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

[Luepola]

I'd first like to share this glorious piece of film (made from a video game). Skip to 4:45 if you just want to answer my question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smVNMQZHQGQ

Once you've watched that, can someone tell me if such a system is even feasible in MT? Granted, some of the weapons mounted on it are unexplained and unrealistic (namely the VLATGMs, the internally carried repair bots, and the EMP thing. The sequel also changes the bots to mobile IEDs, adds an airburst anti-infantry mortar, and changes the HUD's language to English), and what and how it gets defeated is probably unrealistic too, given that it's a video game, but if such a system were to be made strictly utilizing the base armaments of a given tank, how well would that work?

EDIT: IN short, the system is a T-90 that has been modified to be unmanned and completely autonomous, and also has more dakka. The added dakka is optional.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Wheels cost less than/are more optimal for particular environments, for particular nations. When you want, say, a lighter expeditionary footprint, or your military is fighting on developed ground/roads, or the land you're fighting on is fairly packed and solid, there's no reason why wheels shouldn't be adopted. If you have and are willing to deploy supporting logistics for transport beyond the tactical level (because tracks do require more maintenance on the move than wheels, ultimately), if your vehicles are heavy and if you're looking at combat on less 'stable' ground, tracks are probably a better idea.

Hence:
i) SADF adopted wheeled vehicles because they wanted vehicles they could use without a significant logistical footprint, for projected use in neighbouring countries with fairly open and firm ground. Makes sense.
ii) JGSDF adopted the MCV and are looking to adopt wheeled vehicles in a broader, 'multi-role chassis' form because they're looking for both mobility across a built-up country and rapid tactical mobility in domestic terms, and expeditionary deployability towards potential OPK operations.
iii) France adopted the AMX 10RC and ERC 90 for fairly similar reasons - in the post-Fulda Gap scenario, they gave the ADT better deployability across open ground to perform the initial engagement, then recce in force and flank strikes that the French had in mind for them while the AMX-30s (and eventually Leclercs) met the enemy head-on (all within the context of an already 'mobility-first' approach to conventional ground warfare, mind), while in the post-Cold War environment, ERC 90 and AMX 10RC equipped Paras (1er RHP, part of the 11e BP) and similarly equipped Legionnaires very much suited the French focus on rapid overseas deployment of the time.

Whereas:
i) Heavier loads tend to be managed better over equivalent vehicle dimensions by tracked options, as opposed to wheeled ones. Regardless of the SADF's experiences in Angola, progressive upgrades to an increasingly heavy Olifant are evidence enough that even SADF saw the need for heavier tracked vehicles to complement the lighter wheeled vehicles in service, because there were, at the end of the day, threats (Cuban T-62s?) which they considered potent enough to require a heavier alternative for.
ii) Northern Japan (Hokkaido is somewhat hilly) is full of damp, marshy, wet, muddy and uneven territory that wheeled vehicles would have a hard time fighting over - not to mention its being less built-up than mainland Japan and the Japanese aversion to any doctrine short of 'we'll stop them at the beaches'. Hence vehicles like the Type 89 or Type 90 - tracked and heavy, to repel Soviet advances under a very particular set of geographic conditions.
iii) Leclerc is still tracked, and was always meant to be tracked - because tracked vehicles can be formidably tactically mobile, especially with modern automotive advances in mind, so long as you have the logistics and training in place to keep them moving.

In the 21st century, more stable suspensions and controllable tyre inflation means that wheeled vehicles are more capable in what you might term 'off-road' environments, even if we're looking at bulky and unwieldy 8x8s, but the corresponding cost and complexity increase means that you won't be seeing maintenance advantages of the sort you might expect by looking at the traditional 'wheels v. tracks' debate.

Can't we all get along and use SEP-alikes?



On a more serious note, even on roads tracked vehicles may offer improved tactical mobility in certain situations, especially in urban areas. Some wheeled AFVs have hilarious turning radii, but show me a tracked vehicle that can't turn on the spot.

Out of curiosity, how do brakes work on tracked vehicles? I assume just the wheels have breaks or is there some form of braking on the tracks themselves too?

