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

[Purpelia]

Oh. Purposefully incompetent army.

Ah well, fair enough then. Moving on, question for the topic at large; I'm looking at designing an MGS for motorised battalions. Should I take 105mm's off some of my defunct light tanks, or carry on with the 90mm Cockerill MP gun?

And yet there the military superpower of the galaxy.

Mainly because of their infantry and AFV's

Of course,all pilots besides the three pilot families suck.

The pilot families are ones to dodge a missile without ECM's, survive and then fly up to the bogey that did it,and flip them off.

Oh Ragon, you so silly.

That sounds like something that could easily be countered by using more HE in missile warheads.

[New Tsavon]

And yet there the military superpower of the galaxy.

How?

They sound hilariously incompetent, on a good day. If you took any of your stuff over to either of the NSFT threads, you'd be laughed out of there within minutes.

[Zeinbrad]

And yet there the military superpower of the galaxy.

How?

They sound hilariously incompetent, on a good day. If you took any of your stuff over to either of the NSFT threads, you'd be laughed out of there within minutes.

The Ragon is flexible,both tactically and strategically.

Most of their rivals have their military with one goal in mind, Yisuta, shock and awe Theresians, lightly armored and fast units.

The Ragon military does not focus on one type of opponent or goal, but multiple, the Ragon troops are also well trained, some say they have the best in the galaxy.

The Ragon can also adapt, militarily, really well.

[San-Silvacian]

I didn't have a straight face when I made their names,which are temporary, I just wanted to have fun.

I know, but as an excuse, the Ragon warfare is....unconventional to say the least.

They still use melee troops, as shock troops and to drive enemies out of cover.

Oh. Purposefully incompetent army.

Ah well, fair enough then. Moving on, question for the topic at large; I'm looking at designing an MGS for motorised battalions. Should I take 105mm's off some of my defunct light tanks, or carry on with the 90mm Cockerill MP gun?

HV 105mm gun from your light tanks is cheaper and allows you to use ammunition you already have.

[Mozria]

How are RWS-mounted weapons fed? Do they have external supplies, or do they take belts from within the vehicle? I would guess that both are present on a wide variety of systems, but I am not sure which is the most common or practical. Wouldn't a system with external ammunition have a rather limited supply, with the storage unit being more vulnerable? I would also think that it would be simpler and cheaper than the alternative, which would have a larger and more secure ammunition lot while being harder to install, space-hogging and more expensive.

Are these assertions correct? If so, would the qualities be so deviant as to solidly favor one or the other?

[Imperializt Russia]

It's far more simple to have the stowage mounted on the gun itself. An internal ammunition stowage will increase the vehicle penetration of the system, negating most of the point of an RWS.

If an incoming munition were to destroy the gun's ammunition, it would almost certainly destroy the gun itself, making it no concern.

[Mozria]

It's far more simple to have the stowage mounted on the gun itself. An internal ammunition stowage will increase the vehicle penetration of the system, negating most of the point of an RWS.

If an incoming munition were to destroy the gun's ammunition, it would almost certainly destroy the gun itself, making it no concern.

Alright. Well, what kind of external storage capacity could I hope for with a 15.34 x 122 mm HMG? Perhaps I could have one or two wound canisters of ~200 rounds?

[Imperializt Russia]

You could certainly expect a few hundred rounds.

[The Akasha Colony]

How are RWS-mounted weapons fed? Do they have external supplies, or do they take belts from within the vehicle? I would guess that both are present on a wide variety of systems, but I am not sure which is the most common or practical. Wouldn't a system with external ammunition have a rather limited supply, with the storage unit being more vulnerable? I would also think that it would be simpler and cheaper than the alternative, which would have a larger and more secure ammunition lot while being harder to install, space-hogging and more expensive.

Are these assertions correct? If so, would the qualities be so deviant as to solidly favor one or the other?

Generally they're just connected to a normal box of ammunition holding a belt of ammunition. The box is carried on the mount itself, which means that replacement requires someone to pop the hatch and do it manually, but this is still safer than if they also had to fire the gun manually.

Alright. Well, what kind of external storage capacity could I hope for with a 15.34 x 122 mm HMG? Perhaps I could have one or two wound canisters of ~200 rounds?

As much as you want given the size you're willing to accept. More ammo will mean a larger box and thus a larger RWS, but if this is an acceptable trade off for you, you can pursue it. My tank's RWS uses 200 round HMG belts or 40 round grenade belts.

[Mozria]

I may be going for having a helically-oriented belt drum, similar to those found on high-ROF aircraft weapon feeding systems. However, the system would be rather small and almost akin to a pan feeder in appearance. It would be assembled similarly to this:


There may actually be two smaller units rather than a single large one, as a large unit would likely be prohibitively heavy for manual reloading. Total on-the-system capacity would be about 200 rounds in total.

[Imperializt Russia]

To reload the system you have to break NBC or expose yourself to fire - half of the reason RWS were introduced.

[The Kievan People]

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Panzer_96

Now with content.

