MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop collapse & collision. Military
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
General conversation IV
The old one was to long, so I made the next one.


Permalink
| October 6, 2012, 7:12 am
So is anyone working on any new creations at the moment, or any creations that haven't been posted?
I currently am all out of multiple important parts, so a brick link order is planned.

I've made a mini scale stealth bomber, and a radar AA- transport vehicle.

I will be making ships next.
Permalink
| October 8, 2012, 12:27 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
So is anyone working on any new creations at the moment, or any creations that haven't been posted?
I currently am all out of multiple important parts, so a brick link order is planned.

I've made a mini scale stealth bomber, and a radar AA- transport vehicle.

I will be making ships next.
I'm not doing much, but I am working on a few new designs.

Permalink
| October 8, 2012, 1:05 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
So is anyone working on any new creations at the moment, or any creations that haven't been posted?
I currently am all out of multiple important parts, so a brick link order is planned.

I've made a mini scale stealth bomber, and a radar AA- transport vehicle.

I will be making ships next.

I'm working on a lego tank. It's super-detailed with tons of working stuff and it's probably my best creation so far. It weights 389g and consist of about 800-1000 pieces. Also, I made a simple scout car.
Permalink
| October 8, 2012, 1:56 pm
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
I'm working on a lego tank. It's super-detailed with tons of working stuff and it's probably my best creation so far. It weights 389g and consist of about 800-1000 pieces. Also, I made a simple scout car.

Sound very interesting, is it based off of anything?

I recently just finished taking apart my own, and redesigning the turret to make a self proppeled gun, its inspired by the NLOS, but with a roundish turret.
Permalink
| October 9, 2012, 4:17 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Sound very interesting, is it based off of anything?

I recently just finished taking apart my own, and redesigning the turret to make a self proppeled gun, its inspired by the NLOS, but with a roundish turret.

Its style is a mix between Western and Russian tanks. For example, the turret's front looks like a T-90 but its rear is long like Western tanks'. Btw it has ERA on its front, lower plate, sides and on its turret too and cage armor on its rear. It has other countermeasures too. It's equipped with a Shtora-1 system (which is working with a lego light brick) and an Arcade APS. Btw I made an NLOS-M turret too:D
Permalink
| October 10, 2012, 1:13 am
 Group admin 
Man, I sure hope I didn't offend Mr. Rutherford... :/
Permalink
| October 12, 2012, 1:36 am
Quoting Matthew McCall
Man, I sure hope I didn't offend Mr. Rutherford... :/

Its ok, Im sure he isnt that upset over it.


I suppose I could try and take some photos today.
Permalink
| October 12, 2012, 11:29 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Its ok, Im sure he isnt that upset over it.


I suppose I could try and take some photos today.
Hopefully, I can take photos tomorrow too. Also, I want to make a video about all the features of the tank.

Permalink
| October 12, 2012, 2:02 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Yea, I watched the Pentagon Wars. I thought it was ok. I like the actor who plays the protagonist. But the narrative was at times a bit to lampoonish. I mean, there is a lot of irony in the story, and the part about putting the sheep into the vehicle to test it's survivability was pretty grim. But I thought many of the characters were too... cartoonish.

Over I say it's a good movie. We spend a lot of money on the wrong stuff right now. But because we spend more than anybody else, the rest of the world assumes we must know what we are doing. It's like France right before WWI. Everybody assumed they were the best because they were the most modern, and had the most stuff, and did lots of expensive training. To bad we all forgot to tell the Germans.

I remember seeing a documentary on the gulf war, and a small Bradley patrol came across 5 T-72 tanks, and some bmps, and they devastated the enemy, but it showed clearly how the main guns rounds bounced right off of the tanks, but the tow missiles are the real payload, its best against infantry, the missiles are for tanks.

America has been fighting small nations that use obsolete weapons for to long. We have a habit of only thinking short term, to guard what we think will be the future, based on what happened in our life time. We place regular people in office, based of the fact regular people are the nation. Ask any American, could we take out china.. what about Russia. Almost every one will say yes, so why would they want to use there taxes on the military, they think they are immune.