[Anemos Major]

I'd first like to share this glorious piece of film (made from a video game). Skip to 4:45 if you just want to answer my question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smVNMQZHQGQ

Once you've watched that, can someone tell me if such a system is even feasible in MT? Granted, some of the weapons mounted on it are unexplained and unrealistic (namely the VLATGMs, the internally carried repair bots, and the EMP thing. The sequel also changes the bots to mobile IEDs, adds an airburst anti-infantry mortar, and changes the HUD's language to English), and what and how it gets defeated is probably unrealistic too, given that it's a video game, but if such a system were to be made strictly utilizing the base armaments of a given tank, how well would that work?

So... 'how far can I godmod a tank'? That video reminds me of Jaws, on two counts - the poor attempt to create a menacing 'threat' by making it singularly powerful and threatening, but a base misunderstanding of exactly what it is that makes a tank so terrifying in the 21st century. Can you load up VLATGMs on a tank? No, you can't, but on the flip side a post-Leclerc tank can target, track, engage and hit a target with its main gun from 2-3km away practically automatically while travelling at 40km/h and scanning for another target. That's terrifying.

The Merkava carries a small 60mm mortar (but, as always, prepare to keep space considerations in mind if you intend to do such a thing), mobile IEDs sounds silly and unrealistic (the closest thing I can think of is a Switchblade flown off a launch rack on top of the tank, but there's literally no reason for such a system to exist), repair bots are very :Battlefield: (conducting battlefield maintenance on a tank is a lot more complex than applying a blowtorch to the vehicle), and I didn't really notice anything else of any consequence.

[Luepola]

I'd first like to share this glorious piece of film (made from a video game). Skip to 4:45 if you just want to answer my question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smVNMQZHQGQ

Once you've watched that, can someone tell me if such a system is even feasible in MT? Granted, some of the weapons mounted on it are unexplained and unrealistic (namely the VLATGMs, the internally carried repair bots, and the EMP thing. The sequel also changes the bots to mobile IEDs, adds an airburst anti-infantry mortar, and changes the HUD's language to English), and what and how it gets defeated is probably unrealistic too, given that it's a video game, but if such a system were to be made strictly utilizing the base armaments of a given tank, how well would that work?

So... 'how far can I godmod a tank'? That video reminds me of Jaws, on two counts - the poor attempt to create a menacing 'threat' by making it singularly powerful and threatening, but a base misunderstanding of exactly what it is that makes a tank so terrifying in the 21st century. Can you load up VLATGMs on a tank? No, you can't, but on the flip side a post-Leclerc tank can target, track, engage and hit a target with its main gun from 2-3km away practically automatically while travelling at 40km/h and scanning for another target. That's terrifying.

The Merkava carries a small 60mm mortar (but, as always, prepare to keep space considerations in mind if you intend to do such a thing), mobile IEDs sounds silly and unrealistic (the closest thing I can think of is a Switchblade flown off a launch rack on top of the tank, but there's literally no reason for such a system to exist), repair bots are very :Battlefield: (conducting battlefield maintenance on a tank is a lot more complex than applying a blowtorch to the vehicle), and I didn't really notice anything else of any consequence.

So, with enough funding, I could realistically convert a modern MBT to operate completely autonomously? Because that's the main thing I was going for.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd first like to share this glorious piece of film (made from a video game). Skip to 4:45 if you just want to answer my question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smVNMQZHQGQ

Once you've watched that, can someone tell me if such a system is even feasible in MT? Granted, some of the weapons mounted on it are unexplained and unrealistic (namely the VLATGMs, the internally carried repair bots, and the EMP thing. The sequel also changes the bots to mobile IEDs, adds an airburst anti-infantry mortar, and changes the HUD's language to English), and what and how it gets defeated is probably unrealistic too, given that it's a video game, but if such a system were to be made strictly utilizing the base armaments of a given tank, how well would that work?

EDIT: IN short, the system is a T-90 that has been modified to be unmanned and completely autonomous, and also has more dakka. The added dakka is optional.

In a word, no.

There exist systems that give a capability to the various systems of an autonomous tank, but nothing that could be combat capable, not for decades, probably.

