NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mark IX Spitfire

[Keskinen]

Using it myself, I'm highly biased towards the Leopard 2, especially the newer 2A7 and brand new 2A8. The armor upgrades are reported to be absolutely astounding and given the resources, no one makes great tanks like the Germans.

[The European Federation-]

Using it myself, I'm highly biased towards the Leopard 2, especially the newer 2A7 and brand new 2A8. The armor upgrades are reported to be absolutely astounding and given the resources, no one makes great tanks like the Germans.

I know it was designed especially for armoured warfare, so check there. But what about infantry support? and would it be vulnerable to IEDs ad modern Russian anti-tank aircraft?

[Imperializt Russia]

So what's the perspective on towed AT guns these days?

Made obsolete by Anti-Tank Missiles.

ATGM Mounts are today's AT Guns.

Actually not. The west ditched AT guns because they didn't like the manpower or mobility requirements (read, a lot). ATGMs offered a lot more per man and are substantially more mobile (in that, almost all can be carried by a single man or small dismounted team).

An anti-tank gun requires a crew of several men and realistically, a vehicle to tow. But it can outperform an ATGM in a number of fields, certainly outperforming most MANPAT.

[Laritaia]

and yet you heard good things about the Chally 2 of all things? a tank which is basically a chieftain in a pretty frock.

It has its drawbacks of course. I heard one was damaged by an IED. My main focus is tank that can hold up well to current Russian armour (my ns is currently engaged in an arms race/Cold war with Russia) and the chally seems to be good for said task. Though the new T-14 Armata is a strong case for something better the chally I all fairness. If not the Chally, what would you suggest? Leclerc?

The Challenger 2 is made of drawbacks, its very outdated and deeply flawed vehicle.

It's only real advantage is it's armour.

[Husseinarti]

FNC is better than both those guns. FAMAS if you want to be super cool ad use Felin.

Main tank should be a chally 2 with a smoothbore 120mm shoved in it somehow.

or w/e you probs can't do that reasonably well.

In your opinion what makes the FNC superior to the FAMAS?

In super little meaningless terms, the FN FNC is a better rifle than the FAMAS.

Using it myself, I'm highly biased towards the Leopard 2, especially the newer 2A7 and brand new 2A8. The armor upgrades are reported to be absolutely astounding and given the resources, no one makes great tanks like the Germans.

Yep.

[The Akasha Colony]

Honestly I didn't hear a lot of good things about it from a friend, I'll do some research into it. What are its merits in terms of modern warfare in your opinion?

The fact that it's not Challenger 2 or Leopard 2.

Challenger 2's origins date back to the 1960s and it is functionally an updated Chieftain. And while the Chieftain was a good tank for the 1960s, it's not an ideal tank for the 2000s. It still uses a rifled gun with two-piece ammunition, the latter of which in particular has a limiting effect on penetration because it limits the length of the penetrators. Replacing the L30 with something like the Rheinmetall smoothbore would require another completely new turret to be designed and produced, which is why it wasn't done IRL. It has good turret protection but its hull protection is optimized for dug-in fighting rather than mobile operations, a holdover from the Chieftain era when the British Army of the Rhine expected to be digging in against the Communist assault rolling through the North German Plain. In the competition that eventually resulted in the Challenger 2, the M1A2 Abrams and especially the Leopard 2A5 were preferred by the Army over the Challenger 2 prototypes, but the CR2 was selected for a number of other reasons (largely economic and political).

Leopard 2 dates to the 1970s and still has a number of uncorrected issues in its design, particularly in turret protection. This was considered fatal to its chances under British consideration until the Germans provided the Leopard 2 Improved (which became the Leopard 2A5) which addressed some of these problems. But the ammunition storage arrangements are suboptimal from a crew safety standpoint and it's also a relatively large tank compared to more modern vehicles like Leclerc.

