[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/k/ - Weapons


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: vrbajf.png (691 KB, 1600x852)
691 KB
691 KB PNG
Would putting stealth be better on tanks or on arillery?
>>
>>64827140
Yes
>>
>>64827140
yeah
>>
why not both?
>>
>>64827140
C&C3 was so kino.
>>
>>64827140
Depends on what you mean by "stealth". If you're talking active optical camoflage then it'd make the most difference on tanks, which operate at visual ranges and employ ambush tactics etc, with a lot of their biggest threats being vehicles or individual enemy soldiers operating with their eyes. If they have an electric mode they can operate in for brief spurts too along with coolant so that they can temporarily get thermal camo as well even better. Radar stealth isn't worthless but probably matters less if you have to choose.

Arty wouldn't benefit as much either way. Their shells aren't stealth so the big threat is counter battery radar backtracing their position from when they fire, and they are going to be obvious in use anyway. So speed of firing, mobility and support are the big things. Camo might make it somewhat easier to hide them faster when not in use but hard to see it being that big a deal vs just using netting.
>>
>>64827140
Yes



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.