NationStates

Socialist Czechia wrote:

San-Silvacian wrote:Using tanks in cities is kinda meh in general.

Infantry peoples w/ RPGs ftw

Except Infantry Tanks. That concept is still alive.

I imagine something with more sensors, optical sights, 30 mm cannon, 40mm few auto-grenade launchers three or four machine guns, capable of fire 360 around.
Basically, APC with much more guns and with tank armour.

just use a BMP-T

Edit: Is top-page tankporn a thing?

Premislyd wrote:

Socialist Czechia wrote:
Except Infantry Tanks. That concept is still alive.

I imagine something with more sensors, optical sights, 30 mm cannon, 40mm few auto-grenade launchers three or four machine guns, capable of fire 360 around.
Basically, APC with much more guns and with tank armour.

just use a BMP-T

Or make a proper Western tank.

Oaledonia wrote:

Premislyd wrote:
just use a BMP-T

Or make a proper Western tank.

K2

Oaledonia wrote:

Premislyd wrote:
just use a BMP-T

Or make a proper Western tank.

AIFSV

Socialist Czechia wrote:Leopard 1

Weight 40.0 tonnes
Length 9.54/8.29 m (gun forward/rearward)
Width 3.37 m
Height 2.39/2.70 m

Leopard 2

Weight 62.3 tonnes
Length 9.97 m (393 in) (gun forward)
Width 3.75 m (148 in)
Height 3.0 m (120 in)

Light Tanks (better to say, lighter tanks) has definitely advantages to be light. Stingray or STRV would kick-assed every hi-tech main battle tank in city ruins, in jungle or in forested mountains.
That's why Republic of China (Tchaj-Wan) is more or less fine with modernized M60 - most advanced PRC tanks would had problems with their mountainous and urban Total Defense anyway.

Nope, weight is mostly irrelevant. This is a very common mistake though even among professionals. For example the Swedish army was extremely surprised in the 1990's to discover that the Leopard 2 and M1A1 had better off-road mobility than any of their then-current tanks. A lot of people just cannot let go of the brain bug that heavy vehicles are inherently less mobile even when the most important figures of merit (power-to-weight and ground pressure) say otherwise.

The Leopard 2 has basically identical ground pressure, and a better P/W ratio. It's off-road performance is at least equal and probably superior to the Leopard 1. Though it depends on which versions we are talking about specifically.

MBT-70 crushes all in off road mobility. ; ~ ;

The Caceres Mk.1 is the Main Battle Tank of Canuckland designed by the Armament company known as Side-Strafe. It is based on the technology of it's predecessor, the Leopard 2A5. The tank entered service in 2010, when it was to replace the Leopard series of tanks that have been in service with the Canucks since the 1970's. More than 300 Caceres have been produced, to replace the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 fleets. The Caceres has yet to see combat, but it is likely it will see combat soon with the rise of wars around Canuckland.

While there was a rush at a time to acquire the Caceres, Side-Strafe has yet to release any contracts or licences, but it is likely that the Caceres will be able to be produced by friendly nations in the near future. After the tank first sees combat, it is likely a Mk.2 version of the Caceres will come to fruition, and will be quickly developed by Side-Strafe. All models feature digital fire control systems with laser rangefinders, a fully stabilized main gun and coaxial machine gun, and advanced night vision and sighting equipment. The tank has the ability to engage moving targets while moving over rough terrain.

The Caceres uses composite (high-hardness steel, tungsten and plastic filler with ceramic component), reactive, and slat armour.

Armament:

1 × 120 mm L55 smoothbore gun
1 × 7.62 mm C5 Machine Gun (Coaxial)
1 x 13mm C10 Heavy Machine Gun

Specifications:

Weight: 62.3 tonnes
Length: 9.97 m (gun forward)
Width: 3.75 m
Height: 3.0 m
Crew: 4
Armour: 3rd generation composite

Anything extraordinarily wrong that I could correct?

