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

[Spirit of Hope]

ETC gun is heavier than traditional chemical propellant gun.

What kind of weight should I be looking at then?

EDIT: Should I just take the ETC out and go with a regular gun?

Probably, ETC adds bulk and weight, for a minimal theoretical increase in velocity. Plus if your doing 140mm already you don't need the increase in velocity for the gun.

[Immoren]

ETC gun is heavier than traditional chemical propellant gun.

What kind of weight should I be looking at then?

EDIT: Should I just take the ETC out and go with a regular gun?

I don't know exact detail from top of my head. 140mm regular should be good enough against most threats.

[Vorkova]

What kind of weight should I be looking at then?

EDIT: Should I just take the ETC out and go with a regular gun?

I don't know exact detail from top of my head. 140mm regular should be good enough against most threats.

Fair enough then, I'll take it out. Thanks for the help guys.

[Imperializt Russia]

I wasn't certain of the origin of the stats, hence why I edited my post.
60-ish tons is pretty representative of stock Western MBTs.

For Russian flavour (especially Soviet), you wouldn't traditionally be looking at the 140mm calibre or ETC technology (especially in 1992), but rather the 152mm conventional gun.
The Russians successfully fitted a 152mm gun turret to the T-80 chassis, purportedly designated the 2A81 gun. I'm not sure how much it would add to its mass, but certainly less than twenty tons.
It would not represent a significant loss in ammunition capacity, but a significant gain in flexibility and target effect.

Sorry, only seen your edit after I posted that. I was initially going to with a 152mm, but I thought it would drastically reduce the ammunition capacity. If you think adding one in wouldn't affect the ammunition too much, that's good enough for me.

Unfortunately, very little is known about it.
Fofanov, a Russian AFV speculator, believes that the 2A81 may derive from a gun known as the M69 Taran. Though since this only penetrated 290mm of armour with AP ammunition at 2000m from a 1720m/s muzzle velocity, I imagine its relation will be tangible at best. Especially since M69 was a rifled gun.

Ammunition stowage may shrink from 28-30 rounds of 125mm ammunition to 20 or more of 152mm ammunition.
Additional gun weight, armoured volume and turret bracing over a 125mm gun may amount to ~5t of weight increases, I would guess.

Someone more acquainted with Russian vehicles may pop along soon with more information for you.

[Vorkova]

Sorry, only seen your edit after I posted that. I was initially going to with a 152mm, but I thought it would drastically reduce the ammunition capacity. If you think adding one in wouldn't affect the ammunition too much, that's good enough for me.

Unfortunately, very little is known about it.
Fofanov, a Russian AFV speculator, believes that the 2A81 may derive from a gun known as the M69 Taran. Though since this only penetrated 290mm of armour with AP ammunition at 2000m from a 1720m/s muzzle velocity, I imagine its relation will be tangible at best. Especially since M69 was a rifled gun.

Ammunition stowage may shrink from 28-30 rounds of 125mm ammunition to 20 or more of 152mm ammunition.
Additional gun weight, armoured volume and turret bracing over a 125mm gun may amount to ~5t of weight increases, I would guess.

Someone more acquainted with Russian vehicles may pop along soon with more information for you.

Wasn't the T-95 meant to use a 152mm? Wikipedia says it was going to be around 55 t, which seems about right, but I don't know if you can trust that.

[Immoren]

I wasn't certain of the origin of the stats, hence why I edited my post.
60-ish tons is pretty representative of stock Western MBTs.

For Russian flavour (especially Soviet), you wouldn't traditionally be looking at the 140mm calibre or ETC technology (especially in 1992), but rather the 152mm conventional gun.
The Russians successfully fitted a 152mm gun turret to the T-80 chassis, purportedly designated the 2A81 gun. I'm not sure how much it would add to its mass, but certainly less than twenty tons.
It would not represent a significant loss in ammunition capacity, but a significant gain in flexibility and target effect.

Sorry, only seen your edit after I posted that. I was initially going to with a 152mm, but I thought it would drastically reduce the ammunition capacity. If you think adding one in wouldn't affect the ammunition too much, that's good enough for me.

Sheridan had 20 shells and 9 missiles for its 152mm gun, just to point out.

[Virana]

It would not represent a significant loss in ammunition capacity, but a significant gain in flexibility and target effect.

