Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Type 6

[Novislavia]

Has any government or army employed, or currently employ, the T-55AGM or T-62AGM?

Based on the manufacturer's website, which mentions conversions, i doubt government vehicles would be officially registered under those names. You're probably safe in fielding an "upgraded T-62", but I'm sure you could cross reference KMDB upgrades with modifications across tank versions for nations with those type tanks in service if you REALLY wanted to know.

Thank you. May you give me a link to the manufacturer's website?

EDIT: Never mind, I found it. Thanks again.

[Riysa]

So, I was talking with a mate over TG about his 68 ton tank, where I mentioned that I felt that some of the armor thickness values were high. What do you guys think?

LOS Armor Thickness by Area:
Chassis Front: 1,250 mm (1575mm RHAe vs KE, 2025mm vs CE)
Upper Glacis: 1,650 mm (2079mm RHAe vs KE, 2673mm vs CE)
Lower Glacis: 850 mm (1071mm RHAe vs KE, 1377mm vs CE)
Chassis Sides: 640 mm (806mm RHAe vs KE, 1037mm vs CE)
Track Siding: 180 mm (227mm RHAe vs KE, 292mm vs CE)
Chassis Rear: 380 mm (479mm RHAe vs KE, 616mm vs CE)
Chassis Top: 120 mm (151mm RHAe vs KE, 194mm vs CE)
Undercarriage: 270 mm (340mm RHAe vs KE, 437mm vs CE)
Turret Front: 1,400 mm (1764mm RHAe vs KE, 2268mm vs CE)
Turret Sides: 780 mm (983mm RHAe vs KE, 1264mm vs CE)
Turret Rear: 580 mm (731mm RHAe vs KE, 940mm vs CE)
Turret Roof: 160 mm (202mm RHAe vs KE, 259mm vs CE)

[Connori Pilgrims]

So, I was talking with a mate over TG about his 68 ton tank, where I mentioned that I felt that some of the armor thickness values were high. What do you guys think?

LOS Armor Thickness by Area:
Chassis Front: 1,250 mm (1575mm RHAe vs KE, 2025mm vs CE)
Upper Glacis: 1,650 mm (2079mm RHAe vs KE, 2673mm vs CE)
Lower Glacis: 850 mm (1071mm RHAe vs KE, 1377mm vs CE)
Chassis Sides: 640 mm (806mm RHAe vs KE, 1037mm vs CE)
Track Siding: 180 mm (227mm RHAe vs KE, 292mm vs CE)
Chassis Rear: 380 mm (479mm RHAe vs KE, 616mm vs CE)
Chassis Top: 120 mm (151mm RHAe vs KE, 194mm vs CE)
Undercarriage: 270 mm (340mm RHAe vs KE, 437mm vs CE)
Turret Front: 1,400 mm (1764mm RHAe vs KE, 2268mm vs CE)
Turret Sides: 780 mm (983mm RHAe vs KE, 1264mm vs CE)
Turret Rear: 580 mm (731mm RHAe vs KE, 940mm vs CE)
Turret Roof: 160 mm (202mm RHAe vs KE, 259mm vs CE)

I'd like to know the dimensions of the tank and what kind of materials he's using. However, his chassis rear and sides is stupidly heavy. So I highly doubt this thing will mass 68 tons... at the minimum it'd be more believable if its 80-90 tons.

[Novislavia]

I'm not going to use the T-55AGM and instead make my own modified version of the T-55M similar to it. Firstly, I'm going to replace the D-10T 100mm gun used in the T-55M with the T-72's 2A46M 125mm gun, add reactive armor, and, of course, an autoloader. I'll also be replacing the T-55M's DShK heavy machine gun with a PKT heavy machine gun, and adding a NSVT for defense against aircraft. As some of you may realize, it has many similarities with the T-55AGM. This is mostly due to the fact that I'm lazy and know very little about tanks.

Anyway, my question is what engine should I use to replace the T-55M's V-55U engine in order to supplement my variant's heavier load? If I could have a good Soviet engine, that would be great, but I'm willing to create my own engine if needed. If I do create my own engine, I will still need specifications on it. I'm sure the engine required will also depend on the additional weight of my tank, in which I would appreciate help figuring that out too.

