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

[Lydenburg]

It's not even air-portable like the AML, is it?

It doesn't need to be - the lighter armour role is filled by the Sagaie.

Does the Legion use the Sagaie? According to Dave Jordan's History of the French Foreign Legion, they used some AMLs but mostly the EBR until the '70s, when they skipped directly to the AMX 10 RC.

Which would make no sense, unless there's some bureaucratic nonsense here I don't know about.

[The Soodean Imperium]

i forgot about the gun and engine. I also think everywhere i heard about that from referred to early T-90s.

I also dont count ERA as a true upgrade to a tank since you can add that stuff onto almost anything.

With the Soviets and Russians, protective improvements, even if it is bolt-on ERA, generally incited new designations (i.e. T-80B -> T-80BV), so from a designation point of view it'd be included in the overall scheme of what a Russian tank 'upgrade' constitutes. It's a perfectly valid point, mind, just not the line of thought the tanks' users subscribed to.

Early T-90s used an improved gun (mentioned that above), but the engine upgrade was just a vaguely modified version of that already used on the T-72B (I think it was the B) - it took it until the T-90A to give the T-90 a properly uprated engine.

This more or less covers it. T-90 was the result of taking the latest T-72 base and adding the gun, equipment, electronics, etc. of the latest T-80. The T-90's autoloader had some minor improvements, but I am absolutely certain that it still works on the same concept as the T-72 (shell and charge stored horizontally and rammed in one by one) instead of the T-64/T-80 (shell and charge stored vertically and aligned during the loading process for a smoother motion).

[United States of PA]

Im pretty they didnt use the last T-80U Electronic suite, i believe they used the T-80B. Pretty sure the gun is also different without actually looking (I lost all the links i had when i had to reinstall my OS due to a virus a few months ago)

[Anemos Major]

It doesn't need to be - the lighter armour role is filled by the Sagaie.

Does the Legion use the Sagaie? According to Dave Jordan's History of the French Foreign Legion, they used some AMLs but mostly the EBR until the '70s, when they skipped directly to the AMX 10 RC.

Which would make no sense, unless there's some bureaucratic nonsense here I don't know about.

They do. 1er REC use the AMX-10RC, 13e DBLE use the Sagaie.

[San-Silvacian]

Alright thanks.

No problem.

---

For those peeps who like the AMX-10RC as much as I do, here's a 40mm CTA variant they did earlier:

This only fuels my will to create an NS-ified French mega empire.

[Dostanuot Loj]

GCT Master race.

I was either thinking that, the Palmyria, or SP-70 turret. In descending level of interest.

Also, any info on that new turret? It has sticken my fancy.

GCT on a Leo 1's chassis, no less. The image is practically ready to drive onto the sales market ;P

Which new turret's that? Plenty of those going around.

The 40mm CTA one, sorry. Looking at LAV style turrets for use for a heavy recce vehicle.

[Anemos Major]

Im pretty they didnt use the last T-80U Electronic suite, i believe they used the T-80B. Pretty sure the gun is also different without actually looking (I lost all the links i had when i had to reinstall my OS due to a virus a few months ago)

And a bit more - armour (the T-90 adopted some of the later generation ERA of the time that had previously been cycled around exclusively to first line T-80 equipped formations) and a new gun in particular.

Same line of guns, but it was a new model.

And no, the electronics suite did come from the T-80U for the most part. Same fire control family (1A45, 1A45T in the case of the T-90 - T-80B used the 1A33 system), same night vision (Buran-PA), same ballistic computer and gunnery sights (with minor modifications) and so on.

[United States of PA]

Well, time to delete that line of thought from my brain lol.

[Anemos Major]

The 40mm CTA one, sorry. Looking at LAV style turrets for use for a heavy recce vehicle.

Part of a family of turrets being designed for a variety of vehicles by CTA International (Anglo-French) and associate companies to mount their eponymous 40mm CTA cannon across a range of existing and prospective vehicle families.



You have this, obviously (on the AMX-10RC),



or this (on the Warrior for the WFLIP - the turret is by LockMart, I think),



and even this (for the Panhard Sphinx).

There're a few other proposals involving the 40mm CTA cannon from the same company -



the Toutatis turret, supposedly intended for the VBCI,



and the Leclerc T40 (a sort of HIFV) being amongst those.

