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

[Yukonastan]

Companies of T-34/85s are able to destroy the Eastasian and Oceanian tank divisions with ease.
(Image)

Surely you do not doublespeak.
Only duckspeakers would mention war with Oceania and Eastasia in the same breath.
Only Eurasians would forget that they're equipped with T-72s.

[Doppio Giudici]

Companies of T-34/85s are able to destroy the Eastasian and Oceanian tank divisions with ease.
(Image)

Surely you do not doublespeak.
Only duckspeakers would mention war with Oceania and Eastasia in the same breath.
Only Eurasians would forget that they're equipped with T-72s.

I recall the technology including primative helis, so it's most likely in the 60s techwise.

However as free thought no longer exists, I think T-34-85s are possible.

[Neo-Bolshevik Eurasia]

Deleted.

[Imperializt Russia]

BMP-3: compromised as an IFV, not enormously effective as a light tank.

Explain how the addition of a larger cannon automatically compromises its status as an IFV.

The Ratel went through a similar transition and turned out fine.

It doesn't.

The BMP's layout to accommodate the big gun compromises its IFV capability.

How do you figure?

The turret does not penetrate the hull. It is literally an example of what I was talking about before. But fitting a 100mm cannon in there without penetrating the hull or fitting an absolutely massive turret would be a real trick. If you put an actual turret on it you probably lose half the dismounts.

I'd go for a 125mm unmanned turret.

How would you achieve this? You'd have no gun elevation, no ammunition and a huge profile.

Why did Russia even make the BMP-3? As has been stated multiple times in this thread alone, the BMP-2 is a far superior vehicle.

It doesn't anymore.
Commanders refused to continue buying the vehicle and described it as a deathtrap.

Are you one of the ones who supports it?

It fails completely in its role, and the BMP-2 could easily beat out the 100mm gun's anti-tank capabilities with an ATGM.

See what I mean. You are just one of the people parroting the same line ignoring the big picture. And that is that the BMP-3 is as a vehicle designed to operate within the greater doctrine of the Soviet armed forces. And that it was designed to fit that doctrine. This includes facts such as 100mm ATGM's being perfectly adequate to combat tanks of the time.

But it really does not matter. I lost all respect for you people back when you were comparing tanks assuming that the only thing that matters is how they perform 1 vs 1 across an open field.


And yes, in case you are wondering I am having a really, really bad day today. And so am extra cynical and hateful.

I have nothing against the BMP-3s concept and would support that concept.

The BMP-3 is a poor execution of the concept. Much like the Sherridan was a poor execution of its concept.

Purp is a supporter of the BMP-3 because its not American and if it was American it would be automatically the worst thing ever and bad and never be good at anything.

Even though it pretty much already is.

BMD-4M with BMP-3 turret = automatic improvement of BMD-4M.

The BMD-4M has the BMP-3 turret.

I thought we established before that Britain isn't in Europe because its special lol

I didn't think Poland was all that much of a military power, but hey

They have same number of tank brigades as Russia. Four.

Russia has a big edge in the number of motorized brigades, 34 to Poland's 6, but the Russian forces are currently ~20-30% under strength because of the demographic crisis and a fair number of these brigades are likely both undermanned and equipped with ancient equipment. On paper the Russian army also has fifteen more brigade "mobilization bases" (1 tank, 14 Motorized) but seeing as they cannot even find enough quality manpower to fill out the active forces, these brigades could likely only be mobilized by scrapping the very bottom of the barrel.

Russia would certainly be able to defeat Poland alone. Russia has important advantages, like large stockpiles of munitions, that most NATO members lack. But even the addition of two or three NATO divisions to the equation, plus American supplies, would likely make it impossible for Russia to win barring some truly superb Generalship. They wouldn't even be able to achieve the magic 3-to-1 ratio without mustering their entire army on the Polish border, which is implausible for many reasons. Including that it would leave the Russian far east enormously vulnerable to an attack by PACOM. In the air they would likely be outnumbered. At sea, if America is involved, it is not even a meaningful contest.

Basically Russia is encircled by NATO, which threatens them in eastern Europe, Scandinavia, the Caucasus and Black sea, and the far East. And given the gargantuan disparity between the USN and the Russian Navy, Russia's only real non-nuclear defense against potential US intervention and an attack from the sea is to station significant land and air forces in every theater, preventing them from concentrating their forces in any conflict where the US might plausibly become involved. A war with Poland obviously meets this criteria.

