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

[Imperializt Russia]

some support tanks:
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

These are really interesting.
Got anything on their specs? What hulls these are adapted from?

(Image)

HSLAV All Terrain Armored Artillery

Afraid he doesn't look all that "all terrain" to me. It only has four wheels, and they seem quite poorly supported. There's no really apparent chassis for the wheels, it looks like a table on castors basically.

A tracked vehicle would have much better all-terrain capability and also stability.
From its armament (long, slender gun barrel and an autocannon roof mount), I'd say this should be your tank, frankly.

[Farzland]

Cayon M27 light tank

That's a UGV.

It can be a UGV with a tank muzzle.

[Anemos Major]

some support tanks:
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

These are really interesting.
Got anything on their specs? What hulls these are adapted from?

They're all predecessors of the BMPT - technically they're in the wrong order, though, with the first and third photos showing vehicles designed as part of the Soviet 'Obyekt 781' project and the second one showing the post-Soviet 'Obyekt 787' prototype/demonstrator.

I think the vehicles shown in the first and third photos are the BMPT prototypes as designed by ChTZ (Uralvagonzavod was assigned to the same project as well during the '86-'90 period, designing two prototypes of its own), both currently located at Kubinka (like every other failed Soviet design). The whole thing was kicked off after the war in Afghanistan, where the Soviets saw the effectiveness of their BMPs and their Shilkas and decided to try their hand at a dedicated support tank. AFAIK they're both designed off modified T-72 hulls with a modified nose and heightened hulls to fit two hull-mounted weapons (two MGs on the first variant, one AGS and one MG on the second), fuels tanks and a number of other potential items. The first variant essentially has a BMP-3 turret in armament terms (100mm 2A70/30mm 2A72, as well as an AGS), the second has two independent turrets which both house a 30mm 2A72 an an MG, with a dual Kornet launcher mounted on the right one. I think they both had seven crewmen, with the ability to dismount quite a large number of them (five in the case of Variant 1) due to the ability to slave firing controls to the commander's section. Something like that, at least - whatever the case, the entire project was cancelled as the Soviet Union began to crumble.

The second photo is probably of the Obyekt 787 prototype, which was basically a less ambitious BMPT-alike designed on a T-72AV hull from 1995 onwards after the first Russian foray into Chechnya - Chelyabinsk smelled money, which there hadn't been much of after the end of the Cold War, so they designed a vehicle that was essentially advertised as the solution to all the problems the Russians had faced in Chechnya. They took a T-72 turret, removed the gun and armoured up the mantlet and put two weapons stations on either side of the turret (think M1 Moderna), bringing its armament up to two 30mm 2A72s, two MGs and twelve unguided rocket launchers.



Chelyabinsk ended up being a little too aggressive with their promotion of the vehicle, though - they went public with their advertising campaign, which led to a state investigation and an effective ban on any further development of the vehicle. To be honest, if you consider the fact that the Minister of Defence called a meeting in June 1996 to consider the development of the BMPT we know and love today, and the contract eventually went to Uralvagonzavod (like the T-90 before it), it seems pretty evident that the vehicle was brought down by the political shenanigans the Russian defence industry seems to be unable to live without.

[Anemos Major]

[img(Image)][/img

I Was Bored So I Drew This.... For No Reason...
I Call It Ze Block!

That's really strange, because I remember drawing half those parts some years ago. Broken minds think alike, eh?

[Vetok]

That's a UGV.

It can be a UGV with a tank muzzle.

What? Normally, a tank is manned and carries a large gun, ranging from 76-125mm. This is a tiny drone with what looks like an M240 MG and four M203 grenade launchers.

[Imperializt Russia]

That's a UGV.

It can be a UGV with a tank muzzle.

That one can't.

[Oaledonia]

[img(Image)][/img

I Was Bored So I Drew This.... For No Reason...
I Call It Ze Block!

That's really strange, because I remember drawing half those parts some years ago. Broken minds think alike, eh?

I drew it in 1776 fite me irl i am mustard drawerer !11!!11!

[Oaledonia]

wut

[Imperializt Russia]

wut

Flying submarine tank?

I'd argue there is no legit to be found in this.
Especially since if you removed the "tank"ness and just shoved the gun in the fuselage, you'd have an (ambitious) flying boat, anyway.

[Oaledonia]

wut

Flying submarine tank?

I'd argue there is no legit to be found in this.
Especially since if you removed the "tank"ness and just shoved the gun in the fuselage, you'd have an (ambitious) flying boat, anyway.

I found it on a Aoki Hagane no Arupejio thread. I assumed it was a 1960s artist who was inspired by a novel.

