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

[The Akasha Colony]

I'm not saying he is wrong, I'm just saying that by making that choice, to have a defensive military, he is making trade offs. The rest depends on how you define a power projection military. I would say most militaries have the ability to power project to some extent, its just that the US dwarves them in its ability to power project.

So how do Chad, Sudan, Kazakhstan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bosnia, and Paraguay expect to project power? These are the kinds of nations that make up most of the world. If by 'project power' you mean 'have vehicles that are physically capable of driving over the border of their neighbor,' then every military is a power projection military. But this makes the term meaningless, since it now fails to be a distinguishing feature.

[Lydenburg]

Have you people forgotten the size of my military? 63,000 men are suitable for low-intensity raids or defending the homefront. My doctrine rests on waging defensive campaigns on local ground.

We haven't forgotten. We were making a point of that. Or rather, we were making a point of the fact that every time someone objects to wheeled vehicles you automatically jump out and start defending them even thou your arguments are only applicable to your own conditions and NOT any sort of generic situation, let alone any situation that other person might have on hand. Which is slightly annoying.

Because it reflects badly on anybody who objects to wheeled vehicles everywhere, anywhere. My purpose is to educate accordingly.

But, they are and it's not hard to see why this is. As a Ferrari fan I'm sick and tired of people claiming Porsche is the most successful motor racing company ever to grace the earth, but it's pretty hard to argue with the evidence.

No. They are inferior on certain off-road environments. Do the Angolan bush or the deserts of Chad look like roads to you?

Well, that's the claim you at least half made in that paragraph directed to Questers hence why I asked.

That was taken from my storefront, which is interpreted in a local context. Prior to the product's introduction, ICly I fielded very few tracked vehicles. I have since made some exceptions.

@Ninja'd by Anemos.

[Gallia-]

See Angola.

Helmoed Heitman did a piece back in the late 1980s entitled "South African Arms and Armour", explaining why the G6 cannon and Ratel IFV were mounted on a wheeled chassis rather than tracks. Part of the reasoning adopted by ARMSCOR was that wheels were about 40-60% cheaper to maintain - which was important given that the SADF was a comparatively low-budget military.

You can't use Angola to back up literally every point you make. :|

Why not?

[Anemos Major]

I'm not saying he is wrong, I'm just saying that by making that choice, to have a defensive military, he is making trade offs. The rest depends on how you define a power projection military. I would say most militaries have the ability to power project to some extent, its just that the US dwarves them in its ability to power project.

Those 'trade-offs' are irrelevant if there's no politically relevant reason for a particular military force to have power projection capabilities. Japan has limited green-water 'power projection' capabilities for its heaviest division (the 7th), which essentially involves a civilian RO-RO ship being chartered to carry a handful of tanks south, from where they can potentially be loaded up onto one of the JMSDF's few LCACs. But for Japan, that's largely irrelevant, because there's literally no reason why they'd need to deploy Type 90s anywhere other than Hokkaido, both politically and practically speaking.

[Purpelia]

Because it reflects badly on anybody who objects to wheeled vehicles everywhere, anywhere. My purpose is to educate accordingly.

You really aren't doing a good job than. As the only thing that you have proven is that there are extremely specific conditions under which wheeled vehicles sort of equal tracked ones. And really, by that method you can prove anything just by finding an extreme enough example.

[Vitaphone Racing]

We haven't forgotten. We were making a point of that. Or rather, we were making a point of the fact that every time someone objects to wheeled vehicles you automatically jump out and start defending them even thou your arguments are only applicable to your own conditions and NOT any sort of generic situation, let alone any situation that other person might have on hand. Which is slightly annoying.

Because it reflects badly on anybody who objects to wheeled vehicles everywhere, anywhere. My purpose is to educate accordingly.

Nobody is objecting to wheeled vehicles everywhere and anywhere.

But, they are and it's not hard to see why this is. As a Ferrari fan I'm sick and tired of people claiming Porsche is the most successful motor racing company ever to grace the earth, but it's pretty hard to argue with the evidence.

No. They are inferior on certain off-road environments. Do the Angolan bush or the deserts of Chad look like roads to you?

They are inferior on all off-road environments unless you are blessed with perfectly flat, obstacle and crater free ground. The precise level of inferiority might vary depending on what sort of ground we're talking about, but a tracked vehicle will always have more traction and will always have a much tighter turning circle. The only real advantage a wheeled vehicle has is it's speed; but this is only on road. Vehicles simply do not travel at 100km/h off road regardless of whether or not they can reach that speed because of the sheer undulation of the ground coupled with the fact that you have no idea what lies ahead of you.

Believe me when I say there isn't a single off-road environment that you're likely to encounter anywhere in the world where a wheeled vehicle will have some sort of mobility superiority to a tracked vehicle. Maybe in the Bonneville salt flats, although a tracked vehicle will still accelerate faster.

