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

[Imperializt Russia]

Should I be using the BTR-80A/BTR-82A or the BTR-90?

Shameless repost

The BTR-90 is heavy, expensive and IIRC poorly balanced. I'd go so far to describe it as "specialist".

BTR-80/82 should do you for most situations. If you require an autocannon, the BMP-2 is fantastic for your needs.

[Padnak]

I know the BMP-2 gets lots of love, but how was the BMP-1 when it was first introduced? I know its under protected and poorly layed out by modern standards, but when it was first brought into service how did it compare to similar vehicles?

[Purpelia]

I know the BMP-2 gets lots of love, but how was the BMP-1 when it was first introduced? I know its under protected and poorly layed out by modern standards, but when it was first brought into service how did it compare to similar vehicles?

What similar vehicles? I do not think there were any to speak off.

[Imperializt Russia]

I know the BMP-2 gets lots of love, but how was the BMP-1 when it was first introduced? I know its under protected and poorly layed out by modern standards, but when it was first brought into service how did it compare to similar vehicles?

IIRC the BMP-2 layout meant that when (rather old) stick-type mines (where a pole sticks out of the top of the mine and is physically moved to trigger the mine) were struck by the sloped frontage of the BMP-2, rather than the driver, the commander was killed.

This could have been the BMP-1, but I seem to recall it mentioned as one of very few defects the BMP-2 carried over the BMP-1.
The BMP-1's 73mm gun-launcher was likely ineffective as an anti-tank weapon even when it was first introduced, and would have made a fairly poor HE-thrower compared to the BMP-3's 100mm gun.

[Padnak]

I know the BMP-2 gets lots of love, but how was the BMP-1 when it was first introduced? I know its under protected and poorly layed out by modern standards, but when it was first brought into service how did it compare to similar vehicles?

What similar vehicles? I do not think there were any to speak off.

Forgot about that lol

[Bratislavskaya]

Shameless repost

The BTR-90 is heavy, expensive and IIRC poorly balanced. I'd go so far to describe it as "specialist".

BTR-80/82 should do you for most situations. If you require an autocannon, the BMP-2 is fantastic for your needs.

I have BMP's too. I'm trying to make an updated Soviet style military, except I'm making it original instead of having the modern Russian army.

[Padnak]

IIRC the BMP-2 layout meant that when (rather old) stick-type mines (where a pole sticks out of the top of the mine and is physically moved to trigger the mine) were struck by the sloped frontage of the BMP-2, rather than the driver, the commander was killed.

This could have been the BMP-1, but I seem to recall it mentioned as one of very few defects the BMP-2 carried over the BMP-1.
The BMP-1's 73mm gun-launcher was likely ineffective as an anti-tank weapon even when it was first introduced, and would have made a fairly poor HE-thrower compared to the BMP-3's 100mm gun.

I see

Whats the threads thoughts on the BMP-3? I ask because there never seems to be a consciousnesses, its either the worst IFV to ever roam the battlefields or Jesus in IFV form

[Purpelia]

I think this is the best compromise out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZBD-97
It's basically a BMP-3 but with a front mounted engine and a crew space in the back. It warrants more research.

its either the worst IFV to ever roam the battlefields or Jesus in IFV form

The general consensus on the threads here is that you have two camps which align with the two sides you listed exactly and can't agree on a thing.

[Imperializt Russia]

Conceptually, it's pretty neat. Big gun for HE-throwing, under-armour AT-capability, amphibious and decent troop complement.

Whether solely a result of layout of the vehicle (as IIRC, the BMP-3 is an adaptation to an older light tank concept design) or from the concept requiring such huge compromise as to result in the BMP-3, it's a poorly executed concept.
Arguments could be made that a "BMP-4" could instead mount the engine in the front and forgo amphibious capability, or achieve it through other means. The BMP-3's rear mounted engine permits balance for amphibious capability at the cost of questionable dismount ability (having to scramble over the engine, rather than just out, also two dismounts sat astride the driver in the front having to escape from from hatches or squeeze around the turret basket), the Korean K21 achieves this through floatation devices.