Russia's rearmament plan, if it succeeds, will swing the land and possible air balance more in it's favor. But the naval balance will remain overwhelmingly tilted towards America and this will remain a real big headache for any Russian leader contemplating a major conventional conflict with NATO. The USSR had enough divisions to fight NATO in every direction at once. But Russia does not and for both demographic and economic reasons probably never will.

Poland's trump card is that they can devote all of their limited resources to the east. Can they beat the whole Russian military? No. Can they beat the force that Russia would likely be able to muster against them? Plausible. Unless Russia goes nuclear that is.

I worry that going nuclear may be the only option that Russia can consider.

It's a drop of a few feet after a few hundred yards, so kinda.So.

It's organized like most armies in the world?

Besides it's need of modernization, yeah.

Edit: did not see the word " organized."

Russia has, to my understanding, moved to more of a western style of organization with their transition to the brigade system. They're still diffferent from NATO organization, for sure, but they are similar in a few aspects.

It's no kind of westernisation, because it's unrelated to BCT.
The one similarity is moving from Divisions as the primary manoeuvre unit to Brigades.

If anything, BCT minus its strategic airlift ambitions, could be (hideously loosely) considered copying Russia by making these brigades highly self-sufficient and containing all supporting arms.

It's a drop of a few feet after a few hundred yards, so kinda.So.

It's organized like most armies in the world?

How much is a few feet really?
I can understand if you aim at the tracks, but is a few feet really that much of a problem when flanking a tank?

Modern FCS can strike a tank.
That's about as accurate as it gets.

Considering you're likely to be engaging targets at 1000-3000m, "a few feet every hundred yards" becomes two, six, twelve metres of drop at these ranges. Corresponding to falling short by possibly hundreds of metres.

[Novorden]

turns out that mounting 8 7m VLS cells to a trailer is harder than it sounds.

[Bazrasha]

Currently the Bazrashi Military operates 680 T-80 MBT's as the mainstay of our armored force with small numbers of T-84, T-64, and PT-76 make up the rest of the current tank force in Bazrasha.

[Rich and Corporations]

Surely you do not doublespeak.
Only duckspeakers would mention war with Oceania and Eastasia in the same breath.
Only Eurasians would forget that they're equipped with T-72s.

I recall the technology including primative helis, so it's most likely in the 60s techwise.

However as free thought no longer exists, I think T-34-85s are possible.

In 1984 there are floating fortresses.
In NS, there are Longswords. Had to say it.

And everyone's always at war.

[United Marxist Nations]

Oh, god, now I'm torn between wanting my ground forces to be either kind of late-Soviet stuff (with modernizations perhaps) or my original Brit setup.

[Doppio Giudici]

I recall the technology including primative helis, so it's most likely in the 60s techwise.

However as free thought no longer exists, I think T-34-85s are possible.

In 1984 there are floating fortresses.
In NS, there are Longswords. Had to say it.

And everyone's always at war.

No one is at war with me....

Stryker with EIFV turret, Y/N?

[Bratislavskaya]

Oh, god, now I'm torn between wanting my ground forces to be either kind of late-Soviet stuff (with modernizations perhaps) or my original Brit setup.

Comrade, you should choose glorious equipment of Soviet Union, and British equipment. Have a mix, but to the extent that it doesn't mess up logistics.

[Proskoya]

I just only now noticed that I chose the SKOT-2A as my primary wheeled APC for arbitrary reasons ... what advantages, if any, does it have over your average BTR? I more or less just wanted something PACT-ish, but not full on Soviet. Also, I hate the concept of having my infantry get out of doors that are on the side of the vehicle instead of dismounting from the back.

[United Marxist Nations]

Oh, god, now I'm torn between wanting my ground forces to be either kind of late-Soviet stuff (with modernizations perhaps) or my original Brit setup.

Comrade, you should choose glorious equipment of Soviet Union, and British equipment. Have a mix, but to the extent that it doesn't mess up logistics.

But I don't know to what extent that would be!