[Zeinbrad]

Okay,stupid question, but how do you think a Centurion(Or the Boer name for their Ingenuous version) fair in ambush against a Challenger 2 and M1 Abrams.

[Purpelia]

Random trivia time.

The Vikingr III main battle tank was the first Purpelian tank to break the traditional naming convention of the Vikingr series which started in 1950 with the Vikingr 50. The tank was originally going to be called after the year of adoption however the war ministry felt that Vikingr 69 was inappropriate.

[Kampala-]

Okay,stupid question, but how do you think a Centurion(Or the Boer name for their Ingenuous version) fair in ambush against a Challenger 2 and M1 Abrams.

Yes.

[Zeinbrad]

Okay,stupid question, but how do you think a Centurion(Or the Boer name for their Ingenuous version) fair in ambush against a Challenger 2 and M1 Abrams.

Yes.

Um...I meant to say how you think a NotCenturion will fair in ambush against modern tanks

The Boers NotCenturions use a 105mm gun by the way. With some using a 120mm.

[Purpelia]

Yes.

Um...I meant to say how you think a NotCenturion will fair in ambush against modern tanks

The Boers NotCenturions use a 105mm gun by the way. With some using a 120mm.

So basically like that thing the South Africans made?

[Zeinbrad]

Um...I meant to say how you think a NotCenturion will fair in ambush against modern tanks

The Boers NotCenturions use a 105mm gun by the way. With some using a 120mm.

So basically like that thing the South Africans made?

Yes.

[Purpelia]

So basically like that thing the South Africans made?

Yes.

I am not really that informed about it. But given that it's a late 40's tank with RHA for armor I don't think it would fare that well if hit by anything resembling modern munitions. You could certainly make it deadly enough to be a threat to other tanks. But it would have to shoot first and get lucky lest it gets turned into a firecracker on tracks by any IFV with a 40mm.

[Zeinbrad]

Yes.

I am not really that informed about it. But given that it's a late 40's tank with RHA for armor I don't think it would fare that well if hit by anything resembling modern munitions. You could certainly make it deadly enough to be a threat to other tanks. But it would have to shoot first and get lucky lest it gets turned into a firecracker on tracks by any IFV with a 40mm.

Well,the Boars put them in ambush positions, and the shot up any armored vehicles that pass.

Of course, it's South African like terrain. So I don't know if it's possible.

[Purpelia]

Well,the Boars put them in ambush positions, and the shot up any armored vehicles that pass.

Of course, it's South African like terrain. So I don't know if it's possible.

To be perfectly honest if I were you I'd just build new tanks. If you can afford a modern gun and the electronics needed to make it effective at engaging modern tanks you have already paid off a huge chunk of the vehicles cost. So you might as well just go and buy a T-72.

[Zeinbrad]

Well,the Boars put them in ambush positions, and the shot up any armored vehicles that pass.

Of course, it's South African like terrain. So I don't know if it's possible.

To be perfectly honest if I were you I'd just build new tanks. If you can afford a modern gun and the electronics needed to make it effective at engaging modern tanks you have already paid off a huge chunk of the vehicles cost. So you might as well just go and buy a T-72.

Well, technically they are "new" tanks, as the design isn't known even by the Office of intelligence before the war.

I was just saying Centurion. Because that's what it's like.

[Purpelia]

To be perfectly honest if I were you I'd just build new tanks. If you can afford a modern gun and the electronics needed to make it effective at engaging modern tanks you have already paid off a huge chunk of the vehicles cost. So you might as well just go and buy a T-72.

Well, technically they are "new" tanks, as the design isn't known even by the Office of intelligence before the war.

I was just saying Centurion. Because that's what it's like.

So it's a modern tank built from scratch with modern technology that just sort of looks like the centurion but has nothing in common with it?

[Zeinbrad]

Well, technically they are "new" tanks, as the design isn't known even by the Office of intelligence before the war.

I was just saying Centurion. Because that's what it's like.

So it's a modern tank built from scratch with modern technology that just sort of looks like the centurion but has nothing in common with it?

It's...outdated to say the least. The Boars,like there real life counter parts, are farmers, not tank designers and factory workers.

It was built in underground factories, with the little people who understood how tanks work making them.

It was a streak of luck that they found a tank designer that sympathized with them.

[Purpelia]

It's...outdated to say the least. The Boars,like there real life counter parts, are farmers, not tank designers and factory workers.

It was built in underground factories, with the little people who understood how tanks work making them.

It was a streak of luck that they found a tank designer that sympathized with them.

Honestly under those conditions I find it unlikely that they could make anything resembling a 1930's tank, let alone a 50's one or anything dangerous to modern vehicles. Just casting all the steel would require an industrial base that you won't have. Not to mention any electronics, optics (yes, you need sights even if they are just regular telescopes) and other stuff. You'd be better off just building technicals with what ever recoilles rifle you can scrounge up bolted to the back.

On that note. Here is what happens when people without a decent industrial base try to build tanks.