I think there are many problems behind this logic, mostly americas increasing lack of patriotism, combined with lazyness, and the everymans "violence is scary" nature.
Permalink
| October 15, 2012, 9:55 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
I have some problems with LDD. It keeps freezing when I import the turret file. I think it will be faster if I rebuild the turret in the chassis file.

Permalink
| October 17, 2012, 12:09 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Yep, you can check it out on the Tsanka's page.

Permalink
| October 17, 2012, 1:06 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Commander Sylvan,

Exactly as requested.

It's not the best imaginable ADA system, but the fact that it is almost identical to my tiny MBT Fleet makes all the logistics easer. Same motor, same chaises, same treads and suspension as its MBT brother. Spare parts, repair time, even driver training will all be kept simple by operating these two systems together on the battlefield.

10 more D-Sail Transports for 20 of these?


Ok. A batch of 40 will be done in one week. After that I can send the 20 SPAAG to you.

Permalink
| October 17, 2012, 3:03 pm
 Group admin 
"I say: “Tank you very much” for explain my own point to me. I think the entire IFV concept is garbage. You want to move troops? Use a truck it’s faster. You want to move troops under armor? Use an APC, it’s faster than an IFV and generally lower to the ground (less vulnerable to enemy fire). You want to engage an enemy with direct fire? Use a Tank main gun (it ends the entire dialogue with one well placed exclamation mark). Now… If You want to engage enemy vehicles with direct fire, from a platform that carries and deploys half a squad of infantry? Then use a Bradley. (Not sure why you would do that… but I guess people think it looks great on paper!) "

I'm not seeing why this compromise isn't useful. Sure, it doesn't excel at any of these tasks, but it is capable of at least doing a decent job at each of them. Trucks don't do well in combat due to lack of defensive armor and armament, so they are best regulated to transporting troops in low-ininsity situations. APCs have better surviability, but they are still lightly armored and armed, and as such they rarely stick around and fight it out. The tank is the best anti-vehcile platform (although it has been argued that anti-tank missile carriers are more cost effective), but can't carry any soldiers of their own (unless it's a Merkava, which can carry a few solders). The IFV concept allows more firepower at the cost of less troops. All of the vehicle types you mentioned are the best in their specfic area, but they aren't as flexable as an IFV. Oh, and speaking of IFVs, Bradleys are hardly the best choice aviable, so if you want to judge the concept, don't use the Bradley as your measure.

"Here is a reality check: This whole notion of moving until you find the enemy, stopping, deploying troops, and then fighting the enemy is not what happens. When you gain contact with the enemy vehicles, they are often more 500K meters away (500K is already close!). If you stop and kick out troops, it will take them at least half an hour to move into a good position (if the enemy does not move). And if the enemy moves while you are waiting for your half squad to lug their LAWs, SAWs and other gear through 100 meters of sand or mud or snow? You either chase after him, or you run from him. In either case, you end up leaving your dismounted troops far behind you. Or option number 3: you wait for the troops to crawl back to your vehicle and watch the enemy vehicles escape. It’s a garbage concept."

First off, what do you mean by 500K Meters? K is normally used for kilometers, so I'm going to assume you meant 500 meters. Anyway, are you really saying it would take 30 minutes to run half a kilometer? As in, they move at 1 KPH? This I find hard to believe. Besides, this is hardly the only type of situation that an IFV would exsperiance and therefore is not conclusive evidence by any any definition that the IFV concept is trash or even flawed. No vehicle will perform well in every situation. would you say that artillery is garbage because it doesn't perform very well at direct fire? I highly doubt so.

