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

[Imperializt Russia]

In Afghanistan the Canadian Forces regularly used tanks in conditions were it could not traverse the barrel because the roads were too narrow.

What about old-growth timber or big, dense, bushes restricting traverse in a wooded environment? I know Centurions and T-55s had this problem in Angola. That's why they had difficulty in engaging targets which suddenly appeared at their rear or flank.

This is the point I tried making earlier.
Anything that "suddenly appears" on your flank should be dealt with by either infantry cover, or other tanks in the unit behind you. Lead tank, unfortunately, has a very limited field of fire for its main gun.

There's no reason it wouldn't work.

You'd have slightly less ammunition space, but it's notable such a thing was in fact in existence in prototype.

I could lengthen the turret to accommodate for that, I'm not going T90 loader style, that isn't very safe

Its "not safe"-ness is slightly overstated. It's not ideal, but one of the TTB concepts for the Abrams did involve a carousel autoloader - though this negated what limited "safety" was afforded to the stowage of the T-72 (whose ammunition is stored in two rings right on the floor of the turret, basically on the bottom of the tank), by storing ammunition vertically, taking up the full height of the hull. It's worth noting that the T-80 has a similar stowage, in that propellant charges of the two-piece set are stowed vertically and shells horizontally, on the bottom of the fighting compartment.

It's also generally worth noting the Abrams is a very well protected tank, reducing the likelihood of a vehicle being penetrated and touching off ammunition in the fighting compartment. The TTB called for a three-man crew, all sat in the nose of the tank, so a hefty bulkhead, blow-off panels could all be fitted to the unmanned turret.

All-in-bustle stowage, Abrams-style, is typically regarded as the safest, however. Safer still would be utilising a bustle-mounted autoloader, which has a smaller opening in its bulkhead - a system you'd surely require for a 140mm shell.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

The MBT of the Kingdom of Lithuania is the M1A2 Abrams, but we are designing an upgunned version armed with a 140mm smooth bore cannon, named the M1A3 Diplomat, how well would that work?

There's no reason it wouldn't work.

You'd have slightly less ammunition space, but it's notable such a thing was in fact in existence in prototype.

I think that the CATTB was armed with a 155 mm gun.

[Organized States]

What do you guys think of the armor on this fictional M1 Variant?

[Imperializt Russia]

There's no reason it wouldn't work.

You'd have slightly less ammunition space, but it's notable such a thing was in fact in existence in prototype.

I think that the CATTB was armed with a 155 mm gun.

IIRC, it was the XM291 gun, a 140mm gun.

What do you guys think of the armor on this fictional M1 Variant?

(Image)

It looks like an M1 variant.

[Organized States]

I think that the CATTB was armed with a 155 mm gun.

IIRC, it was the XM360 gun, which was a 120mm/140mm gun.
Don't know how that worked.

What do you guys think of the armor on this fictional M1 Variant?

(Image)

It looks like an M1 variant.

Would it be possible for those to be Chobham Armor plates in place of TUSK?

[Imperializt Russia]

Abrams already uses Chobham though.

[Organized States]

Abrams already uses Chobham though.

I'm aware, but on the lower chassis right above the track.

[The Akasha Colony]

There's no reason it wouldn't work.

You'd have slightly less ammunition space, but it's notable such a thing was in fact in existence in prototype.

I think that the CATTB was armed with a 155 mm gun.

It had a 140 mm gun.

I could lengthen the turret to accommodate for that, I'm not going T90 loader style, that isn't very safe

No point unless you lengthen it enough to carry another set of rounds horizontally behind the first. And this would require at least an extra meter of turret length, if not more (140 mm test ammo was pretty long).

Abrams already uses Chobham though.

I'm aware, but on the lower chassis right above the track.

Looks too thin to be useful as Chobham armor. Take a look at how thick the Challenger 2's track armor is when upgraded:

[Padnak]

Speaking of up armouring tanks, this is an idea I had for upgrading my existing T-55s, T-62s, Type 59s and Type 69s

My plan was to attach what I'm calling HotBox armor to most of the tanks. My idea for hotbox armor is to have fairly large spaced armor boxes (think T-55 Enigma) that have a layer of ERA mounted inside them. The goal of this is to offer the protection of spaced armor/ERA while also allowing dismounted infantry to operate in very lose proximity without fear of being hit by shrapnel from exploading ERA/RPGs and similar-

Thoughts?

