Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mark 8

[The Kievan People]

Hi, I'v been thinking about mounting a modified Gau-8 within a turret on a MBT platform. A light turret superstructure with the vast majority of the turret basket being used for ammunition storage,full auto/semi auto target acquisition suite based heavily on the Goalkeeper CWIS and Centurion C-RAM (tuned for ground target acquisition) crew of two/three all within the hull of the tank, any thoughts? my other idea was a drone version of this configuration, again any thoughts?

For what purpose?

[NERV arms conglomerate]

For what purpose?

AA/fast paced city fighting against another 1st world military(assume 2015 tech), basically is it feasible?

[Yukonastan]

For what purpose?

AA/fast paced city fighting against another 1st world military(assume 2015 tech), basically is it feasible?

As antiaircraft - yes.

Don't make it doctrine to use your SPAAGs as guns that saw buildings in half, however.

And don't build drone tanks.

[NERV arms conglomerate]

As antiaircraft - yes.

Don't make it doctrine to use your SPAAGs as guns that saw buildings in half, however.

And don't build drone tanks.

thinking about it, drone tanks would be a waste, too many command/control failures, especially in confined streets.

DELTIC, Anyone?, i was thinking about my power packs, anyone think a DELTIC engine would be worth the hassle?

[Spirit of Hope]

Hi, I'v been thinking about mounting a modified Gau-8 within a turret on a MBT platform. A light turret superstructure with the vast majority of the turret basket being used for ammunition storage,full auto/semi auto target acquisition suite based heavily on the Goalkeeper CWIS and Centurion C-RAM (tuned for ground target acquisition) crew of two/three all within the hull of the tank, any thoughts? my other idea was a drone version of this configuration, again any thoughts?

Not really a good idea. You said for AA and city fighting.

First you face the significant issue of fitting the GAU-8 gun into a MBT, the system is large and requires a significant amount of power from the vehicle to work, plus has a massive amount of recoil. You could probably fit it in a tank, but not without distorting the tank.

For Anti-Air use this become even more problematic as MBT's don't have the best ability to aim their guns up, and the gun does not have the range to engage aircraft, unless they are flying stupidly low. Its only target then would be helicopters for which it is significant overkill, you do not need a 30mm gun firing at its speeds to take down helicopters. It can do it but it would cost to much, and have little other use.

For ground support it is similarly limited. Yes it will destroy buildings and lightly armored vehicles, but existing weapons already do that without the major hassle that would come with this system. You don't need to spit out that much lead when you are ground targets firing at other ground targets.

Additionally you can't use the target acquisition of Goalkeeper CWIS and Centurion C-RAM reliably for ground combat. First their is to much ground clutter, secondly you have a much shorter horizon which limits its utility, third your vehicle doesn't have the space and power for such a radar system. You would need to make the vehicle rather large to accommodate everything, making it an easier target to see and hit.

Finally drone vehicles are a bad idea. Until PMT or FT technology allows the vehicle to reliably think for itself, jamming would be to prevalent on the battlefield, there are significant issues figuring out how you would control a ground vehicle, enemy hacking attempts, lag issues, loss of awareness by the pilot, etc. are all issues.

[Novorden]

Random question: Did the Germans use HESH rounds with there leopard 1s?

[Tulacia]

Random question: Did the Germans use HESH rounds with there leopard 1s?

IIRC, no. The closest you'd get to HESH in a Leopard 1 is HEAT.

[Yukonastan]

Random question: Did the Germans use HESH rounds with there leopard 1s?

I know for a fact that the L7A3 will feed HESH (reliably), and I know that the Canadians used HESH rounds with the C1 and C2. But why bother when you can use HEKH or HEP instead, for the same effectiveness?

[Novorden]

I am having a discussion about the introduction of the Leopard 1 into war thunder, and someone mentioned using HESH which i thought the Germans didn't use. Though knowing Gaijn they will give it to it regardless.

[Tulacia]

I am having a discussion about the introduction of the Leopard 1 into war thunder, and someone mentioned using HESH which i thought the Germans didn't use. Though knowing Gaijn they will give it to it regardless.

They will probably give the excuse that the Leopard was license-built by British-connected countries, especially Canada, and that in these countries HESH was available to be fired from the main gun, which was a German-produced variant of the famous 105mm L7 gun.

[Iltica]

So the height problem is definitely surmountable. Maybe the rear weight bias can be compensated for with suspension tweaking and moving other components forward.

The difference in height is entirely due to the CITV stuck on top of the HSTVL turret.

Yeah, so it mainly comes down to how it can handle the bigger 105mm or 120mm gun. Do you think it matters how far forward or back the turret is in terms of recoil? Or should I just try and move the engine when reusing the chassis?

[Dostanuot Loj]

Two ways:
1: By being light enough to use a small engine.
2: By not being that squat of a hull. See T92and M41 together for example.

