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

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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?

Here's what I plan to do:

Tanks - 3 tiered system, all are HV, all use ETC, they are basically different flavors of MBT.

105mm - Can be used for infantry support that warrants an MBT as opposed to a light tank/tank destroyer/recon gun vehicle . If you want an infantry support MBT then this is it. Or if the other two tiers are too heavy or logistics-intensive for the application. Smaller caliber = more rounds. Should be ideally somewhere in the 50T range +- ~10T. If used in an anti-armor role they can make use of the following assortment of weapons, in ascending order of tankrapeness: HEAT, APFSDS (hopefully it can [at least somewhat] compensate for the small caliber by very high velocities, seeing how its' fired out of an ETC gun), and finally top-attack GLATGM.

Basically, quality and tech-wise it is the same as the heavier tanks, only using a smaller caliber and being lighter as a result.

125mm - To be used as a general-purpose, anti-armor and infantry support MBT. This most closely fits the definition of an MBT. Ideally somewhere in the ~75 T range.

145mm - More anti-armor oriented, although it's still a heavy tank and fires one piece ammo, it tends more towards tank killer/SPG territory. Hopefully weight will be <=100T . Dat ETC gun tho.

"Mobile Gun Systems" / Light Tanks - yet again a 3 tiered system, all are HV but non-ETC. Their ammo can be fired out of the ETC guns of the above tanks.

105mm - based around a 6x6 chassis
125mm - based around a 8x8 chassis
145mm - based around a 10x10 chassis

A formation based around the 6x6 chassis will use the 105mm armed vehicle, for example. They are to function as infantry support vehicles, light tanks, recon gun vehicles, etc. Weights are in the ~ 15 - 35 T range, or something along those lines. Basic point is, they're lighter than the tanks, they use the same caliber, but they don't use ETC and aren't armored to the same level.

Anything above 145mm (165mm 185mm 205mm) isn't one-piece (because MRSI) and is effectively considered artillery. These guns are used for casemate SPHs ; apart from general purpose rounds, they can use dedicated anti-armor, point target or AOE munitions either in direct or indirect fire.

Using ETC for such large calibers would probably mean I have to design even heavier purpose-built platforms to withstand the tremendous recoil, so I think I'm not gonna use ETC and instead use the tank platforms as a base.

[The Akasha Colony]

105mm - Can be used for infantry support that warrants an MBT as opposed to a light tank/tank destroyer/recon gun vehicle . If you want an infantry support MBT then this is it. Or if the other two tiers are too heavy or logistics-intensive for the application. Smaller caliber = more rounds. Should be ideally somewhere in the 50T range +- ~10T. If used in an anti-armor role they can make use of the following assortment of weapons, in ascending order of tankrapeness: HEAT, APFSDS (hopefully it can [at least somewhat] compensate for the small caliber by very high velocities, seeing how its' fired out of an ETC gun), and finally top-attack GLATGM.

For infantry support, high explosive shell content is more important, so a smaller caliber is worse than a larger one. Modern infantry support guns like the Stryker MGS use 105 mm because they're lightweight vehicles and 105 mm guns and their ammunition are plentiful, but a 50 tonne vehicle has a bit more leeway.

The higher ETC velocities won't account for the power difference relative to other ETC guns. So it will still have much inferior penetration to a 125 mm ETC gun.

So I'm not sure how it would serve its purpose. It's too heavy to be easily airmobile like existing mobile gun systems, which you are already fielding. It has a smaller HE shell than your regular MBT, and is an inferior tank killer as well. The fact that you have three tanks for different roles almost inherently means none of them is actually an MBT, since you no longer have a main battle tank.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

105mm - Can be used for infantry support that warrants an MBT as opposed to a light tank/tank destroyer/recon gun vehicle . If you want an infantry support MBT then this is it. Or if the other two tiers are too heavy or logistics-intensive for the application. Smaller caliber = more rounds. Should be ideally somewhere in the 50T range +- ~10T. If used in an anti-armor role they can make use of the following assortment of weapons, in ascending order of tankrapeness: HEAT, APFSDS (hopefully it can [at least somewhat] compensate for the small caliber by very high velocities, seeing how its' fired out of an ETC gun), and finally top-attack GLATGM.

