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

[Aurinsula]

Oh, okay. I'll change it to the K-21, and then the numbers will be the same.

You need both wheeled and tracked vehicles. Both IFVs and APCs. Every major military power does this now.

Oh, I gotcha. Samsung Techwin MPV for the win!

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I dunno.

Kiev says that given sufficient funding, the Ruskies would have happily swapped out all their BTR vehicles for BMPs, since the 2:1 ratio of BTRs to BMPs in MRDs was apparently a budgetary thing.

[The Kievan People]

While a medium APC of some sort is a good thing to have, wheels are strictly optional.

[Purpelia]

I am working on a rough check list of the armored vehicles I need to make for my nation ranging from just after WW2 down to 2013. Please look at it and tell me if I missed anything or added things I should not have.

1. Late 40's - early 50's early MBT (Examples: Centurion, T-55)
2. Late 40's - early 50's APC (some sort of WW2 derived vehicle)
3. Late 50's - early 60's upgrade to #1. (Roughly stuff like the T-62/64 in terms of performance)
4. Late 50's - early 60's APC (Examples: BTR-50, M113)
5. Late 60's MBT (Examples: AMX-30, Leopard 1, Chieftain, T-72)
6. Late 60's IFV (Example: BMP-1)
7. Late 70's - early 80's MBT (Examples: Leopard 2, M1, T-80)
8. Late 70's - early 80's IFV (Example: BMP-2)
9. Late 70's - early 80's APC
10. Early 80's upgrade to #7 (Roughly similar to how the M1 got it's 12cm gun).
11. Late 80's - early 90's upgrade to #7 (New electronics, better night vision, active protection, new writeup - same picture)
12. Late 80's - early 90's APC (Example: BTR-80)
13. Late 80's - early 90's IFV (A BMP-3 clone)
14. Late 90's - early 2000's future MBT
15. Late 90's - early 2000's upgrade to #13

That's all.

Anyone?

[Bhelyant]

I am working on a rough check list of the armored vehicles I need to make for my nation ranging from just after WW2 down to 2013. Please look at it and tell me if I missed anything or added things I should not have.

1. Late 40's - early 50's early MBT (Examples: Centurion, T-55)
2. Late 40's - early 50's APC (some sort of WW2 derived vehicle)
3. Late 50's - early 60's upgrade to #1. (Roughly stuff like the T-62/64 in terms of performance)
4. Late 50's - early 60's APC (Examples: BTR-50, M113)
5. Late 60's MBT (Examples: AMX-30, Leopard 1, Chieftain, T-72)
6. Late 60's IFV (Example: BMP-1)
7. Late 70's - early 80's MBT (Examples: Leopard 2, M1, T-80)
8. Late 70's - early 80's IFV (Example: BMP-2)
9. Late 70's - early 80's APC
10. Early 80's upgrade to #7 (Roughly similar to how the M1 got it's 12cm gun).
11. Late 80's - early 90's upgrade to #7 (New electronics, better night vision, active protection, new writeup - same picture)
12. Late 80's - early 90's APC (Example: BTR-80)
13. Late 80's - early 90's IFV (A BMP-3 clone)
14. Late 90's - early 2000's future MBT
15. Late 90's - early 2000's upgrade to #13

That's all.

Anyone?

Anti-air? Recon? Tank destroyer?

edit: By tank destroyer I mean something like the Stryker MGS, AMX 10 RC, or MOP-4k Fire Support Vehicle
edit x2: light tank maybe?
or bridge layer, and recovery vehicles
unless you were just planning on having variants based of your APC, like with the BTR-4/BTR-40/BTR-152

[Yes Im Biop]

Hover tanks are bad yes. But what about recon vehicles? Something that actually floats 3 or 4 feet off the ground and uses jet or rocket propulsion to get in and get out extremely fast?

[Purpelia]

Hover tanks are bad yes. But what about recon vehicles? Something that actually floats 3 or 4 feet off the ground and uses jet or rocket propulsion to get in and get out extremely fast?

