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

[The Kievan People]

(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?

It's a wacky mix-up of FT (armor, engine) and MT (everything else).

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

But which has different properties than steel. Without mention of allotrope, carbon alone would not make a particularly useful armor.

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.

Show us evidence if you want us to consider it realistic. Because while the concept of fusion is valid, there is no inherent reason why this vehicle's small reactor should be putting out that kind of horsepower. Especially considering the vehicle can't and won't use it, so it's completely wasted.



As to the rest of the vehicle:

You won't fit 12 soldiers in a vehicle of that length with that design. Not with a turret and turret basket.

10 short tons is way too light for a vehicle of that size. Even light wheeled APCs are heavier.

No mention of the number of crew.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

How does this sound for the turret of a small wheeled 4x4 vehicle such as a Cadillac Gage, ABC-79M or ASV?

It has dual mountings for up to 12.7x108 HMGs or 30x29mmB AGLs (can fit either HMG+AGL, HMG+HMG or AGL+AGL) ; the main weapons are placed side by side. In between them an optronics suite is housed. Each weapon and additionally the optronics housing has individual full power elevation. The weapons are dual-fed, with 2 magazines each placed below them. The turret itself also has full power traverse. The vehicle can thus function as a low-level SHORADS, and if a radar is slapped on its' back it can perform this function even better.

Initially I was thinking of making it capable of mounting up to 15.5x115mm VHMGs but idk how viable that'd be.

I'll come up with a drawing.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Can it reliably feed with the cans placed parallel to the guns or not?

[Ragnarum]

Name of tank: A023/120 Raubtier/Predator MBT
Class: Heavy
Main armament: 120mm G120A5 rifled or smoothbore version
Secondary armament: 40mm GMG, 12.7mm HMG
Tertiary armament: reloadable guided missile tube
Misc armament: 14 smoke/grenade/phos dispensers
Range of main armament: 10.7km (area attack)
Range of tertiary armament: 8.9km
Crew: 3
Length: 9.95m
Width: 4 metres
Height: 2.75 metres
Weight: 62.4 tonnes
Frontal armor: Composite steel/depleted uranium/reactive plating, Very thick
Side armor: Composite steel/depleted uranium/reactive plating, above average thickness
Rear armor: Composite steel/depleted uranium/reactive plating, above average thickness
Top speed: 69kph/43mph
Range: 580km
Engine: 1,480hp hydrogen C45
Other: Has an autoloader. Armour is heavily sloped. Engine is in the front.

(armour thickness classified. Basically I have no statistics to base anything off)

I can picture it in my head, but I can't be bothered with fancy lineart or manipulating PMG.
So here is the stuff.

[Dostanuot Loj]

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).

And this is the misconception. A lot of Western non-mil-intel sources took the T-64's replacement of existing heavy tank units as moving to "high readiness" units, because heavy tanks which should spearhead operations are of course high readiness, right? Well, not quite. The Soviets kept a mixed force high-readiness units because it expected to fight with a mixed force. Not all units (Most though) that received T-64s were previous heavy tank units, but their operational role changed to that when they converted.

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.

Only the initial T-64 had major issues. Once in production, those were minor, and the real issues were operational cost. It took 11 years to develop, which is hardly breakneck speed. In fact work on the T-64 began before work on the T-62. The T-62 however, was developed in very short time, although this was partly because it was developed from the T-55, and not a complete new vehicle like the T-64. The line of thought between the two vehicles was very different. Whereas the T-62 was intended to drag every last bit of usefulness from the T-55 in front line units, the T-64 was intended to work alongside that very line of T-54/55/62.

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.

The T-80 brought a whole lot more then marginal improvements. First, it was cheaper to produce. This is from a simplification of T-64 design including limited T-72 features, such as the road wheel design and some small chassis-construction details. The inclusion of the gas turbine into the T-80 was meant as a fuel-scavenging option, not for performance per se, same as the M1 Abrams. The idea was that the gas turbine could, in theory, burn more options of fuel, and therefore allow the T-80s on advance (or retreat) to refuel from more depots and fuel sources, including captured ones.

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.

The T-72 had no basis on the T-64 except for being designed using the same statistical information which influenced the T-64. It is an entirely different vehicle, in every detail, and has more in common with the T-54/55/62 line then the T-64. In fact, the T-72s autoloader has, and continues to have, more problems then the T-64 autoloader, due to the design being built for cheap cost. The reason for incorporation of T-80 autoloader features into the T-90 is to correct these issues (Electric instead of hydraulic drive, better computerization so the autoloader can spin both ways which the T-72 can't do, etc.). In fact the T-64/T-80 autoloader was considered so superior that attempts to fit it into the T-72 were made from the late 1970s until the soviets finally settled on the T-90 approach, and are a primary reason why Ukraine dropped the T-72 in favor of the T-64/80. The problem was the autoloader itself was too wide for the T-72 hull, and attempting to fit it into the hull would require such a rebuild that you would need a new tank hull, defeating the purpose, and costing a lot more.

