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

[Gallia-]

:S

I assumed he was talking about the picture in the wiki.
This is why I hate all of you.

So tsundere.

[The Kievan People]

Can double barreled SPGs halve the number of vehicles needed, or would there be some other problems for effects in fire?
I was thinking that if you've half number of double barreled SPGs you wouldn't notice difference when firing a small target are, but might be problematic, if you've to cover larger area at expense of density of fire.
Or not.

It shouldn't be a problem. Modern guns are remarkably consistent, so much so that achieving a useful spread against an extended area target is a problem. But this can be overcome by adjusting the aim point with each shot - easy to do with a computer. Conveniently this also decouples the spread of shells from the number and location of the guns firing them. Four double barrel howitzers should be able to execute the same mission with the same effect as eight conventional howitzers.

[San-Silvacian]

The only downside is putting your eggs in a basket, meaning if some CB fire took out a single gun when you have only conventional howitzers, it instead takes out two guns.

Also I thought Koalition didn't achieve a much higher RPM that say, Pzh 2000.

[Gallia-]

The RPM is for each gun. 8 rounds per gun per min = 16 rounds/min.

2S35 is putting out twice as much shell weight as Pzh 2000 or anything else.

[Rich and Corporations]

man, they will totally win in the next Wargame by Eugen.

[Heicliffe]

Been playing around with a multipurpose tracked vehicle. I plan to squeeze an APC, IFV, SPAAG, Mortar Truck, Cargo Truck, and Fuel Truck out of this thing. Somehow.

(That's why the rear portion is empty at the moment.)

Credit to Francisco Rios on Junior General for providing the Marder 1A3 tracks

I'm already thinking that where the door is placed might be awkward with the turret there as well. Entry was planned to be done entirely through either the side door(s) or the door between the [insert weapon/cargo/transport layout here] and the crew compartment.

Plis don't eat me. :<

[Novorden]

man, they will totally win in the next Wargame by Eugen.

AS90 is still king

Unrelated: Some 125mm cutaways

HEAT, APFSDS and GLATGM

[Yukonastan]

Been playing around with a multipurpose tracked vehicle. I plan to squeeze an APC, IFV, SPAAG, Mortar Truck, Cargo Truck, and Fuel Truck out of this thing. Somehow.

(That's why the rear portion is empty at the moment.)

(Image)
Credit to Francisco Rios on Junior General for providing the Marder 1A3 tracks

I'm already thinking that where the door is placed might be awkward with the turret there as well. Entry was planned to be done entirely through either the side door(s) or the door between the [insert weapon/cargo/transport layout here] and the crew compartment.

Plis don't eat me. :<

Put tracks on a GTK Boxer.

[Heicliffe]

Been playing around with a multipurpose tracked vehicle. I plan to squeeze an APC, IFV, SPAAG, Mortar Truck, Cargo Truck, and Fuel Truck out of this thing. Somehow.

(That's why the rear portion is empty at the moment.)

(Image)
Credit to Francisco Rios on Junior General for providing the Marder 1A3 tracks

I'm already thinking that where the door is placed might be awkward with the turret there as well. Entry was planned to be done entirely through either the side door(s) or the door between the [insert weapon/cargo/transport layout here] and the crew compartment.

Plis don't eat me. :<

Put tracks on a GTK Boxer.

"The Boxer is a German-Dutch multirole armoured fighting vehicle designed to accomplish a number of operations through the use of installable mission modules."

....damnit Germany/Holland. Getting my idea done IRL better.

[Orussia]

(Image)
HEAT, APFSDS and GLATGM

I must inquire, why does your HEAT appear to be subcaliber?

[Novorden]

(Image)
HEAT, APFSDS and GLATGM

I must inquire, why does your HEAT appear to be subcaliber?

It is/is based on the M830A1 HEAT MP-T round

[Orussia]

I must inquire, why does your HEAT appear to be subcaliber?

It is/is based on the M830A1 HEAT MP-T round

Doesn't a smaller-diameter warhead reduce the penetration of the jet? Forgive me for not comprehending possible advantages of this design.