It's a pretty wide-ranging program, if all goes according to current and prospective plans.

[Dostanuot Loj]

My understanding for the Leclerc T40 isn't a HIFV, but a heavy recce vehicle. It is partially the inspiration (Other part an older What-If model) for an idea of a Leopard (Or whatever tank) variant.

I will be designing an IFV/LAV/Recce turret (Cross platform) myself for use in these vehicles, just need references.

[Purpelia]

Secondary armament - bear in mind that the AMX-30 started off with a 20mm, and that they reverted to the .50 with the Leclerc. With a 40-45t tank, the question is whether you really need such a large autocannon co-ax in such a small tank, or whether you can settle for something between the FN MAG and the M2. Maybe even a bit larger, but justifying a 30mm co-axial autocannon on a tank from this age (and even later) is a tad difficult - I suppose you *could* argue that it compensates for the reduced ammunition capacity of 120+mm guns that worried contemporary thinkers, but even then it's a pretty hefty armament on a tank from that period. And why two machine-guns on a tank with no loader?

I could start it off as a 20mm (AMX-30 style) that is justified by ammo capacity worries and than have the 30mm be an upgrade that appears as a response to my army browning their collective pants at the sight of newer generations of BMP's in the 80's. Since those would be immune to a 20mm AC from the front. So some times post 1980.

How does that sound?

Weight is fine. Within expectations.

That's a relief.

Size and shape is fine as well. If you adopt the Chieftain's crew layout, you can afford to have a lower profile.

That brings a smile to my face.

Armour is fine as well. AMX-40 had composites where Chieftain didn't, mind - it's protection wasn't all too shabby, technically speaking.

Sadly there is little to no information that I can find on the armor of the AMX-40 beyond a very vague number on Wikipedia.

Speed: Details on the engine would be helpful - and the rest of the power/drivetrain.

Very WIP at this point. My only logic is that with the tank being lighter it should be faster to accelerate and drive overall. Even if all things remain the same at least I get more acceleration. I basically went with the logic of comparing the AMX-30 with the C and saying: Well one is lighter and faster, the other is heavier and more. I want something in between.

In all likelihood we are looking at a diesel engine, possibly either the one from the C or one ripped off from the Soviets (I am interested in what they put in the T-64 and T-72). And some form of torsion bar suspension. But that's the best I can do right now.

All in all, looks alright, though somewhat lacking in the details and background exposition that would make it truly interesting. It does seem a tad OP for the 197-somethings, mind, in that it seems to be combining the absolutely best characteristics of the tanks of the era - the Chieftain's heavy armament, the composites used on contemporary Soviet tanks, a bustle autoloader, a powertrain that solves the earlier Chieftain marks' problems...

Good point. I am going to have to tune things down somewhat.

[Anemos Major]

My understanding for the Leclerc T40 isn't a HIFV, but a heavy recce vehicle. It is partially the inspiration (Other part an older What-If model) for an idea of a Leopard (Or whatever tank) variant.

I will be designing an IFV/LAV/Recce turret (Cross platform) myself for use in these vehicles, just need references.

An ex-GIAT engineer who worked on the Leclerc and a current defence analyst stated the following -

<"Le Leclerc T40 s'inspire des engins BMP-T russes basés sur châssis de char et armés d'une tourelle combinant des canons de moyens calibres et des missiles".>

I've seen the T40 described as a recce vehicle as well, but if you consider the way in which the French Army traditionally conducts armoured operations (light armoured forces for screening, recce and fast strikes with the tanks for heavier attacks), consider the French Army's current needs (FIBUA in particular, which it's doing a lot of, and peacekeeping/enforcement) and look at the actual tank (with its armour and unimpressive sensor array), I think his slant is probably closer to the truth. Not that it's one or the other, mind, especially in an age of military austerity, but I see a lot more HIFV than recce vehicle here, at least.

[Dostanuot Loj]

My understanding for the Leclerc T40 isn't a HIFV, but a heavy recce vehicle. It is partially the inspiration (Other part an older What-If model) for an idea of a Leopard (Or whatever tank) variant.

I will be designing an IFV/LAV/Recce turret (Cross platform) myself for use in these vehicles, just need references.

