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

[Samozaryadnyastan]

What do Dassault want to do, exactly?

Pretty much any of their more profitable areas of operation.

Oh wait, they actually do other things?
I honestly had no idea.

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.

Given that one can only realistically access a dozen rounds of 120mm at a time in the Abrams (and maybe 20 when it had 105mm), I'm not sure the decrease in capacity from 60 to 40 rounds really changed anything.

[Bhelyant]

another question

What allows the Cockerill turrets to have such a high gun elevation?

[The Kievan People]

another question

What allows the Cockerill turrets to have such a high gun elevation?

It has a lot of space.

[The Kievan People]

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.

Infantry support does not require arbitrarily large amounts of ammo. And weight is neither here nor there, unless you expect the infantry to push. Combat experience with the Abrams has shown its maingun is so accurate and lethal that the magazine is more than adequate... 1-2 rounds can defeat almost any target.

The hot exhaust could be an issue in some circumstances (ofc infantry support does not automatically entail the tanks and the infantry being within six feet of each other either), but American mech infantry will almost always have their Bradley to hide in or around.

[Fordorsia]

Are you, sir, implying I implemented Warhammer 40k's style into my Mk.2 Trench Tank? Preposterous!


Also. Imperial Guard tank's aesthetics > Everything



By the way, an FN FAL to anyone who can guess what 40k tank I built it off.

Sturmgeschütz Drei?

I don't recall the Stug III being used in the 40k universe.

[Purpelia]

Infantry support does not require arbitrarily large amounts of ammo.

It does if you intend to use your tank as a STUG like I do. Than again I am a big fan of issuing sights for indirect fire to tanks. Think about it...

And weight is neither here nor there, unless you expect the infantry to push.

It's not really about pushing. But I would prefer to have the tanks light enough for my IFV's to team up and pull out of the mud. Something you can conceivably do with a 40-50 ton vehicle and a set of BMP-3's. Not so much with a 70 ton one and a bunch of bradleys. I always look at things from the perspective of my own forces when I judge them you see. And the way I issue tanks it would really hurt if I had to issue a separate set of recovery vehicles for my IFV's and for my tanks rather than something in between.

Combat experience with the Abrams has shown its maingun is so accurate and lethal that the magazine is more than adequate... 1-2 rounds can defeat almost any target.

Yes, for point targets. But what if you want your tanks to serve as a STUG? As in a mobile field artillery piece blowing stuff up on demand for an infantry advance. Don't get me wrong, I issue 12.3cm guns my self. But I prefer rifled guns for the extra range at elevation they give you.

The hot exhaust could be an issue in some circumstances (ofc infantry support does not automatically entail the tanks and the infantry being within six feet of each other either), but American mech infantry will almost always have their Bradley to hide in or around.

But that means you can't advance down a tight street with the tank flanked and covered from behind by infantry. You have to drive in an armored column. And that takes away from your combat ability somewhat.

I don't recall the Stug III being used in the 40k universe.

It's based on those Baneblade titan killers that look like stugs. Either that or the awesome but not always remembered Leaman Russ Destroyer tank hunter.

[Bhelyant]

another question

What allows the Cockerill turrets to have such a high gun elevation?

It has a lot of space.

So not something that could be done with something akin to an MBT-2000, or successor to a T-72? Is this space from a large turret ring, or just because the turret is so large?

[Purpelia]

It has a lot of space.

So not something that could be done with something akin to an MBT-2000, or successor to a T-72? Is this space from a large turret ring, or just because the turret is so large?

Gun elevation is a function of two things. How tall your turret is and how much your gun recoils. The only real limit you see for gun elevation is the angle at which the gun still has enough clearance to recoil freely into the turret without smashing into the floor. So in order to get high elevations you have to mount the guns pivot point higher up necessitating a taller turret. The same is true for depression, just replace floor with roof.

[Immoren]

Yes, for point targets. But what if you want your tanks to serve as a STUG? As in a mobile field artillery piece blowing stuff up on demand for an infantry advance. Don't get me wrong, I issue 12.3cm guns my self. But I prefer rifled guns for the extra range at elevation they give you.

