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

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

But nowadays the logic espoused by the current round of "experts" is that such guns are either extreme overkill

Honestly with NS armour schemes more efficient guns could have their benefits. If nothing else replacing steel with titanium could save a lot of weight which could be reinvested into applying more armour. The end result being that an NS tank even weighing 60ish tons would probably be better protected than a RL tank weighing 60ish tons due to cost and materials being a lesser issue. Either way modern tanks can have around 1200 mm RHAe estimated on much of the turret, meaning the bigger guns could have their use trying to penetrate that. Just because you can penetrate a tank doesn't mean you have zero issues. If you can just penetrate their lower front hull at close ranges or their entire frontal hull at most combat ranges you still are at a disadvantage against an enemy who can penetrate your tanks from any angle out to 4 km.

At the end of the day I chose ETC because I like the big guns firing kinetic energy penetrators. Sure it may be excessive, but I could penetrate an Abrams anywhere on the front at ranges up to 4 km probably giving me a huge advantage in a battle if the Abrams can only penetrate my hull up to 4 km and cannot penetrate the majority of my frontal turret at any range.

[San-Silvacian]

But nowadays the logic espoused by the current round of "experts" is that such guns are either extreme overkill

Honestly with NS armour schemes more efficient guns could have their benefits. If nothing else replacing steel with titanium could save a lot of weight which could be reinvested into applying more armour. The end result being that an NS tank even weighing 60ish tons would probably be better protected than a RL tank weighing 60ish tons due to cost and materials being a lesser issue. Either way modern tanks can have around 1200 mm RHAe estimated on much of the turret, meaning the bigger guns could have their use trying to penetrate that. Just because you can penetrate a tank doesn't mean you have zero issues. If you can just penetrate their lower front hull at close ranges or their entire frontal hull at most combat ranges you still are at a disadvantage against an enemy who can penetrate your tanks from any angle out to 4 km.

At the end of the day I chose ETC because I like the big guns firing kinetic energy penetrators. Sure it may be excessive, but I could penetrate an Abrams anywhere on the front at ranges up to 4 km probably giving me a huge advantage in a battle if the Abrams can only penetrate my hull up to 4 km and cannot penetrate the majority of my frontal turret at any range.

4km range?

do you even know how to battle.

[The Akasha Colony]

But nowadays the logic espoused by the current round of "experts" is that such guns are either extreme overkill

Honestly with NS armour schemes more efficient guns could have their benefits. If nothing else replacing steel with titanium could save a lot of weight which could be reinvested into applying more armour. The end result being that an NS tank even weighing 60ish tons would probably be better protected than a RL tank weighing 60ish tons due to cost and materials being a lesser issue. Either way modern tanks can have around 1200 mm RHAe estimated on much of the turret, meaning the bigger guns could have their use trying to penetrate that. Just because you can penetrate a tank doesn't mean you have zero issues. If you can just penetrate their lower front hull at close ranges or their entire frontal hull at most combat ranges you still are at a disadvantage against an enemy who can penetrate your tanks from any angle out to 4 km.

At the end of the day I chose ETC because I like the big guns firing kinetic energy penetrators. Sure it may be excessive, but I could penetrate an Abrams anywhere on the front at ranges up to 4 km probably giving me a huge advantage in a battle if the Abrams can only penetrate my hull up to 4 km and cannot penetrate the majority of my frontal turret at any range.

I thought you chose it because you like your crews getting concussions and not having space or weight available for armor.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Honestly with NS armour schemes more efficient guns could have their benefits. If nothing else replacing steel with titanium could save a lot of weight which could be reinvested into applying more armour. The end result being that an NS tank even weighing 60ish tons would probably be better protected than a RL tank weighing 60ish tons due to cost and materials being a lesser issue. Either way modern tanks can have around 1200 mm RHAe estimated on much of the turret, meaning the bigger guns could have their use trying to penetrate that. Just because you can penetrate a tank doesn't mean you have zero issues. If you can just penetrate their lower front hull at close ranges or their entire frontal hull at most combat ranges you still are at a disadvantage against an enemy who can penetrate your tanks from any angle out to 4 km.