[Anemos Major]

I'd argue there is no legit to be found in this.
Especially since if you removed the "tank"ness and just shoved the gun in the fuselage, you'd have an (ambitious) flying boat, anyway.

I'm fairly sure this is meant to be more a work of political satire than an actual, serious design proposal.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd argue there is no legit to be found in this.
Especially since if you removed the "tank"ness and just shoved the gun in the fuselage, you'd have an (ambitious) flying boat, anyway.

I'm fairly sure this is meant to be more a work of political satire than an actual, serious design proposal.

I guessed that too when I saw a couple of the captions.

[Ea90]

While I agree with the sentiment (that RHAe is pretty much useless), there is more than one 120mm APFSDS round (surely it would be better to say M829A3 for example).
In addition, not to be an RnC or anything, but penetration is most certainly not binary (and does not always scale up with caliber due to the large number of other factors).

Since the real nature of armor/penetrator interactions is a very fuzzy subject, a fuzzy metric like "Protected 120mm APFSDS @ 2000m" is quite well suited for our purposes.

Fair enough.

[Rich and Corporations]

Since the real nature of armor/penetrator interactions is a very fuzzy subject, a fuzzy metric like "Protected 120mm APFSDS @ 2000m" is quite well suited for our purposes.

Fair enough.

I really hope the standards to illustrate to soldiers what their vehicles are protected against and the standards of experienced tank designers on an internet forum would be different.

[Ea90]

Fair enough.

I really hope the standards to illustrate to soldiers what their vehicles are protected against and the standards of experienced tank designers on an internet forum would be different.

tbh, in my next tank I'll either use specific RL munitions at a distance for the different areas, or I might just say "a lot"

[The Kievan People]

I really hope the standards to illustrate to soldiers what their vehicles are protected against and the standards of experienced tank designers on an internet forum would be different.

Then I am sorry to disappoint you.

[Registug]

wut

This isn't even the Gavin's final form!

[Rich and Corporations]

I really hope the standards to illustrate to soldiers what their vehicles are protected against and the standards of experienced tank designers on an internet forum would be different.

tbh, in my next tank I'll either use specific RL munitions at a distance for the different areas, or I might just say "a lot"

just use wargame variables

hey

even the army plays COTS wargames

[Ragnarum]

Does this random text sound about right to anyone here?

Name of tank: A023/130/A3 Predator Main Battle Tank
Class: Heavy
Main armament: 130mm G130A5B Smoothbore Cannon
Secondary armament: 1 x 40mm GMG, 1 x 7.78mm MG, 1 x 13.5mm HMG Co-axial
Tertiary armament: Reloadable wire guided missile
Misc armament: smoke/frag/phos dispensers
Crew: 3
Length: 9.34m, 11.50m (gun forward)
Width: 3.9 metres
Height: 2.51 metres
Weight: 62.9 tonnes
Armour: Classified composite/with depleted uranium plating. ERA sometimes added. Exact armour thickness/composition classified.
Top speed: 67.5kph/42mph
Operational Range: 550km
Engine: 1,480hp C45 Multifuel turbine engine.
Misc: Has an autoloader similar in design to the Leclerc's. Armour makes use of heavy sloping. NBC protected.

[Gallia-]

tbh, in my next tank I'll either use specific RL munitions at a distance for the different areas, or I might just say "a lot"

just use wargame variables

hey

even the army plays COTS wargames

NATO Division Commander isn't actually that COTS.

[Anemos Major]

Does this random text sound about right to anyone here?

Name of tank: A023/130/A3 Predator Main Battle Tank
Class: Heavy
Main armament: 130mm G130A5B Smoothbore Cannon
Secondary armament: 1 x 40mm GMG, 1 x 7.78mm MG, 1 x 13.5mm HMG Co-axial
Tertiary armament: Reloadable wire guided missile
Misc armament: smoke/frag/phos dispensers
Crew: 3
Length: 9.34m, 11.50m (gun forward)
Width: 3.9 metres
Height: 2.51 metres
Weight: 62.9 tonnes
Armour: Classified composite/with depleted uranium plating. ERA sometimes added. Exact armour thickness/composition classified.
Top speed: 67.5kph/42mph
Operational Range: 550km
Engine: 1,480hp C45 Multifuel turbine engine.
Misc: Has an autoloader similar in design to the Leclerc's. Armour makes use of heavy sloping. NBC protected.

