Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Tranche 7

[Lydenburg]

I'm curious as to why everything on that list is British but the BTR. Wouldn't that needlessly complicate logistics?

Because I like the BTR. I don't see how it would really complicate them that much.

No, there's these things called production licences, and all of those vehicles are custom-developed without parts commonality anyway.

This thread has always left me with the impression that logistics will be an issue when you mix and match NATO/Warsaw Pact gear, especially to the extent being proposed. They weren't designed to work in concert.

And no, even localised production can't solve all of those problems.

[EsToVnIa]

Just make them to NATO specs.

problem solved.

[United Marxist Nations]

Because I like the BTR. I don't see how it would really complicate them that much.

No, there's these things called production licences, and all of those vehicles are custom-developed without parts commonality anyway.

This thread has always left me with the impression that logistics will be an issue when you mix and match NATO/Warsaw Pact gear, especially to the extent being proposed. They weren't designed to work in concert.

And no, even localised production can't solve all of those problems.

Please, explain why it would be a problem with all equipment produced domestically.

[Lydenburg]

This thread has always left me with the impression that logistics will be an issue when you mix and match NATO/Warsaw Pact gear, especially to the extent being proposed. They weren't designed to work in concert.

And no, even localised production can't solve all of those problems.

Please, explain why it would be a problem with all equipment produced domestically.

Localised production of parts simply guarantees greater availability. It doesn't fix the existing problem. The components you're building will still be clones of the same ones with the same issues.

During ops, you'll need one logistics apparatus for WP spec (the BTRs) and one logistics apparatus for NATO spec (everything else). Having one train to ensure supplies/maintenance goes around where it should is problematic enough during wartime. Now imagine hauling two wherever your army goes.

[United Marxist Nations]

Please, explain why it would be a problem with all equipment produced domestically.

Localised production of parts simply guarantees greater availability. It doesn't fix the existing problem. The components you're building will still be clones of the same ones with the same issues.

During ops, you'll need one logistics apparatus for WP spec (the BTRs) and one logistics apparatus for NATO spec (everything else). Having one train to ensure supplies/maintenance goes around where it should is problematic enough during wartime. Now imagine hauling two wherever your army goes.

It's not like all NATO equipment uses the same things; you can't possibly think my Challenger 1's and Warriors use the same parts; they fulfill completely different roles, and use different equipment; all of them would need their own needs covered.

[United Marxist Nations]

Edited my previous post because I forgot to put in my artillery.

[Oaledonia]

Localised production of parts simply guarantees greater availability. It doesn't fix the existing problem. The components you're building will still be clones of the same ones with the same issues.

During ops, you'll need one logistics apparatus for WP spec (the BTRs) and one logistics apparatus for NATO spec (everything else). Having one train to ensure supplies/maintenance goes around where it should is problematic enough during wartime. Now imagine hauling two wherever your army goes.

It's not like all NATO equipment uses the same things; you can't possibly think my Challenger 1's and Warriors use the same parts; they fulfill completely different roles, and use different equipment; all of them would need their own needs covered.

Yet, both all of those examples use similar NATO targeting systems and electronics, then you have the already outdated BTR.

[United Marxist Nations]

It's not like all NATO equipment uses the same things; you can't possibly think my Challenger 1's and Warriors use the same parts; they fulfill completely different roles, and use different equipment; all of them would need their own needs covered.

Yet, both all of those examples use similar NATO targeting systems and electronics, then you have the already outdated BTR.

BTR-82A is the most recent of variants, it only entered service in 2013.

[Democratic Koyro]

Many countries operate Both NATO and Soviet designed (and in some cases NATO, Soviet and Domestic) equipment.

[Oaledonia]

Yet, both all of those examples use similar NATO targeting systems and electronics, then you have the already outdated BTR.

BTR-82A is the most recent of variants, it only entered service in 2013.

Which still lacks anything near the computing power of either of those vehicles.

Many countries operate Both NATO and Soviet designed (and in some cases NATO, Soviet and Domestic) equipment.

