NationStates

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:53 pm**

Lydenburg wrote:
Erusuia wrote:Would a BTR-152 styled vehicle be sensible as an infantry mobility vehicle?

Eh...the open top isn't great, and having the embarked troops facing each other in that staggered pattern really isn't for the best. Plus it's really too lightly armoured for a modern IMV.

I was thinking of making a modern vehicle inspired by it, with a closed top, thicker armor and a more sensible seating arrangement

I personally love the look of the thing

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:59 pm**

Eh, I have a question regarding some of the tracked vehicles.

I'm quite a fan of Warhammer 40K, and I was thinking if it is allowed if I could talk about some of the vehicles in this massive fictional world, or would I just stick to actual vehicles of our world?

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:03 pm**

Erusuia wrote:
Lydenburg wrote:
Eh...the open top isn't great, and having the embarked troops facing each other in that staggered pattern really isn't for the best. Plus it's really too lightly armoured for a modern IMV.

I was thinking of making a modern vehicle inspired by it, with a closed top, thicker armor and a more sensible seating arrangement

I personally love the look of the thing

I know I've said the same thing about the BRDM-2, but I really meant it. The BTR-152's gearbox is an absolute piece of shit. Plus those wooden benches have to go - in an open-topped vehicle, they rot easily.

Changes I would make:

1) Replace the clutch and gearbox with something half decent;
2) Give it a diesel engine;
3) Up-armour the hood so a single round through it doesn't just kill you dead;
4) Hydraulic steering;
5) Power brakes;
6) Take out those bloody wooden benches!! and reconfigure them so the troops are facing outwards;
7) Add firing ports or view slits to increase situation awareness due to the loss of the open top.

The concept itself isn't half bad.

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:09 pm**

Will do all those things for mass produced glory transportation vehicle

I'm aiming to create a vehicle kind of like the Humvee but with allot more glory

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:27 pm**

Is it a military ground vehicle if it doesn't touch the ground?

Prototype AG Rapid Assault Vehicle - XKA-9931 Iry-Kitoyo
Current design specs:
Propulsion - dual KSN AC Hierenny 18 fusion drives (as fitted to Challenge-type assault shuttle)
Traction - KSN AC Lightweight 48.3 controlled gravitic field system
Armament - 1.5TW pulse laser
Defensive - multilayer composite armour, energy shielding, electronic countermeasures

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:29 pm**

New Visegrad wrote:Is it a military ground vehicle if it doesn't touch the ground?
(Image)
Prototype AG Rapid Assault Vehicle - XKA-9931 Iry-Kitoyo
Current design specs:
Propulsion - dual KSN AC Hierenny 18 fusion drives (as fitted to Challenge-type assault shuttle)
Traction - KSN AC Lightweight 48.3 controlled gravitic field system
Armament - 1.5TW pulse laser
Defensive - multilayer composite armour, energy shielding, electronic countermeasures
The only military ground vehicle I'm aware of with an "afterburner" button. Imagine - your tank sits in its hardened position on a ridgeline. In the distance, a trail of dust. You raise your binoculars - it's an Iry-Kitoyo, racing along with its AG raising an impressive cloud. As you watch, a spike of flame erupts from its rear end, and with an audible rumble, it accelerates to a terrifying pace. You begin to give an order to your gunner, but the RAV's sensors detect the tank. Riding smooth on AG despite the rough ground, its turret swivels. There is a stuttering of ear-splitting cracks, and a gigantic invisible paper-punch slams a line of scorched holes across the side of the tank. Coughing in the cloud of smoke, you watch the Iry-Kitoyo howl past you, blackening the front of your vehicle's armour with its drive flare.

We need more FT in here tbh.

Isn't the laser on the YAL-1 only a megawatt? Wouldn't a 1.5 TW laser like, melt a skyscraper?