Canuckland wrote:

The Caceres Mk.1 is the Main Battle Tank of Canuckland designed by the Armament company known as Side-Strafe. It is based on the technology of it's predecessor, the Leopard 2A5. The tank entered service in 2010, when it was to replace the Leopard series of tanks that have been in service with the Canucks since the 1970's. More than 300 Caceres have been produced, to replace the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 fleets. The Caceres has yet to see combat, but it is likely it will see combat soon with the rise of wars around Canuckland.

While there was a rush at a time to acquire the Caceres, Side-Strafe has yet to release any contracts or licences, but it is likely that the Caceres will be able to be produced by friendly nations in the near future. After the tank first sees combat, it is likely a Mk.2 version of the Caceres will come to fruition, and will be quickly developed by Side-Strafe. All models feature digital fire control systems with laser rangefinders, a fully stabilized main gun and coaxial machine gun, and advanced night vision and sighting equipment. The tank has the ability to engage moving targets while moving over rough terrain.

The Caceres uses composite (high-hardness steel, tungsten and plastic filler with ceramic component), reactive, and slat armour.

Armament:

1 × 120 mm L55 smoothbore gun
1 × 7.62 mm C5 Machine Gun (Coaxial)
1 x 13mm C10 Heavy Machine Gun

Specifications:

Weight: 62.3 tonnes
Length: 9.97 m (gun forward)
Width: 3.75 m
Height: 3.0 m
Crew: 4
Armour: 3rd generation composite

(Image)

Anything extraordinarily wrong that I could correct?

Other than the fact that sn't so much based on a leo2 as it is a leo 2...

Canuckland wrote:

The Caceres Mk.1 is the Main Battle Tank of Canuckland designed by the Armament company known as Side-Strafe. It is based on the technology of it's predecessor, the Leopard 2A5. The tank entered service in 2010, when it was to replace the Leopard series of tanks that have been in service with the Canucks since the 1970's. More than 300 Caceres have been produced, to replace the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 fleets. The Caceres has yet to see combat, but it is likely it will see combat soon with the rise of wars around Canuckland.

While there was a rush at a time to acquire the Caceres, Side-Strafe has yet to release any contracts or licences, but it is likely that the Caceres will be able to be produced by friendly nations in the near future. After the tank first sees combat, it is likely a Mk.2 version of the Caceres will come to fruition, and will be quickly developed by Side-Strafe. All models feature digital fire control systems with laser rangefinders, a fully stabilized main gun and coaxial machine gun, and advanced night vision and sighting equipment. The tank has the ability to engage moving targets while moving over rough terrain.

The Caceres uses composite (high-hardness steel, tungsten and plastic filler with ceramic component), reactive, and slat armour.

Armament:

1 × 120 mm L55 smoothbore gun
1 × 7.62 mm C5 Machine Gun (Coaxial)
1 x 13mm C10 Heavy Machine Gun

Specifications:

Weight: 62.3 tonnes
Length: 9.97 m (gun forward)
Width: 3.75 m
Height: 3.0 m
Crew: 4
Armour: 3rd generation composite

(Image)

Anything extraordinarily wrong that I could correct?

Get rid of the picture. It looks nothing like the tank you are describing in the writeup.

Socialist Czechia wrote:

The Kievan People wrote:
If you can use a Leopard 1A5 there, you can use a Leopard 2 there. That argument is not plausible.

Leopard 1

Weight 40.0 tonnes
Length 9.54/8.29 m (gun forward/rearward)
Width 3.37 m
Height 2.39/2.70 m

Leopard 2

Weight 62.3 tonnes
Length 9.97 m (393 in) (gun forward)
Width 3.75 m (148 in)
Height 3.0 m (120 in)

Light Tanks (better to say, lighter tanks) has definitely advantages to be light. Stingray or STRV would kick-assed every hi-tech main battle tank in city ruins, in jungle or in forested mountains.
That's why Republic of China (Tchaj-Wan) is more or less fine with modernized M60 - most advanced PRC tanks would had problems with their mountainous and urban Total Defense anyway.