[Talon Independent Nation]

So, given the talk of ETC vs standard munitions, what about those systems compared to emerging electromagnetic vectors?
Granted, electromagnetic weapons aren't quite ready for tank-scale deployment, due to energy density issues with current batteries, but with the current advent of 3D Lithium Ion cells and constant advancement of power storage technology in general, it certainly doesn't look far off.
Ammo storage for a railgun or coilgun would certainly be more compact, due to only having to stow the actual projectiles being fired. The tradeoff being fitting the vehicle with a generator unit to power the gun.

As far as I'm concerned, the potential for a high capacity, autoloaded coilgun armament for an MBT is quite high in the near future, once energy technology passes a certain point.

First their is the rather big hurdle of power storage/creation. A coil gun or rail gun would use a massive amount of power, and a tank for the forceable future can't make enough power to run that gun alongside its electrics and have a good rate of fire.

Additionally there are several material science hurdles to overcome, the coils for such a coil gun would have to withstand a massive amount of energy being passed through them 2-3 times a minute (minimum) for prolonged times without maintenance. There aren't a lot of materials that can do that.

Plus the amount of magnetism you are talking here might create problems for some of the tanks electronics, though given the nature of coil guns magnetic field this shouldn't be to big an issue.

You could likely provide enough power for a coilgun/railgun in a tank with a small APU, replacing space previously used by gun propellent in ammo storage.

The issue of reliability over time would primarily be a problem with a railgun, due to the manner in which it operates. As you can see with current large scale railgun testbeds, the weapon produces a large amount of plasma upon firing, resulting from burning off the rail surface. A coilgun would likely maintain quite high reliability, however, provided your electrical systems were efficient enough to operate without damaging themselves.

The magnetism issue is questionable, it would depend on field formation around the coils/rails and the composition of your electronics systems near the gun.

1. Coilguns are not promising weapons. Switching the coils on and off is too difficult at the power levels they would need to operate at.

2. Absolute energy requirements are not the main problem, a tank engine already produces enough energy to support an EM gun without serious problems. Batteries are not a significant bottleneck either, but their power density (rate they can release energy) is not even remotely suitable to power a railgun shot. The electrical storage systems that can release energy at sufficient speed suffer from terrible energy density (only a tiny fraction of batteries) and are far too large to fit inside a tank. Current naval railgun prototypes need electrical machinery that is the size of several tanks to function, and their muzzle energy is not much better than a high performance tank gun.

One of the leading candidates right now for a railguns pulsed power supply is super-high performance flywheels. Batteries would probably included as an intermediate stage between the generator (tanks engine) and the pulsed power system that actually fires the gun for practical reasons, but they are not the bottleneck.

Given the power levels, there's really little issue with switching power to the coils, you simply need a power delivery and control system heavily reinforced enough to handle the power going through it. Actually actuating the switch in power between coils is a simple matter of sensors detecting the position of the projectile in the barrel.

Batteries would have to act as an intermediary power storage system, for sure, backed up by capacitors or flywheel systems to deliver the actual pulsed power to the coil or rail system itself.

Also, on the subject, Polans coilgun stronk.

[The Soodean Imperium]

I know the BMP-2 gets lots of love, but how was the BMP-1 when it was first introduced? I know its under protected and poorly layed out by modern standards, but when it was first brought into service how did it compare to similar vehicles?

IIRC the BMP-2 layout meant that when (rather old) stick-type mines (where a pole sticks out of the top of the mine and is physically moved to trigger the mine) were struck by the sloped frontage of the BMP-2, rather than the driver, the commander was killed.

This could have been the BMP-1, but I seem to recall it mentioned as one of very few defects the BMP-2 carried over the BMP-1.

