Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mk.IV

[Immoren]

This seems like an usefull feature.

[Discordant Schism]

115km/h is 71.5mph

Time to use my phone for conversions from now on... Still it would roll right over i think

The Panhard isn't really at any risk of rolling....

[United States of PA]

"Vextra 105 covered 200km on very soft sandy tracks at speeds greater than 50km/h, reaching top speeds of 120km/hr on roads."

(Image)

You have also yet again made the lulzy mistake of confusing speed for tactical mobility.

Heres your "100km/62mph" Stryker for you (Btw, this is the video i made reference too earlier)

EDIT: By the way, if you listen, that is the third time a Stryker got stuck in that location.

EDIT EDIT: Not too mention, that Stryker weighs a full FIFTEEN tonnes less than your Vextra

[Ularn]

The French sure are good at designing reconnaissance vehicles

They're important when planning a swift and orderly retreat

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

Heres your "100km/62mph" Stryker for you (Btw, this is the video i made reference too earlier)

contrast with tank

doubt any wheeled AFV could have gotten out of that predicament on its own

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Heres your "100km/62mph" Stryker for you (Btw, this is the video i made reference too earlier)

contrast with tank

doubt any wheeled AFV could have gotten out of that predicament on its own

ALL OF THE NOISY HORSEPOWERS

[United States of PA]

Heres your "100km/62mph" Stryker for you (Btw, this is the video i made reference too earlier)

contrast with tank

doubt any wheeled AFV could have gotten out of that predicament on its own

doubt any wheeled AFV could've gotten into it on its own lol

[Crookfur]

Heres your "100km/62mph" Stryker for you (Btw, this is the video i made reference too earlier)

contrast with tank

doubt any wheeled AFV could have gotten out of that predicament on its own

lovin' it!

Tracked AFVs + mud= the best fun you can ever have!

[United States of PA]

contrast with tank

doubt any wheeled AFV could have gotten out of that predicament on its own

lovin' it!

Tracked APCs + mud= the best fun you can ever have!

OMG THE MUD!!!. Can swear that if i stood in where that tank was the mud would be like, 3 feet over my head, and im 6ft tall.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Because relevant lol.

viewtopic.php?p=9798634#p9798634

Saph gave me an IRC link to help discuss my tank's armour scheme, but I never got around to using it.
Now I'm on placement, the internet we have blocks IRCs
So while I wait for him to see my TG (it's either half 2 or half 5pm for him), I figured I'd ask a few questions here.

Janes' ToT mentions about how in WWII 49% of attacks came from the 60^o frontal arc, and some of the tank-heavy Arab-Israeli conflicts corroborated this, I would follow the same. The majority of protection being covered on the 60^o frontal arc, then rear armour being less than side armour due to the engine. Not sure about turret schemes, though I think I should assume the turret to attract as much or more fire than the hull itself due to top attack munitions and generic plunging fire. Also being attacked whilst in hull-down.

But I realise I keep thinking of the current issue tank. Not the base armour the King David would have had at introduction.

I feel IC'ly, the King David would have started out as just a hull, with a T-90 turret (since that was the tank in use at the time). Very quickly a new turret would have been built (designed along with the hull, and therefore for the hull, for such an eventuality) which still used the 2A46M gun, then a slightly redesigned turret to accommodate the custom 125mm gun in use today. Various upgrade packages throughout the David's service life have increased physical armour and also added masses of ERA. I'm wondering if ERA should have been present on the early tanks, since T-90s were used previously. I've seen many pictures of T-72s plastered in ERA, but were T-90s especially protected with ERA in the early 1990s?

[Risen Britannia]

clearly you just aren't thinking big enough

[Almire]

I posted this in a completely unrelated thread once that I mistook to be YNMBT, but now that I've found it... Anyhow, I spent 6 hours on this guy a few weeks ago. It's my version of Bajireyn's Futuretank



Clad in naval camoflague, the Judicator steamtank boasts a frightful, beefed-up version of the Valiance Pulsegehwir and two sponsoons with a 8.8 cm smoothebores.

Also credit to JG (obviously)

FIrst guy to guess where the phrase etched in red on the side came from gets a cookie.

[Bajireyn]

I posted this in a completely unrelated thread once that I mistook to be YNMBT, but now that I've found it... Anyhow, I spent 6 hours on this guy a few weeks ago. It's my version of Bajireyn's Futuretank

(Image)

Clad in naval camoflague, the Judicator steamtank boasts a frightful, beefed-up version of the Valiance Pulsegehwir and two sponsoons with a 8.8 cm smoothebores.

Also credit to JG (obviously)

FIrst guy to guess where the phrase etched in red on the side came from gets a cookie.

Diablo 3?

[The Kievan People]

clearly you just aren't thinking big enough
(Image)

DT-30 laughs at your so-called off-road.

[Vitaphone Racing]

clearly you just aren't thinking big enough
(Image)

DT-30 laughs at your so-called off-road.

wheels vs. tracks, gg tracks.

[Noders]

This question has been bothering me for some time and even after going through ton of links I'm still not sure.
During WW2 the germans used anti Air gun the Flak 88 which also proved very useful in knocking out enemy tanks then the germans started to use them on the Tiger I and Tiger II tanks. As the Russians used their equivalent the 85mm on the T-34/85 and the KV-85.
Now can one say that the reason the germans started using the 88 for the tiger one and two besides its good tank killing history was that as an AA gun they where already using it was easier to adapt then design a whole new gun? Did the russians also follow this path?