An ex-GIAT engineer who worked on the Leclerc and a current defence analyst stated the following -

<"Le Leclerc T40 s'inspire des engins BMP-T russes basés sur châssis de char et armés d'une tourelle combinant des canons de moyens calibres et des missiles".>

I've seen the T40 described as a recce vehicle as well, but if you consider the way in which the French Army traditionally conducts armoured operations (light armoured forces for screening, recce and fast strikes with the tanks for heavier attacks), consider the French Army's current needs (FIBUA in particular, which it's doing a lot of, and peacekeeping/enforcement) and look at the actual tank (with its armour and unimpressive sensor array), I think his slant is probably closer to the truth. Not that it's one or the other, mind, especially in an age of military austerity, but I see a lot more HIFV than recce vehicle here, at least.

I see what you are saying. That's still not HIFV to me, no troop capacity, or very limited. But as a support vehicle sure. I can also see a use in recce in force, if the French ever opt to conduct it. Not saying that's the reason behind it, but I see a strong role for it. I could very much see the age of FIBUA for the French Army resulting in us seeing a HAPC Leclerc variant in the not too distant future, or a stand alone one. Such a combo would prove very capable.

[Anemos Major]

I see what you are saying. That's still not HIFV to me, no troop capacity, or very limited. But as a support vehicle sure. I can also see a use in recce in force, if the French ever opt to conduct it. Not saying that's the reason behind it, but I see a strong role for it. I could very much see the age of FIBUA for the French Army resulting in us seeing a HAPC Leclerc variant in the not too distant future, or a stand alone one. Such a combo would prove very capable.

Well, the notion of what an HIFV is hasn't been made entirely clear either, owing to the relative scarcity of vehicles that might fit into that sort of category and the lack of any general doctrinal coherence concerning what they are and what they do (do they carry infantry or do they fight infantry?) - we'll leave this debate for posterity. If anybody adopts them in the first place, mind.

And with the French, the doctrinal side I was referring to is why they most likely wouldn't use a vehicle like that for recce-in-force. The ADT already has a well established design and employment ethos involving the use of heavily armed, fast vehicles to conduct aggressive reconnaissance, quick strikes and general screening - 90/105mm guns, and soon 40mm autocannons, aren't self-defence weapons - and as such there'd be no reason for the T40 to be used in the same role. The Leclerc T40 could be a capable recce vehicle of sorts in other militaries, courtesy of its capabilities, but not with the French.

Probably not a HAPC Leclerc. Just a guess. For the same reason I doubt they'd introduce the T40 in any significant figures, the Leclerc costs too much money as it is; unless the French revive Scorpion, the maintenance costs of the Leclerc and the associated costs of a comprehensive redesign (most of the Leclerc modifications we're seeing add things or change things to and around the chassis, whether that's slat armour or the turret; a chassis redesign would be a radical step forwards) would most likely turn the ADT off any widespread introduction of a Leclerc variant unless something extraordinary happens. As for the general adoption of an HAPC, I'm not sure - the design ethos (mobility as defence over weight) of the Leclerc seems to preclude the adoption by the ADT of a vehicle of that kind, and the 'next-generation' French Army materiel being shown around by Nexter, Renault et al seem to indicate that the French indicate to stick solidly to a more mobile expeditionary configuration that relies more on speed and deployability over weight as protection.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd personally call vehicles HIFVs which are either derived from battle tanks or of approximate protection while carrying troops.
Stuff like that T40 and the BMPT go in an odd place for me which I don't really have a name for.

Best name I could figure would be "support tank", since "light tank" is no longer especially true.
BMPT supports tanks primarily and also infantry. I imagine that T40, since you figured it as a HIFV, would have primarily supported infantry.

[The Kievan People]

No problem.

---

For those peeps who like the AMX-10RC as much as I do, here's a 40mm CTA variant they did earlier:

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

Huh. They are using an Israeli laser warning receiver.

[Anemos Major]

No problem.

---

For those peeps who like the AMX-10RC as much as I do, here's a 40mm CTA variant they did earlier:

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

Huh. They are using an Israeli laser warning receiver.

Tech demonstrator, so off the shelf isn't surprising.

[Lemanrussland]

Stuff like that T40 and the BMPT go in an odd place for me which I don't really have a name for.

