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

by **Anglind and Chesovya** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 3:42 pm

I've recently been making some vehicles and figured I'd post one of them here to see what kind of feedback it gets, do tell my if there are any issues I should fix.

by **The Akasha Colony** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 3:50 pm

Anglind and Chesovya wrote:I've recently been making some vehicles and figured I'd post one of them here to see what kind of feedback it gets, do tell my if there are any issues I should fix.
Panther 1 Main Battle Tank

(Image)
Type: Main Battle Tank
Place of Origin: United Kingdom of Anglind
Used By: Anglish Royal Army
Manufacturer: CDS (Chapman Defense Systems)
Unit Cost: 4,522,000 Pounds
Number Built: 8,000+
Crew: 5 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Radio Operator)
Armor: Front: 350mm Effective Thickness: 560mm Side: 310mm Effective Thickness : 310mm Rear: 260mm Effective Thickness: 270mm
Armament: 120mm Rifled Gun, 7.62 MG AA Turret, 7.62 Hull MG, 7.62 Hull MG
Max Speed: 72km/h (44.7 Mph)

No need for the hull MGs or the radio operator. Modern radios are much easier to operate so this role can be given to the commander and the hull MGs just create weaknesses in the frontal armor. One should be moved to the turret though to create a coaxial armament. Rear armor thickness is a bit high and front armor thickness is a bit low. The AA turret height should probably be reduced but the main turret height increased, looks a bit short.

Otherwise it generally looks fine.

by **Erusuia** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:05 pm

Speaking of hull MGs, would a hull MG make sense for an APC? There wouldn't really be any decrease in protection given how lightly armoured the APC is anyway, and I could see some advantages to giving the driver or commander an MG to use when troops are dismounting out the back

by **Lydenburg** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:07 pm

Erusuia wrote:Speaking of hull MGs, would a hull MG make sense for an APC? There wouldn't really be any decrease in protection given how lightly armoured the APC is anyway, and I could see some advantages to giving the driver or commander an MG to use when troops are dismounting out the back

The Chinese, maybe the North Koreans, still put hull MGs in some of their simpler APCs.

by **The Akasha Colony** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:12 pm

Erusuia wrote:Speaking of hull MGs, would a hull MG make sense for an APC? There wouldn't really be any decrease in protection given how lightly armoured the APC is anyway, and I could see some advantages to giving the driver or commander an MG to use when troops are dismounting out the back

There's usually only space for one man at the front of an IFV or APC since the engine's up front as well. The commander will probably have a cupola-mounted weapon with a greater field of fire, which leaves only the driver as the potential user, and he should probably be driving. Some have done it, but there isn't much use for it, since the driver will be too busy driving to use it most of the time.

by **Erusuia** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:14 pm

Lydenburg wrote:The Chinese, maybe the North Koreans, still put hull MGs in some of their simpler APCs.

Cool

I might mount a GMG in the hull of one of my IFVs for the lulz

The Akasha Colony wrote:
There's usually only space for one man at the front of an IFV or APC since the engine's up front as well. The commander will probably have a cupola-mounted weapon with a greater field of fire, which leaves only the driver as the potential user, and he should probably be driving. Some have done it, but there isn't much use for it, since the driver will be too busy driving to use it most of the time.

Didn't really stop to consider that

I could maybe have the troop compartment be wider at the top then the frontal half of the vehicle, with two bow mounted weapons like so: (In facing forward on the troop compartment)

by **Chebucto Provinces** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:15 pm

Novorden wrote:Random interesting note: a tanker I was talking to said that they had used HESH training rounds (filled with concrete rather than HE) as a 'low cost', low collateral anti-structure munition for use against snipers.

We called these "kinder surprise" back in my day.

I heard the guys in A'Stan called them "monkey eggs" as a joke.

It's not that new, especially for the 105mm guns. SOP in my time in KFOR was one such in the gun, one live HESH ready to roll when we did not expect enemy armour, but potential snipers. Like convoy work. The idea was round 1 (concrete) was not full engagement, so if the firing kept up on us we would have every justification to end it with violence.

Never had to use them on people myself. But we did fire a few at T-55 targets for a laugh. I mean, for training.

by **Korva** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:20 pm

Erusuia wrote:
Lydenburg wrote:The Chinese, maybe the North Koreans, still put hull MGs in some of their simpler APCs.

Cool

I might mount a GMG in the hull of one of my IFVs for the lulz

The Akasha Colony wrote:
There's usually only space for one man at the front of an IFV or APC since the engine's up front as well. The commander will probably have a cupola-mounted weapon with a greater field of fire, which leaves only the driver as the potential user, and he should probably be driving. Some have done it, but there isn't much use for it, since the driver will be too busy driving to use it most of the time.