For infantry support, high explosive shell content is more important, so a smaller caliber is worse than a larger one. Modern infantry support guns like the Stryker MGS use 105 mm because they're lightweight vehicles and 105 mm guns and their ammunition are plentiful, but a 50 tonne vehicle has a bit more leeway.

The higher ETC velocities won't account for the power difference relative to other ETC guns. So it will still have much inferior penetration to a 125 mm ETC gun.

So I'm not sure how it would serve its purpose. It's too heavy to be easily airmobile like existing mobile gun systems, which you are already fielding. It has a smaller HE shell than your regular MBT, and is an inferior tank killer as well. The fact that you have three tanks for different roles almost inherently means none of them is actually an MBT, since you no longer have a main battle tank.

The higher ETC velocities won't account for the power difference relative to other ETC guns. So it will still have much inferior penetration to a 125 mm ETC gun.

That's not what I was saying. I was trying to compare 105mm ETC with say conventional 125mm, especially APFSDS.

The reason I have the 105mm tanks is because ETC makes my tanks heavier than they would have been if they used conventional guns. As such they have even poorer strategical mobility than RL tanks. So if for example you need an MBT (emphasis on armor) but the plane or boat or whatever that you have at your disposal can't transport a 75 T or 100T vehicle or those are too logistically demanding for combat sustainability you're out of luck. Hence 105mm tank.

EDIT: I used MBT for lack of a better term, I'll just use tank from now. I was trying to differentiate light tanks from tanks by how well armored they are.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

Watching the video it certainly could be that, but it just doesn't look to be generating a thick enough smoke to me.
Compare to the Challenger 2, which appears to generate a more immediately thick and obscuring smoke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XYvmTnIFlU

[The Akasha Colony]

The reason I have the 105mm tanks is because ETC makes my tanks heavier than they would have been if they used conventional guns. As such they have even poorer strategical mobility than RL tanks. So if for example you need an MBT (emphasis on armor) but the plane or boat or whatever that you have at your disposal can't transport a 75 T or 100T vehicle or those are too logistically demanding for combat sustainability you're out of luck. Hence 105mm tank.

The problem is that once you go above 30 tonnes, to a large degree weight differences for airlift purposes start to matter less and less. You've left the realm of tactical airlifters and moved to strategic ones, and even the 'medium' C-17 can lift 75 tonnes. This is why really the smaller and larger tanks are somewhat superfluous from a mobility standpoint; you'll fit at most one tank in most strategic airlifters either way and none of them will be fitting in a tactical airlifter.

I'm also not entirely sure what conditions would render just a 75 tonne vehicle 'combat unsustainable' but not a 50 tonne one. Unless you intend to also operate three different sets of ARVs and tank transporters, these vehicles will all be sized for the largest tank, and thus drain your logistics anyway. Your logistics train should be capable of supporting 75 tonne vehicles if you plan to be operating them. If you can't, you shouldn't be fielding them.

And if infantry support is the goal as stated, then it would be more prudent to use a conventional 125 mm gun with a larger explosive content than a 105 mm gun.

At the moment, it seems more like these are designs in search of a use, rather than needs in search of a design.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The reason I have the 105mm tanks is because ETC makes my tanks heavier than they would have been if they used conventional guns. As such they have even poorer strategical mobility than RL tanks. So if for example you need an MBT (emphasis on armor) but the plane or boat or whatever that you have at your disposal can't transport a 75 T or 100T vehicle or those are too logistically demanding for combat sustainability you're out of luck. Hence 105mm tank.

The problem is that once you go above 30 tonnes, to a large degree weight differences for airlift purposes start to matter less and less. You've left the realm of tactical airlifters and moved to strategic ones, and even the 'medium' C-17 can lift 75 tonnes. This is why really the smaller and larger tanks are somewhat superfluous from a mobility standpoint; you'll fit at most one tank in most strategic airlifters either way and none of them will be fitting in a tactical airlifter.