You mean a light helicopter? Since no, you will not be floating 3 of your american feet off the ground and still have decent visibility and obstacle clearance.

[Yes Im Biop]

Hover tanks are bad yes. But what about recon vehicles? Something that actually floats 3 or 4 feet off the ground and uses jet or rocket propulsion to get in and get out extremely fast?

You mean a light helicopter? Since no, you will not be floating 3 of your american feet off the ground and still have decent visibility and obstacle clearance.

More or less but somewhere with more AA Than you can count. A modern nation not someone you can just fly a Blackbird over... 3 meters there we go. I blame my being tired as hell

[Purpelia]

Anti-air? Recon? Tank destroyer?

AA is on a separate list that I yet have to assemble. Since I am going to need gun systems, rocket systems, combined systems. Various ranges and setups. It's a whole separate vehicle tree.

Although you have reminded me to add in a 1950's heavy tank.

edit: By tank destroyer I mean something like the Stryker MGS, AMX 10 RC, or MOP-4k Fire Support Vehicle

I don't do those. I instead issue my last generation tanks with upgrades in the roles. Basically it's the same as if the americans were to issue M-60's instead of strykers. I get away with it because I don't do expeditionary warfare so the extra mass and lack of portability is not a concern.

edit x2: light tank maybe?

Hm... Amphibious light tanks should well be in order. Probably one for each of my mainstream tanks.

or bridge layer, and recovery vehicles

The list is only for combat vehicles. Their offshoots (like the above and many others) are not listed. But every tank will have derivatives in those and other roles.

Upgraded list.

1. Late 40's - early 50's early MBT (Examples: Centurion, T-55)
2. Late 40's - early 50's amphibious light tank (Example: PT-76)
3. Late 40's - early 50's APC (some sort of WW2 derived vehicle)
4. Late 40's - early 50's heavy tank (Examples: IS-3, Conqueror, AMX-50)
   

   ---

5. Late 50's - early 60's upgrade to #1. (Roughly stuff like the T-62/64 in terms of performance)
6. Late 50's - early 60's upgrade to #2.
7. Late 50's - early 60's APC (Examples: BTR-50, M113)
   

   ---

8. Late 60's MBT (Examples: AMX-30, Leopard 1, Chieftain, T-72)
9. Late 60's amphibious light tank
10. Late 60's IFV (Example: BMP-1)
    

    ---

11. Late 70's - early 80's MBT (Examples: Leopard 2, M1, T-80)
12. Late 70's - early 80's amphibious light tank
13. Late 70's - early 80's IFV (Example: BMP-2)
14. Late 70's - early 80's APC
    

    ---

15. Early 80's upgrade to #11 (Roughly similar to how the M1 got it's 12cm gun).
16. Late 80's - early 90's upgrade to #11 (New electronics, better night vision, active protection, new writeup - same picture)
17. Late 80's - early 90's upgrade to #12 (New electronics, better night vision, active protection, new writeup - same picture)
18. Late 80's - early 90's APC (Example: BTR-80)
19. Late 80's - early 90's IFV (A BMP-3 clone)
    

    ---

20. Late 90's - early 2000's future MBT
21. Late 90's - early 2000's future amphibious light tank
22. Late 90's - early 2000's upgrade to #18
23. Late 90's - early 2000's upgrade to #19

[Republica Newland]

amidoinitrie?

[Bhelyant]

edit: By tank destroyer I mean something like the Stryker MGS, AMX 10 RC, or MOP-4k Fire Support Vehicle

I don't do those. I instead issue my last generation tanks with upgrades in the roles. Basically it's the same as if the americans were to issue M-60's instead of strykers. I get away with it because I don't do expeditionary warfare so the extra mass and lack of portability is not a concern.

makes sense, but if you're going to have the logistics to support a tank, why not just use the newer one? I suppose it would have to be based on your lore, but truth be told, I'm assuming you're RPing a nation with the economy to support the extra tanks.

I like the new list though.

