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

[Crookfur]

The threat of landcruisers continued to plague RnC general staff meetings.

A solution was devised.

An armored train armed with a single 200mm Gun Launcher would be used to fire MCLOS guided missiles against superbombers and supertanks and other such supervilliany.

For asecond there i thought you general staff was worried about angry sentient japanese 4x4s.

Although the proposed weaponry does sound about what would be required to kill the 70s/80s versions reliably...

[Mozria]

Abrams turret armor has a claimed effectiveness of around 850 millimeters of RHA, correct? If so, would my penetrator, which has a perforation limit of about 1,000 millimeters be able to punch through the front of an Abrams turret? This is even when the gun calculator states a velocity ~300 m/s higher than the one used in the calculation.

[San-Silvacian]

Abrams turret armor has a claimed effectiveness of around 850 millimeters of RHA, correct? If so, would my penetrator, which has a perforation limit of about 1,000 millimeters be able to punch through the front of an Abrams turret? This is even when the gun calculator states a velocity ~300 m/s higher than the one used in the calculation.

Ugh.

It depends on allot of shit.

[Talon Independent Nation]

so it can do logistics bettar by carrying moar bettar, thus proving its superiority.

wil acept ur tears of failure now.

oh rly

the ultimate test: can it wmik?

Gentlemen, behold!

[Antarticaria]

oh rly

the ultimate test: can it wmik?

Gentlemen, behold!

I want.....

[Antarticaria]

oh rly

the ultimate test: can it wmik?

Gentlemen, behold!

I want.....

[Mozria]

Abrams turret armor has a claimed effectiveness of around 850 millimeters of RHA, correct? If so, would my penetrator, which has a perforation limit of about 1,000 millimeters be able to punch through the front of an Abrams turret? This is even when the gun calculator states a velocity ~300 m/s higher than the one used in the calculation.

Ugh.

It depends on allot of shit.

Well, could you give me an idea of all of the variables that would need to line up for proper penetration? This is involving a direct head-on KEP shot into the turret front, likely from four kilometers or less.

[Buburban Riftkarthopolis]

What programs do you guys use to draw your vehicles?

[Papait]

What programs do you guys use to draw your vehicles?

i would like to know too

[Eahland]

I write POV code in a text editor and render with POV-Ray. And bring out the GIMP for auxiliary graphics creation, insignia and hull numbers and whatnot, and stuff like resizing and converting to JPEG.

I think the results are okay.

Most folk line-art with MS Paint or similar basic art program and zoomed-way-in pixel-level editing.

[Registug]

What programs do you guys use to draw your vehicles?

i would like to know too

50000000 hours in microsoft paint

[Mitheldalond]

Ugh.

It depends on allot of shit.

Well, could you give me an idea of all of the variables that would need to line up for proper penetration? This is involving a direct head-on KEP shot into the turret front, likely from four kilometers or less.

Exact range, shell trajectory, whether one or both tanks are moving and how fast and in what direction relative to the other vehicle.

The exact point of impact is a big one. The angle, thickness, and quality of the armor at the point of impact all play a part. If the armor is already damaged, or there is some kind of flaw/weak point/material impurities in the construction of the section hit, you'll have a better chance of getting through. Same goes for the specific round you're firing. The quality and exact amount of propellant in the round in the barrel will have an effect, as will the characteristics of the individual sabot and penetrator. An impurity in the penetrator could cause the round to shatter or something. The condition of the gun also will play a part. There will probably be performance differences between a brand new never-been-fired gun barrel and one reaching the end of its life. Debris in the barrel from previous firings/environmental factors/combat use could also effect performance.

Heck, even things like temperature outside, humidity, precipitation, etc could effect penetration. So could terrain factors.

Basically, anything you can think of that could effect shell velocity and what happens on and after impact would have to be taken into account. So the best answer to the question "would it penetrate" is "maybe."

What programs do you guys use to draw your vehicles?

A lot of people use Paint. You could also probably use Photoshop or something like it. 3D CAD programs Google Sketchup, Blender, Anim8tor, and Gmax are options, though CAD software is usually harder to use and can be expensive (though most of the ones I listed are free I think). Pencil and paper (and preferably a ruler, protractor, compass, and graph paper) and a scanner would also work. I've used PowerPoint to make quick basic pictures of some of my tanks to get an idea of scale and proportions.

[San-Silvacian]

What programs do you guys use to draw your vehicles?

MS Paint.

I just used Gimp to trace my Mirage 4000 on a massive ass scale and have to scale it down to 1.5cm = px

speaking of franscale



62 people, 5 IFVs

IFV (AMX-15) is fitted with a 35mm autocannon, 7.62mm machine gun coaxial, MAG-58 RWS, x2 ATGMs (Most likely based off Milan)

[Rich and Corporations]

The threat of landcruisers continued to plague RnC general staff meetings.

A solution was devised.

An armored train armed with a single 200mm Gun Launcher would be used to fire MCLOS guided missiles against superbombers and supertanks and other such supervilliany.

For asecond there i thought you general staff was worried about angry sentient japanese 4x4s.

Although the proposed weaponry does sound about what would be required to kill the 70s/80s versions reliably...

as well as 50s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_293
by the 70s and 80s, I'll need SACLOS.

[Anemos Major]

What programs do you guys use to draw your vehicles?

Microsoft Paint.

[San-Silvacian]

LAV-25/Stryker combo strikes again!