I'm also not entirely sure what conditions would render just a 75 tonne vehicle 'combat unsustainable' but not a 50 tonne one. Unless you intend to also operate three different sets of ARVs and tank transporters, these vehicles will all be sized for the largest tank, and thus drain your logistics anyway. Your logistics train should be capable of supporting 75 tonne vehicles if you plan to be operating them. If you can't, you shouldn't be fielding them.

And if infantry support is the goal as stated, then it would be more prudent to use a conventional 125 mm gun with a larger explosive content than a 105 mm gun.

At the moment, it seems more like these are designs in search of a use, rather than needs in search of a design.

IMO the ~25T difference justifies it. It might not seem like a lot when you first look at it. But assuming weight is the limiting factor, this is how it scales up:

For 150T you have 2 125mm tanks or 3 105mm tanks. For 300T you have 4 125mm tanks or 6 105mm tanks. For 600T you have 8 125mm tanks or 12 105mm tanks. At this point you have an extra full platoon.

For 2400 T you have 32 125mm tanks or 48 105mm tanks. Here you have a full extra company and an additional platoon.

[Imperializt Russia]

This assumes that you also have the cargo space to transport this tonnage.
It'd be sad to get on a 2500t ferry to find that your additional company can't even fit.

[The Akasha Colony]

IMO the ~25T difference justifies it. It might not seem like a lot when you first look at it. But assuming weight is the limiting factor, this is how it scales up:

For 150T you have 2 125mm tanks or 3 105mm tanks. For 300T you have 4 125mm tanks or 6 105mm tanks. For 600T you have 8 125mm tanks or 12 105mm tanks. At this point you have an extra full platoon.

For 2400 T you have 32 125mm tanks or 48 105mm tanks. Here you have a full extra company and an additional platoon.

But that argument can literally be made for every vehicle or piece of equipment in existence. Why not field three different types of Humvee? Or even segregate the infantry by weight so we can have 'light companies' of men who weigh less than, say, 50 kg? It also assumes your transport capacity is freely and perfectly divisible, but it won't be. If you have, say, 10 C-17 flights that's 750 tonnes of cargo. So ten 75 tonne tanks or fifteen 50 tonne ones, right? Not quite, unless you chop your 50 tonne tanks in half and weld them back together on site.

And it comes with greater costs of maintenance, procurement, and training. Now you need to field three different types of units, each equipped with a different type of vehicle, reducing your overall strategic flexibility because they are no longer interchangeable. Furthermore, the question becomes one of relative utility; having more vehicles with lighter guns isn't necessarily all that useful if those guns aren't powerful enough.

You still haven't answered the primary issue, which is that the designs don't seem suited for their supposed role. Now it's all about weight, but vehicles are designed for more than weight. The 50 tonne vehicle has all the weight of a MBT but without the explosive or anti-tank firepower. Strangely, you already have much more mobile vehicles better built for infantry support, namely your wheeled MGS, which makes this tank even less useful.

[Novorden]

Prototype
Flat bed, Fuel/water tanker
Troop transport, Closed top transport
Short 75mm gun carrier, 75mm L54 gun carrier
Armed reconnaissance vehicle (AKA: poking the enemy with a stick)
MLRS

To do:
Mortar carrier, AA gun, Command vehicle.

[Lydenburg]

Look what I found. The French have delivered again!

If only that gigantic turret wasn't so damn bulky...!

[New Korongo]

Look what I found. The French have delivered again!

(Image)

If only that gigantic turret wasn't so damn bulky...!

The turret does look rather bulky, but it does allow the vehicle to carry eighty rounds of mortar ammunition.

[Lydenburg]

Look what I found. The French have delivered again!

(Image)

If only that gigantic turret wasn't so damn bulky...!

The turret does look rather bulky, but it does allow the vehicle to carry eighty rounds of mortar ammunition.

It's suicidal for a light reconnaissance vehicle.

[New Korongo]

It's suicidal for a light reconnaissance vehicle.

I believe that the variant of the ERC-90 in question, the EMC-91, was not intended for use as a light reconnaissance vehicle, but as a fire support vehicle.