[Purpelia]

makes sense, but if you're going to have the logistics to support a tank, why not just use the newer one? I suppose it would have to be based on your lore, but truth be told, I'm assuming you're RPing a nation with the economy to support the extra tanks.

I like the new list though.

It's about the money really. My army has tanks in every motor rifle unit as integral fire support. So every time that a new tank is bought the old ones are relegated to motor rifle divisions. The logic being that building new ones for all units is way too expensive. So you best reserve the new ones for actual tank units.

So as the logic goes why scrap old tanks when you can upgrade them for a fraction of the cost of building new ones. And while they won't be as good at being tanks they needn't be anyway. Since that's not their role any more. Tanking is for tank divisions. And these get the brand new ones. In terms of infrastructure yes, it's a chore. But no more than maintaining a force of strykers since unlike with america there is not going to be a huge gap in time during which the manufacturing and support base for old tanks was dismantled (I don't do that).

I always have two generations of tanks in full production and support. The cost of the extra machinery being offset by the smaller numbers needed for each. That and me being land locked and thus having no navy to eat up my budget.

[Bhelyant]

makes sense, but if you're going to have the logistics to support a tank, why not just use the newer one? I suppose it would have to be based on your lore, but truth be told, I'm assuming you're RPing a nation with the economy to support the extra tanks.

I like the new list though.

It's about the money really. My army has tanks in every motor rifle unit as integral fire support. So every time that a new tank is bought the old ones are relegated to motor rifle divisions. The logic being that building new ones for all units is way too expensive. So you best reserve the new ones for actual tank units.

So as the logic goes why scrap old tanks when you can upgrade them for a fraction of the cost of building new ones. And while they won't be as good at being tanks they needn't be anyway. Since that's not their role any more. Tanking is for tank divisions. And these get the brand new ones. In terms of infrastructure yes, it's a chore. But no more than maintaining a force of strykers since unlike with america there is not going to be a huge gap in time during which the manufacturing and support base for old tanks was dismantled (I don't do that).

I always have two generations of tanks in full production and support. The cost of the extra machinery being offset by the smaller numbers needed for each. That and me being land locked and thus having no navy to eat up my budget.

Would you mind explaining this part, especially the italicized part? It went way over my head, because I thought the entire point of the MGS was to minimize logistics, which I had assumed that was why the MGS and it's counterparts are wheeled instead of tracked.

[Purpelia]

Would you mind explaining this part, especially the italicized part? It went way over my head, because I thought the entire point of the MGS was to minimize logistics, which is a large part of why the MGS and it's counterparts are wheeled instead of tracked.

Well basically the point of the MGS is in several points. But it all boils down to mobility and cost.
There is indeed the minimization of logistics in that the vehicle uses the same platform as the american mainstream APC. Something that most other light tanks of today don't do. And something that leads to compromised armor and other points by default. But that's not really there for maintenance reasons as much as for the sheer costs savings. Americans shut down all the production lines for spare parts and other stuff for the M-60 long ago back when the M1 entered service. Rebuilding all that now would cost as much if not more than just developing something like the MGS even without a convenient vehicle to base it off. And they have one such base in their APC. So it's really the cheaper option. The second reason of course is the need to keep things light and wheeled so that it can be transported by air rapidly around the world. Something a heavy vehicle like the M-60 could newer do.

On the other hand, since the transition in my army would take place immediately upon the new tank entering service there would be no shutting down and dismantling of the production base for the old tank. Thus no need to look for a cheap and available production base to work off. And that saves costs.

Finally, the requirements are different. The americans and western powers in general need a light but heavily armed vehicle to complement their light and weakly armed IFV's and APC's and kill tanks and stuff. As in, they don't need something that can take a tank head on. That's what they use ATGM's for. They need something that can go as far and as easily as their APC's and IFV's and still throw 10cm of HE at stuff. Where as my army has BMP-3's and thus needs a heavily armored and moderately armed vehicle to deliver long range HE (short range being handled) and help with breakthroughs. Basically they need an upgunned IFV whilst I need a proper STUG.