Anyway, I'm no exspert on IFV doctrine, but from what my admitedly limited reading on the subject has told me, I would think it would be better to option no. 4: keep the troops mounted and engage the enemy vehicles using the IFV's onboard firepower. It should also be remembered that IFVs are only a cog in the wheel of combined arms, so artillery, aircraft, and heavier AFVs may also be aviable to support the IFVs.
Permalink
| October 17, 2012, 11:18 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
Anyway, I'm no exspert on IFV doctrine, but from what my admitedly limited reading on the subject has told me, I would think it would be better to option no. 4: keep the troops mounted and engage the enemy vehicles using the IFV's onboard firepower. It should also be remembered that IFVs are only a cog in the wheel of combined arms, so artillery, aircraft, and heavier AFVs may also be aviable to support the IFVs.

Now for some simple logic...

The name should say it all, they fight infantry, thats what they are best at. They clearly are not designed to engage tanks. They have a role, dismounting troops to fight others, while providing covering fire. The bushmaster is best at this role. If the enemy deploys armor, you bug out. They can be very usefull, providing you use them cautiously.
Also if the army ever decides the armor is not strong enough, they put better, newer armor on.
Tow missiles could pose a large hazard to any tank, in emergencies, but what about bunkers, or dug in troops, they might not be able to cope with a airburst missile payload, "if they make a TOW that does that"

Scouting is a good example, patrols might choose to engage infantry, but dont attack tanks, Doesnt this make sense, if not Im not sure if I want to continue.

BUT MY GOD, XBOX MINECRAFT JUST GOT THE ADVENTURE UPDATE!!!! IM SO EXITED I MUST USE CAPS LOCK!!!!

I have minesomnia, stayin up for two days straight building a city, flyin around like a boss, building a pirateship battle for PVP, explorin a strongold, ravines, mineshafts, killin endamen.
Permalink
| October 18, 2012, 12:49 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Now for some simple logic...

The name should say it all, they fight infantry, thats what they are best at. They clearly are not designed to engage tanks. They have a role, dismounting troops to fight others, while providing covering fire. The bushmaster is best at this role. If the enemy deploys armor, you bug out. They can be very usefull, providing you use them cautiously.
Also if the army ever decides the armor is not strong enough, they put better, newer armor on.
Tow missiles could pose a large hazard to any tank, in emergencies, but what about bunkers, or dug in troops, they might not be able to cope with a airburst missile payload, "if they make a TOW that does that"

Scouting is a good example, patrols might choose to engage infantry, but dont attack tanks, Doesnt this make sense, if not Im not sure if I want to continue.

BUT MY GOD, XBOX MINECRAFT JUST GOT THE ADVENTURE UPDATE!!!! IM SO EXITED I MUST USE CAPS LOCK!!!!

I have minesomnia, stayin up for two days straight building a city, flyin around like a boss, building a pirateship battle for PVP, explorin a strongold, ravines, mineshafts, killin endamen.
Yes, that all makes sense, and I agree 100% with you, hence the part about combined arms. I fully realize that IFVs are not designed to take on armor as their primary purpose, which is why they are often buddied up with vehicles such as tanks. Everything i've read says that they try to engage in a way that stalls the enemy until heavier firepower arrives. On another note, yes, the minecraft Xbox update is awesome :D

Permalink
| October 18, 2012, 1:41 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
And what is your opinion about this IFV?
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h223/bbum_photos/PanzerfaustDonkey.jpg It seems like a pretty good concept.
Permalink
| October 18, 2012, 2:06 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Rutherford

It's just like the Bradley. It has a limited troop crarriyng capability, lightly-armored, not so good at swimming and offers only light protection. However, it is capable of defeating tanks.
Permalink
| October 18, 2012, 4:23 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
You say: “Bradley armor protects from fire up to 30mm, which is significantly more powerful than 50 cal.”

I say: Wrong. Did you read that on the General Motors It has aluminum armor that is only slightly thicker than that of the old M113. It won’t stop 50 cal rounds unless they are being thrown by hand. The U.S. fields an armor add on kit. It is mostly reactive armor that will stop 30mm. But it is … reactive. That means it stops the round by exploding. This works 1 (one) time. After that… the next round goes right on through. Reactive is good for reducing the effectiveness of stuff like RPG and Saggers. But any amount of sustained auto fire will burn it out and pass through very quickly. The brads aluminum skin melts when it gets hot, and actually burns and vaporizes if it gets even hotter (which happens when bullets hit it). The Brad Armor is truly amazing combination of weight, and protection. Lots of weight, and not much protection. To heavy to allow rapid movement, to light to stop the pain.

