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

[Doppio Giudici]

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.

Because they are built at insanely high prices and produced by insanely powerful industrial super powers.

At the end of the day, when you are up against wank levels; you ether outwank or you lose. NATO didn't upgun it's tanks over and over for nothing.

[The Kievan People]

Once upon a time we confused novel with better.

[Immoren]

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

No. It just sounds really foreign.

I was just again asking, because for some reason at some point, planners who came up with Finnish terminology decided that AFVs too are lead rather than commanded. So I was just curiously curious.

[The Akasha Colony]

Because they are built at insanely high prices and produced by insanely powerful industrial super powers.

At the end of the day, when you are up against wank levels; you ether outwank or you lose. NATO didn't upgun it's tanks over and over for nothing.

But NATO had the luxury of knowing that whatever the Pact brought out, they'd have to conform to basic physics. So they wouldn't have to worry about supposed 70 ton tanks armed with and armored against 140 mm ETC guns. You're also confusing long write ups with good write ups.

They also aren't "insanely expensive," they're actually almost certainly underpriced by modern standards (although who knows what the "right" price would be in the wacky world of NS). They're generally priced at most only a few million more than the more expensive RL tanks like Leclerc, despite the whole 140 mm ETC gun + wank armor + APS + electronics, etc.

[The Kievan People]

I was just again asking, because for some reason at some point, planners who came up with Finnish terminology decided that AFVs too are lead rather than commanded. So I was just curiously curious.

Leader is not a common title (in fact it is basically unknown outside fiction) in English and it has vaguely authoritarian connotations. But there is nothing semantically wrong with the title.

[Lemanrussland]

I was just again asking, because for some reason at some point, planners who came up with Finnish terminology decided that AFVs too are lead rather than commanded. So I was just curiously curious.

Leader is not a common title (in fact it is basically unknown outside fiction) in English and it has vaguely authoritarian connotations. But there is nothing semantically wrong with the title.

You have platoon leaders in the US Army, as opposed to platoon commanders in the US Marine Corps or in many of the Commonwealth militaries.

That's really the only example I can think of at the moment.

[Doppio Giudici]

Because they are built at insanely high prices and produced by insanely powerful industrial super powers.

At the end of the day, when you are up against wank levels; you ether outwank or you lose. NATO didn't upgun it's tanks over and over for nothing.

But NATO had the luxury of knowing that whatever the Pact brought out, they'd have to conform to basic physics. So they wouldn't have to worry about supposed 70 ton tanks armed with and armored against 140 mm ETC guns. You're also confusing long write ups with good write ups.

They also aren't "insanely expensive," they're actually almost certainly underpriced by modern standards (although who knows what the "right" price would be in the wacky world of NS). They're generally priced at most only a few million more than the more expensive RL tanks like Leclerc, despite the whole 140 mm ETC gun + wank armor + APS + electronics, etc.

The Leclerc is only so expensive because its made in really small numbers. The Type-99is the tenth best RL modern tank, but it only costs two million. Im pretty sure if we made tens of thousands of the same tank we could drop the price to 12 million.

As for physics, I don't recall NSdraftroom being a laughing stalk. In the past three years I have heard quite the opposite.

[Immoren]

I was just again asking, because for some reason at some point, planners who came up with Finnish terminology decided that AFVs too are lead rather than commanded. So I was just curiously curious.

Leader is not a common title (in fact it is basically unknown outside fiction) in English and it has vaguely authoritarian connotations. But there is nothing semantically wrong with the title.

In Finnish units size of platoon or smaller are lead.
While units size of battalion or larger are commanded.
I am not sure about companies.

Maybe it's what I am used and/or cultural differences or something, but to my ears "leader" fits better than "commander" for for those small sized units where IC is really thick close of fighting, and doesn't have their own HQ(-staff).

But these are again matters of opinion.

[The Akasha Colony]

The Leclerc is only so expensive because its made in really small numbers.

Partially. But the cost structure has also changed. Leclerc is the newest Western MBT to be in full service, and the changes in relative cost can be seen. For instance, the cost of electronics now accounts for fully half of the unit price. This isn't because the armor or gun or automotive components have gotten cheaper, it's because the electronics have gotten more extensive and more expensive. Would the price go down if France ordered more? Perhaps; military contracting is generally not subject to the normal whims of supply and demand, even for export.

The Type-99is the tenth best RL modern tank, but it only costs two million.

I hope you're joking. Is there some official, god-given and indisputable ranking of tanks somewhere? Two (point six) million is about right for a terrible tank, but that leaves aside PPP differences, which presumably are much less of a factor for developed nations.

Im pretty sure if we made tens of thousands of the same tank we could drop the price to 12 million.

You would start running into diminishing returns as the overhead needed to administrate such a vast system starts contributing to your costs.

As for physics, I don't recall NSdraftroom being a laughing stalk. In the past three years I have heard quite the opposite.