Tanks do not have significant terrain issues. Tanks have excellent ground pressure, allowing them much greater mobility than wheeled vehicles or anecdotally, people.

The Leopard 2 would probably "kick-ass" of the Stingray in all terrains, for having a more powerful gun and significantly greater protection.
Taiwan presumably uses mostly M60s and M48 derivatives because they were cheap and the US needed someone to offload them to. Taiwan is looking to replace the fleet with newer battle tanks - Abrams, Challenger, Leopard and Leclerc are all supposedly under consideration. Large, heavy battle tanks.

If i ever think of making a tank or any other ground vehicles statblock.. What kind of ground pressure i should put ?

Nominal Ground Pressure (NGP) Which is "usual" ground pressure or MMP (Mean Maximum Pressure) ? I noticed that typical public literature usually include NGP.. But description in technology of tanks seems to favor MMP over NGP as MMP does take account of roadwheel arrangements.

Or perhaps there's better method than both.

New Vihenia wrote:If i ever think of making a tank or any other ground vehicles statblock.. What kind of ground pressure i should put ?

Nominal Ground Pressure (NGP) Which is "usual" ground pressure or MMP (Mean Maximum Pressure) ? I noticed that typical public literature usually include NGP.. But description in technology of tanks seems to favor MMP over NGP as MMP does take account of roadwheel arrangements.

Or perhaps there's better method than both.

Use both. And separate the two numbers with a slash.

New Vihenia wrote:If i ever think of making a tank or any other ground vehicles statblock.. What kind of ground pressure i should put ?

Nominal Ground Pressure (NGP) Which is "usual" ground pressure or MMP (Mean Maximum Pressure) ? I noticed that typical public literature usually include NGP.. But description in technology of tanks seems to favor MMP over NGP as MMP does take account of roadwheel arrangements.

Or perhaps there's better method than both.

I use both. As ToT notes, MMP changes depending on the hardness of the surface. MMP is more indicative of offroad performance but NGP is more comparable, since it's easier to calculate.

M1 Abrams BMPT style variant Y/N?

Alduinium wrote:M1 Abrams BMPT style variant Y/N?

Yes.

Alduinium wrote:M1 Abrams BMPT style variant Y/N?

No real point. Abrams don't get get fucked up by RPGs in Grozny like T-80s.

Premislyd wrote:

Alduinium wrote:M1 Abrams BMPT style variant Y/N?

No real point. Abrams don't get get fucked up by RPGs in Grozny like T-80s.

I thought any tank would get fucked up in a situation like Grozny?

Alduinium wrote:

Premislyd wrote:
No real point. Abrams don't get get fucked up by RPGs in Grozny like T-80s.

I thought any tank would get fucked up in a situation like Grozny?

Not all commanders get piss-drunk and send in conscripts without their tanks because fuck tanks, infantry is god.

See Fallujah, where tanks and infantry worked together extremely well. IIRC the Army used their tanks to push through to the city centre with infantry mopping up in their wake, while the Marines used tanks and infantry together to sweep block by block.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Not all commanders get piss-drunk and send in conscripts without their tanks because fuck tanks, infantry is god.

I mean, hell, try conscripts in T-80Bs while you're at it. Russia... stronk?

Anemos Major wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:Not all commanders get piss-drunk and send in conscripts without their tanks because fuck tanks, infantry is god.

I mean, hell, try conscripts in T-80Bs while you're at it. Russia... stronk?

Russia Stronk, also very dum.

The difference between mercenary and conscript armies is mostly political, the latter will still have majority volunteers and esprit de corps is mostly decided through tradition and strength of the non-commissioned corps as opposed to whether or not Private John Smith or Trooper Lars Lindstrom got called up for the draft a month after graduating high school. Conscripts are just used to buff out the enlisted ranks, no conscripted army is ever majority conscripts. Basic training and pre-training screens weed out the incompetent and idiots from service who would degrade fighting capability.

A mixed system of volunteer NCO and commissioned and conscripted enlisted is the most efficient method, and only became distasteful after the Cold War.

