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

[Imperializt Russia]

>not making your infantry use the bars of the cage armor to ride desant.

>not using infantry as applique armor

Infantry are approximate to water which is an insufficiently thickness-efficient medium of protection.

[Prosorusiya]

The two APCs I use are the BTR-60PB, which has top and side hatches, and the BTR-152K, with top hatches only.

BTR-60PB:
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/inf/BTR-60/BTR-60PB_00.jpg
BTR-152K:
http://scalemodellingcentral.blob.core.windows.net/participants/20140309061356/1791b60c-c30d-4065-ba60-f79f260b8206.jpg

I wonder what the cage armor would do to the suspension, if it adds to the weight of the vehicle. Both vehicles are very old (hence the need for upgrades) and are later developments of their base mode ( the base 60 and 152 where originally both open top, and the PB added a MG turret) already loaded down with armor, so idk if this will work. On the other hand, without bar armor their survivability on a modern day field of combat is even more limited.

[Demostopia]

Mostly use the T-14 Armata after upgrading form the T-52 and American MRAPS and M1-Abrams

[Husseinarti]

>not making your infantry use the bars of the cage armor to ride desant.

>not using infantry as applique armor

organic reactive armor.

[Immoren]

>not using infantry as applique armor

organic reactive armor.

Organic armour is clearly best armour, because it can regenerate itself after the damage.

[Orussia]

The two APCs I use are the BTR-60PB, which has top and side hatches, and the BTR-152K, with top hatches only.

BTR-60PB:
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/inf/BTR-60/BTR-60PB_00.jpg
BTR-152K:
http://scalemodellingcentral.blob.core.windows.net/participants/20140309061356/1791b60c-c30d-4065-ba60-f79f260b8206.jpg

I wonder what the cage armor would do to the suspension, if it adds to the weight of the vehicle. Both vehicles are very old (hence the need for upgrades) and are later developments of their base mode ( the base 60 and 152 where originally both open top, and the PB added a MG turret) already loaded down with armor, so idk if this will work. On the other hand, without bar armor their survivability on a modern day field of combat is even more limited.

One of the major problems of the BTR-152 was that the chassis/engine were at their limit with the final versions. The suspension was overloaded, and the engine was overworked. You'd need to put some serious money into making them useful again.

[Purpelia]

Just do what I did and go crazy. Take your standard IFV turret, put one of those in and than convert it to use an autoloader.

Frankly, at this point, I am considering a DuK88 style revolving magazine fitted under the gun (just ram in a four or five round revolving enbloc or whatever) with an ejection chute going somewhere (semi-cased mortar projectiles of the 85mm or 92mm persuasion in regard to caliber) or some sort of positively obscene belt feed mechanism (of which, might I add, the belts might be a liability to the crew due to the "clunk factor").


All things considered, this caddywhompus mechanical abomination went off the deep end a ways back (conceptually speaking).

I don't really bother with the details and just treat it as being a single barreled 82mm version of AMOS.

[Prosorusiya]

The two APCs I use are the BTR-60PB, which has top and side hatches, and the BTR-152K, with top hatches only.

BTR-60PB:
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/inf/BTR-60/BTR-60PB_00.jpg
BTR-152K:
http://scalemodellingcentral.blob.core.windows.net/participants/20140309061356/1791b60c-c30d-4065-ba60-f79f260b8206.jpg

I wonder what the cage armor would do to the suspension, if it adds to the weight of the vehicle. Both vehicles are very old (hence the need for upgrades) and are later developments of their base mode ( the base 60 and 152 where originally both open top, and the PB added a MG turret) already loaded down with armor, so idk if this will work. On the other hand, without bar armor their survivability on a modern day field of combat is even more limited.

One of the major problems of the BTR-152 was that the chassis/engine were at their limit with the final versions. The suspension was overloaded, and the engine was overworked. You'd need to put some serious money into making them useful again.

I think the guy I bought them from rebuilt the suspension and replaced the engine with a diesel, a la Vietnam, but yeah that's generally my worry. The Btr-60s kind of have the same problem, but have a slightly better suspension and two truck engines (which is a problem unto itself). So, it's looking like my only upgrade is smoke grenade launchers? There's got to be more I can do. How much would bar armor add to the BTR-152 weight, since it's going to be the problem child?