[Imperializt Russia]

I've been drawing up a rough outline of my nations tank corps back to the 1940's and I was wondering if the Object 279 would have actually been effective if it was introduced? I don't share a land border with anyone and my economy is much more developed than the USSR's was in the same period, so there's no need for me to maintain a ridiculous number of troops or cut corners on tank development. If the Object 279 isn't a piece of crap then I may use it as a base for a 60's main battle tank.

No. It was a rather wacky design that made the tank difficult to build and maintain for no real benefit. Instantaneous radiation exposure is a much bigger threat to crews than the tank being flipped.

Edit: Better option: http://www.uhlib.ru/tehnicheskie_nauki/ ... _1/p26.php

Apparently, the Russian for "turbocharger" is "using the energy of the exhaust gases".
But they do have a word for "supercharger".
Unless, of course, that's not what they're referring to...

So, I was talking with a mate over TG about his 68 ton tank, where I mentioned that I felt that some of the armor thickness values were high. What do you guys think?

LOS Armor Thickness by Area:
Chassis Front: 1,250 mm (1575mm RHAe vs KE, 2025mm vs CE)
Upper Glacis: 1,650 mm (2079mm RHAe vs KE, 2673mm vs CE)
Lower Glacis: 850 mm (1071mm RHAe vs KE, 1377mm vs CE)
Chassis Sides: 640 mm (806mm RHAe vs KE, 1037mm vs CE)
Track Siding: 180 mm (227mm RHAe vs KE, 292mm vs CE)
Chassis Rear: 380 mm (479mm RHAe vs KE, 616mm vs CE)
Chassis Top: 120 mm (151mm RHAe vs KE, 194mm vs CE)
Undercarriage: 270 mm (340mm RHAe vs KE, 437mm vs CE)
Turret Front: 1,400 mm (1764mm RHAe vs KE, 2268mm vs CE)
Turret Sides: 780 mm (983mm RHAe vs KE, 1264mm vs CE)
Turret Rear: 580 mm (731mm RHAe vs KE, 940mm vs CE)
Turret Roof: 160 mm (202mm RHAe vs KE, 259mm vs CE)

Either it's not 68t or the internal atmosphere is helium or something.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm guessing Mr Engine and the guy in shotgun are the two remaining infantrymen (with the guy up front maybe being section leader). That then gives you the driver and three-in-turret commander, loader, gunner.

Can't imagine one of the guys in the turret could be a dismount.

More or less, goes without saying. It's essentially a conventional turret layout + 6x6 APC, with the crew and passenger layout that entails.

According to Army Guide, it only has three crew.
Which means that the guy riding shotgun indeed isn't crew , one personnel in the turret is a dismount and the gunner is presumably gunner-loader.
Assuming the 20hp/t figure in the article is valid for the 350hp engine, then this gun-armed version weighs about 17.5t.

[Riysa]

So, I was talking with a mate over TG about his 68 ton tank, where I mentioned that I felt that some of the armor thickness values were high. What do you guys think?

LOS Armor Thickness by Area:
Chassis Front: 1,250 mm (1575mm RHAe vs KE, 2025mm vs CE)
Upper Glacis: 1,650 mm (2079mm RHAe vs KE, 2673mm vs CE)
Lower Glacis: 850 mm (1071mm RHAe vs KE, 1377mm vs CE)
Chassis Sides: 640 mm (806mm RHAe vs KE, 1037mm vs CE)
Track Siding: 180 mm (227mm RHAe vs KE, 292mm vs CE)
Chassis Rear: 380 mm (479mm RHAe vs KE, 616mm vs CE)
Chassis Top: 120 mm (151mm RHAe vs KE, 194mm vs CE)
Undercarriage: 270 mm (340mm RHAe vs KE, 437mm vs CE)
Turret Front: 1,400 mm (1764mm RHAe vs KE, 2268mm vs CE)
Turret Sides: 780 mm (983mm RHAe vs KE, 1264mm vs CE)
Turret Rear: 580 mm (731mm RHAe vs KE, 940mm vs CE)
Turret Roof: 160 mm (202mm RHAe vs KE, 259mm vs CE)

I'd like to know the dimensions of the tank and what kind of materials he's using. However, his chassis rear and sides is stupidly heavy. So I highly doubt this thing will mass 68 tons... at the minimum it'd be more believable if its 80-90 tons.