[Bratislavskaya]

Speaking of up armouring tanks, this is an idea I had for upgrading my existing T-55s, T-62s, Type 59s and Type 69s

My plan was to attach what I'm calling HotBox armor to most of the tanks. My idea for hotbox armor is to have fairly large spaced armor boxes (think T-55 Enigma) that have a layer of ERA mounted inside them. The goal of this is to offer the protection of spaced armor/ERA while also allowing dismounted infantry to operate in very lose proximity without fear of being hit by shrapnel from exploading ERA/RPGs and similar-

Thoughts?

Just do what the Ukrainians did with the T-55, T64 and T-84.

[Padnak]

Speaking of up armouring tanks, this is an idea I had for upgrading my existing T-55s, T-62s, Type 59s and Type 69s

My plan was to attach what I'm calling HotBox armor to most of the tanks. My idea for hotbox armor is to have fairly large spaced armor boxes (think T-55 Enigma) that have a layer of ERA mounted inside them. The goal of this is to offer the protection of spaced armor/ERA while also allowing dismounted infantry to operate in very lose proximity without fear of being hit by shrapnel from exploading ERA/RPGs and similar-

Thoughts?

Just do what the Ukrainians did with the T-55, T64 and T-84.

Too advanced looking for Padnaks aesthetic

[The Soodean Imperium]

Speaking of up armouring tanks, this is an idea I had for upgrading my existing T-55s, T-62s, Type 59s and Type 69s

My plan was to attach what I'm calling HotBox armor to most of the tanks. My idea for hotbox armor is to have fairly large spaced armor boxes (think T-55 Enigma) that have a layer of ERA mounted inside them. The goal of this is to offer the protection of spaced armor/ERA while also allowing dismounted infantry to operate in very lose proximity without fear of being hit by shrapnel from exploading ERA/RPGs and similar-

Thoughts?

Given the forces and velocities involved, the detonating ERA "inside" the box will still shoot shrapnel through any cover of sane thickness. BMP-3M's ERA does resemble spaced armor boxes, though I suspect that has something to do with keeping the ERA's "backblast" from damaging the vehicle's own armor.

Regardless, there's some debate over whether the threat of shrapnel/concussion from ERA would be significantly greater than the threat of shrapnel/concussion from a shaped charge exploding against the side of a tank. Not to mention the threat of losing one's armor support.

[Korva]

Speaking of up armouring tanks, this is an idea I had for upgrading my existing T-55s, T-62s, Type 59s and Type 69s

My plan was to attach what I'm calling HotBox armor to most of the tanks. My idea for hotbox armor is to have fairly large spaced armor boxes (think T-55 Enigma) that have a layer of ERA mounted inside them. The goal of this is to offer the protection of spaced armor/ERA while also allowing dismounted infantry to operate in very lose proximity without fear of being hit by shrapnel from exploading ERA/RPGs and similar-

Thoughts?

Given the forces and velocities involved, the detonating ERA "inside" the box will still shoot shrapnel through any cover of sane thickness. BMP-3M's ERA does resemble spaced armor boxes, though I suspect that has something to do with keeping the ERA's "backblast" from damaging the vehicle's own armor.

Regardless, there's some debate over whether the threat of shrapnel/concussion from ERA would be significantly greater than the threat of shrapnel/concussion from a shaped charge exploding against the side of a tank. Not to mention the threat of losing one's armor support.

Add to that the fact that operating alongside a tank is inherently dangerous.

You are prone to being injured or killed by the tank's exhaust, discarding sabot, cannon blast, run over by the tracks, injured by flying rocks and debris that shoot out from under the tracks, etc.

So yeah, ERA doesn't represent all that much of an increased threat.

[Padnak]

Given the forces and velocities involved, the detonating ERA "inside" the box will still shoot shrapnel through any cover of sane thickness. BMP-3M's ERA does resemble spaced armor boxes, though I suspect that has something to do with keeping the ERA's "backblast" from damaging the vehicle's own armor.