[Ragnarum]

Does anyone know why some tanks (German, Old Soviet) placed the loader on the right hand side of the turret instead of the left? Its a bit trivial, but surely the fact that most people are right handed would mean that placing the loader on the left side would be more practical. Amirite?

[Purpelia]

I think the guy I bought them from rebuilt the suspension and replaced the engine with a diesel, a la Vietnam, but yeah that's generally my worry. The Btr-60s kind of have the same problem, but have a slightly better suspension and two truck engines (which is a problem unto itself). So, it's looking like my only upgrade is smoke grenade launchers? There's got to be more I can do. How much would bar armor add to the BTR-152 weight, since it's going to be the problem child?

To be perfectly honest if you have even managed to keep these things pruning since the 1950's that's a miracle in its own right. And if you are thinking of replacing the engine and suspension than you are replacing everything that actually costs money. The metal hull is dirt cheap. So what I'd advise you to do is if you are already building new engines and suspensions just spring for a completely new vehicle modeled on the old ones.

[Orussia]

Does anyone know why some tanks (German, Old Soviet) placed the loader on the right hand side of the turret instead of the left? Its a bit trivial, but surely the fact that most people are right handed would mean that placing the loader on the left side would be more practical. Amirite?

Because it took more strength to hold up the round then it did to shove it into the breech?

[Axis Nova]

Apparently the Israelis have a thing that is a refurbished M60 that they have set up to look like a fake MBT, but in reality it has a box launcher full of Spike ER missiles with a range of 35km.

[Prosorusiya]

I think the guy I bought them from rebuilt the suspension and replaced the engine with a diesel, a la Vietnam, but yeah that's generally my worry. The Btr-60s kind of have the same problem, but have a slightly better suspension and two truck engines (which is a problem unto itself). So, it's looking like my only upgrade is smoke grenade launchers? There's got to be more I can do. How much would bar armor add to the BTR-152 weight, since it's going to be the problem child?

To be perfectly honest if you have even managed to keep these things pruning since the 1950's that's a miracle in its own right. And if you are thinking of replacing the engine and suspension than you are replacing everything that actually costs money. The metal hull is dirt cheap. So what I'd advise you to do is if you are already building new engines and suspensions just spring for a completely new vehicle modeled on the old ones.

Actually allegedly the previous owner did that. I bought them as cheap surplus because my nation is basically third world right now. Pretty good deal, too, I got three battalions worth of surplus APCs from Yakzistan: 30 BTR-60PBs and 60 BTR-152s.

Would fitting the BTR-60 with cage armor be worth it too, or does it run into the same problems?
Also, does anyone have a field manuel on soviet btr tactics? I'm not really sure what these APCs are supposed to be doing in combat.

[Orussia]

To be perfectly honest if you have even managed to keep these things pruning since the 1950's that's a miracle in its own right. And if you are thinking of replacing the engine and suspension than you are replacing everything that actually costs money. The metal hull is dirt cheap. So what I'd advise you to do is if you are already building new engines and suspensions just spring for a completely new vehicle modeled on the old ones.

Actually allegedly the previous owner did that. I bought them as cheap surplus because my nation is basically third world right now. Pretty good deal, too, I got three battalions worth of surplus APCs from Yakzistan: 30 BTR-60PBs and 60 BTR-152s.

Would fitting the BTR-60 with cage armor be worth it too, or does it run into the same problems?
Also, does anyone have a field manuel on soviet btr tactics? I'm not really sure what these APCs are supposed to be doing in combat.

Nah, BTR-60 is a pretty solid chassis. Main problem with it was the overcomplicated drivetrain that came from using two gasoline truck engines.
Would definitely recommend upgrading to more modern diesels, to reduce chance of explosion and fire.

[Crookfur]

Apparently the Israelis have a thing that is a refurbished M60 that they have set up to look like a fake MBT, but in reality it has a box launcher full of Spike ER missiles with a range of 35km.

