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

[Daemyrs]

No comments or feedback for Daecrap?

And now for DaeSpam
(Image)
M2 Main Battle Tank
(Image)
M2ARV Armored Recovery Vehicle
(Image)
M9AT Infantry Fighting Vehicle
(Image)
M9SPAAG Self Propelled Anti-aircraft System
(Image)
M9UVA Utility Vehicle, Armored
(Image)
M61D Main Battle Tank
(Image)
M91 Self Propelled Howitzer
(Image)
M91ARS Ammunition Replenishment System

[Rich and Corporations]

No comments or feedback for Daecrap?

Needs more statblock, otherwise it looks like... most vehicles?

Armored Recovery Vehicle

The crane is too thick. Most cranes then to be a bit more... wirey.

[NewRussland]

The ground forces of the USSNRL are as followed.
1)Focus Model: Leopard 2A6
Crew: 4

Overall Length: 31.73ft (9.67m)
Width: 12.14ft (3.70m)
Height: 8.14ft (2.48m)
Weight: 60.8 US Short Tons (55,150kg; 121,585lbs)

Powerplant: 1 x MTU MB-873 Ka 501 4-stroke 12-cylinder liquid-cooled turbocharged diesel with an output of 1,500hp @ 2,600rpm.

Maximum Speed: 45mph (72 km/h)
Maximum Range: 342 miles (550 km)

NBC Protection: Yes
Nightvision: Yes - Passive

Armament:
EARLY:
1 x 120mm Rheinmetall L44 smoothbore main gun
1 x 7.62mm MG3A1 co-axial machine gun
1 x 7.62mm MG3A1 anti-aircraft machine gun
2 x 8 smoke grenade dischargers

LEOPARD 2A6 (and later):
1 x 120mm Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore main gun
1 x 7.62mm MG3A1 co-axial machine gun
1 x 7.62mm MG3A1 anti-aircraft machine gun
2 x 8 smoke grenade dischargers
2)Focus Model: ARTEC Boxer
Crew: 3 + 8

Overall Length: 25.85ft (7.88m)
Width: 11.84ft (3.61m)
Height: 9.81ft (2.99m)
Weight: 28.2 US Short Tons (25,604kg; 56,447lbs)

Powerplant: 1 x MTU V8 199 TE20 diesel engine developing 711 horsepower engine.

Maximum Speed: 64mph (103 km/h)
Maximum Range: 652 miles (1,050 km)

NBC Protection: Yes
Nightvision: Yes

Armament:
Various - dependent on mission-specific parameters.

1 x 40mm HK GMG automatic grenade launcher OR 1 x 12.7mm M3M heavy machine gun OR 1 x 7.62mm General Purpose Machine Gun.
8 x Smoke Grenade Dischargers
3Focus Model: Oshkosh M-ATV
Crew: 5

Overall Length: 20.54ft (6.26m)
Width: 8.17ft (2.49m)
Height: 8.73ft (2.66m)
Weight: 12.1 US Short Tons (11,000kg; 24,251lbs)

Powerplant: 1 x Caterpillar C7 7.2-liter inline-6 turbodiesel engine delivering 370bhp.

Maximum Speed: 65mph (105 km/h)
Maximum Range: 317 miles (510 km)

NBC Protection: Yes
Nightvision: Yes

Armament:
Mission-dependent, but can include such weapon systems mounted on the roof of the cabin:

1 x 7.62mm M240 General Purpose Machine Gun
1 x 40mm Mk 19 Automatic Grenade Launcher
1 x BGM-71 TOW Anti-Tank Wire-Guided Missile System.
4))Focus Model: 2S25 (Sprut-SD)
Crew: 3

Overall Length: 23.62ft (7.20m)
Width: 10.50ft (3.20m)
Height: 0.00ft (0.00m)
Weight: 19.8 US Short Tons (18,000kg; 39,683lbs)

Powerplant: 1 x 2V-06-2 liquid-cooled diesel engine developing 510 horsepower.

Maximum Speed: 43mph (70 km/h)
Maximum Range: 311 miles (500 km)

NBC Protection: Yes
Nightvision: Yes

Armament:
1 x 125mm 2A75 main gun
1 x 7.62mm coaxial machine gun
6 x Smoke Grenade Dischargers

[Registug]

Continuing with my obsession with wanting to actually field the AC Sentinel in the WWII era of my nation...

Anyone who knows engines, how much of an improvement would there have been if the planned engine for the Sentinel (according to Wiki), the Pratt & Whitney Wasp, had been available to use over the engine pack they actually did use, that being three Cadillac V8 engines put together.

