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

[Novorden]

Anyone have any suggestions for Half track variants?

Prototype, Flat bed, Troop transport, Closed top troop transport, 75mm gun carrier, 75mm L54 gun carrier. (all WIP)

[Lydenburg]

Anyone have any suggestions for Half track variants?

Prototype, Flat bed, Troop transport, Closed top troop transport, 75mm gun carrier, 75mm L54 gun carrier. (all WIP)

Sure, mount a gun and a turret on an actual hull instead of just one in the bed.

[New Tsavon]

Anyone have any suggestions for Half track variants?

Prototype, Flat bed, Troop transport, Closed top troop transport, 75mm gun carrier, 75mm L54 gun carrier. (all WIP)

Needs some sort of AA variant.

[Purpelia]

AA search light.

[New Tsavon]

AA search light.

Now that I think of it, having some sort of a rocket artillery variant would be nice.

[Purpelia]

AA search light.

Now that I think of it, having some sort of a rocket artillery variant would be nice.

Also an engineering variant with a crane. And a pioneer variant with extra armor and a flame thrower. Also ambulance.

[Lydenburg]

Now that I think of it, having some sort of a rocket artillery variant would be nice.

Also an engineering variant with a crane. And a pioneer variant with extra armor and a flame thrower.

Nee...too deep.

[Mizrad]

AA search light.

Now that I think of it, having some sort of a rocket artillery variant would be nice.

Mortar, AA, logistics [As in flat bed or fuel/water tank mounted on the back] and maybe prisoner transport?

[Purpelia]

Also an engineering variant with a crane. And a pioneer variant with extra armor and a flame thrower.

Nee...too deep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SdKfz_251#Variants

Sd.Kfz. 251/5 - Schützenpanzerwagen für Pionierzug. Assault Engineer vehicle with inflatable boats stored in the side storage lockers, and light dismantleable assault bridges stored inside through loss of a seat for more storage space. Early command vehicles for Pioneer platoons (Pionierzug) were equipped with a 37 mm Pak 36 anti-tank gun mount.

Sd.Kfz. 251/16 - Flammpanzerwagen. Fitted with two flame projectors and initially a rear mounted flamethrower, detachable but still connected to the vehicle, to be operated by dismounted infantry. This was in addition to the standard forward machine gun mount. Six Sd.Kfz. 251/16 Flammpanzerwagens were authorised for issue to each Panzergrenadier regiment.

[The Yuktobanian Republic]

The main tank is the Challenger 2 MBT, armed with a 55 caliber Tank Gun, specially made to fire AGTM missiles. Supporting those are M113 APCs armed with the Bushmaster cannon. All the rest are in prototype stage.

[Purpelia]

Also, command vehicle with radio equipment. Sleeping wagon for officers. Field brothel.

[Crookfur]

Anyone have any suggestions for Half track variants?

Prototype, Flat bed, Troop transport, Closed top troop transport, 75mm gun carrier, 75mm L54 gun carrier. (all WIP)

mortar carriages for 81mm ish and 4inch ish mortars. Said mortars should be fireable when mounted and when dismounted.

[Purpelia]

Also AA machine gun carrier M3 style.
And a huge recoilles rifle mount as well.
Also, a post war agricultural conversion.

[The Ashkenazi]

Anyone have any suggestions for Half track variants?

Prototype, Flat bed, Troop transport, Closed top troop transport, 75mm gun carrier, 75mm L54 gun carrier. (all WIP)

107mm and 81mm mortar (or equivalents) carrier.

[Rich and Corporations]

Question time. The Soviets used a high technology tank and an incremental upgrade tank of nearly equal weight throughout the Cold War.
The United States practiced incremental upgrades during the early Cold War, and then switched to designing from the bottom up during the late Cold War.

In NS, everyone seems to practice bottom-up revolutionary designing, except Questers.

Given NS circumstances, should one adopt a high technology medium tank and a high technology heavy tank? Or a higher technology heavy tank? Or a high technology medium tank and a standard technology medium tank? Or only use heavy tanks?

[The Kievan People]

Question time. The Soviets used a high technology tank and an incremental upgrade tank of nearly equal weight throughout the Cold War.
The United States practiced incremental upgrades during the early Cold War, and then switched to designing from the bottom up during the late Cold War.