The Russians call it a "tank support fighting vehicle", which unfortunately doesn't exactly roll off the tongue . It is a new class of vehicle, previously they used SPAAGs in a similar role, but those were not really as mobile or protected as the tanks they escorted. It is not an entirely new concept, however. See the German Begleitpanzer (literally "escort tank") for an example of a similar vehicle.

EDIT: Like you said though, "support tank" is probably the most concise, easiest term to use.

I'd personally call vehicles HIFVs which are either derived from battle tanks or of approximate protection while carrying troops.

I would call vehicles like the Namer (at least in the APC configuration) and Achzarit HAPCs, and a vehicle like the BTR-T an HIFV, as it has a 30mm autocannon.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Running out of useless variants to make off of Leopard-copy.

Nimur (Lit.Leopard)

Leopard Tank Based:
- Nimur II: 105mm IWS, Bustle Autoloader.
- Nimur IIM: Heavy armour, new powerpack.
- Nimur FO: Gunless, laser designator, forward observer.
- Nimur CS: CASR CAT based on Nimur II.
- Numur AA1: Gepard based on Nimur II.
- Nimur AA2: Nimur II Otomatic.
- Nimur SPG: Leopard GCT.
- Nimur II SPG: Nimur II w/ GCT.

Bergepanzer Based:
- Nimurmar: Bergepanzer.
- Nimurmar II: Nimur II based Bergepanzer.
- Anshemar: 2+10 capacity, 2x GPMG ball mounts front hull.
- Anshemar II: 2+8 capacity, commander 1m turret, heavy armour, new powerpack.
- Apinmar: Nimur II based Dachs.
- Anshemar CEV: Anshemar II fitted for combat engineer use.

Turretless Hull Based:
- Nimur Bridgelayer: Basicly a Biber.
- Nimur Recce: LAV-30 TOW turret.
- Nimur TOW: Heavy TOW tank destroyer.
- Nimur Training: Driver Training.

[Val Nube]

I want to start phasing the BMPV-64 into service but something worries me. It looks nice:

What worries me is this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9A7CrUy1-38
It's like it has the entire industrial revolution trapped in the engine compartment. Is this necessary, or is it fixable?

[United States of PA]

Looks like the engine is either in piss poor shape (Piston Rings burnt up causing oil to get into the combustion chamber) or it needs a timing adjustment. Blue smoke its burning oil, White smoke its burning antifreeze or fuel, cant really tell from the video.

EDIT: Watching again, i bet that engine needs a tuneup. If thats a diesel like it should be, it shouldnt be doing that. Smoke looks more white than anything, so its need timing or its got antifreeze making its way into the cylinder somewhere.

[Val Nube]

Looks like the engine is either in piss poor shape (Piston Rings burnt up causing oil to get into the combustion chamber) or it needs a timing adjustment. Blue smoke its burning oil, White smoke its burning antifreeze or fuel, cant really tell from the video.

One person asked thought that the engine might simply be too small/weak for what it's being asked to do.

[United States of PA]

It shouldnt be smoking like that if its not powerful enough i would think. Not completely unburnt fuel as white smoke would indicate.

EDIT: I would bet like i said it needs a tuneup or probably a head gasket in that particular case, depending on if thats unburnt fuel or antifreeze in that smoke, cant tell without actually being there. I didnt notice any bluish tint to the smoke, so i dont think its oil being burnt.

EDIT #2: It blows out a lot of white smoke even at idle, i betcha the headgasket is blown on that particular engine. Antifreeze is being burned.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Looks like the engine is either in piss poor shape (Piston Rings burnt up causing oil to get into the combustion chamber) or it needs a timing adjustment. Blue smoke its burning oil, White smoke its burning antifreeze or fuel, cant really tell from the video.

One person asked thought that the engine might simply be too small/weak for what it's being asked to do.

That's not something you can tell from the color of exhaust smoke. USPA is right, the smoke indicates that this particular engine is broken in one way or another because diesel is not being completely combusted, or it's literally just been started up after being left out in the snow. It says nothing about the type of engine being unsuitable.

[Val Nube]

Thanks, guys. I'll have to maintain mine better I guess. I just didn't want a giant pillar of smoke declaring my AFV's positions.