15.8m gun forward (8.34m hull length), 3.48 meters wide, 2.92 meters tall, and the armor is RHA/thermoplastic/DU/ceramic composite.

[Imperializt Russia]

His tank seems quite narrow (very conservative, tbh), and rather long and quite tall.
Is this 2.92m including roof clutter, or is that the height of his roof, do you know?

[Riysa]

His tank seems quite narrow (very conservative, tbh), and rather long and quite tall.
Is this 2.92m including roof clutter, or is that the height of his roof, do you know?

Apparently, the height of the turret roof.

IMO that's just a huge target waiting to be hit.

[The Kievan People]

So, I was talking with a mate over TG about his 68 ton tank, where I mentioned that I felt that some of the armor thickness values were high. What do you guys think?

LOS Armor Thickness by Area:
Chassis Front: 1,250 mm (1575mm RHAe vs KE, 2025mm vs CE) = 4.6 tonnes/m²
Upper Glacis: 1,650 mm (2079mm RHAe vs KE, 2673mm vs CE)= 5.45 tonnes/m²
Lower Glacis: 850 mm (1071mm RHAe vs KE, 1377mm vs CE)= 2.82 tonnes/m²
Chassis Sides: 640 mm (806mm RHAe vs KE, 1037mm vs CE)= 2.11 tonnes/m²
Track Siding: 180 mm (227mm RHAe vs KE, 292mm vs CE)= 0.59 tonnes/m²
Chassis Rear: 380 mm (479mm RHAe vs KE, 616mm vs CE)= 1.25 tonnes/m²
Chassis Top: 120 mm (151mm RHAe vs KE, 194mm vs CE)= 0.4 tonnes/m²
Undercarriage: 270 mm (340mm RHAe vs KE, 437mm vs CE)= 0.89 tonnes/m²
Turret Front: 1,400 mm (1764mm RHAe vs KE, 2268mm vs CE)= 4.6 tonnes/m²
Turret Sides: 780 mm (983mm RHAe vs KE, 1264mm vs CE)= 2.57 tonnes/m²
Turret Rear: 580 mm (731mm RHAe vs KE, 940mm vs CE)= 1.9 tonnes/m²
Turret Roof: 160 mm (202mm RHAe vs KE, 259mm vs CE)= 0.53 tonnes/m²

The Mass Efficiency of highly advanced armor vs. KE penetrators is about 3 (it weighs one third of amount of RHA required to provide the same protection). The only way to really check is to do a rough calculation of the area of the different surfaces, then add up the numbers to find the weight of the armor. Which is almost certainly too high.

A tanks armor usually weighs between 1/3 and 1/2 of the vehicles total weight.

[Anemos Major]

Slowly but surely?

[United States of PA]

M8H Li Toneur Medium Tank

Designation:
Numerical Designation: M8H Block 3
Name: Li Toneur (Thunder)

Key Data:
Crew: 3 (Commander, Gunner, Driver)
Designer: Pittsburgh Heavy Industries
Cost: A fuckload?

Dimensions:
Length:
- Hull: 7.7m
- Gun forwards: 10.5m
Height:
- Turret roof: 2.6m
- Incl. RWS: 3m???????
Width:
- Hull: 3.4m
- w/ Slat Armor add-on: 4.1m
Weight:
- Base combat: 60 tonnes
- w/ Armor Add-ons: 66 tonnes

Propulsion:
Engine: 12 Cylinder Opposed Piston Multifuel Diesel
Power: 2000bhp
Power/Weight ratio: 30.3 hp/tonne @ 66 tonnes
Transmission: 8forward, 2 reverse
Suspension: In-Arm Active Controlled Hydropneumatic

Performance:
Speed:
- Road: ~70km/h
- Reverse (road): ~40km/h
- Cross-country: ~50km/h
Operational Range: 500km

Armament:
Main Armament: L/50 140mm Smoothbore
- Ammunition: 36
- Elevation: -8/+16
- Elevation rate: 30 degrees/sec
- Traverse: 360 degrees
- Traverse rate: 50 degrees/sec
Coaxial station (left):
- Caliber: 35x228mm/50mm Supershot
- Ammunition:200 rounds
Fire Control: Automatic Fire suppression

