NationStates

The MBT of the Cartinian army is the MWT- 201, the "Hammer". Despite its impressive display of treads and wheels to propel it, it is a remarkably slow vehicle, as the speed granted by the motor is offset by the massive plating it carries. The cannon barrel is extraordinaliry long, giving it long range. At maximum, it has the ability to decimate your average cabbage at 7 km, a little over tiwce the effective range of the M1-Abrahms.

Its polar oppisite, however, is the G-21 APC, the "JackRabbit". This Armoured Personel Carrier can hold 8 fully-armed BattleMages, or 4 full-armed Templars. To better explain to you its size, a Templar is about 3 feet wide at its narrowest point, with heavy armour and its primary weapons, namley the battle sword and Pulse Rifle. But I Digress. The "JackRabbit" is extra ordnailry fast, capable of reaching speeds of up to 175 mph.

OOC
Top dat.

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=regi ... k/id=86353

git rekt sun

Topped it.

Cartinia wrote:The MBT of the Cartinian army is the MWT- 201, the "Hammer". Despite its impressive display of treads and wheels to propel it, it is a remarkably slow vehicle, as the speed granted by the motor is offset by the massive plating it carries. The cannon barrel is extraordinaliry long, giving it long range. At maximum, it has the ability to decimate your average cabbage at 7 km, a little over tiwce the effective range of the M1-Abrahms.

Its polar oppisite, however, is the G-21 APC, the "JackRabbit". This Armoured Personel Carrier can hold 8 fully-armed BattleMages, or 4 full-armed Templars. To better explain to you its size, a Templar is about 3 feet wide at its narrowest point, with heavy armour and its primary weapons, namley the battle sword and Pulse Rifle. But I Digress. The "JackRabbit" is extra ordnailry fast, capable of reaching speeds of up to 175 mph.

OOC
Top dat.

E: Apparently the Leclerc Gepard I put up earlier was the result of Krauss-Maffei trying to get GIAT to mount Gepard turrets on the Leclerc after the end of the Cold War created a surplus of turrets - Oto Melara reputedly did the same, in both cases to try and lure in export customers.

Imperializt Russia wrote:That sounds like rather incredible pace for such components.

Tank powerpacks are designed for rapid removal and replacement. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Leclerc's autoloader was as well.

Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:That sounds like rather incredible pace for such components.

Tank powerpacks are designed for rapid removal and replacement. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Leclerc's autoloader was as well.

Unsurprisingly enough, the parts that take the longest amount of time to replace are the electronics (3h each for the CITV and the gunner's sighting block).

Anemos Major wrote:

Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen wrote:
Tank powerpacks are designed for rapid removal and replacement. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Leclerc's autoloader was as well.

Unsurprisingly enough, the parts that take the longest amount of time to replace are the electronics (3h each for the CITV and the gunner's sighting block).

Where do you get these numbers from?

And I don't find it surprising at all, given the amount of cables setting up my Desktop involves.

Rich and Corporations wrote:

Anemos Major wrote:
Unsurprisingly enough, the parts that take the longest amount of time to replace are the electronics (3h each for the CITV and the gunner's sighting block).

Where do you get these numbers from?

And I don't find it surprising at all, given the amount of cables setting up my Desktop involves.

The French Army? Their engineers did an open day a while ago at a base on the mainland, and I'm referring to photos from that event (corroborated with comments made by one of the design leads in the Leclerc project from GIAT).

Anemos Major wrote:Apparently French engineers are trained to replace the Leclerc's powerpack in an hour and twenty minutes, and the entire autoloader in two and a half.

Given claims I've seen for other tanks, at least for the powerplant this seems rather reasonable. Of course, if this included servicing time, then it'd be pretty impressive. But Wikipedia at least cites a figure of 35 minutes for the Leopard 2's powerplant (insert qualifications and all other complexities Wikipedia glosses over).

Anemos Major wrote:

Rich and Corporations wrote:Where do you get these numbers from?

And I don't find it surprising at all, given the amount of cables setting up my Desktop involves.

The French Army? Their engineers did an open day a while ago at a base on the mainland, and I'm referring to photos from that event (corroborated with comments made by one of the design leads in the Leclerc project from GIAT).

looking at the pictures from the DNG/DCL article in this month's Military Machines it is clear how comparatively simple it is to change over a leclerc's power pack.