[Rich and Corporations]

and even the 'medium' C-17 can lift 75 tonnes.

Greater weight = Less range for an airplane. Airplanes don't have fixed ranges, despite what stat blocks say.

For infantry support, high explosive shell content is more important, so a smaller caliber is worse than a larger one. Modern infantry support guns like the Stryker MGS use 105 mm because they're lightweight vehicles and 105 mm guns and their ammunition are plentiful, but a 50 tonne vehicle has a bit more leeway.

The higher ETC velocities won't account for the power difference relative to other ETC guns. So it will still have much inferior penetration to a 125 mm ETC gun.

So I'm not sure how it would serve its purpose. It's too heavy to be easily airmobile like existing mobile gun systems, which you are already fielding. It has a smaller HE shell than your regular MBT, and is an inferior tank killer as well. The fact that you have three tanks for different roles almost inherently means none of them is actually an MBT, since you no longer have a main battle tank.

The higher ETC velocities won't account for the power difference relative to other ETC guns. So it will still have much inferior penetration to a 125 mm ETC gun.

That's not what I was saying. I was trying to compare 105mm ETC with say conventional 125mm, especially APFSDS.

The reason I have the 105mm tanks is because ETC makes my tanks heavier than they would have been if they used conventional guns. As such they have even poorer strategical mobility than RL tanks. So if for example you need an MBT (emphasis on armor) but the plane or boat or whatever that you have at your disposal can't transport a 75 T or 100T vehicle or those are too logistically demanding for combat sustainability you're out of luck. Hence 105mm tank.

EDIT: I used MBT for lack of a better term, I'll just use tank from now. I was trying to differentiate light tanks from tanks by how well armored they are.

Here's my advice, instead of using ETC for your infantry support tanks, use a 152mm breech loaded rifled gun-mortar. A gun mortar would weigh less then a 105mm HV gun, and the marginal gains from using ETC for a mortar or infantry support is so low as to make it pointless (however long range artillery can gain from ETC).

But that argument can literally be made for every vehicle or piece of equipment in existence. Why not field three different types of Humvee? Or even segregate the infantry by weight so we can have 'light companies' of men who weigh less than, say, 50 kg? It also assumes your transport capacity is freely and perfectly divisible, but it won't be. If you have, say, 10 C-17 flights that's 750 tonnes of cargo. So ten 75 tonne tanks or fifteen 50 tonne ones, right? Not quite, unless you chop your 50 tonne tanks in half and weld them back together on site.

Why have strykers when you could use only Bradleys?

---

Question time: given the size of my NS nation, should I have cheap vehicles for COIN (although this wouldn't work against Hezbollah-style forces), "lightweight" vehicles with advanced frontal armor arrays for expeditionary conflicts, and heavy vehicles with all-round protection for domestic invasions and defense of allies from preprepared bases?

[The Akasha Colony]

Greater weight = Less range for an airplane. Airplanes don't have fixed ranges, despite what stat blocks say.

Refuel in flight. If the situation is so critical that for some reason it is necessary to airlift a significant quantity of heavy vehicles, then it will be faster and cheaper to simply use what's on hand, be it 50, 75, or 100 tonnes and get some tankers in the air than try to calculate the range and call up a specific unit that happens to be equipped with the right equipment. This also assumes that the right equipment weight-wise is the equipment that meets the operational needs of the conflict.

Why have strykers when you could use only Bradleys?

Because the entire point of a Stryker is to be tactically airmobile via C-130, which the Bradley is not. In order for this 50 tonne tank to be useful, you'd conveniently need a 50 tonne capacity tactical airlifter, significantly more capacity than even the A400M. Or you'd need to be limited to 50 tonne strategic airlifters, in which case it's a rather small aircraft by strategic standards.

[Rich and Corporations]

Greater weight = Less range for an airplane. Airplanes don't have fixed ranges, despite what stat blocks say.

Refuel in flight. If the situation is so critical that for some reason it is necessary to airlift a significant quantity of heavy vehicles, then it will be faster and cheaper to simply use what's on hand, be it 50, 75, or 100 tonnes and get some tankers in the air than try to calculate the range and call up a specific unit that happens to be equipped with the right equipment. This also assumes that the right equipment weight-wise is the equipment that meets the operational needs of the conflict.

