Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO FUN] Mark IX

[Grand Russian Federation]

In fact, I believe the T-34M upgrade that got discarded switched out Christie suspension for torsion bar. Unfortunately, Barbarossa threw that plan out of the window and instead of meeting 3-man-turret T-34Ms in 1942, the Wehrmacht met inexperienced T-34s (2-man-turret) during the chaotic reorganization of the Soviet Army.

So yeah, go with torsion bars if you want a better tank.

[Krasny-Volny]

This was the first tank Freeman ever made. It was part of the industrialization program of the late 1940s and 1950s.
It was outdated by when compared to other tanks of the time.
(Image)

Hull front 130 mm (upper part)
70 mm (lower part),
Hull side 40 mm°(upper part),
Hull rear 45 mm,
Hull top 20 mm,
Hull bottom 12 mm,
Turret front 95 mm ,
Turret side 60 mm,
Turret rear 40 mm,
Turret top 14 mm
Suspension Christie
In service 1950–1980s

What's that padding between the gun and turret? Is it to help absorb recoil or something? I've seen it a lot on AFVs with low recoil cannon.

[Husseinarti]

This was the first tank Freeman ever made. It was part of the industrialization program of the late 1940s and 1950s.
It was outdated by when compared to other tanks of the time.
(Image)

Hull front 130 mm (upper part)
70 mm (lower part),
Hull side 40 mm°(upper part),
Hull rear 45 mm,
Hull top 20 mm,
Hull bottom 12 mm,
Turret front 95 mm ,
Turret side 60 mm,
Turret rear 40 mm,
Turret top 14 mm
Suspension Christie
In service 1950–1980s

What's that padding between the gun and turret? Is it to help absorb recoil or something? I've seen it a lot on AFVs with low recoil cannon.

Its to seal it against NBC threats iirc.

[Krasny-Volny]

What's that padding between the gun and turret? Is it to help absorb recoil or something? I've seen it a lot on AFVs with low recoil cannon.

Its to seal it against NBC threats iirc.

...

Serious?

[North Arkana]

Its to seal it against NBC threats iirc.

...

Serious?

Mhm. Though tbh, having an internal seal would probably be better, or at least having the external seal hidden behind the mantlet.

[The Akasha Colony]

Its to seal it against NBC threats iirc.

...

Serious?

It's a general seal against the elements and I guess later could be NBC, but it was not uncommon in a number of warship designs much earlier:

[Krasny-Volny]

...

Serious?

It's a general seal against the elements and I guess later could be NBC, but it was not uncommon in a number of warship designs much earlier:

Yeah I thought about that but I would've guessed that maybe warships and ground vehicles use it for different purposes.

anyway, I've seen the same layer on any number of non-NBC protected vehicles, which is why I was a little surprised when Husseinarti said it was for that purpose.

[Laritaia]

on battleships it kept water out of the turret helped with flash tightness

[Freeman]

This was the first tank Freeman ever made. It was part of the industrialization program of the late 1940s and 1950s.
It was outdated by when compared to other tanks of the time.
(Image)

Hull front 130 mm (upper part)
70 mm (lower part),
Hull side 40 mm°(upper part),
Hull rear 45 mm,
Hull top 20 mm,
Hull bottom 12 mm,
Turret front 95 mm ,
Turret side 60 mm,
Turret rear 40 mm,
Turret top 14 mm
Suspension Christie
In service 1950–1980s

What's that padding between the gun and turret? Is it to help absorb recoil or something? I've seen it a lot on AFVs with low recoil cannon.

I had seen it on brit tanks so I added it to the my tank.
http://preservedtanks.com/Albums/British/3400-A41%20Centurion/P1040121_Cent_Lulworth_c.jpg
My idea for it was if a backwater land made a tank during industrialisation.
They could have copied from other designs but having on experience they would have made some mistakes.
Like useing the Christie Suspension on a 1950s tank.

[Crookfur]

It wouldn't so much be a case of making mistakes but a case of making decisions based on different constraints ie what is available to them and what they are used to working with. A tank design never occurs in an isolated bubble but the process will be heavily influenced by both what local heavy industry can do and what the end user/buyer wants/thinks they need.

[Grossdeutsches-Reich]

Here our proposed Leopard III:



With a crew of three and a 130 mm rifled gun it will be our new MBT. Thoughts or opinions?

[Laritaia]

quadtracks are not a good idea .

[Korva]

[UIJ]

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

Okay, these things look awesome. What's a Padnak?

[Spirit of Hope]

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

Okay, these things look awesome. What's a Padnak?