Leclerc in comparison is lighter and more compact than either Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 and uses an autoloader, reducing the protected volume. It also uses electric turret drives, eliminating the danger posed by the hydraulic drives used on older tanks. It uses a smoothbore gun with single-piece ammunition, which provides superior flexibility to CR2's rifled gun and compatibility with a huge range of 120 mm smoothbore ammunition produced by basically every Western or Western-aligned nation that isn't Britain.

I know it was designed especially for armoured warfare, so check there. But what about infantry support? and would it be vulnerable to IEDs ad modern Russian anti-tank aircraft?

"Infantry support" just means having a machine gun and some kind of multipurpose HE round like MPAT/HEAT-MP/AMP for the main gun. And every tank has these. Maybe an infantry telephone too.

Every tank is vulnerable to IEDs of sufficient size, and every tank is also vulnerable to air attack. But this is less of a specific design issue and more of a "there's always a bigger bomb" issue. What do you expect a modern tank is supposed to do against an attack aircraft?

[Husseinarti]

Made obsolete by Anti-Tank Missiles.

ATGM Mounts are today's AT Guns.

Actually not. The west ditched AT guns because they didn't like the manpower or mobility requirements (read, a lot). ATGMs offered a lot more per man and are substantially more mobile (in that, almost all can be carried by a single man or small dismounted team).

An anti-tank gun requires a crew of several men and realistically, a vehicle to tow. But it can outperform an ATGM in a number of fields, certainly outperforming most MANPAT.

L7 towed AT gun + M900 KEP = ultimate camping T-72 killer?

[Keskinen]

Using it myself, I'm highly biased towards the Leopard 2, especially the newer 2A7 and brand new 2A8. The armor upgrades are reported to be absolutely astounding and given the resources, no one makes great tanks like the Germans.

I know it was designed especially for armoured warfare, so check there. But what about infantry support? and would it be vulnerable to IEDs ad modern Russian anti-tank aircraft?

Technically, everything's vulnerable to anti-tank aircraft, but the Leopard 2A7+ is the variant that's optimized for "high-intensity" combat. The A8 though, I'm not too sure about it; all I've heard is that it exists and was showcased but there's no information that I can find from a reliable source as of the last time I looked.

[The European Federation-]

It has its drawbacks of course. I heard one was damaged by an IED. My main focus is tank that can hold up well to current Russian armour (my ns is currently engaged in an arms race/Cold war with Russia) and the chally seems to be good for said task. Though the new T-14 Armata is a strong case for something better the chally I all fairness. If not the Chally, what would you suggest? Leclerc?

The Challenger 2 is made of drawbacks, its very outdated and deeply flawed vehicle.

It's only real advantage is it's armour.

Mmm, maybe a support tank then. Ad what of the Leopard 2 or Leclerc? Or would a new MBT be needed for a European Army preparing for war on its Eastern border?

[Husseinarti]

Honestly I didn't hear a lot of good things about it from a friend, I'll do some research into it. What are its merits in terms of modern warfare in your opinion?

The fact that it's not Challenger 2 or Leopard 2.

Challenger 2's origins date back to the 1960s and it is functionally an updated Chieftain. And while the Chieftain was a good tank for the 1960s, it's not an ideal tank for the 2000s. It still uses a rifled gun with two-piece ammunition, the latter of which in particular has a limiting effect on penetration because it limits the length of the penetrators. Replacing the L30 with something like the Rheinmetall smoothbore would require another completely new turret to be designed and produced, which is why it wasn't done IRL. It has good turret protection but its hull protection is optimized for dug-in fighting rather than mobile operations, a holdover from the Chieftain era when the British Army of the Rhine expected to be digging in against the Communist assault rolling through the North German Plain. In the competition that eventually resulted in the Challenger 2, the M1A2 Abrams and especially the Leopard 2A5 were preferred by the Army over the Challenger 2 prototypes, but the CR2 was selected for a number of other reasons (largely economic and political).

Leopard 2 dates to the 1970s and still has a number of uncorrected issues in its design, particularly in turret protection. This was considered fatal to its chances under British consideration until the Germans provided the Leopard 2 Improved (which became the Leopard 2A5) which addressed some of these problems. But the ammunition storage arrangements are suboptimal from a crew safety standpoint and it's also a relatively large tank compared to more modern vehicles like Leclerc.

