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

[Novorden]

I have sat in the captains chair on HMS Dragon, does that count?

[The Soodean Imperium]

Tacticool Ural-4320.

Seeing this made a little part of me die inside...

[Oaledonia]

Tacticool Ural-4320.

Seeing this made a little part of me die inside...

They made a MRAP? How the flying fuck is that 'tacticool'?

"Yo guys, surviving a landmine is sooooooooo mainstream~~, Now leaving behind a grieving family is where it's at."

[Themiclesia]

Tacticool Ural-4320.

Seeing this made a little part of me die inside...

Soode, have you a chance to review my tank?

[Immoren]

Tacticool Ural-4320.

Seeing this made a little part of me die inside...

Soode, have you a chance to review my tank?

Too light unless its meant to have paper thin armor--

[Crookfur]

I have sat in the captains chair on HMS Dragon, does that count?

as much as my playign trains with the ammunition in HMS plymouth's magazine room and sitting in the 20mm moutns on said vessel when it was docked in glasgow in 1990

[Anemos Major]

Tacticool Ural-4320.

Seeing this made a little part of me die inside...

Soode, have you a chance to review my tank?

A tank with interior space for 8 people, two sponsons, rear facing guns of different calibres at 55t? :S

Is this meant to be MT?

[The Soodean Imperium]

Tacticool Ural-4320.

Seeing this made a little part of me die inside...

They made a MRAP? How the flying fuck is that 'tacticool'?

"Yo guys, surviving a landmine is sooooooooo mainstream~~, Now leaving behind a grieving family is where it's at."

It just seems like an odd choice of chassis to me. When I think Ural, I think this, not this.

Though tbh, I think I just have a soft spot for cheap, basic, minimalist equipment that can be cranked out in mass numbers.

Tacticool Ural-4320.

Seeing this made a little part of me die inside...

Soode, have you a chance to review my tank?

Well, at a glance, I see a few big things you can fix:

- for various reasons, no tracked vehicle can travel faster than 80 km/h (realistically or in theory), because of the strain it puts on the treads.
- It sounds like you're designing a multi-turret tank; while this has been done in the 1930s (see T-35), the conventional wisdom since then has been that more than one turret (not counting this) is a very bad idea. I'm sure someone else can explain this in more detail, but simply put, five turrets is a very bad idea for a modern tank.
- While it's possible to seat passengers in a tank (see Merkava or BMT-72), the resulting passenger space is extremely cramped and usually limited to 5-6 people. I recommend either looking into HIFVs (which were discussed a few (dozen?) pages back), or going back to a bare-bones tank design.
- Finally, size is important. If you have multiple guns (again, bad for a number of reasons), five crew, eight passengers, and still a spacious interior, you're going to be big (and thus an easy target) and heavy (which is bad on bridges, in mud, etc). Try to make it smaller - if not as cramped as the T-72, then at least the size of a Western MBT like the Abrams or Leopard 2 (or Challenger, almost forgot!).

My biggest piece of advice is that if you want to design your own vehicles (or guns, or ships, or planes), the best place to start isn't by building from scratch, but by taking an existing real-world design and modifying it to better suit your needs. It's a good practice run, and helps you get familiar with what's common/realistic/acceptable and what's not.

But I should state here that my knowledge of tanks and tank design is mostly limited to the USSR, so you really should get a second opinion or four for the more detailed stuff, and anything I just said which is disproven by a forum expert is null and void.

[Oaledonia]

They made a MRAP? How the flying fuck is that 'tacticool'?

"Yo guys, surviving a landmine is sooooooooo mainstream~~, Now leaving behind a grieving family is where it's at."

It just seems like an odd choice of chassis to me. When I think Ural, I think this, not this.

Though tbh, I think I just have a soft spot for cheap, basic, minimalist equipment that can be cranked out in mass numbers.

Soode, have you a chance to review my tank?

Well, at a glance, I see a few big things you can fix:

- for various reasons, no tracked vehicle can travel faster than 80 km/h (realistically or in theory), because of the strain it puts on the treads.
- It sounds like you're designing a multi-turret tank; while this has been done in the 1930s (see T-35), the conventional wisdom since then has been that more than one turret (not counting this) is a very bad idea. I'm sure someone else can explain this in more detail, but simply put, five turrets is a very bad idea for a modern tank.
- While it's possible to seat passengers in a tank (see Merkava or BMT-72), the resulting passenger space is extremely cramped and usually limited to 5-6 people. I recommend either looking into HIFVs (which were discussed a few (dozen?) pages back), or going back to a bare-bones tank design.
- Finally, size is important. If you have multiple guns (again, bad for a number of reasons), five crew, eight passengers, and still a spacious interior, you're going to be big (and thus an easy target) and heavy (which is bad on bridges, in mud, etc). Try to make it smaller - if not as cramped as the T-72, then at least the size of a Western MBT like the Abrams or Leopard 2 (or Challenger, almost forgot!).

