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

[Gallia-]

I know. The point was that it's so slow that it spent 3 decades trying to cross a yard.

No. It spent it spying on the USSR. James Bond can't compare.

Visions of a T-95 standing in a crowd, wearing a three piece, holding a martini.

[The Kievan People]

[
BTW what's this multi purpose munitions can do which cannot be done by HE shell ? :3

So far the general description i read here

http://semanticommunity.info/Army_Weapo ... 28FTMGA%29

It's somewhat.. the AMP is nothing more but shell with "smart" fuze. Something which Russian did in their general purpose munitions.
So basically i can get similar AMP by simply refitting fuze of already existing warstock of HE shell.

-Imagine 43 Kg of HE shell with smart fuze can do to enemy.

XM1096 has two "innovations"

1. Pre-formed nose fragments.
2. Semi-armor piercing design.

[Kouralia]

No. It spent it spying on the USSR. James Bond can't compare.

Visions of a T-95 standing in a crowd, wearing a three piece, holding a martini.

And then suddenly... BAM.

[Swamps of Shrek]

I'll just leave this here. SAUCE: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=285204

Armored pickup (Insurgent Patrol Vehicle)

(Image)

Soldiers (Militia)

(Image)

Nation's Name: Swamps of Shrek
Mercenary Group's Name: SSMF (Swamps of Shrek Millitia Forces)
Strength (Number of Troops): 175 Guerilla-trained troops, broken into squads of 25, 2 of each squad being combat medics
Equipment (What is your standard weapon, armor, etc.)
AKM x125

(Image)

400x 30rnd AKM (5.56 x 45mm) Clips

(Image)

135x F1 Hand Grenades

(Image)

20x Armed Pickups (PKM)

(Image)

12x Armored Troop Movers (URAL)

(Image)

50x CZ Sniper Rifles

(Image)

2500x CZ Sniper Rounds (7mm)

(Image)

12,000 L of Diesel
500x Spare parts and repair kits
5x Basic Outpost building parts (Brought by navy)
Requests (What supplies would you like us to provide for you):

ATV's (quads bikes) and some marksmen training for one of my millitia's squads, compensation for any supplies lost and then quarter of what they are worth per month in payment, converted from your currency to mine.
COSTS OF SUPPLIES FOR BATTLE

(You need to convert the § to your dollar to find out how much you need to pay)

100x 7mm Round = §1,000
50x CZ Sniper Rifle = §7,500
1x URAL = §67,000
1x Armed Pickup Truck = §17,000
100x 5.56 x 45mm Clips =§500
50x AKM = §5,000 (Cheap to make, easy to master weaponry)
65x F1 Grenade = §9501x Outpost = §95,000 (includes walls, dorms, mess hall etc.)
500x Repair Kits + Spare Parts = §5,000

[Arkandros]

I'll just leave this here. SAUCE: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=285204

Armored pickup (Insurgent Patrol Vehicle)

(Image)

Soldiers (Militia)

(Image)

Nation's Name: Swamps of Shrek
Mercenary Group's Name: SSMF (Swamps of Shrek Millitia Forces)
Strength (Number of Troops): 175 Guerilla-trained troops, broken into squads of 25, 2 of each squad being combat medics
Equipment (What is your standard weapon, armor, etc.)
AKM x125

(Image)

400x 30rnd AKM (5.56 x 45mm) Clips

(Image)

135x F1 Hand Grenades

(Image)

20x Armed Pickups (PKM)

(Image)

12x Armored Troop Movers (URAL)

(Image)

50x CZ Sniper Rifles

(Image)

2500x CZ Sniper Rounds (7mm)

(Image)

12,000 L of Diesel
500x Spare parts and repair kits
5x Basic Outpost building parts (Brought by navy)
Requests (What supplies would you like us to provide for you):

ATV's (quads bikes) and some marksmen training for one of my millitia's squads, compensation for any supplies lost and then quarter of what they are worth per month in payment, converted from your currency to mine.
COSTS OF SUPPLIES FOR BATTLE

(You need to convert the § to your dollar to find out how much you need to pay)