[Bratislavskaya]

Comrade, you should choose glorious equipment of Soviet Union, and British equipment. Have a mix, but to the extent that it doesn't mess up logistics.

But I don't know to what extent that would be!

Well, something like T-80U as the main tank, Landrovers for stuff, you know. I'm not the best with vehicles, better to ask others the extent you can mix it. If this was infantry then I could say the extent you could mix that.

[Korva]

I just only now noticed that I chose the SKOT-2A as my primary wheeled APC for arbitrary reasons ... what advantages, if any, does it have over your average BTR? I more or less just wanted something PACT-ish, but not full on Soviet. Also, I hate the concept of having my infantry get out of doors that are on the side of the vehicle instead of dismounting from the back.

SKOT has rear doors, a big plus for entering/exiting under fire or on the move.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Comrade, you should choose glorious equipment of Soviet Union, and British equipment. Have a mix, but to the extent that it doesn't mess up logistics.

But I don't know to what extent that would be!

Eh, if you make a domestic variant of either all your British or all your Soviet equipment you could do it well enough, just say that you developed all your equipment domestically or used DPRs and modified it so the bolt sizes and whatnot match. If anyone bitches further say "it isn't a challenger 2, it is a domestically developed tank that just happens to be identical to a challenger 2 everywhere important."

[Lydenburg]

But I don't know to what extent that would be!

Eh, if you make a domestic variant of either all your British or all your Soviet equipment you could do it well enough, just say that you developed all your equipment domestically or used DPRs and modified it so the bolt sizes and whatnot match. If anyone bitches further say "it isn't a challenger 2, it is a domestically developed tank that just happens to be identical to a challenger 2 everywhere important."

With a logistics setup that can be integrated well with the Warsaw Pact gear UMN already uses, of course.

[Democratic Koyro]

I just only now noticed that I chose the SKOT-2A as my primary wheeled APC for arbitrary reasons ... what advantages, if any, does it have over your average BTR? I more or less just wanted something PACT-ish, but not full on Soviet. Also, I hate the concept of having my infantry get out of doors that are on the side of the vehicle instead of dismounting from the back.

Much greater transport capacity.

[Gallia-]

Kyiv does make a good point re munitions. I will use Britain as an example because I know more about it and its the most likely Euro country to assist Poland militarily.

yeah like it did in 1939 amirite

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

Guys as part of the mechanized infantry how much armored battalions do you think will suffice in a force that is comprised of 25 battalions?
Division is divided into 5 Brigades, while a brigade is divided into 5 battalions. Should I have an entire brigade or something smaller.

[United Marxist Nations]

Well, the sexiness of the T-80U has convinced me to go for it; what modernizations could I have for it to bring it up to par?

[Yukonastan]

Well, the sexiness of the T-80U has convinced me to go for it; what modernizations could I have for it to bring it up to par?

T-84 Oplot-M

[United Marxist Nations]

Well, the sexiness of the T-80U has convinced me to go for it; what modernizations could I have for it to bring it up to par?

T-84 Oplot-M

Other than that; I want to to generally look like the T-80U.

[Bratislavskaya]

T-84 Oplot-M

Other than that; I want to to generally look like the T-80U.

There is the regular T-84. But the T-80UM sounds cool.
T-80 Models and Variants

[United Marxist Nations]

Other than that; I want to to generally look like the T-80U.

There is the regular T-84. But the T-80UM sounds cool.
T-80 Models and Variants

I guess I would go with the T-80UM-1.

[Krazakistan]

Would it be possible to create a KEP round with 800mm+ penetration for the 2-piece ammunition of a 125mm without the removal of the carousel autoloader?

Besides it's need of modernization, yeah.

Edit: did not see the word " organized."

Russia has, to my understanding, moved to more of a western style of organization with their transition to the brigade system. They're still diffferent from NATO organization, for sure, but they are similar in a few aspects.

It's no kind of westernisation, because it's unrelated to BCT.
The one similarity is moving from Divisions as the primary manoeuvre unit to Brigades.

If anything, BCT minus its strategic airlift ambitions, could be (hideously loosely) considered copying Russia by making these brigades highly self-sufficient and containing all supporting arms.

I should have clarified that I used 'western' in that sentence very loosely, and that by 'brigade system' I had meant that they use the brigade as the primary maneuver unit.