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

[Chebucto Provinces]

I think its time I design my own tank.

A notAMX-40 with a 105mm gun. Digital FCS, hunter-killer capability, air conditioning, hydrogas suspension. A combat load of 45 tonnes, so I can upgrade the frontal armor.

But, serious question: COTAC or EMES 18?

Why 105mm and not 120mm like it was supposed to have?

Why 120mm and not 105mm?
Consider operational inertia and existing manufacturing base (both very important here for IC reasons).
And the fact that 105mm does all the tank would be needed to do. Especially an advanced 105mm gun that was backwards compatible with L7 ammunition, like the IWS.

EMES 18 was my initial pick. But I don't have as much info as I like on COTAC. I think EMES 18 would be better served though, considering current Leopard 2 networking integration. It would make a 2010s upgrade package/rebuild easier.

Afterall, it's a notAMX-40. So, preliminary ideas: 1200hp engine, automatic gearbox, electrical turret drive, digital systems.

[Novorden]

WIP

Weight: 30 tonnes
Length: 7m
Width:3m
Height:2.4m (to turret roof)
Ground Clearance: 0.45m

Crew: 3+8
Speed: 75km/h (Road)

Armament: 40mm CTA in a crewless turret (80 rounds ready), 7mm coaxial.

[The Kievan People]

Why 120mm and not 105mm?
Consider operational inertia and existing manufacturing base (both very important here for IC reasons).
And the fact that 105mm does all the tank would be needed to do. Especially an advanced 105mm gun that was backwards compatible with L7 ammunition, like the IWS.

EMES 18 was my initial pick. But I don't have as much info as I like on COTAC. I think EMES 18 would be better served though, considering current Leopard 2 networking integration. It would make a 2010s upgrade package/rebuild easier.

Afterall, it's a notAMX-40. So, preliminary ideas: 1200hp engine, automatic gearbox, electrical turret drive, digital systems.

Does everything it needs to do except kill tanks effectively with shells...

[Vancon]

So, I need an armored vehicle that goes fast and is realativly small yet still armored. An example would be a Humvee. Any suggestions?

[Riysa]

Hmm, for a 54 metric ton tank, how does the following sound?

Frontal armor hull: 780 mm RHAe vs KE.
Side armor hull: Resistant to 40 mm APFSDS.
Rear armor hull: Resistant to 20 mm APFSDS.

[Kusthet]

So, I need an armored vehicle that goes fast and is realativly small yet still armored. An example would be a Humvee. Any suggestions?

Wiesel!

[The Kievan People]

So, I need an armored vehicle that goes fast and is realativly small yet still armored. An example would be a Humvee. Any suggestions?

If your example is the Humvee why not use the Humvee?

[Vancon]

So, I need an armored vehicle that goes fast and is realativly small yet still armored. An example would be a Humvee. Any suggestions?

If your example is the Humvee why not use the Humvee?

From what I understand, it's not armored enough for my needs.

[Riysa]

So, I need an armored vehicle that goes fast and is realativly small yet still armored. An example would be a Humvee. Any suggestions?

If your example is the Humvee why not use the Humvee?

Yeah, a Humvee or one of the many similar vehicles worldwide are pretty good.

That said, Vancon may be looking for something with a bit better protection, like an MRAP, since those vehicles tend to be crap-all against mines and IEDs.

EDIT: Go for an MRAP vehicle, then, there's plenty of them out there.

[Gvozdevsk]

So, I need an armored vehicle that goes fast and is realativly small yet still armored. An example would be a Humvee. Any suggestions?

RG-32M or Iveco LMV are my recommendations.

[Vancon]

If your example is the Humvee why not use the Humvee?

Yeah, a Humvee or one of the many similar vehicles worldwide are pretty good.

That said, Vancon may be looking for something with a bit better protection, like an MRAP, since those vehicles tend to be crap-all against mines and IEDs.

EDIT: Go for an MRAP vehicle, then, there's plenty of them out there.

The other thing that is important to me in this case is speed.

[Riysa]

Yeah, a Humvee or one of the many similar vehicles worldwide are pretty good.

That said, Vancon may be looking for something with a bit better protection, like an MRAP, since those vehicles tend to be crap-all against mines and IEDs.

EDIT: Go for an MRAP vehicle, then, there's plenty of them out there.

The other thing that is important to me in this case is speed.

Humvees only hit about 113 km/h in terms of maximum speed, and most MRAP vehicles aren't too much less (Ural Typhoon is 105 km/h, for example).

[Lemanrussland]

In practice, I don't think military vehicles typically try to travel that fast anyway.

[Vancon]

In practice, I don't think military vehicles typically try to travel that fast anyway.

Au contraire,Sun Zhu was a big advocate for mobility on the battlefield and many other commanders feel the same way.

[Questers]

Yeah you are not going to be driving at 113kph in almost any scenario.

[Riysa]

Mobility tends to be a bit less important with guided weapons and bullets/shells traveling at supersonic speeds, or hidden IEDs/mines that can flip 60-ton tanks over.

[The Kievan People]

Au contraire,Sun Zhu was a big advocate for mobility on the battlefield and many other commanders feel the same way.

Road warrior columns are sort of like a poor mans air cavalry.

[Chebucto Provinces]

Why 120mm and not 105mm?
Consider operational inertia and existing manufacturing base (both very important here for IC reasons).
And the fact that 105mm does all the tank would be needed to do. Especially an advanced 105mm gun that was backwards compatible with L7 ammunition, like the IWS.

EMES 18 was my initial pick. But I don't have as much info as I like on COTAC. I think EMES 18 would be better served though, considering current Leopard 2 networking integration. It would make a 2010s upgrade package/rebuild easier.