100x 7mm Round = §1,000
50x CZ Sniper Rifle = §7,500
1x URAL = §67,000
1x Armed Pickup Truck = §17,000
100x 5.56 x 45mm Clips =§500
50x AKM = §5,000 (Cheap to make, easy to master weaponry)
65x F1 Grenade = §9501x Outpost = §95,000 (includes walls, dorms, mess hall etc.)
500x Repair Kits + Spare Parts = §5,000

I feel rather unsettled by this. You have technicals (the homebrew pickup with a mounted machine gun) which are rarely fielded anywhere except 3rd world nations driving alongside modern MRAPs from Russia (which should most likely cost a LOT more than 67 thousand- probably upwards of a few hundred thousand) that I'm pretty sure they wouldn't sell you, and a ragtag militia. I hate to say this, but this seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
Furthermore- Why do you even have MRAPs when your troops are, as you say, "guerrilla trained?" costly (and clearly military) vehicles are almost exactly the opposite of what you want fighting a guerrilla war.
EDIT: after some research, the Russian government purchases URAL typhoons (the one you have pictured) for 1.1 million apiece. There is no way that's a URAL MRAP if it's 67 thousand. For that price, you might be able to purchase a WWII era tank like the Sherman or T-34, but not much more.

[Aqizithiuda]

I'll just leave this here. SAUCE: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=285204

Armored pickup (Insurgent Patrol Vehicle)

(Image)

Soldiers (Militia)

(Image)

Nation's Name: Swamps of Shrek
Mercenary Group's Name: SSMF (Swamps of Shrek Millitia Forces)
Strength (Number of Troops): 175 Guerilla-trained troops, broken into squads of 25, 2 of each squad being combat medics
Equipment (What is your standard weapon, armor, etc.)
AKM x125

(Image)

400x 30rnd AKM (5.56 x 45mm) Clips

(Image)

135x F1 Hand Grenades

(Image)

20x Armed Pickups (PKM)

(Image)

12x Armored Troop Movers (URAL)

(Image)

50x CZ Sniper Rifles

(Image)

2500x CZ Sniper Rounds (7mm)

(Image)

12,000 L of Diesel
500x Spare parts and repair kits
5x Basic Outpost building parts (Brought by navy)
Requests (What supplies would you like us to provide for you):

ATV's (quads bikes) and some marksmen training for one of my millitia's squads, compensation for any supplies lost and then quarter of what they are worth per month in payment, converted from your currency to mine.
COSTS OF SUPPLIES FOR BATTLE

(You need to convert the § to your dollar to find out how much you need to pay)

100x 7mm Round = §1,000
50x CZ Sniper Rifle = §7,500
1x URAL = §67,000
1x Armed Pickup Truck = §17,000
100x 5.56 x 45mm Clips =§500
50x AKM = §5,000 (Cheap to make, easy to master weaponry)
65x F1 Grenade = §9501x Outpost = §95,000 (includes walls, dorms, mess hall etc.)
500x Repair Kits + Spare Parts = §5,000

You have inconsistent numbers, odd prices and you have a picture of an AK that isn't 5.56mm NATO, and mags that definitely aren't.

[Rich and Corporations]

do you know if there'll be any changes to main armament for an abrams in post-afghanistan, or will they focus on the anti-tank mission?

The Abrams is set to receive the XM1096 Advanced Multipurpose Munition and the M829E4 APFSDS.

That the XM1096 exists is pretty much an acknowledgement of how much the Abrams mission has changed from what was envisioned during the cold war.

not really
i mean, sure, the lack of sabots and shaped charge is indicative of minimizing downrange casualties, but a multi-function HE shell isn't that much different from the current dual-function HEAT shell

-Imagine 43 Kg of HE shell with smart fuze can do to enemy.

Indeed. This is why my top tanks use 16 cm top-attack HE shells.

[Arkandros]

The Abrams is set to receive the XM1096 Advanced Multipurpose Munition and the M829E4 APFSDS.