In NS, everyone seems to practice bottom-up revolutionary designing, except Questers.

Given NS circumstances, should one adopt a high technology medium tank and a high technology heavy tank? Or a higher technology heavy tank? Or a high technology medium tank and a standard technology medium tank? Or only use heavy tanks?

What is the difference between "high technology" and "standard technology"? With the exception of ETC, most NS tanks just bundle together features that have never been combined on a single tank IRL but have been used individually.

[The Akasha Colony]

Given NS circumstances, should one adopt a high technology medium tank and a high technology heavy tank? Or a higher technology heavy tank? Or a high technology medium tank and a standard technology medium tank? Or only use heavy tanks?

The terms need to be defined in these questions. What specifically would separate a heavy tank from a medium tank? A 'high technology' and 'standard technology' tank?

Even properly defined, I doubt there will be any universal conclusion. It will depend on too many factors that will vary by nation to be universal.

[Lemanrussland]

Question time. The Soviets used a high technology tank and an incremental upgrade tank of nearly equal weight throughout the Cold War.
The United States practiced incremental upgrades during the early Cold War, and then switched to designing from the bottom up during the late Cold War.

In NS, everyone seems to practice bottom-up revolutionary designing, except Questers.

Given NS circumstances, should one adopt a high technology medium tank and a high technology heavy tank? Or a higher technology heavy tank? Or a high technology medium tank and a standard technology medium tank? Or only use heavy tanks?

I think it's a misconception by Western analysts that the Soviets used a two-tank system (low-tech and high-tech). The T-62, T-64, and T-80 all just failed in different ways, and failed to become the main Russian tank. The NATO analysts believed that the T-72 was a low-cost complement to the T-64, when in reality it was the T-64's (as well as T-62's) replacement.

Of course, the Russians kept their previous tanks in service and just modernized them. They didn't try to build a low-cost spammable tank and a high-cost high-tech tank, though.

[Dostanuot Loj]

So basically, we've determined that the IFV was badly maintained, and that's why there was smoke like everywhere. Then we've also determined from RandC that... Diesel engines at normal operational standards... don't have that much smoke output.

Which then proves the first point.

Actually, it's been, what, two pages and still nobody has mentioned that the exhaust systems for Soviet tanks have fuel injectors in them to inject fuel into the hot exhaust gasses, causing it to partially burn, and smoke just like that to create a smoke screen. It's a feature on every Soviet tank and IFV/APC with a diesel engine since the mid 1940s.

Whether or not that's what's happening is up to debate. But it could be.

Question time. The Soviets used a high technology tank and an incremental upgrade tank of nearly equal weight throughout the Cold War.
The United States practiced incremental upgrades during the early Cold War, and then switched to designing from the bottom up during the late Cold War.

In NS, everyone seems to practice bottom-up revolutionary designing, except Questers.

Given NS circumstances, should one adopt a high technology medium tank and a high technology heavy tank? Or a higher technology heavy tank? Or a high technology medium tank and a standard technology medium tank? Or only use heavy tanks?

I think it's a misconception by Western analysts that the Soviets used a two-tank system (low-tech and high-tech). The T-62, T-64, and T-80 all just failed in different ways, and failed to become the main Russian tank. The NATO analysts believed that the T-72 was a low-cost complement to the T-64, when in reality it was the T-64's (as well as T-62's) replacement.

Of course, the Russians kept their previous tanks in service and just modernized them. They didn't try to build a low-cost spammable tank and a high-cost high-tech tank, though.

It's not a misconception that the Soviets had a two-tier tank system, because they did. Model numbers tend to confuse things. The T-64/T-80 line replaced heavy tanks in service, and were originally designed for that role. The T-62 was a direct replacement for the T-54/55, and the T-72 a replacement for the T-62. As you can imagine, that's not how it actually ended up.

In practical terms, T-64s replaced T-10s/IS-3s, etc. T-54/55 replaced T-34s, and T-62 replaced T-54/55 (Which went on to replace more T-34s). T-72 replaced T-62s, which were moved to replace more T-55s, which replaced T-54s. T-80s replaced T-64s, and so on.