The US army has anti-aircraft systems on the Humvee, and it was planned to have them on the Bradley. Unlike in NS, support assets tend to be designed to be as light as possible.

Why have strykers when you could use only Bradleys?

Because the entire point of a Stryker is to be tactically airmobile via C-130, which the Bradley is not. In order for this 50 tonne tank to be useful, you'd conveniently need a 50 tonne capacity tactical airlifter, significantly more capacity than even the A400M. Or you'd need to be limited to 50 tonne strategic airlifters, in which case it's a rather small aircraft by strategic standards.

All of the LAVs will be deployable by C-130 and larger aircraft. As of September 2002 the Army was flying Stryker in C-130s under a temporary waiver issued by the Air Force. The waiver was necessary because the vehicle is too wide to accommodate the 14-inch safety aisle around all sides that is required by the Air Force for the loadmaster. Additionally, only a portion of its crew may fly in the same aircraft. Yet, the Army disputes claims that Stryker -- the centerpiece of its new Brigade Combat Teams -- is not transportable via C-130. During the Millennium Challenge exercise the Infantry Carrier Vehicle variant required multiple alterations to fit into a C-130: The crew removed two smoke grenade launchers, all antennas, a left rear bracket that blocked egress over the top of the vehicle, the Remote Weapons System and the third-row wheel's bump-stop. Reassembly upon landing took as long as 17 minutes.

The Stryker barely fits in the C-130. The Stryker is a stop-gap measure. The true C-130 vehicle is the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle.... which is still on the drawing board.


Besides, this fixation on air assets, despite the low cost of NS jet fuel, is ignoring the importance of turbine powered (or possibly in this case, nuclear powered) transport ships.

[San-Silvacian]

The turret does look rather bulky, but it does allow the vehicle to carry eighty rounds of mortar ammunition.

It's suicidal for a light reconnaissance vehicle.

Its for fire support, not fucking direct fire.

rly.

rly.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

what do you make of merkava's 60mm internal mortar? is it a commando mortar or a "full fledged" 60mm ?

[Lydenburg]

It's suicidal for a light reconnaissance vehicle.

I believe that the variant of the ERC-90 in question, the EMC-91, was not intended for use as a light reconnaissance vehicle, but as a fire support vehicle.

That would explain it.

On another note, as long threatened, I've put the "Vehicle A" series from a while back on the storefront: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=276681

Gladly pull it if anything looks too implausible.

[The First Equestrian Empire]

Designation: AIFV-01 Manticore (Advanced Infantry Fighting Vehicle variant 01)

Type: IV

Role: Troop Transport

Hull: 6.5 m

Width: 2.8 m

Height: 2.1 m

Weight: 10 short tons

Armor:
100mm Nano-weave Carbon Armor
10 mm Depleted Uranium Strike Plates
Kevlar Undermesh

Armaments:
NATO 30x170mm Coaxial Autocannon
Jericho Multi-strike Missile (Anti-tank variant) x4
OSV-96 Anti-material Rifle (Dismountable)

Engine:
SparkleTech Microfusion Engine Mark VI 3,500 HP, 2,500 kilowatts (standard)

Speed:
On-road- 100 mph
Off-road- 79 mph

Deployment range: Virtually unlimited


The AIFV-01 Manticore Infantry Fighting Vehicle is an infantry fighting vehicle being developed for the Equestrian Armed Services. The EAS emphasizes affordability, rapid deployment and low risk technology for the Manticore, as well as the ability to carry 12 soldiers, operate in all forms of combat, and have significant protection. The IFV will be modular and networked and offer improved survivability, mobility and power management functions.

The Manticore features a commander’s weapons station, coaxial autocannon, and an anti-tank guided missile system utilizing Jericho Multi-strike Missiles. All of these weapons are operable via remote control from the commander's weapons station, which incorporates an extra shield. The weapons suite is also manually operable when damaged. Additionally, a dismountable OSV-96 Anti-material Rifle is carried on board. The weapon suite emphasizes modularity, be able to defeat other IFVs and provide non-lethal capability to enable use in civilian environments.