At the end of the day I chose ETC because I like the big guns firing kinetic energy penetrators. Sure it may be excessive, but I could penetrate an Abrams anywhere on the front at ranges up to 4 km probably giving me a huge advantage in a battle if the Abrams can only penetrate my hull up to 4 km and cannot penetrate the majority of my frontal turret at any range.

I thought you chose it because you like your crews getting concussions and not having space or weight available for armor.

Even an ETC gun shouldn't have so much recoil that it prevents a 60ish ton tank from firing it.

[Lemanrussland]

Honestly with NS armour schemes more efficient guns could have their benefits. If nothing else replacing steel with titanium could save a lot of weight which could be reinvested into applying more armour. The end result being that an NS tank even weighing 60ish tons would probably be better protected than a RL tank weighing 60ish tons due to cost and materials being a lesser issue. Either way modern tanks can have around 1200 mm RHAe estimated on much of the turret, meaning the bigger guns could have their use trying to penetrate that. Just because you can penetrate a tank doesn't mean you have zero issues. If you can just penetrate their lower front hull at close ranges or their entire frontal hull at most combat ranges you still are at a disadvantage against an enemy who can penetrate your tanks from any angle out to 4 km.

At the end of the day I chose ETC because I like the big guns firing kinetic energy penetrators. Sure it may be excessive, but I could penetrate an Abrams anywhere on the front at ranges up to 4 km probably giving me a huge advantage in a battle if the Abrams can only penetrate my hull up to 4 km and cannot penetrate the majority of my frontal turret at any range.

4km range?

do you even know how to battle.

What is the average line of sight in modern tank battles anyway? Obviously depends on the terrain, but say in an average area of Western European countryside? Not 4km, surely.

[The Akasha Colony]

Even an ETC gun shouldn't have so much recoil that it prevents a 60ish ton tank from firing it.

A 140 mm ETC gun? I'd like to see the math, since even if the tank could fire it, it would most likely be very uncomfortable for the crew.

[Antarticaria]

Even an ETC gun shouldn't have so much recoil that it prevents a 60ish ton tank from firing it.

A 140 mm ETC gun? I'd like to see the math, since even if the tank could fire it, it would most likely be very uncomfortable for the crew.

Newtons Third Law trolls the idea for modern ETC. At least from what I have studied.

[Klemantan-Borneo]

CDF Ground Vehicles

Reviews & Comments

[Rhinocera]

Length: 10.4 m.
Width: 3.9 m.
Height: 2.3 m.
Weight: 67 tons.
Crew: 3
Power Plant: 2,800hp diesel engine.
Speed: 70 km/h
Operational Range: 580 km
Primary Armament: 152mm L/56 TUSK cannon
Secondary Armament: two 20mm AA cannons (modified velociraptor cannons), 1 crows mounted M32, 1 Coaxial 20mm autocannon

Protection:
Composition: Classified
Front, hull:
1500mm vs KE, 2700mm vs CE
Side:
850mm vs KE, 1200mm vs CE
Turret front:
2200mm vs KE, 3200mm vs CE

The above is the stat block for a tank I designed, and have had in service with my nations military for over a year. However, just recently I was told that my armor scheme was ridiculous, and I wanted to go to those who know about this stuff for their opinion. The specific complaint was that the vehicle was virtually impervious to dual stage HEAT weaponry, and I was wondering if I crossed into the line of ridiculousness on this one or if I had been realistic enough for an NS tank that is expected to be competitive against other NS tanks?

[The Akasha Colony]

Length: 10.4 m.
Width: 3.9 m.
Height: 2.3 m.
Weight: 67 tons.
Crew: 3
Power Plant: 2,800hp diesel engine.
Speed: 70 km/h
Operational Range: 580 km
Primary Armament: 152mm L/56 TUSK cannon
Secondary Armament: two 20mm AA cannons (modified velociraptor cannons), 1 crows mounted M32, 1 Coaxial 20mm autocannon

Protection:
Composition: Classified
Front, hull:
1500mm vs KE, 2700mm vs CE
Side:
850mm vs KE, 1200mm vs CE
Turret front:
2200mm vs KE, 3200mm vs CE

The above is the stat block for a tank I designed, and have had in service with my nations military for over a year. However, just recently I was told that my armor scheme was ridiculous, and I wanted to go to those who know about this stuff for their opinion. The specific complaint was that the vehicle was virtually impervious to dual stage HEAT weaponry, and I was wondering if I crossed into the line of ridiculousness on this one or if I had been realistic enough for an NS tank that is expected to be competitive against other NS tanks?