That the XM1096 exists is pretty much an acknowledgement of how much the Abrams mission has changed from what was envisioned during the cold war.

not really
i mean, sure, the lack of sabots and shaped charge is indicative of minimizing downrange casualties, but a multi-function HE shell isn't that much different from the current dual-function HEAT shell

-Imagine 43 Kg of HE shell with smart fuze can do to enemy.

Indeed. This is why my top tanks use 16 cm top-attack HE shells.

If congress didn't make the military keep buying the "outdated" Abrams (the military's words, not mine) they would probably shift away from the Abrams MBTs. As it is, they're trying to shoehorn the Abrams into roles where it doesn't fit. It does an okay job (mostly because of the sheer volume of cash they put into the modifications), but the next step in the right direction would be to start a new project to fit the new roles tanks need to fill, rather than duct taping modifications onto the existing platform.

[Connori Pilgrims]

If congress didn't make the military keep buying the "outdated" Abrams (the military's words, not mine) they would probably shift away from the Abrams MBTs. As it is, they're trying to shoehorn the Abrams into roles where it doesn't fit. It does an okay job (mostly because of the sheer volume of cash they put into the modifications), but the next step in the right direction would be to start a new project to fit the new roles tanks need to fill, rather than duct taping modifications onto the existing platform.

Part of that has to do with the fact that every program they've had that intends to replace/supplant/complement the Abrams (the FCS MGV, and now the GCV) inevitably gets cancelled because the US Army wants to make them do too many ridiculous things (on laughably light, then laughably heavy platforms) which in turn lead to cost balloons that make them attractive for cancellation.

As it is, "duct-taping" is probably the relatively "cheaper" option foisted upon the Army by a Congress that wants to cut costs yet make sure the money remaining goes to them benefits defence or something.

[Arkandros]

If congress didn't make the military keep buying the "outdated" Abrams (the military's words, not mine) they would probably shift away from the Abrams MBTs. As it is, they're trying to shoehorn the Abrams into roles where it doesn't fit. It does an okay job (mostly because of the sheer volume of cash they put into the modifications), but the next step in the right direction would be to start a new project to fit the new roles tanks need to fill, rather than duct taping modifications onto the existing platform.

Part of that has to do with the fact that every program they've had that intends to replace/supplant/complement the Abrams (the FCS MGV, and now the GCV) inevitably gets cancelled because the US Army wants to make them do too many ridiculous things (on laughably light, then laughably heavy platforms) which in turn lead to cost balloons that make them attractive for cancellation.

As it is, "duct-taping" is probably the relatively "cheaper" option foisted upon the Army by a Congress that wants to cut costs yet make sure the money remaining goes to them benefits defence or something.

Part of the problem is, in my opinion, they are trying to make projects to turn a musket into a rifle. (hyperbole, but you probably get my point) You can do it, sure, but is it really worth the cost when you can go get a rifle instead of a musket?
And congress mostly keeps the money flowing for one reason- JOBS. Building tanks is a complex and time consuming business, so for representatives with defense corporations in their state (which is a surprisingly large number), cutting spending or starting a new program means less production and less manufacturing work (and then they don't get reelected- and they like their cushy government jobs)

[The Akasha Colony]

If congress didn't make the military keep buying the "outdated" Abrams (the military's words, not mine) they would probably shift away from the Abrams MBTs. As it is, they're trying to shoehorn the Abrams into roles where it doesn't fit. It does an okay job (mostly because of the sheer volume of cash they put into the modifications), but the next step in the right direction would be to start a new project to fit the new roles tanks need to fill, rather than duct taping modifications onto the existing platform.

The Army's been moving back toward conventional warfare systems though, after nearly a decade of emphasis on COIN operations and light infantry. Given the current state of the military's ability to supervise major projects, it's unlikely it'd be any more successful than FCS, GCV, EFV, or MPC. Too many conflicting requirements, which leads to massive complexity and either huge weight gains or the failure to reach program goals.

Ultimately, any new-build design would end up being not dissimilar to the Abrams already. Most of the fancy features NS drools over would be passed over. It'd be perhaps a bit lighter, but the general arrangement would be quite similar, and with the same armament. With all the money the Army's put into new shells and maintaining old stockpiles, changing calibers would require major retooling of the entire logistics chain from production to storage to transport to training. You might get a new engine, but they can put a new engine in the Abrams already, since any new model would be smaller than the existing design and fit within the allotted space.