By the time the T-72 came along, the system was two-tiered in practice only, as the differences in vehicle really stemmed from what replaced what in the previous system. Although the T-72 was never intended, or even fielded in a way, to replace the T-64 until the latter had become obsolete. The Soviets fully expected, and intended, to field them side by side. NATO analysis cued in on this and decided it was for specific purpouses related to prior doctrinal theory. While that's where it started, that's not what the result was by the end.

A side note, the reason the two-tier system continued in practice effectively became to maintain the expertise in the primary tank design bureaus. A lot is said to how similar the T-64/T-72/T-80 were, but reality was the USSR benefited from a lot of real competition between the two design bureaus which were primarily responsible for them.

A note: T-64/T-80 never failed, they were never intended to be the main tank. T-62 was, and it suffered from becoming obsolete before it replaced everything. But the T-62 is unrelated to the others.

[Anemos Major]

A side note, the reason the two-tier system continued in practice effectively became to maintain the expertise in the primary tank design bureaus. A lot is said to how similar the T-64/T-72/T-80 were, but reality was the USSR benefited from a lot of real competition between the two design bureaus which were primarily responsible for them.

(less benefiting and more political tension and competition between the design bureaus and production centres, in many cases - something senior leadership were most certainly complicit in...)

[Lemanrussland]

So basically, we've determined that the IFV was badly maintained, and that's why there was smoke like everywhere. Then we've also determined from RandC that... Diesel engines at normal operational standards... don't have that much smoke output.

Which then proves the first point.

Actually, it's been, what, two pages and still nobody has mentioned that the exhaust systems for Soviet tanks have fuel injectors in them to inject fuel into the hot exhaust gasses, causing it to partially burn, and smoke just like that to create a smoke screen. It's a feature on every Soviet tank and IFV/APC with a diesel engine since the mid 1940s.

Whether or not that's what's happening is up to debate. But it could be.

I think it's a misconception by Western analysts that the Soviets used a two-tank system (low-tech and high-tech). The T-62, T-64, and T-80 all just failed in different ways, and failed to become the main Russian tank. The NATO analysts believed that the T-72 was a low-cost complement to the T-64, when in reality it was the T-64's (as well as T-62's) replacement.

Of course, the Russians kept their previous tanks in service and just modernized them. They didn't try to build a low-cost spammable tank and a high-cost high-tech tank, though.

It's not a misconception that the Soviets had a two-tier tank system, because they did. Model numbers tend to confuse things. The T-64/T-80 line replaced heavy tanks in service, and were originally designed for that role. The T-62 was a direct replacement for the T-54/55, and the T-72 a replacement for the T-62. As you can imagine, that's not how it actually ended up.

In practical terms, T-64s replaced T-10s/IS-3s, etc. T-54/55 replaced T-34s, and T-62 replaced T-54/55 (Which went on to replace more T-34s). T-72 replaced T-62s, which were moved to replace more T-55s, which replaced T-54s. T-80s replaced T-64s, and so on.

By the time the T-72 came along, the system was two-tiered in practice only, as the differences in vehicle really stemmed from what replaced what in the previous system. Although the T-72 was never intended, or even fielded in a way, to replace the T-64 until the latter had become obsolete. The Soviets fully expected, and intended, to field them side by side. NATO analysis cued in on this and decided it was for specific purpouses related to prior doctrinal theory. While that's where it started, that's not what the result was by the end.

A side note, the reason the two-tier system continued in practice effectively became to maintain the expertise in the primary tank design bureaus. A lot is said to how similar the T-64/T-72/T-80 were, but reality was the USSR benefited from a lot of real competition between the two design bureaus which were primarily responsible for them.

A note: T-64/T-80 never failed, they were never intended to be the main tank. T-62 was, and it suffered from becoming obsolete before it replaced everything. But the T-62 is unrelated to the others.

Most Western sources I've read stated that the T-64 and T-80 were intended to be reserved only for high-readiness tank formations, which is not necessarily the case. For example, the Odessa Military District's famous 14th Guard's Army used T-64s, despite not being considered a high-readiness or elite unit (IIRC, most of their combat units were of B or C readiness level, requiring 72 hours to two months of preparation before combat).