The side armor is way thicker than feasible or necessary. You simply aren't getting those figures on a 67 ton tank, especially with all of that other weaponry on there and the stated size. Front armor is definitely pretty wanked. But being impervious to tandem charge HEAT from the front at least isn't particularly unique, most Western tanks are on their front turrets and are resistant to most HEAT weapons on their front hull as well (although some particularly large HEAT weapons may penetrate).

Good luck with the engine too. I'm not sure why you need 2,800 horsepower for a 67 ton tank. Of course, if this tank were as heavy as it should be for all that armor and weaponry, 2,800 horsepower might just be enough.

[Rhinocera]

What would be a more feasible weight? I'm thinking 74 tons.
Originally I got the base design off of a storefront I purchased from Vizion, who had purchased it from another individual. I applied a 2 ton increase in weight, a change from a 125mm ETC cannon to a 152mm conventional, and a 200 mm increase in all armor attributes. After reviewing the designs, I recall that being how I set it up.

[THE NATION OF PIGLANDIA]

Do pig-shaped tanks count?

[The Akasha Colony]

What would be a more feasible weight? I'm thinking 74 tons.
Originally I got the base design off of a storefront I purchased from Vizion, who had purchased it from another individual. I applied a 2 ton increase in weight, a change from a 125mm ETC cannon to a 152mm conventional, and a 200 mm increase in all armor attributes. After reviewing the designs, I recall that being how I set it up.

Try a hundred. Probably more.

Just think for a moment:

You want what amounts to twice the frontal armor thickness of the M1 Abrams, and several times the side thickness. Armor accounts for roughly half the weight of a modern tank, and even with materials and efficiency improvements, you're not getting more than a doubling of armor thickness for just five tons of additional weight.

Nevermind the increase in protected volume necessitated by the much larger gun and all of those other add-on cannons, or the extremely overpowered engine.

[Rhinocera]

Thank you for the advice. I'll take it under consideration for my future projects (which have been underway for quite sometime). Next time, I'll try to present something that actually makes sense (mechanically of course, practicality is another matter entirely). For the advice, you can receive a 20 percent discount at my storefront Red Star Heavy Industries (link in my sig if you want to check it out). Adios Amigos

[Oaledonia]

Check my Factbook ... our Military Armoured Vehicle

Japanese? German? American? Russian? I can't even tell what type of nation you are.

[Yukonastan]

For a nation with a :not:new Finnish doctrine and landscape, but backdated to the mid-Seventies, does it make more sense to focus on light APCs or MGS-like vehicles, or are MBTs better?

[Immoren]

Is there any semantic or otherwise difference whether AFV has leader orcommander?

---

For a nation with a :not:new Finnish doctrine and landscape, but backdated to the mid-Seventies, does it make more sense to focus on light APCs or MGS-like vehicles, or are MBTs better?

Finland had 1 (light) armoured brigade before 90es. But that might've been more due to budget.
Also I've seen other finns trumpet opinion that knife fight ranges of Finnish terrain would be a slaughterhouse for not!MGS (and IFVs.).
I myself aren't so sure.
Light APCs are always good.

[Yukonastan]

Is there any semantic or otherwise difference whether AFV has leader orcommander?

---

For a nation with a :not:new Finnish doctrine and landscape, but backdated to the mid-Seventies, does it make more sense to focus on light APCs or MGS-like vehicles, or are MBTs better?

Finland had 1 (light) armoured brigade before 90es. But that might've been more due to budget.
Also I've seen other finns trumpet opinion that knife fight ranges of Finnish terrain would be a slaughterhouse for not!MGS (and IFVs.).
I myself aren't so sure.
Light APCs are always good.