Part of the problem is, in my opinion, they are trying to make projects to turn a musket into a rifle. (hyperbole, but you probably get my point) You can do it, sure, but is it really worth the cost when you can go get a rifle instead of a musket?

Not really. Most of those failed programs were largely scratch built, or heavy customizations of foreign-built vehicles. FCS MGV, the poster child of what was supposed to be the Army's radical transformation, was new-build, and supposed to be the opportunity to sweep aside the existing legacy systems to bring in new standards. But that made it tremendously expensive and led to major unforeseen delays. There's a reason conservatism is favored; radical change tends to quickly run into unexpected costs and delays that more often than not result simply in a project being outright cancelled. Better to focus on the safe, incremental improvement than a big-budget failure that doesn't actually result in any equipment entering service.

[Arkandros]

If congress didn't make the military keep buying the "outdated" Abrams (the military's words, not mine) they would probably shift away from the Abrams MBTs. As it is, they're trying to shoehorn the Abrams into roles where it doesn't fit. It does an okay job (mostly because of the sheer volume of cash they put into the modifications), but the next step in the right direction would be to start a new project to fit the new roles tanks need to fill, rather than duct taping modifications onto the existing platform.

The Army's been moving back toward conventional warfare systems though, after nearly a decade of emphasis on COIN operations and light infantry. Given the current state of the military's ability to supervise major projects, it's unlikely it'd be any more successful than FCS, GCV, EFV, or MPC. Too many conflicting requirements, which leads to massive complexity and either huge weight gains or the failure to reach program goals.

Ultimately, any new-build design would end up being not dissimilar to the Abrams already. Most of the fancy features NS drools over would be passed over. It'd be perhaps a bit lighter, but the general arrangement would be quite similar, and with the same armament. With all the money the Army's put into new shells and maintaining old stockpiles, changing calibers would require major retooling of the entire logistics chain from production to storage to transport to training. You might get a new engine, but they can put a new engine in the Abrams already, since any new model would be smaller than the existing design and fit within the allotted space.

Part of the problem is, in my opinion, they are trying to make projects to turn a musket into a rifle. (hyperbole, but you probably get my point) You can do it, sure, but is it really worth the cost when you can go get a rifle instead of a musket?

Not really. Most of those failed programs were largely scratch built, or heavy customizations of foreign-built vehicles. FCS MGV, the poster child of what was supposed to be the Army's radical transformation, was new-build, and supposed to be the opportunity to sweep aside the existing legacy systems to bring in new standards. But that made it tremendously expensive and led to major unforeseen delays. There's a reason conservatism is favored; radical change tends to quickly run into unexpected costs and delays that more often than not result simply in a project being outright cancelled. Better to focus on the safe, incremental improvement than a big-budget failure that doesn't actually result in any equipment entering service.

You make a good point about the logistics chain. I suppose we really wouldn't be able to do too much with a new program. I suppose we could strip down the M1 to its bare bones and do some large-scale modification, but that would, at best, give minor improvements. The point with the second quote is really more about how they're trying to get the Abrams to fill roles. It makes sense to try and use what you have, but at the same time a lot of the roles the army is trying to cover could use cheaper vehicles that already have the equipment to fit the role. For example: I could either send a few tanks to protect a base, or I could send some light vehicles and an artillery piece. The light vehicles offer much more tactical versatility, and unless you plan to fight tanks, they should hold up fine.
Secondly: New programs never get scrapped, just renamed. Right after they canceled the FCS program they kicked off the BCT modernization. (I'm more poking fun at this than anything else.)

[United states of brazilian nations]

Modern tank destroyers actually still use really big guns:

(Image)

That's an M1A2 MBT. Not a dedicated Tank Hunter/Destroyer

EE-17 Sucuri says HUEllo.

[Vitaphone Racing]

That's an M1A2 MBT. Not a dedicated Tank Hunter/Destroyer

EE-17 Sucuri says HUEllo.

Reminds me of the old Ferrari Berlinettas of the 50's and 60's.