Odd, I seem to recall the opposite about the stick-mine-commander-death - that is, that it was a result of the commander's positioning directly behind the driver, and one of the reasons the commander was moved into the turret in the BMP-2. Allanea might have access to a document with more detailed information on this story.

Of course, there are also more important advantages to having the commander in the turret, such as all-around visibility and easier communication with the gunner - both of which were issues with the BMP-1. Though it's worth noting that the behind-driver space in the BMP-2 was then filled by a transported infantryman, not terribly unlike the two beside-driver dismounts in the BMP-3.

The BMP-1's 73mm gun-launcher was likely ineffective as an anti-tank weapon even when it was first introduced, and would have made a fairly poor HE-thrower compared to the BMP-3's 100mm gun.

The 73mm weapon on the BMP-1 fired the same HEAT ammunition as the SPG-9 recoilless rifle, albeit with less propellant. This gave it a decent (for the time) penetration of about 300mm RHAe, enough to penetrate the frontal armor on contemporary Western MBTs like the M60, Chieftan, or Leopard 1. This, however, was indeed undermined by its poor accuracy and 600-meter range.

As an HE thrower, it had some potential for its time, pre-dating the BMP-3 by two decades. Curiously, however, the 2A28's autoloader couldn't handle the HE ammunition due to its different dimensions; instead, it would bring the round to a ready position, and the gunner would have to pick it up and push it into the breech manually.

[Imperializt Russia]

IIRC the BMP-2 layout meant that when (rather old) stick-type mines (where a pole sticks out of the top of the mine and is physically moved to trigger the mine) were struck by the sloped frontage of the BMP-2, rather than the driver, the commander was killed.

This could have been the BMP-1, but I seem to recall it mentioned as one of very few defects the BMP-2 carried over the BMP-1.

Odd, I seem to recall the opposite about the stick-mine-commander-death - that is, that it was a result of the commander's positioning directly behind the driver, and one of the reasons the commander was moved into the turret in the BMP-2. Allanea might have access to a document with more detailed information on this story.

Of course, there are also more important advantages to having the commander in the turret, such as all-around visibility and easier communication with the gunner - both of which were issues with the BMP-1. Though it's worth noting that the behind-driver space in the BMP-2 was then filled by a transported infantryman, not terribly unlike the two beside-driver dismounts in the BMP-3.

Like I said it could have been either - in one, the commander was killed by stick-mines, and in one, the commander was moved.
The move may have caused or be in response to this threat.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Punny capitalizt M1 Shitbrams doesn't stand a chance against the glory of IS-3M armed tank divisions!

Speaking of which, I'm thinking of creating the stronkest nation, whats this threads consensus on the stronkest tank?

IS-7
*Glorious pike nose
*Heavy armour
*130 mm naval gun
*Fast
*Autoloader

[Padnak]

doing it

[Novorden]

[WIP]

Beep Beep, I'm a truck...

this has come out surprisingly well considering my previous attempts at wheeled vehicles.

[Kouralia]

[WIP]
(Image)
Beep Beep, I'm a truck...

this has come out surprisingly well considering my previous attempts at wheeled vehicles.

novorden ure drunk

ure not a truck

ure a lorry

[Saphirasia]

Punny capitalizt M1 Shitbrams doesn't stand a chance against the glory of IS-3M armed tank divisions!

Speaking of which, I'm thinking of creating the stronkest nation, whats this threads consensus on the stronkest tank?

IS-7
*Glorious pike nose
*Heavy armour
*130 mm naval gun
*Fast
*Autoloader

Nope, go Object 277.
T-10 pike nose, 130mm dedicated tank gun, and it's just overall better.

[The Kievan People]

Given the power levels, there's really little issue with switching power to the coils, you simply need a power delivery and control system heavily reinforced enough to handle the power going through it. Actually actuating the switch in power between coils is a simple matter of sensors detecting the position of the projectile in the barrel.