After some research it looks like the T92 at 84 inches is actually slightly shorter than the RDF/LT. It would probably be about even if you removed that sensor.
I can't find the the equivalent diagram of the T92 online but you can see it briefly in this video at 1:45 https://youtu.be/medBnjehQKc?t=105

So the height problem is definitely surmountable. Maybe the rear weight bias can be compensated for with suspension tweaking and moving other components forward, but how does a 120mm cannon or similar weapon in a rearwards turret behave compared to one further forwards in terms of recoil?

Not sure what total height matters here.
Your volume of the hull is what matters, specifically where in the hull you want to stick the engine.
The rear will always have more volume for a similar external height, because armour.

Again, total height includes that tiny squad turret for both vehicles. Hull height is still pretty high.

DELTIC, Anyone?, i was thinking about my power packs, anyone think a DELTIC engine would be worth the hassle?

No, they have this problem of being volume inefficient.

Random question: Did the Germans use HESH rounds with there leopard 1s?

Yes, but not very much.

[Iltica]

If the rear has more usable volume that would make it a better place to put the turret basket if you have an autoloader wouldn't it?

[Imperializt Russia]

Random question: Did the Germans use HESH rounds with there leopard 1s?

I know for a fact that the L7A3 will feed HESH (reliably), and I know that the Canadians used HESH rounds with the C1 and C2. But why bother when you can use HEKH or HEP instead, for the same effectiveness?

90% sure that HEP, "high-explosive, plastic" is the same thing as HESH, "high-explosive, squash-head".

[The Kievan People]

If the rear has more usable volume that would make it a better place to put the turret basket if you have an autoloader wouldn't it?

The best place to put it is in the center.

[Immoren]

I know for a fact that the L7A3 will feed HESH (reliably), and I know that the Canadians used HESH rounds with the C1 and C2. But why bother when you can use HEKH or HEP instead, for the same effectiveness?

90% sure that HEP, "high-explosive, plastic" is the same thing as HESH, "high-explosive, squash-head".

I do believe so.

[Yukonastan]

I know for a fact that the L7A3 will feed HESH (reliably), and I know that the Canadians used HESH rounds with the C1 and C2. But why bother when you can use HEKH or HEP instead, for the same effectiveness?

90% sure that HEP, "high-explosive, plastic" is the same thing as HESH, "high-explosive, squash-head".

This is a High Explosive Kartoffel Head or High Explosive - Patatah.

[Iltica]

If the rear has more usable volume that would make it a better place to put the turret basket if you have an autoloader wouldn't it?

The best place to put it is in the center.

*sigh* fine... This is going to make the barrel overhang really long though, reversing the turret might help but if the pivot point is close to the center of the tank it might not. Would it be feasible to have a telescoping barrel that is kept in the retracted position when in the plane?

Most real life attempts at this sort of vehicle seem to use a 105mm too, how much of a performance dropoff is there from a 120mm cannon to a 105mm?

[Doppio Giudici]

Look up the penetration of two tanks, with the same barrel length but the wideness of barrel you are describing.

That is the answer. It should come in ____ mm of RHA.

[Iltica]

Well it gets a little sketchy, the ones with 105s tend to be older than the ones with 120s so It's hard to find a fair comparison.
There's some 105s that can penetrate the front of a T72 but those are getting a little long in the tooth themselves... For a low recoil 120mm there's the XM291 which supposedly can be mounted on a 19 ton tank but its got this complicated sounding electrothermal-chemical thing which I won't pretend to understand. Can I split the difference and use a 105 with an extra long barrel? Or maybe use a 120 with a combination of an oscillating turret and slide?

[Imperializt Russia]

Sumer repeatedly puts forward that the 105mm IWS (and even the stock 105 guns) are perfectly sufficient and 120mm guns are in some circumstances superfluous.
I subscribe to the five-inch gun.

[Celibrae]

Well it gets a little sketchy, the ones with 105s tend to be older than the ones with 120s so It's hard to find a fair comparison.
There's some 105s that can penetrate the front of a T72 but those are getting a little long in the tooth themselves... For a low recoil 120mm there's the XM291 which supposedly can be mounted on a 19 ton tank but its got this complicated sounding electrothermal-chemical thing which I won't pretend to understand. Can I split the difference and use a 105 with an extra long barrel? Or maybe use a 120 with a combination of an oscillating turret and slide?

The Sprut-SD is 18 tons and uses a 125 mm gun, although I believe they needed a new ejector and thermal jacket, and removed the muzzle brake to comply with the weight.

[New Visegrad]

I found this album of Abrams-that-never-were and thought MGV might find it interesting. The FASTDRAW proposal in particular seems like something that might fit an NS tank.

[Arstravia]

Check that https://www.nationstates.net/nation=arstravia/detail=factbook/id=428075

[Malay Raya]

Check that https://www.nationstates.net/nation=arstravia/detail=factbook/id=428075

That gun doesn't look like a 120mm, more like 150mm. But eh, its just a picture.