[Bhelyant]

That makes a lot of sense, thank you.

Edit: So you're substituting the MGS for something like a BMPt, BTRt, or Begleitpanzer? Would you retain the original cannon then?
Reading the roles on those, I guess it doesn't really seem like a direct comparison to using the older tanks is. I get what you're saying though at least, there just doesn't seem to be something to compare directly to. >.<

[Lamoni]

What do Dassault want to do, exactly?

Pretty much any of their more profitable areas of operation.

[Rich and Corporations]

I am working on a rough check list of the armored vehicles I need to make for my nation ranging from just after WW2 down to 2013. Please look at it and tell me if I missed anything or added things I should not have.

1. Late 40's - early 50's early MBT (Examples: Centurion, T-55)
2. Late 40's - early 50's APC (some sort of WW2 derived vehicle)
3. Late 50's - early 60's upgrade to #1. (Roughly stuff like the T-62/64 in terms of performance)
4. Late 50's - early 60's APC (Examples: BTR-50, M113)
5. Late 60's MBT (Examples: AMX-30, Leopard 1, Chieftain, T-72)
6. Late 60's IFV (Example: BMP-1)
7. Late 70's - early 80's MBT (Examples: Leopard 2, M1, T-80)
8. Late 70's - early 80's IFV (Example: BMP-2)
9. Late 70's - early 80's APC
10. Early 80's upgrade to #7 (Roughly similar to how the M1 got it's 12cm gun).
11. Late 80's - early 90's upgrade to #7 (New electronics, better night vision, active protection, new writeup - same picture)
12. Late 80's - early 90's APC (Example: BTR-80)
13. Late 80's - early 90's IFV (A BMP-3 clone)
14. Late 90's - early 2000's future MBT
15. Late 90's - early 2000's upgrade to #13

That's all.

You need a decade long recessionary period somewhere with no development. For the US, it was the seventies. For the soviets, it was the late eighties and the early nineties.
And you need a few silly prototypes.

Ultimately, I use pretty much one tank line, with minor adjustments to the hull and armament every decade between the fifties and the nineties.

I don't do those. I instead issue my last generation tanks with upgrades in the roles. Basically it's the same as if the americans were to issue M-60's instead of strykers. I get away with it because I don't do expeditionary warfare so the extra mass and lack of portability is not a concern.

Erm. No. Soviet IFVs are designed to be tank destroyers with an infantry fire support role. This is also why they keep upgrading it, so that it can destroy bigger tanks.
I typically remind people of this if they try basing things off of soviet vehicle designs. It ultimately depends on doctrine, but if you copy the vehicle, you copy the doctrine.

Well basically the point of the MGS is in several points. But it all boils down to mobility and cost.
There is indeed the minimization of logistics in that the vehicle uses the same platform as the american mainstream APC. Something that most other light tanks of today don't do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SK-105_K%C3%BCrassier
There might be a few other light tanks I'm overlooking, but this springs to mind.

They need something that can go as far and as easily as their APC's and IFV's and still throw 10cm of HE at stuff.

I thought that was what the Abrams was for, as well as the various MANP rockets and missiles. Seriously, we have too many Abramses.

Oh, okay. I'll change it to the K-21, and then the numbers will be the same.

You need both wheeled and tracked vehicles. Both IFVs and APCs. Every major military power does this now.

The M113 and the Universal Carrier do not have wheels.

[San-Silvacian]

I am working on a rough check list of the armored vehicles I need to make for my nation ranging from just after WW2 down to 2013. Please look at it and tell me if I missed anything or added things I should not have.