My biggest piece of advice is that if you want to design your own vehicles (or guns, or ships, or planes), the best place to start isn't by building from scratch, but by taking an existing real-world design and modifying it to better suit your needs. It's a good practice run, and helps you get familiar with what's common/realistic/acceptable and what's not.

But I should state here that my knowledge of tanks and tank design is mostly limited to the USSR, so you really should get a second opinion or four for the more detailed stuff, and anything I just said which is disproven by a forum expert is null and void.

You have a Warsaw Fetish, it's okay.

[Anemos Major]

The ERA forms a corner reflector with the hull.

Fofanov mentions that the rubber flaps are meant to be HEAT pre-detonators - which might explain why the Russians chose not to use them and the Ukrainians did (differing opinions concerning the threat posed by HEAT warheads).

Mind you, it might just be them trying to avoid replicating the silhouette of the T-80 family

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Tacticool Ural-4320.

Seeing this made a little part of me die inside...

Soode, have you a chance to review my tank?

I don't know what this tank is supposed to do. I can't see it really filling a role doctrine wise, and honestly that many guns and crew with 55 tons means it probably will have paper armour. Beyond that I don't see the point behind most of these weapons, like the two cannons in the rear. Plus its top speed is extremely high for a tank that seems like it has no room for an engine. Honestly before you even change anything I would probably suggest giving actual calibres for the guns and try to better explain the layout of the crew and guns.

[Lydenburg]

They made a MRAP? How the flying fuck is that 'tacticool'?

"Yo guys, surviving a landmine is sooooooooo mainstream~~, Now leaving behind a grieving family is where it's at."

It just seems like an odd choice of chassis to me. When I think Ural, I think this, not this.

Though tbh, I think I just have a soft spot for cheap, basic, minimalist equipment that can be cranked out in mass numbers.

The first MRAPs were done with the German Unimog and MAN trucks' chassis, so why not a Ural?

[Anemos Major]

Tacticool Ural-4320.

Seeing this made a little part of me die inside...

Soode, have you a chance to review my tank?

I'll provide as comprehensive a critique as I can with the five minutes or so I can spare

a) Multiple large calibre weapons: big no-no. The Germans realised this when they were looking into the Doppelrohr Kasemattpanzer and the VT1-2 technology demonstrators, but the use of multiple large-calibre weapons in the same direct fire platform has far too many disadvantages to counterbalance the few advantages it may hold in scenarios which involve fighting off larger numbers of technologically inferior opponents. Sponsons are fairly useless as well - they disrupt the drivetrain and side protection of your vehicle while providing very, very minor firepower increases; if you want a secondary large calibre weapon, there's no need to have anything larger than 40mm on a vehicle with a 130mm main armament, and that 40mm should be on the turret. Rear cannons are just a bad idea, don't do it.
b) 8 people in one tank is superfluous, and having that much internal volume that inevitably needs to be protected is inadvisable - it'll make your tank larger, and a lot heavier than 55t. To be honest, cutting out the sponsons would reduce your requirements so that you'd only need one gunner, and all the other 'passengers' on your tank are unnecessary; you need somebody to drive the tank, people or a person to keep the gun shooting, and a person to direct the whole mess, which brings it up to 3-4 personnel. You certainly don't need dedicated engineers in each of your vehicles; engineers need specialist equipment and additional personnel anyhow, which is why you find them with dedicated armoured or non-armoured vehicles staffed by multiple engineers and fitted with the equipment they need. Same applies to medics. With a front or rear longitudinal engined layout, you could potentially shoehorn an additional 3-4 passenger capacity in there, but what's the point of sacrificing dimensional advantages, weight and ammunition capacity for additional passengers on a battle tank? Even in infantry support roles, there's no reason why a tank should have to be able to offload and carry infantry; it operates at a distance from or in front of the infantry and their vehicles, doing what it does best with its big gun instead of trying to be an all-rounder.

With that in mind, try rethinking what it is you want your tanks to do and what their place is in the 'grand scheme of things', so to speak.

[The Soodean Imperium]

It just seems like an odd choice of chassis to me. When I think Ural, I think this, not this.

Though tbh, I think I just have a soft spot for cheap, basic, minimalist equipment that can be cranked out in mass numbers.

The first MRAPs were done with the German Unimog and MAN trucks' chassis, so why not a Ural?

Well, certainly, I can see the practicality in an Ural MRAP. Its suspension is designed to deal with stuff like this on a regular basis, so adapting it to take a landmine isn't so far-fetched. And I certainly see the value in adapting an existing surplus vehicle instead of building a totally new MRAP from scratch. But from a purely aesthetic perspective, I shudder to think there's a Russian utility truck deep under that armor.

You have a Warsaw Fetish, it's okay.

Whatever you say, Oale-sama~!