Leclerc in comparison is lighter and more compact than either Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 and uses an autoloader, reducing the protected volume. It also uses electric turret drives, eliminating the danger posed by the hydraulic drives used on older tanks. It uses a smoothbore gun with single-piece ammunition, which provides superior flexibility to CR2's rifled gun and compatibility with a huge range of 120 mm smoothbore ammunition produced by basically every Western or Western-aligned nation that isn't Britain.

I know it was designed especially for armoured warfare, so check there. But what about infantry support? and would it be vulnerable to IEDs ad modern Russian anti-tank aircraft?

"Infantry support" just means having a machine gun and some kind of multipurpose HE round like MPAT/HEAT-MP/AMP for the main gun. And every tank has these. Maybe an infantry telephone too.

Every tank is vulnerable to IEDs of sufficient size, and every tank is also vulnerable to air attack. But this is less of a specific design issue and more of a "there's always a bigger bomb" issue. What do you expect a modern tank is supposed to do against an attack aircraft?

The Leclerc's Giat 120/52 gun uses French produced ammo, which is supposed to be like the in between of German and US ammo, as the French use DU ammo iirc. However you can run NATO standard 120mm ammo though it as well.

The Challenger 2 is made of drawbacks, its very outdated and deeply flawed vehicle.

It's only real advantage is it's armour.

Mmm, maybe a support tank then. Ad what of the Leopard 2 or Leclerc? Or would a new MBT be needed for a European Army preparing for war on its Eastern border?

\

Just spam Leclercs. The idea of a 'support tank' is a bit dated.

[The Akasha Colony]

The Challenger 2 is made of drawbacks, its very outdated and deeply flawed vehicle.

It's only real advantage is it's armour.

Mmm, maybe a support tank then. Ad what of the Leopard 2 or Leclerc? Or would a new MBT be needed for a European Army preparing for war on its Eastern border?

There's no point in a "support tank." If it's something your main battle tank needs a support tank to do, then it might be time to think about replacing your current MBT with one that eliminates the need for a separate support tank.

[Keskinen]

In your opinion what makes the FNC superior to the FAMAS?

In super little meaningless terms, the FN FNC is a better rifle than the FAMAS.

Using it myself, I'm highly biased towards the Leopard 2, especially the newer 2A7 and brand new 2A8. The armor upgrades are reported to be absolutely astounding and given the resources, no one makes great tanks like the Germans.

Yep.

Note that I said "Given the resources". And lets be honest, compared to many German designs, the Sherman was nothing more than mass-produced desperation. In terms of armor, it wasn't great, most of its sides were nearly if not vertical and it ran on gasoline (Hence, Tommy Cookers)

[The European Federation-]

Honestly I didn't hear a lot of good things about it from a friend, I'll do some research into it. What are its merits in terms of modern warfare in your opinion?

The fact that it's not Challenger 2 or Leopard 2.

Challenger 2's origins date back to the 1960s and it is functionally an updated Chieftain. And while the Chieftain was a good tank for the 1960s, it's not an ideal tank for the 2000s. It still uses a rifled gun with two-piece ammunition, the latter of which in particular has a limiting effect on penetration because it limits the length of the penetrators. Replacing the L30 with something like the Rheinmetall smoothbore would require another completely new turret to be designed and produced, which is why it wasn't done IRL. It has good turret protection but its hull protection is optimized for dug-in fighting rather than mobile operations, a holdover from the Chieftain era when the British Army of the Rhine expected to be digging in against the Communist assault rolling through the North German Plain. In the competition that eventually resulted in the Challenger 2, the M1A2 Abrams and especially the Leopard 2A5 were preferred by the Army over the Challenger 2 prototypes, but the CR2 was selected for a number of other reasons (largely economic and political).

