Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Tranche 7

[Krazakistan]

Tbh I would have less of a gripe with the Leo 2's hull ammunition storage if the glacis were thicker and thus decreased the likelihood of the tank getting ammo racked. I still wouldn't like that the ammo is still exposed to the crew, but it's just a matter of what you're okay with and what you think is acceptable in tank design.

[Doppio Giudici]

Think I finished that MTLB-BMP thing I was working on. Any major issues before I start the writeup?

Looks like a BMP-2 almost, but much cooler. I think this could be an amazing design.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Think I finished that MTLB-BMP thing I was working on. Any major issues before I start the writeup?

Is that ATGM launcher attached to the other side of the turret, or is it partially recessed into the top?

[Imperializt Russia]

"quiet engine... that is bullshit. it has a quieter engine, but that doesn't mean that much.
it's just bullshit propaganda.
unless it's engine produces less than 120dB, it isn't anything close to quite and there are plenty videos on youtube to this point.

speaking of guns, the Leo2's L44 and especially L55 are better than the M256 and it has a better selection of ammunition.

while the Leo2's combat record is limited, so far it is absolutely positive, while the M1's is not.
No Leo2's or Challengers have been lost to enemy fire.

so, even giving it the benefit of the doubt, the M1 is not significantly better armoured, it's not significantly faster, it has one extra m240 that does nothing so long as the main gun has to work, it devours fuel and other logistics, it has flaws that the other two don't, like a lack of an escape hatch and for all of that it costs more.
It costs more but gives the same (if you are generous) or worse performance.

it is definitely not tied when you take everything into account."

Maybe I should just run away. This guy is not making a lot of sense.

Alright, I think I have Ironed out the details for my Tank, and shall post them shortly for criticism and review.

Cool, I want to see.

Counter that fewer Leos and Challengers exist, let alone have seen combat.

In the Gulf War, US forces deployed hundreds of tons of DU munitions (approximately 50 from the US Army and USMC tanks and 270 from Air Force and USMC aircraft). The UK's Challengers fired about one tonne, or 100 DU rounds in anger.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabf.htm

[Doppio Giudici]

"quiet engine... that is bullshit. it has a quieter engine, but that doesn't mean that much.
it's just bullshit propaganda.
unless it's engine produces less than 120dB, it isn't anything close to quite and there are plenty videos on youtube to this point.

speaking of guns, the Leo2's L44 and especially L55 are better than the M256 and it has a better selection of ammunition.

while the Leo2's combat record is limited, so far it is absolutely positive, while the M1's is not.
No Leo2's or Challengers have been lost to enemy fire.

so, even giving it the benefit of the doubt, the M1 is not significantly better armoured, it's not significantly faster, it has one extra m240 that does nothing so long as the main gun has to work, it devours fuel and other logistics, it has flaws that the other two don't, like a lack of an escape hatch and for all of that it costs more.
It costs more but gives the same (if you are generous) or worse performance.

it is definitely not tied when you take everything into account."

Maybe I should just run away. This guy is not making a lot of sense.



Cool, I want to see.

Counter that fewer Leos and Challengers exist, let alone have seen combat.

In the Gulf War, US forces deployed hundreds of tons of DU munitions (approximately 50 from the US Army and USMC tanks and 270 from Air Force and USMC aircraft). The UK's Challengers fired about one tonne, or 100 DU rounds in anger.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabf.htm

Thanks, I'm still wondering about making a Super-Panzer or Super-Panther; kinda like the Super-Sherman.

I heard it's a bad idea, but I have no idea.

[Sediczja]

Think I finished that MTLB-BMP thing I was working on. Any major issues before I start the writeup?

Looks like a BMP-2 almost, but much cooler. I think this could be an amazing design.

BMP-2 turret and skirt, MT-LB hull with some extra firing ports and stuff. Depending on what goes into the writeup, I suppose it could be decent

Think I finished that MTLB-BMP thing I was working on. Any major issues before I start the writeup?

Is that ATGM launcher attached to the other side of the turret, or is it partially recessed into the top?

Attached to the right side of the turret.