Afterall, it's a notAMX-40. So, preliminary ideas: 1200hp engine, automatic gearbox, electrical turret drive, digital systems.

Does everything it needs to do except kill tanks effectively with shells...

An improved 105mm like IWS is perfectly capable of fighting the expected threats. Including modern MBTs.

[The Kievan People]

An improved 105mm like IWS is perfectly capable of fighting the expected threats. Including modern MBTs.

That is very doubtful.

A L/D 23 long rod with a muzzle velocity of 1420m/s is far inferior to modern 120mm APFSDS ammunition.

[Chebucto Provinces]

An improved 105mm like IWS is perfectly capable of fighting the expected threats. Including modern MBTs.

That is very doubtful.

A L/D 23 long rod with a muzzle velocity of 1420m/s is far inferior to modern 120mm APFSDS ammunition.

But this brings about two questions which you ignore.
1: what stops the creation of a modern LRP?
2: what keeps the LRP as the only option to deal with all threats?

We likewise skip the fact that as a combined arms system where the tank is only a single piece and intended to work and be employed as such, the gun is largely irrelevant as long as it is capable enough.

[Kusthet]

That is very doubtful.

A L/D 23 long rod with a muzzle velocity of 1420m/s is far inferior to modern 120mm APFSDS ammunition.

But this brings about two questions which you ignore.
1: what stops the creation of a modern LRP?
2: what keeps the LRP as the only option to deal with all threats?

We likewise skip the fact that as a combined arms system where the tank is only a single piece and intended to work and be employed as such, the gun is largely irrelevant as long as it is capable enough.

Could always add an external ATGM launcher, if it comes down to it.

[The Kievan People]

But this brings about two questions which you ignore.
1: what stops the creation of a modern LRP?
2: what keeps the LRP as the only option to deal with all threats?

We likewise skip the fact that as a combined arms system where the tank is only a single piece and intended to work and be employed as such, the gun is largely irrelevant as long as it is capable enough.

1. Rifled guns cannot achieve the same muzzle velocities as smoothbore guns. A larger bore will always allow a more a powerful charge and larger penetrator in any case.
2. If you mean guided weapons, because I know these are popular, the LAHAT is a fairly crummy weapon in a tank duel. And an ammo rack full of Javelin equivalents will cost as much as a tank.

But capable enough for what? Being able to kill enemy tanks effectively (i.e. from the front) is one of the basic requirements of an MBT. The universally poor (American, British, German etc) performance of tanks that were not armed with effective (i.e. able to kill their likely tank opponents head-on at normal combat ranges) anti-armor weapons was a big factor in the convergence on big bore high velocity cannons as the definitive tank armament after WWII. Efforts to avoid head on armor clashes in favor of engaging tanks with dedicated anti-tank weapons (a feature of both Soviet and American doctrine, though in different fashions) were equally ineffective at preventing those clashes from occurring.

Is a 105mm gun useless? No, not at all. But if you have any reason to suspect hostile T-80U/T-90/M1A1/Leopard 2s might to show up, going out of your way to avoid the 120mm is just asking for trouble.

[Chebucto Provinces]

1: while smoothbore will always allow more velocity, the increase is minor. Likewise larger bore means neither longer rod nor larger charge. These two things are relevant to the gun (or round/chamber) design itself and not relevant to the bore diameter. What is relevant is the increased area for the gas pressure to work on. A larger bore smoothbore will thus get velocity gains from those two features alone even with a reduced charge.

2: I was referring to such options. Your assertion that it would include an ammo rack full of such rounds is preposterous.

There is no reason a higher pressure 105mm gun with modern munitions should not be able to take on any modern tank. Defeating ERA for example is a matter of penetrator design not bore diameter. Likewise is defeating composite armors. The relatively minor improvements given by the greater piston area and the decreased friction are not enough to justify the major expense of replacing munitions when introducing a new gun that is backwards compatible and better ammo will do the trick.

If the expected threat were hoards of M1A2s where expenditures of special munitions would be high then I will concede the switch to a larger gun might be more worth it if only for the wearing of the barrel and easier/cheaper improvements. But as it stands Chebucto does not expect its meager tank force to fight that battle. It is expected, rather, to normally facer tanks such as the t-72b or older. The occasional ultra modern tank will not prove a problem. However with the current increase in proliferation of such vehicles the next gen tank project will be looking at other options. But I have that as initiating in 2010 and still in process of development in 2014.

[San-Silvacian]

If a super high velocity 105mm gun were capable of taking a modern MBT head-on, don't you suspect that more than fire support vehicles would have it?

[Chebucto Provinces]

If a super high velocity 105mm gun were capable of taking a modern MBT head-on, don't you suspect that more than fire support vehicles would have it?

What do you mean by fire support vehicles?
If you mean light vehicles like the MGS or even light tanks like Stingray then no, I see no reason to infer that such vehicles would be fitted with a weapon that would damage the vehicle. Even ignoring their not having MBT engagement as a primary role.

To date high pressure 105mm guns have not been fielded, entirely because when their development started a severe lack of real need was created. With the collapse of the WP the 120mm smoothbore was good enough both in numbers and capability. There was no need for making use of existing stocks when there was no threat. MGS got the M68 to ensure it had access to round types it needed for its role which did not then exist for the M256.

The situation here is different. Existing stocks are important and capability that can be squeezed from a 105mm higher pressure gun is good enough for all threats and more then enough for expected threats. This of course being with an introduction date prior to 1991. The argument holds strong until roughly 2020. But there is a replacement tank program for that which is not the same.