Crookfur wrote:looking at the pictures from the DNG/DCL article in this month's Military Machines it is clear how comparatively simple it is to change over a leclerc's power pack.

Given the complexity of the engine, the whole powerpack arrangement works pretty well in favour of the French - that said, it's no small feat on the engineers' part either (who've always been fairly good in the French Army).

I have photos of the full replacement process somewhere, but I can't remember where I left them. :/

Is the M60 2000 any good?

Istevia wrote:Is the M60 2000 any good?

(Image)

If you have a bunch of M60s in service, then it's a decent option for modernizing your fleet of MBTs. If you don't, you're probably better served with a more modern design. Plus the Turks and Egyptians both turned down the upgrade package, which raises questions about cost effectiveness and the efficacy of the upgrade package, versus other possible upgrades. Personally, I like the Israeli Magach when it comes to upgraded M60s, despite the smaller gun.

The Ashkenazi wrote:

Istevia wrote:Is the M60 2000 any good?

(Image)

If you have a bunch of M60s in service, then it's a decent option for modernizing your fleet of MBTs. If you don't, you're probably better served with a more modern design. Plus the Turks and Egyptians both turned down the upgrade package, which raises questions about cost effectiveness and the efficacy of the upgrade package, versus other possible upgrades. Personally, I like the Israeli Magach when it comes to upgraded M60s, despite the smaller gun.

Having looked up the Magach, I'm now torn between the Magach or the M60 2000. Also, if you're wondering, I'm essentially having around 2/3 of all my tanks be Modernized M60's, with the rest all being Leopard 2A6's/M1A2's (having trouble deciding between these two as well).

Istevia wrote:

The Ashkenazi wrote:If you have a bunch of M60s in service, then it's a decent option for modernizing your fleet of MBTs. If you don't, you're probably better served with a more modern design. Plus the Turks and Egyptians both turned down the upgrade package, which raises questions about cost effectiveness and the efficacy of the upgrade package, versus other possible upgrades. Personally, I like the Israeli Magach when it comes to upgraded M60s, despite the smaller gun.

Having looked up the Magach, I'm now torn between the Magach or the M60 2000. Also, if you're wondering, I'm essentially having around 2/3 of all my tanks be Modernized M60's, with the rest all being Leopard 2A6's/M1A2's (having trouble deciding between these two as well).

If the rest of your tank force is going to be rocking 120mm smoothbores, I would suggest you consider the M60 2000 because you will have ammunition commonality, which is a big plus as far as your quartermaster is concerned. In that same vein, a combination of M1A2s and M60-2000s will be nice, because of the common turret.

The Ashkenazi wrote:

Istevia wrote:Having looked up the Magach, I'm now torn between the Magach or the M60 2000. Also, if you're wondering, I'm essentially having around 2/3 of all my tanks be Modernized M60's, with the rest all being Leopard 2A6's/M1A2's (having trouble deciding between these two as well).

If the rest of your tank force is going to be rocking 120mm smoothbores, I would suggest you consider the M60 2000 because you will have ammunition commonality, which is a big plus as far as your quartermaster is concerned. In that same vein, a combination of M1A2s and M60-2000s will be nice, because of the common turret.

Sounds good, also, would it be a good Idea to have BTR-90's as APCS? They seem to be pretty good, even if the Russians didn't bother buying them.

Istevia wrote:

The Ashkenazi wrote:If the rest of your tank force is going to be rocking 120mm smoothbores, I would suggest you consider the M60 2000 because you will have ammunition commonality, which is a big plus as far as your quartermaster is concerned. In that same vein, a combination of M1A2s and M60-2000s will be nice, because of the common turret.

Sounds good, also, would it be a good Idea to have BTR-90's as APCS? They seem to be pretty good, even if the Russians didn't bother buying them.

It's not a half bad APC, although there are probably better ones out there. And it is used by the MVD. But if you do, remember to decide on a common HMG and GPMG round - either .50 BMG and 7.62x51 NATO, or 12.7mm and 7.62x54R - and refit your vehicles accordingly.

The Ashkenazi wrote:

Istevia wrote:Sounds good, also, would it be a good Idea to have BTR-90's as APCS? They seem to be pretty good, even if the Russians didn't bother buying them.