Wait one…

I'm quite aware that the original Bradley had pathetic armor, but you do realise that the M2A2 upgrade did more than add reactive armor, right? They also added applique steel armor to help defeat ballistic weapons. But yes, overall I have to concede this point, especially since newer IFVs armor is quite better.
Permalink
| October 18, 2012, 11:03 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
They say it stops 30mm. Don't beleave the hype. It only stops 30mm at max range and perfect defelction. At most ranges, and angles the 30 extra tons of steel won't stop 30mm. And specifically if it's AP, forget it.

For comparison, an AK-47 can penetrate at least 5mm steel (not aluminium!) and a 30mm round is more than three times bigger and fired from an even longer barrell.
Permalink
| October 19, 2012, 1:25 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting P4perweight .
Hello all! I am back for the time being and maybe permanently. I will get started tomorrow with my country, and I have 10 or so creations to Post for my nation. So how have all of you guys been?
Currently, I'm building a lot using LDD but I have some real MOCs waiting to be posted.

Permalink
| October 23, 2012, 2:36 am
Quoting P4perweight .
Hello all! I am back for the time being and maybe permanently. I will get started tomorrow with my country, and I have 10 or so creations to Post for my nation. So how have all of you guys been?

Ive been good, This group is better than conflict, we made a conflict II that was good but it only lasted about 6 months.
Ive switched from harsh dictatorship, to free democracy.
Permalink
| October 23, 2012, 11:51 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Ive switched from harsh dictatorship, to free democracy.
Democracs is cool.

Permalink
| October 23, 2012, 12:03 pm
 Group moderator 
I have a question regarding expansion. So I will conquer T-49 but it's much smaller than T-53, my previous territory. Maybe, if you are conquering a small country like 14 or 89, you can capture two small nations at once. Just a suggestion.
Permalink
| October 23, 2012, 12:18 pm
 Group admin 
Just wanted to let you guys know that I'm not dead, just really busy with school (I haven't even read any of the chat for the past few days :P ). I should have more spare time in a few days, and then I'll continue our little debate and maybe even get around to updateing my countries stats and war effort.
Permalink
| October 24, 2012, 10:41 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Just wanted to let you guys know that I'm not dead, just really busy with school (I haven't even read any of the chat for the past few days :P ). I should have more spare time in a few days, and then I'll continue our little debate and maybe even get around to updateing my countries stats and war effort.

Previously in Collapse & Collision...
New players show up... War all over the world with NPCs... A map update...
Permalink
| October 24, 2012, 11:30 am
 Group moderator 
Hey guys! I uploaded my first real brick Moc in a long time. Some comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

More creations to be expected, as uploading from my phone was super easy.
Permalink
| October 24, 2012, 1:54 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
Previously in Collapse & Collision...
New players show up... War all over the world with NPCs... A map update...

Thanks! I got hit with a quiz, 3 tests, and a 1,500 word essay on top of the several hours of homework I am assigned each day, so basically most everything "fun" had to be cut from my schedule.
Permalink
| October 24, 2012, 2:49 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting P4perweight .
Question:What category would a Tank Destroyers be in for stats?
You mean the turretless tank destroyers? Modern armies don't use them.

It all depends on its armor. You can produce 50 MBT per week, I think that's a fair number.

Permalink
| October 24, 2012, 2:58 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Ive been good, This group is better than conflict, we made a conflict II that was good but it only lasted about 6 months.
Ive switched from harsh dictatorship, to free democracy.

Yes, the administration for that group was... difficult to work with.
Permalink
| October 24, 2012, 3:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting P4perweight .
Turretless? Its like the ones in BF3, almost the firepower of a tank with lighter armor and faster with wheels.