I have no idea about how to engine apart from the very basics of internal combustion, so, uh...

I know that a low power/weight ratio was an issue, so I was wondering if that could be improved had the Pratt & Whitley been available and put in the tank.

[Lazania]

Continuing with my obsession with wanting to actually field the AC Sentinel in the WWII era of my nation...

Anyone who knows engines, how much of an improvement would there have been if the planned engine for the Sentinel (according to Wiki), the Pratt & Whitney Wasp, had been available to use over the engine pack they actually did use, that being three Cadillac V8 engines put together.

I have no idea about how to engine apart from the very basics of internal combustion, so, uh...

I know that a low power/weight ratio was an issue, so I was wondering if that could be improved had the Pratt & Whitley been available and put in the tank.

Well, here's some basic numbers from what I can bring up:

Pratt & Whitney R-1340-S1H1-G Wasp
Dry weight: 930 lb (422 kg)
Power output: 600 hp (447 kW) at 2,250 rpm at 6,200 ft (1,890 m)

x3 Cadillac 5.7 L V7
Dry weight: Roughly 1518 lbs (690 kg)
Power output: 330 horsepower (246 kW)

So yeah, you can definitely see the issue. I'm guessing the Pratt & Whitney would have even more power output at sea level.

Note: I couldn't find a weight for a 1940s Cadillac V8, so I just took a number someone else gave on a board where someone was asking what strength hoist would be needed to lift a V8 into a vehicle. Can anyone provide authentic information on the specific engines?

[Registug]

So with the Pratt & Whitley numbers that you gave me, the power/weight worked out to be 21hp/tonne.

Yes that is definitely a big improvement.

*Note, I have no idea what I'm doing, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Well, firstly, you're going to have to find the Wasp radial that actually fit in the Sentinel.

The Cadillac engine in question is the Monobloc V8. I can't find information on the weights of it but it presumably weighed around 250kg.

[Registug]

The Wasp version in question would have been one available in 1942-43.

According to this article (which seems legit AFAIK), the engine would've been 400hp.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

(Image)
Lineart of tank, driver's vision slit open.
1 px to 1 cm

T-1 Tank
Country: Corporate Confederacy
Date of Production: 1923-1934
Weight: 14 tonnes

Crew: Gunner, Commander/Loader/Radio Operator, Driver

Primary Armament: 4 cm L/15
Coaxial Armament: .7 cm L/60

Frontal Hull Armor: 30mm armor plate
Side Hull Armor: 6mm armor skirt, 10mm side armor
Rear Hull Armor: 6mm

Frontal Turret Armor: 30mm armor plate
Side & Rear Turret Armor: 25mm armor plate

Engine: 145 hp (at 1,600 rpm) 4-cylinder water-cooled inline engine
Fuel Range: 80 km


Engine is in separate compartment from crew. Two hatches: one on top of turret, and one in the rear.

281 by 85cm?

[Anemos Major]

HT9A7 Block II Main Battle Tank

- 128mm gun armament
- Designed for both BLOS and WLOS combat against armoured assets
- Equips four out of five tank crews per Armoured platoon
- Assigned to Armoured and Marine Armoured formations

HT9A7/2 Support Battle Tank

- 155mm gun-launcher armament
- Designed for support against armour at BLOS engagement distances (primarily) and against other assets (infantry, buildings etc) at closer ranges
- The fifth tank in every Armoured tank platoon
- Assigned to Armoured and Marine Armoured formations

YrC9 Self-Propelled Howitzer

- SC22.9 155mm Active-Cooled Howitzer as main armament
- Designed for long range fire support, area denial and precision fire roles
- Integrated into Armoured formations as Brigade level support assets, additionally equips role-specific Artillery Brigades at the Army level

HT9A7 IPM Multiple Rocket System

- 4x10 arrangement of rockets, variable role
- Designed for direct fire support and support for armoured assets against troop concentrations and fortifications
- Integrated into Armoured formations only as breakthrough assets under Brigade-level command

YrT9A2 Solentyr Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle

- Built around a 45mm automatic cannon armament and its 6 troop carrying capability
- With limited troop transport capabilities, its 45mm armament is designed to provide direct and heavy support for Mechanised infantry groups against harder assets and, conversely, support against lighter assets for Armoured groups
- Integrated into Mechanised formations as support assets, Armoured formations at the company level as a transport and support vehicle and the 10th Army's MERs as assault vehicles (with modifications)