ಠ_ಠ
STuG didn't saturate targets much more than modern MBT doing infantry support.
Point of assault gun was to drive as close as comfortable and destroy (point) target expending as few as possible shells.

[Republic of South Carolina]

Sturmgeschütz Drei?

I don't recall the Stug III being used in the 40k universe.

I had to look up 40k.. Not my cup of tea.

[Bhelyant]

So not something that could be done with something akin to an MBT-2000, or successor to a T-72? Is this space from a large turret ring, or just because the turret is so large?

Gun elevation is a function of two things. How tall your turret is and how much your gun recoils. The only real limit you see for gun elevation is the angle at which the gun still has enough clearance to recoil freely into the turret without smashing into the floor. So in order to get high elevations you have to mount the guns pivot point higher up necessitating a taller turret. The same is true for depression, just replace floor with roof.

So it isn't really possible with a Soviet-esque low profile turret? And instead of lobbing HE into tall buildings against infantry with a high gun depression, I should instead have a large coaxial like the AMX-30 where the autocannon is largely independent of the main cannon?

[The Kievan People]

Lets get a few things straight here...

1. Stugs are not infantry support vehicles. Full stop. Assault guns were conceived of to support tanks.
2. Assault guns are not meant to perform lengthy indirect bombardment. They exist because regular artillery is too slow, a Stug is supposed to engage targets with direct fire as quickly as possible. That is why they have armor.
3. Infantry already have mortars, which are great for bombarding things. An infantry support tank that also performs indirect fire is a redundant waste of money.
4. Now that SPH's are ubiquitous it would be of limited value even in a tank unit.

Now it is true that assault guns, especially Soviet assault guns, got used for indirect fire during WWII. But this was caused more by a shortage (or in the Soviets case a complete lack) of genuine self-propelled guns than anything else. Even there it was the Tank units that were most likely to fall back on the ISU's because they regularly outran the rest of the guns. The infantry didn't and had plenty of guns and howitzers for fire support.

[The Kievan People]

So it isn't really possible with a Soviet-esque low profile turret? And instead of lobbing HE into tall buildings against infantry with a high gun depression, I should instead have a large coaxial like the AMX-30 where the autocannon is largely independent of the main cannon?

Why aren't you just shooting directly at them? With a delay fuze a 105mm HE shell will easily penetrate any civy wall.

But it is not a matter of the turrets HEIGHT. Height limits depression. Elevation requires space below and behind the gun. The Cockerill turret has a small gun in a very deep turret ring, so there is plenty of space to elevate the gun.

[Purpelia]

1. Stugs are not infantry support vehicles. Full stop. Assault guns were conceived of to support tanks.

Oh. In that case I got my comparison wrong. My bad. Basically I intend to issue tanks as heavy fire support capable of limited indirect fire (not much, it is a tank after all. But even +5 degrees of elevation can matter.) but mostly just acting like a heavily armed and armored element in a mechanized infantry force. The idea being that no infantry unit is ever without tank support. But due to costs older tanks that still work fine are issued to the infantry and the more modern tanks are pooled in dedicated tank units.

[The Kievan People]

1. Stugs are not infantry support vehicles. Full stop. Assault guns were conceived of to support tanks.

Oh. In that case I got my comparison wrong. My bad. Basically I intend to issue tanks as heavy fire support capable of limited indirect fire (not much, it is a tank after all. But even +5 degrees of elevation can matter.) but mostly just acting like a heavily armed and armored element in a mechanized infantry force. The idea being that no infantry unit is ever without tank support. But due to costs older tanks that still work fine are issued to the infantry and the more modern tanks are pooled in dedicated tank units.

Again, why do they need a tank to perform indirect fire? What happened to their mortars?

[Purpelia]

Oh. In that case I got my comparison wrong. My bad. Basically I intend to issue tanks as heavy fire support capable of limited indirect fire (not much, it is a tank after all. But even +5 degrees of elevation can matter.) but mostly just acting like a heavily armed and armored element in a mechanized infantry force. The idea being that no infantry unit is ever without tank support. But due to costs older tanks that still work fine are issued to the infantry and the more modern tanks are pooled in dedicated tank units.

