ORCaLoVeR 0 Posted October 24, 2009 (edited) Or the GDI defense Medium blast T2 Take a look at this Now the first look, people will say=WTF SO SHORT BARRELS TO SHORT NO BAD! But after looking into it, actually it makes sense. In theory the juggernaut was always an artillery unit, but in all C&C"s, it was often in battle right behind the front line units. Now in real life, they also have these kind of front line support units a couple of examples http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm....0004z89h67.jpg http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/TIGER-1%20...-III-AUSF-N.jpg http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Angl..._2004_UK_01.jpg Now you might say= Those are all cannons on tanks. But actually that was is just a juggernaut is, simply an mech with cannons. These things might be howitsers. And you have to think it this way. In artillery= The longer the barrel, the longer the range BUT the heavier muzzle velocity requires thicker walling of the shells, in order to allow them to survive the shot=Less High Explosive material's. Also the higher the muzzle velocity= The less the steep of angle the shells lands. If the angle is very low, like with a field gun, the Cannon issent good in Direct fire support. As it will just behave like a regular tank shell in theory. But the Howitzer key element was that the shell could accuartly land on top of the enemie's, or lets say, in a city. And regarding the range. A field gun can fire about, lets say= 15KM. The howitzer of this kind, might fire towards 8-9KM. So actually, there might be a logic reason, behind making the barrels shorter then before, on the juggernaut. Surely admitted, everything looks good on that juggernaut, exept the big cannon on its back. They could at least made it a bit less cartoonish Edited October 24, 2009 by ORCaLoVeR Share this post Link to post
Malevolence 6 Posted October 24, 2009 You know what they say about short barrels... Period. Share this post Link to post
Gben 20 Posted October 24, 2009 Sorry... if this is the new Juggernaut I already have the winner of the new Fan-Picked name... the Eunich. Share this post Link to post
Malovolpe 3 Posted October 24, 2009 Dislike the big cannon on its back, but it looks kinda like it has 3 Howitzer's which is sorta cool. Share this post Link to post
Mighty BOB! 4 Posted October 25, 2009 The big back.. cannon thing, is stupid, and I dislike the short barrels immensely. The artists need to get out of the stupid RA3 art-mode already. Share this post Link to post
Malevolence 6 Posted October 25, 2009 I'm not sure what they are up to but I figure that they envisioned the future having war vehicles with short barrels, thus making them look less modern looking of sorts. But I still don't buy it. Share this post Link to post
ORCaLoVeR 0 Posted October 25, 2009 the short cannons are acceptable but the big ugly upgrade is not Share this post Link to post
Malevolence 6 Posted October 26, 2009 Lol to that. I' sure the sticky bombs should be useful in gameplay, I'm fine with that extra thingy sticking there. Share this post Link to post
BioBen 3 Posted October 26, 2009 C&C 4 concept artists are currently facepalming and ridiculing the curator of the juggernaut. Share this post Link to post
ApornasPlanet 9 Posted October 30, 2009 "The GDI Juggernaut is GDI's mobile Artillery platform, equipped with a Triple barreled 120mm cannon recycled from the GDI Navy's old Battleship's and put to use in the field. They are not as accurate as Nod's Mobile Artillery but make up for accuracy with firepower!" ORCaLoVeR is obviously wrong. Just give us some long barrels will ya! Share this post Link to post
Luk3us 63 Posted October 30, 2009 They are not as accurate as Nod's Mobile Artillery but make up for accuracy with firepower!" I guess GDI don't mind a bit of collateral damage from time to time. A church here, a school there, its all good. :thumbsup: Share this post Link to post
VampireA05 0 Posted October 31, 2009 My statement may be offensive to some...but I must say.. That barrels look like uncircumcised d!cks to me. Share this post Link to post
Luk3us 63 Posted November 1, 2009 You're obsessed with the wrong things. Share this post Link to post
BioBen 3 Posted November 1, 2009 (edited) Well that was blatant. Edited November 1, 2009 by BioBen Share this post Link to post
Malevolence 6 Posted November 1, 2009 My statement may be offensive to some...but I must say.. That barrels look like uncircumcised d!cks to me. Wut?!? Share this post Link to post
VampireA05 0 Posted November 1, 2009 well, thats the problem having a baby boy... you keep seeing those anywhere. Share this post Link to post
Guest Stevie_K Posted November 1, 2009 what's wrong with you people About the juggernaut though, it just doesn't look like anything artillery-like what so ever. Real war engineers would laugh their ***' off. Share this post Link to post
PurpleGaga27 37 Posted November 2, 2009 Those pictures don't look like juggernauts. They look like the mini versions of Juggernauts. Why not call them Mininauts? Share this post Link to post
phrostee 0 Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) hmm... let me clear up some misconceptions here from orcalover's post. He used some pictures to validate the use of short barreled guns on tanks. Now the first, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm....0004z89h67.jpg This is a picture of an American M8 self-propelled 75mm howitzer. It was not very effective against front-line tanks and was primarily used for infantry support. The second picture is documented and is of a WW II era German Panzer III Ausf N. http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/TIGER-1%20...-III-AUSF-N.jpg This is a production model tank, however, by the time it saw service it was relegated to the role of infantry support and is not a front-line battle tank. It mounts a 75mm low-velocity short barreled gun. The third picture is also documented and is of the British Centurion A.V.R.E. (Armored Vehicle Royal Engineers). http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Angl..._2004_UK_01.jpg This is also a production tank, however, it's role is not that of a main battle tank. It is a vehicle used by combat engineers. It mounts a 165mm Demolition Gun. This weapon's role is for clearing obstacles (road blocks, dragon's teeth, pillboxes, ets...) and destroying buildings. It is ineffective against both infantry and other tanks. Note that the tank the vehicle is derived from was produced from the end of WW II through to 1962. It is still in service in some 3rd world nations. Those are all cannons on tanks. But actually that was is just a juggernaut is, simply an mech with cannons. OK, that being cleared up, onto the subject of this thread, i.e. the short barrels on the new Juggernaut. They are acceptable all things considered. In the same vane as the Allied gun/howitzers of WW II (British 25-pounder and the American 105mm), which were used for both direct fire and indirect fire. These weapons were invariably large bore, short barreled weapons. They relied on their large caliber hollow charge rounds for penetration rather than high-velocity kinetic impact. As to the upgrade, that's just ludicrous. Maybe it's a foo-gas projector or a very short range mortar type weapon? Anyways that's my $.02 worth. Edited November 25, 2009 by phrostee Share this post Link to post