[Novorden]

It is/is based on the M830A1 HEAT MP-T round

Doesn't a smaller-diameter warhead reduce the penetration of the jet? Forgive me for not comprehending possible advantages of this design.

I think the general idea is that if it is a hard armoured target you would be using APFSDS,

"The M830A1 HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) round, recently fielded for the M1A1 and M1A2 Main Battle Tank, is a major advancement over its predecessor, the M830, which has been in the US inventory since the early '80s. HEAT rounds have multi-purpose warheads which are used to defeat armored vehicles, helicopters and soft targets such as bunkers. The M830A1 adds higher velocity launch, increased armor penetration capability and selectable fuzing which allows for the engagement of a variety of targets. The M830A1 is unique in that it features a three-piece discarding aluminum sabot, a feature normally associated with kinetic energy projectiles. The sabot allows a lighter flight projectile which can be flown to greater ranges than could the M830. The M830A1 also mounts a proximity switch on the flight projectile nose. Manually set upon gun loading, this allows the M1A1/M1A2 tank to self-defend against attacking helicopters with the 120mm main gun, a capability never before possessed by a Main Battle Tank. The multi-purpose cartridge is also extremely effective against buildings, bunkers, and light armored vehicles. The M830A1 was fielded in 1994 and is currently still in production."

[Orussia]

I think the general idea is that if it is a hard armoured target you would be using APFSDS

Huh. Okay, I guess that does make sense.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Doesn't a smaller-diameter warhead reduce the penetration of the jet? Forgive me for not comprehending possible advantages of this design.

I think the general idea is that if it is a hard armoured target you would be using APFSDS,

Still, making HEAT be a subcalibre round decreases the potential explosive payload making it less effective against infantry, buildings, and light helicopters. The main advantage which was plainly stated in your text is higher velocity, which is of dubious usefulness if your primary targets with HEAT are infantry, buildings, and light vehicles.

[The Akasha Colony]

I think the general idea is that if it is a hard armoured target you would be using APFSDS,

Still, making HEAT be a subcalibre round decreases the potential explosive payload making it less effective against infantry, buildings, and light helicopters. The main advantage which was plainly stated in your text is higher velocity, which is of dubious usefulness if your primary targets with HEAT are infantry, buildings, and light vehicles.

It is of great usefulness against the last of those. One of the problems with HEAT when engaging any sort of moving target is low velocity. A higher velocity means much improved accuracy and longer engagement distances.

In comparison, the relatively minor reduction in explosive radius against infantry is a non-issue, as is the loss of penetration.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

In comparison, the relatively minor reduction in explosive radius against infantry is a non-issue, as is the loss of penetration.

While the latter may be true the former hardly is. Hell one of the main reasons that Americans opposed the adoption of the 76 mm gun on Shermans in WW2 was due to the fact that it would decrease explosive payload. It isn't like tanks primarily fight tanks, most of their targets will be infantry, light vehicles, and buildings, and with modern FCS I doubt that the lower velocity of full bore HEAT is a crippling factor against vehicles.

[Spirit of Hope]

In comparison, the relatively minor reduction in explosive radius against infantry is a non-issue, as is the loss of penetration.

While the latter may be true the former hardly is. Hell one of the main reasons that Americans opposed the adoption of the 76 mm gun on Shermans in WW2 was due to the fact that it would decrease explosive payload. It isn't like tanks primarily fight tanks, most of their targets will be infantry, light vehicles, and buildings, and with modern FCS I doubt that the lower velocity of full bore HEAT is a crippling factor against vehicles.

Crippling, probably not, but decreased velocity means a decrease in range and accuracy, no mater how good your FCS is. It makes sense that for targets that can't resist the warhead (like APC's, buildings and infantry) they would want a faster moving projectile.

[Rich and Corporations]

In comparison, the relatively minor reduction in explosive radius against infantry is a non-issue, as is the loss of penetration.