Again, why do they need a tank to perform indirect fire? What happened to their mortars?

You got it all wrong. The tanks are not there for indirect fire by design. It's just that since the barrel already elevates I might as well use it. The only provision I would include is some sort of rudimentary sight.

[The Kievan People]

If the indirect fire capability is incidental, why do they need exceptionally large magazines?

[Purpelia]

If the indirect fire capability is incidental, why do they need exceptionally large magazines?

They don't. I said as much when I said the tanks would have 12.3cm cannons. My issue was with the heat of the engine and the mass of the vehicle making it somewhat impractical for infantry support when the rest of their formation would have much lighter ones. The whole magazine size tangent sort of just happened in a way that I have no idea how.

[Bhelyant]

So it isn't really possible with a Soviet-esque low profile turret? And instead of lobbing HE into tall buildings against infantry with a high gun depression, I should instead have a large coaxial like the AMX-30 where the autocannon is largely independent of the main cannon?

Why aren't you just shooting directly at them? With a delay fuze a 105mm HE shell will easily penetrate any civy wall.

But it is not a matter of the turrets HEIGHT. Height limits depression. Elevation requires space below and behind the gun. The Cockerill turret has a small gun in a very deep turret ring, so there is plenty of space to elevate the gun.

I'm not looking at an IFV capable of high elevation, but a 125mm cannon with an autoloader. Would something not much larger than a T-72 be able to have a deep enough turret ring for that?

[Purpelia]

Why aren't you just shooting directly at them? With a delay fuze a 105mm HE shell will easily penetrate any civy wall.

But it is not a matter of the turrets HEIGHT. Height limits depression. Elevation requires space below and behind the gun. The Cockerill turret has a small gun in a very deep turret ring, so there is plenty of space to elevate the gun.

I'm not looking at an IFV capable of high elevation, but a 125mm cannon with an autoloader. Would something not much larger than a T-72 be able to have a deep enough turret ring for that?

As I said, you have to have enough room down there for the gun to not hit the floor. So no. Especially not if you want to reload without leveling the gun out first.

[Bhelyant]

As I said, you have to have enough room down there for the gun to not hit the floor. So no. Especially not if you want to reload without leveling the gun out first.

So it isn't really possible with a Soviet-esque low profile turret? And instead of lobbing HE into tall buildings against infantry with a high gun depression, I should instead have a large coaxial like the AMX-30 where the autocannon is largely independent of the main cannon?

Does that sound about right?
I forgot who it was, but someone said that the 23x115mm would be ideal for that role. Would that have enough velocity for the role (720 m/s,) and would it be capable of emergency anti-helicopter use? I'd imagine one of the cannons from a ZU-23-2 wouldn't be realistic for anyone claiming to be RT. (and ammo capacity probably wouldn't be there anyways)

[Republic of South Carolina]

Why aren't you just shooting directly at them? With a delay fuze a 105mm HE shell will easily penetrate any civy wall.

But it is not a matter of the turrets HEIGHT. Height limits depression. Elevation requires space below and behind the gun. The Cockerill turret has a small gun in a very deep turret ring, so there is plenty of space to elevate the gun.

I'm not looking at an IFV capable of high elevation, but a 125mm cannon with an autoloader. Would something not much larger than a T-72 be able to have a deep enough turret ring for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprut-sd

[Purpelia]

I'm not looking at an IFV capable of high elevation, but a 125mm cannon with an autoloader. Would something not much larger than a T-72 be able to have a deep enough turret ring for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprut-sd

Not an IFV. Can't carry troops.

[Yes Im Biop]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprut-sd

Not an IFV. Can't carry troops.

I always have had a different perspective from an IFV and an APC. IFV Are made to support troop's with armor and heavier guns. APC's are made to get people around in armor with a LMG or HMG Mount

[Samozaryadnyastan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprut-sd

Not an IFV. Can't carry troops.

I don't strictly see why it can't, since it's just a BMP-3 with a different turret. Troops are sat all around the turret anyway in a BMP-3 so my guess is that the issue is to do with ammunition lying in all the everywhere.