I don't think you understand what Draftroom is. It isn't a mystical body that approves things as being "realistic." It's just a place for people to post their designs for discussion, and which is more focused on that specific aspect than the general NS forums. Just like how Lineartinc is for lineart. Not everything that gets posted on Draftroom is realistic. There are at least a dozen super-dreadnoughts on there from the old days, when they were in vogue. And by "super-dreadnoughts" I don't mean missile dreadnoughts like Longsword, but actual gun battleships with meter-thick armor and the like. Like NS, Draftroom has a tendency to follow trends.

[Mizrad]

Which would work better as a nation's series of trucks? The MAN HX line or the Kamaz Mustang line? Each one has a 4X4 through 8X8 variant but the Russians have cheaper trucks with more modules while the MAN line is simply better when it comes to quality and I could add more moduls for them but the issue is it would be more expensive.

[Mizrad]

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.

Yohannes even said that himself.

[Erusuia]

UG-92M, my continuing failed attempt at linearting a tank

[Kouralia]

Leader is not a common title (in fact it is basically unknown outside fiction) in English and it has vaguely authoritarian connotations.

As an example of this, in Doctor Who the Doctor is transported to an alternate dimension where the good UNified Intelligence Taskforce has been replaced by the bad Republican Security Forces of the fascist Republic of Great Britain. The Brigadier is replaced by an evil 'Brigade Leader', Sgt Benton is 'Platoon Under-Leader Benton' etc.

[Alexandreon]

(Image)

UG-92M, my continuing failed attempt at linearting a tank

Well, why you'd call it "failed"? It looks fairly good, particularly with my "totally-not-a-knock-off-of-T-34" which is also my first attempt of linearting a tank (or anything even remotely similar to something that might have existed):

[Doppio Giudici]

Isn't the Draftroom known for being strict and finding fault with anything sent there, no matter what it is or how perfect it is? I've known players who thought that site was elitist even.

[Gallia-]

These threads are literally NSD.

97% shitpost
2% hogsweat talking about boats
1% kyiv dropping knowledge

[Alsheb]

The Alsheb Revolutionary Arab Army employs mainly Soviet ground vehicles, especially the T-72 Main Battle Tank, the BMP-1 Infantry Fighting Vehicle, the BTR-60PB Armoured Personnel Carrier and the BRDM-2 Amphibious Armoured Scout Car.

[The Akasha Colony]

Isn't the Draftroom known for being strict and finding fault with anything sent there, no matter what it is or how perfect it is? I've known players who thought that site was elitist even.

Not any more so than here, given that most of the people in Draftroom post here, often more regularly. Any regular on Draftroom will tell you that there is no such thing as "Draftroom approved." You can put up a design and people will discuss it, but they do that here too. But the end of a discussion does not mean that every approves of it, it just means people stopped responding. Nor does it mean that forever and in the future it will be possible (if it ever was), as demonstrated by the pages and pages of old designs that would now no longer be so widely accepted (e.g. super-dreadnoughts, lol-missiles, wanktanks).

[Erusuia]

Further improved, working to de t-80 it

Any glaring problems with the overall design? Its armed with a 125mm gun (not a Russian one, but I thought that going with a common calibre would make research easier) with a bustle auto loader, powered by a 1200 hp diesel engine and armoured with a mix of ERA and steel. Write up will be coming when I get the time.

Its suppose to be a tank in the vain of the Type-99 or similar, not top of the line but a fairly competent tank compared to its predecessors

[Doppio Giudici]

(Image)

Further improved, working to de t-80 it

Any glaring problems with the overall design? Its armed with a 125mm gun (not a Russian one, but I thought that going with a common calibre would make research easier) with a bustle auto loader, powered by a 1200 hp diesel engine and armoured with a mix of ERA and steel. Write up will be coming when I get the time.

Its suppose to be a tank in the vain of the Type-99 or similar, not top of the line but a fairly competent tank compared to its predecessors

I like it.

[Purpelia]

The Leclerc is only so expensive because its made in really small numbers. The Type-99is the tenth best RL modern tank, but it only costs two million. Im pretty sure if we made tens of thousands of the same tank we could drop the price to 12 million.

No you could not. The production cost of any item can be calculated using the following formula:
COST = M + P / N

Where M is the physical production cost of the individual components which is fixed because steel does not get cheaper to cast and man hours don't go down in price no matter how many you throw in. P is the total development cost and N is the number of units produced. This is the variable part because you really want to pay off your development costs and the more you produce the more you can afford to spread that out. So you see, even when N reaches infinity rendering the P / N fraction to be 0 you still have a fixed minimal cost due to M.

[Doppio Giudici]

The Leclerc is only so expensive because its made in really small numbers. The Type-99is the tenth best RL modern tank, but it only costs two million. Im pretty sure if we made tens of thousands of the same tank we could drop the price to 12 million.