I'm finding it hard to believe that switching from a 125 mm to 152 mm gun wouldn't represent a statistically significant change in ammunition capacity.

[Imperializt Russia]

Russian AFV design is complex around the 90s.
There was the 152mm-armed T-80, the Objekt-195 with a 152mm gun and the T-95, which was theorised to have either a 125mm or a 152mm gun.

Supposedly, just about all of them have fallen by the wayside and coming relatively soon is the T-99. Probably less is known about T-99 Armata than all of these previous projects, but it has the advantage of two decades more technology.

[Imperializt Russia]

It would not represent a significant loss in ammunition capacity, but a significant gain in flexibility and target effect.

I'm finding it hard to believe that switching from a 125 mm to 152 mm gun wouldn't represent a statistically significant change in ammunition capacity.

You would lose likely less than one third of the stowage, but part of the upside is that many targets will require fewer rounds to kill, be suppressed or be saturated.
Note that 125mm cartridges are already 152mm in diameter at the case stub, not counting rim, and the NATO-spec 120mm cartridge is about six inches in diameter not counting rim as well.

[Spirit of Hope]

It would not represent a significant loss in ammunition capacity, but a significant gain in flexibility and target effect.

I'm finding it hard to believe that switching from a 125 mm to 152 mm gun wouldn't represent a statistically significant change in ammunition capacity.

While it might be a statistical decrease in ammunition, would that decrease affect the combat ability of the vehicle? For that we need to know the amount of ammunition it would have and the amount usually expanded between reloads. From there you determine how much of a difference it makes.

[Virana]

I'm finding it hard to believe that switching from a 125 mm to 152 mm gun wouldn't represent a statistically significant change in ammunition capacity.

You would lose likely less than one third of the stowage, but part of the upside is that many targets will require fewer rounds to kill, be suppressed or be saturated.
Note that 125mm cartridges are already 152mm in diameter at the case stub, not counting rim, and the NATO-spec 120mm cartridge is about six inches in diameter not counting rim as well.

Losing a third of the stowage capacity is pretty significant. It means that a tank that could hold 42 rounds of 125 mm ammunition can now only hold 28 larger rounds that are overpowered for most targets. It's not necessarily a reduction in capability as it is a reduction of endurance in long-term operations where ammunition capacity is important.

But of course, NS doesn't usually care about operations of that nature (which is partially why high caliber, low ammunition capacity tank guns are so popular - the other reason being the absurd amounts of armor tanks get).

I'm finding it hard to believe that switching from a 125 mm to 152 mm gun wouldn't represent a statistically significant change in ammunition capacity.

While it might be a statistical decrease in ammunition, would that decrease affect the combat ability of the vehicle? For that we need to know the amount of ammunition it would have and the amount usually expanded between reloads. From there you determine how much of a difference it makes.

That's true, and it goes back to the country's armored warfare doctrine and operational support infrastructure. But saying that it won't result in a significant decrease in ammunition capacity, as someone said earlier, is plainly incorrect.

[Spirit of Hope]

While it might be a statistical decrease in ammunition, would that decrease affect the combat ability of the vehicle? For that we need to know the amount of ammunition it would have and the amount usually expanded between reloads. From there you determine how much of a difference it makes.

That's true, and it goes back to the country's armored warfare doctrine and operational support infrastructure. But saying that it won't result in a significant decrease in ammunition capacity, as someone said earlier, is plainly incorrect.

You know if anyone has the actually number of rounds spent between reloads for any first world combat operations recently? Also how often are tanks IRL reloaded?

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

That's true, and it goes back to the country's armored warfare doctrine and operational support infrastructure. But saying that it won't result in a significant decrease in ammunition capacity, as someone said earlier, is plainly incorrect.

You know if anyone has the actually number of rounds spent between reloads for any first world combat operations recently? Also how often are tanks IRL reloaded?

Depends. In combat operations after every base return you get reloaded to your max capacity. The reason is because you never know what will happen on the next deployment.

[Lemanrussland]

You would lose likely less than one third of the stowage, but part of the upside is that many targets will require fewer rounds to kill, be suppressed or be saturated.
Note that 125mm cartridges are already 152mm in diameter at the case stub, not counting rim, and the NATO-spec 120mm cartridge is about six inches in diameter not counting rim as well.

