Your Nation's Main Battle Tank [Part 2]

[Axis Nova]

Actually, it does work-- the UK stuck the stuff on an APC and fired a bunch of RPGs at it, and it stopped every single one.

I've seen the DoD reports, it actually didn't make much difference. Much of the perforation was absorbed by the vehicle's base armour and stand-off for the ELRA panels. The conclusion of every analysis ended with the ELRS giving no added protection. This is why government funding was cut off, quite harshly, in 2007.

You can argue AN, but you're wrong. It doesn't work, and the MoD dropped it like a hot potato because of this, years ago.

Links plox. I would be extremely interested to read about this, since this is the first I've heard of any such thing.

[S-teuton-S]

back in the good ol days: tiger tanks, king tigers, panthers, maus', and ratte tanks.
now: leopard 2's, Challenger 2's, and merkava's.

[Yohannes]

back in the good ol days: tiger tanks, king tigers, panthers, maus', and ratte tanks.
now: leopard 2's, Challenger 2's, and merkava's.

Its not necessarily the good ol days mate...

[Indeos]

It seems like they're vehicles that are getting more similar, but w/e. I don't really know too much about them.

It really is just a use thing, though, due to doctrine, APCs are generally less armored, and less well armed, to give it greater internal space. See M113 vs M2. M113 carries the same but is significantly lighter than the M2, despite carrying a similar number of dismounts.

As i said, APCs are meant to carry troops from one section of the battlefield to another, while a IFV is mainly meant to carry additional weapons into battle and support said troops with its heavier armament.

I could always just use big enough IFVs that they can carry a decent amount of troops, couldn't I?

[Munathanura]

It seems like they're vehicles that are getting more similar, but w/e. I don't really know too much about them.

It really is just a use thing, though, due to doctrine, APCs are generally less armored, and less well armed, to give it greater internal space. See M113 vs M2. M113 carries the same but is significantly lighter than the M2, despite carrying a similar number of dismounts.

As i said, APCs are meant to carry troops from one section of the battlefield to another, while a IFV is mainly meant to carry additional weapons into battle and support said troops with its heavier armament.

Allow me to introduce you to the Namer APC.

[Axis Nova]

I honestly think that Stryker-style lightly armored vehicles are a better option for shuffling troops around quickly and so forth. Sacrificing armor protection and some firepower in exchange for a much more agile vehicle that's easier to transport and airdrop is an acceptable trade-off for me.

[Utukaash]

Hordes of replica Jagdpanthers.

[United States of PA]

It really is just a use thing, though, due to doctrine, APCs are generally less armored, and less well armed, to give it greater internal space. See M113 vs M2. M113 carries the same but is significantly lighter than the M2, despite carrying a similar number of dismounts.

As i said, APCs are meant to carry troops from one section of the battlefield to another, while a IFV is mainly meant to carry additional weapons into battle and support said troops with its heavier armament.

I could always just use big enough IFVs that they can carry a decent amount of troops, couldn't I?

Not really worth the money.


There is a reason most of the world uses a mix of a few IFVs and a lot of APCS (My example case, the USA, i forgot about the Stryker Series, which adds about another 3,000 vehicles off of a rough number). British Army for example uses the Warrior and the FV432 (I think).

It is possible to do so, like i said. The GCV is suppose to have IFV like Armor and Armament from what i have heard, with a dismount number of 9, though i am personally doubtful of the utility of that arrangement in terms of overall effectiveness.

Allow me to introduce you to the Namer APC.

I know of the Namer, and it is a niche vehicle, which is meant to be used in areas like Israel anticipates, IE, low intensity mostly Urban Warfare. Thats the reason for its heavy armor. It is a Niche vehicle, just like the Achzarit, Nagmachon, Nakpadon and Merkava. It is still a APC, and using one example of a very much niche vehicle when pretty much everyone else does it the way i described isnt much of a argument.

I honestly think that Stryker-style lightly armored vehicles are a better option for shuffling troops around quickly and so forth. Sacrificing armor protection and some firepower in exchange for a much more agile vehicle that's easier to transport and airdrop is an acceptable trade-off for me.

