is the trade off between depression range and being susceptible to collision damage.

Maybe offset the driver's position to either side and put a low profile twin mount turret right next to it. Their range of motion will not degrade much. I like it otherwise.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Is it possible to move the guns from the lower glacis to further back on the upper glacis? That way they wouldn't be at such risk from trees as posted above. I also reckon they might be more useful there for dissuading infantry taking cover in taller buildings as well as at ground level with the tank.

[Bishop Steiner]

NautilusCommand, on 26 January 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

I just don't like the ball turrets.

then you are going to be disappointed.

Arnold J Rimmer, on 26 January 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

Is it possible to move the guns from the lower glacis to further back on the upper glacis? That way they wouldn't be at such risk from trees as posted above. I also reckon they might be more useful there for dissuading infantry taking cover in taller buildings as well as at ground level with the tank.

kinda of mixed utility. On older, taller tanks, they were placed on the upper glacis. Problem with body mounts on modern tanks is the "uppers" are flat and thus without adding bullet catching external turrets very hard to make use of.

[Bishop Steiner]

Bull Frog, on 26 January 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

Those AP guns at the front really need to be on top of the turret for 360 motion range. Otherwise they are low to the ground and stuck with a rather limited firing arc regardless of ball mount, meaning the entire tank has to turn to track infantry sneaking by to blow off its tracks. Barring that, it would be better off with a single coaxial next to the main gun.

This is battletech, I'm probably overthinking it.

No matter, still an oustandidng piece of art

unfortunately they are fixed front setting according to the Tech Readout. Not my placement. Thus, they are in the body, not turret. I do kind of like the low slung turret next to the driver cupola though.

you will note I did cheat and add a single light MG on the turret, which I didn't figure would impact it's stats as a 30 caliber AP MG cannot damage tanks or vehicles in Btech. So kind of like a smoke dispenser and other fluff stuff, it doesn't particularly affect it's use in the rules.