Now, this doesn't change the fact that there are certainly other legitimate reasons to prefer wheeled vehicles if it better ties in to the precise role you have for them or if the weights of these vehicles are low enough that mitigates the problems posed off-road by wheels relative to tracks, but arguing that wheels can be superior than tracks off-road is wrong. There's nothing to win from playing down the disadvantages, especially when it doesn't really matter anyway.

[Questers]

Wheeled vehicles are great - no-ones disputing that, but they aren't better than tracked in all circumstances. I agree that in Lydenburg and SA's circumstance they're good though. Anemos makes the best points so I won't go over them again.

For example, the British have shown that you can have an extremely mobile tracked vehicle - which performed GREAT in Germany, Iraq and the Falklands - and was well received by tropical countries - and it can take the 76mm from the Rooikat or the Cockerill 90mm quite easily.

BUT it gets a much shorter range than say, the Rooikat - that's where wheeled vehicles are good.

Samoz re: BTR-BMP its doctrine.

[Lydenburg]

Because it reflects badly on anybody who objects to wheeled vehicles everywhere, anywhere. My purpose is to educate accordingly.

You really aren't doing a good job than. As the only thing that you have proven is that there are extremely specific conditions under which wheeled vehicles sort of equal tracked ones. And really, by that method you can prove anything just by finding an extreme enough example.

I fail to see how Angola, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Mozambique are extreme enough examples.

Nobody is objecting to wheeled vehicles everywhere and anywhere.

They have in the past - see the old thread and find where I first started this tangent.

They are inferior on all off-road environments unless you are blessed with perfectly flat, obstacle and crater free ground. The precise level of inferiority might vary depending on what sort of ground we're talking about, but a tracked vehicle will always have more traction and will always have a much tighter turning circle. The only real advantage a wheeled vehicle has is it's speed; but this is only on road. Vehicles simply do not travel at 100km/h off road regardless of whether or not they can reach that speed because of the sheer undulation of the ground coupled with the fact that you have no idea what lies ahead of you.

And yet wheels won over tracks from Op Savannah in '75 to Ops Modular and Hooper in the late '80s. Armoured cars could outmaneuver tracks in thick vegetation every time.

[Questers]

Who has objected to wheeled vehicles completely?

[Questers]

And yet wheels won over tracks from Op Savannah in '75 to Ops Modular and Hooper in the late '80s. Armoured cars could outmaneuver tracks in thick vegetation every time.

Which tracked vehicles, though? I mean some of them are definitely worse than others.

[Lydenburg]

Who has objected to wheeled vehicles completely?

The nations that used tracked vehicles for everything except logistics, and laughed me out when I brought up wheeled.

Which tracked vehicles, though? I mean some of them are definitely worse than others.

Mostly T-55s and T-62s. There were also BMPs, PT-76s, and T-34s.

[Questers]

The nations that used tracked vehicles for everything except logistics, and laughed me out when I brought up wheeled.

Yea, who?

[Vitaphone Racing]

They are inferior on all off-road environments unless you are blessed with perfectly flat, obstacle and crater free ground. The precise level of inferiority might vary depending on what sort of ground we're talking about, but a tracked vehicle will always have more traction and will always have a much tighter turning circle. The only real advantage a wheeled vehicle has is it's speed; but this is only on road. Vehicles simply do not travel at 100km/h off road regardless of whether or not they can reach that speed because of the sheer undulation of the ground coupled with the fact that you have no idea what lies ahead of you.

And yet wheels won over tracks from Op Savannah in '75 to Ops Modular and Hooper in the late '80s. Armoured cars could outmaneuver tracks in thick vegetation every time.

And your source for this is? Also, unless we're comparing vehicles of identical weights and dimensions, the comparison is meaningless.

From a physics standpoint, tracks are superior. They have greater surface area in contact with the ground, the weight of the vehicle is more evenly spread, they have a much tighter turning radius at slow speeds which is inherent to tracked vehicles and the basic profile of the track itself makes it harder for them to become stuck while traversing ditches or some protruding object. Really, you can post about claimed mobility from historic events all you like, the science says differently.

[Purpelia]

Who has objected to wheeled vehicles completely?

The nations that used tracked vehicles for everything except logistics, and laughed me out when I brought up wheeled.

Which tracked vehicles, though? I mean some of them are definitely worse than others.

Mostly T-55s and T-62s. There were also BMPs, PT-76s, and T-34s.

So your argument is based on the fact that vehicles which were modern at the time and happened to be wheeled proved better than vehicles which were at the time 20 - 40 years obsolete and happened to be tracked?

[Anemos Major]

Who has objected to wheeled vehicles completely?

The nations that used tracked vehicles for everything except logistics, and laughed me out when I brought up wheeled.

Which tracked vehicles, though? I mean some of them are definitely worse than others.

Mostly T-55s and T-62s. There were also BMPs, PT-76s, and T-34s.

Plenty of nations here use wheels - though I'm not sure who, and not sure whether they know why they do. There's a handy list in the OP with resounding evidence to that effect.