[Antarticaria]

A-Polar-7514

Type: Main Battle Tank
Origin: Antarticaria
Costs: About 5.9 Million Gold Coins
10,000+ In Service

Specifications:
Weight: 71 Short Tons
Length: 11 Meters (With Gun) , Hull is 8.3 Meters
Width: 4.2 Meters
Height: 2.7 Meters
Crew: 4 (Commander, Driver, Loader, Gunner)

Armor: Chobham Armour
700mm Hull, 850mm Turret.

Armaments:
Main: 125 mm Smooth Bore(40 Rounds)
Coaxial: .30 Machine Gun (1000 Rounds)
Pintle: .50 Cal Machine Gun (2500 Rounds)

Engine: Multi-Fuel Turbine Engine
1650 Shp
Power: 19 Hp/ton
Torsion Bar Suspension
Ground Clearance: 1ft 9"
Speed: Road: 35 mph Off Road: 29 mph
Fuel Capacity: 1324 Liters

Desc (Odds and Ends):
Electronics and Countermeasures: Smoke Launchers, Thermal, GPS, Missile Scrambling (Like SACLOS), Vertical Launching Flares.
Common Situation Camo:
Snow/Winter: White With a medium grey.
Jungle/Forest: Olive, light brown.
Desert: Brown, yellow, Light grey.
Other: Khaki Tan with some darker greens.

And now its AA modification that replace the turret.

A-Polar-AA-15 (Variant)

Type: Anti-Air Medium Tank
Origin: Antarticaria
Costs: About 6.1 Million Gold Coins
7,653 In Service

Specifications:
Weight: 65 Short Tons
Length: Hull is 8.3 Meters
Width: 4.2 Meters
Height: 2.7 Meters
Crew: 4 (Commander, Driver, Radar Analyst, Gunner)

Armor: Chobham Armour
700mm Hull, 600 mm Turret

Armaments:
Main: Quad 88 mm Flak Cannons (Center Turret)(150 Rounds)
Secondary: 2 ADATS Missiles (4 Missiles total)

Engine: Multi-Fuel Turbine Engine
1650 Shp
Power: 19 Hp/ton
Torsion Bar Suspension
Ground Clearance: 1ft 9"
Speed: Road: 37 mph Off Road: 30 mph
Fuel Capacity: 1324 Liters

Desc (Odds and Ends):
Electronics and Countermeasures: Smoke Launchers, Thermal, GPS, Missile Scrambling (Like SACLOS), Vertical Launching Flares, Thermal, AA targeting and recognition system, Posative E Radar Dome (Mounted on the back of the turret)
Common Situation Camo:
Snow/Winter: White With a medium grey.
Jungle/Forest: Olive, light brown.
Desert: Brown, yellow, Light grey.
Other: Khaki Tan with some darker greens.

Changing its weapon load out dropped quite a lot of weight especially from the larger smooth boar gun to the Flack guns and overall changing the turret out with something less angled and more block to accommodate the 4 flak guns.
I'm open to criticism and especially constructive debate and input. Thanks.

[Imperializt Russia]

It vents the gas from firing so it doesn't go back into the crew compartment.

Isn't that kinda what the hole at the end of the barrel for?

Imagine a rifle.
When the breech unlocks and the bolt comes backwards, exhaust gases at low pressure enter the receiver and out the ejector port.

In a tank, the turret crew is basically inside the receiver and there's no ejection port.

T-95 is not a tank destroyer, it is an assault gun like Tortoise for breaking through the Siegfried Line. M36 was the heavy tank destroyer of the US Army.

Personally I am not entirely sure the US Army ever quite figured out what the T-95 was for

I intend to have an aesthetically similar vehicle as some peculiar atom-lobbing curiosity.

It's a Transformer, obviously.

Do you know what you just did to the internet?

[Oaledonia]

That's an M1A2 MBT. Not a dedicated Tank Hunter/Destroyer

EE-17 Sucuri says HUEllo.

They ruined a perfectly good AMX for that.

[Lydenburg]

EE-17 Sucuri says HUEllo.

They ruined a perfectly good AMX for that.

