Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Type 6

[Anemos Major]

Better ammo, optics, FCS, networking.

Nothing else. "improved" gun if possible.

Improved + low recoil - the 105mm on the AMX-10RC as it is can't exactly fire legacy 105mm APFSDS rounds.

Replace the hydraulic traverse with an electric drive, add some sort of modular armour option (it's really a good idea when you have this vehicle that's meant to be used for everything between low-intensity peacekeeping and rapid flank attacks in Fulda Gap scenarios) - maybe even replace the aluminium alloys used in the body, which I'm sure you can find a contemporary alternative for.

One of my biggest issues with the AMX-10RC is the ammunition storage and the cramped four man crew in a vehicle of that size. If you can take all the electronics out of the back of the turret, extend the bustle somewhat, move the commander to the foward left of the vehicle, add some sort of bustle autoloader and move the electronics to where the loader formerly was, that might be the way forward for a modern reconfiguration of the vehicle. Though if you're going to take it that far, I suppose you might as well replace it altogether.

[Imperializt Russia]

I dunno, half of that could probably be achieved with a new turret, further accommodating a new IWS-type low-recoil gun.

[Oaledonia]

Better ammo, optics, FCS, networking.

Nothing else. "improved" gun if possible.

Improved + low recoil - the 105mm on the AMX-10RC as it is can't exactly fire legacy 105mm APFSDS rounds.

Replace the hydraulic traverse with an electric drive, add some sort of modular armour option (it's really a good idea when you have this vehicle that's meant to be used for everything between low-intensity peacekeeping and rapid flank attacks in Fulda Gap scenarios) - maybe even replace the aluminium alloys used in the body, which I'm sure you can find a contemporary alternative for.

One of my biggest issues with the AMX-10RC is the ammunition storage and the cramped four man crew in a vehicle of that size. If you can take all the electronics out of the back of the turret, extend the bustle somewhat, move the commander to the foward left of the vehicle, add some sort of bustle autoloader and move the electronics to where the loader formerly was, that might be the way forward for a modern reconfiguration of the vehicle. Though if you're going to take it that far, I suppose you might as well replace it altogether.

What about the new MCV from Japan?

[Anemos Major]

I dunno, half of that could probably be achieved with a new turret, further accommodating a new IWS-type low-recoil gun.

(With all of the stuff above, you'll probably need a new turret anyhow )

[The Emerald Dragon]

My armed forces used the

MK V British tank.

[Black Hand]

Would it make sense to have an MBT and HIFV based off the same chassis? And then have a IFV and APC share another? I'm thinking of a challenger 2 derived chassis (enlarged). And then fitting it with a 120mmsmoothbore 30x120 coax and 30x120 tandem mount RWS for a MBT. The HIFV would be a turretless that would be capable of a high degree of elevation as it is intended for urban warfare design with a pair of 30x240 guns and six 105mm multirole missile tubes( ATGM heat seeking SAM and various unguided munitions). The IFV and APC would be wheeled 8x8 not sure what style chassis but likely a V shaped hull to resist mines and IED's would have a single 30x240 gun with a coax 30x120 and a tandem mount 7.62x55 RWS as well as a single missile tube APC would have a single 30x120 with a single missile tube in a turretless design (reduces crew down to driver and gunner). All sound good?

[Oaledonia]

Would it make sense to have an MBT and HIFV based off the same chassis? And then have a IFV and APC share another? I'm thinking of a challenger 2 derived chassis (enlarged). And then fitting it with a 120mmsmoothbore 30x120 coax and 30x120 tandem mount RWS for a MBT. The HIFV would be a turretless that would be capable of a high degree of elevation as it is intended for urban warfare design with a pair of 30x240 guns and six 105mm multirole missile tubes( ATGM heat seeking SAM and various unguided munitions). The IFV and APC would be wheeled 8x8 not sure what style chassis but likely a V shaped hull to resist mines and IED's would have a single 30x240 gun with a coax 30x120 and a tandem mount 7.62x55 RWS as well as a single missile tube APC would have a single 30x120 with a single missile tube in a turretless design (reduces crew down to driver and gunner). All sound good?

Namer.

[Black Hand]

Would it make sense to have an MBT and HIFV based off the same chassis? And then have a IFV and APC share another? I'm thinking of a challenger 2 derived chassis (enlarged). And then fitting it with a 120mmsmoothbore 30x120 coax and 30x120 tandem mount RWS for a MBT. The HIFV would be a turretless that would be capable of a high degree of elevation as it is intended for urban warfare design with a pair of 30x240 guns and six 105mm multirole missile tubes( ATGM heat seeking SAM and various unguided munitions). The IFV and APC would be wheeled 8x8 not sure what style chassis but likely a V shaped hull to resist mines and IED's would have a single 30x240 gun with a coax 30x120 and a tandem mount 7.62x55 RWS as well as a single missile tube APC would have a single 30x120 with a single missile tube in a turretless design (reduces crew down to driver and gunner). All sound good?