I should clarify that I'm using the current Finnish doctrine in all but name, but backdating it to the mid-seventies. I should also clarify what I'm going to do with those :not:MGSes/light AFVs is direct fire support and possible tank hunting, AKA what an MBT would do/does in any other modern army.

I'm also thinking of said tracked chassis being fairly standard, also being used for an APC, an IFV, a mortar carrier, a dedicated ambulance, maybe an SPG, and maybe an MLRS vehicle.

Would I still need MBTs in such terrain?

[Immoren]

Is there any semantic or otherwise difference whether AFV has leader orcommander?

---

Finland had 1 (light) armoured brigade before 90es. But that might've been more due to budget.
Also I've seen other finns trumpet opinion that knife fight ranges of Finnish terrain would be a slaughterhouse for not!MGS (and IFVs.).
I myself aren't so sure.
Light APCs are always good.

I should clarify that I'm using the current Finnish doctrine in all but name, but backdating it to the mid-seventies. I should also clarify what I'm going to do with those :not:MGSes/light AFVs is direct fire support and possible tank hunting, AKA what an MBT would do/does in any other modern army.

I'm also thinking of said tracked chassis being fairly standard, also being used for an APC, an IFV, a mortar carrier, a dedicated ambulance, maybe an SPG, and maybe an MLRS vehicle.

Would I still need MBTs in such terrain?

Probably you ought still want MBTs, to have stronger counter-punching capability at operative and strategic level. But employing them in combined arms brigades or even battlegroups, instead of anything larger. To have that flexibility and fluidity in terrain you'll operating.

[Imperializt Russia]

Eh? Is it?

The Cold War stopped in 1991. That is more or less the reason.

"upgrade" may have been a poor choice of a word.

Can anyone explain to me why electronics are so damn expensive in combat vehicles in general if they are so out of date.

I read somewhere that the F22's software contains fewer lines of code than Windows XP.

An F-22 system crash is somewhat more immediately catastrophic than a Windows XP system crash.

Was looking at pushing the limit on tacking extra armour to light recce vehicles, and what do you know:

(Image)

That's a Syrian BRDM-2.

So bloated it probably couldn't reconnoitre over its own shoulder.
What did they do to it?

It has the paint scheme of a child on Battlefield 4.

4km range?

do you even know how to battle.

What is the average line of sight in modern tank battles anyway? Obviously depends on the terrain, but say in an average area of Western European countryside? Not 4km, surely.

I think you and others have previously suggested 2-3km at max and often 1-2km and frequently less.

A 140 mm ETC gun? I'd like to see the math, since even if the tank could fire it, it would most likely be very uncomfortable for the crew.

Newtons Third Law trolls the idea for modern ETC. At least from what I have studied.

It trolls using ETC to magically boost the ME of the gun by ~50%, yes.
Using it sensibly to maximise the pressure curve at a much reduced ME improvement? It trolls nothing.

[Doppio Giudici]

I don't understand why there is this uproar about ETC when most of the major companies won't touch 152mm guns and all go for ETC anyways.

So are we going to ignore some of the best designs on this site? Even thou thy are ridiculously popular?

[The Kievan People]

I don't understand why there is this uproar about ETC when most of the major companies won't touch 152mm guns and all go for ETC anyways.

So are we going to ignore some of the best designs on this site? Even thou thy are ridiculously popular?

ETC is a hangover from the bad old days.

[The Kievan People]

Is there any semantic or otherwise difference whether AFV has leader or commander?

No. It just sounds really foreign.

[Doppio Giudici]

I don't understand why there is this uproar about ETC when most of the major companies won't touch 152mm guns and all go for ETC anyways.

So are we going to ignore some of the best designs on this site? Even thou thy are ridiculously popular?

ETC is a hangover from the bad old days.

How are Lyras and VMK bad designs? They put more leg work into them hen any other tanks I have seen.

[Yukonastan]

ETC is a hangover from the bad old days.

How are Lyras and VMK bad designs? They put more leg work into them hen any other tanks I have seen.

Lyran and VMK tanks, from what I know, go to wankish levels of protection and firepower.