Leopard 2 dates to the 1970s and still has a number of uncorrected issues in its design, particularly in turret protection. This was considered fatal to its chances under British consideration until the Germans provided the Leopard 2 Improved (which became the Leopard 2A5) which addressed some of these problems. But the ammunition storage arrangements are suboptimal from a crew safety standpoint and it's also a relatively large tank compared to more modern vehicles like Leclerc.

Leclerc in comparison is lighter and more compact than either Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 and uses an autoloader, reducing the protected volume. It also uses electric turret drives, eliminating the danger posed by the hydraulic drives used on older tanks. It uses a smoothbore gun with single-piece ammunition, which provides superior flexibility to CR2's rifled gun and compatibility with a huge range of 120 mm smoothbore ammunition produced by basically every Western or Western-aligned nation that isn't Britain.

I know it was designed especially for armoured warfare, so check there. But what about infantry support? and would it be vulnerable to IEDs ad modern Russian anti-tank aircraft?

"Infantry support" just means having a machine gun and some kind of multipurpose HE round like MPAT/HEAT-MP/AMP for the main gun. And every tank has these. Maybe an infantry telephone too.

Every tank is vulnerable to IEDs of sufficient size, and every tank is also vulnerable to air attack. But this is less of a specific design issue and more of a "there's always a bigger bomb" issue. What do you expect a modern tank is supposed to do against an attack aircraft?

Ok, So sadly Chally 2 has seen its day then. Its eliminated as a possible MBT for the EA. So its either the Leopard 2A5 or Leclerc.

[The European Federation-]

Mmm, maybe a support tank then. Ad what of the Leopard 2 or Leclerc? Or would a new MBT be needed for a European Army preparing for war on its Eastern border?

There's no point in a "support tank." If it's something your main battle tank needs a support tank to do, then it might be time to think about replacing your current MBT with one that eliminates the need for a separate support tank.

Something to put on my military's to do list then. Challenger is eliminated as a possibility.

[Imperializt Russia]

Strictly speaking, surely, it's not being two-piece ammunition that limits penetrator length. For a given length of overall projectile, it does certainly and favours single-piece shells whose penetrator can be almost the full length of the round.
This is, obviously, especially true of autoloaders which for mechanical reasons probably have a fixed length it can accept. Especially especially true of Russian-type carousel loaders with a very fixed length of not just the complete round, but its constituent parts.

I don't believe that, potential stowage concerns aside, anything strictly limits CHARM 3 from having an arbitrary length of KEP.

Actually not. The west ditched AT guns because they didn't like the manpower or mobility requirements (read, a lot). ATGMs offered a lot more per man and are substantially more mobile (in that, almost all can be carried by a single man or small dismounted team).

An anti-tank gun requires a crew of several men and realistically, a vehicle to tow. But it can outperform an ATGM in a number of fields, certainly outperforming most MANPAT.

L7 towed AT gun + M900 KEP = ultimate camping T-72 killer?

If you were here right now, you might have heard me get hard.

[Laritaia]

In super little meaningless terms, the FN FNC is a better rifle than the FAMAS.





Yep.

Note that I said "Given the resources". And lets be honest, compared to many German designs, the Sherman was nothing more than mass-produced desperation. In terms of armor, it wasn't great, most of its sides were nearly if not vertical and it ran on gasoline (Hence, Tommy Cookers)

what do you think German tanks ran on, pixie tears and fairy dust?

[The European Federation-]

The fact that it's not Challenger 2 or Leopard 2.

Challenger 2's origins date back to the 1960s and it is functionally an updated Chieftain. And while the Chieftain was a good tank for the 1960s, it's not an ideal tank for the 2000s. It still uses a rifled gun with two-piece ammunition, the latter of which in particular has a limiting effect on penetration because it limits the length of the penetrators. Replacing the L30 with something like the Rheinmetall smoothbore would require another completely new turret to be designed and produced, which is why it wasn't done IRL. It has good turret protection but its hull protection is optimized for dug-in fighting rather than mobile operations, a holdover from the Chieftain era when the British Army of the Rhine expected to be digging in against the Communist assault rolling through the North German Plain. In the competition that eventually resulted in the Challenger 2, the M1A2 Abrams and especially the Leopard 2A5 were preferred by the Army over the Challenger 2 prototypes, but the CR2 was selected for a number of other reasons (largely economic and political).