The Mounted Soldier System (MSS) was developed for "Manticore" crew members. The Mounted Soldier System (MSS) or Ground Warrior is a combat vehicle crewman ensemble integrating advanced gear as an effective force multiplier in combat theater. The MSS consists of a heads-up display, cordless communications, micro-climatic cooling, and force protection items. These subsystems will provide platform commanders and vehicle crew members increased effectiveness on the network-centric battlefield in areas of command and control, situational awareness, communications, and force protection.

The original design for the weapons system was somewhat hard to decide upon. Solutions ranged from 25 mm to 50 mm, but 30x173mm was identified as "the most likely" design to meet lethality and stowed kill requirements. Specific requirements were for airburst capability to defeat infantry targets (with high explosive incendiary recognized as a “less effective alternative”), and armor-piercing rounds to defeat material threats.

Thermal management and acoustic noise reduction will be utilized to avoid detection. The vehicle will be able to avoid threats by laying obscurants. An array of hit avoidance systems will be leveraged and the EAS has offered the various active protection systems developed for the manned ground vehicle program. The Manticore is also capable of detecting and disarming mines from a "standoff distance." The vehicle is also equipped with an engagement detection system, which is linked to a SATCOM relay that will allow the troop's HUD to display where the enemies' relative positions are.


//Is this good?

[The Kievan People]

Besides, this fixation on air assets, despite the low cost of NS jet fuel, is ignoring the importance of turbine powered (or possibly in this case, nuclear powered) transport ships.

Because ships are not a bottleneck.

[Imperializt Russia]

(Image)

Designation: AIFV-01 Manticore (Advanced Infantry Fighting Vehicle variant 01)

Type: IV

Role: Troop Transport

Hull: 6.5 m

Width: 2.8 m

Height: 2.1 m

Weight: 10 short tons

Armor:
100mm Nano-weave Carbon Armor
10 mm Depleted Uranium Strike Plates
Kevlar Undermesh

Armaments:
NATO 30x170mm Coaxial Autocannon
Jericho Multi-strike Missile (Anti-tank variant) x4
OSV-96 Anti-material Rifle (Dismountable)

Engine:
SparkleTech Microfusion Engine Mark VI 3,500 HP, 2,500 kilowatts (standard)

Speed:
On-road- 100 mph
Off-road- 79 mph

Deployment range: Virtually unlimited


The AIFV-01 Manticore Infantry Fighting Vehicle is an infantry fighting vehicle being developed for the Equestrian Armed Services. The EAS emphasizes affordability, rapid deployment and low risk technology for the Manticore, as well as the ability to carry 12 soldiers, operate in all forms of combat, and have significant protection. The IFV will be modular and networked and offer improved survivability, mobility and power management functions.

The Manticore features a commander’s weapons station, coaxial autocannon, and an anti-tank guided missile system utilizing Jericho Multi-strike Missiles. All of these weapons are operable via remote control from the commander's weapons station, which incorporates an extra shield. The weapons suite is also manually operable when damaged. Additionally, a dismountable OSV-96 Anti-material Rifle is carried on board. The weapon suite emphasizes modularity, be able to defeat other IFVs and provide non-lethal capability to enable use in civilian environments.

The Mounted Soldier System (MSS) was developed for "Manticore" crew members. The Mounted Soldier System (MSS) or Ground Warrior is a combat vehicle crewman ensemble integrating advanced gear as an effective force multiplier in combat theater. The MSS consists of a heads-up display, cordless communications, micro-climatic cooling, and force protection items. These subsystems will provide platform commanders and vehicle crew members increased effectiveness on the network-centric battlefield in areas of command and control, situational awareness, communications, and force protection.

The original design for the weapons system was somewhat hard to decide upon. Solutions ranged from 25 mm to 50 mm, but 30x173mm was identified as "the most likely" design to meet lethality and stowed kill requirements. Specific requirements were for airburst capability to defeat infantry targets (with high explosive incendiary recognized as a “less effective alternative”), and armor-piercing rounds to defeat material threats.