Ummm... you really shouldn't get your information from video games, as they play fast and loose with real life facts. Anyway, this should be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_hunter
It turns out modern tank destroyers do exist, they can be wheeled or tracked, and generaly are armed with anti-tank missiles. Gun armed tank destroyers are rare, but they do exist, such as the Chinese PTZ89. That said, virtually every other tank destroyer out their uses missiles.

Some people have tried to argue that mobile gun systems are tank destroyers, but this isn't true, as they are not designed to engage tanks but are rather closer to infantry support vehicles. Anyway, were you thinking of IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicle)? They can have a superficial resemblence to tanks, but are instead designed to carry infantry into combat and lack both the firepower or protection of MBTS.
Permalink
| October 24, 2012, 4:41 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael Rutherford

Speaking of difficult administration, you should repeat your assessment of my vessels here in this forum, so the whole group can benefit from an informed discussion of this groups parameters. It's important stuff.

XD I thought it was pretty self evident that their current stats wouldn't be allowed in a group like this, but it wouldn't hurt to have other people's opinion on the matter.
Permalink
| October 24, 2012, 6:49 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting P4perweight .
I guess it's a cross between a LAV and a MBT, It's the body of a LAV with a 90mm gun, it can be seen here. Im not that familiar with all modern stuff, so I dont know what is realistic and not and normal things, even some basics like honestly how many mm an average tank's gun is. :P

That sounds like the Styker Mobile Gun System (which is in BF3), but the MGS uses a 105 mm gun. However, it's Russian counterpart, the 2S25 Sprut has been called a tank destroyer, but it's also been called a light tank, so it's not clear exactly what it is.
Permalink
| October 24, 2012, 6:57 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Snipped to attempt to keep this post size's length smaller

I fully realise that the Zubr is not the largest possible size that a hovercraft can scale up to, but there's logical limits on just how much things can scale up. The Zubr, which is the largest hovercraft class ever, can carry 3 tanks max, with basically nothing else. Now compare this to your Kraken hovercraft, which you say can carry 32 tanks. Do you understand that this is over 10 times larger? And as for scaling up, being 2 or even 3 times larger simply isn't good enough.

It would seem as hovercraft scale up, it becomes less efficent, so for each new tank that can be carried, the hovercraft's weight ends up growing by a larger amount each time relative to the extra cargo capacity. Look at how the following hovercraft compare to each other:
Jingsah II wieghs 18.6 tons , carries 60 tons.
LCAC 1 weighs 87.2 tons, carries 75 tons.
Zubr wieghs 340 tons, carries 215 tons.

Notice how as hovercraft weight scales up, the cargo capacity benefits decrease? If we assume each MBT your military uses is 60 tons ( a good average weight for MBTs) then if it carries 32, this means it carries 1,920 tons of cargo, not including anything else that might be in their. Now compare this to the Zubr, and notice how much more this is. Assumming the trend of poor weight-cargo capactiy as the size increases continues, we are easilly looking at a 2,500 to 3,000 ton hovercraft, and that's being conservative. I hope you are starting to get the picture...
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 2:11 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
In my opinion, if you cut the numbers in half it's just about right. Matthew, note that these vehicles are pretty slow when loaded.
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 11:11 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Jingsah II wieghs 18.6 tons , carries 60 tons.
LCAC 1 weighs 87.2 tons, carries 75 tons.
Zubr wieghs 340 tons, carries 215 tons.

Thats not bad math. But it is not a workable answer either. So what capacity do you mandate?

All I'm saying is that as hovercraft size increases, you get diminishing returns. I can't give an exact number of how much it would weigh or how large it would be, but I believe my estimate was fairly accurate.
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 11:58 am
Quoting Michael Rutherford
Jingsah II wieghs 18.6 tons , carries 60 tons.
LCAC 1 weighs 87.2 tons, carries 75 tons.
Zubr wieghs 340 tons, carries 215 tons.