[Themiclesia]

I'll clarify that the total capacity of the tank is 8. The 8 includes the driver, gunners, a medic and an engineer, whose duties could be subsumed by the driver. The two rear cannons are not actually cannons, but more like automatic guns. The side cannons are mounted on the frame itself, and can only turn in a limited angle. The main cannon is the one used most. The side cannon (and back cannons for that matter) is not designed to be used as the main cannon. This means that 8 is the absolute limit of how many people can go into the tank; it is comfortable at 6. The medic is present in anticipation of injured civilians or tank crew.

[Gallia-]

[Novorden]

I swear you lot are having an effect on me, whilst in the shower i had a... lets call it an 'idea'.

-Engine in the front for added crew suitability.
-Unmanned turret
-155mm HE thrower, with a T90 esk Autoloader
(so far this is pretty standard for NS)
-Bustle autoloader feeding two CKEM pop up launchers on the top of the turret....
-APS everywhere!

(Image)

your lack of siege artillery is disturbing. (a navel gun would also suffice)

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

-Bustle autoloader feeding two CKEM pop up launchers on the top of the turret....

Weak. Use LOSATs.

a navel gun would also suffice

Well you wanted a tank with a navel gun, and it needs a torso to have a navel, one thing led to another and bam.

[The Soodean Imperium]

I'll clarify that the total capacity of the tank is 8. The 8 includes the driver, gunners, a medic and an engineer, whose duties could be subsumed by the driver. The two rear cannons are not actually cannons, but more like automatic guns. The side cannons are mounted on the frame itself, and can only turn in a limited angle. The main cannon is the one used most. The side cannon (and back cannons for that matter) is not designed to be used as the main cannon. This means that 8 is the absolute limit of how many people can go into the tank; it is comfortable at 6. The medic is present in anticipation of injured civilians or tank crew.

That's slightly better in terms of getting the size of the crew down, but it still leaves a lot of the fundamental challenges in place. The two biggest problems are as follows:
1) All RL tanks built after the 1950s or so have had a crew of 3 or 4: driver, gunner, commander, and loader (unless you use an autoloader). Mechanical work is done either by the driver if it's a simple problem, and the Battalion's repair team if it's a more complicated one. Same goes for the medic; if a crewman is injured, he's pulled from the vehicle by the Battalion medical team and evacuated to the Regimental field hospital (at least in the Soviet organization which I'm familiar with). The only tank I know of which had a separate mechanic/engineer was the Type 2 Ka-Mi, and that was 70 years ago (and not exactly the best tank of WWII).
2) While hull guns are certainly nice to think about in theory, there are a lot of reasons why even an autocannon or machine-gun is impractical. Its field of fire is small, its visibility is poor, and it creates a significant structural weakness in the armor. Anemos Major did a good job explaining this in full detail, but suffice to say, the only places a tank should have its secondary armament are (a) co-axial with the main gun, (b) on the commander's cupola, or (c) on a remote weapon system. Side or rear MG ports show up on some IFVs, but even then there are many who see them as useless or redundant.

Make no mistake - I'd love to see this tank in a WWI-tech setting, where "landship" was taken literally, or even a "screw realism!" rule-of-cool RP. But in modern tech, I strongly recommend you stick with the conventional standards of one gun, no hull MGs, and a 3/4-person crew. In the military field, if nobody else has gone near an idea in half a century, there's usually a good reason why.

[Ea90]

-Bustle autoloader feeding two CKEM pop up launchers on the top of the turret....

Weak. Use LOSATs.

a navel gun would also suffice

Well you wanted a tank with a navel gun, and it needs a torso to have a navel, one thing led to another and bam.

A CKEM will still kill any tank in existence, anything larger is unnecessary.
The LOSAT is double the CKEM's length, as well, so it would be hugely more difficult to store.

[Oaledonia]

(Image)

Oh my Galla you naughty thing you

[Questers]

I'll clarify that the total capacity of the tank is 8. The 8 includes the driver, gunners, a medic and an engineer, whose duties could be subsumed by the driver. The two rear cannons are not actually cannons, but more like automatic guns. The side cannons are mounted on the frame itself, and can only turn in a limited angle. The main cannon is the one used most. The side cannon (and back cannons for that matter) is not designed to be used as the main cannon. This means that 8 is the absolute limit of how many people can go into the tank; it is comfortable at 6. The medic is present in anticipation of injured civilians or tank crew.

I don't think you know how small a tank is on the inside.

[The Kievan People]

Fofanov mentions that the rubber flaps are meant to be HEAT pre-detonators - which might explain why the Russians chose not to use them and the Ukrainians did (differing opinions concerning the threat posed by HEAT warheads).

Mind you, it might just be them trying to avoid replicating the silhouette of the T-80 family

Hmm.

My notion that the flaps are for RCS reduction comes from KMDB's description of the Oplot. Also, their sudden appearance on this T-72 covered in Nakidka. Granted they could still be a protective measure there, but then why only on that T-72...?

_{Or they could do both.}

[Gallia-]

(Image)

Oh my Galla you naughty thing you

*wink wink*

*nudge nudge*

<:

[Transnapastain]

Are you all planning to use the system in use by the other MilTech threads to select a new OP or do you have someone in mind/agreed upon?