Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mk.IV

[Arthurista]

Is it better to use heavy metal as a backing layer or weave it into the matrix itself with ceramics and RHS?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Heavy metals typically sit within the bowels of an armour scheme. RHA usually is the 'backing' material.

[The Akasha Colony]

Is it better to use heavy metal as a backing layer or weave it into the matrix itself with ceramics and RHS?

Usually they're kept in a separate layer so that they can be replaced independently of the ceramics. The ceramics are the most likely to get damaged by an impact, while the heavy metals are the most expensive. So the array is designed so that the ceramics can be replaced on their own without replacing the undamaged heavy metal module. The backing layer is indeed usually some form of hardened steel or some such. RHA is common, but fancier steels are becoming more frequent as designers try to squeeze more protection without large weight increases.

[Arthurista]

Is it better to use heavy metal as a backing layer or weave it into the matrix itself with ceramics and RHS?

Usually they're kept in a separate layer so that they can be replaced independently of the ceramics. The ceramics are the most likely to get damaged by an impact, while the heavy metals are the most expensive. So the array is designed so that the ceramics can be replaced on their own without replacing the undamaged heavy metal module. The backing layer is indeed usually some form of hardened steel or some such. RHA is common, but fancier steels are becoming more frequent as designers try to squeeze more protection without large weight increases.

Thanks. How about titanium alloy? Can I use it to replace RHS either on its own or woven into the matrix?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Titanium makes for a poor armour material for reasons I cannot recall.

[The Akasha Colony]

Usually they're kept in a separate layer so that they can be replaced independently of the ceramics. The ceramics are the most likely to get damaged by an impact, while the heavy metals are the most expensive. So the array is designed so that the ceramics can be replaced on their own without replacing the undamaged heavy metal module. The backing layer is indeed usually some form of hardened steel or some such. RHA is common, but fancier steels are becoming more frequent as designers try to squeeze more protection without large weight increases.

Thanks. How about titanium alloy? Can I use it to replace RHS either on its own or woven into the matrix?

Unless you're absolutely pressed for every ounce, it's probably better to stick to steel and use something like dual-hardness or triple-hardness steel. For the same weight as RHS, you get much improved protection, although THS is difficult to machine into particularly thick plates (which isn't normally an issue since it's more efficient as a spaced armor). It's more expensive of course, but so is titanium.

[Risen Britannia]

pew pew pew.

Also watch this space for a VLS AA variant.

[Rich and Corporations]

Is it better to use heavy metal as a backing layer or weave it into the matrix itself with ceramics and RHS?

From what I've read, magnesium is a superior backing material due to stiffness.
It is also lighter.

[Fordorsia]

Who here likes early tanks?

[Purpelia]

(Image)
pew pew pew.

Also watch this space for a VLS AA variant.

What font is that on the side?

[Purpelia]

Who here likes early tanks?

Me. And surprisingly enough my early tank looks quite similar to that. I just have to finish drawing the Armored Field Gun Carrier 7.8cm.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Is it better to use heavy metal as a backing layer or weave it into the matrix itself with ceramics and RHS?

From what I've read, magnesium is a superior backing material due to stiffness.
It is also lighter.

It also ignites readily in air.

Admittedly, it's harder to light a whacking chunk than a strip or powder, but having several tons of flare ignite inside the tank will be good for no-one.

[Risen Britannia]

(Image)
pew pew pew.

Also watch this space for a VLS AA variant.

What font is that on the side?

Its not a preset, I used the line and pencil tool to make it and then put a "filter" over it.

Who here likes early tanks?

(Image)

needs sponsons

[Purpelia]

What font is that on the side?

Its not a preset, I used the line and pencil tool to make it and then put a "filter" over it.

I feared as much. I have an equally hard time finding fonts for my own vehicles.

[Fordorsia]

What font is that on the side?

Its not a preset, I used the line and pencil tool to make it and then put a "filter" over it.

Who here likes early tanks?

(Image)

needs sponsons

Later models maybe.

[Purpelia]

How does this sound for a tank armament layout circa 1917.
7.8cm field gun in the nose
1 x 7.5mm maxim gun in the hull front
2 x 37mm maxim guns in sponsons (front)
2 x 7.5mm maxim guns in sponsons (rear)
1 x 2cm maxim gun in an elevated commanders box on top of the hull.
1 x 7.5mm maxim gun in the hull (rear)

Design vise imagine a St. Charmont with Mark I style tracks.