Actually its not spike Er, or even Spike NLOS but the related tamuz missiles.

Isreal only really started talking about them this year, proabably after some western journalists finally noticed them a couple of years ago:

http://www.janes.com/article/53506/anal ... e-launcher

[Sediczja]

Also, does anyone have a field manuel on soviet btr tactics? I'm not really sure what these APCs are supposed to be doing in combat.

Not exactly Soviet, but still - 1980s east German training video on the BTR and BMP, could be useful I guess.

E: Or maybe not. I swear I remember this video being a lot more heavy on tactics. Still worth a watch if that's your thing.

[Imperializt Russia]

As I recall pieced together from remembering other people discuss it - the use of BTR and BMP in Soviet rifle divisions was partly one of cost. The Soviets could afford to mix their fighting divisions as one regiment of tracked BMPs to two regiments of wheeled BTRs. As such, BTR regiments would be expected to screen the advance, or cover the flank of the defence, which would be focused on the BMP regiment and supported by the tank regiment.

[Korva]

I'm not sure the BTRs will be screening much beyond his military's mad dash down R217 highway towards (relative) safety.

[Immoren]

I remember someone saying that, it be that while tank and BMP unit spearheads the formation through the crosscountry, the flanking/screening BTR units would be only required to advance on the roads along side of front of advance, so wheels would be enough. Of course this would pose its own problems.

[Purpelia]

Well to be fair there is the fact that the Soviet army was just that much larger than their enemies. The BTR are only really inadequate should your enemy be able to reliably deliver superior AFVs to counter them. So if you have enough BMP's to advance and engage the enemy tying up all of their IFV's and enough tanks to tie up their tanks than having most of your army driving in APC's makes sense.

Hell, even if you don't have the numbers its not the end of the world because ultimately you don't need to be superior to all of your enemies all of the time. You just need to concentrate your forces properly so that you are superior to them at the right time and in the right place.

[Prosorusiya]

I see. I'm mainly going to use them as a kind of rapid response to Russia incursions over my borders, and was relying on Panzergrenadier type tactics of staying with the vehicle to the last possible moment before dismounting. IDK if that is more of a BMP thing though. I'm trying to flesh out an all wheeled brigade structure that will make it easily self deployable, for whatever situation might drive.

I guess my real confusion some when looking at the Soviet MR orbits, and seeing all the presumably not vehicle mounted Saggers\Konkors and what not an wondering what to do with that, given that the infantry would have to be mostly stationary to use them, which is contradictory to tactics emphasizing reliance of vehicle in the fighting.

[Dostanuot Loj]

The two APCs I use are the BTR-60PB, which has top and side hatches, and the BTR-152K, with top hatches only.

BTR-60PB:
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/inf/BTR-60/BTR-60PB_00.jpg
BTR-152K:
http://scalemodellingcentral.blob.core.windows.net/participants/20140309061356/1791b60c-c30d-4065-ba60-f79f260b8206.jpg

I wonder what the cage armor would do to the suspension, if it adds to the weight of the vehicle. Both vehicles are very old (hence the need for upgrades) and are later developments of their base mode ( the base 60 and 152 where originally both open top, and the PB added a MG turret) already loaded down with armor, so idk if this will work. On the other hand, without bar armor their survivability on a modern day field of combat is even more limited.

BTR-152 has a rear door as well.

Does anyone know why some tanks (German, Old Soviet) placed the loader on the right hand side of the turret instead of the left? Its a bit trivial, but surely the fact that most people are right handed would mean that placing the loader on the left side would be more practical. Amirite?

It's pretty much to do with arm strength. It was assumed the loader's continued strength would be more important. Now, with rounds as heavy as they are, continued strength is less important but pushing the round in is. Current loaders can't even begin to match the sustained rate of fire of WW2 era loaders, but they don't need to. Their rounds are much heavier, and much better.

Apparently the Israelis have a thing that is a refurbished M60 that they have set up to look like a fake MBT, but in reality it has a box launcher full of Spike ER missiles with a range of 35km.

It's an M-48 not an M-60.