Batteries would have to act as an intermediary power storage system, for sure, backed up by capacitors or flywheel systems to deliver the actual pulsed power to the coil or rail system itself.

Also, on the subject, Polans coilgun stronk.

No, there is a issue with switching.

Switches are vital components of an electromagnetic gun system that are often taken for granted -- until the system designer begins to seriously consider implementing a gun concept... Given today's technology, these current and voltage levels result in massive, voluminous switches; often switching requirements can only be met by connecting several switching elements in series and/or parallel arrays. Other important factors that affect switch selection include switch speed and expected switch life. Gun system volume and weight constraints demand that switching technology be pushed to the limit.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a251463.pdf

And coilguns need a LOT of switches.

[The Kievan People]

what makes an 'eastern' tank eastern?

How similar it is to the T-72.

[Padnak]

Nope, go Object 277.
T-10 pike nose, 130mm dedicated tank gun, and it's just overall better.

why have I not learned of this tank sooner

its so stronk I'm starting to develop vodka based alcoholism just looking at it

[Stormwind-City]

Ok, here is my Frankenstein/bastard child medium tank Storm Warrior.

(Image)

I don't have any stats for it, and I'm pretty sure it is not a 1px=1cm scale. Could anyone recommend how thick the armor is, speed, and what gun it is.

And maybe scale it properly for me? :3

Getting a very Centurion-ish vibe to it. As for speed, armour and gun, look at the list of NS tanks in the OP and see how many people face a similar situation to you and what effect that has had on their tanks.

Good to know, when American, German, and Japanese tanks mate, you get Centurions.

Rough stats:
Armor Eq: actual*3+550=effective, effective-330mm=HEAT

Hull front (u/l): 950mm/650mm(actual)

Turret front: 1100mm(actual)

Gun mantle: 1200mm(actual)

Hull side: 600mm(actual)

Skirt: 40mm(DU)

Turret side: 800mm(actual)

Hull rear: 475mm(actual)

Turret rear: 500mm(actual)

Top/bottom hull: 500/600mm(actual)

Turret top: 700mm(actual)


Gun: 140mm HV Smoothbore

Coaxial: 12.7mm

Cupola gun: 7.62mm

Engine(?): 1,800hp

Top speed(?): 50-65km/hr

Range: 600km

Weight(?): 45-55 tons

Optics(?): 1x,2x,4x,8x,16x,32x, NV, IR, T

This is all I can come up with. Any criticism, comments, suggestions, questions, or advice?

[Saphirasia]

Nope, go Object 277.
T-10 pike nose, 130mm dedicated tank gun, and it's just overall better.

why have I not learned of this tank sooner

its so stronk I'm starting to develop vodka based alcoholism just looking at it

Object 277 is actually one of the more well-known prototype heavy tanks from the Soviet Union. It's not the best, though. That honor belongs to the Ob'yekt 770.

[Hallowell]

Does anyone have any suggestions of what websites or programmes I might use to create a graphic design of a tank? I've been looking at Sketchup.

[Gvozdevsk]

The BTR-90 is heavy, expensive and IIRC poorly balanced. I'd go so far to describe it as "specialist".

BTR-80/82 should do you for most situations. If you require an autocannon, the BMP-2 is fantastic for your needs.

I have BMP's too. I'm trying to make an updated Soviet style military, except I'm making it original instead of having the modern Russian army.

Look at stuff Ukraine uses. BTR-3 and BTR-4 would be great wheeled IFVs for an updated Soviet style military if you don't want to outright copy modern Russia. And the BTR-4 is actually seeing combat in the Donbass right now so it's not like it's an untested prototype.

[Padnak]

Object 277 is actually one of the more well-known prototype heavy tanks from the Soviet Union. It's not the best, though. That honor belongs to the Ob'yekt 770.

I'd say that the Object 279 is probably the best known, but hey-


speaking of which, does anyone know why they chose to use that funky 4 track arrangement on the 279? I'd think just using super wide standard tracks would be simpler