Leopard 2 dates to the 1970s and still has a number of uncorrected issues in its design, particularly in turret protection. This was considered fatal to its chances under British consideration until the Germans provided the Leopard 2 Improved (which became the Leopard 2A5) which addressed some of these problems. But the ammunition storage arrangements are suboptimal from a crew safety standpoint and it's also a relatively large tank compared to more modern vehicles like Leclerc.

Leclerc in comparison is lighter and more compact than either Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 and uses an autoloader, reducing the protected volume. It also uses electric turret drives, eliminating the danger posed by the hydraulic drives used on older tanks. It uses a smoothbore gun with single-piece ammunition, which provides superior flexibility to CR2's rifled gun and compatibility with a huge range of 120 mm smoothbore ammunition produced by basically every Western or Western-aligned nation that isn't Britain.



"Infantry support" just means having a machine gun and some kind of multipurpose HE round like MPAT/HEAT-MP/AMP for the main gun. And every tank has these. Maybe an infantry telephone too.

Every tank is vulnerable to IEDs of sufficient size, and every tank is also vulnerable to air attack. But this is less of a specific design issue and more of a "there's always a bigger bomb" issue. What do you expect a modern tank is supposed to do against an attack aircraft?

The Leclerc's Giat 120/52 gun uses French produced ammo, which is supposed to be like the in between of German and US ammo, as the French use DU ammo iirc. However you can run NATO standard 120mm ammo though it as well.

Mmm, maybe a support tank then. Ad what of the Leopard 2 or Leclerc? Or would a new MBT be needed for a European Army preparing for war on its Eastern border?

\

Just spam Leclercs. The idea of a 'support tank' is a bit dated.

Ok then. By "Spam" do you mean forget it or go with it? Because I'm leaning that way right now.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Mmm, maybe a support tank then. Ad what of the Leopard 2 or Leclerc? Or would a new MBT be needed for a European Army preparing for war on its Eastern border?

There's no point in a "support tank." If it's something your main battle tank needs a support tank to do, then it might be time to think about replacing your current MBT with one that eliminates the need for a separate support tank.

BMPT says wut.

[Husseinarti]

In super little meaningless terms, the FN FNC is a better rifle than the FAMAS.



(Image)

Yep.

Note that I said "Given the resources". And lets be honest, compared to many German designs, the Sherman was nothing more than mass-produced desperation. In terms of armor, it wasn't great, most of its sides were nearly if not vertical and it ran on gasoline (Hence, Tommy Cookers)

http://ww2live.com/sites/default/files/images/20150604223049.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/38/0a/db/380adb8d355f62608500cc7d04e30386.jpg
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Breakout/img/USA-E-Breakout-p139.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nkwUAGvvI4E/Ul-FigsxOUI/AAAAAAAAIS4/VshxT6kB7B0/s1600/Operation-Bagration-eastern-front-1944-ww2-destroyed-german-tanks.jpg
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/858931-2/777
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ee/34/1d/ee341dda9028848778227bbd5ecee782.jpg

Pictured: Ayran supermen kill all the dumb American and British Tommy Cookers, Ronsens, shit-tier dumb Shermans, etc.

[Imperializt Russia]

There's no point in a "support tank." If it's something your main battle tank needs a support tank to do, then it might be time to think about replacing your current MBT with one that eliminates the need for a separate support tank.

BMPT says wut.

The poster meant using the Challenger to "support" whatever became his mainline MBT.

[Crookfur]

Hello all.

I would like some advise on what my nation's main battle rifle and main battle tank should be. A real world one is my goal.