No you could not. The production cost of any item can be calculated using the following formula:
COST = M + P / N

Where M is the physical production cost of the individual components which is fixed because steel does not get cheaper to cast and man hours don't go down in price no matter how many you throw in. P is the total development cost and N is the number of units produced. So you see, even when N reaches infinity rendering the P / N fraction to be 0 you still have a fixed minimal cost due to M.

As steel becomes more and more common on the market, it's value decreases. As hundreds of thousands of nations are mining iron, comparatively it's cost is much lower on NS.

Threads can be made by automated systems, so can some engine parts. In fact you could argue that as the demand for parts increase, so do the incentives to make them cheaper and cheaper.

Software is expensive, but only because the companies need to make a profit from a small number of tanks compared to it's cost.

All in all, due to high demand and high supply the price would be driven down. Cars used to be reserved for the rich and well to do, but now people in third would countries have them. Cars are more or less keeping the same price, as they get more and more advanced.

[The Akasha Colony]

The Leclerc is only so expensive because its made in really small numbers. The Type-99is the tenth best RL modern tank, but it only costs two million. Im pretty sure if we made tens of thousands of the same tank we could drop the price to 12 million.

No you could not. The production cost of any item can be calculated using the following formula:
COST = M + P / N

Where M is the physical production cost of the individual components which is fixed because steel does not get cheaper to cast and man hours don't go down in price no matter how many you throw in. P is the total development cost and N is the number of units produced. This is the variable part because you really want to pay off your development costs and the more you produce the more you can afford to spread that out. So you see, even when N reaches infinity rendering the P / N fraction to be 0 you still have a fixed minimal cost due to M.

That only works if companies sell their products at cost. But they don't. Steel prices are variable, the more you buy the lower the unit price because steel producers are willing to eat into their profit-per-unit to entice a larger sale and net the large gross profit that such a contract would provide, even if per-unit profit is lower than individual sales. This is true with essentially every product, even defense equipment.

This is balanced by the fact that as production scales up, organizations require more administrators to oversee the process, and these administrators start incurring overhead costs. Additionally, it is possible that at large enough scales demand for material may affect prices in the material market, pushing up steel prices due to high demand. This is why the cost curve exists. In the short run, costs will decrease in bulk production, but in the long run at some point or another they will increase. Exactly where each of these points are is of course extremely variable and situational, but they will exist for any industry.

No you could not. The production cost of any item can be calculated using the following formula:
COST = M + P / N

Where M is the physical production cost of the individual components which is fixed because steel does not get cheaper to cast and man hours don't go down in price no matter how many you throw in. P is the total development cost and N is the number of units produced. So you see, even when N reaches infinity rendering the P / N fraction to be 0 you still have a fixed minimal cost due to M.

As steel becomes more and more common on the market, it's value decreases. As hundreds of thousands of nations are mining iron, comparatively it's cost is much lower on NS.

Threads can be made by automated systems, so can some engine parts. In fact you could argue that as the demand for parts increase, so do the incentives to make them cheaper and cheaper.

Software is expensive, but only because the companies need to make a profit from a small number of tanks compared to it's cost.

All in all, due to high demand and high supply the price would be driven down. Cars used to be reserved for the rich and well to do, but now people in third would countries have them. Cars are more or less keeping the same price, as they get more and more advanced.

At the same time, demand is also higher. NS is full of multi-billion nations with first-world standards of living, and generally these are more common than the poorer nations that we IRL rely on to supply us with cheap commodities. Consumption would be significantly increased versus the real-world, and most likely in greater proportion than the increase in resource availability. Cost of transportation is also higher; if the cheapest iron is being mined hundreds of thousands of miles from my nation, why does that matter to me? It would take months to arrive, and cost an exorbitant amount in fuel and labor costs for the shipping.

Also, defense contracting is rather unique in that it is more responsive to political whims than market forces. Even though a country may embrace free trade, most are close to autarkies when it comes to defense because no country wants to outsource the production of vital weapons and equipment to another nation unless that nation is a very close ally. China may make cheaper steel than the US, but the US would never purchase said steel from China to build its tanks and ships. Maybe from the UK, France, or Germany, but all of these also have high labor costs, so the cost would be about the same if not higher.

[Doppio Giudici]

What about the high turn-over rate for nations in general? What about the ret-conned bad ideas, that reduce research costs?

[Purpelia]

As steel becomes more and more common on the market, it's value decreases. As hundreds of thousands of nations are mining iron, comparatively it's cost is much lower on NS.

You are missing the point. There is simply always a fixed minimal price dictated by factors you as the producer can not control. Be that labor costs, material price, the cost of bought in parts or other stuff. Hell if nothing else you have the fact that you are dealing with finite resources of skilled manpower and electric energy. So you simply can not decrease cost indefinitely simply by upping the production count.