62.9t, 130mm, standard composite array isn't a heavy tank by modern standards, it's a main battle tank on the heavier side - not that that's a universal rule, but just in case you're going with a conventional IRL doctrinal classification system
your main armament needs a length - i.e. there's a considerable difference between the Abrams' 120mm L/44 M256 and the Leopard 2A6's 120mm L/55
'classified composite', 'composition classified' is redundant on an OOC forum
depleted uranium is rarely incorporated in armour schemes as plating - for the most part, it's a DU alloy of some sort as a mesh
two non-co-axial weapons with a 3 man crew is highly unadvisable
'ERA sometimes added' is a bit of an odd statement - what sort of ERA, and if sometimes, on what basis is it issued? (i.e. ERA for urban warfare packages like TUSK, or for first line units like the more advanced Soviet ERA compositions)
speed - there's a difference between a tank's on-road and cross-country maximum potential/practical speeds
heavy sloping on a post-80s design with composites designed for protection against KEPs - ?
otherwise this seems like a fairly run of the mill, if not somewhat undetailed, statblock for a better-than-Abrams tank
try adding more to it (maybe a short written description with developmental/operational history and some elaborations on your tank's equipment/capabilities)

or don't, because I'm a bit drunk, and nobody should listen to me when I'm a bit drunk

[Ragnarum]

Does this random text sound about right to anyone here?

Name of tank: A023/130/A3 Predator Main Battle Tank
Class: Heavy
Main armament: 130mm G130A5B Smoothbore Cannon
Secondary armament: 1 x 40mm GMG, 1 x 7.78mm MG, 1 x 13.5mm HMG Co-axial
Tertiary armament: Reloadable wire guided missile
Misc armament: smoke/frag/phos dispensers
Crew: 3
Length: 9.34m, 11.50m (gun forward)
Width: 3.9 metres
Height: 2.51 metres
Weight: 62.9 tonnes
Armour: Classified composite/with depleted uranium plating. ERA sometimes added. Exact armour thickness/composition classified.
Top speed: 67.5kph/42mph
Operational Range: 550km
Engine: 1,480hp C45 Multifuel turbine engine.
Misc: Has an autoloader similar in design to the Leclerc's. Armour makes use of heavy sloping. NBC protected.

62.9t, 130mm, standard composite array isn't a heavy tank by modern standards, it's a main battle tank on the heavier side - not that that's a universal rule, but just in case you're going with a conventional IRL doctrinal classification system
your main armament needs a length - i.e. there's a considerable difference between the Abrams' 120mm L/44 M256 and the Leopard 2A6's 120mm L/55
'classified composite', 'composition classified' is redundant on an OOC forum
depleted uranium is rarely incorporated in armour schemes as plating - for the most part, it's a DU alloy of some sort as a mesh
two non-co-axial weapons with a 3 man crew is highly unadvisable
'ERA sometimes added' is a bit of an odd statement - what sort of ERA, and if sometimes, on what basis is it issued? (i.e. ERA for urban warfare packages like TUSK, or for first line units like the more advanced Soviet ERA compositions)
speed - there's a difference between a tank's on-road and cross-country maximum potential/practical speeds
heavy sloping on a post-80s design with composites designed for protection against KEPs - ?
otherwise this seems like a fairly run of the mill, if not somewhat undetailed, statblock for a better-than-Abrams tank
try adding more to it (maybe a short written description with developmental/operational history and some elaborations on your tank's equipment/capabilities)

or don't, because I'm a bit drunk, and nobody should listen to me when I'm a bit drunk

I knew I should have put the length of the gun in. I'll get on that stuff.

Edit: What gun length for it would you recommend? And what should I put instead for the armour?

heavy sloping on a post-80s design with composites designed for protection against KEP

I can imagine it would come up against a lot of old tanks without effective KEP ammunition, and I'd think it can't do any harm to slope the armour that much, or can it?

[New Emphillon]

Hey, can anybody give me some information on the Object 757 Soviet tank?

All I know is that the chassis is based on one of the IS heavy tanks the Soviets developed during and after World War II, it never made it past the prototype stage (thus the designation Object), and it is a part of a class of tank known as a rocket tank. Is there anything else that you guys know about it?

[Imperializt Russia]

In the 60s or so, Kruschev had a colossal hard-on for tanks firing nothing but missiles down the gun bore. They weren't conceptually brilliant in the 60s, and with 60s technology, as the intended main tank force, it would have probably been a terrible programme. Just as well it never went past Objekt.

Also, Pike Wedge noses (as featured on the IS series tanks) aren't effective in the modern era and reduce the internal volume. Important, since logically you either have a driver or an engine in there. And sometimes, all three crew or more ammunition.

[Rich and Corporations]

gun bore

implying his missile tanks were meant to fire gun rounds.