Didn't the T-64 have considerable technical/reliability issues, mostly stemming from the use of many new and not quite ready technologies in the design and the breakneck speed of it's development? The Soviets rushed to develop the tank quickly because of the failure of the T-62 (which failed because it was around twice as expensive as the T-55 and didn't really bring anything novel to the table, the 100mm HVAPDS tank shell made the T-55 about as good as defeating the armor of the 1st generation Western tanks), and Soviet fears of newer Western tanks like the M60, Leopard 1, and Chieftain.

The T-80 brought marginal performance improvements (higher speed of travel, better acceleration, quicker start up time in cold weather and so on) to the table, but inherited many of the technical problems of the T-64 and brought a slew of new issues with it's gas turbine engine, mostly relating to fuel consumption and other logistical issues like maintenance, as well as a high cost of production.

EDIT: The T-72 was also based on the T-64, but fixed many of the problems in the T-64 by replacing the 5TDF engine with the V-45 diesel engine (based on the T-34's engine, interestingly), and going to a non-cabin type autoloader rather than the faulty cabin type autoloader of the T-64.

I could buy the argument that the Soviets developed and fielded tanks from both design bureaus to promote competition and to maintain expertise in both.

[Rich and Corporations]

A side note, the reason the two-tier system continued in practice effectively became to maintain the expertise in the primary tank design bureaus. A lot is said to how similar the T-64/T-72/T-80 were, but reality was the USSR benefited from a lot of real competition between the two design bureaus which were primarily responsible for them.

A note: T-64/T-80 never failed, they were never intended to be the main tank. T-62 was, and it suffered from becoming obsolete before it replaced everything. But the T-62 is unrelated to the others.

This is the perfect excuse to design fifty tanks.

Thought the T-62 was supposed to be a long range anti-tank tank.

[Lemanrussland]

A side note, the reason the two-tier system continued in practice effectively became to maintain the expertise in the primary tank design bureaus. A lot is said to how similar the T-64/T-72/T-80 were, but reality was the USSR benefited from a lot of real competition between the two design bureaus which were primarily responsible for them.

A note: T-64/T-80 never failed, they were never intended to be the main tank. T-62 was, and it suffered from becoming obsolete before it replaced everything. But the T-62 is unrelated to the others.

This is the perfect excuse to design fifty tanks.

Thought the T-62 was supposed to be a long range anti-tank tank.

T-62 was developed because the T-55's 100mm gun was expected to have poor performance against tanks like the Centurion and M48 Patton when firing APFSDS. They tried upgunning the T-55, but the tank was shown to be incapable of mounting the larger turret required for a 115mm gun, so they developed a larger chassis to accept the new gun. Thus, the T-62.

The only problem was, by the time the T-62 was fielded, 2nd generation Western tanks like the Leopard, M60, and Chieftain were coming or were soon to come into service, and new ammunition (HVAPDS) for the 100mm D-10T gun improved performance enough to make it reliably penetrate 1st generation Western tanks, which sort of defeated the whole point of the T-62. The T-62 was also about twice as expensive to manufacture as the T-54/55, which made it even more unattractive, particularly to the poorer allies of the USSR abroad.

[Rich and Corporations]

The T-62 was also about twice as expensive to manufacture as the T-54/55,

Wait what? It weighs the same, has nearly the same engine...

[Lemanrussland]

The T-62 was also about twice as expensive to manufacture as the T-54/55,

Wait what? It weighs the same, has nearly the same engine...

This claim has been widely referenced in English language sources, and I accepted it at face. I am not 100 percent sure if it is true or not. Perhaps it is one of those "facts" that becomes a fact by being repeated a lot.

According to Steven Zaloga's book "T-62 Main Battle Tank 1965-2005", the price of the T-62 when it was initially offered for export was R250,000, about 50 percent greater than the T-55. This was a major factor in many Warsaw Pact nations rejecting it. The only Warsaw Pact ally which bought the T-62 was Bulgaria, who bought 80, and sold them off to Angola and Yemen in 1993-94. Czechoslovakia and Poland evaluated it, but both rejected it on grounds of cost.

The T-62 was/is somewhat more popular in the third world (mainly the Middle East) during the 1970s and 1980s, I suspect because they did not have access to the more expensive HVAPDS ammunition. Some sources say the T-62 was produced in Czechoslovakia for export after serial production ceased in the Soviet Union in 1975, but this is contested.