Thats not bad math. But it is not a workable answer either. So what capacity do you mandate?

Now for the admins vote. keep it realistic, and base stats off of real modern weapons, your vehicles can still be used, just modify the stats. It will only take a few minutes of your day, and shouldnt be a problem.
Its not like your losing your benifit either, you still have the most effective navy in the game for seaborne landings.

I always wing it on my stats, and always change them when people correct some mistakes I made. I always try and go below the modern equivalent, I would maybe say maybe four, but remember that the zubr can also carry more of other types of vehicles, such as APCs.

The Kraken is larger than any modern hovercraft, maybe 7 tanks in total.
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 12:01 pm
 Group moderator 
Hey everyone, I discovered a program called paint.net and it's a great way to remove your background and replace it with a full white one giving it a more professional look. You can do it with the magic wand tool.
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 12:43 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford
I bid 8 and 10!

5 and 8 at the max.
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 12:43 pm
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
Hey everyone, I discovered a program called paint.net and it's a great way to remove your background and replace it with a full white one giving it a more professional look. You can do it with the magic wand tool.

No photoshop?
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 12:45 pm
 Group admin 
I'm fine with those stats, since while they are bigger than modern hovercraft, it's still conceivable and plausible.
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 1:08 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
Hey everyone, I discovered a program called paint.net and it's a great way to remove your background and replace it with a full white one giving it a more professional look. You can do it with the magic wand tool.

Yes, I use that program for every single picture I add, and it does allow nice white backgrounds. I don't use that feature very often though...
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 1:16 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
No photoshop?
Nope. Much faster and easier if you use a plain white background. The magic wand selects all the similar color pixels next to each other and then you just delete it and fill the empty area with white.

Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 1:18 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Also, go to Mecha sneak peak and you can see my latest tank, I used this program to make a clear background.

Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 1:23 pm
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
No photoshop?
Nope. Much faster and easier if you use a plain white background. The magic wand selects all the similar color pixels next to each other and then you just delete it and fill the empty area with white.

You can do it in roughly 20 seconds in photoshop with the paint bucket tool, Thats what I use in my creations main photots.
You can change to opacity of the bucket so it fills in whole area, to be totally white, the opacity doesnt select individual pixels, but instead similar color pixels, slide to opacity to select the range. Its harder with darker photos though, but a paint brush tool can fix it quickly.

Also photoshop has the exact thing you describe, click on part of the background to select it in that way, its just a tad bit more complex (roughly 5 clicks :), good to put it in another background.
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 1:45 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
But it's free!! xD Also, I'm lazy to download a trial version photoshop.

Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 2:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
No photoshop?
Nope. Much faster and easier if you use a plain white background. The magic wand selects all the similar color pixels next to each other and then you just delete it and fill the empty area with white.

Yeah, the wand of power is pretty neat. However, it is slightly annoying of having to constantly adjust the percentage to make sure it's only choosing the background.
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 2:35 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Matthew McCall
Yeah, the wand of power is pretty neat. However, it is slightly annoying of having to constantly adjust the percentage to make sure it's only choosing the background.

Yeah, I had some issues with light bley parts.
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 2:39 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew Sylvan
Yeah, I had some issues with light bley parts.

Some areas are just better off being done by hand if you ask me :P
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 2:41 pm
Quoting P4perweight .
The palaven v2 is already done, it only took an hour. It now looks less blocky and more sleek. Im going to post it in a week or so, so it's not out too quickly. It looks a LOT better.

Posting them in multi packs of creations is very poular. I would have posted all your land vehicles in one moc, same with air, and sea vehicles, each three days apart. People like to see a lot of stuff in one creation, and it also saves time.
Permalink
| October 25, 2012, 4:23 pm
Quoting P4perweight .
Could someone tell me if there are any rules on alliances? I was thinking about conflict earlier today, and remembered about them. I was just wondering also, not looking to start one. It relly wouldnt be a good idea, there are only a handful of active members.