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:31 pm**

Heicliffe wrote:
New Visegrad wrote:Is it a military ground vehicle if it doesn't touch the ground?
(Image)
Prototype AG Rapid Assault Vehicle - XKA-9931 Iry-Kitoyo
Current design specs:
Propulsion - dual KSN AC Hierenny 18 fusion drives (as fitted to Challenge-type assault shuttle)
Traction - KSN AC Lightweight 48.3 controlled gravitic field system
Armament - 1.5TW pulse laser
Defensive - multilayer composite armour, energy shielding, electronic countermeasures
The only military ground vehicle I'm aware of with an "afterburner" button. Imagine - your tank sits in its hardened position on a ridgeline. In the distance, a trail of dust. You raise your binoculars - it's an Iry-Kitoyo, racing along with its AG raising an impressive cloud. As you watch, a spike of flame erupts from its rear end, and with an audible rumble, it accelerates to a terrifying pace. You begin to give an order to your gunner, but the RAV's sensors detect the tank. Riding smooth on AG despite the rough ground, its turret swivels. There is a stuttering of ear-splitting cracks, and a gigantic invisible paper-punch slams a line of scorched holes across the side of the tank. Coughing in the cloud of smoke, you watch the Iry-Kitoyo howl past you, blackening the front of your vehicle's armour with its drive flare.

We need more FT in here tbh.

Isn't the laser on the YAL-1 only a megawatt? Wouldn't a 1.5 TW laser like, melt a skyscraper?

Maybe? I'm not sure. I've just been using Elite II's numbers as vague bases for this. I'm trying to account for dissipation due to atmospheric resistance, though.

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:17 pm**

Heicliffe wrote:We need more FT in here tbh.

Isn't the laser on the YAL-1 only a megawatt? Wouldn't a 1.5 TW laser like, melt a skyscraper?

Someone ring for some FT?

But really, unless you like the idea of trying to drive a heavily lubricated hockey puck through urban environments, I can't imagine a hovering armored vehicle would be any practical use.
Also the fact that it would devour stupid amounts of energy at a constant rate just to operate, let alone mounting a laser with the power consumption of around half the continental United States.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 1:32 am**

Question for those who know powertrains, does 1500HP sound realistic for a 41 litre opposed-piston diesel? I was fooling around in Rhino and ended up making a pretty good set of cylinders. Decided to inquire here as to whether I may need to make them bigger or not.

EDIT: Exact figures are 6,896cc per cylinder, 41,376cc overall.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 4:42 am**

The Soodean Imperium wrote:
Korouse wrote:What's a good APC/Maybe tank a really shitty Militia force could use?

Depends on what you mean by "militia."

If you mean a militia that's an arm of the State, like one step below the reserves, then the old hand-me-down gear you're phasing out of the reserves. Provided, of course, that it still works - tanks built during WW2, for example, will probably be sufficiently old that only a small portion of them will reliably work, and with parts no longer in production, maintenance will be far from cheap.

If you mean a militia that's fighting an insurgency, then they'll have whatever they can get their hands on, if anything at all. This generally limits them to vehicles that they've captured from government bases or defecting units, which means not a terribly large number of vehicles, especially given that your problems with parts and training will be even worse than the scenario above. Indeed, if you're fighting a low-level insurgency against a competent opponent, it may not be worth having a (highly visible but too small to be useful) mechanized force of your own. If you want something extra, maybe you can weld steel plates onto a tractor or truck to get Syrian Box Tanks. But the whole "we're fighting a long-term rebellion, let's design a new MBT for ourselves!" or "wee r terurists sel us 1000x T55 plz" is not particularly realistic.

Best Rebel Industry

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 4:45 am**

Tryienne wrote:Eh, I have a question regarding some of the tracked vehicles.

I'm quite a fan of Warhammer 40K, and I was thinking if it is allowed if I could talk about some of the vehicles in this massive fictional world, or would I just stick to actual vehicles of our world?

40K vehicles are generally terrible. Don't use them outside of 40K scenarios.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 7:57 am**

Talon independent nation wrote:But really, unless you like the idea of trying to drive a heavily lubricated hockey puck through urban environments, I can't imagine a hovering armored vehicle would be any practical use.

Its primary method of propulsion is a pair of fusion reaction drives designed to be fitted to a spacecraft. That's like arguing that a drag racer is useless for commuting - of course it is, that's not what you use it for.

Also the fact that it would devour stupid amounts of energy at a constant rate just to operate, let alone mounting a laser with the power consumption of around half the continental United States.