It's not a half bad APC, although there are probably better ones out there. And it is used by the MVD. But if you do, remember to decide on a common HMG and GPMG round - either .50 BMG and 7.62x51 NATO, or 12.7mm and 7.62x54R - and refit your vehicles accordingly.

Yeah, this is a tough one here, It'll probably take me a while to finally see whether I go with the NATO or Russian rounds. Also, do you have any examples of better APC's?

Istevia wrote:

The Ashkenazi wrote:It's not a half bad APC, although there are probably better ones out there. And it is used by the MVD. But if you do, remember to decide on a common HMG and GPMG round - either .50 BMG and 7.62x51 NATO, or 12.7mm and 7.62x54R - and refit your vehicles accordingly.

Yeah, this is a tough one here, It'll probably take me a while to finally see whether I go with the NATO or Russian rounds. Also, do you have any examples of better APC's?

I like the BTR-80 for its wide range of options, and I've always been a sucker for the MOWAG Piranha and its derivatives. Other than that, I was mostly thinking about tracked APCs/IFVs like the BMP-2M, BMP-3, Puma, etc. Honestly, the wheeled APCs I've listed are all basically comparable to the BTR-90, and you could use the BTR-90 in the full range of roles with minor modifications. I'm just lazy and don't want to describe a fictional ambulance or mortar carrying BTR-90

The Ashkenazi wrote:

Istevia wrote:Yeah, this is a tough one here, It'll probably take me a while to finally see whether I go with the NATO or Russian rounds. Also, do you have any examples of better APC's?

I like the BTR-80 for its wide range of options, and I've always been a sucker for the MOWAG Piranha and its derivatives. Other than that, I was mostly thinking about tracked APCs/IFVs like the BMP-2M, BMP-3, Puma, etc. Honestly, the wheeled APCs I've listed are all basically comparable to the BTR-90, and you could use the BTR-90 in the full range of roles with minor modifications. I'm just lazy and don't want to describe a fictional ambulance or mortar carrying BTR-90

Yeah, I was going to have a Tracked IFV alongside the BTR, preferably the BMP-3 or M2 Bradley, and so far, from searching on the internet, I still can't find anything about whether .50 BMG or 12.7mm is better.

Istevia wrote: preferably the BMP-3 or M2 Bradley,

CV9040. Search your feelings to know it to be true.

Istevia wrote:and so far, from searching on the internet, I still can't find anything about whether .50 BMG or 12.7mm is better.

It's basically which you prefer. .50bmg and 12.7×108mm are almost indentical in performance. IIRC.

Immoren wrote:

Istevia wrote: preferably the BMP-3 or M2 Bradley,

CV9040. Search your feelings to know it to be true.

No ATGM's, lame.

It's basically which you prefer. .50bmg and 12.7×108mm are almost indentical in performance. IIRC.

[/quote]
Is it possible to swap the M240's and M2's on an Abrams with PKT's and Kords?

Istevia wrote:

Immoren wrote:CV9040. Search your feelings to know it to be true.

No ATGM's, lame.

It's basically which you prefer. .50bmg and 12.7×108mm are almost indentical in performance. IIRC.

Is it possible to swap the M240's and M2's on an Abrams with PKT's and Kords?[/quote]

But it can fire guided AA rounds on full auto.

I'd think you could replace them like that, yes.

Aqizithiuda wrote:

Istevia wrote:
No ATGM's, lame.

Is it possible to swap the M240's and M2's on an Abrams with PKT's and Kords?

But it can fire guided AA rounds on full auto.

I'd think you could replace them like that, yes.

I don't know, the fact that only 6 people can be carried in it is kind of a problem (or at least in the cv9040c variant), and the BMP 3 has that cool 100mm gun that can fire ATGM's

It probably wouldn't be too hard to develop a CV90 with ATGMs mounted on it...in any case, Wargame-wise I do frankly find the lack of ATGM to be quite a major downside to CV9040 which is rather pricey. Though it is pretty darned tough and still kills Pact MBTs handily from the sides and rear.

Anacasppia wrote:It probably wouldn't be too hard to develop a CV90 with ATGMs mounted on it...in any case, Wargame-wise I do frankly find the lack of ATGM to be quite a major downside to CV9040 which is rather pricey. Though it is pretty darned tough and still kills Pact MBTs handily from the sides and rear.

The moment you mentioned Wargame this came to my mind: