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

[New Visegrad]

Its primary method of propulsion is a pair of fusion reaction drives designed to be fitted to a spacecraft. That's like arguing that a drag racer is useless for commuting - of course it is, that's not what you use it for.

The issue though is that unless your antigrav device also provides some kind of means to cancel momentum or produce a lot of drag, the vehicle will have a stopping distance of a few city blocks when it's zipping along. While you didn't specify a weight, I'd imagine it's pretty heavy, given that it mounts a reactor to power it, which would mean the turning radius and overall maneuverability would be a nightmare. Going fast is all well and good, but tanks also need to fight in close quarters sometimes, and jet aircraft already exist if you need to get munitions on target at speed.

It is capable of producing drag, both via the gravitic system and by using the vehicle's shielding to create friction with the ground. Also, as an AG vehicle it can turn on the spot and perform slides without the risk of losing a track.

The role of the RAV is not intended to replace a proper tank (we have those, complete with tracks precisely because of the problems created by an AG system, as well as heavy projectile weaponry). It is a high-mobility platform for moving infantry around, providing fire support to infantry, and positioning itself as cover for infantry. It can get passengers from A to B quickly in situations where an aircraft would be shot down, while firing accurately on the move. You'd see these moving with infantry units hanging onto the hull or making recon runs ahead of a larger force, not fighting slugging matches with heavy armour.

[Heicliffe]

Someone ring for some FT?

Me gusta.

I've done a bit of work with project Goat (my ongoing modular AFV system), and have included a proposed UGV Gun Carrier in the image mostly for kicks. I'm pretty sure as long as I can create something in that space it'll work. Not necessarily work well, but work.

Don't hate my UGV cause it has legs, it ain't no mech. :<

[Talon Independent Nation]

The issue though is that unless your antigrav device also provides some kind of means to cancel momentum or produce a lot of drag, the vehicle will have a stopping distance of a few city blocks when it's zipping along. While you didn't specify a weight, I'd imagine it's pretty heavy, given that it mounts a reactor to power it, which would mean the turning radius and overall maneuverability would be a nightmare. Going fast is all well and good, but tanks also need to fight in close quarters sometimes, and jet aircraft already exist if you need to get munitions on target at speed.

It is capable of producing drag, both via the gravitic system and by using the vehicle's shielding to create friction with the ground. Also, as an AG vehicle it can turn on the spot and perform slides without the risk of losing a track.

The role of the RAV is not intended to replace a proper tank (we have those, complete with tracks precisely because of the problems created by an AG system, as well as heavy projectile weaponry). It is a high-mobility platform for moving infantry around, providing fire support to infantry, and positioning itself as cover for infantry. It can get passengers from A to B quickly in situations where an aircraft would be shot down, while firing accurately on the move. You'd see these moving with infantry units hanging onto the hull or making recon runs ahead of a larger force, not fighting slugging matches with heavy armour.

Fair enough. However I still would question the use of a laser over something like a railgun or coilgun, or some kind of advanced missile system. Lasers are all well and good for shooting down armorless things like missiles or possibly drones, but when you try to apply them to thick layers of metal and composite, their effectiveness vs power draw drops drastically.

Someone ring for some FT?

Me gusta.

I've done a bit of work with project Goat (my ongoing modular AFV system), and have included a proposed UGV Gun Carrier in the image mostly for kicks. I'm pretty sure as long as I can create something in that space it'll work. Not necessarily work well, but work.

Don't hate my UGV cause it has legs, it ain't no mech. :<

I like the idea of a Big Dog/LS3 robot with an RWS on top, nice infantry support platform.

[New Tsavon]

Fair enough. However I still would question the use of a laser over something like a railgun or coilgun, or some kind of advanced missile system. Lasers are all well and good for shooting down armorless things like missiles or possibly drones, but when you try to apply them to thick layers of metal and composite, their effectiveness vs power draw drops drastically.

It's a light tank, intended for use as a reconnaissance vehicle.

It shouldn't be engaging anything larger than another light tank, if that.

[Lydenburg]

Sure, but it's nice to have the kind of firepower I'm talking about when dealing with a scenario such as urban combat. After all, if a regular IFV with an infantry team comes up against a tank in such circumstances it might not fare so well.

The armament of your "average" IFV - be it BMP-2, Bradley, or Marder - is more than sufficient for the task it has. Airbursting autocannon rounds are very effective at suppressing and destroying "soft" targets, though Russia's latest BMP-2 upgrade added an automatic grenade launcher as well. The BMP-3 takes this a step further by adding a low-velocity HE-thrower gun, but sadly said vehicle's hull layout gave it other issues. As for coming upon a tank, that's what the IFV's ATGMs are for. Or, better yet, the infantry team's own anti-tank weapons - dismounted infantry in an urban environment are a very grave threat to tanks.

If, on the other hand, you are moving into a situation where your infantry desperately need the full capabilities of a tank supporting them, then simply attach a tank platoon to their unit. "Combined Arms" doesn't literally mean fusing all your different vehicles together.

Autocannon bursts do next to nothing against bunkers, fortifications, and static structures.
But that doesn't necessarily mean you need the full capabilities or presence of a tank either - hence, the larger cannon on an IFV.

It all depends on his specific doctrine and combat priorities.

[Talon Independent Nation]

Fair enough. However I still would question the use of a laser over something like a railgun or coilgun, or some kind of advanced missile system. Lasers are all well and good for shooting down armorless things like missiles or possibly drones, but when you try to apply them to thick layers of metal and composite, their effectiveness vs power draw drops drastically.

It's a light tank, intended for use as a reconnaissance vehicle.

It shouldn't be engaging anything larger than another light tank, if that.

That may be, but you'd still get far more bang for your energy buck by using an electromagnetic projectile cannon. For the same energy discharge as it would take to damage a light tank with a laser, you could likely propel a railgun fired, saboted dart right through a concurrent MBT, and have some power left over to add a coffee maker for the crew.

[New Visegrad]

It's a light tank, intended for use as a reconnaissance vehicle.

It shouldn't be engaging anything larger than another light tank, if that.

That may be, but you'd still get far more bang for your energy buck by using an electromagnetic projectile cannon. For the same energy discharge as it would take to damage a light tank with a laser, you could likely propel a railgun fired, saboted dart right through a concurrent MBT, and have some power left over to add a coffee maker for the crew.

Eh. There's no reason I can't deploy them with variant turrets depending on the opposing force. The laser is a good default though since it's compact, requires no ammunition storage, and synergizes well with the vehicle's speed. A spread of laser pulses is sure to put the scares up most things even if it can't kill heavy armour.

[The Soodean Imperium]

The armament of your "average" IFV - be it BMP-2, Bradley, or Marder - is more than sufficient for the task it has. Airbursting autocannon rounds are very effective at suppressing and destroying "soft" targets, though Russia's latest BMP-2 upgrade added an automatic grenade launcher as well. The BMP-3 takes this a step further by adding a low-velocity HE-thrower gun, but sadly said vehicle's hull layout gave it other issues. As for coming upon a tank, that's what the IFV's ATGMs are for. Or, better yet, the infantry team's own anti-tank weapons - dismounted infantry in an urban environment are a very grave threat to tanks.

If, on the other hand, you are moving into a situation where your infantry desperately need the full capabilities of a tank supporting them, then simply attach a tank platoon to their unit. "Combined Arms" doesn't literally mean fusing all your different vehicles together.

Autocannon bursts do next to nothing against bunkers, fortifications, and static structures.
But that doesn't necessarily mean you need the full capabilities or presence of a tank either - hence, the larger cannon on an IFV.

It all depends on his specific doctrine and combat priorities.

There's also the option of engaging hardened targets with an ATGM; IIRC the US military did this in Iraq, with mixed results. Several modern ATGMs have variants optimized for use against structures, including the thermobaric 9M113F-1 and the "bunker-buster" BGM-71H.

Though, in the end, it really does come down to doctrine. I imagine a big, slowish, heavily armored troop carrier or infantry support vehicle with a HE-thrower as main armament would fit Israel's needs rather well.

[The Akasha Colony]

Eh. There's no reason I can't deploy them with variant turrets depending on the opposing force. The laser is a good default though since it's compact, requires no ammunition storage, and synergizes well with the vehicle's speed. A spread of laser pulses is sure to put the scares up most things even if it can't kill heavy armour.

Why would it "scare" anything? They wouldn't be visible. That's the point of a laser.

[New Visegrad]

Eh. There's no reason I can't deploy them with variant turrets depending on the opposing force. The laser is a good default though since it's compact, requires no ammunition storage, and synergizes well with the vehicle's speed. A spread of laser pulses is sure to put the scares up most things even if it can't kill heavy armour.

Why would it "scare" anything? They wouldn't be visible. That's the point of a laser.

The beam itself isn't visible, but a high-power pulse laser would probably create a smoke trail and a loud noise, not to mention the holes in whatever it hit.

[The Akasha Colony]

Why would it "scare" anything? They wouldn't be visible. That's the point of a laser.

The beam itself isn't visible, but a high-power pulse laser would probably create a smoke trail and a loud noise, not to mention the holes in whatever it hit.

Why would it create either of these things? The emitter should have no moving parts to make any kind of noise when firing. There's nothing in the atmosphere to burn that would create a smoke trail, unless you're frying your own components while firing. It wouldn't create holes, either, unless we're talking about Looney Tunes physics.

[Talon Independent Nation]

That may be, but you'd still get far more bang for your energy buck by using an electromagnetic projectile cannon. For the same energy discharge as it would take to damage a light tank with a laser, you could likely propel a railgun fired, saboted dart right through a concurrent MBT, and have some power left over to add a coffee maker for the crew.

Eh. There's no reason I can't deploy them with variant turrets depending on the opposing force. The laser is a good default though since it's compact, requires no ammunition storage, and synergizes well with the vehicle's speed. A spread of laser pulses is sure to put the scares up most things even if it can't kill heavy armour.

It might arguably make a good anti-infantry weapon, however the only real upshot would be instant target impact. You would also suffer massive loss of effect if you had to fire through smokescreens or dust particles (such as those kicked up by an antigravity system, maybe...) which mean you could have your vehicle's weapon thwarted by bad weather or an enterprising enemy soldier with a smoke grenade. Besides that, your effectiveness at range could fall dramatically due to atmospheric interference. If you want a great anti-infantry saturation weapon, you'd be better off mounting a Metalstorm style stacked munition pod or two, and if you want something a bit more powerful, an automatic coilgun loaded with explosive ammunition. Due to the potential for higher velocity with electromagnetic ballistic weapons vs modern systems, you would likely get as much if not more range out of one than a laser (depending on atmospheric conditions.)

With a laser, there's also the issue of reliability. While an electromagnetic gun might be pretty hard to fix in the field, chances are a grunt or vehicle crewman isn't going to be able to even remotely diagnose and repair a solid state laser. Even with my own far fetched FT tank's coil driven cannon, the preferred battlefield solution to a damaged vital component is to leave the unit for cleanup after the battle (though the military system for which my units are designed isn't exactly contemporary in nature.)

[New Visegrad]

The beam itself isn't visible, but a high-power pulse laser would probably create a smoke trail and a loud noise, not to mention the holes in whatever it hit.

Why would it create either of these things? The emitter should have no moving parts to make any kind of noise when firing. There's nothing in the atmosphere to burn that would create a smoke trail, unless you're frying your own components while firing. It wouldn't create holes, either, unless we're talking about Looney Tunes physics.

I was led to believe (War in 2080, which has so far proven to be a reliable source with actual physics backing it up) that the best way for a military laser to work was for it to ionize the air first with a very rapid two-stage pulse. Surely this would make some sort of noise given what it's doing to the air?
As for the holes...aren't lasers supposed to burn away what they hit? That is sort of the point using it as a weapon.

Eh. There's no reason I can't deploy them with variant turrets depending on the opposing force. The laser is a good default though since it's compact, requires no ammunition storage, and synergizes well with the vehicle's speed. A spread of laser pulses is sure to put the scares up most things even if it can't kill heavy armour.

It might arguably make a good anti-infantry weapon, however the only real upshot would be instant target impact. You would also suffer massive loss of effect if you had to fire through smokescreens or dust particles (such as those kicked up by an antigravity system, maybe...) which mean you could have your vehicle's weapon thwarted by bad weather or an enterprising enemy soldier with a smoke grenade. Besides that, your effectiveness at range could fall dramatically due to atmospheric interference. If you want a great anti-infantry saturation weapon, you'd be better off mounting a Metalstorm style stacked munition pod or two, and if you want something a bit more powerful, an automatic coilgun loaded with explosive ammunition. Due to the potential for higher velocity with electromagnetic ballistic weapons vs modern systems, you would likely get as much if not more range out of one than a laser (depending on atmospheric conditions.)

Would a 1.5TW laser be stopped by a smoke cloud? If so, if that kind of countermeasure is likely to be encountered, RAVs deployed to that theatre should be fitted with railgun or alternative particle weapon turrets. The laser should still be viable against poorly-equipped conventional or non-technological alien hostiles, as well as being capable of causing damage to more capable forces if they are unprepared (see also "afterburner button") or fail to deploy countermeasures.

With a laser, there's also the issue of reliability. While an electromagnetic gun might be pretty hard to fix in the field, chances are a grunt or vehicle crewman isn't going to be able to even remotely diagnose and repair a solid state laser. Even with my own far fetched FT tank's coil driven cannon, the preferred battlefield solution to a damaged vital component is to leave the unit for cleanup after the battle (though the military system for which my units are designed isn't exactly contemporary in nature.)

The turret, being unmanned, should be capable of self-maintenance to a certain point. Damage sufficient to prevent it repairing itself or being repaired by a trooper downloading technical information from the local battlenet is likely to be enough to make any weapon unserviceable.

[Talon Independent Nation]

Would a 1.5TW laser be stopped by a smoke cloud? If so, if that kind of countermeasure is likely to be encountered, RAVs deployed to that theatre should be fitted with railgun or alternative particle weapon turrets. The laser should still be viable against poorly-equipped conventional or non-technological alien hostiles, as well as being capable of causing damage to more capable forces if they are unprepared (see also "afterburner button") or fail to deploy countermeasures.

A 1.5TW laser would likely penetrate most things like smoke and dust to some degree (depending on density), however 1.5TW is an insane amount of power to be generated by one tank. If you had a power generation and distribution system that could handle that much current, I would think that an enemy unit hitting your reactor core would lead to a Hiroshima-grade explosion. If you could reliably generate and output a 1.5TW beam, it would probably burn through a great deal, however that level of power output seems more appropriate for a 10 mile long interstellar dreadnought than an IFV.

The turret, being unmanned, should be capable of self-maintenance to a certain point. Damage sufficient to prevent it repairing itself or being repaired by a trooper downloading technical information from the local battlenet is likely to be enough to make any weapon unserviceable.

Again, fair enough, though a vehicle carrying its own self-repair system seems like it would add a lot of complexity and cost, and open up the possibility of the auto-repair system failing itself.

[The Akasha Colony]

Why would it create either of these things? The emitter should have no moving parts to make any kind of noise when firing. There's nothing in the atmosphere to burn that would create a smoke trail, unless you're frying your own components while firing. It wouldn't create holes, either, unless we're talking about Looney Tunes physics.

I was led to believe (War in 2080, which has so far proven to be a reliable source with actual physics backing it up) that the best way for a military laser to work was for it to ionize the air first with a very rapid two-stage pulse. Surely this would make some sort of noise given what it's doing to the air?

It may produce a crack or a clicking sound depending on how much air is being displaced, like an electrical arc (since that's what creates the noise in an electrical arc).

As for the holes...aren't lasers supposed to burn away what they hit? That is sort of the point using it as a weapon.

Depending on power, a laser would likely do one of three things on "impact:"

1. Induce a thermal shock in the target due to the extreme temperature change. This is how modern military lasers work. They don't melt anything, they suddenly and rapidly heat the target such that the rapid thermal expansion combined with the weakening of the material causes it to break apart under its own stresses. This doesn't create any noise (except maybe a cracking sound from the material breaking), but would also be almost totally ineffective against any vehicle with spaced armor, since at best you might crack the outer plate but this does nothing to the underlying plates and armor is designed to withstand some rather extreme stresses. It will work against unprotected organic targets because you're basically burning them.

2. A greater amount of heat may induce some melting but this would require a much greater amount of energy. But in a pulsed laser this wouldn't really create a hole, because the material would start cooling very quickly and shortly after harden again. Even if you imparted it with so much heat, you'd literally have to wait for the melted material to flow out of the way to reveal the next layer, otherwise your next shot will hit the same melted material (but not penetrate any further). Some materials just aren't fond of melting though (e.g. ceramics, or anything flammable).