[United States of PA]

This question has been bothering me for some time and even after going through ton of links I'm still not sure.
During WW2 the germans used anti Air gun the Flak 88 which also proved very useful in knocking out enemy tanks then the germans started to use them on the Tiger I and Tiger II tanks. As the Russians used their equivalent the 85mm on the T-34/85 and the KV-85.
Now can one say that the reason the germans started using the 88 for the tiger one and two besides its good tank killing history was that as an AA gun they where already using it was easier to adapt then design a whole new gun? Did the russians also follow this path?

The Germans used the 88 cause one day in North Africa a German AA Unit was under attack by British tanks, so they turned the gun horizontal and starting using it. Upon examination they found out that the 88 could, figuratively split open almost any allied tank. Likewise with the soviet M1939 (52-K) 85mm Gun. They were used in emergencies against German tanks, and were found to be effective.

By the way, the gun on the Tiger II was completely independent from the Flak 18-36, as it was of a completely different design.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

Yeah, it turns out that large AAA in general tends to be pretty decently powerful due to the need for high muzzle velocities.

[The Akasha Colony]

This question has been bothering me for some time and even after going through ton of links I'm still not sure.
During WW2 the germans used anti Air gun the Flak 88 which also proved very useful in knocking out enemy tanks then the germans started to use them on the Tiger I and Tiger II tanks. As the Russians used their equivalent the 85mm on the T-34/85 and the KV-85.
Now can one say that the reason the germans started using the 88 for the tiger one and two besides its good tank killing history was that as an AA gun they where already using it was easier to adapt then design a whole new gun? Did the russians also follow this path?

Neither of the 8.8 cm guns used in the Tiger I and Tiger II were flak guns. 8.8 cm was a common caliber in the German military, and hence it was natural that it was chosen for a large-caliber heavy anti-tank gun. Ammunition was also compatible between guns of the same length, but the actual designs were different. The 8.8 cm KwK 36 used in the Tiger I was derived from previous 5.0 and 7.5 cm guns already in use, whereas the Flak 36 was derived from Flak 8.8 guns dating back to 1918.

8.8 cm Flak guns were used against tanks, but only in their stationary cruciform mounts. The dedicated anti-tank and vehicle-mounted versions were of separate design.

The Soviet D-5 85 mm gun was designed to use the same ammunition as the existing 85 mm M1939 AA gun, but was designed specifically for the T-34-85.

[Immoren]

Not enough barrels

[Purpelia]

Question time.

We know that in modern warfare a turret bustle serves two functions. One is to be a floor that rotates the crew seats so that their faces point the same way as the gun. The other is to provide conveniently placed walls to hang all the equipment off. Thing is, a modern crew is going to have its seats suspended from the ceiling for mine protection. And I only really need the front 120 degrees or so for hanging equipment since they can't reach outside of that. And that means that at least in theory I can cut the floor and most of the walls out of the picture.

Now my questions are as fallows:
1. What do you think of such a design?
2. Could such a design be made while not compromising the ability of the vehicle its mounted on to be NBC proof?
3. A repeat of #2 but assuming an unmanned turret with the seats hanging off the turret floor.

[Anacasppia]

The French sure are good at designing reconnaissance vehicles

They're important when planning a swift and orderly retreat

Aha! A new 'French Military Successes' joke has been born!

[The Kievan People]

Question time.

We know that in modern warfare a turret bustle serves two functions. One is to be a floor that rotates the crew seats so that their faces point the same way as the gun. The other is to provide conveniently placed walls to hang all the equipment off. Thing is, a modern crew is going to have its seats suspended from the ceiling for mine protection. And I only really need the front 120 degrees or so for hanging equipment since they can't reach outside of that. And that means that at least in theory I can cut the floor and most of the walls out of the picture.

Now my questions are as fallows:
1. What do you think of such a design?
2. Could such a design be made while not compromising the ability of the vehicle its mounted on to be NBC proof?
3. A repeat of #2 but assuming an unmanned turret with the seats hanging off the turret floor.

1. Getting rid of the turret bustle is not a huge deal. Even if you keep part of it.
2. What does a turret bustle even have to do with pressurizing the tank?
3. Seriously this is a weird question.

[Purpelia]

1. Getting rid of the turret bustle is not a huge deal. Even if you keep part of it.

It's mostly becouse I have this idea of the crew in an IFV not being seperated from the passengers at all. As in, they are in a bustle of sorts but can walk in and out the back door with the rest of them, chat with them while driving or what ever. So no walls betwen them.

2. What does a turret bustle even have to do with pressurizing the tank?

Well if you imagine a turret. It has the turret ring under it. Now the turret ring slots into a hole in the body (simplistic description). And you will have to make a gap between the two (ring and the walls of the hole) in order to prevent them from grinding together. And even if not, the sheer nature of having a joint will make a gap. No mater how small this gap is, it will be there. And chemical weapons or just about anything can fit through said gap. With a turret bustle that is fully enclosed I can see how the gas can't get in. But without a fully enclosed one there might be issues. And that's what worries me.

[The Kievan People]

http://www.miether.com/products/seals.html

There are such a thing as bearing seals. Like the mystical O-ring.

Bustles have nothing to do with the NBC system. At all.