Protection:
Armour: Appalachia Armor
- Base: Multi-Layer Composite (IRHA with Depleted Uranium and Ceramic Inserts)
- Forward Applique: ERA Blocks & Alternatives
- Side Applique: Slat Armor, ERA Blocks & Alternatives, IRHA Armored Skirts
- Additional Armour: Roof mounted NERA & other non-explosive alternatives
NBC: Collective and overpressure protection, compartmentalised auxiliary systems, full vehicular climate control, mast-mounted environmental detector (biological/chemical agents and gamma radiation), EMP hardening
Fire: Pentafluoroethane, automatic (crew compartment), Halon 1301 extinguishing/foam fuel tank self-sealing suite (engine block)
Smoke: 2x 8-barrel, 2x 4-barrel 3-in (76mm) multiple role dischargers, one of each on each turret side, variable autocue, diesel injection into engine exhausts

Sensors:
Primary Gunnery Sight: 1x-30x Primary Gunners sight (1x, 3x, 10x, 15x variable zoom with digital enhancement to 30x) with Thermal & Night Vision capacity
- Laser rangefinder: Eye safe pulsed Laser
- Gunnery aids: Stabilised laser illuminated 3CCD range-gated camera, roof-mounted crosswind sensor, integral muzzle reference sensor
Commander's Independent Sight: 1x-10x Variable zoom sight, fully stabilized, built in FLIR & Night Vision built into RWS
Elevated Optronics Mast: 1x-60x zoom (1x, 5x, 10x, 20x, 25x, 50x)
Additional sensors/sights:
- Driver: 180 degree viewing ports, Cameras at back corners for reversing

Communications/Networking:
Communications Management:
Radio:
Networking:
Battle Management:
Protection:

History

The M8H Block III Li Toneur medium tank was originally conceived as a alternative to the originally planned and temporarily adopted Block II M8P. However following adoption into service it was realized that the M8P had significant problems in the electronics, basic turret design and other areas. Following this it was decided after limited use by the three brigades that received that it was far to maintenance heavy to be of effect in a actual conflict, resulting in its suspension of production after roughly 360 vehicles were produced. The M8H Block III was introduced as a base of concept shortly thereafter as the true replacement to the Block I while the produced M8Ps remained in active duty with various National Guard units, far from the frontlines.

Armament

Primary Armament

The primary armament of the M8H comprises of a 140mm smoothbore main gun, departing from previous usage of rifled guns and opting for the lower cost option that did not require the use of slip rings for the majority of rounds anticipated to be used. The main gun is of a somewhat typical smoothbore design, however it was decided to make use of a polished tantalum barrel liner over chromium.

The main gun is auto fed using a Compact bustle autoloader. The autoloader is capable of loading up to 36 rounds for the cannon with the ability to load a round roughly every 6 seconds. All rounds are of two piece nature, intended to be loaded from inside the tank. Despite this the autoloader loads each round as one piece, using a piston to slide the round out of storage onto a loading platform which than aligns itself with the breech, before having the round loaded using another piston which swings up from below.

Secondary Armament

The M8H utilises a secondary armament of a Bushmaster III Autocannon, capable of firing either a 35x228mm round or a 50mm Supershot round, depending on how the autocannon setup. This autocannon is able to be reloaded through the blowout panels located on the outside of the vehicle or through the bulkhead on the inside in the crew compartment.

Engine & Propulsion

Engine

The M8H is powered by a four stroke 12 cylinder opposed piston layout multi-fuel diesel engine. The engine is electronically managed and controlled to ensure optimal quantities of fuel injection as well as timing, creating the best possible power to displacement ratio by the engines design. The exact metering quantity can be adjusted manually; more fuel for more power at the cost of mileage and engine part life or less fuel at the cost of power, but benefiting from theoretically improved mileage and part life. The engines Electronic Control Module (ECM) will automatically adjust this based on temperature, timing and many other variables to improve hard or cold start capability, as well as to reduce the amount of smoke generated by the engine from un-burnt or only partially burnt fuel molecules in cold weather.

