Your Nation's Main Battle Tank (No Mechs) [Part 1]

[United States of PA]

120mm is a very versatile and usefull main gun, IRL it has the second best selection of ammo behind only the 105mm L7/M68.

120mm L/55 is arguably the best Smoothbore main gun in Existence in Real Life. If you want pure power, while retaining some measure of cheapness and small size, XM360 is the way to go, but for a small nation, it is out of question, because it is still vastly more expensive than anything else.


On another note, Tank to use = Leopard 2A4 SG or NG.

[United Districts of 1]

I think I'm going to go with the K-2

[Moriskov]

I'm sticking with the T100 from endwar

[Soviet Haaregrad]

120mm seems a little weak for a tank chassis. You could just mount that on a APC or in the back of a truck.

Trololol.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

Because the best tanks use jet engines (M1 Abrams, I shit you not).

The engine of the Abrams sucks in every way, and is inferior to a regular tank engine.

The LV100-5 was supposed to fix or at least remedy that bullshit, but it died along with the XM2001 Crusader SPH program. RIP, Crusader.

I know it's not a tank really, but this is where all the brains gather so screw it- addressed to anyone who may be of help: I'm thinking of resurrecting the XM2001 Crusader for my armed forces and upgrading it if needed for today. Good idea? Bad idea? Pros/cons? Meh?

[Galla-]

1) Good idea? Bet your sweet ass it is. I use the M2001 Crusader.

2) Pros: Autoloader, smaller crew, smaller logistics footprint, better reliability. Cons: It's fucking ugly.

[Moriskov]

120mm weak for a tank gun? 3 questions for you: 1. what are you smoking 2. How much was it. 3. Where do i get it?
Have you ever seen a 120mm gun in action? Next thing I might here from someone is that a 30mm bushmaster auto-cannon is to light weight for an IFV.

[Moriskov]

1) Good idea? Bet your sweet ass it is. I use the M2001 Crusader.

2) Pros: Autoloader, smaller crew, smaller logistics footprint, better reliability. Cons: It's fucking ugly.

I am goning to have to disagree with that autoloader. 1. it reduces reloding speed. 2. there is always a shell in the barrel

[Wikipedia and Universe]

1) Good idea? Bet your sweet ass it is. I use the M2001 Crusader.

2) Pros: Autoloader, smaller crew, smaller logistics footprint, better reliability. Cons: It's fucking ugly.

1) Awesome.
2)Pro: Yes, yes, yes. Con: So is the A-10 to many people, but I'm not exactly looking to have sex with it, am I?

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

1) Good idea? Bet your sweet ass it is. I use the M2001 Crusader.

2) Pros: Autoloader, smaller crew, smaller logistics footprint, better reliability. Cons: It's fucking ugly.

I am goning to have to disagree with that autoloader. 1. it reduces reloding speed. 2. there is always a shell in the barrel

1. It increases constant loading speed since the loader won't get tired after 4 rounds. 2. So? 3. It takes up less space, 4. It removes one man from the tank, who can be used for something actually useful.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

... but I'm not exactly looking to have sex with it, am I?

I hope not. If so, avoid the exhaust manifold and autoloader.

[Valcluse]

(Image)

Or the EE-T1.

Perhaps. But here's a couple of problems.

1. Either gun (105mm L7 or 120mm GIAT) were manually loaded.
2. The protection and armour was considered inferior to western MBT's at the time.

So unless you plan on upgrading these things (as my other nation is), their only real use is scaring the enemy.

[Galla-]

1) Good idea? Bet your sweet ass it is. I use the M2001 Crusader.

2) Pros: Autoloader, smaller crew, smaller logistics footprint, better reliability. Cons: It's fucking ugly.

I am goning to have to disagree with that autoloader. 1. it reduces reloding speed. 2. there is always a shell in the barrel

1. This isn't the 1960s anymore.

2. Yes. That's usually why you have a barrel.

120mm weak for a tank gun? 3 questions for you: 1. what are you smoking 2. How much was it. 3. Where do i get it?
Have you ever seen a 120mm gun in action? Next thing I might here from someone is that a 30mm bushmaster auto-cannon is to light weight for an IFV.

25mm is p. light armament. Period.

40mm is talking.

[Anemos Major]

K2 = overrated because it's overpriced. Sure, it has fancy upgrades n' shit, but in terms of FCS, software upgrades could get tanks like the Leclerc to a similar footing. The Leclerc, meanwhile, has 100 kilometres more range, which is huge, is marginally faster, and the same 120 calibre gun (L/52 can be switched out to L/55 without any trouble, frankly). In terms of armour, I doubt the K2 reaches heights that haven't already been achieved by other Western nations.

basically, when the Leclerc 2015 comes out, it'll be Leclerc > K2. Even now, though, just adopting the Leclerc 140 with various upgrades would make it better than the K2.

tl;dr I'm sick and fucking tired of people using the same overrated, overpriced tank again and again and again because it's on the Guinness World Book of Records. Somebody here recommended the Osorio; good!

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Any one want to suggest a good real life tank for me to use.