Regardless, there's some debate over whether the threat of shrapnel/concussion from ERA would be significantly greater than the threat of shrapnel/concussion from a shaped charge exploding against the side of a tank. Not to mention the threat of losing one's armor support.

Didn't think that ERA had that sort of power behind it. Noted for the future.

How difficult is it to make laminated armor? I'm just thinking of ways a nation with a fairly small (but rapidly growing) industrial base could reasonably up armor older vehicles for low cost

[Padnak]

Add to that the fact that operating alongside a tank is inherently dangerous.

You are prone to being injured or killed by the tank's exhausting, discarding sabot, cannon blast, run over by the tracks, injured by flying rocks and debris that shoot out from under the tracks, etc.

So yeah, ERA doesn't represent all that much of an increased threat.

I see

What sort distance would you say dismounted infantry should be operating should be operating away from friendly tanks?

[Tule]

What motor oil does your Main Battle tank use?

We use SAE 20W-50 motor oil, though it can vary depending on the season and location.

[Lydenburg]

What about old-growth timber or big, dense, bushes restricting traverse in a wooded environment? I know Centurions and T-55s had this problem in Angola. That's why they had difficulty in engaging targets which suddenly appeared at their rear or flank.

This is the point I tried making earlier.
Anything that "suddenly appears" on your flank should be dealt with by either infantry cover, or other tanks in the unit behind you. Lead tank, unfortunately, has a very limited field of fire for its main gun.

But if the other tanks/support infantry have the same limitation? I'm describing a scenario with firing distances of 20m or less due to poor visibility. Vehicles lost sight of each other and even took wrong turns while traveling in convoy. The SADF put its antitank platoons on the flank for precisely the reason we've been discussing, but too often they couldn't see the friendly tanks or the enemy. Firing distances were at 20m or less and ATGMs were impeded by the same undergrowth which limited turret traverse.

[The Kievan People]

What do you guys think of the armor on this fictional M1 Variant?

(Image)

Someone confused the weight simulator plates* for armor and ran with it.

*There are a couple pictures floating around of Abrams with extra plates welded to the front of the turret. These look like add-on armor but are actually just weights to simulate the added weight of armor upgrades.

[Rich and Corporations]

The Merkava has a powered roof hatch.

Should I assume that the risk of hatch failure is why other nations don't armor their roof hatches, and the risk that Israel took is negated by the rear doors?

[Padnak]

I'm wondering, from what I've gathered the Abrams is basically unkillable, so why doesn't Israel use it? They would have easy access to it and it seems like it would be just as if not more effective then the markeva

[Rich and Corporations]

I'm wondering, from what I've gathered the Abrams is basically unkillable, so why doesn't Israel use it? They would have easy access to it and it seems like it would be just as if not more effective then the markeva

Israel is the only nation in the world that is free to spend US military aid on whatever they want.

More or less.

So basically they are spending it on local industries and engineering firms.

If they built Abrams, they'd only be spending it on local industries.

[United Marxist Nations]

I'm wondering, from what I've gathered the Abrams is basically unkillable, so why doesn't Israel use it? They would have easy access to it and it seems like it would be just as if not more effective then the markeva

No tank is unkillable, several Abrams were lost in the Iraq War, and they've never had to fight other MBT's (other than second-rate Iraqi T-72 knock-offs).

[Padnak]

I'm wondering, from what I've gathered the Abrams is basically unkillable, so why doesn't Israel use it? They would have easy access to it and it seems like it would be just as if not more effective then the markeva

No tank is unkillable, several Abrams were lost in the Iraq War, and they've never had to fight other MBT's (other than second-rate Iraqi T-72 knock-offs).

If you keep talking like that then my AMERICABOOTLICKING.EXE might stop working

[The Kievan People]

I'm wondering, from what I've gathered the Abrams is basically unkillable, so why doesn't Israel use it? They would have easy access to it and it seems like it would be just as if not more effective then the markeva

Why would they get rid of the Merkava?

[The Kievan People]

So basically they are spending it on local industries and engineering firms.

Local firms like Raytheon and General Dynamics.