All that having been said (and the comparative advantages of tracks and wheels considered - which is why quite a few nations, incidentally, use both), you need to be careful about the Angola analogy for three key reasons - fire control, protection and mobility on the part of heavier tracked vehicles, which have all improved radically since then. The basic principles of fighting tracked vehicles with lighter wheeled ones haven't changed, but it's not as simple as sneaking up behind them in the bush and ramming a round into their engine anymore, when most decent tanks have thermals with which to observe their surroundings (and independent commander's sights, which allows them to cover a broader FOV with a single vehicle).

[Stahn]

I think I am going to use 3 variants of the Rooibok.

A light and fast variant with good off road capability for recon and patrol missions. If Lydenburg doesn't mind I migh put a different turret on it with a smaller gun.

I would also like to use some of the standard variant for missions and tasks it was designed for and I will use a heavier variant which will have much poorer off road capabilities but will be used to escort convoys of wheeled vehicles like trucks and so on.

[Questers]

My favourite SADF vehicle is the Ratel 20.

[Vitaphone Racing]

My favourite SADF vehicle is the Ratel 20.

I'm sort of partial to the Rooivalk

[Lydenburg]

The nations that used tracked vehicles for everything except logistics, and laughed me out when I brought up wheeled.

Yea, who?

Do you want me to send you a TG?

And your source for this is? Also, unless we're comparing vehicles of identical weights and dimensions, the comparison is meaningless.

From a physics standpoint, tracks are superior. They have greater surface area in contact with the ground, the weight of the vehicle is more evenly spread, they have a much tighter turning radius at slow speeds which is inherent to tracked vehicles and the basic profile of the track itself makes it harder for them to become stuck while traversing ditches or some protruding object. Really, you can post about claimed mobility from historic events all you like, the science says differently.

See this -

We've established that southern Angola was an exception - far more "roady" and wheel-friendly than many European environments. Sandy, fairly even, ground. Wheeled vehicles accounted for over a hundred armour-to-armour kills against tracked AFVs, including BMPs, PT-76s, T-34s, T-55s, and T-62s.

War in Angola: the final South African phase, by Helmoed Heitman:

"It was in most cases inadvisable to pick a fight with a tank but in the dense bush the Ratels had a chance...by flaunting themselves in front of the tanks they would lure them into denser bush were the Ratel would start turning in ever tightening circles in the bush. Being more maneuverable and being equipped with a power traversing turret the Ratels would at some stage during the turning end up behind the tank offering it a good opportunity to take out the tank. It wasn’t pretty but it worked."

[Questers]

I'll take a TG.

[The Kievan People]

Was the result down to an actual difference in the capabilities of the vehicles, or a difference in how they were used?

[Gallia-]

My favourite SADF vehicle is the Ratel 20.

Ratel 90.

[Anemos Major]

My favourite SADF vehicle is the Ratel 20.

G6, without a doubt, just because it is what it is. If we're allowed to do Denel in general, the Rooikat 105 always struck me as a pretty design.

[Lydenburg]

The nations that used tracked vehicles for everything except logistics, and laughed me out when I brought up wheeled.



Mostly T-55s and T-62s. There were also BMPs, PT-76s, and T-34s.

So your argument is based on the fact that vehicles which were modern at the time and happened to be wheeled proved better than vehicles which were at the time 20 - 40 years obsolete and happened to be tracked?

Ratels and Elands were hardly modern. Their armament goes back to the mid '50s.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Yea, who?

Do you want me to send you a TG?

And your source for this is? Also, unless we're comparing vehicles of identical weights and dimensions, the comparison is meaningless.

From a physics standpoint, tracks are superior. They have greater surface area in contact with the ground, the weight of the vehicle is more evenly spread, they have a much tighter turning radius at slow speeds which is inherent to tracked vehicles and the basic profile of the track itself makes it harder for them to become stuck while traversing ditches or some protruding object. Really, you can post about claimed mobility from historic events all you like, the science says differently.

See this -

We've established that southern Angola was an exception - far more "roady" and wheel-friendly than many European environments. Sandy, fairly even, ground. Wheeled vehicles accounted for over a hundred armour-to-armour kills against tracked AFVs, including BMPs, PT-76s, T-34s, T-55s, and T-62s.

War in Angola: the final South African phase, by Helmoed Heitman:

"It was in most cases inadvisable to pick a fight with a tank but in the dense bush the Ratels had a chance...by flaunting themselves in front of the tanks they would lure them into denser bush were the Ratel would start turning in ever tightening circles in the bush. Being more maneuverable and being equipped with a power traversing turret the Ratels would at some stage during the turning end up behind the tank offering it a good opportunity to take out the tank. It wasn’t pretty but it worked."

Like I guessed, you're comparing a Ratel, weighing 20 tonnes at full load, to much heavier vehicles and ones that are dimensionally bigger. Not only this, you're comparing two different crews with different training and such. So, not really a well weighted argument here.