Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Type 6

[Oaledonia]

M-56 Main Battle of Tank.
79,200

I hope this is a horrible joke.

[Zeinbrad]

M-56 Main Battle of Tank.
79,200

I hope this is a horrible joke.

The Main battle of tank is a typo.

The 79,200, I just picked a random number in my head.

[Oaledonia]

The 79,200, I just picked a random number in my head.

That's 7 times the amount of Shermans made.

[Zeinbrad]

The 79,200, I just picked a random number in my head.

That's 7 times the amount of Shermans made.

I'll just say it's including all the foreign variants.

That and the Cold war saw a lot of Border skirmishes and small-scale wars between the Allied Nations and Iron Pact.

[Imperializt Russia]

That's 7 times the amount of Shermans made.

I'll just say it's including all the foreign variants.

That and the Cold war saw a lot of Border skirmishes and small-scale wars between the Allied Nations and Iron Pact.

The Russians never built that many armoured vehicles in total.
Probably.

[Imperializt Russia]

48 rounds, 10 ready in semi-auto magazine.

What befuddles me is primarily the 'semi-auto magazine' - would you by any chance have any more information regarding that? I'm guessing its a revolving magazine that presents rounds to the loader as selected?

IIRC it's basically two drums of ammunition that is held as ready and replenished as needed.
Not entire sure where the "semi-automatic" comes into it, because it's manually loaded and manually unloaded.

[Immoren]

I was wondering.
If I want higher pressure gun(-launcher) for my medium and (or at least) heavy tank.
Should it be completely new ammo for those mediums and heavies, or could I do away with using same ammo, making chamber longer, and shove additional propellant bag behind shell.

[Imperializt Russia]

You could, as I was proposing for the overpressure 152 gun, but it's additional complexity, unless you retain a human loader who's used to two-piece ammunition loading.

You could always strap a small propellant bag to the projectile and then manufacture a larger "primary" propellant bag to retain two-piece rather than three-piece ammunition.

[Immoren]

You could, as I was proposing for the overpressure 152 gun, but it's additional complexity, unless you retain a human loader who's used to two-piece ammunition loading.

You could always strap a small propellant bag to the projectile and then manufacture a larger "primary" propellant bag to retain two-piece rather than three-piece ammunition.

I was considering light (and medium) tank have single piece ammo in carousel
And (medium and) heavy tank having "one and half" piece ammo with warhead and "primary" propellant as single piece in carousel and "secondary"/"extra" propellant in bustle.

[Questers]

is there a reason why i sohuldnt give tank crews a headrest on their chair?

[Imperializt Russia]

is there a reason why i sohuldnt give tank crews a headrest on their chair?

It's probably a useful thing to have.
Being shaken about by blast probably isn't good for the neck. Especially if you issue helmets or other headgear.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

The 79,200, I just picked a random number in my head.

That's 7 times the amount of Shermans made.

50 k shermans were made.
So you are wrong about the 7 times total.

I'll just say it's including all the foreign variants.

That and the Cold war saw a lot of Border skirmishes and small-scale wars between the Allied Nations and Iron Pact.

The Russians never built that many armoured vehicles in total.
Probably.

Number built
86,000–100,000+ est T 54/55
Also 20.000+ T 72 and other classes of MBT prove you wrong

[Ea90]

is there a reason why i sohuldnt give tank crews a headrest on their chair?

It will encourage them to slouch and become complacent; optimum work environment chair is made of melted down scrap metal.

[Questers]

is there a reason why i sohuldnt give tank crews a headrest on their chair?

It will encourage them to slouch and become complacent; optimum work environment chair is made of melted down scrap metal.

I did think this for a while, but I think that the headrest is probably still worth it. However, I don't know any real tanks that it features on so...

[Questers]

Even mighty Abrams doesn't have it ):

[Riysa]

It will encourage them to slouch and become complacent; optimum work environment chair is made of melted down scrap metal.

I did think this for a while, but I think that the headrest is probably still worth it. However, I don't know any real tanks that it features on so...

If the tank gets jolted around by an impact, wouldn't there be problems with the head or neck banging against the headrest?

[Imperializt Russia]

The Russians never built that many armoured vehicles in total.
Probably.

Number built
86,000–100,000+ est T 54/55
Also 20.000+ T 72 and other classes of MBT prove you wrong

I still get to cover myself with "probably".
Also distribution to other states, foreign manufacture, combat losses, scrappings, long-term storage all eat well into those totals.

[Riysa]

55 tons, 157mm with 35 rounds, front hull armor ~870mm RHAe. Wankish or not?

[Kouralia]

Even mighty Abrams doesn't have it ):
(Image)

Isn't that a tiny padded bar behind the cmdr's head? Between the view port and the white thing?

If not a head rest, then to stop the head before the neck impacts against something.

[Anemos Major]

[LIST UPDATED TO THIS POINT]

AMX-10RC > NS

Say what you like about NS, but the -10RC has somewhat questionable ammunition storage. It's a decent vehicle, but pales somewhat (unfortunately enough) in the face of all the 105mm MGSs being produced at the moment.

[Ragnarum]

Right, so because I'm a military centred nation with 4.57 billion people, I have a ridiculously big army of 25-7 million strong (8.5 ish active) that is also mainly tank based.

How many of either of these tanks do you think Ragnarum would have?

Also, which one would be the best option? Or are they too similar to be different tanks? Because that's what I've been thinking.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm not really sure that being a "tank based" army is very good.
Almost every force is infantry based for a reason. Infantry are mainline do-everything units. Tanks are heavy supporting arms that are good at breaking lines and being supporting arms.

Stick with accepted and common ratios because you know that they work.
Per ~13,000 personnel in a Soviet Motor Rifle Division (including non-infantry and vehicle crews ofc), there were over 200 battle tanks, or about 65 men to a tank.
This fell to about 35 men per tank in the Tank Division, despite only featuring a hundred more tanks than a Rifle Division (though obviously less infantry and fewer personnel overall).

[Stahn]

Right, so because I'm a military centred nation with 4.57 billion people, I have a ridiculously big army of 25-7 million strong that is also mainly tank based.

How many of either of these tanks do you think Ragnarum would have?

Also, which one would be the best option? Or are they too similar to be different tanks? Because that's what I've been thinking.

Do you have an IC conflict with nations that are of equal or larger size?

If not why not cap your population?

I would do it if I didn't have that many enemies that are een larger than me and do the opposite of capping.

[Oaledonia]

That's 7 times the amount of Shermans made.

50 k shermans were made.
So you are wrong about the 7 times total.

Complete derp of doom, I meant Abrams

[Ragnarum]

I'm not really sure that being a "tank based" army is very good.
Almost every force is infantry based for a reason. Infantry are mainline do-everything units. Tanks are heavy supporting arms that are good at breaking lines and being supporting arms.

Not exactly tank based, more armour in general focused really. Though tanks are a large part of it, since Ragnarum has to do a lot of line breaking.

I will go with that tank to man ratio anyway.

Right, so because I'm a military centred nation with 4.57 billion people, I have a ridiculously big army of 25-7 million strong that is also mainly tank based.

How many of either of these tanks do you think Ragnarum would have?

Also, which one would be the best option? Or are they too similar to be different tanks? Because that's what I've been thinking.

Do you have an IC conflict with nations that are of equal or larger size?

If not why not cap your population?

I would do it if I didn't have that many enemies that are een larger than me and do the opposite of capping.

I do have to fight with nations with similar military sizes in RP's, though a lot of the time Its in RP's where you build your military up etc. I do like showing off, so I suppose that's why I don't cap it.