Padnak is an NS nation, that basically plays as a poor third world nation. We reference these things as Padnak because he has in the past used them for RP's, and asked about their usefulness vs. purpose built equipment.

[Hrstrovokia]

Got in a bit of a debate with a friend, we were talking about anti-aircraft artillery and whether it still has any meaningful role in today's military. I'm not talking about self-propelled vehicles like Gepard or Tunguska, I think they definitely have a useful role. More like towed AAA guns or static positions.

Was wondering if any of you more in the know could put some opinion into this?

My argument is that including some AAA guns to complement your SAM defences can be very useful, in that not only does the AAA provide close-in defence against low-flying aircraft that might penetrate an air defence zone and be below a SAMs engagement envelope but the AAAs can also be used against ground targets, say for instance guerrilla fighters or insurgents took you by surprise, which SAMs couldn't target. I was also trying to make the case that in an environment with high use of electronic warfare at least AAA could still operate but my friend says AAA still uses radar and fire control directors so it does rely on stuff that could be put out by EW.

His argument is that AAA guns, unless self-propelled, have no place in a modern military, SAMs can do the job better, and training men and having material to do that job is a waste of resources. There are shorter range or MANPAD SAMs that can provide close-in defence anyway.

[The Akasha Colony]

Okay, these things look awesome. What's a Padnak?

Padnak is an NS nation, that basically plays as a poor third world nation. We reference these things as Padnak because he has in the past used them for RP's, and asked about their usefulness vs. purpose built equipment.

More like because it's become a forced meme.

Got in a bit of a debate with a friend, we were talking about anti-aircraft artillery and whether it still has any meaningful role in today's military. I'm not talking about self-propelled vehicles like Gepard or Tunguska, I think they definitely have a useful role. More like towed AAA guns or static positions.

Was wondering if any of you more in the know could put some opinion into this?

My argument is that including some AAA guns to complement your SAM defences can be very useful, in that not only does the AAA provide close-in defence against low-flying aircraft that might penetrate an air defence zone and be below a SAMs engagement envelope but the AAAs can also be used against ground targets, say for instance guerrilla fighters or insurgents took you by surprise, which SAMs couldn't target. I was also trying to make the case that in an environment with high use of electronic warfare at least AAA could still operate but my friend says AAA still uses radar and fire control directors so it does rely on stuff that could be put out by EW.

His argument is that AAA guns, unless self-propelled, have no place in a modern military, SAMs can do the job better, and training men and having material to do that job is a waste of resources. There are shorter range or MANPAD SAMs that can provide close-in defence anyway.

He's right. For ranges longer than a few kilometers, which is basically the realm of autocannons as on Pantsir and Tunguska, missiles are superior and big guns don't add anything to the mix.

[Spirit of Hope]

Got in a bit of a debate with a friend, we were talking about anti-aircraft artillery and whether it still has any meaningful role in today's military. I'm not talking about self-propelled vehicles like Gepard or Tunguska, I think they definitely have a useful role. More like towed AAA guns or static positions.

Was wondering if any of you more in the know could put some opinion into this?

My argument is that including some AAA guns to complement your SAM defences can be very useful, in that not only does the AAA provide close-in defence against low-flying aircraft that might penetrate an air defence zone and be below a SAMs engagement envelope but the AAAs can also be used against ground targets, say for instance guerrilla fighters or insurgents took you by surprise, which SAMs couldn't target. I was also trying to make the case that in an environment with high use of electronic warfare at least AAA could still operate but my friend says AAA still uses radar and fire control directors so it does rely on stuff that could be put out by EW.

His argument is that AAA guns, unless self-propelled, have no place in a modern military, SAMs can do the job better, and training men and having material to do that job is a waste of resources. There are shorter range or MANPAD SAMs that can provide close-in defence anyway.

Why would you use static or towed AAA? Having some form of attached transport isn't going to massively increase it's cost and allows it to be much more flexible. All most all SAM's are designed to be mobile for a reason, so that they can re position and be harder to destroy. Fixed or towed AAA would just slow down the movement of the entire unit. It also allows AAA to keep up with front line units and better support them in combat operations.

As to AAA's usefulness, I would say mostly it is for front line units where it would be engaging helicopters or low flying ground attack aircraft. For more strategic defenses you would have layered air defenses, coupled with your own aviation assets. Low flying aircraft can still be engaged by SAM's, and would be more vulnerable to other aircraft.

Padnak is an NS nation, that basically plays as a poor third world nation. We reference these things as Padnak because he has in the past used them for RP's, and asked about their usefulness vs. purpose built equipment.