Didn't really stop to consider that

I could maybe have the troop compartment be wider at the top then the frontal half of the vehicle, with two bow mounted weapons like so:

Japanese Type 73 APC had a bow MG.

by **The Akasha Colony** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:27 pm

Erusuia wrote:
Lydenburg wrote:The Chinese, maybe the North Koreans, still put hull MGs in some of their simpler APCs.

Cool

I might mount a GMG in the hull of one of my IFVs for the lulz

The Akasha Colony wrote:
There's usually only space for one man at the front of an IFV or APC since the engine's up front as well. The commander will probably have a cupola-mounted weapon with a greater field of fire, which leaves only the driver as the potential user, and he should probably be driving. Some have done it, but there isn't much use for it, since the driver will be too busy driving to use it most of the time.

Didn't really stop to consider that

I could maybe have the troop compartment be wider at the top then the frontal half of the vehicle, with two bow mounted weapons like so: (In facing forward on the troop compartment)

That space in the hull corner is generally where equipment would be stowed or seatbelts attached. It'd be awkward to fire from that position anyway, and have a rather limited field of fire. The soldier would have to cram his head right up against the ceiling and the wall to sight the gun.

Notice how the seats themselves are actually attached to the compartment ceiling in the area where you want to put the MG. You'd probably not want to expose that part of the vehicle anyway and leave it behind the normal frontal armor plate to minimize the chances of incoming rounds penetrating right into the space where your soldiers' heads are.

If you really want to add firepower, just add more roof-mounted guns like the US did with the M113 ACAV variants. Much better field of fire and flexibility, without creating awkward ergonomics. Nowadays, it'd probably be an RWS of some sort, or a regular ring mount with a thin shield if you're cheap.

by **Erusuia** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:30 pm

So no hull guns
bumber

HMG vs GMG for APC armament?

EDIT

I get that bow guns are an all around bad idea, but doesn't the BMP-3 have them?

by **Korva** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:36 pm

Erusuia wrote::( So no hull guns
bumber

HMG vs GMG for APC armament?

EDIT

I get that bow guns are an all around bad idea, but doesn't the BMP-3 have them?

Yes, so do BMD's.

HMG is probably better.

by **Novorden** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:52 pm

Erusuia wrote::( So no hull guns
bumber

HMG vs GMG for APC armament?

EDIT

I get that bow guns are an all around bad idea, but doesn't the BMP-3 have them?

I am an advocate of 20mm, EG: Nexter ARX20 RWS

by **Anglind and Chesovya** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 5:00 pm

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Anglind and Chesovya wrote:I've recently been making some vehicles and figured I'd post one of them here to see what kind of feedback it gets, do tell my if there are any issues I should fix.
Panther 1 Main Battle Tank

(Image)
Type: Main Battle Tank
Place of Origin: United Kingdom of Anglind
Used By: Anglish Royal Army
Manufacturer: CDS (Chapman Defense Systems)
Unit Cost: 4,522,000 Pounds
Number Built: 8,000+
Crew: 4 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver)
Armor: Front: 350mm Effective Thickness: 560mm Side: 310mm Effective Thickness : 310mm Rear: 260mm Effective Thickness: 270mm
Armament: 135mm Rifled Gun, 7.62 MG AA Turret, 7.62 Hull Coaxial MG
Max Speed: 72km/h (44.7 Mph)

No need for the hull MGs or the radio operator. Modern radios are much easier to operate so this role can be given to the commander and the hull MGs just create weaknesses in the frontal armor. One should be moved to the turret though to create a coaxial armament. Rear armor thickness is a bit high and front armor thickness is a bit low. The AA turret height should probably be reduced but the main turret height increased, looks a bit short.

Otherwise it generally looks fine.

Thanks for the feedback, I made some revisions and should have remedied those issues:

I also figured I'd post another vehicle here aswell:

by **The Akasha Colony** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 5:14 pm

Erusuia wrote::( So no hull guns
bumber

HMG vs GMG for APC armament?

EDIT

I get that bow guns are an all around bad idea, but doesn't the BMP-3 have them?

BMP-3 has a number of other bad ideas as well. It wasn't originally supposed to be an infantry carrier.