Russia is a special case, since its military is just mind shatteringly incompetent and brutal, possibly due to budget cuts (but more likely due to it being Russian). It's still not majority conscript, and hardly representative of the conscript armies of France, West Germany, USA, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and other NATO/Western European countries.

New Vihenia wrote:If i ever think of making a tank or any other ground vehicles statblock.. What kind of ground pressure i should put ?

Nominal Ground Pressure (NGP) Which is "usual" ground pressure or MMP (Mean Maximum Pressure) ? I noticed that typical public literature usually include NGP.. But description in technology of tanks seems to favor MMP over NGP as MMP does take account of roadwheel arrangements.

Or perhaps there's better method than both.

Some quick research is telling me MMP is significantly better for predicting vehicle performance in soft soil.

Gallia- wrote:The difference between mercenary and conscript armies is mostly political, the latter will still have majority volunteers and esprit de corps is mostly decided through tradition and strength of the non-commissioned corps as opposed to whether or not Private John Smith or Trooper Lars Lindstrom got called up for the draft a month after graduating high school. Conscripts are just used to buff out the enlisted ranks, no conscripted army is ever majority conscripts. Basic training and pre-training screens weed out the incompetent and idiots from service who would degrade fighting capability.

A mixed system of volunteer NCO and commissioned and conscripted enlisted is the most efficient method, and only became distasteful after the Cold War.

Russia is a special case, since its military is just mind shatteringly incompetent and brutal, possibly due to budget cuts (but more likely due to it being Russian). It's still not majority conscript, and hardly representative of the conscript armies of France, West Germany, USA, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and other NATO/Western European countries.

Does Western Europe find Conscription as distasteful as much as the US does?

Alduinium wrote:

Gallia- wrote:The difference between mercenary and conscript armies is mostly political, the latter will still have majority volunteers and esprit de corps is mostly decided through tradition and strength of the non-commissioned corps as opposed to whether or not Private John Smith or Trooper Lars Lindstrom got called up for the draft a month after graduating high school. Conscripts are just used to buff out the enlisted ranks, no conscripted army is ever majority conscripts. Basic training and pre-training screens weed out the incompetent and idiots from service who would degrade fighting capability.

A mixed system of volunteer NCO and commissioned and conscripted enlisted is the most efficient method, and only became distasteful after the Cold War.

Russia is a special case, since its military is just mind shatteringly incompetent and brutal, possibly due to budget cuts (but more likely due to it being Russian). It's still not majority conscript, and hardly representative of the conscript armies of France, West Germany, USA, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and other NATO/Western European countries.

Does Western Europe find Conscription as distasteful as much as the US does?

Not really. Most of the Nordics still conscript and the rest of Western Europe stopped doing it only recently. Sweden and Germany ended it in 2010, France and Spain in 2001.

Alduinium wrote:

Gallia- wrote:The difference between mercenary and conscript armies is mostly political, the latter will still have majority volunteers and esprit de corps is mostly decided through tradition and strength of the non-commissioned corps as opposed to whether or not Private John Smith or Trooper Lars Lindstrom got called up for the draft a month after graduating high school. Conscripts are just used to buff out the enlisted ranks, no conscripted army is ever majority conscripts. Basic training and pre-training screens weed out the incompetent and idiots from service who would degrade fighting capability.

A mixed system of volunteer NCO and commissioned and conscripted enlisted is the most efficient method, and only became distasteful after the Cold War.

Russia is a special case, since its military is just mind shatteringly incompetent and brutal, possibly due to budget cuts (but more likely due to it being Russian). It's still not majority conscript, and hardly representative of the conscript armies of France, West Germany, USA, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and other NATO/Western European countries.

Does Western Europe find Conscription as distasteful as much as the US does?

The US only found conscription distasteful because of Marxist intellectual movements in the 1960s.

Western Europe kept it alive as a matter of survival. Most WEU/NATO states didn't stop conscription until the mid-1990s or later.