[Oaledonia]

I'd first like to share this glorious piece of film (made from a video game). Skip to 4:45 if you just want to answer my question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smVNMQZHQGQ

Once you've watched that, can someone tell me if such a system is even feasible in MT? Granted, some of the weapons mounted on it are unexplained and unrealistic (namely the VLATGMs, the internally carried repair bots, and the EMP thing. The sequel also changes the bots to mobile IEDs, adds an airburst anti-infantry mortar, and changes the HUD's language to English), and what and how it gets defeated is probably unrealistic too, given that it's a video game, but if such a system were to be made strictly utilizing the base armaments of a given tank, how well would that work?

EDIT: IN short, the system is a T-90 that has been modified to be unmanned and completely autonomous, and also has more dakka. The added dakka is optional.

[Bielruskaja]

Most of the tanks in the Bielaruskajan People's Army are left over FT-17s

[New Tyran]

Most of the tanks in the Bielaruskajan People's Army are left over FT-17s

I'm so sorry.

[Vorkova]

Most of the tanks in the Bielaruskajan People's Army are left over FT-17s

Good luck with that.

[Bielruskaja]

Most of the tanks in the Bielaruskajan People's Army are left over FT-17s

I'm so sorry.

Most of the tanks in the Bielaruskajan People's Army are left over FT-17s

Good luck with that.

Best tanks we could afford steal from abandoned stocks

[Ea90]

Most of the tanks in the Bielaruskajan People's Army are left over FT-17s

Good man.

[Vorkova]

I'm so sorry.

Good luck with that.

Best tanks we could afford steal from abandoned stocks

Did you steal them from a museum?

[Bielruskaja]

Most of the tanks in the Bielaruskajan People's Army are left over FT-17s

Good man.

This guy gets it

Best tanks we could afford steal from abandoned stocks

Did you steal them from a museum?

More like retreating armies

[Vetok]

Good man.

This guy gets it

Did you steal them from a museum?

More like retreating armies

Were they retreating from museums?

[Oppressed Slaver Union]

I bet you had a hard time keeping up with them... *snicker*

[Lydenburg]

Let me educate you with a page from my storefront, dear fellow:

"The choice of wheels over tracks was made after thorough consideration of the likely nature of future operations and the terrain of probable theatre. In comparison with tracked vehicles, wheels offer astounding strategic mobility without the need for transporters or trains, 40 - 60% lower cost of acquisition and maintenance, design simplicity, reduced noise and chance of detection, superior buoyancy, easier logistics support, 60% lower fuel consumption, higher maximum speed, and longer range. The distances in Lydenburg were also deemed too great for any tracked reconnaissance vehicle to keep up with the dynamic flexibility and swift operational style of the LDF; furthermore, wheeled AFVs required half the power of a tracked vehicle with comparable weight to achieve a given performance..."

This is why I use wheels.

I am pretty confident most of your claims are greatly exaggerated. Even if you have point, there was this FAS (?) piece on wheels vs. tracks that said once you operate off-road more than 30% 60% of the time any potential advantages of wheels are gone, or something along those lines. Will be back with a source.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2wheels98.pdf ( p.34, Conclusion)

Ripped them straight from Heitman's South African Arms and Armour. You want to challenge the facts of RSA's single most respected military historian? Go ahead.

http://mampoer.co.za/helmoed-heitman

[Vorkova]

Good man.

This guy gets it

Did you steal them from a museum?

More like retreating armies

French tanks retreating. Where have I heard of this before?

[Vitaphone Racing]

You're right, of course.

I suppose one doesn't get to fuss about ceteris paribus on the battlefield, though.

The issue here is that people are treating this as an argument of 'better or worse' when really, the operating standard we're looking for is 'different'. Wheeled and tracked vehicles are built for different conditions, to fulfil different conditions, under different conditions. The end result is that you don't have something that can consistently defeat the other because it's self-evidently better - rather, if their use, tracked and wheeled alike, plays to their strengths, and takes advantage of their respective pros and cons, you have a better chance of coming out on top (and vice versa).

Not that I really want to take this debate any further since we're sort of at the end of it, but the actual argument at hand here was whether or not the performance of wheels was worse than that of tracks in all off-road environments and not whether or not tracked vehicles were better than wheeled vehicles. That both wheels and tracks have their inherent advantages and that there were legitimate reasons to use either of them was never in dispute. This was a very narrow argument purely about off-road mobility and excluding everything else.

[Rich and Corporations]

well, it isn't just that

the more programmers that know how to program for a system or engineers know how to engineer for a certain system, the greater risk that one of them will be either corrupted or already be working for the enemy.