[Bratislavskaya]

Think I finished that MTLB-BMP thing I was working on. Any major issues before I start the writeup?

I like. Sounds like something I would import, if it is up to modern standards.

[Doppio Giudici]

Think I finished that MTLB-BMP thing I was working on. Any major issues before I start the writeup?

You going to peddle the chassis separately?

[Sediczja]

Think I finished that MTLB-BMP thing I was working on. Any major issues before I start the writeup?

I like. Sounds like something I would import, if it is up to modern standards.

Well, it's up to mid-80s standards, and I guess it could be modernised.

Think I finished that MTLB-BMP thing I was working on. Any major issues before I start the writeup?

You going to peddle the chassis separately?

Might do a few vehicles based on it, not sure.

[Chebucto Provinces]

The real problem is propellant charges being ignited directly by either the penetrator or hot fragments from the penetration. When they are hit, they will ignite. When they ignite, they burn with enough intensity to ignite any other propellant charges stored nearby. The result is a catastrophic chain reaction which ignites all the ammunition in the magazine in seconds, kills the crew and destroys the tank. Conventional fire suppression technology (even wet storage) cannot stop this kind of fire once it begins. The Leopard 2s dense hull magazine would be extremely vulnerable to this form of fire and if is hit by a penetrator it would likely kill everyone and destroy the tank. As is the Challengers magazine. And the Leclercs. And the T-64/T-72/T-80. Metal ammunition cases do not prevent this.

Unfortunately this is effectively untrue.
First, a penetration can not normally set off munition propellent. It is too insensitive to shock, and thermal energy insufficient for it. Second, hot fragments can cause issues, and are normally spall or friction, but it is secondary fires which are the real danger. Fire suppression can help, but fire suppression can neither get everywhere, nor can it be fully effective inside a crew compartment due to its effect on the living crew. The density of the Leopard 2's munition stowage is irrelevant, as its munitions are protected adequately from the dangers at hand. In fact the munition, as it is in the Merkava, is considered within these canisters as additional protection.
Due to these, metal protective canisters are quite effective. The Merkava, as you mention later, uses these same (Actually lighter weight fiberglass) containers, their bulk is related purely to their modular internal nature.

The T-64 and T-72, and their derived vehicles, as you again mention below, were poorly designed for ammunition stowage even for their time. T-72, for example, has ample room for six propellent charges in protected bins, that is in the front fuel tanks. This leaves 11 propellent charges stowed exposed in brackets only. These charges are not only vulnerable to being set off by fire, they are in direct exposure (Even contact for a few) with the crew. Canadian tankers deployed to the Balkans in the mid-1990s were instructed to aim specifically for these general areas if they had to fire on a T-72 and were in a position to take advantage of this angle specifically to take advantage of this. The logic at the time, as expressed to the zipperheads, was that causing a T-72 to openly brew up with a shot from a Leopard 1 would artificially inflate the capability of the Leopard 1, and deflate the reliability of the T-72 to the potential enemy, causing them to be less likely to want to undertake future engagements. At this stage the CF was very worried about the C1 being unable to withstand frontal fire from the T-72. But that is a tangent.

But the qualities of the Abrams do not magically transfer to other western tanks.

Unless there are more Challengers destroyed then I am aware, this particular one was destroyed by a friendly explosive round striking an open hatch and detonating into a compartment which had some protective bins open for loading. It was not only a one in a billion shot, but it took a long time to even brew up, the two crew killed were in fact killed by the HESH round itself, while the vehicle was evacuated and safely contained when it finally brewed up.

The Abrams all-bustle protection is greatly over exaggerated, which is why it is a shock to people who believe it that RL tank development does not universally switch to it. It has all kinds of advantages, but its protection from cook-off relative to existing Western munition stowage is overblown to proportions which are hardly realistic.

I had intended to make multiple quotes and take on each, but I just ended up ranting about it all in one.

[Imperializt Russia]

Actually, it was struck twice. The first round struck the armour and killed or wounded two crew who were stood on the vehicle.
The second round entered the vehicle and detonated the ammunition load, as the vehicle was attempting to reverse away.