Top is same, 20mm autocannon, 7.62 coaxial, M2 on a low profile mount

second one, the APC, has a Mk-19 and an FN MAG on a dual RWS mount.

[Anemos Major]

Ooh, are we doing 8x8s?

[Registug]

I should draw the CAFLAV

[Anemos Major]

[LIST UPDATED TO THIS POINT]

[Vetok]

[LIST UPDATED TO THIS POINT]

I'm guessing I should have split up my PT tank post to make it easier for you

[Anemos Major]

[LIST UPDATED TO THIS POINT]

I'm guessing I should have split up my PT tank post to make it easier for you

You guessed correctly.

You'll need to add anchors to the post, or split it up if you want me to link to the specific write-ups instead of the images. Sorry about that, there's not much else that can be done about it.

[Oaledonia]

8x8s are inferior to 6x6 :<

[Zeinbrad]

8x8s are inferior to 6x6 :<

And 6x6s are inferior to SAS jeeps with enough dakka to invade a small country.

[Oaledonia]

8x8s are inferior to 6x6 :<

And 6x6s are inferior to SAS jeeps with enough dakka to invade a small country.

Untill the 6x6 is carrying an ARES 75mm.

[Vetok]

Thanks to the vagaries of the General Staff, Vetokite armoured thought derived differently to other nations; the role of the tanks, to serve as light raiders who could counter-attack an enemy broken by the infantry, or to rampage through their rear lines like the cavalry of old had proven to be a fallacy when during one particular border skirmish a detachment of foreign soldiers, holding solid defensive positions and equipped with heavy guns of their own, managed to goad the Fourteenth (Carrishem) Lancers into a hasty attack. With no high-explosive round to use against bunkers, and reliant on the hull-mounted machinegun for anti-infantry use, they were butchered with ease and when infantry units finally arrived the unit was no longer combat-effective. It took several hours before horse-drawn guns could be brought up and the hostile forces crushed.

It was a study conducted by General Edward Moffat, a rather radical member of the artillery branch who had long pushed for the motorisation of artillery, that was ordered in response to the destruction of the Fourteenth. The concluding board issued in the study a simple list of bulletpoints; the first, that the lack of an adequate HE round for the 2-pounders almost totally precluded their use in anything other than an anti-tank use. The second, that issuing a HE round would be pointless, given that in order for the best effect against a bunker with such a small shell the tank would have to be both completely still and dangerously close to the target, and that even then the gun would not do much damage. The third point noted the use of the infantry's artillery in destroying the fortifications, but that the delay in their arrival had contributed greatly to losses.

Within a week, an additional board was formed for the purpose of designing a response. Within three months they had settled on a number of attributes desirable in the new vehicle; it would mount a heavy gun capable of throwing a shell a magnitude of size larger than the current 2-pounder, it would carry two machineguns (one in the hull, another in a co-axial mount), and would carry a much better armoured turret, all the while being based on the Cavalier's chassis. The reality proved to be far different. Procurement refused to allow the use of modern guns in the design, believing it was a foolhardy diversion from effort in 'proven areas of heavy ordnance', a problem only solved when the Southern Command made available stocks of venerable 12-pounder mountain howitzers dropped in favour of heavy mortars.

The use of even such a lightweight piece as the howitzer necessitated a new turret design of much longer length, all of which still had to be up-armoured as per the design specifications. This, combined with the weight of the 12-pounder's shells, necessitated a dedicated loader, and eliminated the chance to work in the desired co-axial weapon. Ammunition stowage also presented a problem in concert with the newly-sloped front hull, and thus making the driver's compartment be forced to move forwards, and space for a fifth crewman to operate a hull MG was turned down. The result was a slower, and better armoured vehicle with an excellent close support armament, and a contract for production was initialled in November of 1940.

However when word reached Senior General Phillip Haverstone, commander of the Tank Corps, of the decision he immediately lobbied against inclusion of the vehicle in the Corps. Citing the lower speed of the tank, its reliance on stationary firing (in contrast to Tank Corps practise which based itself on firing whilst moving), the lack of a machinegun and the resultant focus on use of the main gun, with detrimental effect on ammunition stocks, he successfully managed for it to not only be removed from Tank Corps purview, but also forced a renaming of it from 'medium tank'. Instead, it was designated the Model-140A 'Quaker' Armoured Gun, a compromise designation reflecting it's use of a self-propelled chassis and its main purpose.

Because of this, it was instead reassigned to the artillery, who parcelled it out on the basis of one company for every infantry division. Because of the new role envisaged for it, moving closely up with the infantry as one cohesive force, a new design that would have given it a co-axial machinegun as well as an upgraded engine was dropped, with only a dozen prototypes constructed and later sent for use with the Imperial Guardsmen. As a final footnote to its history, one of the inevitable conclusions of this doctrinal-bias was that when the designers tried to gain permission to install crystal radio sets in the Model-140A, permission was denied by a vindictive Procurement Department.

Height: 8.2ft (2.49 metres)
Length: 17.38ft (5.3 metres)
Width: 6.88ft (2.1 metres)
Weight: 13 (long) tons
Crew: 4x (Commander, Loader, Gunner, Driver)
Engine: Siddley-Puma 98hp petrol engine
Armour: 15-20mm turret, 13-16mm hull
Main Armament: 12-pounder howitzer
Ammunition: 40x shells (24x HE, 10x smoke, 6x incendiary)