Take for example NSA's secret wifi inserted into a USB device. That depends on common knowledge of USB (universal serial bus).


So really.
Each governmental program needs to use it's own propretary software and hardware, designed from scratch.

If you're relying for security on the enemy not knowing how your systems work, your systems are not secure.

The route to security is not to come up with proprietary systems and protocols and jealously guard the secret of how they work; it's to have systems and protocols that have been thoroughly vetted for bugs - and having them open and widely used means that you get a lot of that for free, and have access to a lot more trained and skilled talent, which means faster development and introducing fewer bugs - and that are properly authenticated, and keep secret the actual bits of data that you use to authorize and authenticate. If it works right, it doesn't matter if the enemy knows how it works. And if it doesn't work right, trying to hide how it works isn't going to keep the enemy from figuring that out.

rootkits.
Like the kind that borked Iran's nuclear pogrom.

Let's consult the expert on tracks versus wheels.

http://www.combatreform.org/bandtracks.htm

[Luepola]

This guy gets it

More like retreating armies

French tanks retreating. Where have I heard of this before?

Why do the French install rearview mirrors on their tanks? cue the punchline

[Vorkova]

French tanks retreating. Where have I heard of this before?

Why do the French install rearview mirrors on their tanks? cue the punchline

To see how close the enemy is?

"Warning: objects in mirror may be raping the French military."

[Luepola]

I never quite got a definitive consensus on my Autonomous tank. Imperializt Russia said no, Olaedonia said yes, and I think Anemos said yes.

I personally don't see anything wrong with it in my extremely limited and deluded perspective. I think most of the systems that would be needed to autonomously operate the tank exist, apart from deciding what weapon/round needs to be used in a given situation. That's the only thing I can think of.

Why do the French install rearview mirrors on their tanks? cue the punchline

To see how close the enemy is?

"Warning: objects in mirror may be raping the French military."

Why am I reminded of that one scene from Jurassic Park?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxqHVoZ0fzc

[Anemos Major]

Not that I really want to take this debate any further since we're sort of at the end of it, but the actual argument at hand here was whether or not the performance of wheels was worse than that of tracks in all off-road environments and not whether or not tracked vehicles were better than wheeled vehicles. That both wheels and tracks have their inherent advantages and that there were legitimate reasons to use either of them was never in dispute. This was a very narrow argument purely about off-road mobility and excluding everything else.

Not that I want to encourage this debate further, but that seems to be the direction in which you're pushing it.

What's with all the wheeled TD's lately. Am I the only one who thinks that a proper AFV needs to be tracked?

This was the original statement from which the argument developed. The original statement, and the original argument, is what I'm addressing.

Not to deny that you're making plenty of valid points, of course. But I'm not deviating from the 'original argument', so to speak.

[Spirit of Hope]

I never quite got a definitive consensus on my Autonomous tank. Imperializt Russia said no, Olaedonia said yes, and I think Anemos said yes.

I personally don't see anything wrong with it in my extremely limited and deluded perspective. I think most of the systems that would be needed to autonomously operate the tank exist, apart from deciding what weapon/round needs to be used in a given situation. That's the only thing I can think of.

I would say Bad Idea. While you can make a tank remote control, it probably isn't going to work out well. However your communicating with the tank it can be james or severed, leaving the tank defenseless. You would probably end up dealing with lag time between tank and controllers in some way, and situation awareness will probably drop a little do to not being on the field.

[Luepola]

I never quite got a definitive consensus on my Autonomous tank. Imperializt Russia said no, Olaedonia said yes, and I think Anemos said yes.

I personally don't see anything wrong with it in my extremely limited and deluded perspective. I think most of the systems that would be needed to autonomously operate the tank exist, apart from deciding what weapon/round needs to be used in a given situation. That's the only thing I can think of.

I would say Bad Idea. While you can make a tank remote control, it probably isn't going to work out well. However your communicating with the tank it can be james or severed, leaving the tank defenseless. You would probably end up dealing with lag time between tank and controllers in some way, and situation awareness will probably drop a little do to not being on the field.

Autonomously. As in, the tank gets sent, or even programmed in person, orders and it carries them out, without anyone actually controlling it. Not remote control.