Stryker has a host of problems of its own, such as very crappy axles (I believe the US Army issued a warning that any vehicle with more than 5,000mi on it was to be limited to 30mph max speed due to suspension fatigue), rather weak armor for its weight, and very high ground pressure.

[Indeos]

I could always just use big enough IFVs that they can carry a decent amount of troops, couldn't I?

Not really worth the money.


There is a reason most of the world uses a mix of a few IFVs and a lot of APCS (My example case, the USA, i forgot about the Stryker Series, which adds about another 3,000 vehicles off of a rough number). British Army for example uses the Warrior and the FV432 (I think).

It is possible to do so, like i said. The GCV is suppose to have IFV like Armor and Armament from what i have heard, with a dismount number of 9, though i am personally doubtful of the utility of that arrangement in terms of overall effectiveness.

Eh, I don't regard cost as an object because of the lollarge NS budgets, and the fact that I'm not buying everything at once. More like a gradual adoption during peacetime, so I can assume that I had the time and money to do it. Plus, Indeos is going from lacking armor completely to needing it (ICly the source of magic in Indeos got fucked so now it's gone. OOCly I'm switching to "MT".), and the possible disadvantages probably wouldn't be huge.

[Munathanura]

Allow me to introduce you to the Namer APC.

I know of the Namer, and it is a niche vehicle, which is meant to be used in areas like Israel anticipates, IE, low intensity mostly Urban Warfare. Thats the reason for its heavy armor. It is a Niche vehicle, just like the Achzarit, Nagmachon, Nakpadon and Merkava. It is still a APC, and using one example of a very much niche vehicle when pretty much everyone else does it the way i described isnt much of a argument.

I wouldn't say that I was making an argument so much as I was being contrary. Although, now that I think of it, a Namer style APC would be very handy in NS style warfare.

[Radictistan]

Having looked at some other tanks of the same period and weight class, I'm going to increase the level of armor of the T-8 to 38mm. Now I definately need to pad out the dimensions.

[United States of PA]

Eh, I don't regard cost as an object because of the lollarge NS budgets, and the fact that I'm not buying everything at once. More like a gradual adoption during peacetime, so I can assume that I had the time and money to do it. Plus, Indeos is going from lacking armor completely to needing it (ICly the source of magic in Indeos got fucked so now it's gone. OOCly I'm switching to "MT".), and the possible disadvantages probably wouldn't be huge.

Everyone to their own cup of tea. Nothing to stop you from buying a single chassis and modifying as needed. Is actually one of the proposals for the Namer long term, adding a turret with a 30mm and some external AT Missiles.

I wouldn't say that I was making an argument so much as I was being contrary. Although, now that I think of it, a Namer style APC would be very handy in NS style warfare.

If your in very similar conditions to Israel (IE, not a lot of turf, quite urbanized, fighting Terrorists with no proper AT Weapons, and were Vehicle survivability isnt as high a need as crew survivability (Biggest difference between NS and RL, you cant ever expect to fight like Israel where you can realistically expect your crew to survive inside that thing long enough to extract them. In NS a mobility kill, which is almost 100% guaranteed on a tank like Merkava, which Namer is based off of, is as good as declaring your crew dead. This is why a lot of what Israel has produced, like Merkava Especially and Namer to a extent, is of almost no use on NS.)).

[Munathanura]

I wouldn't say that I was making an argument so much as I was being contrary. Although, now that I think of it, a Namer style APC would be very handy in NS style warfare.

If your in very similar conditions to Israel (IE, not a lot of turf, quite urbanized, fighting Terrorists with no proper AT Weapons, and were Vehicle survivability isnt as high a need as crew survivability (Biggest difference between NS and RL, you cant ever expect to fight like Israel where you can realistically expect your crew to survive inside that thing long enough to extract them. In NS a mobility kill, which is almost 100% guaranteed on a tank like Merkava, which Namer is based off of, is as good as declaring your crew dead. This is why a lot of what Israel has produced, like Merkava Especially and Namer to a extent, is of almost no use on NS.)).

I suppose that would depend on who you RP with and how your write the RP.