While the latter may be true the former hardly is. Hell one of the main reasons that Americans opposed the adoption of the 76 mm gun on Shermans in WW2 was due to the fact that it would decrease explosive payload. It isn't like tanks primarily fight tanks, most of their targets will be infantry, light vehicles, and buildings, and with modern FCS I doubt that the lower velocity of full bore HEAT is a crippling factor against vehicles.

I make this argument so many times, although there is merit to differentiating between HE and sub-caliber HEAT rounds.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

While the latter may be true the former hardly is. Hell one of the main reasons that Americans opposed the adoption of the 76 mm gun on Shermans in WW2 was due to the fact that it would decrease explosive payload. It isn't like tanks primarily fight tanks, most of their targets will be infantry, light vehicles, and buildings, and with modern FCS I doubt that the lower velocity of full bore HEAT is a crippling factor against vehicles.

I make this argument so many times, although there is merit to differentiating between HE and sub-caliber HEAT rounds.

Well I think part of this conversation branched off from Galla's idea for only using two types of munitions, APFSDS and HEAT. If you were to only field two types of munitions like that the explosive payload of HEAT becomes much more important. Otherwise I honestly couldn't care less, APFSDS for tanks, HEAT for other vehicles, and HE for infantry and buildings. HEAT can work against infantry but if you field dedicated anti-infantry HE anyway it is more of a secondary role and is of less importance.

[The Akasha Colony]

While the latter may be true the former hardly is. Hell one of the main reasons that Americans opposed the adoption of the 76 mm gun on Shermans in WW2 was due to the fact that it would decrease explosive payload. It isn't like tanks primarily fight tanks, most of their targets will be infantry, light vehicles, and buildings, and with modern FCS I doubt that the lower velocity of full bore HEAT is a crippling factor against vehicles.

The opposition was overstated. 76 mm armed Shermans performed fine in the role of supporting infantry. It was mostly a justification to keep the delineation between tanks and tank destroyers intact and support tank destroyer doctrine, which many officers had invested their careers in.

The difference in muzzle velocity between the M830 and sub-caliber M830A1 is significant: 950 m/s vs. 1,400 m/s, or nearly a 50% increase. Conversely, that results in time-of-flight decreases of roughly a third. That is not an insignificant gain at all. A target traveling at 40 km/h at a distance of 4 km can travel over ten meters in the one extra second the M830 will take to reach that range versus the M830A1, which is enough to miss even an MBT completely if improperly computed.

Meanwhile, there actually isn't any noticeable loss in lethal radius, strange as it may seem. This was already determined during WWII, and is one of the reasons why large-caliber artillery pieces in the 203 mm range have all but vanished. If the explosive relies mostly on fragmentation (and the most lethal shells do) over concussion, the speed of the fragments is determined by the shell's explosive velocity, which is determined by the explosive composition, not the explosive weight. The difference is in the number of fragments and the concussion effect, as a physically larger shell will have more fragments and thus a higher density of shrapnel within its lethal radius. The effects of weight reduction on shell lethality are relatively modest in a relative sense.

This isn't what most tanks end up facing though. The real threat isn't ten men in one foxhole, it's taking out specific positions because nowadays even insurgents know not to bunch up and become a target. Instead, the usual employment is against machine gun nests, where the difference between a five meter and an eight meter lethal radius would be moot so long as the shell is accurate enough to hit. Or an ATGM team hiding in a small trench. Johnny Taliban sitting in a little firing nest with his RPG-7 certainly doesn't care whether he's getting shot at with sub-caliber or full-bore HEAT rounds.

Well I think part of this conversation branched off from Galla's idea for only using two types of munitions, APFSDS and HEAT. If you were to only field two types of munitions like that the explosive payload of HEAT becomes much more important. Otherwise I honestly couldn't care less, APFSDS for tanks, HEAT for other vehicles, and HE for infantry and buildings. HEAT can work against infantry but if you field dedicated anti-infantry HE anyway it is more of a secondary role and is of less importance.