The point being made, is that ammunition stowage is not as well protected in tanks that aren't the Abrams.

[Chebucto Provinces]

Actually, it was struck twice. The first round struck the armour and killed or wounded two crew who were stood on the vehicle.
The second round entered the vehicle and detonated the ammunition load, as the vehicle was attempting to reverse away.

The point being made, is that ammunition stowage is not as well protected in tanks that aren't the Abrams.

That's not wholly true though.
Had the same thing happened to an Abrams with its bustle door open, the exact same situation would have occurred. The brewing up was due to fires caused by hot fragments getting into unprotected propellent, and not due to the propellent being in the hull in the first place. Other Challys have been penetrated not only into the crew compartment, but into the propellent stowage bins themselves which have worked as required and not brewed up. Likewise Abrams have been penetrated into the bustle with the door closed, this has resulted in the bustle cooking off and blowing, but the crew are alive. The effect within the Abrams bustle is the very same within a T-72, except that the crew are not mixed with unprotected ammunition, which both tanks have. Whereas the Chally, Leopard, Leclerc, etc. have protected ammunition which is not susceptible to this issue (Except for the Chally under the right circumstances).

It is neither binary, nor is it the problem people (especially here) make it out to be. The Abrams ammunition stowage was designed for specific reasons, and it is neither better, nor worse then a Leopard 2, or Leclerc. Ariete though, is probably a death trap.

In Abrams, the ammo is more likely to be hit, and more likely to cook off, but the crew will live.
In Leopard 2, the ammo is less likely to be hit, and less likely to cook off, and the crew will live.
In Chally, the ammo is less likely to be hit, more likely to cook off, but the crew will live.
In Leclerc, the turret ammo is the same as Abrams, hull same as Leopard, crew still will live.
As an aside: in Ariete, the ammo is less likely to be hit, but more likely to cook off and the crew will die.

[Stormwind-City]

SAMT8 Storm Warrior

Full Name: Stormwind Armory Medium Tank Mdl. 8 "Storm Warrior"

Crew: Four; one gunner, one driver, one loader, one commander/radio operator

Weight: 50 tons

Top Speed: 75km/h

Cruising Speed: 45km/h

Range: 600km/h

Main Gun: 140mm HV smoothbore

Coaxial: 12.7mm

Cupola Gun: 7.62mm

Optics: 1x,2x,4x,8x,16x,32x, NV, IR, T

Computer Assisted Gun sight

Softkill AVS

Automatic & Manual Fire control

12 ready rounds on turret wall (5 APFSDS, 4 HEAT, 2 HE, 1 CS)

60 rounds in bustle w/ blow off panels (30 APFSDS, 20 HEAT, 5 HE, 5 CS)

800 APIT rounds coaxial

1200 rounds cupola

6 speed transmission (4 fwd, 2 bk)

1,800 hp multifuel v12

Suspension: High Hardness Steel torsion w/rotary shocks


Armor:
Equation: actual*3+550=effective, effective-330mm=HEAT

Hull front (u/l): 950mm/650mm(actual)

Turret front: 1100mm(actual)

Gun mantle: 1200mm(actual)

Hull side: 600mm(actual)

Skirt: 40mm(DU)

Turret side: 800mm(actual)

Hull rear: 475mm(actual)

Turret rear: 500mm(actual)

Top/bottom hull: 500/600mm(actual)

Turret top: 700mm(actual)

Addon ERA and Cage

[Doppio Giudici]

SAMT8 Storm Warrior

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

Full Name: Stormwind Armory Medium Tank Mdl. 8 "Storm Warrior"

Crew: Four; one gunner, one driver, one loader, one commander/radio operator

Weight: 50 tons

Top Speed: 75km/h

Cruising Speed: 45km/h

Range: 600km/h

Main Gun: 140mm HV smoothbore

Coaxial: 12.7mm

Cupola Gun: 7.62mm

Optics: 1x,2x,4x,8x,16x,32x, NV, IR, T

Computer Assisted Gun sight

Softkill AVS

Automatic & Manual Fire control

12 ready rounds on turret wall (5 APFSDS, 4 HEAT, 2 HE, 1 CS)