They ruined a perfectly good Cascavel for that.

[Oaledonia]

They ruined a perfectly good AMX for that.

They ruined a perfectly good Cascavel for that.

Is sad day for wheeled death trucks.

[United states of brazilian nations]

They ruined a perfectly good AMX for that.

They ruined a perfectly good Cascavel for that.

i don't think your average Cascavel can snipe tanks. i imagine it could deal with light tanks though.

Iraq used them, but iraquis didn't know how to make the most of the mobility and brazilian glory in the vehicle, resulting in heavy losses against Abrams tanks. seriously, the iraquis put these against Abrams tanks, as if they thought the Cascavel was an MBT.

besides, the Brazilian Army is low on budget. it always was.

[The Kievan People]

not really
i mean, sure, the lack of sabots and shaped charge is indicative of minimizing downrange casualties, but a multi-function HE shell isn't that much different from the current dual-function HEAT shell

It is actually.

The M830A1 has no useful capability against infantry in the open.

[Lydenburg]

They ruined a perfectly good Cascavel for that.

i don't think your average Cascavel can snipe tanks. i imagine it could deal with light tanks though.

Iraq used them, but iraquis didn't know how to make the most of the mobility and brazilian glory in the vehicle, resulting in heavy losses against Abrams tanks. seriously, the iraquis put these against Abrams tanks, as if they thought the Cascavel was an MBT.

besides, the Brazilian Army is low on budget. it always was.

The 105mm on the EE-17 can't snipe modern MBTs, either.

My question is, if you already have tanks to fight other, possibly better, tanks - and Cascavels to deal with anything lighter, why do you need the EE-17? And BTW the Iraqis weren't even competent enough to even attempt using their EE-9s directly against the Abrams. Most of the Cascavels destroyed in the Gulf were disabled by artillery or killed at long range by TOW missiles before they knew what hit them. As elaborated earlier on in the thread, I have a picture somewhere of two that were facing the wrong direction when the Coalition troops appeared behind them.

There's nothing wrong with a competent crew attacking a tank in a wheeled LAV, provided they have no other choice and the environment is suitable for this kind of tactic. Why, in Angola...

no. I promised myself I wouldn't do this anymore.

[Antarticaria]

i don't think your average Cascavel can snipe tanks. i imagine it could deal with light tanks though.

Iraq used them, but iraquis didn't know how to make the most of the mobility and brazilian glory in the vehicle, resulting in heavy losses against Abrams tanks. seriously, the iraquis put these against Abrams tanks, as if they thought the Cascavel was an MBT.

besides, the Brazilian Army is low on budget. it always was.

The 105mm on the EE-17 can't snipe modern MBTs, either.

My question is, if you already have tanks to fight other, possibly better, tanks - and Cascavels to deal with anything lighter, why do you need the EE-17? And BTW the Iraqis weren't even competent enough to even attempt using their EE-9s directly against the Abrams. Most of the Cascavels destroyed in the Gulf were disabled by artillery or killed at long range by TOW missiles before they knew what hit them. As elaborated earlier on in the thread, I have a picture somewhere of two that were facing the wrong direction when the Coalition troops appeared behind them.

There's nothing wrong with a competent crew attacking a tank in a wheeled LAV, provided they have no other choice and the environment is suitable for this kind of tactic. Why, in Angola...

no. I promised myself I wouldn't do this anymore.

Give this man a cookie. Would be fairly interesting to have a birds eye view of LAVs taking on MBTs (in a situation like Angola of course).

[Imperializt Russia]

not really
i mean, sure, the lack of sabots and shaped charge is indicative of minimizing downrange casualties, but a multi-function HE shell isn't that much different from the current dual-function HEAT shell

It is actually.

The M830A1 has no useful capability against infantry in the open.

Not even shell splinters? I'd imagine it had HE filling enough for a 60mm shell.

[Mitheldalond]

It is actually.

The M830A1 has no useful capability against infantry in the open.

Not even shell splinters? I'd imagine it had HE filling enough for a 60mm shell.

Performance roughly comparable to a hand grenade can hardly be considered useful for a 120mm tank shell.