Losing a third of the stowage capacity is pretty significant. It means that a tank that could hold 42 rounds of 125 mm ammunition can now only hold 28 larger rounds that are overpowered for most targets. It's not necessarily a reduction in capability as it is a reduction of endurance in long-term operations where ammunition capacity is important.

But of course, NS doesn't usually care about operations of that nature (which is partially why high caliber, low ammunition capacity tank guns are so popular - the other reason being the absurd amounts of armor tanks get).

While it might be a statistical decrease in ammunition, would that decrease affect the combat ability of the vehicle? For that we need to know the amount of ammunition it would have and the amount usually expanded between reloads. From there you determine how much of a difference it makes.

That's true, and it goes back to the country's armored warfare doctrine and operational support infrastructure. But saying that it won't result in a significant decrease in ammunition capacity, as someone said earlier, is plainly incorrect.

"Losing a third of the stowage capacity is pretty significant. It means that a tank that could hold 42 rounds of 125 mm ammunition can now only hold 28 larger rounds that are overpowered for most targets. It's not necessarily a reduction in capability as it is a reduction of endurance in long-term operations where ammunition capacity is important."

They probably have the same attitude as the Russian military does and the Soviets did, that tanks only really need to carry as many rounds as they need for the typical battle. The T-72 carries only 22 rounds ready-to-fire in it's carousel (45 in total are carried; it takes about 10-15 minutes to reload the carousel from rounds stored in the tank).

The world standard for ammunition capacity in main battle tanks seems to be around 40 rounds for the main gun. 28 rounds is a little lacking.

[Dostanuot Loj]

That's true, and it goes back to the country's armored warfare doctrine and operational support infrastructure. But saying that it won't result in a significant decrease in ammunition capacity, as someone said earlier, is plainly incorrect.

You know if anyone has the actually number of rounds spent between reloads for any first world combat operations recently? Also how often are tanks IRL reloaded?

Yes!

If you are not fighting, but are still deployed and not loaded, you reload! Trucks come to you. This is why armoured forces bound over each other in operational movement, to allow this kind of resupply.

[Spirit of Hope]

You know if anyone has the actually number of rounds spent between reloads for any first world combat operations recently? Also how often are tanks IRL reloaded?

Yes!

If you are not fighting, but are still deployed and not loaded, you reload! Trucks come to you. This is why armoured forces bound over each other in operational movement, to allow this kind of resupply.

Any idea how many shots are used between reloads? Or how many shots are used per engagement/per battle?

[Imperializt Russia]

Conventional wisdom is apparently three rounds per kill with the Abrams.
Because of the circumstances of the Gulf War, actual expenditure I believe has been quoted at 1.3

[Spirit of Hope]

Conventional wisdom is apparently three rounds per kill with the Abrams.
Because of the circumstances of the Gulf War, actual expenditure I believe has been quoted at 1.3

But how many kills could you expect per engagement? Also what about other uses, such as HEAT, or HE?

[Anemos Major]

I'm finding it hard to believe that switching from a 125 mm to 152 mm gun wouldn't represent a statistically significant change in ammunition capacity.

Ceteris paribus, that's a ludicrous claim to make, but it's also worth bearing in mind that the MBT-70 was able to carry around 48 152mm rounds at any given time (Hunnicutt claims the XM803 could carry 50). The 1/3 or so (probably a bit less) decrease in capacity would inevitably occur in comparative terms, but so long as your tank can carry forty or so rounds, ideally a handful more, that should probably be sufficient - FM 101-10-1/2 suggests on the basis of experience that the Abrams should be expected to fire off 37 rounds in individual defensive actions and 16 in their counterparts in offence.

That said, it almost reads like a truism, but the more you bigger things you carry, the heavier and larger your tank will have to be - which creates an added impetus to develop weapons systems that aren't as considerable in size which won't be as powerful but will be powerful enough to satisfy your operational requirements and engage potential threats.

Losing a third of the stowage capacity is pretty significant. It means that a tank that could hold 42 rounds of 125 mm ammunition can now only hold 28 larger rounds that are overpowered for most targets. It's not necessarily a reduction in capability as it is a reduction of endurance in long-term operations where ammunition capacity is important.