HT9A7 IFDE Short-Range Air Defence System

- Armed with a dual 35mm automatic cannon and 12 externally mounted SAM tubes
- Designed for rotary-wing asset engagements and to provide a last-level defence against fixed-wing threats
- Plays air-defence roles in Armoured and Marine formations, with additional roles as SHORADS units in Air Defence formations and key-area defence as part of Army-level commands

HT9A7 IRM Armoured Recovery Vehicle

- Crane, dozer blade and modular equipment compartments added to modified superstructure for recovery and engineering operations
- Designed for full hatch-down recovery activities in high-intensity battlefields
- Integrated into Armoured and Marine formations, with additional vehicles in individual commands at the Army level for additional support to formations in combat

HT9A7 OUY Mine Clearance Vehicle

- Three-stage mine roller and MICLIC rockets provide comprehensive mine-clearance capabilities
- Designed for frontline integrated high-speed mine clearance
- Integrated into Armoured and Marine formations, with limited assets within Mechanised brigades

[Questers]

Anemos - How are your platoons structured that there can be a distinction between the 4/5 and 1/5?

[Anemos Major]

Anemos - How are your platoons structured that there can be a distinction between the 4/5 and 1/5?

For the most part, platoons are intended to break into three during combat (that distinction existed before the introduction of the SBT) - with one taking on a fire-support and overwatch role, the other four tanks form two manoeuvre groups that move to engage the enemy as necessary.

E: The command tank is in one of the manoeuvre groups, mind.

[Yes Im Biop]

Anemos: Why don't you use a mine thrasher as well?

[Anemos Major]

Anemos: Why don't you use a mine thrasher as well?

Because they're both inefficient and unnecessary, especially on a vehicle like this. A mine flail wears out very quickly compared to other direct pressure based mine clearance alternatives - one hit on a heavier mine and it doesn't do wonders for the clearance system's health. On the other hand, the multi-stage system used on the OUY is comprehensive enough to ensure that the flail's niche is filled in a more efficient and cost effective manner - there's nothing the flail does that the OUY doesn't, the primary difference being that short of reloading the rockets, the maintenance requirements also go down.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Quick note, you've described the Solentyr's armament as 45mm, then as 40mm.

[Anemos Major]

Quick note, you've described the Solentyr's armament as 45mm, then as 40mm.

Odd. Thanks.

[Questers]

I await eagerly an internal view of the HT9A7.

[Anemos Major]

I await eagerly an internal view of the HT9A7.

Once I finish linearting the A8, I'll probably gun for something like that. Partly out of necessity, since it's going to be an odd layout that I'll be dealing with there. (For now, however, I have a very long list of much more important things to get through)

[Questers]

I await eagerly an internal view of the HT9A7.

Once I finish linearting the A8, I'll probably gun for something like that. Partly out of necessity, since it's going to be an odd layout that I'll be dealing with there. (For now, however, I have a very long list of much more important things to get through)

In what way is it odd?

[San-Silvacian]

So, HIFVs.

My HIFVs will be attached solely to armored regiments for heavy infantry support.

Now, the current armament of my HIFVs is a 100mm smoothbore low-velocity gun and a 30mm co-axial. They carry 8 infantry each.

https://imageshack.com/a/img819/6730/1x3.png

Thing is, my HIFV shares the same turret with my IFV,



Now with my HIFV based off my MBT, I think I could throw in a bigger main gun, or just a larger co-axial. However with a large co-axial or main gun, I take away the number of infantry I can carry. Plus I need another round to shove into my supply lines.

Lineart wise, I need to work on making some parts more IFV-ish. Also my 30mm co-axials look like sissy pussy 20-25mms, not manly bacon flavored 30mm autocannons.

Bottom IFV is for protection of places like military bases in San-Silvacian, silos, attached to security companies for SAM units and the like.

[Rich and Corporations]

281 by 85cm?

Yes?

<snip>

Points of contention:
A 155mm gun-howitzer would be able to launch missiles fast enough to engage subsonic jet aircraft.
Anyone using a future combat systems derived military equipment will be armored against 45mm.
Ostensibly using non-engineering support vehicles on a main battle tank chassis is inefficient and heavy, (except for artillery).
The Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle should carry more troops if it's based on a MBT chassis. You can also move weight lost from the turret onto armoring the belly and sides of the tank.

Now with my HIFV based off my MBT, I think I could throw in a bigger main gun, or just a larger co-axial. However with a large co-axial or main gun, I take away the number of infantry I can carry. Plus I need another round to shove into my supply lines.

Lineart wise, I need to work on making some parts more IFV-ish. Also my 30mm co-axials look like sissy pussy 20-25mms, not manly bacon flavored 30mm autocannons.

Bottom IFV is for protection of places like military bases in San-Silvacian, silos, attached to security companies for SAM units and the like.