Can you name one that doesn't operate two logistical tails?

[Lydenburg]

Many countries operate Both NATO and Soviet designed (and in some cases NATO, Soviet and Domestic) equipment.

Indeed. Iraq was (and is) a very good example of this.

And even by Middle Eastern standards, Iraq's vehicle logistics is shit. Just ask any American who's been a quartermaster at Camp Taji.

[South Pacific Republic]

Shermans, Jeeps, M1 Abrams, couple Atomic Annies. You get the idea

[Novorden]

Many countries operate Both NATO and Soviet designed (and in some cases NATO, Soviet and Domestic) equipment.

All glory to Finnland http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipmen ... nnish_Army

[The Soodean Imperium]

It's not like all NATO equipment uses the same things; you can't possibly think my Challenger 1's and Warriors use the same parts; they fulfill completely different roles, and use different equipment; all of them would need their own needs covered.

Yet, both all of those examples use similar NATO targeting systems and electronics, then you have the already outdated BTR.

Doesn't Poland resolve this by fitting NATO targeting systems and electronics to WP vehicles? BRDM-2M-96ik "Szakal" comes to mind.

[San-Silvacian]

PT-91 Twardy is like packing Alienware hardware in a Dell case.

Its Western electronics is gr8.

[Lydenburg]

Yet, both all of those examples use similar NATO targeting systems and electronics, then you have the already outdated BTR.

Doesn't Poland resolve this by fitting NATO targeting systems and electronics to WP vehicles? BRDM-2M-96ik "Szakal" comes to mind.

Aye, but as I recall they didn't just replace the targeting system/electronics. They replaced the entire weapons system and the ammo.

[The Akasha Colony]

It's not like all NATO equipment uses the same things; you can't possibly think my Challenger 1's and Warriors use the same parts; they fulfill completely different roles, and use different equipment; all of them would need their own needs covered.

Ammunition.

[Questers]

If the weapons and radios, NBC, periscopes, etc are the same it should be ok.

[Rich and Corporations]

If the weapons and radios, NBC, periscopes, etc are the same it should be ok.

It's not like all NATO equipment uses the same things; you can't possibly think my Challenger 1's and Warriors use the same parts; they fulfill completely different roles, and use different equipment; all of them would need their own needs covered.

Ammunition.

Ammunition, fuel, batteries, the items which are consumed the most. Spare part commonality, while good, is also a pipe dream, unless everyone decides to buy American. Or German.

[Allanea]

Many countries operate Both NATO and Soviet designed (and in some cases NATO, Soviet and Domestic) equipment.

Russia uses Thales electronics in the most recent T-90 and BMP-3 vehicles. It also uses a quantity of Italian-produced armored vehicles, and of course .338 rifles have been making it to Russian snipers.

[Metcalfer]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mil ... y_Day7.jpg
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bul ... andcat.jpg
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slom84.jpg
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USM ... _hires.jpg

[Purpelia]

If the weapons and radios, NBC, periscopes, etc are the same it should be ok.

Ammunition.

Ammunition, fuel, batteries, the items which are consumed the most. Spare part commonality, while good, is also a pipe dream, unless everyone decides to buy American. Or German.

Or build his own. So just build your own.

[Allanea]

Meanwhile, on board BMP-3...

[San-Silvacian]

Many countries operate Both NATO and Soviet designed (and in some cases NATO, Soviet and Domestic) equipment.

Russia uses Thales electronics in the most recent T-90 and BMP-3 vehicles. It also uses a quantity of Italian-produced armored vehicles, and of course .338 rifles have been making it to Russian snipers.

Lol italian armored vehicles.

[Padnak]

Russia uses Thales electronics in the most recent T-90 and BMP-3 vehicles. It also uses a quantity of Italian-produced armored vehicles, and of course .338 rifles have been making it to Russian snipers.

Lol italian armored vehicles.

The italians are great at making everything but armoured vehicles, so why in gods name did the russians buy some from them?!?