60 rounds in bustle w/ blow off panels (30 APFSDS, 20 HEAT, 5 HE, 5 CS)

800 APIT rounds coaxial

1200 rounds cupola

6 speed transmission (4 fwd, 2 bk)

1,800 hp multifuel v12

Suspension: High Hardness Steel torsion w/rotary shocks


Armor:
Equation: actual*3+550=effective, effective-330mm=HEAT

Hull front (u/l): 950mm/650mm(actual)

Turret front: 1100mm(actual)

Gun mantle: 1200mm(actual)

Hull side: 600mm(actual)

Skirt: 40mm(DU)

Turret side: 800mm(actual)

Hull rear: 475mm(actual)

Turret rear: 500mm(actual)

Top/bottom hull: 500/600mm(actual)

Turret top: 700mm(actual)

Addon ERA and Cage

I like this design of yours, think I might make a JG version.

[Imperializt Russia]

Actually, it was struck twice. The first round struck the armour and killed or wounded two crew who were stood on the vehicle.
The second round entered the vehicle and detonated the ammunition load, as the vehicle was attempting to reverse away.

The point being made, is that ammunition stowage is not as well protected in tanks that aren't the Abrams.

That's not wholly true though.
Had the same thing happened to an Abrams with its bustle door open, the exact same situation would have occurred. The brewing up was due to fires caused by hot fragments getting into unprotected propellent, and not due to the propellent being in the hull in the first place. Other Challys have been penetrated not only into the crew compartment, but into the propellent stowage bins themselves which have worked as required and not brewed up. Likewise Abrams have been penetrated into the bustle with the door closed, this has resulted in the bustle cooking off and blowing, but the crew are alive. The effect within the Abrams bustle is the very same within a T-72, except that the crew are not mixed with unprotected ammunition, which both tanks have. Whereas the Chally, Leopard, Leclerc, etc. have protected ammunition which is not susceptible to this issue (Except for the Chally under the right circumstances).

It likely would not have happened, because even with the bulkhead open the shells are slightly "protected" from incoming fragments. They're sat very deep in the back of the turret, facing backwards. In any case, it's still protected by blowout features.

This was a blast significant enough to completely destroy the vehicle. Even if it had happened in an Abrams, and crew had been killed or wounded, the vehicle may have been salvageable and some of the crew survived. This blast blew the turret out of its basket and onto the engine deck, sending a big heavy road wheel some dozen metres away.

[Korva]

Working on a T-84M-esque tank - the lines are pretty on this thing, but I really can't draw them...

I've tried to draw a JG scale Oplot three times now.

Is hard.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

I have a question regarding autoloaders, is there any advantage to a carousel autoloader? Will it allow for a lower turret profile or allow the tank to be more heavily armoured as one doesn't need to armour a large bustle on the back of the turret?

[Korva]

I have a question regarding autoloaders, is there any advantage to a carousel autoloader? Will it allow for a lower turret profile or allow the tank to be more heavily armoured as one doesn't need to armour a large bustle on the back of the turret?

Carousel is more compact.

It also assists in lifting the turret clean off the chassis, which looks cool during explosions.

[Chebucto Provinces]

That's not wholly true though.
Had the same thing happened to an Abrams with its bustle door open, the exact same situation would have occurred. The brewing up was due to fires caused by hot fragments getting into unprotected propellent, and not due to the propellent being in the hull in the first place. Other Challys have been penetrated not only into the crew compartment, but into the propellent stowage bins themselves which have worked as required and not brewed up. Likewise Abrams have been penetrated into the bustle with the door closed, this has resulted in the bustle cooking off and blowing, but the crew are alive. The effect within the Abrams bustle is the very same within a T-72, except that the crew are not mixed with unprotected ammunition, which both tanks have. Whereas the Chally, Leopard, Leclerc, etc. have protected ammunition which is not susceptible to this issue (Except for the Chally under the right circumstances).

It likely would not have happened, because even with the bulkhead open the shells are slightly "protected" from incoming fragments. They're sat very deep in the back of the turret, facing backwards. In any case, it's still protected by blowout features.