1. Late 40's - early 50's early MBT (Examples: Centurion, T-55)
2. Late 40's - early 50's APC (some sort of WW2 derived vehicle)
3. Late 50's - early 60's upgrade to #1. (Roughly stuff like the T-62/64 in terms of performance)
4. Late 50's - early 60's APC (Examples: BTR-50, M113)
5. Late 60's MBT (Examples: AMX-30, Leopard 1, Chieftain, T-72)
6. Late 60's IFV (Example: BMP-1)
7. Late 70's - early 80's MBT (Examples: Leopard 2, M1, T-80)
8. Late 70's - early 80's IFV (Example: BMP-2)
9. Late 70's - early 80's APC
10. Early 80's upgrade to #7 (Roughly similar to how the M1 got it's 12cm gun).
11. Late 80's - early 90's upgrade to #7 (New electronics, better night vision, active protection, new writeup - same picture)
12. Late 80's - early 90's APC (Example: BTR-80)
13. Late 80's - early 90's IFV (A BMP-3 clone)
14. Late 90's - early 2000's future MBT
15. Late 90's - early 2000's upgrade to #13

That's all.

You need a decade long recessionary period somewhere with no development. For the US, it was the seventies. For the soviets, it was the late eighties and the early nineties.
And you need a few silly prototypes.

Ultimately, I use pretty much one tank line, with minor adjustments to the hull and armament every decade between the fifties and the nineties.

I don't do those. I instead issue my last generation tanks with upgrades in the roles. Basically it's the same as if the americans were to issue M-60's instead of strykers. I get away with it because I don't do expeditionary warfare so the extra mass and lack of portability is not a concern.

Erm. No. Soviet IFVs are designed to be tank destroyers with an infantry fire support role. This is also why they keep upgrading it, so that it can destroy bigger tanks.
I typically remind people of this if they try basing things off of soviet vehicle designs. It ultimately depends on doctrine, but if you copy the vehicle, you copy the doctrine.

Well basically the point of the MGS is in several points. But it all boils down to mobility and cost.
There is indeed the minimization of logistics in that the vehicle uses the same platform as the american mainstream APC. Something that most other light tanks of today don't do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SK-105_K%C3%BCrassier
There might be a few other light tanks I'm overlooking, but this springs to mind.

They need something that can go as far and as easily as their APC's and IFV's and still throw 10cm of HE at stuff.

I thought that was what the Abrams was for, as well as the various MANP rockets and missiles. Seriously, we have too many Abramses.

You need both wheeled and tracked vehicles. Both IFVs and APCs. Every major military power does this now.

The M113 and the Universal Carrier do not have wheels.

The M2/3 Bradley is a tracked IFV
The LAV-III/Stryker is a wheeled APC

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Is "The BTR-90" an acceptable answer?

[Purpelia]

Edit: So you're substituting the MGS for something like a BMPt, BTRt, or Begleitpanzer? Would you retain the original cannon then?

My Motor Rifle (heavy mechanized infantry) Battalion circa 1995 would look something like this:

Motor Rifle Battalion

• Battalion HQ
• Heavy Mortar (AMOS) Battery
• AA Battery (9K22 and 9K35 equivalents)
• Light rocket artillery unit (My own design, think Nebelwerfer)
• Support, supply, engineering and other units
  

  ---

• Motor Rifle Company x 3
  
  • Company Command
  • Motor Rifle Platoon x 3
    
    • Platoon HQ (Using a command IFV with a 82mm gun-mortar)
    • Heavy Weapons Unit (Using a tracked APC)
    • Motor Rifle Squad x 3 (Each squad has a BMP-3)
  • Tank Platoon x 1
    4 x Last-Gen tanks (think stuff like the M-60/Leo 1/T-72)
• Tank Company
  
  • Company Command
  • Tank Platoon x 3
    4 x Last-Gen tanks (think stuff like the M-60/Leo 1/T-72)
  • Motor Rifle Platoon x 1

Reading the roles on those, I guess it doesn't really seem like a direct comparison to using the older tanks is. I get what you're saying though at least, there just doesn't seem to be something to compare directly to. >.<

Well yes, it's not quite right. But the idea is similar enough since there is no real thing to compare it to.

You need a decade long recessionary period somewhere with no development. For the US, it was the seventies. For the soviets, it was the late eighties and the early nineties.