Anglind and Chesovya wrote:
The Akasha Colony wrote:

No need for the hull MGs or the radio operator. Modern radios are much easier to operate so this role can be given to the commander and the hull MGs just create weaknesses in the frontal armor. One should be moved to the turret though to create a coaxial armament. Rear armor thickness is a bit high and front armor thickness is a bit low. The AA turret height should probably be reduced but the main turret height increased, looks a bit short.

Otherwise it generally looks fine.

Thanks for the feedback, I made some revisions and should have remedied those issues:

Panther 1 Main Battle Tank

Type: Main Battle Tank
Place of Origin: United Kingdom of Anglind
Used By: Anglish Royal Army
Manufacturer: CDS (Chapman Defense Systems)
Unit Cost: 4,522,000 Pounds
Number Built: 8,000+
Crew: 4 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver)
Armor: Front: 375mm Effective Thickness: 585mm Side: 310mm Effective Thickness : 310mm Rear: 225mm Effective Thickness: 235mm
Armament: 120mm Rifled Gun, 7.62 MG AA Turret, 7.62 Hull MG, 7.62 Hull MG
Max Speed: 72km/h (44.7 Mph)

I also figured I'd post another vehicle here aswell:

Jaguar 1 Tank Destoryer

Type: Tank Destroyer
Place of Origin: United Kingdom of Anglind
Used By: Anglish Royal Army
Manufacturer: CDS (Chapman Defense Systems)
Unit Cost: 4,302,000 Pounds
Number Built: 561
Crew: 5 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Radio operator)
Armor: Front: 370mm Effective thickness: 610mm Side: 215mm Effective Thickness: 230mm Rear: 130mm Effective Thickness: 140mm
Armament: 135mm rifled gun, 7.62 MG AA turret, 7.62 Coaxial MG
Max Speed: 99km/h (61mph)

In regards to the TD, same thing as before: no need for a radio operator. At 135 mm, a human loader will start to have a hard time so an autoloader is preferred, cutting your crew to three.

And in regards to both vehicles, if you want to be able to resist modern KEPs without applique armor or ERA, you probably need closer to 800-900 mm on the front.

by **Oaledonia** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:42 pm

Lydenburg wrote:
Erusuia wrote:Speaking of hull MGs, would a hull MG make sense for an APC? There wouldn't really be any decrease in protection given how lightly armoured the APC is anyway, and I could see some advantages to giving the driver or commander an MG to use when troops are dismounting out the back

The Chinese, maybe the North Koreans, still put hull MGs in some of their simpler APCs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_73_Armored_Personnel_Carrier

by **United Marxist Nations** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:45 pm

Oaledonia wrote:
Lydenburg wrote:

The Chinese, maybe the North Koreans, still put hull MGs in some of their simpler APCs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_73_Armored_Personnel_Carrier

Eh, they all look the same.

by **Anemos Major** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:17 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:
Oaledonia wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_73_Armored_Personnel_Carrier

Eh, they all look the same.

...?

by **Lydenburg** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:32 pm

Oaledonia wrote:
Lydenburg wrote:

The Chinese, maybe the North Koreans, still put hull MGs in some of their simpler APCs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_73_Armored_Personnel_Carrier

*Actually a Type SU 60

by **Oaledonia** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:40 pm

Lydenburg wrote:
Oaledonia wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_73_Armored_Personnel_Carrier

*Actually a Type SU 60

Wrong.

by **Anemos Major** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:45 pm

Oaledonia wrote:
Lydenburg wrote:
*Actually a Type SU 60

Wrong.

(It's not a Type 73, it's a Type 60 - the most obvious indicator from this angle is the trackset)

(It's also not a 'Type SU 60', which seems to be a weird misnomer that's emerged from god knows where, probably flawed period literature. 'SU' was a designation they attached to APC prototypes during the period, the production vehicle was the 'Type 60')

by **Anemos Major** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:50 pm

Erusuia wrote::( So no hull guns
bumber

HMG vs GMG for APC armament?

Smart-fuzed 20mm HE airburst rounds, with boxes of AP if the need arises - why not have the best of both worlds?

by **Oaledonia** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:52 pm

Anemos Major wrote:(It's not a Type 73, it's a Type 60 - the most obvious indicator from this angle is the trackset)

Please, do explain.

by **Gallia-** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:53 pm

Type 73 doesn't have return rollers.

by **Oaledonia** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:59 pm

wtf are you guys even talking about? He said Chinese and Koreans, so I linked a Japanese example.

by **Anemos Major** » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:02 pm

Oaledonia wrote:wtf are you guys even talking about? He said Chinese and Koreans, so I linked a Japanese example.

Type 60 is a Japanese APC, though.

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

Who is online