This was a blast significant enough to completely destroy the vehicle. Even if it had happened in an Abrams, and crew had been killed or wounded, the vehicle may have been salvageable and some of the crew survived. This blast blew the turret out of its basket and onto the engine deck, sending a big heavy road wheel some dozen metres away.

The Chally 2 in question was damaged no more then many other destroyed Abrams. It was just not rebuilt at the factory level. The difference was the propellent cook off blew the turret off. The hull and turret were no more damaged then most Abrams then undertook rebuild.

With the bulkhead open there is nothing stopping secondary fires from setting off the munitions, as Abrams munition are unprotected. Your assumption that it would not result in the same cook off is incorrect and unrealistic. Likewise the blow off panels are only protective in so far as they prevent the blow-off from entering the crew compartment when the bulkhead is closed. It keeps the bustle from turning into a bomb, but is not in itself a special feature. In fact it is necessary due to the stowage of the munitions.

[Sediczja]

Stylistic question. Roundel A or roundel B?

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

I have a question regarding autoloaders, is there any advantage to a carousel autoloader? Will it allow for a lower turret profile or allow the tank to be more heavily armoured as one doesn't need to armour a large bustle on the back of the turret?

Carousel is more compact.

It also assists in lifting the turret clean off the chassis, which looks cool during explosions.

Well my idea was more along the lines of a two man gun TD anyway so fuck the crew it is only two guys, anything that can make the vehicle smaller or better armoured is worth the sacrifice.

[Korva]

Stylistic question. Roundel A or roundel B?

Roundel B.

Have you considered doing it like the Czechs?

[Sediczja]

Stylistic question. Roundel A or roundel B?

Roundel B.

Have you considered doing it like the Czechs?

I have, though I'm not too keen on how it looks with these colours.

[The Kievan People]

It is neither binary, nor is it the problem people (especially here) make it out to be. The Abrams ammunition stowage was designed for specific reasons, and it is neither better, nor worse then a Leopard 2, or Leclerc. Ariete though, is probably a death trap.

In Abrams, the ammo is more likely to be hit, and more likely to cook off, but the crew will live.
In Leopard 2, the ammo is less likely to be hit, and less likely to cook off, and the crew will live.
In Chally, the ammo is less likely to be hit, more likely to cook off, but the crew will live.
In Leclerc, the turret ammo is the same as Abrams, hull same as Leopard, crew still will live.
As an aside: in Ariete, the ammo is less likely to be hit, but more likely to cook off and the crew will die.

1. The vulnerability of ammunition to being ignited by hot fragments or shaped charge jets is real and easily demonstrated. As is the ability of one round igniting to cause a chain reaction in other rounds. And the reality that metal cases don't do much of anything, but that is rather obvious when you consider how thin they are.

Previous tests conducted at the Ballistic Research Laboratory have demonstrated convinc:Lngly that a direct hit by a shaped charge jet on the explosive contained in a 105 mm HEAT warhead causes immediate detonation of the explosive. However, other rounds positioned alongside the warhead take from many milliseconds to several seconds before ignition or cook off occurs.

Even In an arrangement such as the M1s ammunition compartment, a large portion of the ammunition may be destroyed even if only one round is struck initially.

all other US armored vehicles, including the M60 tank, ammunition is stored in the crew volume using the vehicle's armor as protection. A hit which perforates the armor and strikes the ammunition will probably
cause complete destruction of the vehicle and its crew.

2. The crew will not live if the ammunition inside a Challenger, Leopard or Leclerc cooks off and they are inside the tank. An instant cook off as a result of a penetration is a very real possibility whether you like it or not and it is by far the biggest risk to the crews of these tanks.

Providing maximum protection from ammunition fires is an inherently superior approach to trying to prevent the ammunition being struck. Even when the ammunition is well stored, the chance of it being penetrated and cooking off with catastrophic results is still the single largest chance of the tank suffering a catastrophic kill.

[Doppio Giudici]

Working on a T-84M-esque tank - the lines are pretty on this thing, but I really can't draw them...

I've tried to draw a JG scale Oplot three times now.

Is hard.

So did I.