Hmm,critique.It will be my second critique. It wont be really good maybe, i'm sorry And also, my english is not perfect too.So i can make mistakes.
Positives: *Looks like very fast. It could be very handy in battlefields *Amazing tank for a leader. *It appeals to the eye, and very aesthetic. It's colors are very original too. *Your style and coloring are very cool.
Negatives: (i couldn't find a negative thing, really i didn't, but i must say something. So i'll try write some negative things...) *Right-up corner shouldn't be like this. *I think,you should add a secondary weapon. *I didn't understand it is symmetrical,or it is not. You should draw it's front side too.
Pretty cool design, but from studying military equipment and vehicles, I'll just put a few positives and negatives
Positives: -Looks pretty cool, like something you'd see in cartoons or comics. -Seems pretty good off road -Gun depression seems okay. -Pretty good visibility for the commander/driver and gunner. -Cannon seems like a high velocity one, making it a good sniper -Seems pretty good for urban areas or the military police role -Engine seems to be be in the center, meaning from a head on attack, the tank won't necessarily burn or explode when hit, giving the crew members a chance to get out
Negatives: -High profile, which means it can be spotted and targeted from long distances -Too many weak spots, especially the center, the tracks, and radio in the back. -Doesn't seem to hold as much shells due to the limited space -Crew members seem way to vulnerable due to them being visible (even if the window is bullet proof, on a tank vs tank situation, if hit, high chance crew doesn't make it) -Turret seems like a giant target -Not much angled armor, which means a shell will always penetrate since the armor seems as smooth as a Porsche -Engine in the center, if it gets hit in the side, you destroy the tank and kill the crew. -Cannon seems to be limited when aiming up. -Co axel gun seems way to high, should always be close to the cannon, so when marking a target or eliminating enemy infantry, it's easier to use and aim.
Hope this helped in case you start designing any other military vehicles. c:
Good political judgement on that part at least, good to hear it. I don't think anyone would expect you personally to invade the Falklands...
Brazil or Chile? Not really anything to do with them... Chile is historically a friend of the UK in such crises so I don't think you need to mention them in this context. Britain is definitely not weak with regard to military capability in comparison with any potential South American adversaries (certainly not Chile and not Brazil) and has a military which has progressed leaps and bounds in capability whereas any South American potential enemy is still equipped with 80s era equipment and potential. Britain's carrier-based expression of power is currently definitely weak but that would be addressed quickly if the need ever arose. Hopefully it will never be needed again.
Thank you for the critique. It is always welcome when somebody takes the time to point both positive and negative aspects. btw, it is not symmetrical. think of a crane: at the left the cockpit, and at the right a cannon instead of the crane arm. I'd like to have the time to make a 3D model of it.
You're also going to need Paraguay and the southern tip of Brazil. This way you control the Rio de la Plata region, a combination of natural water ways and arable land, similar to the Mississippi-Great Lakes-Midwest system that made the USA the powerhouse it is today. The Andes and the Brazilian mountains will be your natural barrier (of course controling Chile would be a bonus, this way you also get a "California"-like golden coast that allows for easy trade with Asia). Of course the USA know that and would never allow it to happen, probably by supporting Brazil (though not too much or Brazil actually gets to control the region and will be just as threatening to American interests).
And no, I didn't think of this myself. That's what Stratfor is for
Yep, it is based in the side-by-side structure. On the left side, the cockpit. On the right side, a modular base in wich you can attach the weapon/tool you need, as the cannon, heavy machineguns, a battery of groun-air missiles, etc.
A couple of thoughts on the design A. as a light tank which will mostly operate in tight urban enviroment i find the gun a bit to big maybe you can design it to retract and deploy when in firing mode B. i agree with the glass window doesn't seem sth that an armor vechicle would have.
My concern on cameras is the digital-war. With a "simple" electromagnetic pulse you can disable any electronic gadget as a camera, GPS, etc. I read somewhere (PopularMechanics maybe?) about the future in the war vehicles, and that there were some ideas of returning to analogic controls in some machines to avoid this. But it is an interesting option
I agree it has a small design necessary for urban combat but, in an open field no matter how fast it is, something is gonna get it due to it's light armor. I also reccomend you provide more shielding around the glass either as bars running across it for support or make it smaller overall because even in an urban enviornment you have even more chance of gun fire being aimed at the cock-pit so be wary of those factors. Nice ergonomic design overall though.
¡Pobres uruguayos! La verdad es que me gusta el diseño, supongo que la idea del aparato es que funcione como tanque ligero, ¿cierto? Viendo la imagen parece que sus orugas están dispuestas en trípode, con dos ramos delanteros y uno posterior... o al menos eso creo.
Disculparás mi ignorancia, pero ¿a qué se debe el nombre del Gral. Julio Roca?
Buen ojo, es como pensás. Originalmente iba a tener una estructura trasera inspirada en una moto (inclusive con neumático de caucho), pero sería un punto demasiado vulnerable y quedó con oruga. 3 tracks en vez de 4 reduce 25% elpeso de la base y mejora la distribución de la potencia del motor a cada uno.
El nombre del General Roca es para reivindicar la figura de un prócer que en estos tiempos está siendo muy criticado por ciertos "historiadores". Bajo el mando de Roca (como general y como presidente) se llevó a cabo la conquista de gran parte del territorio que hoy compone mi país [link] (en turquesa lo poco que existía antes de Roca) El problema reside en que en estas campañas, ciertas partes del territorio (por ejemplo la Patagonia) estaban bajo dominio indígena, y miles de éstos fueron aniquilados en una guerra desigual. Lamentablemente muchos miran a Roca con un solo ojo y lo tildan de genocida y nada más, sin tener en cuenta la importancia de la totalidad de sus acciones de gobierno...se han retirado estatuas y hay quienes proponen retirar su cara de los billetes. Por mi parte, defiendo la figura de un prócer, recordando que todo país tiene sus raíces militares.
Ya veo, siempre se encuentran en cada país figuras controversiales, que dejaron legados, por decirlo así, mixtos. Si algo he aprendido de la disciplina histórica es que hay que procurar entender (no necesariamente justificar) la actuación y pensamientos de un personaje teniendo en cuenta la cultura y las circunstancias de su época. Por hacer una comparación, Simón Bolívar tuvo duras luchas con los indígenas pastos del sur de Colombia, pero sin eso no se hubiera podido consolidar la independencia de Colombia y el antiguo Perú. Obviamente, lo deseable es que las poblaciones indígenas hubieran corrido con mejor suerte.
Además, entiendo que en Argentina por la Guerra de las Malvinas y la dictadura quedó entre varios historiadores un ambiente de suspicacia ante todo lo que tenga que ver con el ámbito militar. Pero ojalá no sé olvide que los maniqueísmos son poco saludables. Perdona si me puse demasiado filosófico.
This would work better in an urban environment, IMHO, where buildings could offer some shelter and the tank would lose its pursuers in narrow alleys... On an open plain, any stray machine-gun burst could punch through its glass cockpit.