As I recall pieced together from remembering other people discuss it - the use of BTR and BMP in Soviet rifle divisions was partly one of cost. The Soviets could afford to mix their fighting divisions as one regiment of tracked BMPs to two regiments of wheeled BTRs. As such, BTR regiments would be expected to screen the advance, or cover the flank of the defence, which would be focused on the BMP regiment and supported by the tank regiment.

I remember someone saying that, it be that while tank and BMP unit spearheads the formation through the crosscountry, the flanking/screening BTR units would be only required to advance on the roads along side of front of advance, so wheels would be enough. Of course this would pose its own problems.

These are both right.
Cost was a huge factor, but the Soviets worked some commie magic and made their potential disadvantage into an advantage.

[Prosorusiya]

The two APCs I use are the BTR-60PB, which has top and side hatches, and the BTR-152K, with top hatches only.

BTR-60PB:
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/inf/BTR-60/BTR-60PB_00.jpg
BTR-152K:
http://scalemodellingcentral.blob.core.windows.net/participants/20140309061356/1791b60c-c30d-4065-ba60-f79f260b8206.jpg

I wonder what the cage armor would do to the suspension, if it adds to the weight of the vehicle. Both vehicles are very old (hence the need for upgrades) and are later developments of their base mode ( the base 60 and 152 where originally both open top, and the PB added a MG turret) already loaded down with armor, so idk if this will work. On the other hand, without bar armor their survivability on a modern day field of combat is even more limited.

BTR-152 has a rear door as well.

Does anyone know why some tanks (German, Old Soviet) placed the loader on the right hand side of the turret instead of the left? Its a bit trivial, but surely the fact that most people are right handed would mean that placing the loader on the left side would be more practical. Amirite?

It's pretty much to do with arm strength. It was assumed the loader's continued strength would be more important. Now, with rounds as heavy as they are, continued strength is less important but pushing the round in is. Current loaders can't even begin to match the sustained rate of fire of WW2 era loaders, but they don't need to. Their rounds are much heavier, and much better.

Apparently the Israelis have a thing that is a refurbished M60 that they have set up to look like a fake MBT, but in reality it has a box launcher full of Spike ER missiles with a range of 35km.

It's an M-48 not an M-60.

As I recall pieced together from remembering other people discuss it - the use of BTR and BMP in Soviet rifle divisions was partly one of cost. The Soviets could afford to mix their fighting divisions as one regiment of tracked BMPs to two regiments of wheeled BTRs. As such, BTR regiments would be expected to screen the advance, or cover the flank of the defence, which would be focused on the BMP regiment and supported by the tank regiment.

I remember someone saying that, it be that while tank and BMP unit spearheads the formation through the crosscountry, the flanking/screening BTR units would be only required to advance on the roads along side of front of advance, so wheels would be enough. Of course this would pose its own problems.

These are both right.
Cost was a huge factor, but the Soviets worked some commie magic and made their potential disadvantage into an advantage.

Cool! Yes, noticed that rear door in the video. All I can say is awesome and whoops. Additional whoops, apparently what I bought was not the K BTR-152, but the uncovered one. Could a uncovered BTR-152 be easily converted to the K version? Also, what was the usual armament of a BTR-152K? It appears to be unable to mount a DShKa, much to my disappointment.

I am also trying to decide what I am going to do about air defense and artillery for my infantry brigade\regiment.

[Eisarn-Ara]

Alright, design of the tank begins. Calling it the "Bristleback" for now.

I did actually come up with some neat terms for panzer stuff. Tanks are "Theihwo-waghen" or "Thunder-Wagons"; for a Panzergruppe/Kampfgruppe equivalent I've got "Haifstsskarja" or "Battle Group". So, things are slowly starting to get fleshed out, sort of.

TL/DR Version, my dedicated niche medium-tank-ish Sherman/PzIV/Panther equivalent is actually coming along nicely alongside CoLang fiddly-diddly for the creation of Gothic Tanker terms (further fiddly-diddly required). Which is pretty fuckin' great overall.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

How accepting are modern militaries of 'personalizations' of soldiers' AFVs? Like this, or this? And would it be nonkosher to do kill rings?