[Fordorsia]

How does this sound for a tank armament layout circa 1917.
7.8cm field gun in the nose
1 x 7.5mm maxim gun in the hull front
2 x 37mm maxim guns in sponsons (front)
2 x 7.5mm maxim guns in sponsons (rear)
1 x 2cm maxim gun in an elevated commanders box on top of the hull.
1 x 7.5mm maxim gun in the hull (rear)

Design vise imagine a St. Charmont with Mark I style tracks.

That amount of guns and ammo variation seems bad even by WW1 standards.

[Purpelia]

How does this sound for a tank armament layout circa 1917.
7.8cm field gun in the nose
1 x 7.5mm maxim gun in the hull front
2 x 37mm maxim guns in sponsons (front)
2 x 7.5mm maxim guns in sponsons (rear)
1 x 2cm maxim gun in an elevated commanders box on top of the hull.
1 x 7.5mm maxim gun in the hull (rear)

Design vise imagine a St. Charmont with Mark I style tracks.

That amount of guns and ammo variation seems bad even by WW1 standards.

Why? It's only 3 different types of rounds.
Also, the rear machine gun and rear sponson guns would not have attached operators. They would only be there in case for some reason the tank needs to shoot backward and would be operated by the engineer and sponson gunners who would leave their regular posts to do so.

[Fordorsia]

That amount of guns and ammo variation seems bad even by WW1 standards.

Why? It's only 3 different types of rounds.
Also, the rear machine gun and rear sponson guns would not have attached operators. They would only be there in case for some reason the tank needs to shoot backward and would be operated by the engineer and sponson gunners who would leave their regular posts to do so.

Having that sort of hull and track design, you're obviously going for trench warfare. If your nation has experience trench warfare, then they'll know that they'll need more anti personnel ability than anti fortification ability, especially facing front. I'd say drop either the 75mm or the two 37mm guns and replace them with more Maxims.

[Purpelia]

Why? It's only 3 different types of rounds.
Also, the rear machine gun and rear sponson guns would not have attached operators. They would only be there in case for some reason the tank needs to shoot backward and would be operated by the engineer and sponson gunners who would leave their regular posts to do so.

Having that sort of hull and track design, you're obviously going for trench warfare. If your nation has experience trench warfare, then they'll know that they'll need more anti personnel ability that anti fortification ability. I'd say drop either the 75mm or the two 37mm guns and replace them with more Maxims.

The 78mm is non optional. It's the whole purpose of the vehicle. That's why I did not call it tank but Armored Gun Carrier. The concept behind it was that infantry needed a way of getting a 78mm field gun into direct fire range safely to blow up bunkers. So they built an armored vehicle around it.

Also, there is going to be a male and a female version. The male has 2x37mm canons while the female has machine guns all round. And they would be deployed in a 2-1 ratio. So 2 females for each male. That should settle the disparity in firepower.

I also have lighter tanks for more machine gunny support FT-17 style.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

BMPT, a modern-day revival of Great War armoured doctrine.

[Fordorsia]

Having that sort of hull and track design, you're obviously going for trench warfare. If your nation has experience trench warfare, then they'll know that they'll need more anti personnel ability that anti fortification ability. I'd say drop either the 75mm or the two 37mm guns and replace them with more Maxims.

The 78mm is non optional. It's the whole purpose of the vehicle. That's why I did not call it tank but Armored Gun Carrier. The concept behind it was that infantry needed a way of getting a 78mm field gun into direct fire range safely to blow up bunkers. So they built an armored vehicle around it.

Also, there is going to be a male and a female version. The male has 2x37mm canons while the female has machine guns all round. And they would be deployed in a 2-1 ratio. So 2 females for each male. That should settle the disparity in firepower.

I also have lighter tanks for more machine gunny support FT-17 style.

Ah yes, just like the Mk.1 Tank. Makes sense now.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Is it carrying the 17-pounder Chamond-style?

[Purpelia]

Is it carrying the 17-pounder Chamond-style?

Yep. Also, I made the slight mistake in citing my main gun caliber. The 78mm is for my WW2 tank (I always get those mixed up) The actual gun for this thing is modeled on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/65/17_howitzer
A relatively light 65mm howitzer that should have a decently small recoil, decent range (with limited elevation after all) and be much lighter and easier to mount. I have this notion of rapid walking fire with 65mm rounds blazing away at enemy pillboxes.

[Risen Britannia]

did you say bunkers?

Primary armament: 8 inch (203mm) siege cannon
Secondary armament: 2 X BL 2.75 inch mountain guns
Tertiary armament: 3 x Hotchkiss mark 1 machine guns, Vickers machine gun