Transmission

The M8H's engine is paired with a eight speed automatic transmission with a manual clutch, enabling the driver to engage and disengage the transmission using a pedal or hand lever as though he/she were driving a automobile. The driver can also "select" a gear such as sixth, even though the transmission will not start out in this gear, it will work through the gears normally until it reaches the chosen gear, and go no further through the progressions. The vehicle also possesses a pair of reverse gears.

Made some changes to the statbloc, added a little to the writeup.

Getting there, slowly.....

[Ea90]

hovercraft are ground vehicles, right?
(Image)

yes, I suppose so. Modern hovercraft are used much like aquatic assault vehicles, often transporting vehicles. That doesn't seem like it could move a lot of weight, so I would suggest taking a look at other designs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-cushioned_landing_craft

It's not intended as a landing craft, it's meant to be a patrol craft for marshy areas.

[Novorden]

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

Slowly but surely?

Damn you and your good looking vehicles, since doing my halftrack I have been meaning to do more wheeled vehicles but now i will have to wait a while to avoid looking like i took the idea.

[Lipnitia]

This is the T-101, our main battle tank.

[New Tauri Republic]

What kind of benefit could there be to having three tracks compared to two?
How would have more roadwheels, possibly eight on the outer tracks, and six on the inner track affect this?

[Imperializt Russia]

What benefit are you trying to pursue and where will this thread tread go?

[Anemos Major]

What kind of benefit could there be to having three tracks compared to two?
How would have more roadwheels, possibly eight on the outer tracks, and six on the inner track affect this?

Lower ground pressure, maybe, with the fairly considerable disadvantages that increased weight and mechanical complexity, drivetrain protrusion into the hull and/or a higher profile, the inability to pivot on the spot and increased (not to mention more difficult) track maintenance requirements constitute. It's not advisable.

Damn you and your good looking vehicles, since doing my halftrack I have been meaning to do more wheeled vehicles but now i will have to wait a while to avoid looking like i took the idea.

I hardly came up with the notion of an 8x8 military vehicle

[New Tauri Republic]

I want to dramatically decrease ground pressure, and allow more power to be able to be utilized to drive the tank forward allowing greater speed.


Would two larger than normal tracks help?
Or variable track height for all three tracks, allowing the central track to be removed from ground contact to allow more rapid turning?

[Lydenburg]

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

Slowly but surely?

So needs bigger gun for dealing with fortifications...and...lazy people...

[Anemos Major]

So needs bigger gun for dealing with fortifications...and...lazy people...

I wasn't being lazy :<

The 45mm cannon can fire off HE rounds with programmable fuzes, which means either post-penetration detonation or airburst (both of which are fairly efficient in their dealing with fortifications), and the heavier targets can always be dealt with by side-mounted launchers of some sort (everything between ATGM tubes to thermobarics and bunker-buster launchers on elevating mounts with electronic sights can be mounted on both this turret and the APC's 'low-profile' RWS) - far more efficient than trying to cram two guns with their associated ammunition and loading mechanisms into one turret.

[Lydenburg]

So needs bigger gun for dealing with fortifications...and...lazy people...

I wasn't being lazy :<

The 45mm cannon can fire off HE rounds with programmable fuzes, which means either post-penetration detonation or airburst (both of which are fairly efficient in their dealing with fortifications), and the heavier targets can always be dealt with by side-mounted launchers of some sort (everything between ATGM tubes to thermobarics and bunker-buster launchers on elevating mounts with electronic sights can be mounted on both this turret and the APC's 'low-profile' RWS) - far more efficient than trying to cram two guns with their associated ammunition and loading mechanisms into one turret.

I should hope not, or I was wishing a rather ironic death upon Anemos Major by his own weapons.

*Ahem*

[Novorden]

I hardly came up with the notion of an 8x8 military vehicle

you know what i mean

[The Kievan People]

I want to dramatically decrease ground pressure, and allow more power to be able to be utilized to drive the tank forward allowing greater speed.


Would two larger than normal tracks help?
Or variable track height for all three tracks, allowing the central track to be removed from ground contact to allow more rapid turning?

More track = more friction = less speed.

[Oaledonia]

Mandatory page porn.