Alliances are not allowed, but you can unoffically have them. You can trade with other nations, and back other nations up, but you must have a good reason for going to war to protect another country.
Permalink
| October 27, 2012, 3:06 pm
Hey guys, a hurricane is expected to hit the area where I live. It might change cource, but if the power goes out for a while, I wont be active untill it goes back on.
Permalink
| October 27, 2012, 3:22 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Hey guys, a hurricane is expected to hit the area where I live. It might change cource, but if the power goes out for a while, I wont be active untill it goes back on.
Well, where I live the worst thing can happen is a heavy rain.

Be safe out there!

Permalink
| October 27, 2012, 4:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nightmaresquid º
Alliances are not allowed, but you can unoffically have them. You can trade with other nations, and back other nations up, but you must have a good reason for going to war to protect another country.

Well, Matthew S and I are in an alliance in all but name, and share quite a few designs.
Permalink
| October 27, 2012, 8:33 pm
Hope everybody in Sandy's path stays safe!
Permalink
| October 29, 2012, 4:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting John Stahlman
Hope everybody in Sandy's path stays safe!

Yeah, quite a few members of this site are being effected.
Permalink
| October 29, 2012, 6:10 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
Yeah, quite a few members of this site are being effected.

It will hit my area sometime at midnight, I will probably be up till 3:00 AM playing New vegas again, Ive reached level 26 and am super powerfull, been mowing down feilds of enemies.

I dont expect it to do much damage, We are on the same powergrid as a major prison complex, we are usually the last ones to lose power.

If I do I will be one of the first to get it back again.
Permalink
| October 29, 2012, 6:53 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford

What I wouldn't give for two days off! Sit home, drink coffee, and build stright through the whole day! What a life! Sigh...

No such luck in Texas though. Cool and sunny. Work all over the place. Yuck.


I often wonder if it will ever be possible to get just one full day of building in. That would be great! That is why my MOCs always take so long. I have to build parts when I have time and then assemble them once they are all completed. I do have a week off in December... :-(

Permalink
| October 29, 2012, 9:25 pm
Quoting Michael Rutherford
You say: Oh, and speaking of IFVs, Bradleys are hardly the best choice available, so if you want to judge the concept, don't use the Bradley as your measure.


If you're talking NATO IFVs, use the German Marder as your yard stick. ;-)

Slightly off topic, but we used derelict M113s at 1000m as targets on the US Weapons range at Fort Leonard Wood. It is awesome to see a 7.62mm MG tracer round ricochet off the front armor at an almost 90 degree angle without losing much velocity!
Permalink
| October 29, 2012, 10:03 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
...the Bradley has a ROF of only 200 rpm, the only way it's going to run out of ammo in 5 minutes is basically if it is non-stop fired on full auto for 4.5 minutes, which is obviously quite wasteful, and from what I understand, heavily


The barrel would turn to molton slag long before the 5min mark of sustained fire. ;-)

Permalink
| October 30, 2012, 9:33 am
 Group admin 
Quoting John Stahlman

The barrel would turn to molton slag long before the 5min mark of sustained fire. ;-)

Oh yeah, I guess that only strenghtens my point XD
Permalink
| October 31, 2012, 10:58 pm
 Group admin 
Mr. Rutherford, I feel I must concede this debate due to not having enough time to devote to it. (I would still love to debate more if I could, but I really need to devote more time to my studies :P )I would like to say you do have a legitiment point on this topic.

Anyway, have you ever heard of the Swedish CV90? It's better than the Bradley, as its composite armor offers protection up to 30mm APFSDS (and reactive armor can be added on top of that), carries 8 soldiers, uses a 40 mm bofors, and has slightly better dimmensions, weight, and speed. There's also awesome varients like the CV90120-T which are armed with 120mm cannons :D
Permalink
| October 31, 2012, 11:23 pm
Group moderators have locked this conversation.
Other topics
« General conversation IV
student teen kid toy play lego child video game hobby blocks construction toy legos fun games



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop collapse & collision. Military


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use