It's the US Army's idea. Using just two rounds vastly simplifies logistics, which is why the Army plans to replace everything that isn't APFSDS with XM1069 AMP, which also adds airbursting capability. And IIRC, a delayed fuze option for bunker and wall busting.

[Gallia-]

It isn't like tanks primarily fight tanks

How do you intend for your medium tanks to act as a spearhead if they can't kill other tanks? The US Army was fully and totally aware of the anti-tank battle fought by armour. The Tank Destroyers were for mass actions against regimental and division strength armoured spearheads while operating in battalion-brigade strength on the defensive, or for defending the flanks of the armour with the armoured infantry, effecting the exploitation by providing strong anti-armour direct fires to the infantry.

In the end, tank destroyers ended up getting used more as tanks than tank destroyers, being used piecemeal to augment the anti-armour capability of companies of mediums, since the massed armoured spearheads never materialised except at El Guettar where the 601st Tank Destroyer Battalion destroyed a Panzer Regiment on the offensive.

I make this argument so many times, although there is merit to differentiating between HE and sub-caliber HEAT rounds.

Well I think part of this conversation branched off from Galla's idea for only using two types of munitions, APFSDS and HEAT. If you were to only field two types of munitions like that the explosive payload of HEAT becomes much more important. Otherwise I honestly couldn't care less, APFSDS for tanks, HEAT for other vehicles, and HE for infantry and buildings. HEAT can work against infantry but if you field dedicated anti-infantry HE anyway it is more of a secondary role and is of less importance.

US Army actually has HE rounds: M809 HE-OR-T (High Explosive Obstacle Reduction Tracer). They're M830 HEAT rounds with delayed fuses for penetrating concrete and barricades. M830A1 has two fusing options, airburst/proximity for dealing with pop-up attack helicopters like AH-64D (note, Russia has nothing like this but it was widely expected in the 1980s) and impact for dealing with BMP and other light armoured vehicles, and a fragmentation sleeve dismounted infantry when used with impact fusing.

AMP combines M830A1 and M809 fusing options + sleeve into a single round.

man, they will totally win in the next Wargame by Eugen.

AS90 is still king

Unrelated: Some 125mm cutaways

HEAT, APFSDS and GLATGM

>not LRPscale

[The Kievan People]

Doesn't a smaller-diameter warhead reduce the penetration of the jet? Forgive me for not comprehending possible advantages of this design.

Accuracy, especially against moving targets.

Edit: It wasn't really meant to kill infantry either except as a secondary role. BMPs really. Anti-infantry beyond MG range didn't get much thought before the Iraq War. For its original purpose (BMP blasting) it is an ideal round. These days airbursting boosts the efficiency of shellfire so much a subcaliber round is still a viable option for long range dismount destruction.

[Lydenburg]

It isn't like tanks primarily fight tanks

How do you intend for your medium tanks to act as a spearhead if they can't kill other tanks? The US Army was fully and totally aware of the anti-tank battle fought by armour. The Tank Destroyers were for mass actions against regimental and division strength armoured spearheads while operating in battalion-brigade strength on the defensive, or for defending the flanks of the armour with the armoured infantry, effecting the exploitation by providing strong anti-armour direct fires to the infantry.

In the end, tank destroyers ended up getting used more as tanks than tank destroyers, being used piecemeal to augment the anti-armour capability of companies of mediums, since the massed armoured spearheads never materialised except at El Guettar where the 601st Tank Destroyer Battalion destroyed a Panzer Regiment on the offensive.

Maybe what the two of you are really discussing is the use of medium tanks as mobile gun systems, or generic fire support platforms.

In which case it wouldn't be their role to kill other tanks except possibly in self defence.

[New Vihenia]

It shouldn't be a problem. Modern guns are remarkably consistent, so much so that achieving a useful spread against an extended area target is a problem. But this can be overcome by adjusting the aim point with each shot - easy to do with a computer. Conveniently this also decouples the spread of shells from the number and location of the guns firing them. Four double barrel howitzers should be able to execute the same mission with the same effect as eight conventional howitzers.

Yaaaay..then all my self propelled mortars and howitzers shall have double barrel