That's my fault really. I did not stick exact dates out there. But I based the progression off the known tank generations. Basically I imagined things being like this:
The 50's MBT is really a late 40's design much like the original MBT's were. It's meant to enter service somewhere around 52-54.
The 60's upgrade to it is intended to resemble the development of such things as the T-64. (1963)
The 60's tank only really comes into play as late as 1969. This leaves about 10-15 years of time for original development.
The 70's-80's tank only really comes into action somewhere around 81-82. This once again leaves about 10-12 years free time.
The 90's tank finally comes into action only in the 2000's. Once more leaving basically 20 years worth of time.

That ok?

And you need a few silly prototypes.

More than would fit the list.... trust me. This is me we are talking about.

Ultimately, I use pretty much one tank line, with minor adjustments to the hull and armament every decade between the fifties and the nineties.

All my tanks are called Vikingr for a reason...

Erm. No. Soviet IFVs are designed to be tank destroyers with an infantry fire support role. This is also why they keep upgrading it, so that it can destroy bigger tanks.
I typically remind people of this if they try basing things off of soviet vehicle designs. It ultimately depends on doctrine, but if you copy the vehicle, you copy the doctrine.

I am taking a similar but different approach to them. My IFV's are meant to be infantry tanks. So they need a 10cm HE thrower to blast buildings, bunkers and the like apart. And the ability to engage stuff with ATGM's is a nice bonus. The tanks in infantry units meanwhile are basically STUG's. Their point being to complement infantry with heavy firepower and armor when fighting other infantry. And give them a shot at taking armor on. Especially once more with large bore ATGM's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SK-105_K%C3%BCrassier
There might be a few other light tanks I'm overlooking, but this springs to mind.

I left it out on purpose as I really do not like reciprocating turrets.

I thought that was what the Abrams was for, as well as the various MANP rockets and missiles. Seriously, we have too many Abramses.

You mean the huge, expensive gas guzzling monstrosity with a smoothbore gun?

The M113 and the Universal Carrier do not have wheels.

Imagine this. Sisu Passi with tracks.
Game, set, match.

[The Akasha Colony]

You mean the huge, expensive gas guzzling monstrosity with a smoothbore gun?

Well, it wasn't originally designed with a smoothbore gun.

[Purpelia]

You mean the huge, expensive gas guzzling monstrosity with a smoothbore gun?

Well, it wasn't originally designed with a smoothbore gun.

That's the catch really. The tank it used to be is actually quite good at infantry support. Now a days it's a huge glorified tank destroyer. That is not to say that it's not an awesome tank destroyer indeed. But still. It would definitively not work for me.

[Immoren]

Well, it wasn't originally designed with a smoothbore gun.

That's the catch really. The tank it used to be is actually quite good at infantry support. Now a days it's a huge glorified tank destroyer. That is not to say that it's not an awesome tank destroyer indeed. But still. It would definitively not work for me.

Wat?

[The Akasha Colony]

Well, it wasn't originally designed with a smoothbore gun.

That's the catch really. The tank it used to be is actually quite good at infantry support. Now a days it's a huge glorified tank destroyer. That is not to say that it's not an awesome tank destroyer indeed. But still. It would definitively not work for me.

It's no less effective at infantry support than it was previously. The decrease in ammunition capacity is immaterial relative to its intended use. The increase in caliber provides it a more powerful HE shell as well. Weight increases were mostly not related to the armament change, either.

[Purpelia]

That's the catch really. The tank it used to be is actually quite good at infantry support. Now a days it's a huge glorified tank destroyer. That is not to say that it's not an awesome tank destroyer indeed. But still. It would definitively not work for me.

It's no less effective at infantry support than it was previously. The decrease in ammunition capacity is immaterial relative to its intended use. The increase in caliber provides it a more powerful HE shell as well. Weight increases were mostly not related to the armament change, either.

But when you take all those things together (more weight, different gun, less ammo, searing heat behind the tank so that you can't stand behind it to take cover, etc.) It's clearly good at what it does, but not as good as it could be at something else if it was designed with that something else in mind.