Thermal management and acoustic noise reduction will be utilized to avoid detection. The vehicle will be able to avoid threats by laying obscurants. An array of hit avoidance systems will be leveraged and the EAS has offered the various active protection systems developed for the manned ground vehicle program. The Manticore is also capable of detecting and disarming mines from a "standoff distance." The vehicle is also equipped with an engagement detection system, which is linked to a SATCOM relay that will allow the troop's HUD to display where the enemies' relative positions are.


//Is this good?

You have a ten-ton "IFV", with 350hp/tonne and supposedly capable of "80-100mph", seemingly regardless of terrain.
Overlooking the fusion reactor.
100mm of armour is low, but about average for earlier IFVs, and "nano-carbon weave" is likely to be wholly insufficient against almost any threat. A ten millimetre "strike plate" is likely to be insufficient against any threat too. You have no ceramics. No steel.

Your weight, power, capabilities and protection are all way off. 350hp/t is the realm of WWII fighter aircraft. Tracked armoured vehicles are pretty much unable to utilise power beyond 25hp/t - it's just wasted away. You're also unlikely to hit more than 30-40mph off-road, and pushing a vehicle beyond 80mph on-road is likely to destroy the treads. At such speeds, physics makes them want to be circles.

[The First Equestrian Empire]

The nano part comes in layering microscopic threads of Carbon in a lattice that is very similar to diamond, making it both lighter and stronger than steel.

I am PMT, so the fusion reactor is just projecting outwards from the progress we have made in the field of fusion reactions already.

And the HP is just because of the strength of the engine, which you can't deny is realistic considering the fact that it is a fusion reaction, and not a fission.

But the speed thing is a good point, and how about a 50 mm strike plate with 200 mm of armor.

I'd appreciate it if you'd explain what you mean by "ceramics," because I thought that ceramics were used in flak jackets, not tanks.

[Virana]

The nano part comes in layering microscopic threads of Carbon in a lattice that is very similar to diamond, making it both lighter and stronger than steel.

I am PMT, so the fusion reactor is just projecting outwards from the progress we have made in the field of fusion reactions already.

And the HP is just because of the strength of the engine, which you can't deny is realistic considering the fact that it is a fusion reaction, and not a fission.

But the speed thing is a good point, and how about a 50 mm strike plate with 200 mm of armor.

I'd appreciate it if you'd explain what you mean by "ceramics," because I thought that ceramics were used in flak jackets, not tanks.

Different types of ceramics are using in various applications, and body armor and vehicle armor are among the their most common military-related uses. If I remember correctly, boron carbide is the most common ceramic used for inserts in body armor vests, and silicon carbide is a common choice for vehicle armor due to their respective properties.

Heavy vehicle armor is generally more complicated, often involving the use of metal matrix composites, titanium carbide, or DU.

[The Akasha Colony]

The US army has anti-aircraft systems on the Humvee, and it was planned to have them on the Bradley. Unlike in NS, support assets tend to be designed to be as light as possible.

Strangely, last I checked I thought we were talking about frontline combat vehicles, namely tanks.

The Stryker barely fits in the C-130. The Stryker is a stop-gap measure. The true C-130 vehicle is the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle.... which is still on the drawing board.

I'm not even sure what the point of this statement is. Firstly, the fact that the Stryker fits at all is something the Bradley cannot lay claim to. Secondly, the fact that the AMPV would fill exactly the same role demonstrates the same point (tactically airmobile vehicles are valuable), thus rendering mention of it moot.

Besides, this fixation on air assets, despite the low cost of NS jet fuel, is ignoring the importance of turbine powered (or possibly in this case, nuclear powered) transport ships.

Have you not seen the part where I repeatedly mentioned planes are a bad way to transport heavy vehicles? We've not ignored them, but given that they hold tens of thousands of tonnes of cargo, the weight of an individual vehicle is rather immaterial. The question of whether a vehicle of a given weight will fit on a ship is moot except for the largest land battleships, but it is quite important for airlifters.