If you use a common round for your HIFVs and light tanks, it would be feasible. It seems like the smallest SACLOS anti tank rockets can go is 75mm, so maybe give light tanks and HIFVs a 76mm medium pressure gun?

[Yes Im Biop]

Anemos: Why don't you use a mine thrasher as well?

Because they're both inefficient and unnecessary, especially on a vehicle like this. A mine flail wears out very quickly compared to other direct pressure based mine clearance alternatives - one hit on a heavier mine and it doesn't do wonders for the clearance system's health. On the other hand, the multi-stage system used on the OUY is comprehensive enough to ensure that the flail's niche is filled in a more efficient and cost effective manner - there's nothing the flail does that the OUY doesn't, the primary difference being that short of reloading the rockets, the maintenance requirements also go down.

O. Cool, so is it an RC? I couldn't tell from the description

[Anemos Major]

A 155mm gun-howitzer would be able to launch missiles fast enough to engage subsonic jet aircraft.

Your point being? (sorry, I'm being a bit slow today)

Anyone using a future combat systems derived military equipment will be armored against 45mm.

They'll be armoured against what 45mm constitutes today if you make a regular autocannon bigger, but higher efficiency propellants used with APDS rounds in higher resilience autocannon barrels are more than capable of engaging most threats of that kind. If they aren't, well, that's what bigger guns are for, especially in an army which has 105mm armed vehicles filling the intermediate niche. There's absolutely no need to try and force an autocannon to do the work of a main battle tank.

Ostensibly using non-engineering support vehicles on a main battle tank chassis is inefficient and heavy, (except for artillery).

TOS-1 did it, BMPT did it. Assault Breacher Vehicle did it. If the vehicles are mostly attached to armoured formations, and the armoured formations are using tanks, building everything off the same chassis (especially when it's a modular one that can be lightened fairly easily) means a fair bit of logistics savings and supply line efficiency. What you say is true, in that a heavy MBT chassis has its own set of disadvantages, but given that I expect all these vehicles to operate in a frontline environment alongside the very tanks they're based off I'd argue that it's a justified decision and most certainly not one that has no precedents in the modern day.

The Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle should carry more troops if it's based on a MBT chassis. You can also move weight lost from the turret onto armoring the belly and sides of the tank.

It can carry more troops if it's based on an MBT (the maximum amount of troops it can seat is eight, fully equipped) but since it isn't used to ferry around infantry as its main role per se (it's more there to bridge the gap between smaller IFVs and larger tanks, while providing a 45mm armament to the latter), I've ended up setting it at six on paper and using the rest of the capacity to store ammunition and equipment.

[Anemos Major]

O. Cool, so is it an RC? I couldn't tell from the description

RC?

[Rich and Corporations]

TOS-1 did it, BMPT did it. Assault Breacher Vehicle did it. If the vehicles are mostly attached to armoured formations, and the armoured formations are using tanks, building everything off the same chassis (especially when it's a modular one that can be lightened fairly easily) means a fair bit of logistics savings and supply line efficiency. What you say is true, in that a heavy MBT chassis has its own set of disadvantages, but given that I expect all these vehicles to operate in a frontline environment alongside the very tanks they're based off I'd argue that it's a justified decision and most certainly not one that has no precedents in the modern day.

I'm pretty sure very few RL AA tanks are used on a MBT chassis, if it weren't for austerity, we'd primarily be using Bradley chassis for that... I think, but we mount AA mainly on our HUMVW. Few rear vehicles have no need for the weight capacity of a MBT chassis. For instance, 10% of a vehicles weight is in it's suspension, if you have a vehicle that's overdesigned for it's requirements, it will consume too much fuel.


There are precedents, historical ofcourse, of the German plans to build flakzwilling E100, and the fielding of Porsche Tigers with the Ferdinand, but I forgive your lack of knowledge in this matter.

Your point being? (sorry, I'm being a bit slow today)

It was just a suggestion. Another suggestion is to replace the 155mm gun on the SPA with a 105mm high velocity, add anti-air box launchers, and mount a radar on it, and you'd have a decent air defence tank.

It can carry more troops if it's based on an MBT (the maximum amount of troops it can seat is eight, fully equipped) but since it isn't used to ferry around infantry as its main role per se (it's more there to bridge the gap between smaller IFVs and larger tanks, while providing a 45mm armament to the latter), I've ended up setting it at six on paper and using the rest of the capacity to store ammunition and equipment.

I see, you should mention that. Although given that the M3 Bradley exists, maybe have a six passenger variant and a ten passenger variant. As a suggestion.