But of course, NS doesn't usually care about operations of that nature (which is partially why high caliber, low ammunition capacity tank guns are so popular - the other reason being the absurd amounts of armor tanks get).

The latter point is the pertinent one; even if NSers do acknowledge the realities of munitions expenditure during engagements, the rush to 140mm guns is one that was primarily precipitated by the fear that overarmoured, 90t tanks will be able to shrug off anything that comes their way (which makes the question of relative ammunition stowage a moot one, since nothing short of 140mm will have an effect in the first place) - which is an unfortunately valid fear when it comes to NS. Case in point, an NS tank designer who shall go unnamed claims that their tanks are impervious to any projected threats because of a combination of ludicrously heavy frontal protection and heavy ERA bricks laid out along the roof to defeat ATGMs - add all of that together and you have a tank with fairly regular dimensions but a good 50% more weight than the heavier main battle tanks in service today, which means wide-ranging problems in areas as diverse and vital as ground pressure to strategic mobility. But so long as people claim that a 90t tank can run and gun like the best of them with no drawbacks, other people will claim that a 140mm ETC gun can be loaded onto a main battle tank with no drawbacks either. NS's understanding of munitions expenditure is just the tip of the iceberg.

In the case of long-term operations, mind, with modern tanks you'll find endurance problems in the complex powerpacks, electronics, and crew fatigue - anything above 40-45 rounds, and the crew probably won't have the chance to use it before something else goes wrong. Not that I'm biased or anything, what with the HT9A8's 42 rounds

[Dostanuot Loj]

Conventional wisdom is apparently three rounds per kill with the Abrams.
Because of the circumstances of the Gulf War, actual expenditure I believe has been quoted at 1.3

But how many kills could you expect per engagement? Also what about other uses, such as HEAT, or HE?

How many targets do you have?
How quickly do your expect your own vehicle to be knocked out?
Under what circumstances?

There are no numbers to predict how many targets between reloads, because they can not be predicted. The circumstances are so relative that every single engagement will be different, and therefore every time you consider the statistics they will be different.

[Spirit of Hope]

But how many kills could you expect per engagement? Also what about other uses, such as HEAT, or HE?

How many targets do you have?
How quickly do your expect your own vehicle to be knocked out?
Under what circumstances?

There are no numbers to predict how many targets between reloads, because they can not be predicted. The circumstances are so relative that every single engagement will be different, and therefore every time you consider the statistics they will be different.

Yes I can't get a predictor for the kills per engagement. What I'm sure you could get from a look at shots fired between reloads, is something like a bell curve. Look at that bell curve and you would get an idea about how much ready ammunition you need. And from that you could get some interesting ideas about the size of guns that a tank can mount, how much ammunition you can skimp on to reduce possible weight and bulk, etc. I think it would just be interesting numbers to get to look at.

[Imperializt Russia]

If a tank unit is running empty on ammunition, the logical thing would probably be to call in a lot of artillery on that area, and try and withdraw that unit to replace it with one of the reserve formations.
Since, if ammunition has become that significant an issue, there's clearly a major breakthrough action occurring at that point of the line, and they're probably sustaining casualties anyway.

[Chedastan]

If a tank unit is running empty on ammunition, the logical thing would probably be to call in a lot of artillery on that area, and try and withdraw that unit to replace it with one of the reserve formations.
Since, if ammunition has become that significant an issue, there's clearly a major breakthrough action occurring at that point of the line, and they're probably sustaining casualties anyway.

Or, they could stick a giant bayonet onto the tank's gun, and start stabbing and ramming into things. I'm not saying they should, just saying they could if they were crazy enough.

I mean, given if the tank wasn't destroyed, and got close enough. Would a bayonet of that size actually do much of anything to well, anything?

[Imperializt Russia]

Depending on where you put it (for example, a spiked mine plow, ramming at full speed), you might even be able to knock tracks off wheels.
Though side skirts are incredibly common these days.

[The Kievan People]

While it might be a statistical decrease in ammunition, would that decrease affect the combat ability of the vehicle? For that we need to know the amount of ammunition it would have and the amount usually expanded between reloads. From there you determine how much of a difference it makes.

Probably not.

Since tanks need to refuel every day or so, having a deep magazine does not necessarily result in more combat power. As long as the ammo doesn't run out before the fuel, its enough.