My nation is a Federal Europe, with a common Armed forces, federal government, and constitution. The European Defence Forces (EDF) is dominated by British and French military thinking (With the UK and France producing 75% of European defence spending in the real world, a pan European Armed Forces being very Franco-British seems likely). I'd prefer it if the rifle/tank is "home grown" (i.e. European)

I've narrow the rifle to the following (bullpup design strongly preferred, British and French troops are used to operating this layout) :

French FAMAS/FAMAS G2 (currently leaning towards this model)

British SA80A2/L85A2 (As much as it pains me to say, can't say we Brits did well with the SA80. But it has been improved vastly I the last 15 years)

Belgium FN F2000

narrowed the tank to:

British Challenger 2 (currently leaning towards this monster)

German Leopard 2 (Badass but a close second)

Let me know your opinions on which should be chosen. the EDF has a superpower military budget that is close to (But a about 5-10 billion less then) the US defence budget of this year.

Cheers.

When are you selecting these things and when does this deeper union happen?

If you are buying today the rifle will be the HK416 or whatever the latest version of the AUG is. FN would love everyone to buy SCARs but that ain't happening based on current european purchases.

tankwise if the union happens in the 80s or early 90s then everyone uses leopard 2s although you could go off into fantasy land and have a Heavy Armour development of the leo 2 with Dorchester modules...

If you are buying now/in the near future then it will probably be worth waiting for what gets churned out as the new Europanzer and just use esisting national fleets until then.

[The Akasha Colony]

Note that I said "Given the resources". And lets be honest, compared to many German designs, the Sherman was nothing more than mass-produced desperation. In terms of armor, it wasn't great, most of its sides were nearly if not vertical and it ran on gasoline (Hence, Tommy Cookers)

German tanks used gasoline engines as well. The only ones who didn't were the Russians and the Japanese.

Ok, So sadly Chally 2 has seen its day then. Its eliminated as a possible MBT for the EA. So its either the Leopard 2A5 or Leclerc.

Why would you consider an older model of Leopard 2 rather than the most modern variant? Even the Bundeswehr has moved to the A6.

Strictly speaking, surely, it's not being two-piece ammunition that limits penetrator length. For a given length of overall projectile, it does certainly and favours single-piece shells whose penetrator can be almost the full length of the round.
This is, obviously, especially true of autoloaders which for mechanical reasons probably have a fixed length it can accept. Especially especially true of Russian-type carousel loaders with a very fixed length of not just the complete round, but its constituent parts.

I don't believe that, potential stowage concerns aside, anything strictly limits CHARM 3 from having an arbitrary length of KEP.

IMO, it's a bit unfair to chalk up 2A46's limits to the autoloader and not do the same to CR2's ammunition racks, which are unfortunately not of arbitrary length.

[Rich and Corporations]

Mmm, maybe a support tank then. Ad what of the Leopard 2 or Leclerc? Or would a new MBT be needed for a European Army preparing for war on its Eastern border?

There's no point in a "support tank." If it's something your main battle tank needs a support tank to do, then it might be time to think about replacing your current MBT with one that eliminates the need for a separate support tank.

Modern battle tanks are essentially heavy tanks.

While IFVs weigh nearly as much as medium tanks.

[The Akasha Colony]

The Leclerc's Giat 120/52 gun uses French produced ammo, which is supposed to be like the in between of German and US ammo, as the French use DU ammo iirc. However you can run NATO standard 120mm ammo though it as well.

\

Just spam Leclercs. The idea of a 'support tank' is a bit dated.

Ok then. By "Spam" do you mean forget it or go with it? Because I'm leaning that way right now.

He means buy a bunch of them and use them.

[The European Federation-]

So lets consider the Leclerc as Federal Europe's MBT for a moment.

The situation: EF ad Russia are engaged I a cold war. Open war could happen so Brussels needs to consider its defence needs. In terms of Tank warfare, the flashpoint is the Baltics and Nordic states which are EF member states, and are the only parts of the EF that border Russia. Euro armoured regiments would be facing the new T-14 Armata, as well as a fuck tonne of the older models . Would the Leclerc hold up well for this task?