More like because it's become a forced meme.

That to.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

Small-caliber towed AAA can be a threat to helicopters and slow-flying aircraft like the A-10, but any larger and you either want self-propelled AAA(because why keep it towed if you don't have to) or SAMs.

If you're a shitty third world country with lots of old equipment, then you will probably have lots of ZSU-37s and the like lying around, but making them 1000x better is as simple and bolting it to the back of a Hilux. Because no one wants to drag around a several thousand kilogram autocannon and its ammunition.

[UIJ]

Okay, these things look awesome. What's a Padnak?

Padnak is an NS nation, that basically plays as a poor third world nation. We reference these things as Padnak because he has in the past used them for RP's, and asked about their usefulness vs. purpose built equipment.

Ah, I see.

[Hrstrovokia]

Why would you use static or towed AAA? Having some form of attached transport isn't going to massively increase it's cost and allows it to be much more flexible. All most all SAM's are designed to be mobile for a reason, so that they can re position and be harder to destroy. Fixed or towed AAA would just slow down the movement of the entire unit. It also allows AAA to keep up with front line units and better support them in combat operations.

As to AAA's usefulness, I would say mostly it is for front line units where it would be engaging helicopters or low flying ground attack aircraft. For more strategic defenses you would have layered air defenses, coupled with your own aviation assets. Low flying aircraft can still be engaged by SAM's, and would be more vulnerable to other aircraft.

Well I have a company of AAA present in my Air Defence brigades. It's just 6 Zu-23M (23mm AAA with x2 Igla SAMs). The company has 17 men and 10 vehicles with the 6 Zu-23M being towed. To me it's part of a layered air defence zone - they are just for close-in stuff that the Tor M2 or 1 Pantsyr-S1 (the SAM close-in stuff) hasn't picked off.

I would see the Zu-23M being deployed around the premier asset of the Air Defence brigade (depending on the type in our military, it's either S-400, S-300PMU2 or Buk-M1-2). I figure that the time it takes to set up the AAA is probably equal to the time those premier assets need to set up radar and other things like transloaders and power facilities so its not a huge slow down to the unit to have these things set up and then back it all in to move.

[Fascist Islands of Gina]

What's that padding between the gun and turret? Is it to help absorb recoil or something? I've seen it a lot on AFVs with low recoil cannon.

I had seen it on brit tanks so I added it to the my tank.
http://preservedtanks.com/Albums/British/3400-A41%20Centurion/P1040121_Cent_Lulworth_c.jpg
My idea for it was if a backwater land made a tank during industrialisation.
They could have copied from other designs but having on experience they would have made some mistakes.
Like useing the Christie Suspension on a 1950s tank.

That tank is shit and you copied me!

[The Akasha Colony]

Well I have a company of AAA present in my Air Defence brigades. It's just 6 Zu-23M (23mm AAA with x2 Igla SAMs). The company has 17 men and 10 vehicles with the 6 Zu-23M being towed. To me it's part of a layered air defence zone - they are just for close-in stuff that the Tor M2 or 1 Pantsyr-S1 (the SAM close-in stuff) hasn't picked off.

Why would you not just have Pantsir pick off those targets too? It's not like Pantsir has a "minimum range" or something that towed AA addresses. You are aware that Pantsir-S1 has guns in addition to its missiles, right? If you're really concerned about getting swarmed at short range, dump the Zu-23Ms and buy more SPAAGs. They're better in every way.

I would see the Zu-23M being deployed around the premier asset of the Air Defence brigade (depending on the type in our military, it's either S-400, S-300PMU2 or Buk-M1-2). I figure that the time it takes to set up the AAA is probably equal to the time those premier assets need to set up radar and other things like transloaders and power facilities so its not a huge slow down to the unit to have these things set up and then back it all in to move.

Yes but it's wasted effort. Those men could be doing something more useful, like manning a SPAAG that can provide protection to the unit on the march as well as while emplaced, or attached to forward units if required to shore up their defenses.

[Stahn]

Here our proposed Leopard III:

(Image)

With a crew of three and a 130 mm rifled gun it will be our new MBT. Thoughts or opinions?

Did you make this model?

[Western Pacific Territories]

I had seen it on brit tanks so I added it to the my tank.
http://preservedtanks.com/Albums/British/3400-A41%20Centurion/P1040121_Cent_Lulworth_c.jpg
My idea for it was if a backwater land made a tank during industrialisation.
They could have copied from other designs but having on experience they would have made some mistakes.
Like useing the Christie Suspension on a 1950s tank.

That tank is shit and you copied me!

Nice meme