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.

It was a side effect really, not the primary purpose.

[Dostanuot Loj]

How does this sound for the turret of a small wheeled 4x4 vehicle such as a Cadillac Gage, ABC-79M or ASV?

It has dual mountings for up to 12.7x108 HMGs or 30x29mmB AGLs (can fit either HMG+AGL, HMG+HMG or AGL+AGL) ; the main weapons are placed side by side. In between them an optronics suite is housed. Each weapon and additionally the optronics housing has individual full power elevation. The weapons are dual-fed, with 2 magazines each placed below them. The turret itself also has full power traverse. The vehicle can thus function as a low-level SHORADS, and if a radar is slapped on its' back it can perform this function even better.

Initially I was thinking of making it capable of mounting up to 15.5x115mm VHMGs but idk how viable that'd be.

I'll come up with a drawing.

(Image)

How about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac-Gage_1_metre_turret

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

How does this sound for the turret of a small wheeled 4x4 vehicle such as a Cadillac Gage, ABC-79M or ASV?

It has dual mountings for up to 12.7x108 HMGs or 30x29mmB AGLs (can fit either HMG+AGL, HMG+HMG or AGL+AGL) ; the main weapons are placed side by side. In between them an optronics suite is housed. Each weapon and additionally the optronics housing has individual full power elevation. The weapons are dual-fed, with 2 magazines each placed below them. The turret itself also has full power traverse. The vehicle can thus function as a low-level SHORADS, and if a radar is slapped on its' back it can perform this function even better.

Initially I was thinking of making it capable of mounting up to 15.5x115mm VHMGs but idk how viable that'd be.

I'll come up with a drawing.

(Image)

How about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac-Gage_1_metre_turret

That was my inspiration really, but I was hoping to change a number of things:

-Have the AGL seated all the way in like the HMG, without that external feeding shroud thingy
-Dual feed for both weapons, possibly achieved without a stupidly wide turret by placing the ammo cans somewhere below the guns, maybe even in the turret basket.
-Add the capability to mount even 15.5x115mm "VHMGs", although this isn't that viable probably. A BRG-15 weighs twice as much as a M2HB and would probably just work better in a single gun turret.
-Add full power traverse and individual full power elevation for both guns
-An older plan of mine was to mount each weapon in a quasi-pintle mount that would allow free elevation but only a few degrees of traverse (in the mount itself) to achieve convergence at various ranges ; this was to be facilitated by a laser rangefinder coupled with a linear actuator cross-bar mounted between the two guns (to force them to form a sharper or wider angle) although idk how viable this'd be.
-Add the ability of slapping an advanced SHORADS suite (to include a radar among other things) on the rear of the turret which, by means of the power traverse and elevation (and power "convergence" if that's even doable) would allow for fully automatic aircraft rape

Adding all of this shit I'll probably end up with a dual-purpose (anti-air and anti-ground) fire support vehicle as opposed to an APC or IFV

[Oaledonia]

I hate myself.

[Novorden]

Armed Reconnaissance Half track
(AKA: poking the enemy with a stick)

Stats
Weight: 14 tonnes
Length: 7.8m
Width: 2.4m (no including equipment mounted to the side)
Height: 2.3m (2.9m including MG)

Main armament: 2 x .50 MGs
Secondary armament: Multiple infantry weapons, including: .303 rifles, Light mortars, SMGs, Antimaterial rifles (as seen in image).
Armour: Cab and hull sides protected from small arms fire.

Engine: 200hp V6 (14.3hp/tonne)
Range: 300km (additional fuel normally carrier)
Max speed: 65km/h (limited)

Used as both a reconnaissance vehicle and a special forces vehicle.

Step 1: Penetrate/sneak through enemy lines.
Step 2: Find enemy Fuel depot/Airfield/command station.
Step 3: Either send troops in with Antimaterial rifles to neutralizes key targets from afar, or drive into the compound firing at everything and be gone before the enemy know WTF is going on.
Step 4: Cause massive disruptions to the enemy.
Step 5: ????
Step 6: Win the war. (also profit)

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm heartily approving of that Boys.

[Dostanuot Loj]

(Image)
Armed Reconnaissance Half track
(AKA: poking the enemy with a stick)

Stats
Weight: 14
Length: 7.8m
Width: 2.4m (no including equipment mounted to the side)
Height: 2.3m (2.9m including MG)

Main armament: 2 x .50 MGs
Secondary armament: Multiple infantry weapons, including: .303 rifles, Light mortars, SMGs, Antimaterial rifles (as seen in image).
Armour: Cab and hull sides protected from small arms fire.