The laser's output can be modified to be more realistic. Aside from that, this is FT. It has a functional antigravity system and the unrealistic part is that it might be unable to produce enough power? I also note that you're apparently okay with a tracked vehicle powered by black holes, but not with the idea of an antigravity vehicle with a relatively tame cold fusion reactor.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:09 am**

I newer personally understood this fad of having reactors of any kind inside FT vehicles. Especially not fission or fusion based ones that as we all know just don't scale that well. I personally much prefer to simply use magical super high capacity batteries. Not only do these provide me with a nice tie in to every other piece of kit such as rifles, powered armor etc. that can't feasibly have reactors but they also make for a much cheaper system overall.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:13 am**

Are tank support vehicles like the BMPT a good idea?

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:37 am**

Erusuia wrote:Are tank support vehicles like the BMPT a good idea?

I don't see the point in having a dedicated vehicle just to support tanks. Generally the IFVs of mechanised infantry can fill that role in combined arms formations.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:42 am**

Would there be a use for a heavy IFV armed like a tank? It would have to be larger than regular IFVs, obviously, but if an unmanned tank turret which can hold all of its ammunition in the bustle is put onto the hull, would it be a problem? From what I undersand, the baskets of these turrets don't have the penetrate very far into the hull at all.

Obviously it wouldn't be as heavily armored as an actual MBT, but my train of thought was that it would be able to support its infantry far more effectively than regular IFVs such as the Bradley of BMP-3.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:45 am**

You really don't need anything more than a BMP-3 in terms of firepower. But I think you'd like my unmanned turret BMP-3 concept.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 9:12 am**

Sure, but it's nice to have the kind of firepower I'm talking about when dealing with a scenario such as urban combat. After all, if a regular IFV with an infantry team comes up against a tank in such circumstances it might not fare so well.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 9:15 am**

Auroya wrote:Sure, but it's nice to have the kind of firepower I'm talking about when dealing with a scenario such as urban combat. After all, if a regular IFV with an infantry team comes up against a tank in such circumstances it might not fare so well.

You do not need anything more than a BMP-3. Seriously, you do not. If you run into a tank, the thing can fire missiles to make it go away. If you run into a city, the thing has a 10cm gun that can accurately place shells on stuff inside from 8km away. And if you have to drive in, you have a 30mm autocanon that elevates up to 60 degrees to clear out every room and roof top.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 9:21 am**

Purpelia wrote:
Auroya wrote:Sure, but it's nice to have the kind of firepower I'm talking about when dealing with a scenario such as urban combat. After all, if a regular IFV with an infantry team comes up against a tank in such circumstances it might not fare so well.

You do not need anything more than a BMP-3. Seriously, you do not. If you run into a tank, the thing can fire missiles to make it go away. If you run into a city, the thing has a 10cm gun that can accurately place shells on stuff inside from 8km away. And if you have to drive in, you have a 30mm autocanon that elevates up to 60 degrees to clear out every room and roof top.

If only this was true.

I don't think the ATGMs the BMP-3 fires are top-down attack capable.

Serious please quit fapping to the BMP-3, since really CV90 with BILL-2 ATGMs does the same job.

Auroya wrote:Sure, but it's nice to have the kind of firepower I'm talking about when dealing with a scenario such as urban combat. After all, if a regular IFV with an infantry team comes up against a tank in such circumstances it might not fare so well.

Good but not necessarily needed for urban combat.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 9:24 am**

Auroya wrote:Sure, but it's nice to have the kind of firepower I'm talking about when dealing with a scenario such as urban combat. After all, if a regular IFV with an infantry team comes up against a tank in such circumstances it might not fare so well.

The armament of your "average" IFV - be it BMP-2, Bradley, or Marder - is more than sufficient for the task it has. Airbursting autocannon rounds are very effective at suppressing and destroying "soft" targets, though Russia's latest BMP-2 upgrade added an automatic grenade launcher as well. The BMP-3 takes this a step further by adding a low-velocity HE-thrower gun, but sadly said vehicle's hull layout gave it other issues. As for coming upon a tank, that's what the IFV's ATGMs are for. Or, better yet, the infantry team's own anti-tank weapons - dismounted infantry in an urban environment are a very grave threat to tanks.