3. However, if you continue firing on the same spot, or hit it with an absolutely ludicrous amount of energy, you may be able to cause it to sublimate. In this case, you have indeed vaporized that section of the armor, but you have devoted several orders of magnitude more energy to penetrating this armor than would be needed by a more conventional weapon. Which is somewhat at odds with the design of a light vehicle, because this would require a much larger energy source than normal, and thus a larger vehicle. When the entire point of a light reconnaissance vehicle is to be as compact as possible.

Protection against the latter two effects isn't too difficult. Ablative coatings to protect against extremely high heat environments have already been in use for decades on spacecraft, and are very lightweight. It would not be difficult to apply them to most ground vehicles without significant weight penalty, making them significantly harder to engage by a laser weapon relying on the last two effects, while the first effect is difficult to employ against any vehicle using body-on-frame construction or any design where the outermost layer is not structural. Of course, like any protective scheme, it can be overcome with moar power but this rapidly becomes extremely inefficient.

[New Tsavon]

>criticizing an FT hover tank
>from a realistic, MT military basis

#mgv

[Erusuia]

why would you want tanks in FT, when you could have super lololgetwrkedm8 power armor?

[Immoren]

why would you want tanks in FT, when you could have super lololgetwrkedm8 power armor?

So I could crush those "super lololgetwrkedm8 power armor?" Under the track of cybertank/landship.

[San-Silvacian]

>criticizing an FT hover tank
>from a realistic, MT military basis

#mgv

>Criticizing a hover tank
>From a realistic, physics based basis

However I forgot that FT is 100% story-driven and has literally nothing else but pretty pictures and "Its stronk b/c I sau its stronk"

[Purpelia]

>Criticizing a hover tank
>From a realistic, physics based basis

However I forgot that FT is 100% story-driven and has literally nothing else but pretty pictures and "Its stronk b/c I sau its stronk"

Get over your self. Seriously, I do not know what your problem is lately but you are just being abrasive and rude for no good reason. And it gives us all here a bad name.

The man clearly said "from a realistic, MT military basis". Emphasis mine. Military realism is not constrained to the laws of physics as they exist in our universe. Instead it as a concept is bound by the laws of the relevant setting. And as such it is a term that can apply to any setting that has a military. We can discuss realism of fighting space undead just as we can discuss the best way for a dwarven army to employ mitrhil when combating a horde of orks. As long as the rules of the universe in question are established and known to us we can derive meaningful conclusions from them and establish what would be realistic, plausible and smart under those conditions. The process is absolutely no different than when talking about various past settings such as WW1, WW2 etc. Something that virtually everyone else in this thread has figured out without saying. So get off your high horse and stop embarrassing us in front of the noobs.

[The Peacekeeper Initiative]

What would you think of a 60mm ETC cannon on a IFV? Such as

[San-Silvacian]

What would you think of a 60mm ETC cannon on a IFV? Such as (Image)

That is a Phalanx mount.

That is fucking massive.

[Lydenburg]

What would you think of a 60mm ETC cannon on a IFV? Such as (Image)

A 60mm HV like the type the Israelis have put on Chile's Shermans and even proposed for the AML-90 is quite plausible for anything in an IFV's typical power-to-weight class. It's already capable of killing anything lighter than a T-72.

But the Phalanx mount was designed for ships, not the puny little turret of an IFV. At that point we're talking SPG.

[Talon Independent Nation]

>criticizing an FT hover tank
>from a realistic, MT military basis

#mgv

Just because it's sci-fi (FT) doesn't mean the laws of physics can be casually broken. Just because you COULD put a generator with the output of a small country in a tank doesn't mean that would be practical or useful. Just because you can make a tank that hovers does not mean that it should, nor that it would be made any more effective because of it. Just because lasers can be used to cut metal in certain modern applications does not make them a viable weapon against armored targets.

By posting something in this thread, you're opening it up to critique, as stated in the OP:
TWO (2). Post something, anything - whether it's an idea, a vehicle, some vehicles or just a photo - and whatever you post can be criticised, discussed, examined and cross-examined by the other posters on this thread. So make the most of it - there're plenty of learned fellows here, and they're all happy to make sure you get the feedback you want. If you don't want people talking about something you've posted, don't put it here, put it in your factbook.
And so we are offering critique based on our views of sci-fi technology and future possibilities.

[Spoder]

Debating designing the technical of all technicals.