Engine: 200hp V6 (14.3hp/tonne)
Range: 300km (additional fuel normally carrier)
Max speed: 65km/h (limited)

Used as both a reconnaissance vehicle and a special forces vehicle.

Step 1: Penetrate/sneak through enemy lines.
Step 2: Find enemy Fuel depot/Airfield/command station.
Step 3: Either send troops in with Antimaterial rifles to neutralizes key targets from afar, or drive into the compound firing at everything and be gone before the enemy know WTF is going on.
Step 4: Cause massive disruptions to the enemy.
Step 5: ????
Step 6: Win the war. (also profit)

Would use as regular troop transport for lulz.

[Lydenburg]

I'm heartily approving of that Boys.

Monster of Luso.

[The Soodean Imperium]

The two .50 cals might make the anti-tank rifle redundant; but I'm no expert on penetration values or the types of armor-piercing rounds in service at the time, so don't take my word for it.

More importantly, that's some nice art. Looks like it took a lot of time and effort, well done.

[Rich and Corporations]

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.

You're right, ramps and cargo hold weight capacity per square meter is.

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.

This also assumes that the right equipment weight-wise is the equipment that meets the operational needs of the conflict.

But whatever.

Step 1: Penetrate/sneak through enemy lines.
Step 2: Find enemy Fuel depot/Airfield/command station.
Step 3: Either send troops in with Antimaterial rifles to neutralizes key targets from afar, or drive into the compound firing at everything and be gone before the enemy know WTF is going on.
Step 4: Cause massive disruptions to the enemy.
Step 5: ????
Step 6: Win the war. (also profit)

Reminds me of the movie Play Dirty.

Show us evidence if you want us to consider it realistic. Because while the concept of fusion is valid, there is no inherent reason why this vehicle's small reactor should be putting out that kind of horsepower. Especially considering the vehicle can't and won't use it, so it's completely wasted.

Feasible forms of nuclear fusion output a lot of radiation, particularly neutron radiation. I think.

[Novorden]

I'm heartily approving of that Boys.

Though I don't plan to use it in the anti tank role.

Monster of Luso.

I do not get the reference

Would use as regular troop transport for lulz.

you may want to remove most of the stuff in the back so you can actually fit a decent number of guys in it.

The two .50 cals might make the anti-tank rifle redundant; but I'm no expert on penetration values or the types of armor-piercing rounds in service at the time, so don't take my word for it.

More importantly, that's some nice art. Looks like it took a lot of time and effort, well done.

Thanks. Hopefully this thing wont be engaging tanks, as mentioned above i am using the anti-tank rifle as a general Antimaterial rifle, for when you don't want to bring the vehicle too close but still need/want the fire power of a .50 (its a .55 actually but whatever). However If tanks are a problem I'm sure the guys using it will manage to... 'find' an AT weapon somewhere which they could throw on the pile of weapons they already have.

[San-Silvacian]

(Image)
Armed Reconnaissance Half track
(AKA: poking the enemy with a stick)

Stats
Weight: 14 tonnes
Length: 7.8m
Width: 2.4m (no including equipment mounted to the side)
Height: 2.3m (2.9m including MG)

Main armament: 2 x .50 MGs
Secondary armament: Multiple infantry weapons, including: .303 rifles, Light mortars, SMGs, Antimaterial rifles (as seen in image).
Armour: Cab and hull sides protected from small arms fire.

Engine: 200hp V6 (14.3hp/tonne)
Range: 300km (additional fuel normally carrier)
Max speed: 65km/h (limited)

Used as both a reconnaissance vehicle and a special forces vehicle.

Step 1: Penetrate/sneak through enemy lines.
Step 2: Find enemy Fuel depot/Airfield/command station.
Step 3: Either send troops in with Antimaterial rifles to neutralizes key targets from afar, or drive into the compound firing at everything and be gone before the enemy know WTF is going on.
Step 4: Cause massive disruptions to the enemy.
Step 5: ????
Step 6: Win the war. (also profit)

Needs more .50 cal machine guns. Like now.

[Imperializt Russia]

Show us evidence if you want us to consider it realistic. Because while the concept of fusion is valid, there is no inherent reason why this vehicle's small reactor should be putting out that kind of horsepower. Especially considering the vehicle can't and won't use it, so it's completely wasted.

Feasible forms of nuclear fusion output a lot of radiation, particularly neutron radiation. I think.

Shielding on the internal surface of the reactor.
Which, of course, means that a reactor should not be maintained in such a situation as in a military vehicle, rather destroyed at the end of useful life or when damaged. Probably.

I'd hate to see what happens when a DU spear tears through this all-carbon ten-ton truck and into the reactor vessel.