Edit: For the record, I don't use anyone near as heavy as the Namer. What I'm currently designing is basically a better armoured BMP-3 with a bigger engine.

[Indeos]

Eh, I don't regard cost as an object because of the lollarge NS budgets, and the fact that I'm not buying everything at once. More like a gradual adoption during peacetime, so I can assume that I had the time and money to do it. Plus, Indeos is going from lacking armor completely to needing it (ICly the source of magic in Indeos got fucked so now it's gone. OOCly I'm switching to "MT".), and the possible disadvantages probably wouldn't be huge.

Everyone to their own cup of tea. Nothing to stop you from buying a single chassis and modifying as needed. Is actually one of the proposals for the Namer long term, adding a turret with a 30mm and some external AT Missiles.

I was thinking modular APC/IFV chassis up to light TD, then bigger stuff could use the same basic thing as the MBT. That at all workable or even reasonably thought out?

[Vlademir]

My nations battle tank?
The Leopard 2

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Everyone to their own cup of tea. Nothing to stop you from buying a single chassis and modifying as needed. Is actually one of the proposals for the Namer long term, adding a turret with a 30mm and some external AT Missiles.

I was thinking modular APC/IFV chassis up to light TD, then bigger stuff could use the same basic thing as the MBT. That at all workable or even reasonably thought out?

This is essentially what I've done. I have a light chassis, which is amphibious and easily modified for a number of roles. The only role it wasn't adopted for was light tank/recon tank, which has it's engine in the back but still shares 40% of it's components with the light/universal platform. Anything requiring a chassis heavier than that is based on my Merkava-esque laid out tank. This is good for the other platforms, less so for the tank. A traditional 'engine-in-the-back-where-it-fucking-belongs' tank was later offered, but only the Naval Infantry adopted it; it's ultimately derived from the light tank design.

[Senestrum]

Bah.

I am half-tempted to use Namer (but with a heavy RWS) and BMTP-84 analogues for lolheavy mechanized divisions, with one of each for every squad.

What's that? Each squad has organic tank support? FUCK YEAH

[Axis Nova]

It's true the Stryker has it's own problems, but most of those are teething issues that are being worked out. There's certainly nothing wrong with the basic concept. The guys who got them in Iraq sure seem to love the thing (admittedly, 5 of the 6 units that have them were previously foot infantry, and anything's a step up from that).

I'm actually considering posting an IC thread to solicit a competition to see who can develop the best such vehicle family with PMT tech.

[Munathanura]

Bah.

I am half-tempted to use Namer (but with a heavy RWS) and BMTP-84 analogues for lolheavy mechanized divisions, with one of each for every squad.

What's that? Each squad has organic tank support? FUCK YEAH

Do you mean have a BTMP-84 for each squad or for each platoon?

[Senestrum]

Bah.

I am half-tempted to use Namer (but with a heavy RWS) and BMTP-84 analogues for lolheavy mechanized divisions, with one of each for every squad.

What's that? Each squad has organic tank support? FUCK YEAH

Do you mean have a BTMP-84 for each squad or for each platoon?

I mean a BTMP-84 in every single squad.

For maximum hilarity.

[Munathanura]

Do you mean have a BTMP-84 for each squad or for each platoon?

I mean a BTMP-84 in every single squad.

For maximum hilarity.

Ah, so each squad would have one attached to them, and they'd use it as transport? That is, indeed, lulzy.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

Screw PMT stuff like electric reaction army to stop HEAT rounds. Spaced composite armor is efficient with less technobable required.

PMT? They tested that stuff in Britain already and it works, it's more like MT with a load of R&D and cash. This is not to say however that spaced composite armor is quite invaluable.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Anyway, I have a question. I am planning work on my self propelled artillery, and I love big guns, but I also love having enough ammo to fire for more than a minute without restocking. So, what size gun should I use? I was thinking either a 160mm or 180mm gun, since I want to use my own caliber instead of 155mm, or 152mm.

[Munathanura]

A 160mm gun will give you a lot more ammo than a 180mm gun for the same sized vehicle.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

A 160mm gun will give you a lot more ammo than a 180mm gun for the same sized vehicle.

But a lot less punch and a bit less range.