Namer.

What about it? I don't see anywhere where it fits.. I already have an APC that's going to be wheeled and not tracked maybe I should just have a heavy APC based of my ranks as well but I don't fully see the point

[Oaledonia]

Namer.

What about it? I don't see anywhere where it fits.. I already have an APC that's going to be wheeled

It's an HIFV, based on an MBT chassis.

[Black Hand]

What about it? I don't see anywhere where it fits.. I already have an APC that's going to be wheeled

It's an HIFV, based on an MBT chassis.

Depends on you define HIFV. It has a single RWS mount not a pair of 30x240 autocannon and ATGM launchers my HIFV is more inspired by the BTR-T and the BMPT

[Licana]

He said, failing to note that the BTR-T also has only a single RWS mount and that the BMPT is not a HIFV.

[Oaledonia]

It's an HIFV, based on an MBT chassis.

Depends on you define HIFV. It has a single RWS mount not a pair of 30x240 autocannon and ATGM launchers my HIFV is more inspired by the BTR-T and the BMPT

I define an HIFV by it's armor and weight, not weapons.

[Anemos Major]

What about the new MCV from Japan?

It's one of the R&D privileges associated with producing your designs some twenty or thirty years after everybody else, and coming on the back of a successfully designed tank, but the MCV's pretty far ahead of its competition - and probably, in terms of capabilities, far ahead of anything you can turn the AMX-10RC into. It is, on the other hand, somewhat difficult to compare to the -10RC, what with its +10t weight rating. Despite ending up as the product of a freak Ministry of Finance/Ministry of Defence compromise to boost Japanese 'tank' procurement by replacing the mooted prospect of large scale Type 10 production with the much more financially sound MCV in terms of numbers, and despite its most likely not-inconsiderable price tag regardless, it's a surprisingly sound vehicle. 105mm LRF gun firing (in the near future) improved ammunition (TRDI/JSW takes great pride in cramming high-performance ammunition into legacy calibre guns, it wouldn't be surprising to see 105mm APFSDS performing above IWS specifications coming out of this particular endeavour) on an 8x8 chassis that's stable enough to fire its gun from a near-perpendicular position to the hull with an FCS capable enough to fire while moving - all of this is probably a bit superfluous for a vehicle like this, but it's definitely capable.

GSDF are considering introducing a family of 8x8s into service alongside their proposed new common truck family (which is based around the 155mm truck artillery they proposed a while ago), and those initial proposals put forward the MCV as being separate to the 'tank gun' armed 8x8, so it might be that the current MCV is optimised for service within the Armour Corps and the prospective future 8x8 tank gun system for service alongside the infantry.

E: Forgot to add that the protection on the MCV raised its weight to the point where they decided to replace the autoloader with a fourth crewman, which is telling. This brings into question the obvious issues concerning vehicle's usability in rough terrain, actually - the GSDF designed it for combat on roads and in or around urban areas, as a word of warning to anybody expecting to roll it through marshes and swamps.

[Oaledonia]

What about the new MCV from Japan?

It's one of the R&D privileges associated with producing your designs some twenty or thirty years after everybody else, and coming on the back of a successfully designed tank, but the MCV's pretty far ahead of its competition - and probably, in terms of capabilities, far ahead of anything you can turn the AMX-10RC into. It is, on the other hand, somewhat difficult to compare to the -10RC, what with its +10t weight rating. Despite ending up as the product of a freak Ministry of Finance/Ministry of Defence compromise to boost Japanese 'tank' procurement by replacing the mooted prospect of large scale Type 10 production with the much more financially sound MCV in terms of numbers, and despite its most likely not-inconsiderable price tag regardless, it's a surprisingly sound vehicle. 105mm LRF gun firing (in the near future) improved ammunition (TRDI/JSW takes great pride in cramming high-performance ammunition into legacy calibre guns, it wouldn't be surprising to see 105mm APFSDS performing above IWS specifications coming out of this particular endeavour) on an 8x8 chassis that's stable enough to fire its gun from a near-perpendicular position to the hull with an FCS capable enough to fire while moving - all of this is probably a bit superfluous for a vehicle like this, but it's definitely capable.

GSDF are considering introducing a family of 8x8s into service alongside their proposed new common truck family (which is based around the 155mm truck artillery they proposed a while ago), and those initial proposals put forward the MCV as being separate to the 'tank gun' armed 8x8, so it might be that the current MCV is optimised for service within the Armour Corps and the prospective future 8x8 tank gun system for service alongside the infantry.