If, on the other hand, you are moving into a situation where your infantry desperately need the full capabilities of a tank supporting them, then simply attach a tank platoon to their unit. "Combined Arms" doesn't literally mean fusing all your different vehicles together.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 9:27 am**

San-Silvacian wrote:
Purpelia wrote:You do not need anything more than a BMP-3. Seriously, you do not. If you run into a tank, the thing can fire missiles to make it go away. If you run into a city, the thing has a 10cm gun that can accurately place shells on stuff inside from 8km away. And if you have to drive in, you have a 30mm autocanon that elevates up to 60 degrees to clear out every room and roof top.

If only this was true.

I don't think the ATGMs the BMP-3 fires are top-down attack capable.

Serious please quit fapping to the BMP-3, since really CV90 with BILL-2 ATGMs does the same job.

Auroya wrote:Sure, but it's nice to have the kind of firepower I'm talking about when dealing with a scenario such as urban combat. After all, if a regular IFV with an infantry team comes up against a tank in such circumstances it might not fare so well.

Good but not necessarily needed for urban combat.

Strf 90 BILL 2 can't carry infantry. It's more like an M3 CFV tbh.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 9:28 am**

San-Silvacian wrote:Serious please quit fapping to the BMP-3, since really CV90 with BILL-2 ATGMs does the same job.

One wonders if they are going to do that irl, beyond some tank destroyer prototypes.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 9:40 am**

New Visegrad wrote:
Talon independent nation wrote:But really, unless you like the idea of trying to drive a heavily lubricated hockey puck through urban environments, I can't imagine a hovering armored vehicle would be any practical use.

Its primary method of propulsion is a pair of fusion reaction drives designed to be fitted to a spacecraft. That's like arguing that a drag racer is useless for commuting - of course it is, that's not what you use it for.

The issue though is that unless your antigrav device also provides some kind of means to cancel momentum or produce a lot of drag, the vehicle will have a stopping distance of a few city blocks when it's zipping along. While you didn't specify a weight, I'd imagine it's pretty heavy, given that it mounts a reactor to power it, which would mean the turning radius and overall maneuverability would be a nightmare. Going fast is all well and good, but tanks also need to fight in close quarters sometimes, and jet aircraft already exist if you need to get munitions on target at speed.

New Visegrad wrote:
Talon independent nation wrote:Also the fact that it would devour stupid amounts of energy at a constant rate just to operate, let alone mounting a laser with the power consumption of around half the continental United States.

The laser's output can be modified to be more realistic. Aside from that, this is FT. It has a functional antigravity system and the unrealistic part is that it might be unable to produce enough power? I also note that you're apparently okay with a tracked vehicle powered by black holes, but not with the idea of an antigravity vehicle with a relatively tame cold fusion reactor.

My issue isn't really that it's generating an absurd amount of power, but that it's using that power very wantonly. Lasers just aren't very good weapons when used against armor; the damage output vs the energy input just doesn't seem like it would be anywhere up to par with a decently efficient railgun or coilgun. When using a laser, you'd get into massive issues with atmospheric interference, and then when you did contact the target, thermal dynamics would be working against you. Not to mention the fact that you could simply build a vehicle with a reflective outer coating, which would mitigate a significant percentage of your terminal effect.

My real issue with hovering vehicles and lasers as offensive weapons is that you're wasting huge amounts of energy for the effect, meaning that you're saddling your vehicle with a massive reactor core that adds weight and complexity just to get a fast vehicle that could be replaced by an aircraft, but can't function reliably as a tank.
FT is all well and good, but the rule of cool will get you killed by people who made more efficient use of all that bullshitanium.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2014 9:59 am**

San-Silvacian wrote:Serious please quit fapping to the BMP-3

This is the first statement I've heard from San that isn't shit.

But yes, seriously, BMP-3 isn't all that good. It's not shit, because it does have a few redeeming qualities, but the original Object 688 makes drastically more sense, overall.

EDIT:
I do actually need input on this.

Saphirasia wrote:Question for those who know powertrains, does 1500HP sound realistic for a 41 litre opposed-piston diesel? I was fooling around in Rhino and ended up making a pretty good set of cylinders. Decided to inquire here as to whether I may need to make them bigger or not.

EDIT: Exact figures are 6,896cc per cylinder, 41,376cc overall.

NationStates

Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Tranche 7