[Yes Im Biop]

Feasible forms of nuclear fusion output a lot of radiation, particularly neutron radiation. I think.

Shielding on the internal surface of the reactor.
Which, of course, means that a reactor should not be maintained in such a situation as in a military vehicle, rather destroyed at the end of useful life or when damaged. Probably.

I'd hate to see what happens when a DU spear tears through this all-carbon ten-ton truck and into the reactor vessel.

It will ether fizzle out, Or make pretty ball of plasma out of the tank

[Lydenburg]

Monster of Luso.

I do not get the reference

Angola, 1975 - Cuban troops trying to defend the town of Luso against a South African armoured assault came at the enemy in this monstrous armoured caterpillar they had built from scratch. It had an 88mm gun, several recoilless rifles, and multiple heavy machine guns welded to the blade and turret. The thing received four direct hits from 90mm AP shells, but its homemade armour held and it kept on coming. For about five minutes, the South Africans kept blasting away, refusing to believe that contraption was mortal.

The "Monster of Luso" wasn't stopped until it drove into a ditch....giving both sides one of their greatest campfire stories for years to come!

[Ea90]

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.

On heavy vehicles Alumina ceramic is most often used (due to its crazy cheap cheapness, only about twice RHA).

[Stahn]

(Image)

I hate myself.

Why? It is a nice tank. Would you allow me to make a 3D version of it with Sketchup?

[Ea90]

I've been working on a lightweight, all-terrain, air-droppable, amphibious fire support vehicle:

10px/m
Red - crew
Brown - carousel autoloader
Yellow - fuel
Blue - engine
Pink - gun

And here's a (wip) statblock:

Dimensions
Length (m): 7 (hull), 10 (gun-forward)
Width (m): 3.1
Height (m): 2.2
Ground Clearance (m): 0.5
Track Width (m): 0.7
Mass (kg): 22000

Armament
Main: 122mm L/57 smoothbore gun (45 rounds, 27 ready)
Secondary: 9mm L/85 rifled automatic gun (5000 rounds)

Powerplant
Type: Multi-fuel diesel
Displacement (L): 10
Maximum Power (kW): 440
Power/Mass (kW/kg): 0.02
Maximum Speed (km/h): 80 (governed), 50 (avg. off-road), 5 (in water)
Internal Fuel Storage (L): 700
Fuel Consumption (L/km): 1
Operational Range (km): 700

Essentially, the idea is that it uses a very very long, powerful, high-velocity gun firing a penetrator about the size of the M829A3, but at a higher velocity (1800m/s), allowing it to penetrate almost any RL vehicle from any direction, from a vehicle that can go anywhere infantry can (ground pressure is positively hilarious, at under 0.27kg/cm^2, or about half a normal human foot). Most of the protection is from the ridiculously low profile of the unmanned turret; the armour itself is aluminium and is only proofed against 20mm autocannon to the front and small arms everywhere else.

Does everything sound okay so far?

[Oaledonia]

(Image)

I hate myself.

Why? It is a nice tank. Would you allow me to make a 3D version of it with Sketchup?

Actually, I'm growing to like it :3

Sure, I just haven't about how it looks so use your imagination.

[The Kievan People]

I've been working on a lightweight, all-terrain, air-droppable, amphibious fire support vehicle:
(Image)
10px/m
Red - crew
Brown - carousel autoloader
Yellow - fuel
Blue - engine
Pink - gun

And here's a (wip) statblock:

Dimensions
Length (m): 7 (hull), 10 (gun-forward)
Width (m): 3.1
Height (m): 2.2
Ground Clearance (m): 0.5
Track Width (m): 0.7
Mass (kg): 22000

Armament
Main: 122mm L/57 smoothbore gun (45 rounds, 27 ready)
Secondary: 9mm L/85 rifled automatic gun (5000 rounds)

Powerplant
Type: Multi-fuel diesel
Displacement (L): 10
Maximum Power (kW): 440
Power/Mass (kW/kg): 0.02
Maximum Speed (km/h): 80 (governed), 50 (avg. off-road), 5 (in water)
Internal Fuel Storage (L): 700
Fuel Consumption (L/km): 1
Operational Range (km): 700

Essentially, the idea is that it uses a very very long, powerful, high-velocity gun firing a penetrator about the size of the M829A3, but at a higher velocity (1800m/s), allowing it to penetrate almost any RL vehicle from any direction, from a vehicle that can go anywhere infantry can (ground pressure is positively hilarious, at under 0.27kg/cm^2, or about half a normal human foot). Most of the protection is from the ridiculously low profile of the unmanned turret; the armour itself is aluminium and is only proofed against 20mm autocannon to the front and small arms everywhere else.

Does everything sound okay so far?

Yes. Though the tracks are exceptionally wide for such a small vehicle. Speed may be over-generous.