I only like the way the turret looks though ;-;

[Black Hand]

He said, failing to note that the BTR-T also has only a single RWS mount and that the BMPT is not a HIFV.

both of those are true though the BTR-T has a 30mm autocannon while I believe the heaviest armament on a NAmer has been a Mk19
Ideally It would have just more beefy RWS and a pair of 30X240 autocannon's and maybe the six Missile tubes is excessive. 3 seem more reasonable or perhaps 2?

[Oaledonia]

He said, failing to note that the BTR-T also has only a single RWS mount and that the BMPT is not a HIFV.

both of those are true though the BTR-T has a 30mm autocannon while I believe the heaviest armament on a NAmer has been a Mk19
Ideally It would have just more beefy RWS and a pair of 30X240 autocannon's and maybe the six Missile tubes is excessive. 3 seem more reasonable or perhaps 2?

Why? The main purpose of an HIFV is to deliver troops, then support them. Leave the other armor to tanks and TDs.

[Purpelia]

Call me crazy but I always held to the opinion that guns are armor. I'd rather have a vehicle like the BMP-3 that has a decent degree of protection and enough firepower to blast away anything that's a threat than a massively armored box that can only shoot up stuff that isn't a threat anyway.

[The Grey Wolf]

Would it be possible to fit a QF 17-pounder on a 16 ton tank?

[Zeinbrad]

Would it be possible to fit a QF 17-pounder on a 16 ton tank?

Using those Zeinbradian 17 pounders I see.

[Purpelia]

Would it be possible to fit a QF 17-pounder on a 16 ton tank?

Yes. Unless the 17-pounder is radically different than the 76 mm gun M1 in terms of recoil forces you should do fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat

[Anemos Major]

Call me crazy but I always held to the opinion that guns are armor. I'd rather have a vehicle like the BMP-3 that has a decent degree of protection and enough firepower to blast away anything that's a threat than a massively armored box that can only shoot up stuff that isn't a threat anyway.

Not to sound like RandC or anything, but there's no such thing as an 'optimal balance of guns and armour' - doctrine, intended roles and wider military contexts all factor into what you'll want to put on your tracks and/or wheels and what they'll be doing. If you're like Israel, and you need big, bulky vehicles to roll into asymmetric combat zones, scare away enemies and spew forth soldiers to fight the ones who don't run away, then a vehicle like the Namer is useful. If you're like Russia/Ukraine, and your understanding of what an 'HIFV' should be is informed by your experiences in Afghanistan and the need for a vehicle like the BMP that can withstand the inevitable first-short advantage held by the invisible enemy and the firepower to destroy them with impunity, you'll end up with BTMP/BMPT style vehicles. Vehicles like the BMP-3 are designed, really, for engagements in somewhat different combat environments, where its operating alongside other support assets, and its being designed primarily for open-field, symmetrical warfare means that the big gun doesn't necessarily have to be paired with heavy armour.

[Purpelia]

Not to sound like RandC or anything, but there's no such thing as an 'optimal balance of guns and armour' - doctrine, intended roles and wider military contexts all factor into what you'll want to put on your tracks and/or wheels and what they'll be doing. If you're like Israel, and you need big, bulky vehicles to roll into asymmetric combat zones, scare away enemies and spew forth soldiers to fight the ones who don't run away, then a vehicle like the Namer is useful. If you're like Russia/Ukraine, and your understanding of what an 'HIFV' should be is informed by your experiences in Afghanistan and the need for a vehicle like the BMP that can withstand the inevitable first-short advantage held by the invisible enemy and the firepower to destroy them with impunity, you'll end up with BTMP/BMPT style vehicles. Vehicles like the BMP-3 are designed, really, for engagements in somewhat different combat environments, where its operating alongside other support assets, and its being designed primarily for open-field, symmetrical warfare means that the big gun doesn't necessarily have to be paired with heavy armour.

I understand what you are saying and agree to some extent. It's just that personally I have a philosophy when it comes to these things. And that is that gun > armor. I can explain the details if you like. But right now It's just that far too often I see people who argue the opposite and I just wanted to see if anyone else felt like me for a change. So it's not really starting an argument as much as it is just pooling.

[Anemos Major]

I understand what you are saying and agree to some extent. It's just that personally I have a philosophy when it comes to these things. And that is that gun > armor. I can explain the details if you like. But right now It's just that far too often I see people who argue the opposite and I just wanted to see if anyone else felt like me for a change. So it's not really starting an argument as much as it is just pooling.

It's actually be quite interesting if you could explain the details. It's not that I disagree, mind you, just that I agree with you to some extent in some areas, but don't necessarily see how that approach is applicable elsewhere.

[The Grey Wolf]

Would it be possible to fit a QF 17-pounder on a 16 ton tank?

Yes. Unless the 17-pounder is radically different than the 76 mm gun M1 in terms of recoil forces you should do fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat

Thanks.

The tank I was planning on using with it was a modified version of the M16/43 Celere Sahariano prototype.

[San-Silvacian]

Something Japan will never beat



mmmmmmmm