K-2, Type-10, Merkava IV.

Newest and bestest.

IIRC, isn't the Merkava more infantry support tank and less main battle tank?

[Indeos]

K-2, Type-10, Merkava IV.

Newest and bestest.

IIRC, isn't the Merkava more infantry support tank and less main battle tank?

No, it's just designed for crew survivability and stuff like that.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

IIRC, isn't the Merkava more infantry support tank and less main battle tank?

No, it's just designed for crew survivability and stuff like that.

It just seems to be a very short chassis with a short gun barrel.

[Senestrum]

The engine of the Abrams sucks in every way, and is inferior to a regular tank engine.

The LV100-5 was supposed to fix or at least remedy that bullshit, but it died along with the XM2001 Crusader SPH program. RIP, Crusader.

I know it's not a tank really, but this is where all the brains gather so screw it- addressed to anyone who may be of help: I'm thinking of resurrecting the XM2001 Crusader for my armed forces and upgrading it if needed for today. Good idea? Bad idea? Pros/cons? Meh?

Pros: Hilariously awesome sustained fire capabilities due to the actively cooled gun, general awesomeness

Cons: oh god the price

Also, which of the two guns associated with the Crusader program would you be using? The hilarious regenerative liquid propellant gun or the equally hilarious laser-ignited solid propellant gun? This does make a difference.

[Indeos]

No, it's just designed for crew survivability and stuff like that.

It just seems to be a very short chassis with a short gun barrel.

It's an MBT, trust me.

[Anemos Major]

It just seems to be a very short chassis with a short gun barrel.

It's an MBT, trust me.

It is an MBT, but one that's more suited to urban combat rather than open warfare in the field against other tanks.

[Yohannes]

No, it's just designed for crew survivability and stuff like that.

It just seems to be a very short chassis with a short gun barrel.

Isn't Merkava designed and was conceptualised to be used within Israel specially, and was conceptualised so as to maximise its potential within the condition of Israel's terrain.

I am under the impression that if Merkava is used elsewhere, it would not be as effecive than if its used in a terrain similar to Israel's terrain, whereas one cannot yield too much a ground to the respective opposing force.

Or perhaps i am wrong..

[Soviet Haaregrad]

No, it's just designed for crew survivability and stuff like that.

It just seems to be a very short chassis with a short gun barrel.

It looks funny because it's layed out like an SPG with the engine in the front and the turret mounted further to the back.

[Senestrum]

The Merkava is utterly fantastic at doing what it's designed to do. However, it is not designed for high-intensity conflicts against opponents of similar capability, although it is still a very respectable opponent. Rather, it is intended to maximize crew survivability in low-intensity conflicts where a mobility kill (which is made substantially more likely due to engine placement and armor compromises) does not equate to a crew kill. Most people on NS are not going to be in the sort of situation that makes it desirable to deploy that sort of vehicle on a large scale.

The gun is a 120mm L44, the same length as the Abrams' gun. It just seems smaller since the turret is fucking huge and set so far back.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

The LV100-5 was supposed to fix or at least remedy that bullshit, but it died along with the XM2001 Crusader SPH program. RIP, Crusader.

I know it's not a tank really, but this is where all the brains gather so screw it- addressed to anyone who may be of help: I'm thinking of resurrecting the XM2001 Crusader for my armed forces and upgrading it if needed for today. Good idea? Bad idea? Pros/cons? Meh?

Pros: Hilariously awesome sustained fire capabilities due to the actively cooled gun, general awesomeness

Cons: oh god the price

Also, which of the two guns associated with the Crusader program would you be using? The hilarious regenerative liquid propellant gun or the equally hilarious laser-ignited solid propellant gun? This does make a difference.

On the pros: Awesome.

On the cons: We can afford it, fortunately (our military is proportionally on the smaller side for our nation, at slightly less than the US's 0.9%, though it is still lolzily large and can support high-quality while retaining quantity; if only those smaller newbies would just wait instead of wanking their military size).

On the trololo guns: I can't pick; I'll just split them between -A1 and -A2 variants. Could you give the merits of each, so I'd know where best to apply them?

[Senestrum]

I actually don't know much at all about the LP gun they were developing for the Crusader. It would presumably have the normal advantages of a liquid propellant gun (easier handling, safer, takes less volume to store a given amount of propellant, somewhat higher MV, etc), but was abandoned because the damned thing kept blowing itself up and the engineers weren't sure how to fix it.

The more conventional solid-propellant gun (the XM297) was much more developed and was actually functional, but had much more modest improvements; namely, the laser ignition system was vastly more reliable than conventional primers, allowed a somewhat higher rate of fire, and it was cheaper because you didn't have to make the damned primers (the laser was good for several thousand shots). The laser ignition system actually made it into the NLOS-C as well, and I know they looked at modifying towed guns to make use of a similar system. The cooling system is what really made the XM297 gun awesome, though; it can fire all damned day at fire rates that other guns can only manage for a dozen shots at a time, after which they have to wait for a while for the barrel to cool down.

Just remember that you can buy five PZH2000s for the price of a single Crusader.